Contents

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to
Finance and Government
Services Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Picking up from where we left just before we broke for lunch, by leave, I move:

[That Qwulti’stunaat / Debra Toporowski replace Steve Morissette as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I move second reading on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Worship 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, Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Dana Lajeunesse: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Dana Lajeunesse: With us in the House today are my two CAs, Sarah Dinsdale and Aakriti Rai. With Aakriti is her mother, Jyoti Rai, and her son Athar Rai. And with Sarah is Piper Dinsdale.

Would we give them a warm House welcome, please.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act
(continued)

Steve Kooner: Prior to the break, I was stating that there is a major public safety crisis throughout this province. The public safety crisis has hit religious communities as well. I had given one example of how big of a public safety crisis this actually is. I learned that there’s one synagogue that is paying $100,000 per month for private security. That’s over $1 million. This is very concerning.

It’s concerning because, although we’re having this legislation come through the House, we’ve had legislation to deal with the very things that this legislation purports to do as well. We’ve had the Criminal Code of Canada that makes it an offence to harass individuals, to intimidate individuals, to impede individuals from access to religious places of worship. Yet communities right across this province, religious communities, have had to deal with fear, interference, harassment, intimidation and major public safety situations.

The question is why? Why have these communities had to deal with this? The answer is that there has been public safety legislation but it has not been enforced in our province. It needs to be enforced so religious communities and British Columbians can be protected.

I’m going to get into my concluding remarks.

This debate is more than a debate over a single piece of legislation. It is about whether government is fulfilling one of its most fundamental responsibilities, and that’s keeping people safe.

Communities should not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their own protection. That’s not right. Communities should not have to wonder whether the laws that exist will be actually enforced or not. And communities should not have to wait for new legislation to feel safe.

The tools exist. The public safety enforcement rules exist, but they’re not being enforced. In order to enforce those tools, we need to have a robust justice system that is properly resourced, with ample amounts of resources and budget and staffing. We’re not seeing that in this province right now. The justice system is underfunded.

There are a lot more tools that can be provided to law enforcement to enforce public safety legislation. If there are issues with enforcement, then it strongly needs to be looked upon. What extra resources can you provide to enforcement to actually deal with public safety enforcement? If there’s already legislation in place that deals with the subject matter of Bill 13 in the Criminal Code of Canada but you’re still having the problem where communities are feeling unsafe, there seems to be a bigger underlying problem. The underlying problem is with the enforcement.

[1:40 p.m.]

The responsibility exists on the provincial government to make sure there is a substantive, organized manner and plan to deal with the actual enforcement of public safety enforcement. What has been lacking is action on public safety in this province.

So as we consider this bill, Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, let us also focus not only on what is being proposed. Let’s also focus on what has not been done, because British Columbians deserve more than words. They deserve safety.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

British Columbia is a place where diversity is not just acknowledged; it is celebrated. People from all walks of life, cultures and faith traditions have come here to build their lives, raise their families and contribute to the strength of our province.

In my constituency of Vancouver-Langara, that diversity is something I witness every single day. We are home to vibrant and deeply rooted faith communities — Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist and many others — each contributing in meaningful ways to the social and cultural fabric of our communities.

These communities do more than gather in prayer. They serve. They give. They support those in need. They build bridges across cultures. Institutions like the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara are not only places of worship; they are pillars of community life. Through langar, through outreach, through open doors, they embody the values of compassion, service and inclusion.

Across the Lower Mainland, synagogues such as Temple Sholom along with mosques, temples, churches and other sacred spaces play that same essential role. They are places where people come together in moments of joy and in moments of grief. They are places where traditions are preserved, where children learn their values and where individuals find comfort and connection. At their core, these are spaces of sanctuary.

But in recent years, we have seen that sense of sanctuary come under strain. Across our province and our country, there has been a troubling increase in incidents targeting places of worship. We have seen vandalism, harassment and acts of intimidation. We have seen demonstrations that cross a line from peaceful expression into behaviour that blocks access, disrupts services and creates fear for those simply trying to enter and pray.

These incidents do not just impact buildings; they impact people. They create anxiety for families. They make seniors hesitant. They make parents think twice before bringing their children. They erode that sense of safety that should be unquestioned in a place of worship.

No one in British Columbia should feel that fear. No one should have to look over their shoulder when walking into a gurdwara, synagogue, masjid, temple or church. No one should be intimidated, harassed or prevented from practising their faith.

[1:45 p.m.]

This is not about one community. This is about all communities. It’s about ensuring that every person — regardless of their religion, background or identity — can gather in peace and dignity.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in Canada. It includes not only the freedom to believe but the freedom to practise openly, safely and without intimidation.

Bill 13 is about protecting that right in a thoughtful and balanced way. This legislation establishes access zones of up to 20 metres around places of public worship. Within those zones, specific behaviours are prohibited — behaviours that impede access, disrupt services or intimidate individuals seeking to attend. This ensures that people can enter and exit safely without obstruction or fear.

At the same time, this bill respects the rights that are also fundamental to our democracy — the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. People will continue to have the right to protest. They will continue to have the right to express their views. But those rights must be exercised in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others to worship safely.

This legislation strikes that balance. It’s focused. It’s measured. It also includes important safeguards, including a sunset clause that will require review, ensuring that these measures remain appropriate and proportionate over time.

Places of worship are far more than physical structures. They are spaces where newcomers find their footing in a new country; where language, culture and traditions are preserved and shared; where elders find community and connection; and where young people learn not only about faith but about service, respect and belonging. They are places where people come in their most vulnerable moments, in times of loss, in times of uncertainty and in times of hope. In those moments, they deserve to feel safe.

When we protect access to these spaces, we are protecting something deeper — the sense of belonging and dignity that defines our communities and strengthens our province as a whole.

Bill 13 reflects the values we share as British Columbians: respect for one another, inclusion across differences and a commitment to ensuring that everyone can live free from fear. It sends a clear message that in British Columbia, there is no place for intimidation at the doors of our sacred spaces.

I am proud to stand in support of this legislation, and I encourage all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill 13 to ensure that places of worship across our province remain what they are meant to be: spaces of peace, safety and community for all.

Bryan Tepper: Hon. Members of this House, I rise today on second reading of Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, 2026.

I would like to comment on my friend’s speech just now. I do appreciate the strong message that places of worship are places of community, where we should all come together, and I would encourage everybody in this House to spend some time in places of worship.

[1:50 p.m.]

But let me be crystal clear from the outset. Every British Columbian — Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, any faith — deserves to attend their place of worship in safety, free from intimidation, harassment, vandalism or disruption.

The threats are not theoretical. Since 2001, and especially in a shocking wave since 2021, churches across Canada, including many in British Columbia, have faced repeated attacks. A murder right on the grounds of one of our gurdwaras. Vandalism, graffiti, desecration and arson have scarred communities. Nationally, reports document over a hundred churches vandalized, burned or destroyed since 2021, with at least 33 fully burned to the ground between May 2021 and late 2023, the vast majority ruled arson.

In British Columbia, churches were among the early targets. These incidents continued alongside broader rises in hate crimes.

The alarming surge in antisemitism since October 7, 2023, has compounded danger, with synagogues facing fire bombings, shootings and vandalism. In 2024 alone, police reported that hate crimes targeting religion in Canada stood at 1,342 incidents nationally, with Jewish communities accounting for 70 percent of them, despite representing just 1 percent of the population.

In British Columbia, hate crimes rose 23 percent between 2022 and 2023, with religion-motivated incidents surging more than 50 percent. Jewish Canadians are 25 times more likely to be targeted than any other group.

These numbers are not abstract. They represent real fear in our synagogues, mosques, churches, gurdwaras and temples. But this bill is not that action. This is lipstick on a pig. It is pure NDP symbolism, placating the faith community with its shiny new provincial statute while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the safety crisis facing our places of worship.

It creates 20-metre access zones around churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. It prohibits impeding access, disrupting activities, interference — which is defined so broadly that it actually includes advising or persuading someone not to participate — and anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety.

It allows warrantless arrests for those provincially regulated infractions and lets the Attorney General or anyone seek injunctions. And it sunsets in 2030.

Every single one of these enforcement clauses already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada. Police and courts have had these tools for decades. This bill does not add one new officer, one new dollar of spending, one new dollar for policing or one new tool that wasn’t already available. It is fake legislation designated to let the NDP say they did something while their broader failure on public safety continues to spiral out of control.

Let’s go clause by clause, because the devil is in the details. These details here reveal a bill that is as useless as it is redundant.

Clause 1 sets out the definitions. It defines an access zone interference as “advising or persuading or attempting to advise or persuade by any means — including graphic, verbal or written means — a person to refrain from participating in an activity at a place of public worship.”

It defines “place of public worship” expansively to include any property exempt from taxation under the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter or the Taxation (Rural Area) Act plus anything cabinet prescribes by regulation.

[1:55 p.m.]

“Occupier” is anyone with responsibility or control.

Of course, a “police officer” includes provincial, municipal or designated constables.

But these definitions are deliberately broad and vague. “Interference” could capture a peaceful conversation, a pamphlet or even a sign. This is not targeted protection. It is a dragnet that chills legitimate expression.

The Criminal Code already covers every harmful intent here without the need for new provincial jargon. Section 423 criminalizes intimidation. Section 176 specifically protects religious worship from wilful disturbance or interruption. These are real criminal offences with real teeth, not provincial regulatory language designed to create the illusion of action.

Clause 2 in this bill is the heart of the prohibitions. Subsection (1) says a person must not, in an access zone, impede access to or egress from the place of worship, disrupt activities, engage in interference or intimidate or attempt to intimidate or do or say anything that could reasonably cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety. Subsection (2) bans wilfully participating in a gathering where others are doing any of that. This is the NDP’s big new protection.

But again, every single prohibition is already a Criminal Code offence. Impeding access or egress is covered by section 423, “Intimidation,” and section 430, “Mischief.”

Disrupting activities at a place of worship. Section 176(2) makes it an offence punishable by summary conviction to wilfully disturb or interrupt an assemblage met for religious worship.

Interference by advising or persuading. That falls under “Criminal harassment” in section 264 or “Intimidation,” section 423.

Intimidation or causing reasonable concern for safety. Section 264 is “Criminal harassment.” Again, section 423(1) explicitly prohibits using threats, violence or other means to intimidate.

For the real threats — vandalism, graffiti, arson — section 430(4.1) provides up to ten years for hate-motivated mischief against religious property. These are indictable offences with real jail time.

Indictable offences are the most serious offences in Canada. Police don’t need a provincial 20-metre bubble zone to act. They already have the full force of federal law, federal criminal law, under the Criminal Code of Canada.

This clause doesn’t strengthen safety. It duplicates it, creates confusion and wastes legislative time on a problem the Criminal Code solved decades ago.

I might add that the Safe Access to Schools Act has a further clause, which at least attempts to do something. It says that in those bubble zones, it prohibits people from protesting. This doesn’t even include that, although I would believe that if it was tested, it would be against the Charter.

Clause 3 requires notice to establish an access zone. Signs must be posted so they are clearly visible in daylight, it says, under normal weather conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of entry. The signs must identify the place of worship, describe the zone, list the prohibitions and include any other prescribed information. No one but the owner or occupier can remove, alter or deface them.

That was a lot just to say. It’s a bureaucratic theatre.

[2:00 p.m.]

Real criminals who vandalize synagogues at night or harass worshippers don’t read the signs. Police responding to a disturbance don’t need a laminated poster to know that blocking a mosque door is already illegal under the Criminal Code. This clause adds red tape and paperwork for faith communities already stretched thin while doing nothing to prevent the crimes that actually occur outside the 20-metre line or after hours — exactly the kinds of attacks that have burned churches and desecrated sacred spaces for years.

Clause 4 defines exactly what is included in the access zone. For a stand-alone place of worship, it’s the entire parcel plus 20 metres from the boundaries. For multi-use buildings, it gets even more complicated. It’s 20 metres from entrances, exits or passageways, unless cabinet, of course, prescribes something different.

Private residences and places the public doesn’t ordinarily access are excluded. Again, this is arbitrary geography dressed up as protection. The Criminal Code doesn’t need a tape measure. Section 176 applies to the actual disturbance of worship wherever it occurs. Section 430 covers damage to the property itself. Section 423 prohibits intimidation, regardless of exact metres.

The NDP is creating a provincial map of safe zones that overlaps with federal criminal jurisdiction all while the real threats — organized hate, online incitement or midnight vandalism and arson that have plagued churches for the last 25 years and intensified dramatically since 2021 — operate far beyond any 20-metre bubble. This is fake legislation at its finest. It looks tough on paper but collapses under the weight of existing law.

Clause 5 allows a police officer to arrest, without a warrant, anyone they believe, on reasonable grounds, is contravening section 2. This is the NDP’s big enforcement win, yet section 495 of the Criminal Code already gives police broad, warrantless arrest powers for indictable offences like intimidation, criminal harassment and mischief. For summary offences tied to religious worship under section 176, police have always had the authority to act when they witnessed a disturbance.

This clause doesn’t expand police power. It just rebrands a provincial, ticketable offence as something that feels like criminal law. In practice, it lowers the threshold while pretending to raise it. Real safety comes from officers who can respond quickly to the kinds of arsons and vandalism that have destroyed dozens of churches, not from duplicative arrest language that sits on the books unused because police are already overwhelmed.

Clause 6 allows the Supreme Court to grant injunctions, even without notice, restraining anyone from contravening section 2, with interim injunctions possible. It applies whether or not a penalty exists. Courts have been granted injunctions for harassment, trespass and intimidation for generations, under inherent jurisdiction and the Criminal Code. This is not new. It is redundant paperwork for the Attorney General’s office while faith communities wait for actual officers to show up at the scenes of burned and vandalized places of worship.

Clause 7 gives cabinet sweeping regulation-making power. They can prescribe classes of property, designate policing units, add or remove exemptions for labour actions or other activities, dictate exactly what signs must say and where they go and change the size of access zones for any place or class of places.

This is the ultimate NDP control clause — endless bureaucratic tweaks, without coming back to this House. It turns every place of worship into a regulatory experiment. Meanwhile, the Criminal Code provides consistent, nationwide standards that don’t change on a Lieutenant Governor in Council whim.

[2:05 p.m.]

This clause exposes the bill for what it is, not bold protection but a framework for future ministerial fiddling while the real crisis of under-policing festers and churches continue to burn.

Clauses 8 and 9 are straightforward. The act sunsets in 2030 or earlier by regulation, and it comes into force by royal assent. Enough said.

This entire bill is fake legislation. It is modelled after the 1994 Access to Abortion Services Act bubble zones, which were narrowly tailored to a specific, highly charged medical context. Those zones were upheld by courts because they protected patients in a unique setting, but slapping the same model onto every place of worship provincewide, with broader prohibitions and no evidence that the Criminal Code tools are insufficient, is legislative laziness.

Compare it to federal Bill C-9, introduced in October. It amends the Criminal Code to ban hate symbols like swastikas, with exemptions, adds aggravating factors for hate-motivated offences and creates a specific offence of intimidation at buildings for religious worship. Importantly, it does not create fixed-distance bubble zones. It targets conduct, not geography. The federal approach respects jurisdiction and focuses on real criminal behaviour.

Why is this NDP government duplicating and diluting federal criminal law with provincial red tape? It’s because it’s easier than fixing the real problem — their own failed policies that have left police hands tied and communities unprotected. While faith leaders are begging for real protection, the NDP’s response is signs and 20-metre zones. Meanwhile, across this province, crime is out of control in ways that directly threaten everyone, including those trying to worship.

The Auditor General’s March 2026 report laid it bare. The RCMP is short at least 3,400 front-line officers as of September 2025. Vacancy rates exceed the critical 7 percent threshold in nine of 11 provinces and territories served by contract policing. Recruitment has failed for years. In 2025, they needed 2,700 new officers but hired only 892.

That falls onto this province for providing the members required to be trained. Officers are doing more with less every single day, pulling from integrated teams, facing longer response times and watching repeat offenders cycle through the soft-on-crime bail system the NDP defended for years.

Clearance rates for property crime and hate-motivated mischief remain abysmal. Communities are hiring private security — not because they want to but because the NDP has left them no choice. What does this government do? Jewish communities in B.C. alone are now spending over $100,000 every month on private security, just to keep worshippers safe.

What does the government do? They slap 7 percent PST on those security services, taxing the very measures communities are forced to take because public safety has collapsed under their watch. This is not leadership. This is extortion by another name. Small businesses, strata and faith groups already spending thousands monthly on guards now face another 7 percent hit. The NDP creates the crisis, focuses private solutions, then taxes the solution. This bill does nothing to stop that hypocrisy.

The official opposition believes strongly in the right to peaceful assembly under section 2(c) of the Charter. We also believe in freedom of expression. Bubble zones can chill legitimate protests, as we’ve seen with school access zones.

[2:10 p.m.]

Even setting Charter concerns aside, this bill fails on its own terms. It does not deter the real threats — vandalism at night, online harassment or organized hate — because those happen outside the 20-metre zone or when no one is there to post signs. It creates a false sense of security, while the NDP continues to under-resource the very police who are already doing heroic work with fewer officers than ever.

The faith community deserves better than this performative nonsense. They deserve a government that treats public safety as a core responsibility, not a photo op. They deserve more RCMP officers, more municipal officers, faster bail reform that actually keeps repeat offenders locked up, higher clearance rates and an end to taxing the private security they’re forced to buy because this province’s policing model is crumbling.

The NDP can pat themselves on the back for introducing Bill 13 in unison with Bill 12. They can claim they’re expanding protections, but British Columbians see through it. This is not protection; it’s abdication. It is the government admitting they cannot enforce the Criminal Code effectively. It creates a parallel provincial regime that duplicates existing powers while doing nothing to fix the resource crisis.

We in the official opposition will always stand with faith communities against hate. We support real tools for police. We support cracking down on antisemitism and every form of religious hatred. But we will not pretend that this bill does any of those things. Pure NDP theatre while the real crisis of crime, underpolicing and self-funded security continues.

I urge every member to reject this symbolic gesture, demand real resources for police, demand enforcement of the Criminal Code we already have, demand an end to the hypocrisy of taxing the very safety measures this government’s failures have forced upon our most vulnerable communities.

British Columbians of every faith deserve to worship without fear. They deserve a government that delivers safety, not slogans.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I just want to take a moment to offer a little guidance. This Chair doesn’t appreciate any sort of indication that governments or members in this House are breaking the law.

So I would ask you to stay away from terms like “extortion” — things like that and those allegations.

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to start by acknowledging we’re on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People known as the xʷsepsəm and Songhees Nations and thanking them for allowing me to do the work I do, not just here in this building but within my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood.

I am honoured to rise here today in this House to speak in strong support of Bill 13, legislation that goes to the very heart of what it means to live in a safe, respectful and inclusive environment. At the core, this bill does something simple but profoundly important — ensuring that people in British Columbia can access the places that matter most to them, our places of worship, and that they can do so free of intimidation, obstruction and fear.

Places of worship should be a safe place for people. This is not a controversial statement; this is a shared expectation. The ability to gather in prayer, reflection and community without harassment or disruption is fundamental to who we are as Canadians and British Columbians.

Yet in recent years, we have seen a troubling rise in incidents that challenge that basic expectation. We have seen threats, vandalism and intimidation targeting places of worship — spaces that serve not only as centres of faith but that anchor our communities right across British Columbia.

These are not abstract concerns. These are real experiences affecting people simply trying to get to a place to gather in peace.

I will note, toward some comments that were made across the way, that we’re seeing this not just here in British Columbia, through a fault of any policy of ours, but across the country, under different governments, whether that is a progressive NDP government, a progressive Conservative government, a Conservative, Liberal…. Across the board, everyone is seeing this. All of us equally are looking at different ways we can mitigate this and support people across the country.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is why our government is taking action. Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, establishes protections to ensure that people can attend services, ceremonies and gatherings without being obstructed, threatened or harassed.

Importantly, this legislation is carefully designed to allow places of worship — such as churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples — to establish safe access zones simply by posting clear signage. These zones are limited in size, generally including the building, its property and a modest buffer area of approximately 20 metres. Within those zones, certain behaviours are prohibited — not beliefs, not opinions but behaviours, actions like physically blocking access, using intimidation or deliberately disrupting services.

I want to be clear about this. This law does not ban protest. You heard me talk yesterday about another bill. I believe foremost in the right to peaceful protest. I had joked that I had been perhaps on the front lawn a time or two here myself, or some other organizations, during strike action in my previous life, and I stand for that right to do so as long as it’s done peacefully and people aren’t hurt.

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, and our government fully supports that right. People 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 the line to harm, intimidation or obstruction. It is about balance. It’s about balancing the right to protest and freedom of expression with the right of a family to attend a place of worship without being shouted at or blocked or harassed for entering. It’s about recognizing that rights come with responsibility.

I also want to highlight that this law is not being introduced in isolation. They are part of a broader effort to address rising hate and protect communities across our province. The member just said that public safety needs to be taken seriously. Well, I believe this legislation is an example of another tool that we can do to do that.

We are investing in the B.C. hate crimes unit, expanding its capacity and supporting community organizations through our anti-hate community support fund. We are also listening, learning from people of faith, faith leaders, community organizations and law enforcement.

The feedback has been clear. These protections are needed, and they will make a difference. In fact, when this legislation was brought forward and was announced, our minister with people of multiple different faith groups stood together in solidarity to say that they supported this, right here in the Legislature.

People have told us that safe access zones around schools have already been an effective tool for de-escalation. We expect similar results when we see that within a place of worship.

Importantly, these measures include safeguards. This piece of legislation contains a sunset clause, ensuring they will be reviewed and reassessed. This reflects our commitment to getting the balance right, not just today but into our future.

We must also acknowledge the broader context. Around the world, here at home, we are seeing an increased polarization and, at times, rising hostility directed at different community groups. At moments like this, leadership matters. We have a responsibility to stand up for the values that define us: respect, inclusion and safety for all. I would hope in this building that that’s something we can all agree on.

I believe this bill does that. It does not take sides. It does not target any particular group or viewpoint. It applies equally regardless of who you are or what you believe. Its focus is clear and narrow: to prevent harmful conduct and ensure safety.

As legislators, we are often called upon to make difficult decisions, to weigh competing rights and interests. In this case, I believe this bill does strike that right balance. It protects communities of faith. It upholds our fundamental principle that everyone deserves to feel safe in spaces that matter most.

If you were to tell me when I was a child going to Catholic school on Sundays and participating in my own religion that I would be up having to even have this debate or conversation, I don’t think I would have actually believed anybody. I don’t think I would have taken it seriously. There is no way we would have even had to have these conversations.

I often joke, you know…. I was raised Catholic. Sometimes I joke I have had some concerns with my own religion, but I think that at the base of most religions, it’s about taking care of our communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

I believe, as legislators, we all have an equal responsibility to do that, no matter what our background is, whether it’s religious or not actually. I believe it should be based on good policy, good legislation, and I believe this does that.

With that, I do urge all members of this House to support Bill 13.

During question period throughout this session and last session, people have asked us questions from the opposition about what we’re doing to keep the public safe. I think this legislation is a great example of how we’re doing that for our faith-based communities across the province, whatever that may look like.

Again, I hope people on the other side can support this legislation.

Bryan Tepper: Could we have a five-minute recess, please?

Deputy Speaker: I will have a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:21 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Okay. We’ll call this chamber back to order.

Teresa Wat: I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Worship Act.

At the heart of this discussion is a fundamental principle: no person in British Columbia should ever feel intimidated, harassed or fearful when walking into their place of worship. It is about dignity, fundamental freedoms and the kind of province we want to be.

[2:25 p.m.]

Yet for many British Columbians today — members of Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Hindu and other faith communities — their sense of safety is no longer guaranteed. What should be a place of peace has for some become a place of anxiety. We are seeing tensions, often driven by global conflicts, spill out of the public square and onto the doorstep of our most sacred spaces.

As a Buddhist myself who regularly pays respects to many temples in my riding across Richmond, I feel truly blessed to have never experienced any harassment when visiting a place of worship.

In our beautiful province — one that has long upheld the values of inclusion, peace, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly — it is deeply concerning to know that some faith communities do not feel safe when walking into their own places of worship. Everyone deserves to feel secure, respected and welcome in spaces meant for reflection, faith and community.

As noted by political commentator Rob Shaw in his recent coverage, governments are increasingly being called upon to act when protest activity crosses the line from lawful expression into intimidation and disruption. That observation reflects what many British Columbians are seeing firsthand, a growing tension between the right to protest and the right to feel safe in deeply personal spaces.

Let’s be clear. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy. It allows Canadians to speak, to protest and to challenge authority. But it is not absolute. It does not include the right to obstruct access. It does not include the right to harass. It does not include the right to deny others the peaceful exercise of their own freedoms. Freedom of religion is equally protected. When individuals are forced to pass through intimidation to attend worship, their rights are being compromised.

The principle behind Bill 13 is sound. It responds to calls from faith leaders across British Columbia. It proposes access zones, commonly referred to as bubble zones, to prevent obstruction, harassment and intimidation near places of worship.

We have precedent for this approach. Courts in British Columbia have already upheld similar protections in the context of abortion access, recognizing that while expression is protected, reasonable limits are justified when necessary to protect vulnerable individuals and ensure safe access to lawful services.

Bill 13 extends that concept to religious spaces. It will allow eligible places of worship to establish clearly marked access zones. Typically, it would mean a 20-metre perimeter where specific harmful behaviour would be prohibited. Police would be empowered to issue tickets or make arrests, including without a warrant, where there are reasonable grounds to believe the law is being contravened. The bill also includes a sunset clause in 2030, acknowledging that these are targeted measures responding to a specific and concerning moment.

But principle alone is not enough. The true test of this legislation will not be how it is written; it will be how it is enforced. Because legislation without enforcement is not protection; it is symbolism. We must confront that reality directly.

Commentary in British Columbia public discourse, including analysis from voices like Rob Shaw, has pointed out that laws governing protest activity often face real-world challenges when it comes to consistent enforcement. Drawing lines in legislation is one thing. Applying them fairly, clearly and consistently on the ground is another.

[2:30 p.m.]

First, there is the issue of clarity. Enforcement depends on definitions that are precise and understandable not just to legal experts but to frontline officers and the general public. What constitutes intimidation? When does a protest become obstruction? These are decisions that must often be made in real time in emotionally charged environments. If those thresholds are unclear, enforcement becomes hesitant. If officers are unsure where the line is, they may default to inaction. And if enforcement varies from one situation to another, public confidence will erode.

There is also the issue of consistency. Laws like this rely heavily on police discretion. Without clear guidance and provincewide standards, that discretion can lead to uneven outcomes. One community may see strong enforcement while another does not. That is not just a legal issue; it is a question of trust.

We must consider scope. The bill’s reliance on tax-exempt status and statutory definition to determine what qualifies as a place of worship may be administratively simple, but it does not reflect reality. Many faith communities gather in rented halls, storefronts or shared spaces. Some are newly established. Some lack formal recognition. If protection depends on paperwork rather than people, then we risk excluding those who may be most vulnerable. From an enforcement perspective, ambiguity about what qualifies creates hesitation and uncertainty in applying the law.

The exclusion of private residences raises similar concerns. Many faith groups gather in homes. These are legitimate expressions of religious practice. If they become targets of harassment, what recourse exists? Does that create a loophole? How would such a situation be handled in practice?

We must also consider how this legislation fits within the broader legal framework. Federal efforts to address hate-motivated conduct near places of worship focus on criminalization, intimidation and hateful symbols but do not establish defined buffer zones. This creates a distinction between conduct-based and location-based protections.

If these frameworks are not well aligned, there is a risk of confusion. Police officers should not have to interpret overlapping or inconsistent standards in the moment. Effective enforcement requires coherence across jurisdictions.

Another concern is that this legislation stops at the sanctuary door. Faith is lived through service in food banks, shelters and community programs. These spaces can also become targets. If they fall outside the scope of protection, then we are addressing only part of the problem.

There’s also the question of capacity. Even the best law will fail without the resources to enforce it. Do police services have the training, personnel and operational clarity required? Are there clear protocols in place? Without this, enforcement will be uneven and communities will continue to rely on private security to fill the gap.

We are already seeing that reality. Some communities are bearing significant financial burdens just to ensure basic safety. Security costs across all Metro Vancouver Jewish institutions have risen to more than $100,000 per month. That is not sustainable, and it is not acceptable. Public safety must remain a public responsibility.

We support the spirit of Bill 14. We recognize the urgency. We acknowledge the voices, both from faith communities and from commentators like Rob Shaw, who have highlighted the need for government to act thoughtfully, not just quickly.

[2:35 p.m.]

If this law is to succeed, it must be clear, enforceable and supported by the resources necessary to make it real. It must apply fairly across all communities. It must reflect how faith is actually practised. It must give both the public and law enforcement the certainty they need, because if it does not, we risk creating false reassurance instead of real protection.

Every British Columbian, regardless of faith, should be able to walk into their place of worship with peace, dignity and safety, not just in principle but in practice. That is the standard we must meet.

While I agree with the intention of the bill, I know that we must be thoughtful whenever we limit the actions of individuals and groups. Peaceful assembly is a protected freedom, but intimidation, harassment and blocking access to places of worship are not. Protecting the right to worship safely must be treated as a basic public safety responsibility.

If government is serious about standing against antisemitism and hate, it must go beyond symbolism. Strengthen policing, increase resources, and stop taxing security. Communities facing targeted hate should not be forced to rely indefinitely on privately funded security to fill gaps in public safety. It is expressly wrong that this government is charging 7 percent PST on the security services that the Jewish community is being forced to purchase to keep itself safe. Governments should not be taxing the very measures communities need because of rising hate and threats.

The Criminal Code of Canada has already provided protection for people walking to places of worship who face harassment, but we hardly see any enforcement. As we are now considering and debating Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, we must ensure that Bill 13 is not just another additional piece of legislation sitting in the statute vault with no real protection for the British Columbians who attend their places of worship.

I sincerely hope that the Attorney General will address all these concerns and those raised by my colleagues and support the opposition party’s meaningful amendments to Bill 13.

Steve Morissette: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, legislation that goes to the very heart of what it means to live in a free and democratic society.

At its core, this bill is about something simple yet profoundly important — the ability of people to live out their beliefs peacefully, safely and without intimidation. It’s about ensuring that when someone chooses to attend their place of worship — whether that be a gurdwara, a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a temple — they can do so without fear, without obstruction, without harassment and without being made to feel that their presence, their beliefs or their community are somehow unwelcome.

The wide variety of diverse religions in British Columbia gives us different perspectives and makes us a much stronger society.

Places of public worship are more than just buildings. They are anchors in our communities. They are spaces where people gather not only for prayer but for connection, for support and for a sense of belonging. They are where families mark life’s most important moments — births, marriages and losses — and where individuals seek guidance, reflection and peace. They are, in many ways, the quiet foundation of community life. Yet increasingly, we have seen instances where these very spaces have been targeted by disruptive and harmful behaviour.

[2:40 p.m.]

Let me be clear. The vast majority of people in British Columbia respect one another. They understand that freedom of religion is not conditional. It does not depend on whether we agree with someone else’s beliefs. It does not depend on whether we share their traditions. It is a right that belongs to everyone equally.

But we must also acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. For some, the idea of freedom of religion has been narrowed into something exclusionary, something that means freedom of my religion but not necessarily the freedom of others. And when that mindset takes hold, it can manifest into behaviours that are intimidating, obstructive and, at times, deeply harmful.

This is where this legislation steps in. Bill 13 proposes a practical, measured and thoughtful response to a real and growing issue. It establishes protections against harmful, disruptive or intimidating behaviour around places of public worship. It creates a framework that allows eligible places of worship to establish clearly marked safe access zones — zones that are visible, understandable and limited in scope.

Unlike other legislation, these zones are not imposed universally by regulation. Instead, they are created when a place of worship chooses to opt in by posting clear signage. That signage must identify the place of worship, define the boundaries of the access zone and outline the behaviours that are prohibited. This approach ensures clarity for everyone — those attending worship, those in the surrounding community and those who may wish to express their views nearby.

Clarity matters. Laws must be understandable, they must be predictable, and they must be fair. Bill 13 meets those standards.

In most cases, these access zones will include the building itself, the property on which it sits and a modest 20-metre buffer around the perimeter. They are not expansive. They are not designed to push people far away. They are designed to do one thing: ensure safe and unobstructed access.

Within these zones, specific behaviours are prohibited — not expression but conduct. This includes physically blocking entrances, using objects like barricades to obstruct access, disrupting prayer or religious gatherings and engaging in threatening or intimidating behaviour toward those trying to attend. And yes, it also includes attempts to pressure or dissuade individuals from attending services within that defined space.

This is not about silencing lawful protest. Let me say that again clearly. This legislation does not outlaw protest. People will continue to have the right to express their views. They will continue to have the right to gather; to demonstrate; and to disagree, even strongly.

But rights must coexist. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so, too, is freedom of religion. Neither right should come at the expense of the other.

This bill draws that line carefully and responsibly. It says: “You may express your views, but you may not intimidate others. You may protest, but you may not block access. You may disagree, but you may not create an environment of fear for people simply seeking to practise their faith.”

[2:45 p.m.]

The need for this legislation is not theoretical. In recent years, we have seen a rise in confrontations and targeted disruptions at religious institutions, not only in British Columbia but across Canada and around the world.

We have seen vandalism, including political graffiti, targeting temples and gurdwaras. We have seen escalating tensions requiring court-ordered buffer zones. We have seen communities of many different faiths express real concern for their safety. We have seen how quickly peaceful spaces become sites of anxiety and division.

The impact of these incidents is profound. They create fear, they create division, and they undermine the sense of safety and belonging that places of worship are meant to provide. For those attending, what should be a moment of peace becomes a moment of concern. What should be a place of refuge becomes a place where people must look over their shoulder. That is simply not acceptable.

This legislation says clearly that in British Columbia, we will not accept that. We will not accept that individuals should have to weigh their personal safety before attending a service. We will not accept that communities should feel targeted or unwelcome in spaces that are central to their identity and well-being. Instead, we will take responsible, proportionate steps to ensure that access to these spaces remains safe and unobstructed.

Bill 13 does not stand alone. It is part of a broader effort to protect safe access to important community spaces. Alongside this bill, we are also advancing Bill 12, which extends protections for safe access to schools, ensuring that students, staff, parents and caregivers can access schools without disruption.

These measures build on previous legislation, including protections around essential services and health care access. They reflect a consistent principle that certain spaces in our society must remain accessible, safe and free from intimidation — schools, health care facilities and now places of public worship.

Enforcement of this legislation is practical and measured. If prohibited behaviour occurs within an access zone, places of worship can contact police. Officers may respond in a range of ways, starting with de-escalation and, where necessary, issuing tickets or making arrests.

Importantly, violating this law is not in itself a criminal offence. But the underlying behaviour — if it crosses into assault, criminal harassment or other offences — may well be. Police will continue to exercise discretion, as they do in all situations, and we have confidence in their ability to do so. This confidence is supported by ongoing investments in public safety, including expanded resources for hate crime units and community support programs.

I also want to address the question of scope. This legislation applies to buildings that are already recognized as places of public worship under existing property tax frameworks. This ensures clarity and consistency while minimizing unnecessary intrusion on Charter rights.

We recognize that there are other spaces and communities that may also face risks, and we will continue to explore ways to support them. But this bill represents a focused and balanced step forward. It applies equally, regardless of religion, regardless of belief and regardless of who may be protesting. It does not target any one group. It does not favour one faith over another. It does not distinguish between viewpoints. It simply protects access.

[2:50 p.m.]

I also want to speak to an important feature of this legislation, the four-year sunset clause. This is not a permanent measure. It is a targeted response to a specific and evolving issue. The sunset clause ensures that this Legislature will revisit the law, assess its effectiveness and determine whether it remains necessary.

This is good governance. It reflects humility. It reflects accountability. It reflects a recognition that laws should evolve alongside the society they serve.

British Columbia is home to an extraordinary diversity of faiths, cultures and traditions. That diversity is one of our greatest strengths. But diversity also requires responsibility. It requires us to ensure that every community feels safe, that every individual feels respected and that no one is made to feel vulnerable because of who they are or what they believe.

This bill is part of that responsibility. It affirms that whether someone attends a gurdwara, a mosque, a synagogue, a church or a temple, their right to do so safely is equally valued. It affirms that freedom of religion is not selective. It is universal. It affirms that our role as legislators is not only to protect rights in theory but to ensure they can be exercised in practice.

There may be those who raise concerns about balance. That is appropriate. In a democracy, we should always examine laws carefully, especially those that touch on fundamental freedoms. But I would submit that this bill strikes that balance. It is limited in scope. It is clear in its application. It preserves the right to protest. It focuses only on conduct that is harmful, disruptive or intimidating. In doing so, it protects one right without unnecessarily infringing on another, and that is exactly what good legislation should do.

In closing, this is a bill that reflects our shared values — a commitment to safety, a commitment to respect and a commitment to ensuring that fundamental freedoms are not only recognized but protected in real and meaningful ways.

We cannot take these freedoms for granted. We cannot assume they will always be upheld without effort. And we cannot ignore the realities that some communities are facing today.

Instead, we must act thoughtfully, proportionately and with a clear sense of purpose. Bill 13 does exactly that. It provides a balanced, responsible and time-limited approach to ensuring that people in British Columbia can access their places of worship safely and without obstruction.

For that reason, I am proud to support this legislation and commend it to this House.

Deputy Speaker: We are going to continue debate on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

Recognizing the Leader of the Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you again today.

I’m so proud to be speaking to the right bill at the right time in the right place. It didn’t seem to make No Context BC yesterday, but maybe it will now.

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 and when entering mosques and attending services. These sentiments have persisted for years and reportedly have grown in recent years.

[2:55 p.m.]

Recent synagogue attacks come 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.

The Third Party caucus supports the intent of this bill. We do have a few concerns that we expect will be addressed, clarified or potentially amended in committee. There are concerns regarding the broad definition of “interference.” This definition as currently stated would likely overlap with activity that would be present at many protests.

Opponents to the broadness of the definition 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, further stating that this new law would include those who have recently protested — for example, Indian government events at a gurdwara, Israeli realtors talking about investment opportunities in the occupied West Bank at a synagogue and MAGA concerts at various churches.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has similar concerns. “Implementing bubble zones limits peaceful protests and our right to freedom of expression. In a time when having our voice heard is harder than ever, protecting our right to speak out is critical to democracy.”

The way we’re considering this legislation…. The major considerations are the potential of protesting restrictions on secular events that are held at a public place of worship. There is a need to ensure that those attending these events feel safe, balanced with the public’s right to protest at secular events.

We’ll have some clarification for vague drafting on actions that could lead to arrest, including “impede access,” “disrupt activities,” or “intimidate or attempt to intimidate,” as well as conditions that could lead to arrest, including concern for a person’s physical or mental safety. Clear metrics are needed to evaluate the efficacy and impact of this legislation, including enforcement data, incident prevention, number of institutions using access zones, etc.

As I said, we’ll support this through second reading and seek clarification and potentially amendments at committee stage.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always a privilege to represent the constituents of Abbotsford West, and it’s always an honour, as well, to rise in this House to speak to issues that impact all British Columbians.

I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, 2026. This is a bill that touches on something deeply important not only in law but in the daily lives of British Columbians. It is the ability to gather, to worship and to do so in safety and dignity.

At its core, this legislation is a response to a troubling reality we’ve seen played out time and time again. Across our province and, indeed, across our country, we have seen an increase of acts of vandalism, harassment, intimidation and targeted disruption directed at religious communities. These are not abstract concerns. These are real experiences affecting real people — families, seniors and children — who simply wish to attend a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or a gurdwara in peace.

Before we look at this legislation, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question. How did we get here?

It just happens that last week, when I was home for the spring break, I sat down with one of the leaders of our Hindu temple. He explained to me that on a weekly basis — sometimes up to 15 times a month — their temple experiences vandalism, harassment and intimidation, and it’s targeted at their members in their temple.

Let’s peel this back a bit. In Canada and in British Columbia, both governments have allowed our culture and our society to normalize discrimination and racism. Here’s how: by not enforcing existing laws.

[3:00 p.m.]

That is fundamental. Before we create new legislation…. Do we have laws in place? Are we enforcing those laws? I would say this is why we need this bill, because we have not been enforcing those laws.

I rise today to speak about something deeply uncomfortable yet absolutely necessary — the presence and normalization of racism in our culture and how it has quietly, and sometimes loudly, manifested in our communities, our secondary campuses and even the causes we claim are rooted in justice.

Let us begin with what we are seeing here in British Columbia. For over two years now, there have been sustained weekly pro-Palestinian rallies in Victoria over 126 consecutive weeks. These are not isolated gatherings. They are organized. They are persistent and highly visible demonstrations, often marching through downtown and around the Legislature. Police have spent over 10,000 hours managing these events, and now even they are stepping back, acknowledging the strain and scale of these ongoing protests.

Across the province, similarly, demonstrations have taken place, from large-scale marches in Vancouver to encampments and rallies on university campuses such as UBC and UVic. These protests are part of a broader global movement calling for a ceasefire, criticizing Israeli government actions and advocating for Palestinian rights. Yet protesters are allowed to yell and chant: “From the river to the sea.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me just for a minute.

Recognizing the Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Hon. Grace Lore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just seeking your guidance on relevance, given that this is geographically bound in a very clear area around places of worship.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member. I was just seeking some of that guidance myself.

We are, of course, debating safe access to places of public worship, and I would appreciate we stay on target with that Bill 13.

Korky Neufeld: I think what has happened is there’s been a cultural shift that has now spread into places of worship. So I don’t think it’s isolated just with places of worship. I think it’s a cultural and societal issue that has persisted since 2021. That is what I’m trying to show — the foundation of how we got here and why we need this bill in the first place.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member, but we are debating, of course, safe access to places of public worship.

Korky Neufeld: These protesters yell and chant, “From the river to the sea,” which means removing an entire Jewish people from the face of the earth. It’s called genocide.

We have the racism laws that we already have, but they’re not being enforced. By not dealing with these racist actions at the outset, we normalize behaviours. Protesters become emboldened, and that’s not okay.

Let me be clear. Peaceful protest is not the problem. Freedom of expression is not the problem. In a democratic society, people have the right to speak, to assemble and to advocate for causes they believe in. But there’s a difficult truth we must confront. Not everything done in the name of justice is just.

Alongside these protests, we’re hearing increasingly troubling reports from Jewish students across Canada, including here in British Columbia. Students who once felt safe on campus now describe environments where they feel unwelcome.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I don’t want to continue to interrupt you, but we debated safe schools yesterday. We are debating today safe access to places of public worship.

Korky Neufeld: I guess I’m having trouble. I guess I need clarification from you. If our broader society has allowed certain things that have now crept into worship, how can I not describe what is happening in our culture and our society that is now impacting worship centres?

I will get to that, but I think the foundation is that there has been no enforcement from the federal government or from the provincial government on acts that are breaking racism laws. By doing that, it has emboldened them not just to do it outside the Legislature, not just to march down the streets. Now they’re coming for the institutions themselves.

I think I’m trying to cover that and make sure that we understand that this has been going on since 2021 unchecked and unenforced. That is why we’re here.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that very much, Member, as long as you connect it back to Bill 13.

Korky Neufeld: Absolutely. I will. It’ll become crystal clear.

[3:05 p.m.]

Some Jewish students describe being ostracized by peers. Others say they’re afraid to express their identity openly. The language used is stark. Campuses that once fostered inclusion are now described as places where Jewish students feel shunned and targeted.

Research and accounts tied to institutions like UBC and SFU pointed to rising stress, fear and alienation among Jewish students and staff.

There has been public criticism from academia itself, suggesting institutions are struggling or unwilling — and here’s the key, unwilling — to adequately address the concerns. In front of the Hillel B.C. faculty building at UBC campus, regular protests occurred, with intimidation tactics and racist slurs taking place. But Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Worship Act, will not protect those Jewish students.

Now, let us be absolutely precise because precision matters. There is a clear and critical distinction between criticism of government, including Israel, and hatred or discrimination toward a people, including Jewish individuals. One is protected by political expression. The other is racism. When that line is crossed, even subtly, even unintentionally, it must be called out, and it must be enforced. That is what has been missing since 2021. That has led this government to Bill 13.

Yet across our country and our province, we have done nothing. When students feel unsafe for being who they are, when identity becomes a liability, when fear replaces belonging, we are no longer dealing with activism alone. We are dealing with something darker.

This issue does not exist in isolation. All across Canada, we have seen a disturbing rise in acts of cultural and religious destruction. Since 2021, over 100 Christian churches and places of worship have been burned and vandalized, including several in British Columbia, with no convictions.

You have to ask the question: if there are no convictions, what is the message being sent? The criminals are emboldened. “Let’s keep burning down the churches. Let’s keep harassing people at the synagogue. Let’s keep harassing people at the gurdwara and at the temple.” Why? Because there’s no enforcement. There are no laws. There’s no punishment. That’s what’s missing. That’s why we wouldn’t need this bill if they would enforce the laws that we already have.

These acts followed the tragic and painful discoveries connected to residential schools. Let me say this clearly. The pain of one community does not justify the destruction of another. Burning places of worship is not justice. Targeting communities is not reconciliation. Replacing one form of historical wrong with a present-day hostility does not move us forward. It actually pulls us backwards.

What we are witnessing in different forms is a pattern. Movements that begin with legitimate grievances becoming environments where anger overrides principle, where group identity becomes the target and where racism is excused, minimized or ignored entirely, so long as it aligns with the right cause. That is a dangerous road.

Racism does not become acceptable when it changes direction. It does not become justified when it wears the language of activism. It does not become invisible simply because we are uncomfortable calling it out.

If we are to be a society that truly values justice, our standards must be consistent. We cannot condemn hate in one context and tolerate it in another. We cannot demand safety for some while ignoring the fears of others. We cannot claim morality and moral authority while allowing prejudice to grow under our watch.

What must we do? We must have the courage to act. Action, I would say, is the underlying reason for the need for Bill 13. There’s been inaction since 2021. Antisemitism is real and must be addressed even when it appears within popular movements. We already have racism laws. Government needs to have the courage to enforce them. Protests must remain grounded in respect, not hostility toward identity. Institutions must protect all students equally without hesitation or political calculation.

I want to call on the leaders of UBC and SFU to do the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. Do not allow this dangerous behaviour to continue on our campuses. Racism against anyone and everywhere must be confronted, not rationalized.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would appreciate…. We are talking about places of public worship. I would appreciate the focus on that topic.

[3:10 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: The reason why we need Bill 13 is that there’s an admission of failure to enforce the existing laws we have. We wouldn’t need Bill 13 if the laws on racism that we already have in this land and in this province would be enforced in the first place. There’s a fundamental principle, with no disagreement in this House: every person in British Columbia deserves to access their place of worship free from fear, intimidation or obstruction.

Bill 13 attempts to address this by creating what are commonly referred to as access zones or bubble zones, extending generally 20 metres around places of public worship. Within these zones, certain behaviours would be prohibited, like blocking access, disrupting services, intimidating individuals or even attempting to persuade someone not to participate in worship.

In many ways, this model is not new. It follows the framework established under previous legislation, particularly the Access to Abortion Services Act and, more recently, the Safe Access to Schools Act. Courts have upheld these laws, recognizing that while freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, it is not absolute. It can be limited carefully and proportionately, where necessary, to protect the safety and dignity of others.

Let me be clear. The intent of this bill is understandable and in many respects commendable. However, it is precisely because this legislation engages in fundamental freedoms that we must approach it with caution, care and a willingness to ask these difficult questions, because alongside the right to worship safely stands another foundational right: the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 13 does not simply prohibit harassment or violence. Those are already illegal under existing laws. The question remains: why were existing laws not enforced at the outset?

The bill goes further. It introduces a broad definition of “interference,” which includes advising or persuading someone to refrain from participating in worship.

Well, that raises further questions, legitimate questions, such as: where is the line between intimidation and expression? Who is going to define that? Who is going to enforce that? That’s a heavy burden to put on someone on the front lines. Could a peaceful protester holding a sign be captured under this definition? Could a quiet conversation, even when conducted respectfully, be deemed unlawful with these zones?

These are not hypothetical concerns. They go to the heart of how this legislation will be interpreted and enforced on the ground. I think sometimes it’s easy for us to sit in this House and to create legislation. We’ve got to actually work it out, play it out. How’s it going to work on the ground to put this kind of a burden on someone? They’re going to have to interpret a certain action without it being clear. That’s a burden I wouldn’t want.

We must also examine the enforcement mechanisms within this bill. Section 5 allows for arrests without warrant where an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person is contravening the act. Now, while warrantless arrest powers do exist in the Criminal Code, their extension into a provincial regulatory framework is significant. That’s a big jump. It is not unprecedented, but it is rare. When we grant such powers, we must ensure that they are exercised with restraint, with clarity and with accountability.

Then there’s also the scope question. This bill allows for access zones to be created through signage posted by the occupier of a place of worship. It allows for flexibility through regulation, meaning that the size, the application and even the types of properties covered could evolve over time. Flexibility in legislation can be a strength, but it can also create uncertainty.

Further questions need to be answered. Will this be applied consistently across communities, or will one community have different regulations than another community? For people moving from one community to another community, how will they know? Will there be clear provincial standards? I hope so, because that would give direction to those on the ground. How will the public know with certainty where these zones begin and end?

[3:15 p.m.]

Another point that must be raised is this. Legislation alone cannot and will not solve the underlying problem. Communities, particularly Jewish communities and other religious minorities, are increasingly bearing the burden of their own protection. Many are forced to invest heavily in private security just to ensure that people can attend their services safely.

I was at one of those events. I went to a Hanukkah celebration in Richmond. My goodness. We saw fully geared-up law enforcement with rifles, body armour and helmets, with a big truck standing around this building, just so people can go in and have some sense of security.

The Jewish community alone has spent over $100,000 in security costs, and now they pay more. They’ll pay $107,000, because we just added PST to something. It’s not this bill, I realize, but let’s call it for what it is.

This represents a surge of more than 1,300 percent compared to pre–October 2023 costs for the Jewish community. That’s not small. That’s not insignificant. That is not a sustainable or acceptable long-term solution. If this government is serious about addressing hate and intimidation and targeted harassment, then Bill 13 must be accompanied by meaningful investment in public safety, public policing and community supports. Just to pass it here in Victoria is going to be meaningless.

The key aspect is enforcing existing laws on racism — zero tolerance — but we have seen none of that. Creating the buffer zone is one thing. Ensuring that it is respected and enforced is another. That is why new legislation is meaningless unless it comes with enforcement.

Finally, I want to acknowledge an important inclusion in this bill, the sunset clause. The act is set to expire after four years. That is a prudent measure. It recognizes that legislation is being introduced in response to a specific moment and a set of circumstances. It gives future legislators the opportunity and, indeed, I would say, the responsibility, to revisit the law, assess its effectiveness and determine whether it remains necessary. This is good governance, but it also underscores the importance of getting this right, from the beginning.

Bill 13 is, in many ways, a balancing act. It seeks to protect individuals from harm, intimidation and fear while also navigating the complex terrain of constitutional freedoms. Those are not easy lines to draw. We should support the principle that people must be able to worship safely. At the same time, we must ensure that in protecting that right, we do not unnecessarily or unintentionally erode other fundamental freedoms.

So let us proceed with care. Let us ensure that definitions are precise; that enforcement is proportionate; that rights are balanced, not overridden. Let us remember that the goal is not simply to pass a law or legislation but to strengthen the fabric of a society where people of all faiths and all viewpoints can coexist safely, with dignity and mutual respect.

Hon. Grace Lore: I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I’ve got a few comments that I want to tie to my community, particularly those who participated on the day the bill was introduced, but I feel called to start my remarks in a bit of response and engagement with the previous speaker.

I heard from my colleague across the way that threats to places of worship started in 2021 and that the origins of these challenges can be found in 2021. I want to draw this House’s attention to the deaths of six people and to 19 more who were injured in an attack on a mosque in Quebec in 2017. In 2020, a mosque caretaker was murdered.

[3:20 p.m.]

We have to come to these conversations, to this debate on this legislation, with a lens of the impact of threats to and violence in places of worship. I think members of this House should take that responsibility very seriously.

I will touch briefly on one other remark before I turn to mine. The speaker before me raised very significant concerns for people who fear being who they are, whether that’s in a place of worship or at a post-secondary institution, and that we must take action to ensure that nobody feels targeted for who they are or feels unsafe being who they are.

That cannot apply to one group, and I fear that my colleague across the way left that rather narrow. On Trans Day of Visibility, I just feel called to speak to the reality that many people face barriers to being who they are, and we have a responsibility in this House to stand up for all of them.

I think that what this legislation does is give us additional tools to ensure that people are able to live with their faith, to practise their faith and to gather with their community in those sacred places.

On the day this legislation was introduced, I was incredibly privileged to be joined here by a number of faith leaders from my community, which I have since learned is called a “wisdom” — Christ Church Cathedral, Congregation Emanu-El, the masjid as well as Khalsa Diwan Society, the temple on Topaz, Church of Latter-Day Saints as well as the Hindu temple.

It was beautiful to have them all here, and they were all here because this is a valuable tool. It is not the only tool in the toolkit for addressing what we’ve discussed. I recognize the concerns members across the way have raised about other tools, overlapping tools, etc. They were here, and I know that, unfortunately, many of them have faced threats, have faced graffiti. I have been to events in my community where police have hung out outside the synagogue or have been near the mosque.

I would say that feels especially true, especially heavy in the current global context. I know that members of my community, both Muslim and Jewish, have felt that. I also know that when we introduced this legislation, there was an opportunity for the first time to introduce the new imam to some of the board members at Congregation Emanu-El.

This was an opportunity to introduce several folks who dedicate immeasurable hours of their time and their heart and their energy to their faith but also to their religious community — to their community that comes together at their place of worship for worship but, indeed, to lift each other up, to celebrate births, to hold each other when it comes to loss, weddings, meal trains. The number of things that happen in these communities, in these spaces touches all areas of our lives.

I feel myself, in this moment today, feeling that gratitude for what happens in and through religious communities in all our constituencies and the weight of some of the previous speakers’ comments and the weight that the world is such that this legislation is necessary at this time. Yet it is.

[3:25 p.m.]

So this is not a piece of legislation that is out of step with other ways that tools like this have been employed. I am, as I think all my colleagues are, and some have mentioned several times, a big believer in the right to protest, to have voices heard. I have, as I’m sure we all have in some form, participated. That is essential. Big change in our province, in our country has happened coming out of protest, out of people organizing, out of people having their voices heard.

In the case of places of worship, you’re going to have to cross the street. We use this tool not as a challenge to the right to protest but as a way of creating that balance, as a tool in supporting the balance between the right to protest and the right to gather in worship.

A reality of rights is that they can exist in tension. There can be a push and a pull. Where we can create opportunities and tools to preserve both, when the solution is a sign clearly articulating a place of worship and the potential to still exercise your voice by crossing the street, we have protected a couple of rights with pretty minimal harm, with pretty minimal onus on all those involved.

For me, what this offers is a recognition of the importance of sacred places, a recognition of what happens in and by and for communities in those places, and it ensures folks have lots of places to have their voices heard.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Doing so need not prevent someone else from being with community. As was said, I think, by members on both sides of the House, this is not dissimilar to legislation for bubble zones around places people can access abortions. Again, you may protest, and indeed, many people have probably seen folks existing across the street using other tools while people still have the right to safely access a place where they can get health care.

I think that I’ll, by and large, leave it there, except to tell one other brief story. Members across the way have raised the fear and concern regarding arson of churches over the years, a concern that I share.

I want to tell a little bit about what happened in this community in 2021. On Canada Day that year, a statue of Captain Cook ended up in the harbour. A few days later, a totem was lit on fire at the top of the Malahat.

What happened after that was that all of us elected to this place from the south Island — and not just MLAs but mayors, city councillors and police chiefs — were called with, I don’t know, 36 hours’ notice down to Songhees. Everybody came. There was a conversation that time, in community, for none of this and in nobody’s name. We were not going to have a statue in the harbour and a totem burnt. That was not how we were going to collectively address historical and ongoing pain.

Folks came together to hear from the Chief, to witness conversation in community. That was a full room. People whose, I’m sure, schedules were full found their way there.

[3:30 p.m.]

While this legislation gives us important tools, while it protects places of worship and it recognizes people’s right to access them while ensuring that there are ways to have voices heard and distances from which to do it, fundamentally, this is about coming together. It’s about having a conversation of what will happen in our names, what it looks like to decide as a community that people everywhere have the right to safety and support and that we problem-solve through connection and not violence — whether that’s to a statue, whether that’s graffiti, whether that’s threats, whether that’s physical violence.

I think of that time and what we got called to listen to, to witness, to do differently and the introductions and the opportunities for connection among the faith leaders who came for the introduction of this bill.

This is a tool that will support us in protecting places of worship at a time when I believe we need to. But fundamentally, what we are all called to do, in this place especially but beyond, is to come together, to problem-solve and to believe that connection above all else will move us forward.

Macklin McCall: I’m going to keep this pretty straightforward. People should be able to go to their place of worship and not have to think twice about their safety. That’s it. That’s the baseline.

But that’s not where we are right now. There are people in this province, families, who are making decisions about whether it’s safe to attend a service. They’re thinking about what might be happening outside before they even get there. That’s not normal, and we shouldn’t accept that as normal.

We’ve all seen what’s been happening. There has been an increase in targeting of religious communities and, in particular, a real rise in antisemitism. That’s not something distant. That’s happening here in British Columbia.

When that’s happening, people expect more than statements. They expect action that actually changes the situation. So I don’t think there’s any disagreement in here about the goal. People should be able to attend worship safely. They should not be intimidated, and they should not be blocked from getting in. That’s not a controversial position.

Where this starts to matter is how we get there. If we’re going to bring in legislation like this, then we need to be clear about what it’s actually doing and whether it’s dealing with the real issue or just reacting to what we’re seeing on the surface.

That’s what I want to walk through, and this is where I think we need to take a step back for a second, because this bill didn’t come out of nowhere. Government is responding to something real. There have been incidents. There has been pressure to act, and communities are saying they don’t feel safe. That part is clear.

But the question I keep coming back to is this. How did we get here? When people are having to worry about their safety just to attend worship, that’s not just a one-off issue. That points to something bigger. It tells you that somewhere along the way, the system that’s supposed to prevent that from happening isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do.

Now we’re here bringing in legislation to deal with it.

Again, I’m not saying don’t act. Of course, act.

But we should also be honest about what this represents. This is government stepping in after the fact, trying to manage a situation that has already escalated to the point where people don’t feel safe. I think that matters, because if we don’t look at how we got here, then we’re just going to keep responding the same way every time something like this happens.

There are communities right now that are spending significant money, their own money, just to make sure people can attend services safely. That shouldn’t be the expectation. Public safety is not something communities should have to fund on their own.

Yes, government is acting here. But at the same time, I think it’s fair to say this didn’t need to get to this point in the first place. That’s why, as we go through this, I think it’s important we don’t just look at what this bill is trying to do; we also look at whether it’s actually getting at the root of the problem.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, I want to be clear about something before I go any further. We support this bill. People should be able to go to their place of worship without being intimidated, without being blocked and without having to worry about what’s happening outside. That’s not something anyone should have to argue for.

The idea behind this, creating a way to protect access, to deal with disruption — that part makes sense. But supporting this bill doesn’t mean we stop asking questions, because this can’t be the only answer, and it can’t be treated like it solves the problem on its own. This is one piece, and if we’re being honest, it’s a piece that comes in after things have already gotten to a point where people don’t feel safe.

What concerns me is when legislation starts to become the go-to response instead of looking at whether the system we already have is being used the way it should be. Because we already have laws. We already have enforcement tools. We already have the ability to deal with behaviour that crosses the line.

While I support what this bill is trying to do — protecting people, protecting access — I think it’s important that we don’t treat this as the solution. It’s not. If anything, this should be a signal that something else isn’t working the way it should. And if we don’t address that, then we’re just going to keep coming back here, adding more legislation, trying to deal with the same issue from a different angle. That’s why I think we need to look a little deeper at what’s actually happening and how we’re choosing to respond to it.

That is where I think we need to bring this back to something pretty basic, because this is being talked about as a public safety issue. And I agree with that. If people are being intimidated, if access is being blocked, if there’s a disruption outside a place of worship, that is a public safety issue. There’s no question about that.

But if that’s the case, then we also need to be honest about something else. We already have the laws to deal with that kind of behaviour. They already exist. Police already have the authority to step in when things cross the line. That authority comes from the Criminal Code of Canada, and it covers the exact types of behaviour we’re talking about here. Intimidation, harassment, causing a disturbance, obstruction, mischief, causing fear — these are not new concepts. These are established offences that have been around for a long time.

They’re not just written down somewhere. They’ve been used. They’ve been applied in real situations. They’ve been tested in court, and they’ve been shaped over time to make sure they align with the Charter.

So when I hear that we need to bring in new legislation to deal with this type of behaviour, the question I have is: why? From a policing perspective, there isn’t a gap here. If someone is crossing the line into intimidation, there are already consequences for that. If someone is blocking access, there are already ways to deal with that. If someone is creating a disturbance that affects public safety, that can be already addressed.

That’s the system that’s in place. It’s a system that’s designed to balance enforcement with rights. This isn’t about whether we have the tools. We do, and we’ve had them for a long time. The issue isn’t the existence of those tools. The issue is how they’re being used and whether they’re being used effectively.

When behaviour like this is happening and communities are still feeling unsafe, that tells you something. It tells you that either those laws aren’t being applied the way they should be or there aren’t enough resources to apply them consistently. That’s a very different problem than a gap in legislation. When I look at this bill, I don’t see something filling a hole in law. I see something stepping in where existing law should already be doing the job.

That’s why I think it’s important that we don’t just assume more legislation equals better outcomes. If the underlying issue is enforcement or capacity, then adding another layer doesn’t fix that. It just changes how we approach it. Before we move further down that path, I think it’s worth taking a closer look at what that actually means in practice.

This is where I think it’s important to understand what this actually looks like from a policing perspective, because there’s a real difference between enforcing a criminal offence and enforcing a provincial act. Those are not interchangeable.

[3:40 p.m.]

No matter what authority a province gives police, whether it is the ability to arrest or issue a ticket, it does not carry the same weight as a criminal offence. It just doesn’t.

A criminal offence operates at a higher standard. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. An officer needs reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed before taking action. There is a process that follows that is structured, well understood and consistent across the country. More importantly, it’s been tested over decades in courts, under scrutiny, with challenges that have shaped how those laws are applied.

So when a criminal charge is laid, everyone understands what that means. The public understands it. The courts understand it. Police understand it. There is weight behind it. There are real consequences attached to it, and there are tools that come with it that allow that situation to be managed properly beyond just the moment.

Provincial ticket is different. It operates at a lower threshold. It’s designed to address behaviour quickly and efficiently, usually for regulatory or lower-level offences.

Again, there is a place for that. We use those tools every day. The Motor Vehicle Act is a good example. The Liquor Control Act is another. Immediate roadside prohibitions. Those are all examples of where a provincial framework makes sense. Those are situations where the goal is compliance, not escalation. They are not designed to replace criminal law. They are designed to sit alongside it for specific types of behaviour.

What we’re talking about here is different. This is not about convenience or efficiency. This is about conduct that, in many cases, already meets the threshold of criminal behaviour.

If someone is intimidating individuals trying to access a place of worship, if someone is blocking entry, if someone is creating a situation where people fear for their safety, those are not minor regulatory issues. Those are serious. If they meet that threshold, they should be treated as such, because once you move away from that, once you start addressing that kind of conduct through a provincial framework, you are lowering the standard of response, and that has real consequences.

With a criminal charge, an officer has additional tools. They can release a person on conditions. They can impose restrictions not to return to that location, not to have contact with certain individuals, not to engage in certain behaviour. That creates ongoing protection. It doesn’t just deal with the moment. It manages what happens after.

This legislation doesn’t provide that same level of protection. It allows for an arrest. It allows for a ticket. But it doesn’t carry the same follow-through. That matters because public safety is not just about what happens in the moment. It’s about preventing it from happening again.

There’s another point here that I think is important. In British Columbia, it is not common for provincial legislation to grant police the authority to arrest in this way. Typically, those powers come from the Criminal Code of Canada, which is a much stronger and more established legal framework. There’s a reason for that, because an arrest is one of the most serious actions the state can take. It is the state limiting someone’s liberty. It directly engages the right to life, liberty and security of the person. That’s not something that is taken lightly.

In our system, that kind of intrusion is justified when someone commits a criminal offence within a framework that has been tested, challenged and upheld over time. This bill doesn’t come with that same history. It hasn’t been tested in the same way. Yet it is extending that level of authority into a different context.

From a practical standpoint, I’ll say this. If an officer is on scene and the behaviour meets the threshold of a criminal offence, they are going to use the criminal charge every time because it gives them stronger authority, it gives them clearer direction, and it gives them better tools to actually protect the people involved.

When I look at this, I don’t see something that strengthens policing. I don’t see something that simplifies decision-making. If anything, it creates a parallel option that doesn’t carry the same clarity or consequences as what already exists. That doesn’t make the job easier.

At the end of the day, if someone commits a criminal act, they should be dealt with through criminal law. That’s what the system is there for. The response should match the seriousness of the behaviour, because the punishment should fit the conduct.

I want to talk about something that I think sits at the centre of this, because this bill doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists because communities don’t feel safe. When you get to a point where people are relying on legislation like this just to be able to access a place of worship, you have to ask why.

[3:45 p.m.]

Right now there are communities in this province, particularly Jewish communities, that are spending significant money on private security — not occasionally — every month. We’re talking about over $100,000 a month being spent just to make sure people can attend services safely.

Now think about that for a second. Families going to worship and security has to be part of the plan. That shouldn’t be the expectation in British Columbia. What makes it worse is this. They’re not just paying for that security; they’re being taxed on it, 7 percent on PST — something they are being forced to put in place because they don’t feel protected otherwise. That’s not right.

Public safety is not something that should be downloaded onto communities. It’s not something people should have to fund themselves just to feel safe doing something as basic as attending worship. That’s the responsibility of the government.

Yes, this bill is a step. It acknowledges that there’s a problem, but it doesn’t address why communities are in the position to begin with. If people still feel the need to hire private security after this passes, then what has really changed? That’s the question.

You cannot solve a public safety issue by shifting the burden onto the people who are being affected by it. You cannot treat legislation like this as the solution when the underlying issue hasn’t been addressed. At the end of the day, people don’t want access zones. They don’t want security barriers. They don’t want to think about any of this. They just want to be able to go to their place of worship and feel safe. And right now too many people don’t.

I think we also need to talk about what’s happening underneath all of this, because situations like this don’t just show up on their own. When communities start to feel less safe, when people start changing their behaviour, thinking twice about where they go or what they do, there’s usually a reason behind it.

Right now the provincial RCMP contingent sits at 2,602 officers. That number hasn’t changed since 2012. Over a decade, not one additional officer has been added to the provincial contingent.

Think about everything that has changed over that same time period. Population has grown. Communities have expanded. The demands on policing have increased. The complexity of the work has increased. But the number of provincially funded officers has stayed exactly the same. So I think it’s more than fair to ask: has that had an impact? Has that contributed to what we’re seeing now?

Policing isn’t static. You don’t just hold the line at the same level and expect the outcome to stay the same when everything around it is changing.

When capacity doesn’t keep up with demand, pressure builds, and eventually that pressure shows up somewhere. It shows up in response times. It shows up in how quickly police can get to a situation when something is happening. It shows up in visibility, whether there are officers present in communities in a way that people can actually see and feel. That visibility matters because policing isn’t just reactive. Presence alone changes behaviour. It deters. It reassures. It creates a sense that someone is there and that something will happen if the line is crossed.

When that presence starts to thin out, people notice. They may not always be able to explain it in technical terms, but they feel it. And when people feel that absence, they adjust. They start looking for ways to fill the gap themselves, which is exactly what we’re seeing here — places of worship bringing in private security; communities organizing their own security measures, spending significant amounts of money just to create a level of security that should already be there. This is not how this is supposed to work.

Public safety is a core responsibility of government. It is not something that should be downloaded onto communities, especially communities that are already dealing with being targeted. If there had been a sustained effort over the years to increase that provincial complement even gradually — more officers, more presence, more capacity — that would have had an impact. More officers on the ground means more visibility. More visibility means stronger deterrence. Stronger deterrence means fewer situations escalating to the point where people feel unsafe. That’s the connection.

I believe it would go a long way toward what we’re talking about here — people being able to attend their place of worship without hesitation, people feeling secure in their communities without needing to think about additional measures.

At the end of the day, public safety isn’t built through legislation alone. It’s built through presence. It’s built through capacity. It’s built through making sure that when something happens, there are people there to deal with it. If we don’t address that piece, then there’s always going to be reacting after the fact, instead of preventing it in the first place.

[3:50 p.m.]

When I look at this bill, I see something that is necessary, but I also see something that shouldn’t have been necessary. People should not be in a position where they need added protections just to attend worship. It should already be a given.

The fact that we’re here tells us something. It tells us that something in the system isn’t working the way it should. People need to be protected. Access needs to be protected. When there are real concerns about safety, government has to step in.

But we shouldn’t pretend that this is the solution, because it’s not. If the underlying issues aren’t addressed, if enforcement isn’t consistent, if resources aren’t there, if communities are still left to protect themselves, then nothing really changes. That’s what I keep coming back to.

People in this province should not have to think about security when they go to worship. They shouldn’t have to wonder what’s happening outside. They shouldn’t have to rely on private measures just to feel safe. That’s the standard, and right now we’re not there.

Yes, this bill is a step, but it’s not the answer. The answer is making sure that the systems we already have are working the way they’re supposed to, that the laws that already exist are being enforced and that the resources are there to support that.

At the end of the day, this comes down to something simple. People want to feel safe where they live, they want to feel safe practising their faith, and they want to know that the system is there to support that. That’s the expectation, and that’s what we should be delivering.

Amna Shah: I am so pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill 13, an absolutely essential tool to protect places of worship across our province. I’m hoping that we can all agree on the principle of this bill. I’m hearing quite a bit of agreement already, which I’m pleased about.

I’m hoping to dive into some of the principles behind why this is so important for our communities. It’s not something that was just dreamt up overnight. It’s, certainly, something that was a result of significant consultation and feedback from communities themselves — faith communities.

Now, I just want to highlight that our democracy is built on the fundamental principles of inclusion and respect. This includes the ability for you to practise your faith without fear, without intimidation, in safety, especially in sanctuaries like places of worship.

Really, places of worship are important centres of community in our broader communities. They’re especially important for immigrants. I was just recently speaking with a group, a racialized group, who told me directly. They said: “Our folks who are newcomers to this country — the first place that they will reach out to is either their local church or their local community centre.” These are some of the initial lines of connection that people will have with their community.

Of course, the burden and the expectation on these places are quite high, but these are exceptional places to build connections. That’s why people trust places of worship.

Oftentimes you will see that there will not just be faith services. There will be community events. There will be classes. I’ve even seen people do yoga at masjids. These are all-around feel-good places for people to come and connect with one another and take care of themselves. Really, these are built on these fundamental principles of inclusion and respect, and that is the heart of who we are as Canadians, as British Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

But in recent years, we’ve seen these increased threats, increased harassment targeting places of worship in our communities. I’m saying all places of worship — churches, synagogues, masjids, gurdwaras, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples. Across the board, we’re seeing a very concerning trend, and it’s not letting up.

That’s why it was important for us to be able to hear from communities, from our faith leaders in our communities, and ask them: “What can we do to help you? What can we do to support you?” That is why this government has introduced this legislation, to strengthen the protections that preserve the safe access to these places of worship for people who are attending their places of faith, because we know a lot of the fear and the stress that they feel is when they are coming to their place of worship.

I was actually quite proud to stand alongside faith leaders from masjids, synagogues, churches, gurdwaras and temples and support the introduction of this bill not too long ago in the Hall of Honour. We know that these new protections are going to ensure that people can gather in prayer, in celebration, in peace, while respecting the right to peaceful protest. This is part of our government’s ongoing efforts to protect people in places that are meant to be safe, that are meant to be accessible for everybody.

Back to seeing the concerning trend of this increasing rise in hatred and hate-motivated incidents targeted at such places of worship, I just want to share how impactful it has been for people in my community to have to deal with some of these hateful behaviours.

You know, I’ve heard stories of people who intend to disrupt the entry of worshippers to their place of worship, purposely ensuring that they’re not openly trying to very in-your-face block people but, at the same time, pretending to just be in the way — intimidating, using foul language, making people uncomfortable. The worst part is that they target our seniors, our kids, people who they feel are more vulnerable. There are individuals who exist like that in our communities. That’s not okay.

People who hold up these places of worship really practise the values of love for everybody, and they’re not the ones to go out there and be just as nasty to people. That’s not who they are. We know that. We have to step up. We have to be able to protect them. We have to be able to put our foot down and say: “That is not acceptable.” We have to find a creative way to do this. I hear from the other side that there’s agreement in principle but that there are already ways to do it. But this is a way to do it.

I encourage everybody to support that, because when I hear from youth in my community that they used to go to church with their grandparents every Sunday but are now afraid to do so because they saw somebody with a loudspeaker saying all sorts of nasty things near the entrance gate of their church and now their grandparents don’t want to go anymore because they don’t want to have to hear that vitriol, that’s upsetting. That’s upsetting.

That breaks the fabric of what brings our community together, and we can’t allow that to happen. That happens at our masjids too. That happens at our gurdwaras, too, in Surrey. It’s a very serious issue, and we have to do all that we can do to protect these places of worship.

[4:00 p.m.]

That is what this legislation is intended to do, to protect eligible places of worship while minimally impairing freedom-of-expression rights. As government, we are trying to find a balance between upholding people’s Charter-protected rights to free expression and allowing people to access their places of worship. Part of the reason why we chose this existing definition of “place of public worship” is to prevent undue infringement on Charter rights.

We know that more needs to be done to help in other places, to help people and organizations that are targeted by hate, and we’re continually exploring ways to do so.

I’ll just address that I heard that there are already laws in place to address this now. “Why do we need this?” Well, if everything is rosy and happy and dandy…. I don’t think that’s the case because, otherwise, faith communities would not be telling us that, would not be disagreeing with that.

Whatever we have now, it’s not enough. That’s why we need this legislation. We spoke to communities. We spoke to faith leaders. We spoke to faith organizations. This is what they want. We heard loud and clear from them. We want to be able to have some signage that tells people, that deters people from thinking that they can engage in any form of behaviour.

People should be educated to know what they can and cannot do in sanctuaries. It should be made very clear to people. You can’t assume that somebody knows. Somebody may actually not know that what they’re doing is harmful to another person too. Really, one could argue that, but this clearly defines that.

That is why I am such a strong supporter of this legislation. This was a community-driven, community-led process informing us, to guide us to where we are here today, debating the principle of this in this House. I’m again hoping that everybody agrees with that principle.

We have seen and we have witnessed a worrying rise in police-reported hate crimes over the last several years. Despite these increases in hate crimes, the ones that I’m talking about right now remain amongst the least-reported offences. Black, Indigenous, people of colour, those of East and South Asian descent, other racialized, Jewish, Muslim and LGBTQ2S+ British Columbians continue to be targeted. It’s clear to me that we have a lot more work to do to ensure that people feel comfortable even reporting hate crimes to the police.

I’m pleased to say that B.C. is the only place in Canada with a dedicated hate crimes team, the RCMP B.C. hate crimes unit, which is responsible for investigating, for responding to hate-motivated offences across the province. Again, we see that it works. We see that it helps. What do you do? You support.

I was so glad that our government took up expansion to expand that unit to provide five additional officers. This just goes back to the community-led, partner-encouraged way in which we bring forth legislation and the way in which we shape policy across the province. Really, the goal is protection, protecting our communities.

I want to thank all of those individuals and all of those organizations who took the time out to have such difficult and heavy conversations about these issues, such difficult conversations that they were put to tears recalling some of the incidents that they have had to go through just simply trying to get closer to God in a place that they see as a house of God.

[4:05 p.m.]

I am a woman of faith, and I’m quite proud to say so. When I think of the protection of my faith, I can’t single that out as being the only thing that’s important to me. It has to be everybody’s faith that should be protected, not just mine. What hurts somebody in a synagogue will hurt me one day. What hurts my neighbour in the gurdwara will hurt my brother in a masjid one day.

I cannot fathom the thought of anybody who believes in something, in the way that I believe, feeling as though they’re hated going into their place of worship.

So I have a message to British Columbians: if you ever experience hateful behaviour, if you ever witness or are the recipient of hateful behaviour or if you witness a hate crime, please report it. Please report it to your local police. It is important that we understand, that we record, that we give you the supports that you need and then strengthen our legislation to protect you.

Our government has no tolerance for any kind of hate crime or discrimination against any group or individual in B.C. We know that a single incident can even affect not just one person but a group and also a larger community, and that hate can oftentimes be targeted. That’s why we have worked with police to expand accessible, online hate-reporting options in multiple languages, to reduce barriers to reporting so that people can access these services in a way that feels easier for them.

These tools, these pieces of legislation, are so important to people. There’s one thing that I’ve noticed about places of worship in my community. They’re run by elders, they are run by dedicated volunteers, they are run by youth, and all of these individuals put the love in there. They don’t have a lot of money, yet they put in everything that they have to not only sustain but to really expand their community within that place and beyond.

It was important to us.… We had heard at the time that there were acts of vandalism — that people were coming in the night, spray-painting nasty words on walls — really, some things that are so disturbing. I definitely can’t repeat them in this House. It would be unparliamentary language. And I won’t, because I don’t think anybody needs to hear that.

What we decided to do was to deliver grants to enhance safety for groups that are targeted by hate or by violence. This was the anti-hate stream within the civil forfeiture grant program, which provided grants to eligible places of worship that had experienced such hate and had sustained damages to their sites and were seeking to enhance their security measures to protect themselves from these types of things in the future. I’m quite pleased to know that there are many places of worship that utilized that program and that that program continues.

Also, what I know from my interactions with my community has been really helpful, especially in places of worship — because this is where the conversations really simmer and get started — is the introduction of our racist incident help line.

[4:10 p.m.]

Some of our communities — their faiths, their places of worship — are often targeted by very racist behaviour. Some of the things that have happened to them have been because of ignorance, because of arrogance, maybe not knowing who they are but nonetheless harmful and very racist in nature.

While I’m glad that the individuals, who have since then accessed supports via the help line…. It’s sad to see that this resource is needed in our communities.

I agree with some of the members on the other side. We should live in a world where none of this has to exist. I agree. I wish that we did not have to do this at all. I wish everyone cared for each other. I wish people did not hate on each other. I wish people helped make each other feel safe. But that’s not the reality of where we are.

When we bring in legislation, it has to be thoughtful. It has to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can’t just really do anything that you want and put down words on a piece of paper. It has to be thoughtful.

There are, yes, sometimes limitations with what it is that you can do. But the important thing is that you’re working with communities to be able to support them in what it is that they want.

There is no uneven application of this. This applies, again, to every place of worship under the definition. I really just want to stress why it’s important for us to see it that way. I think that there is a notion out there that this somehow only protects certain communities, certain places of worship. That’s not true.

Communities may have questions, and I know that we’re happy to answer. But in this stage, in second reading, it should be a very easy yes. It should be a very easy aye. I really can’t imagine that somebody would disagree with the principle of this. It is really, in fact, very simple.

Just looking to the future of how I see our places of worship really beautifying our communities, which they already do…. Legislation like this gives me hope for them to be able to continue to enrich our lives — not just as legislators but as human beings, as members of the community, as family members, as parents, as daughters, as brothers, as sisters.

Really, that type of love you can’t find in a lot of places. For individuals in our communities, our faith leaders…. Those who encourage love in our community deserve love and much more. This is one of the ways in which we can express that actually.

I’m so pleased that this has made it to the floor and that we are engaging in debate on this. But this is not over. This is, again, just one thing that can help us move in the right direction to protect our communities. There’s a lot of work to be done.

I really caution anybody from minimizing the impact of something like this, because when you minimize the impact of this legislation, you minimize the feedback of the individuals who want this. Those were our faith leaders. Those were our faith communities. They are our faith leaders. They are our faith communities. We’re going to continue listening to them in the development of all subsequent legislation.

[4:15 p.m.]

But as of right now, I think that this is one of the most thoughtful ways in which we could protect our places of worship.

I encourage everybody in the House to join me in supporting this and work on solutions together. You know, we don’t have to constantly go back and forth in arguing about everything in this chamber. There are some things that we can all agree on. It doesn’t need to be a fight. This is one of those things.

We hear beautiful prayers in this House every single day. It’s such a reminder for me and, I think, everybody, all members of this House, about the principles of faith that guide us through life or that maybe should guide us through life. It’s beautiful for all of us.

When we’re talking about this right now, some of the very places of worship in which those prayers are repeated every single day — morning, noon, night…. Why wouldn’t we want to protect that? Why wouldn’t we want to support this wholeheartedly and say: “You know what? Yes, we have more work to do, but this is going to get us there. Absolutely.”

I encourage all of our colleagues to support this bill. Thank you for listening.

Heather Maahs: Let’s start by talking about what Bill 13 is and what it isn’t.

We’ve seen support for this bill from organizations like CIJA. I would encourage everyone here to read their press release and understand why they feel this legislation is necessary. Their concerns are real. The fear and the rise in antisemitism that Jewish communities are experiencing today is real, and it’s serious.

But as the opposition, it is our responsibility to look beyond support, beyond headlines and beyond intention and ask a very simple question: does this bill actually solve the problem that it claims to address? If it does not, then we are not doing our job.

In order to battle antisemitism and hostilities around other faith groups, we must look to the root of the problem that Jewish people have faced for hundreds of years — that is, tolerance for hatred against them. Hatred has been ignored. It has been excused. At times, it has been justified. History has shown us very clearly where that leads.

Now in this day and age, this is no longer something that only Jewish people are facing. This is something that Christians, also, are now experiencing. We’ve seen this recently with the federal Bill C-9. This newest iteration of legislation has raised serious concerns because it promotes, in effect, hostility towards both Jews and Christians in what we refer to as Judeo-Christian values. We know this is not speculation, because a federal minister explicitly named three books of the Bible that he considers to be hate speech in justifying his bill.

All that to say, as a Christian, I stand in solidarity with the Jewish community. We have seen what persecution has done, especially during the Second World War, and we cannot allow ourselves to go down that path again. Jewish people must not be persecuted for who they are as a people, and they must not be persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Perhaps this bill is well-intentioned by the government. Perhaps they truly believe — and as we have heard, they do believe — that this is the solution, or the beginning of the solution, to the increasing number of attacks on Jewish people.

[4:20 p.m.]

If that is the case, then I will say this. I applaud that effort. But effort is not the same as effectiveness, because all we need to do is look at what happened with the Safe Access to Schools Act. That legislation came about after a large-scale protest, particularly from parents and citizens who disagreed with SOGI 123. What did the government do? They decided to create safe access zones around the schools, effectively limiting the ability of parents and taxpayers to express their concerns.

Although that bill was presented as a way to protect children, what it actually did was censor people who disagreed with government policy. In many cases, a lot of those people were the parents themselves.

Now we’re seeing the same approach again. Bill 13 proposes to create protective zones around places of worship. But we have to ask: what does that actually accomplish? Does it prevent antisemitism? Does it stop violence? Does it reduce the need for synagogues to spend $100,000 every month on private security due to the risk of terrorism? The answer is obvious. It does not. It is, quite simply, paying lip service to safety.

Putting up a barrier does not stop someone who is intent on doing harm. We know this. We have seen school shootings. We have seen acts of terror. We have seen violence carried out in spite of every effort to create safe zones.

In Canada and B.C., we have seen churches burned to the ground. The last one was in Burns Lake. That was in December this past year. To suggest that drawing a boundary around a place of worship will prevent arson or destruction is simply not grounded in reality.

What are the actual issues that are creating the need to protect places of worship? We don’t have to look far. Every single Saturday there is a pro-Palestinian protest on the front lawn of this Legislature. Within those protests, we hear calls for Israel to be removed from the map. That is antisemitism. At the same time, we have one of our largest unions in this province, the BCTF, endorsing boycotts against Israel in solidarity with that movement. We have to ask: isn’t that hate speech? Don’t we already have laws against that?

Here’s the point. Restricting where people can protest does not change what they are saying, it does not eliminate hatred, and it certainly does not solve the problem.

So what is the solution? The solution is not new legislation that limits where people can stand. The solution is enforcing the laws we already have. We already have laws against hate speech. We already have laws against inciting violence. We already have laws against destruction of property and terrorism.

Let’s empower the RCMP and law enforcement to enforce those laws. We heard this morning that the RCMP have not increased their numbers since 2012. That’s a problem. Let’s support them in doing their job without infringing on the rights and freedoms that are protected under the Canadian Charter. In reality, this bill flies in the face of that Charter.

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill, just like the Safe Access to Schools Act and similar to the federal Bill C-9, is the expansion of police powers. This bill allows for individuals to be arrested without a warrant, based on what is described as “reasonable grounds.”

[4:25 p.m.]

That is a significant shift because now we are no longer dealing strictly with clear violations of the law. We are dealing with subjective interpretation, and that should terrify us. It gets worse because the bill also allows action to be taken against someone who is considered likely to contravene the law. Not someone who has done something wrong but somebody who might. This introduces the concept of a potential crime, and on the face of it, that should concern every single one of us, because that is a dangerous precedent for us to set.

We are placing an enormous burden on law enforcement. Police officers are now expected to act not just on evidence but on judgment, on interpretation, on what they believe might happen. The officers I’ve spoken with want no part of that. They want clarity. They want objectivity. They want to enforce the law as it exists, not to be put in a position where they must interpret intent.

There is also inconsistency in this bill. Unions, for example, are not affected in the same way. They are allowed to picket within these zones because their activities fall under what is considered prescribed. Again, we have to ask: if this is about safety, why are there exceptions? Why are some groups allowed to operate within these zones while others are not?

As His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, it is our job to look at this bill and every other bill objectively. What we are saying is this. This bill will not accomplish what the title suggests. It will not achieve what organizations like CIJA are hoping it will achieve. It is, at best, a well-intentioned attempt, but it is not the solution because it does not address the root of the problem. It does not stop antisemitism. It does not stop violence. It does not stop churches from being burned down. And it does not remove the need for costly security measures.

What it does do is create the appearance of action. It allows the government to say they have done something, but in reality, it is virtue-signalling. This bill needs to go deeper. It needs to address the root of the problem, and that starts with enforcing the laws that already exist.

Nothing is more sacred than the freedom to worship and the freedom to speak. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear. Everyone has the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association. These are not suggestions. These are rights.

While this bill claims to protect access to places of worship, that has never been the core issue. The core issue is safety. The issue is violence. The issue is hatred. Those laws are addressed not by restricting space but by enforcing the law.

I will say this to government in conclusion. This is a nice try. It’s a great attempt. But this isn’t it. We owe it to the Jewish communities. We owe it to people of faith. We owe it to every Canadian to do better than this.

Claire Rattée: This bill is about something that should never be controversial in a free and democratic society. That is the simple right of British Columbians to attend their place of worship in safety, without fear, without intimidation and without disruption. We have a responsibility in this House to ask the obvious question though. Why is this necessary right now?

[4:30 p.m.]

We are not debating this legislation in a vacuum. We are debating it at a time when antisemitism is rising at an alarming rate, when religious institutions are being targeted, when families are afraid to attend services and when communities are being forced to take safety into their own hands.

Nowhere in this province is that clearer than in the Jewish community, where in British Columbia today, Jewish organizations are spending over $100,000 every single month on private security just to protect their schools, their synagogues and their community spaces. We should all pause and reflect on what that means, because that is not normal, that is not acceptable, and that is not something any community in this province should have to shoulder on their own.

Yet at the very same time that these communities are being forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to protect themselves, this government is taxing that security, applying 7 percent PST to the very measures people are taking to keep their families safe.

While this bill acknowledges a real problem, it also highlights a deeper failure. If this government had done its job on public safety, if communities felt protected, if law enforcement and resources were keeping pace with rising threats, then we would not be in a situation where people are forced to hire private security just to be able to attend religious services.

This bill creates what are commonly referred to as bubble zones, establishing a 20-metre access zone around places of worship where individuals cannot block access, disrupt services, intimidate individuals or engage in behaviour that causes fear for physical or mental safety.

These are not radical ideas. In fact, they are based on legal frameworks that have already been upheld in this province. We have seen similar protections in place under the Access to Abortion Services Act, and the courts have been very clear that rights like freedom of expression are not absolute and can be reasonably limited, especially when the goal is to protect vulnerable people accessing lawful services. That is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. It is trying to strike a balance between the right to protest and the right to worship safely.

Let me be clear. We strongly support the right to peaceful assembly. It is a fundamental freedom protected under the Charter. But there is a line. There is a difference between peaceful protest and intimidation, between expression and harassment and between dissent and deliberately targeting people as they try to enter a place of public worship. When that line is crossed, government has a responsibility to act.

But legislation alone does not create safety. You can draw a line on a map, you can define a 20-metre boundary, you can pass legislation in this House, but if there are not adequate police resources, consistent enforcement and meaningful consequences, then those lines become purely symbolic. People are not asking for symbolism right now. They are asking for safety.

I also want to address another aspect of this bill that deserves attention, which is that under clause 5, police are given the authority to make warrantless arrests for violations of this act. While similar powers exist in other legislation, this is still a significant tool that underscores the seriousness with which these offences should be treated.

But it also raises an important question, which is whether this power will actually be used. We have seen time and time again in this province that laws exist on paper but enforcement falls short in practice. The question for government is not just whether it will pass this bill. The question is whether it will ensure that it is enforced, because without enforcement, this bill risks becoming yet another example of government responding to a crisis with legislation without addressing the underlying causes. And those causes are real.

We are seeing rising hate, increased polarization, a breakdown in public safety and a growing sense among many communities that they are on their own.

If this government were taking this crisis as seriously as it requires, they would address the underlying issues that are contributing to it. Rather than pointing the finger at others, they would address this issue by leading by example.

When they were told that there was a problem with antisemitism within their own caucus, rather than address it, they mocked the member that raised it and publicly shamed her.

Rather than addressing extremism and terrorism within our own province, they let Charlotte Kates, the international coordinator for Samidoun who referred to the October 7 attacks as heroic and brave, walk free and continue to spread hate and fear in our communities — a choice that has directly contributed to the fear and violence that we are seeing today.

When faced with difficult choices on this matter, they always seemed to make the wrong one.

This government could have prevented this from being a problem in the first place if they had the courage to act when it mattered. None of this would have been necessary if they had chosen to lead by example, to prosecute those who broke the law, to enforce the laws that were already on the books. But they did not, and now we are here.

Protecting places of worship should not be controversial. It should not be partisan. And it should not take rising threats and targeted incidents to finally act. This should be a basic function of government.

That brings me to my final point. If this government is serious about standing against antisemitism, if it is serious about protecting faith communities and about public safety, then this bill cannot be the end of the conversation.

[4:35 p.m.]

We must support stronger enforcement; support better resourcing for police; support real consequences and end policies that shift the burden of safety onto communities themselves, including ending the taxation of security services that people are being forced to rely on. No one in this province should have to pay extra just to feel safe attending their place of worship. Not now and not ever.

We will continue to hold this government accountable to ensure that this is not just another symbolic gesture but a meaningful step toward restoring safety, dignity and security for every British Columbian.

George Anderson: As I begin, I would just like to say thank you to the communities that participated in the consultation for this bill.

I rise in support of Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, and I do so with a very clear understanding of what is before us. This bill is not about choosing one religion over another. It is not about preferring faith over non-faith. It is not about insulating belief from criticism. It is not about declaring that disagreement is unlawful.

It is something more basic than that. It is about whether a person in British Columbia can approach a place of worship in peace. It’s about whether a parent can walk a child to a synagogue, a mosque, a mandir, a gurdwara or a church without wondering what waits at the door. It’s about whether an elder with a cane, a family member arriving at a funeral, a young person coming for prayer or a newcomer seeking community must first run through a gauntlet of menace before they may enter a sacred space.

That isn’t a small question, because the freedoms that we celebrate in this country are not abstractions floating above the ground. They are lived, they’re embodied, and they’re exercised by human beings in real places. Places where people worship are not the places where protests should be taking place.

A right that exists only in theory but fails at the threshold is weakened in right. A democracy that cannot protect the walk to worship has a misunderstanding of what freedom requires. In a free society, people will differ. They will differ passionately. They will differ morally, politically, philosophically and spiritually. That isn’t a weakness of our democracy; that is one of the defining strengths of our democracy.

But the line we must hold is this. That disagreement should never be and cannot be intimidation, and protests cannot become domination over another person’s access to a protected civic and spiritual place. That’s what Bill 13 recognizes. In my respectful view, I recognize it with care because one of the most important things to understand about Bill 13 is that, similar to Bill 12, it is not a broad instrument of suppression. It’s drafted with a very narrow instrument of access.

That distinction matters because the state should not police theology. It shouldn’t be casting its judgment over who chooses what their faith is. The state should never decide which prayers are worthy and which are not, because the state does have a solemn obligation to ensure that all British Columbians, regardless of their faith, can gather in safety and dignity under the protection of the law. That is not the state taking sides in religion. That is the state taking the side of public order and freedom under the law.

[4:40 p.m.]

One of the things that did impress me about the different communities that came out to participate in this particular press release was the variety of faith organizations saying that this was the correct decision to make.

When people target places of worship, they’re not merely expressing a view. They are striking at belonging. They are sending a message to a community: “You may be present here, but you may not be secure here. And you may gather here but only on the terms set out by those outside your doors. You might worship here but only if you accept harassment as the cost of doing so.”

That is not pluralism, and that type of behaviour is something that all British Columbians should reject.

That’s why it was impressive to me to see the variety of groups such as Reverend Dan Chambers of the United Church of Canada and many others who came forward to say this is the right direction and that British Columbia needs to ensure that places of worship are respected.

There has been some discussion about whether or not there is a need for this particular type of legislation. Well, I’d like to lay out some facts and some statistics. Stats Canada reported 1,342 police-reported hate crimes targeting religion in 2024, essentially unchanged from 2023 but following a 154 percent increase from 2020 to 2023.

In 2024, most religion-targeted hate crimes were directed at Jewish and Muslim communities, with the remainder including other faith communities, such as Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian communities. We have to be careful with numbers, but we should not be casual about what they reveal — that is, the pressure on religious communities in recent years has been real and it has not been confined to one tradition.

That wider context matters because this bill should not be understood solely as a response from one community alone. It should be understood as a statement of principle for everyone — for the Jewish family who is headed to a synagogue, for a Muslim family, for a Sikh family, for Hindus, for Christian families gathering at their place of worship, for the person of deep faith or the person rediscovering their faith, for the mourner, for the volunteer, for the person seeking meaning after loss, for the child who does not yet have the words for theology but knows whether or not parents have made the entrance feel safe or frightening.

That child matters in this debate because in law, we often speak in the language of balancing proportionality and statutory interpretation. Those are important aspects to consider. The question that I believe is very important when we take away those legal tests is whether or not that child remembers the door to prayer as a place that was welcoming or a place that was fearful. That is the human question beneath this bill, and that is why I support it.

What also persuades me is the architecture of the bill. Section 1 is more important than it may appear at first reading. It doesn’t leave the term “place of public worship” hanging in there as an undefined abstraction. It ties the definition to existing categories under the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter and Taxation Act, which allow regulatory-making authority to include or exclude classes of property. Section 1 also defines “interference.”

Section 2 sets out the core prohibitions. Here, again, the bill is more disciplined than some of the critics may suggest. It prohibits four things in access zones — impeding entry or exit; disrupting activities; engaging in defined interference; intimidation, including conduct or words that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety.

[4:45 p.m.]

It also prohibits wilful participation in a gathering whose participants are engaging in that conduct. That last feature matters because organized intimidation can be every bit as coercive as an individual act, and the law should not be blind to that.

Just as importantly, section 2 does not sweep everything into its grasp. It expressly exempts activities authorized by the owner or occupier, lawful strikes, lockouts, picketing under the Labour Relations Code and any prescribed activities or classes of activities — again, a very clear delineation in this bill, which demonstrates restraint.

When we look at sections 3 and 4, that conclusion is even furthered, in that there are no traps in this particular bill. It’s not an invisible offence zone that a person stumbles into by accident. An access zone is established only when signs are posted and clearly visible in daylight, under normal weather conditions, from specified approaches. Those signs must identify the place of worship, indicate the areas included in the zone and set out the relevant prohibitions. The bill even prohibits removal, alteration or defacement of those signs by persons other than the owner or occupier.

In other words, the law insists on notice, and notice matters because notice is part of fairness. It is part of legality, and again, this bill, with its narrow focus and sunset clauses that are included, demonstrates the intent of restraint.

The multi-use building feature is also important, because not every congregation occupies a stand-alone building. Some lease spaces. Some share spaces. Some worship in mixed-use facilities. Some are newer communities without the financial means to own large, dedicated properties. A bill that protected only stand-alone institutions would fail many of the very communities most vulnerable to intimidation.

Bill 13 does not make that mistake. It recognizes the practical realities of religious life and a diverse, modern province. That, too, is part of equality.

Then we arrive at sections 5 and 6, which look at enforcement. Whenever a bill authorizes arrest without warrant, legislators should pay attention. We should never become casual about such powers, but neither should we pretend that ongoing obstruction or intimidation at a site of worship can always wait for ordinary timelines to unfold.

Section 5 authorizes warrantless arrests only where a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that section 2 is being contravened. That is not a hunch. That is not a vibe. That is a recognized legal threshold. It is there for a reason.

Section 6 adds an injunctive remedy through the Supreme Court, available on application by the Attorney General or any other person — including interim, without-notice relief where the circumstances justify it. That tells me that this bill is not built on punishment first. It’s actually built on the prevention and restoration of access, which is the intent and purpose of this bill.

If the issue is that people cannot safely enter a place of worship, then a legal response that arrives only after the damage is done is incomplete. Injunctive relief matters because it allows the law to respond prospectively, not retrospectively. It allows a court to say: “This conduct must stop now.” This is what a serious access statute should do.

Section 8, as I was mentioning earlier, is also significant. The act is repealed four years after coming into force, unless repealed earlier by regulation.

[4:50 p.m.]

That means the House is not being asked to write a permanent blank piece of legislation that will go on, where some members of the opposition have raised concerns about whether or not this is the right piece of legislation that will actually address the concerns of different faith communities.

It actually says this is time-limited. A right is being reserved, and we have an obligation, as a legislature, to revisit the measure to ensure whether or not it is necessary, similar to the Safe Access to Schools Act — another measure and marker of proportionality. When a legislature chooses to add a sunset clause, in my opinion, it acknowledges that extraordinary or targeted measures need to be reviewed and not normalized forever.

That brings me to the Charter as well, because we should confront it directly. Any serious speech in support of this bill must do so. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedoms of conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, all of which are subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That means we do not honour the Charter by invoking only the freedom we happen to like in the moment. We honour the Charter by taking all of its guarantees seriously and by doing the work of reconciling them through law.

This is what I do not accept — a simplistic framing that says any restriction near a place of worship must automatically be an affront to liberty. I would ask: liberty for whom? Freedom for whom? The person speaking, of course, but also the person who is walking in, the elder arriving for prayer, also the child entering a service, also the family member attending a funeral, also the congregant whose right is not merely to believe privately but to join a community and practise that belief safely.

The Charter is not a hierarchy in which one person’s liberty devours another person’s security. And section 1 of the Charter exists precisely because a mature democracy understands that rights sometimes press against one another in real space. When they do, the answer is not to abandon the law. The answer is to legislate carefully. That, in my view, is what Bill 13 does. It is a prescribed law. It is a geographically limited law. It is a law that’s activated only through posted notice, and it is tailored to access.

It leaves open, broad alternative avenues for public expression beyond the zone. It preserves lawful labour activity. It excludes private residences and non-public areas. It includes judicial supervision through the injunction process, and it sunsets. There are no incidental details. They are the very features that make the bill measured.

Let us be honest about the distinction at the heart of this debate. There is a profound difference between expressing disagreement with religion and confronting people at the place in which they worship.

Last year I had the privilege of touring the Vancouver Holocaust education museum, and I met with Nico Slobinsky. We were having this conversation about the rise of antisemitism and the challenges that the people he knows, his community, are facing every day. I still remember the comments that he made to me: “People are free to protest, but why do you need to protest at the place where I go to pray?” That moment has continued to stick with me since we met last year.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m glad that we are moving forward with this piece of legislation or this particular bill to ensure that people who are going to a sacred place know that they can feel safe within the place that they go to worship.

I’ve said this earlier, that I don’t believe that this bill in any way makes a criticism of religion — that it’s unlawful, etc. It’s not. People are free to argue, to write, to organize, to preach contrary views, to protest elsewhere, publish articles, hold signs in lawful places, advocate for reform, denounce institutions and contest ideas. Our public squares remain open.

What this bill says is narrower and entirely reasonable: you may not convert the immediate threshold of worship into an instrument of fear. That is civility backed by law, and I think we should reject the notion that the only liberties worth defending are the loud ones.

There is a liberty in quiet arrival, and there is liberty in safe entry. There is liberty in being able to step through a door without being harassed, jostled, surrounded, taunted, photographed or made afraid. There is liberty in collective worship, unbroken by calculated disruption. Sometimes the law must protect those quieter liberties precisely because they are easier to overlook.

There are many faiths throughout British Columbia, throughout Canada, throughout the world, and I can think of the times of entering my own church and knowing that I could walk through that space without fear. It wasn’t until having, again, attended an event with the Jewish community that I saw armed guards — to see a negativity around a space in which people were trying to connect with their community.

People deserve to be able to worship in whatever way they want without intimidation. People should not have fear to pray in their sacred spaces for fear that others may come and disrupt their moments of worship. That is something that I believe all of us as legislators should be able to uplift — to ensure that people are able to pray, to worship, to practise their faith in the way that is most meaningful to them.

I mentioned earlier in my comments that the interfaith response to this bill is very telling. You have leaders from the Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian communities each describing, in their own way, the destabilizing effect of threatening or agitating conduct around worship spaces and the value of clear access protections. That breadth matters. It is an interfaith appeal for the ordinary conditions of belonging.

That is what moves me about this bill, because places of worship are not only important because they host formal religious observance. They’re important because they are often among the last places in public life where people can gather across generations, where children see elders, where meals are shared, where grief is carried together, where loneliness is interrupted, where newcomers find orientation, where traditions are passed on.

In many communities, a place of worship is not only where people pray. It’s where they’re fed, where they’re welcomed, mourned, married, remembered, where they are taught to serve a cause that is larger than themselves.

[5:00 p.m.]

Last year I gave a speech that I titled “The Courage to Belong.” I think that this bill gives people that opportunity to have that courage to belong. In that moment, I said that courage is a bridge between fear and fairness. Courage is the act that precedes compassion. We cannot legislate love, but we can lead with courage. We cannot erase the past, but we can face it with courage. We cannot stop every act of hate, but we can drown it out with the sheer volume of courage and care.

Hate divides easily, but courage unites us deeply. If hate spreads like fire, then let courage spread like light so that in our time, let it be said that British Columbians stood together, that we had the courage to see one another fully and to love one another fiercely.

That is, again, the basis on which we are speaking about this bill. I think it is so important that we ensure that people who are also trying to live their everyday lives can know that they don’t have to worry to do something as basic and as profound and as important to them as to be able to feel safe as they enter a place of worship.

Intimidation works precisely by forcing the target to absorb the burden — to hurry, to lower their eyes, to alter their route, to change their behaviour, to bring fewer children, to skip a service or just to not go at all, to wonder whether today is worth the stress, to begin slowly and quietly to withdraw. That’s why the law must intervene before exclusion succeeds in practice.

Bill 13 responds to that reality. It says that in British Columbia, access to worship cannot depend on a person’s tolerance for harassment. It says that religious freedoms will not be confined to the inside of a building when the state shrugs at what happens at the perimeter.

When we protect minority communities, we strengthen our democracy. When we insist that a person may approach a place of worship in peace, we do not diminish liberty. We deepen it. We deepen it by saying that neutrality amongst religious organizations does not mean passivity in the face of intimidation. We deepen it by saying that equal citizenship includes the right to arrive without fear.

Let me say this as plainly as I can. You may disagree with a faith. You may reject religion entirely. You may criticize institutions, doctrines, histories, belief. All of that remains part of a free society, but you are not free to turn another person’s place of worship into a theatre of intimidation. You are not free to make the doorway to prayer a site of coercion. You are not free to subordinate another person’s security to your chosen mode of demonstration when the law has made a narrow and reasonable line.

That line is what Bill 13 draws, not recklessly or permanently but clearly. And sometimes that is what the law is meant to do, to draw a line clearly enough so that communities know that they are protected and society knows that it will not accept it.

I support this bill because it reflects a decent society’s minimum promise to its people that if they gather lawfully to pray, to mourn, to celebrate, to seek God or stand simply in community with one another, they will not be forced to do so under a cloud of intimidation. That is not a grand demand. It’s a modest one.

Once people lose faith that they can enter a sacred space in peace, we see the erosion of trust. Belonging erodes. Pluralism erodes. And when pluralism erodes, democracy is poorer for it.

[5:05 p.m.]

I support the bill because it gives liberty a structure in which there are practical protections.

As I begin to close, I just want to say that I believe that in British Columbia, every person should be able to walk through the doors of places of worship with dignity and safety and with peace. I don’t think that that is too much to ask of a province. In my view, it is the least a province should guarantee.

For those reasons, I support Bill 13.

Sheldon Clare: Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act. I rise today to speak about some aspects of this bill that give me some concern, regarding the conflict between fundamentally protected rights that this bill seeks to address.

Clause 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject to such reasonable limits in law that are justifiable in a free and democratic society. Well, what are those conflicting rights and freedoms?

In the Charter, we have section 7, under legal rights. This is section 7: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Section 8: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

Section 9: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.”

Now, that’s an important set of fundamental freedoms that we have in our constitution. I think that that’s a pretty good basis to have a look at this. But there are other things, too, like the freedom to worship. My colleagues have talked about this on both sides of the House and how important that is, regardless of what your religion is.

That is section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. These are fundamental principles that we have.

What we have here is a problem that has, at its essence, a conflict between fundamental freedoms.

Now, there is another problem. I’ll talk about this a little bit more as well, but there is another problem here. When we look at our distribution of legislative powers in the Constitution Act, 1982, as amended to the present day, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 91 has a very interesting preamble, which I think we need to be reminded of in the provincial legislature.

I also want to look at a piece of section 92 in relation to this bill.

Section 91 says:

“It shall be lawful for the King, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subject by this act, assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section.

“It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything in this act, the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subject next hereinafter enumerated.”

I want to draw your attention to section 27. Section 27 is the criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction but including the procedure in criminal matters. The criminal law is in the purview of Canada — the state, the federal government.

Now, in these powers, we also have section 92, the provincial power. Section 92 says in it: “In each province, the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subject next hereinafter enumerated.”

[5:10 p.m.]

I would draw to your attention to section 15: “the imposition of punishment by fine, penalty or imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section.”

When I read those sections — and I could do that, but it wouldn’t be of much use — I don’t really see a section in this particular part of the Constitution Act that is directly relevant to the purpose of Bill 13.

That gives me some concern, as a legislator. I think we’re all aware, in this House, but it’s worth stating that the main purpose of law is to change behaviour which society finds abhorrent. It is pretty clear to all of us that behaviour blocking people from places of worship and limiting their ability to worship freely is an abhorrent behaviour.

The question in my mind is: whose role is it to make laws about that behaviour? Well, the Criminal Code of….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re just going to have the committee report out.

Sheldon Clare: Yes, thank you. I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to continue.

Sheldon Clare moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the tiny House, I call committee stage on Bill 8.

In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 13.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act
(continued)

Sheldon Clare: I was on such a roll there. I’ve got my thought disrupted. I’ll have to recollect.

Again, we are trying to stop a behaviour that is bad, and the question of the matter is: what role do the various legislatures have in preventing that abhorrent behaviour?

Well, the main tool for such acts which are perceived to be criminal is, of course, the Criminal Code of Canada. There are a number of sections in the Criminal Code of Canada which, on the face of it, would appear to deal with such things as harassment and intimidation, assault and any kind of violence that may occur in a protest. So when we’re looking at changing behaviour, we already have laws intended to stop, prevent or change bad behaviour.

When we’re considering making a law, what do we look at when we are trying to change this behaviour?

We have a situation here where we have an aspect of this behaviour under consideration that is part of one of our freedoms; one of our constitutional, Charter-protected rights. When there are values that are in conflict, then the role of legislators, both federally and provincially, is to find the balance. When we look at the basis of those freedoms in the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in sections 2, 7 and 24, we see, as I have read, that there are parts of the law that will be in conflict.

What we need to look at is the interests of the parties concerned in this conflict, and the Criminal Code is the source of limits that are put in legislation to change these bad behaviours. So what behaviours does Bill 13 purport to change? Well, vandalism, intimidation, harassment, disruption of religious practices. It seems to me, in a quick run through the Criminal Code….

I’m not a lawyer. I’m a legislator, not a lawyer. I make laws. I don’t argue them in court. I argue laws in this House, as do my colleagues on all sides. It seems to me that we already have some pretty significant tools to stop this kind of behaviour, were they to be properly employed.

[5:15 p.m.]

Political protest, for example — or political belief, I should say — is protected in our provincial human rights code.

Now, the rise in protests against religious groups — particularly antisemitism; protests against Muslims; protests against people who are sometimes seen as being, and wrongly perceived to be, some kind of a threat by others — is a terrible, terrible problem that does need to be dealt with.

But when we see things being let slide, then there is a real concern that perhaps legislation isn’t really the issue here. It’s enforcement. It’s the problem with letting things go and not dealing with bad behaviour that is already against the law or could certainly be interpreted to be that way.

I have a concern when we start getting into regulation and making regulation the basis of a quasi or parallel criminal law practice. I think that’s a dangerous path to trod when we are looking at provincial legislation, because when we’re making laws….

Criminal law is not our responsibility; it is the federal powers’ responsibility. So we need to be very cognizant of the fact that if we are trying to change behaviour, we need to make sure we’re doing it with the tools we have. When we start looking at attempting to make what are almost Criminal Code–type laws and hiding them in the guise of regulation, I think we’re being a bit disingenuous about what we’re trying to do here.

I want to ask the question: does this bill solve the problem of hostility to faith groups? I would argue that it does not. I would argue that tolerance for hatred has long been ignored and even, in some cases, justified in this province. We have been seeing it on a daily basis in various forms, and it needs to be dealt with, with the tools that exist in the legal framework that we currently have.

When we look at a law, I think one of the things that, for me, is an essential element of examining law is not the perceived good that a law might perform but rather the harm that may occur from a bad law.

One might say: “Well, this law has a clearly strong purpose of good and honest intent.” But I ask you: could this law be misused? Could we find a situation where a provincial use of an arrest without direct apparent cause or without warrant is appropriate? Could we find this being stretched to other areas? Could we find that legitimate protest on very real grounds is stymied and stifled because of an agenda that may come from all sorts of aspects of government or other purposes?

I think history has shown us that when you start to make laws and you start to go down a path like that of mixing regulation and law and providing very powerful tools of enforcement….

[The bells were rung.]

I guess I need to pause for that.

I’m concerned about how we get down a path of having a law that is there to legitimately assist with…. I think the intent of protecting people engaged in worship at places of worship is a laudable one. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I have a concern when we start having arrests without warrant and when we start looking at the fact of a legitimate protest and how you determine what is a legitimate protest and when you start asking about questions of harm.

What is the harm, some might say, of having a protest? What is the harm of having a protest at a church? Well, there may be real harms to that. There may be harms that need to be dealt with in a direct and real fashion.

[5:20 p.m.]

However, if we go down the path where protest is something that is not permitted — legitimate protest in our constitutional monarchy, in the frame of our Westminster parliamentary system — then we’re going down a path that leads to a dark place. It leads to a path of lack of respect for law, lack of respect for order. And it goes to the fundamental purpose of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act of Canada, which is to provide for peace, order and good government.

Do we have peace? Perhaps not. Do we have order? Hmm. Whether we have good government or not, of course, is a matter for debate. On the opposition side of the House, one would often argue: “Probably not.” On the government side, they would always say: “Well, most certainly.” I think that’s a matter where we determine such things in elections.

Again, what will this bill actually do to solve this problem? Is this going to prevent people who have decided to take action in protest and cause trouble for others? No. The tools to stop that are already in existence. We can already stop that, were we to properly fund our police services in this province and increase the ability of the police to do their job under the proper, due supervision of the laws of the land, if we were to make sure that there is a clear understanding that those laws will be enforced.

I think of what was done several years ago in one of the major American cities in terms of enforcing minor infractions, which were on the books as laws — things like graffiti, jaywalking and so on. When those laws started to be enforced properly, what we saw was amazing, a reduction in crime — property crime, crimes against the person — everywhere.

That was New York City. That was an amazing achievement. I spent a fair bit of time in that city in another role that I had, and I was surprised at how clean the streets were and how polite and friendly New Yorkers were, because that was not what I had been told or expected to see. It was a direct effect of good, clear understanding of the role of law and the need to support reasonable enforcement of law to change what was bad behaviour.

If we’re going to change bad behaviour, we need to do it in a way that meets with our constitutional rights and freedoms, as established in the Charter, and to make sure that those constitutional rights and freedoms are not treated lightly in any way, shape or form.

When I see regulation being something to deal with Charter rights, I get a little concerned, because when I think of what those rights are about, they should not be able to be tinkered with willy-nilly, by regulation. If there is a need to make an ordinance, to ticket or to prevent people from engaging in disruptive behaviour, that’s easy enough to do, but I think this goes a little farther than that in this bill.

The intent of this bill seems to be quite laudable. It seems to have the ability to do a number of things, but I think there is a need for some serious amendments to make sure that it will actually perform the purposes that it desires to or purports to actually make happen.

There is an argument that law must be assessed on its potential for harm rather than for its perceived good. That’s the point I raised earlier. It’s a central tenet of classical liberal philosophy. It originates from that famous classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill. It’s known broadly as the harm principle.

The harm principle basically argues that the state’s power should be restricted primarily to preventing harm to others rather than enforcing morality or promoting a specific vision of what is perceived to be good. When we are considering this, which involves a perceived good, we have to look at a number of aspects of assessing this law for the potential harm it could do.

[5:25 p.m.]

Now, in the harm principle, Mill argued: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his or her will is to prevent harm to others.” Laws that restrict a person’s liberty for their own good, to stop a person from self-harm and so on, could be viewed as a form of paternalism. This is rightfully viewed with some suspicion, because when one tries to do that, they’re often making a mistake. It can often be quite subjective and fallible that way.

Now, there are also notions of harm that are not trivial. When we consider Justice Arbour, in the Canadian jurisprudence, who argued that criminal law should only intervene when the conduct causes non-trivial harm or a significant risk of harm to others, there is certainly a place for the law to deal with the situation envisioned by Bill 13.

Again, I think that argument has already been had. We already have a lot of law in the Criminal Code. If used effectively, well understood and empowered by government for law enforcement to work on, we’ve got that.

The other thing that law is based upon is risk-based assessment. Rather than relying on the best intentions — there’s a place that’s very warm or very cold, depending on one’s point of view, that is claimed to be paved with those best intentions — laws can be evaluated on the nature, the severity and the probability of risk that they pose on a citizen’s life, liberty or security — the security of the person, if you would.

Another aspect of assessing law by its potential for harm includes overbreadth and arbitrariness. Modern legal tests, and this is especially the case in Canadian constitutional law, focus on whether a law’s effect is grossly disproportionate to its objective. A law may well have a super-fantastic, great intent, such as public safety, such as the need to protect places of worship and worshippers at those places. However, if it is too broad, then it has the potential to inflict unnecessary harm.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

There’s also the question of perceived good or intent. Laws in all Houses are often passed with incredibly solid, noble intention. They may be things to improve the health of the public, to serve a moral purpose or, as is the stated case in Bill 13, to protect public safety. However, sometimes these intentions may be viewed as paternalistic or based on the subjective values of a majority view.

The other aspect of a perceived good versus potential harm, when you look at potential harm or outcome, is that you must look at the potential for harm based on the tangible consequences — the disproportionate effect upon those vulnerable groups and the infringement on such things as freedom of expression or systemic disadvantages.

The balance of Bill 13 remains as it is. There is a need to balance the ability of people to protest freely along with the need to provide for public safety and freedom of religious expression. The bill does not single out any particular religious group or organization, and it’s good that it does not do that.

However, when we’re looking at fundamental Charter rights and looking at the division of powers in the Canadian Charter, I think it’s very important that we filter this bill through those lenses to make sure we’re not making any kind of mistake that may lead to a further problem down the line or create a precedent that would allow for other legislation to be similarly crafted that could have a broader or more dangerous aspect to it.

[5:30 p.m.]

We need to make sure that we are aware of those things.

Now, it’s certainly the case that it’s difficult to define exactly what harm is and how you determine who is being harmed. In this particular dichotomy, we have harm to freedom of expression and that resulting liberty, but we also have the harm of people wishing to worship freely at their places of worship.

When we look at schools of thought such as legal moralism, certain actions are perceived to be immoral and thus should be made illegal even if they do cause no harm to others.

One might say: “Well, I’m not doing anything harmful. I’m just standing here protesting. I’m holding a sign.” Okay. Now, what does that mean when the police officer or the law enforcement officer is not looking? Are they doing something else? Are they coming up to someone in a threatening manner? What are they doing? Is it intimidation? When does it become assault? These are all legally defined aspects of the criminal law.

So when we’re considering Bill 13, which wants to be able to allow police to arrest or issue tickets to anyone found impeding access, disrupting or interfering with these zones or attempting to intimidate an individual within 20 metres of the particular property, we need to be cognizant. This is similar to the School Act that is already in existence. It’s important to protect people’s rights, but it’s important not to sacrifice people’s rights inappropriately.

When we have people’s rights at question, I think it’s very important to run those rights through the relevant legislation that is the essence of how this country was formed and started. That comes from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Acts, from 1867 forward.

It always bothered me, when I was teaching, that students, dare I say most citizens, did not know anything about their own constitution. That constitution forms the basis of what we do here. It forms the basis of what happens in Ottawa. And it forms the basis for bills like Bill 13. It isn’t the same type of legislation as our neighbours to the south, with their emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Our constitution is more of an administrative document about how to operate a series of Crown colonies and how to bring them together.

When they repatriated the constitution and brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in, in 1982, that changed things.

Now, Bill 13 is a descendant of all of that law, and thus, it needs to be filtered through that law very carefully to make sure that the balance is maintained and that the provincial Legislature is not overstepping its bounds in attempting to create quasi Criminal Code law for a provincial purpose.

With that, I just want to conclude and say that we do have some tools to deal with this problem. These are real tools with real teeth, and I think it’s important to understand that we need to be making use of those existing tools when we are dealing with the actions that are happening in our province as we go on.

I’m not sure that having another law made in this House is going to change people’s behaviour. As I said at the start of my remarks, the purpose of law is to change behaviour that society regards as abhorrent or inappropriate. If we’re going to change people’s behaviour, perhaps what we need to do is consider the enforcement of the law we have. That law was already made because those sorts of behaviours were not appropriate in any way, shape or form.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just wanted to add a few elements to this debate and to say it’s an honour to rise in the House and have an opportunity to express my support for Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act. I wanted, really, to provide a bit of an historical perspective.

Now, as has been canvassed very thoroughly in this debate, the origin of the need for this bill has been very eloquently expressed by my friend and colleague the member for Surrey City Centre in reflecting on the process that was undertaken under the leadership of our Attorney General to consult with, to pull together, leaders from different faith communities to really understand their experience — what was happening for them in community, in mosques, in churches, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, in places of worship across the province in a time where we have seen a rise in hate, a rise in racism, not only in our province but arguably across the country.

It was a real outreach to those communities and a coming together in a kind of, maybe even unprecedented, show of solidarity across all of these different groups supported by our government to arrive at what could be a collective response to the rise in hate and hateful behaviour and activities that many communities have been experiencing. I am very grateful for the work that has been done by my colleagues who come from these communities and have deep, deep relationships and deep community rootedness with many faith-based groups and can speak so eloquently to the need.

I would agree with members who have expressed the seriousness with which we must take measures that we implement when we are balancing different rights. This is not a normal course of business. This is not something we would do as a matter of course. These are steps that we take in extraordinary times in order to protect people who are extraordinarily at risk.

I think my friend and colleague the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville very articulately explained the legal lens on this and the balance between how we balance rights, how we apply the Charter of Rights in this case, how we maintain that tension between rights that are in conflict. Under the Charter and in our democracy, we understand that there can be rights that do come into conflict, that do brush up against each other. We understand the importance of having not only robust conversations but robust mechanisms for addressing those situations.

Just to refocus a little less on the abstract and more on what has actually been happening for communities on the ground…. The description of this legislation, really, came from the lived experience of communities. We understand that this bill would create an access zone around places of worship in which there would be specified forms of harmful behaviour that would be prohibited, and it could be an offence to engage in certain behaviours that caused harm or disrupted people.

The kinds of harms that we’re talking about and the kinds of behaviours we’re talking about are using objects or a barricade to obstruct access to a place, using one’s body to physically impede access, disrupting activities like prayers or meetings occurring at the place of worship, intimidating or threatening people trying to access the place of worship, attempting to persuade people to not visit the place of worship.

[5:40 p.m.]

In essence, engaging in behaviour that goes far, far beyond what we would think of as appropriate expressions of disagreement with an idea or appropriate expressions of political protest…. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

What we are talking about here is behaviour that does real harm to people. As we’ve been going through this debate, and over the course of the development of this legislation, I’ve really been drawn back to a similar kind of time we were in 30-odd years ago, when the Access to Abortion Services Act became a necessity and became a reality.

I want to assure members from across the way who are concerned that we don’t have appropriate historical precedent for this approach or that it might not work or that it’s not a proven approach. We need to be concerned about if this is going to create undesirable precedence. I just want to say that we already have a very solid tried-and-true precedent that was the basis for the development of this approach.

It came about, unfortunately, out of necessity at a time when women, when health care workers were the subject of repeated activity at places where women were trying to access health care.

Individuals who were opposed to the right of women to access health care used objects to barricade or obstruct access, used their bodies to physically impede women from accessing health care, disrupted the activity of a woman trying to access health care, intimidated and threatened women and their care providers who were trying to access or deliver health care and, certainly, attempted to persuade women from not receiving the reproductive health care they needed.

They, certainly, tried to persuade providers of that care to not provide that care, and in very completely unacceptable ways — to the point where Dr. Garson Romalis, who was a leader in women’s health care, was the subject of an attempted assassination. He was shot in his kitchen while having breakfast.

There was violence, intimidation. It was completely unacceptable, and it necessitated a first-in-Canada kind of response to protect women and to protect their health care providers. British Columbia led then, in 1995, with the Access to Abortion Services Act, as we are leading now to protect faith communities.

I will tell you my recollection of that time. I was there because I was involved, at that time, in the B.C. Coalition for Abortion Clinics. I was in those early meetings where our organization, the abortion clinics, advocates for women’s health attempted to persuade the government of the day that this was a necessary thing.

It wasn’t easy, because the very concerns that have been raised and have been the subject of discussion in this House about how we ensure that the right to free speech, the right to protest…. How do we ensure that putting restrictions there does not interfere with other rights? All of that discussion about how we balance rights was very much the consideration that went into the Access to Abortion Services Act at the time, not just in terms of discussions between advocates and government but in the broader scope.

Labour was very concerned about the implications for potentially restricting appropriate forms of democratic process, which we hold very, very dear in our society. All of these competing concerns and interests had to be navigated at the time.

But I can tell you that I also very much remember the palpable sense of fear, of threat that women experienced, that we as advocates who spoke out for the right to abortion experienced. The workers, the nurses, the doctors, the administrative staff, the folks who worked at clinics experienced it trying to get to work every day.

[5:45 p.m.]

If you can just imagine for a moment what it would be like to be a woman in search of health care trying to access the place where you can go to get the health care you need and you have to wade through a line of protesters, ten deep, people who are yelling at you, who are insulting you, who are hurling invectives at you at a time when really what you just need is to be cared for. You need to have access to the care that you need in an appropriate….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I can appreciate the seriousness of what you’re explaining to us. Will you tie it back to Bill 13 for me?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Sure. I’ll tie it back directly to what I’ve heard, what many of us have heard from experiences in our communities of individuals trying to wade through protesters who show up at places of worship and try to impede access.

There are very real parallels in terms of some of the concerns that have been raised in this House around: does this work? Do we have historical precedents? Don’t we already have provisions in place? Don’t we already have laws? Don’t we already have enforcement mechanisms that would be appropriate? Do we really need this bill?

I’m here to say that based on the precedents of this bill, this bill is necessary. When I look back to the experience we had in 1995, I’m not sure it was so much an enforcement question. It was a question of how we, again, balance off those rights.

I will just say that this is not a new approach. It’s an approach that has found validity, that has been tested in the courts. It has been challenged in the courts and upheld. So I think we can be assured that the due diligence that has gone into ensuring that there are the appropriate checks and balances, the tried-and-true checks and balances, has been considered. Once again British Columbia is a leader in standing up for and protecting communities that are at risk.

I think we can only come to a conclusion that says that hate and intimidation, which are the generators of the need for this bill at this time, have no place in our society. The right to protest and to free speech are core, absolutely core, democratic values in our society. We can hold all of those notions not only in our minds at the same time but in our law at the same time.

So I am very honoured to be able to stand up and support this very necessary legislation.

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

Freedom of religion is not theoretical. It’s walking into a church on Sunday. It’s attending a mosque on Friday. It’s gathering at a synagogue, a temple or a gurdwara. The question before us is this: can people do that without fear?

In 2021 alone, multiple churches in British Columbia were burnt — four in just a matter of days. Across Canada, more than 30 places of worship have been destroyed by fire. That should concern every one of us in this House.

In Vancouver alone, there were 47 antisemitic incidents in 2023. These included threats, harassment, vandalism and attacks on Jewish institutions, including synagogues. The point is that attacks on worship are on the rise in our nation and in our province.

[5:50 p.m.]

I believe that we are all here because we want to leave a better future for the next generation. And that future must include something fundamental, that our children in this province can walk into a place of worship without fear. If we cannot guarantee that, then we still have work to do.

Let’s bring this theory into real life. In the Fraser Valley, in communities like my own, Mission, B.C., places of worship are not just buildings. They’re where families find support when life falls apart, new immigrants find community, people gather when they’re grieving and where hope is rebuilt week after week.

I have stood in those buildings, I have sat with people in those pews, and I have prayed with families going through some of the hardest moments of their lives. And I can tell you this: when fear enters those spaces, it changes everything. Those are supposed to be the safest places in our communities.

Let’s talk about what this bill does. Bill 13 creates access zones about 20 metres around places of worship. Inside those zones, people cannot block access, disrupt services, intimidate individuals or interfere, even by trying to persuade someone not to enter. Police can arrest without a warrant if they believe these rules are being broken, and courts can step in. At its core, this bill creates a protective buffer.

But let me be clear. We support the principle of this bill. I think it’s been said many times today, but no one should be harassed on their way into worship. No one should be intimidated for practising their faith, because freedom of religion means nothing if we are afraid to walk through the door.

This bill exists because something has gone wrong. We see a rise in vandalism, harassment and targeted hate. We need to say it clearly. Government did not act early enough. When communities are forced to respond on their own, there is already a failure of leadership.

We now have situations where Jewish communities are spending over $100,000 a month on private security just to protect their places of worship. Let that sink in. I think we need to let that sink in, because that is not for luxury. It is not for an expansion. It is for basic safety. When people have to pay for their own protection just to pray, government has already fallen behind.

While this bill is a step, it is not a solution. And British Columbians are starting to recognize that pattern. We see it across sectors. A problem grows, communities feel pressure, and the government responds with legislation but not with the full weight of action required to actually fix it.

That’s what concerns me here, because creating a 20-metre access zone is one thing, but actually ensuring people are safe within it is something else entirely.

We cannot pretend that drawing a line on the ground automatically creates safety. Safety comes from presence. It comes from enforcement. And it comes from knowing that when something happens, someone will respond. Right now, too many communities do not have that confidence.

Let’s actually talk about what’s happening on the ground. We have faith communities right here in British Columbia spending tens of thousands of dollars every month on private security, not because they want to but because they feel they have no other choice. That should stop every one of us in this House.

When citizens are forced to step in and fund their own protection, this is not a sign of strength in public safety. It is a sign of a gap. When safety becomes something you have to buy, government is no longer delivering it.

[5:55 p.m.]

If the government is serious about protecting places of worship, then it must answer some very real questions. Where are the additional policing resources tied to this bill? What enforcement plan exists beyond signage and boundaries? How will smaller communities like those in the Fraser Valley and up north be supported when resources are already stretched thin?

In places like Mission, we already know what it feels like when systems are stretched. We’ve seen it in our health care. We’ve seen it in our emergency services. And now we’re seeing the same pressure show up in public safety and around places of worship across this province.

This bill gives police the power to arrest without warrant. This is a significant expansion of authority. But authority without capacity is not effectiveness. There are not enough officers. If there are not enough officers, if response times are already strained, then who is actually enforcing these zones? You cannot enforce a promise without the people to back it up.

There is also a deeper issue. What this bill is really responding to is a rise in hate. The legislation alone does not address that. We need stronger public safety strategies, clearer consequences for targeted harassment and leadership that is proactive, not reactive. If we are always responding after the fact, then communities will always be the ones to step up behind the risk.

This is where the difference lies. Government says, “We’ve introduced a bill,” but communities are asking: “Will you actually stand with us when it matters?” Government says, “We’ve created a zone,” but families are asking: “Will someone be there if something happens?”

We will support measures that protect people any day, and we will also continue to push, because British Columbians deserve more than a line on the pavement. They deserve real safety. They deserve real support. They deserve a government that does more than respond, a government that takes responsibility.

In Mission, we don’t talk about our stretched systems as theory. We are living it. We’ve watched our emergency close, not once. For the last two weeks, it’s been shut down every evening. Every time this happens, the message to the community is clear. You’re on your own tonight. Families are redirected. First responders are stretched. Neighbouring hospitals carry the load. And the people feel it immediately, instantly.

What we’re seeing in this bill follows the same pattern. When the systems are stretched and resources aren’t there, when enforcement is uncertain, people have to step in. Communities have to adapt. And slowly and quietly, the responsibility shifts.

This is exactly what is happening with places of worship. Faith communities are not just opening their doors anymore. They are hiring security. They are monitoring their entrances. They are preparing for risk, not because they want to but because they feel they have to.

This is not what public safety is supposed to look like. Public safety is not something communities should have to build for themselves. It is something they should be able to rely on. You can’t legislate safety and then outsource responsibility.

If this government is serious about protecting faith communities, then this bill cannot be the end of the conversation. It cannot be the headline. It cannot be the talking point. It cannot be just about an announcement. It cannot be where the work stops.

Passing a law is one thing, and making people feel safe is something else entirely. Right now there are gaps between what is being announced and what is being experienced. Communities feel that gap.

[6:00 p.m.]

Let’s talk about what needs to happen next or what could happen next. We need visible policing presence, not just policies but people on the ground. We need real enforcement capacity, because a rule means nothing if there’s no one there to uphold it. We need targeted support for communities facing hate, not generic responses but focused action where it is needed most. We need to address, frankly, that this shouldn’t be happening at all.

It’s sad. It’s sad that I’m even having to say what we could be doing because of the hate that we are experiencing and the acts of violence against places of worship. But here we are.

We have communities being forced to hire private security and then being taxed on it. That doesn’t make sense to me. Why, in this climate, when the reality of both sides…? We are recognizing there is a problem. Now we have put a tax on our security guards. They’re paying to protect us, and now they’re having to pay the tax on top of it.

This is not just a policy gap. This is a disconnection from reality. You can’t say one thing and do another. That’s the definition of insanity.

If safety is a priority, it should be funded like one. Leadership is not about reacting when things get bad. Leadership is about recognizing where things are going and acting before they get there. But too often we see a pattern. Government waits. Communities absorb the impact. Pressure builds. Only then legislation arrives. By that point, the damage is already being felt, trust is already shaken, and communities are already adapting on their own. That is not proactive leadership; that is reactive governance. When government arrives late, communities pay the price.

We need to reverse that. We need a government that steps in early, not after the fact; that listens before crisis, not after it; and that protects before people feel unsafe, not after they already do. The role of government is not just to respond to risk but to prevent it.

At the heart of this bill is something very simple. People want to feel safe. They showed up to the announcement because they want to feel safe. They want to trust that this bill will help that process. They want to feel safe to gather. They want to feel safe to worship. They want to feel safe to believe. In a province as diverse as ours, that matters more than ever. Our diversity is not our weakness; it is our strength. But only if people feel free to live it out.

Yes, I support this bill. But let’s not stop here. Let’s do the real work. Safety is not created by a 20-metre boundary. It is created by leadership that acts. It is created when government takes full responsibility for the people it serves.

The first and most immediate step that government could take alongside this bill is visible, dedicated policing around places of worship. It creates a boundary. It defines space. It sets rules within that space. But a boundary on its own does not create safety. Presence does.

[6:05 p.m.]

Right now Bill 13 establishes access zones around places of worship. We need to ask the obvious question: who’s going to be there to enforce it? Because if no one is there, that boundary becomes symbolic and not practical.

We need to make sure that funding targeted patrols during high-risk times — not randomly, not occasionally, but strategically — during Shabbat, during major religious holidays, large gatherings and community events because those are the moments when vulnerability is the highest and when presence is the most….

The reason I wanted to say some of those things is because we have to be clear on the plan when we are leading. We cannot be vague when we put forward a bill. We have to actually follow it through right to the end and communicate it effectively to British Columbians.

It can also mean working directly with local police departments to develop faith-based safety plans, not a one-size-fits-all policy. It’s not a one-size-fits-all. Plans that reflect the realities of each faith-based community…. What a synagogue may need may be different from what a church or a mosque or a gurdwara may need. The people who understand those risks best are the communities themselves.

We must ensure that rapid response protocols are clearly in place because when something happens near a place of worship, time matters. Minutes matter. People need to know — not hope, not assume but know — that someone will respond quickly, that they will not be left waiting and that they will not be alone in that moment.

Another practical step that could be taken immediately is the government could remove the PST on security services. As the opposition, it is my job to oppose, but it is also my job to potentially bring things that could make the bill better. Faith communities are having to do…. I have it here again. They’re forced to hire private security not because they want to expand, not because they’re choosing to but because they feel they have no other option. As they’re paying for that, they’re now having to be taxed on it.

If the government is serious about standing with faith communities, this is one of the clearest ways to show it — not with words, not with statements but with action that people can actually feel.

There comes a point in every debate where we have to stop speaking like legislators and start speaking like leaders. Because outside this chamber, this is not theoretical. People are not debating definitions, and they are not analyzing clauses. They are asking: “Am I safe? Safe to walk into my church, safe to bring my children to synagogue and safe to gather, to pray, to believe?” If the answer to that question is anything less than a clear and confident yes, then we still have work to do.

I refuse to accept a province where fear follows people into sacred spaces. I refuse to accept that communities should have to hire guards and lock their doors or look over their shoulders just to worship. I refuse to accept a government that can check a box with legislation and call the job done. This is not the finish line. This is the starting point.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’m so happy to hear that so many faith leaders came out to that announcement. But I would be embarrassed if the government did not take this bill and do right by the people of British Columbia, because they have been advocating for being safe for a very long time.

So I celebrate with them. It is the start. It is not the beginning…. I hope that the government will do right by British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I would call on the minister to close up the bill.

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

Oh, we have to move second reading first.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I thought the minister may have some closing remarks.

The question is, of course, today, second reading of Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In this House, I now call second reading on Bill 11.

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The policy outcome under this bill provides new tools to more effectively respond to urgent health and safety issues in supportive housing through amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act.

Although serious safety incidents are rare, when they occur, supportive housing operators need the right tools to quickly de-escalate and address risks. The amendments are designed to keep tenants, guests and staff safe, which is critical to continuing the important work of addressing homelessness and helping people find stability in their lives.

Tenants will continue to have protections under the RTA and through the residential tenancy branch’s dispute resolution process, which was a priority for government as well as groups engaged.

The bill contains provisions that are specific to supportive housing, including creating a new reason to end tenancy — if a tenant or their guest possesses a weapon on the supportive housing property or a weapon is found in a tenant’s rental unit — and enabling regulations to allow housing providers to temporarily relocate tenants to de-escalate situations when there are significant health and safety risks to other tenants, guests or staff.

Beyond supportive housing, the bill clarifies the applicability of the RTA by creating a new authority to designate specific addresses as transitional housing. The bill also builds on existing eviction provisions to better protect workers and guests on all rental properties.

Everyone deserves a safe place to live and work. This bill is a critical step towards improving safety and stability for people who live and work in supportive housing across British Columbia.

Claire Rattée: You’ll have to forgive me. I am waiting for my speaking notes to be brought in, but I’m going to start talking about this bill anyways.

I just want to say, on Bill 11, that my initial thoughts are that this is, obviously, something that’s important and needed. We understand that this is very important, to address the issues that we’re seeing currently in supportive housing units, and I understand why the ministry decided to bring this forward now. There has been a lot of public outcry and concern over what goes on in these units.

The issue is that this bill in no way, shape or form goes anywhere close to actually addressing the problems that we’re seeing in these units.

[6:15 p.m.]

I have some pretty serious concerns around how the consultation was done. My understanding is that there was consultation that was done with a limited working group that was established last summer. This included people from B.C. Housing as well as some of the supportive housing providers.

Whatever those recommendations that came out of that were, I do not know, because that hasn’t been made public. But I highly doubt that this even slightly grazes the surface of what was needed coming out of those consultations.

Then the other consultations were done with the Human Rights Commissioner and some tenancy advocacy groups to try and find a balance. The problem is that there was no consultation done with law enforcement. There was no consultation done with fire departments, who we know are responding there constantly. There wasn’t consultation done with municipalities.

I understand that there’s a fairly limited scope with this piece of legislation, but the reality is that everyone in this House, I think, knows that we need to go much further than that. There are so many issues to address right now within supportive housing.

I want to begin today not with policy but by talking about people, because this bill is about where people live. It’s about their homes. And if we lose sight of that, if we reduce this just to technical amendments and enforcement tools, then I think we miss the reality of what is actually happening across this province and we’ll miss the point of why these legislative changes were needed in the first place and why many more are also needed.

I want members of this House to picture something very simple. Picture your home. Picture your bedroom. Picture the place where you were supposed to feel the safest. Now imagine you can’t sleep at night because of constant noise right outside of your window. You are breathing in drug smoke that you did not choose to breathe in. You are afraid to walk down your own hallway. You are worried about who is coming in and out of your building. You are unsure whether there will be violence. You are unsure whether there will be a fire.

You raise these concerns over and over again, and nothing changes. That’s what we’re talking about today.

I want to start with Erin’s story, because a story like hers should define this debate. Erin is a disabled mother of six children living in B.C. Housing. For three years, she reported a leak above her unit. Not a minor inconvenience — a leak that rotted her ceiling, a leak that made her only washroom unsafe and unusable, a leak that rendered part of her home unusable.

Three years of asking for help, three years of being ignored, three years of raising her children in those conditions, and what was the outcome? Was the unit fixed? Was the building held accountable? Was the system corrected? No. They tried to evict her. They tried to displace her family. After three years of neglect, the solution was to remove her.

I want us to sit with that. That is not a story about enforcement. That is a story about failure, a systemic failure — a failure to maintain housing, a failure to respond to legitimate concerns, a failure to treat people with dignity. Yet we are here debating legislation that expands the ability to remove people from their homes without addressing the conditions that led to the situation in the first place.

Erin’s story is not an outlier. It is part of a pattern. I also want to talk about Diana, 56 years old, disabled, living in a B.C. Housing building. What she described to me is something that should deeply concern every single member of this House.

For nearly seven years — seven years — she has been dealing with constant noise, drug smoke entering her unit, violent incidents, harassment, fear. She told me that right outside her window, the window of a seniors unit, within the courtyard, they put a gazebo in, a covered picnic table area. That space has simply become a hub for drug activity — right outside her bedroom window — for gatherings at all hours, for dealers, for behaviour that has completely taken over that entire section of the building. The simplest solution, which would be moving the table, has not been done.

Think about that. We are debating legislation about safety, and a basic environmental change, something that could immediately improve safety and quality of life, has not been implemented. She has complained repeatedly. There has been no action taken on it. She’s not even asking for all of this behaviour to stop. She just doesn’t want it outside of her window.

Diana told me she cannot sleep. She told me she has been punched in the head. She told me that she has been stalked by individuals coming into the building. She told me that she has been verbally abused repeatedly. And she told me something that I think should stay with all of us. There are no consequences, no meaningful intervention, no improvement. Just ongoing exposure to unsafe conditions.

What does Bill 11 do for Diana? Does it move the table? No. Does it address the drug smoke? No. Does it improve building safety? No. She was punched in the head. It does nothing for that. It doesn’t address if somebody is punching somebody. Does it ensure security for her? No. It creates more pathways to remove people, sure. But it wouldn’t even provide the opportunity to evict the person who punched her.

[6:20 p.m.]

Then there is Dayna, a resident of northern B.C. for 33 years. She lived in the same apartment for 14 years — a quiet building, a respectful environment, a place where people knew each other, where people felt comfortable.

Over time, she watched that change. She described overcrowding. She described strain on shared resources. She described noise, disruption and the loss of what once made that place feel like home. She talked about how difficult it has become to do something as basic as laundry, how parking is no longer available, how the building no longer functions the way that it once did.

What struck me the most about Dayna’s message was not anger; it was sadness. It was the sense that something stable, something familiar, had been lost, that the system is no longer working for people who have lived in these communities for decades, that access to housing has become so strained that people are being pushed out, not because they want to leave but because they have no choice.

Again, Bill 11 does not address that. The issue is not just behaviour. It is capacity, it is planning, and it is system design.

Now, I’m going to return to these stories throughout my speech because they matter and because they illustrate something that policy alone cannot. I will likely talk about a number of other situations that I think are relevant and that highlight the need for more serious and substantive changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and how we approach supportive housing in this province.

I’d like to talk about what this bill does, because on the surface, it sounds like action. It expands eviction powers. It allows tenants to be held responsible for their guests. It introduces temporary access restrictions, and it increases the authority of the residential tenancy branch.

The question is not whether it does something. The question is whether it does the right things, whether it does enough and whether it addresses the actual causes of unsafe environments. That, in my opinion, is where it fails. The reality is that the safety issues in these buildings are not primarily behavioural. They are environmental, they are structural, and they are systemic.

Drug use inside of buildings: secondhand smoke from fentanyl and methamphetamine moving through ventilation, under doors, into units — people exposed in their own homes, workers exposed in their workplaces. There’s nothing in this bill that addresses that.

Fire risk. Butane torches; unsafe electrical setups; and, increasingly, modified e-bikes with lithium batteries — rapid ignition, toxic smoke, difficult to extinguish — stored in buildings not designed for that risk. What does this bill do about that? Absolutely nothing.

A fire department analysis identified 41 high-risk buildings — 41 — and this legislation introduces no new fire safety standards. It doesn’t address any of those high-risk buildings. It doesn’t actually address fire risk at all, even though we know it’s one of the most significant challenges that we’re facing right now, specifically in downtown Vancouver, when it comes to supportive housing.

Now, building design. These buildings were not designed for high acuity populations. They’re being used as care environments without care infrastructure. And we are surprised when there are safety issues?

Also, the mixing of populations. We have seniors, families, people in recovery, people actively using — all placed together without proper supports, without thoughtful placement — as well as people suffering from extreme mental illness. Then we call the result a safety issue. This is a system design failure.

I want to be clear that I can understand the intention behind this legislation, behind the ability to evict if someone has a weapon in a supportive housing unit. But another issue that is not addressed is that in many of these buildings, people simply feel unsafe, and for good reason. What happens if a young woman has a weapon on her, not to attack someone but to defend herself? That hasn’t been addressed in this legislation. We haven’t even addressed what the definition of a weapon is. Likely that’s yet another thing that’ll be left to regulation.

Now let’s talk about enforcement. Who enforces this — the housing workers, the managers, security? Do they call in the RCMP or the police? There’s nothing that clarifies that in this piece of legislation. There’s nothing that explains to the tenants. There’s nothing that explains to the operators. There’s nothing that explains to RCMP or police, fire departments and paramedics.

I don’t know. It’s not made clear in this legislation. We don’t know who is supposed to enforce these new rules. We don’t know how people are supposed to respond. This just creates more confusion and uncertainty. Very simple things should have been outlined in the legislation.

We also don’t know what the definition of a weapon is. Who decides what’s a weapon? Who confiscates it? Is it even confiscated, or are people supposed to be evicted with their weapon? Do they pose a risk to public safety? Are they being evicted with the weapon in hand, and now we’re just turning that back out onto the street? What happens after the removal? These questions are not answered.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to speak again and move adjournment of debate.

Claire Rattée moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Stephanie Higginson: Section A reports progress on Bill 2 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section C reports progress on Bill 8 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026
(continued)

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

On clause 6 (continued).

Peter Milobar: Just a couple more questions to finish up on clause 6.

Again, I don’t think the answer is going to change, but I just want to state very clearly, I guess, that we do have concerns.

The minister has clearly articulated the intent of government, but we all know that legislation is the more critical piece — not what one minister’s intent is or one Premier’s intent or, if there’s a cabinet shuffle, what someone else’s intent may be.

[1:35 p.m.]

What discussion, if any, was put into making sure that there actually was a continuing sunset clause? What would be the harm in actually having a sunset clause still attached, with the provisions that we’ve been talking about, versus an open-ended, wide open, no safeguard that the procurement gets reviewed…?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite.

As was mentioned, but it’s really important to reiterate, we continue to hope for the rift with the U.S. to be healed, as we ensure our full legal authority to protect the people and the interests of British Columbia and Canada. As it stands right now, we don’t have a sense of whether that’ll be over this summer or further down the road.

That’s why we’ve kept the flexibility for us to be nimble on this while we continue, as is stated in the Look West strategy, to prioritize a job-rich economy in B.C., companies with big jobs footprints here and building out our sovereignty and security at the same time. We’ll continue to find that path, working with American companies and B.C.-based firms to ensure we’re protecting British Columbians in this procurement strategy.

Peter Milobar: No more questions on clause 6.

Clause 6 approved.

The Chair: Now we will return to clauses 1 to 5, and we return to questions from the member for Kamloops Centre.

On clause 1.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just wondering if the minister can….

The Chair: I’m so sorry. We’re just changing staff. If you just want to hold for one moment, I’ll let you know when they’re finished.

Peter Milobar: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you for waiting. Please proceed.

Peter Milobar: Thank you. I’d just like to confirm, then, with the minister that with these changes in clause 1, that means the government is committing to a new timeline to have a balanced budget and no longer a deficit by substituting “in ’28-29.”

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member.

Clause 1 allows for us to have a deficit in the third year of the fiscal plan.

Peter Milobar: Well, I understand that, but I’m just wondering why it’s not any further years out than this. Is the government committing, by this move, that year 4 will no longer have a deficit?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This speaks specifically to the fiscal plan, which is a three-year fiscal plan and not beyond.

Peter Milobar: Could the minister enlighten us then? What expenditure categories would be preventing there being a balanced budget in the next year or the year after and the need to change this date to span the whole fiscal plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This clause is not about expenditure categories. Budget 2026 projects three years of deficits, and this legislation aligns with the projections of this fiscal plan.

Peter Milobar: Again, I can appreciate it projects out, but it projects out an almost $12 billion deficit at the end of this fiscal plan. Again, we can’t get a date from the minister as to when there’s reasonably going to be a balanced budget.

That kind of ties into why ’28-29…. I get that there’s a fiscal plan that it’s attached to. But is there not more logic to having a target for an actual year that we could reasonably expect a balanced budget in the province of B.C., given that under this three-year fiscal plan the projected deficit goes from $13.3 billion to $11.5 billion?

It doesn’t seem like it’s trending downwards any time soon. So I’m assuming that means we’ll be back here again next year with a similar need, with the Budget Transparency Act, to extend when deficits can run. Or is the minister planning on that being the year that this clause no longer has to keep getting amended?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 1, specifically, is referring to the three-year fiscal plan. We, of course, are in a time of economic challenge, and we project three years of deficits. This fiscal plan doesn’t go out beyond that. Clause 1 doesn’t refer out beyond that. Should we need to do something different in the future, we’ll deal with it then, but this three-year fiscal plan is projecting deficits over the three years.

Peter Milobar: That’s all. I’m done with clause 1. Thank you.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister explain the need to have less oversight, less transparency in capital projects by moving the threshold from $50 million to $125 million? With this clause, what was the driving reason to create less understanding of what is happening in the capital plan of the budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This legislation when it was first brought in…. It was brought in, in 2000. The idea behind it was to identify projects that were large in size and risk and cost. At that time, a $50 million project really reflected that. That’s no longer the case in 2026.

The legislation first enacted…. The dollar value was emblematic of what constituted a major capital project. Since then, the non-residential building construction price index has increased by more than 150 percent. So increasing the dollar value will align with the construction market of today and will help to streamline reporting of major capital projects.

Peter Milobar: Is the minister saying that any project under $125 million, in her estimation, is not a significant expenditure by the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Obviously not.

I think the intention of this legislation was to capture large projects that had risk and cost and heft and required additional oversight by this Legislature. In fact, a $50 million project in 2026, while having been a huge project in 2000, could, in fact, be a very routine build of something like a school, for example — perhaps not a complicated project at all.

Obviously, there are very important and stringent oversights in all of our capital builds, but projects that are $125 million and above are significant, large projects and require additional oversight.

Peter Milobar: Again, though, I guess I’m wondering what the hurdle was that the government’s trying to overcome. These are projects that get listed in a budget document. Communities then know whether projects are actually being built in and around their communities or not.

This is really a function of how many pages of paper are in the budget document and transparency, not about the dollar figure. The minister rightfully talks about the $50 million as the starting point, but there are a lot of projects between $50 million and $125 million that will no longer be on this list.

That’s problematic because if you are a parent at, let’s see, the Lansdowne-Beausoleil school, you might be interested in knowing that it’s actually been delayed to 2030, and it’s worth $73 million. You might be interested to know that because you’re thinking of moving into that neighbourhood or not with your family and you want to know if a school is being built. Under this change, there will no longer be any transparency or understanding of what projects have actually been approved or not.

Likewise, there are schools in Kamloops that have been approved for $65 million. There’s one on the books. The neighbourhood would like to know.

We have all sorts of other projects in this. So can the minister not see how this creates a big problem for the public — MLAs and the general public — to understand what projects are going on? Again, why did the government feel it’s so onerous to, essentially, provide current updates to projects on their timeline, their progress and their cost?

Because it’s more than just the cost that’s being listed. It’s other areas of funding. It’s whether the cost of the project is over budget or not and whether the project is delayed. So how are those aspects going to be captured with this change?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There remains a capital asset management framework in place, which includes requirement for clear communications and public accountability for all approved projects.

Peter Milobar: This is about 5½ pages of projects. How many pages does it get reduced down to with this change in legislation?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think it’s important to understand the motivation behind the changes that we’re making, which is really about the authentic objective of this legislation when it was introduced in 2000.

To highlight that, I’ll point out that I have a list of the major capital projects that were $50 million and above in the financial plan 2001-2002. It fits very nicely onto one page, with lots of room for asterisks. It includes many major projects. It doesn’t include anything like schools, for example. It includes work on the Lions Gate Bridge and major hospital projects and major hydro projects. It was designed that this would be a listing of very large projects.

When this first came out…. There are 14 projects in 2001. Currently there are 210 projects. So you can see that this has become something quite a lot larger than it was intended to be, as a tool for tracking these really significant, large projects.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the member has asked how many will be removed from the five pages. We’re not removing any projects. This will be on a go-forward, and the changes will come in the future.

[2:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I’ll give the minister a chance to clarify. It sounds to me almost like the minister is advocating for less transparency being a better thing than more transparency. Because there were only 14 or so projects listed in 2000 doesn’t necessarily make it correct or more transparent to go back to how things were 25 years ago.

We tend to modernize and update things across the board. I guess the worry is, with a government that is currently trying to remove even more FOI provisions, how exactly less transparency, in the minister’s mind, is better than a couple of extra pages in an already very thick budget document to provide transparency for people that live in communities to understand if there’s even a project happening in their community or not.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is about updating a legislation that has almost not kept intact with its original intention when it was introduced. When you look at the growth that we’ve seen, the non-residential building construction price index increasing by 150 percent, it’s appropriate to update this legislation. In fact, one might argue it’s a little delayed. It should have been updated earlier, probably.

I think it’s worth pointing out to the member that to suggest there’s a transparency challenge here is a little hard to follow. If a school is funded, I think you can rest assured that government is going to be sharing that information and very happy to let communities know about what’s being built in their communities.

Peter Milobar: Well, this is an easy-to-follow framework of information for the public to understand whether there’s a delay, whether there’s a cost overrun and what that implication actually means.

A couple of questions ago the minister referenced a reporting mechanism. Is that reporting mechanism laid out in the same way for capital projects as what we see in the budget book? Is it easily accessible by the public? Do they need to FOI it? Do they have to go ministry by ministry, or is there one central gathering place for this information so that the public can actually easily track projects, anticipated timelines and whether or not a project moves forward?

Why that is significant is, again…. These are over the threshold. I recognize that. But when you look at the long-term-care facilities, the hospital projects, the student housing expansions on page 64 of the budget, which are all approved projects with adjusted timelines…. The adjusted timeline is TBC, instead of ’27 or ’29, ’27, ’29, ’29, ’27, ’30. It gets to be problematic if projects can be announced and then there’s no real follow-up and understanding of what is actually happening with that project.

So that reporting-out mechanism the minister referenced a couple of questions ago. Is that publicly accessible? How is it publicly accessible? Where does the public actually find that information? Is it the same information we find in the budget book currently?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member’s question, I think it’s important to understand that this change is about ensuring the original intent of the legislation is in place. So the projects that the member has identified that are over 125…. In fact, in future years, you’ll be able to track them, and that is the intention for these larger projects.

For the projects that fall under that threshold, there are many ways to find out information about those projects. But of course, each of the ministries updates their websites on funding of projects as we go forward.

I’ll also add that the intention of this legislation was always to reflect these larger projects — larger in cost, in scope and in risk. And to have not updated it for 21 years we find a bit of a challenge. So what we’re including in clause 2 is also to ensure that the proposed amendment requires the Minister of Finance to review this dollar value at least every ten years, to ensure that we are capturing that change that happens, using the construction inflation index, which is the calculation that we’ve made to come to the number of $125 million.

Going forward, we will, at least every ten years, be reviewing the legislation to make sure that we’re capturing an appropriate number.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, but again, the question was around…. I’d asked around transparency and the lack that this creates. And the minister had answered a couple questions ago around that there…. It seemed, the way the question was answered the first time, that there was an easily accessible database the public could go to and find the same information that’s in this, so this is somewhat redundant, and they’d still be able to find that information. That morphed into: “Well, of course people will know there’s a project happening, because we’ll make announcements in the city.”

But without having a proper tracking mechanism, going to the Ministry of Education website to hunt down a press release — if you’re a member of the public — which could be buried through years of different press releases, to try to figure out what the timeline is of a school that was originally announced is problematic.

I’ll give an example from my own riding. Batchelor Heights school has been announced by this government, about three years ago now, as a project that they support, yet there’s no money in the budget for the last three years. I know this because the school would be over $50 million, and I don’t find it in the budget anywhere. So there is a clear understanding that it’s a long ways off from being approved.

What types of oversight that brings is the ability of the public, a school district, people that are wondering about what schools or neighbourhoods to move into for their kids…. They understand whether there’s anything even remotely on the horizon or not.

Most schools nowadays are over $50 million, so they actually make the cut, which is still a very significant community project. Maybe not the dollar figure risk, but it’s still a significant build in the community.

[2:10 p.m.]

Again, I would just like to seek clarification. Is the minister saying that there is no one-stop kind of site for the public to go to, to find where capital projects are in terms of budgeting, approval, timeline across this province? They are going to have to hunt and peck on government websites and hope to find something that is buried deep within old press releases and announcements and scroll through all of that.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To continue with the example of a school, what will happen, of course, is that parents who, for example, are looking to find out the state of the school project will go to the website of the school district, where there is a listing of schools that have been approved, including schools that are under $50 million.

Peter Milobar: Again, the reason this is very troubling to us in the opposition is…. If you just look at the total schools on page 60, there’s about $5.4 billion worth. Of that, $2 billion is seismic, and most of that has actually been spent and done already. So that leaves about $3.3 billion left of school projects. But $2.1 billion of that $3.3 billion, roughly, in just a very quick calculation, would fall under the $125 million. So two-thirds of the school projects in this budget fall off of this type of reporting, and that’s just schools.

The order of magnitude of projects that this impacts is actually quite significant. Two-thirds of the school projects disappear off of this list. I get that they’re being phased off, but that means new ones aren’t showing up.

Again, with the rampant cost overruns and with the rampant delays that we see with this government’s projects, that is concerning — that there’s less oversight, not more, into very easy public scrutiny at least once a year as projects move forward.

How will projects that are now either delayed or facing cost overruns that fall between $50 million and $125 million be reported out under this change?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think the first thing that’s really important to understand is that oversight continues. Nothing changes in regards to oversight of these projects. Also, the projects will be reported out, using the school example, both to school boards and to communities.

I do just want to point out that we looked back at where things were at. We talked about in 2001, when this legislation was first brought in, that of the 14 projects, there were no schools, that these were large projects. That was the intent of the legislation, to really have this additional level of tracking.

I think that it’s interesting to note that in 2016, the last time the member was on this side, there were six schools, and those schools were really big secondary schools. Given the cost-escalation adjustments that we’re making, those schools would still show up on the chart.

This is really what we’re addressing, the question of cost escalation and how more standard and minor projects are being unintentionally captured in the chart. We’re trying to update it to reflect the original intention of this legislation.

Peter Milobar: But the question was: how will projects that are either delayed or now over budget be reported out? Will they be reported out in the same fashion in a separate report, or will it be up to communities and critics to try to do a daily search on government websites to see what is happening with capital projects across this province?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’ll continue to report out as there are changes. To continue the example that we’re using of schools, we’ll be reporting out any changes to those projects to school boards. Also, the K-to-12 website is updated with those changes as well.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, it’ll be a communication with the school board but not to the broader public and not a collation of all the projects like we see in this budget document provided. So it’ll still have to be a hunt-and-peck exercise around it.

Why I say that and why it’s a concern is that…. My understanding is that our critic for Infrastructure, for the last two years, has asked the Minister of Infrastructure for a list of all school projects under $50 million, and despite assurances that that would be provided, those have not come forward.

It’s not very easy to get information out of this government at the best of times. This change seems to line up with the change to FOI and ever-increasing difficulty that this government is making for people to get basic information.

Why is the government concerned? I fully comprehend the minister saying this is about an inflationary adjustment and modernizing the dollar figure for reporting to be more in line with current pricing based on when the legislation first came in. I get the financial piece of that.

What I don’t understand is the sake of five pages of printing with, presumably, the government tracking these projects and knowing what the costs and timelines of these projects are. I haven’t heard where reporting this out is so onerous to government that it’s created this bureaucratic nightmare in developing the budget document every year.

It doesn’t sound like there’s a problem internally with tracking projects. It doesn’t sound like there’s an internal problem in terms of making sure projects, what date and changing the date they’re expected to be completed on…. It doesn’t seem like there’s a problem with the government tracking the cost. Ultimately, they’re going to have to pay the bill. One would hope they’re tracking and in discussions with the general contractors on any given project, what the final cost is starting to look like.

Again, what problem, other than the government not wanting to print five pages of paper, is the government trying to fix with this?

I did not hear from school districts, hospital boards, hospital districts, post-secondary institutions, the broader public, people involved in transportation industry…. I’ve not heard one person say that they just wish there was less reporting out of capital projects by the government and they don’t know why they’re wasting our time having to review and scroll through a couple of pages to find the project we’re looking for that’s over $125 million.

Why does this government feel that it’s a benefit to the public to make information around capital projects that are typically running, on average, 25 percent over budget and 158 years behind schedule…? Why is less information in the public domain better, in this government’s mind?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member says that he understands the objective of us updating legislation yet continues to not accept that that is the reason that we’re doing this. In fact, it is. The member has said that they understand the financial piece of it.

We are, in fact, the Ministry of Finance. It is our responsibility to do this and to have it reflect the original intention of this legislation. To do that, we are making a decision to increase the dollar value so it will align with the construction market of today and will help to streamline reporting of major capital projects.

We are using the non-residential building construction price index, which has increased by 150 percent since this legislation was first brought in.

[2:25 p.m.]

The proposed amendment will also ensure that we’re updating it more frequently so that there aren’t such large jumps, going forward, that we’ll be making these adjustments at least every ten years.

The amendment also requires the review of the dollar value in order to reflect changes in building construction, going forward. That’s the purpose of this legislation, and that’s what it accomplishes.

Peter Milobar: Again, I said to the minister that I understand the inflationary pressure on projects. I don’t understand why this government thinks it’s so onerous, and it hasn’t been explained why it’s so onerous, to report out the way this report is presented every year.

I can understand it’s gotten longer since 2004. This government seems to think that the extra transparency and understanding of those projects by the public and the timeline and the cost overruns and the impact to the overall capital budget is too onerous to share that information once a year in a document with the public.

The minister seems to prefer that we start to have to hunt around in various ministries’ websites to try to find information. I’ve done a quick search, waiting in between answers. It’s not easy to find the information on these government websites, first and foremost. It’s certainly not collated, and it’s certainly not easy to find.

Why, then, if this is about trying to make sure that we’re staying up to date and tracking for inflation and making sure something is relevant in terms of dollar figure, is this is a ten-year review period instead of a two-year or a five-year? Why did the minister land on ten years as being the trigger for a review of the cost pressure increase from $125 million to what might be more relevant, under this, frankly, flawed logic, under this clause?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The language in the legislation specifically says “at least every ten years,” and that provides some flexibility for the Minister of Finance, me or someone else in the future, to have the opportunity to take market considerations and inflationary pressures and make the adjustments when needed but no longer than every ten years.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, “no longer than.” So is the minister saying that it’s at the government’s discretion between year 1 and year 10 but year 10 is an automatic?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The way that it’s written is that the Finance Minister can trigger a review before that ten-year period, and then the ten-year will reset. So it must happen within the ten-year period, not beyond, and then the number would reset for ten years.

Peter Milobar: When it says “make public the results of that review,” is that simply…? Would this process right now be considered making public? Is it just going to be simply “we studied it based on the rate of inflation, non-residential construction inflation, and it is now $135 million,” and, basically, a quick press release and that’s done, or does it have to go through legislative change to strike out and add?

Right now it just says that it’s making public the results of the review, but there does not seem to be an automatic trigger to change the dollar figure based on whatever that review comes up with.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Government does have some discretion in regards to the increase of the threshold, but it must be publicly reported and happen through legislation. So the way that we’ve done it, of course, is through this year’s budget and this process which we’re undertaking today. It could be a future government that makes a legislative change outside of the budget or within the budget, but it will require legislative change and a review process.

Peter Milobar: Just to confirm then. I think I understand that, but…. So it could just be part of a housekeeping bill, a miscellaneous statutes amendments act, and it’s a finance portion within a bill like that as well. It doesn’t have to be part of the budgetary legislation.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, it would have to come forward in legislation. It seems logical to us that that would be through the budgetary process, but it’s true that it could come forward in other forms of legislation, including in this bill.

Peter Milobar: No more questions on this clause. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you.

Shall clause 2 pass?

The clause is carried.

Peter Milobar: On division, please.

The Chair: Sorry. I’m confirming it is on division, rather than division?

Peter Milobar: That’s correct.

Clause 2 approved on division.

On clause 3.

Peter Milobar: I noticed that the implementation date on this is January 1, 2027. I’m assuming that means that this will be…. The change to July 31 from August 31 will be based on fiscal year-end ending March 31, 2028. Is that correct?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This clause will reflect changes to the fiscal year 2027, the year that, in fact, starts tomorrow.

Peter Milobar: But the first report will still be July 31, 2027, then, correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, correct.

Peter Milobar: Okay, thank you. No other questions on 3.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

The Chair: Member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve got a system working out. Too bad we’ll be switching Chairs shortly and I’ll have to train another one.

In 4, I’m just wondering how these changes, both with the previous clause and this one as well, will impact any of the reporting out that happens in an election year.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It remains the same as now, in that it is the later of July 31 or 40 days following the designated date following an election.

Peter Milobar: Just to be clear…. I get you can’t legislate these dates to be relevant in a snap election, having lived through a snap election in 2020. But we do have a fixed election law, so how does this change, if any, or impact what we would see for annual reports?

It doesn’t look like it would impact. It looks like it would push it, actually, a month further away from the general election, but how does that impact the proposed fixed general election date in 2028, with this reporting?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re not aware of any impact.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

Clause 7 approved.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Chair: I understand that the intent is to stand down clauses 8 to 10. Does the committee agree?

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive stood down.

The Chair: Then we will now proceed to clause 11.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 13 pass?

Peter Milobar: Sorry, I thought we were standing down 13 and going to 14. That was my understanding.

The Chair: Oh, you are correct, yes. So then we’re going to stand down clause 13. Is the committee in agreement?

Clause 13 stood down.

On clause 14.

Peter Milobar: So this is….

The Chair: Sorry for one moment. We just need to change staff, and then I’ll let you know when they’ve completed their move.

Please proceed.

Peter Milobar: Obviously, 14 to 27 are very problematic sections for the opposition.

I guess I’ll jump in. Again, I’d like to give assurance to the minister that I’m not going to be repetitive, over and over. I may be asking a question not relevant, unintentionally, to the clause that I’m in, but it’s a part of this overall grouping of questions. Then I can assure the minister and the Chair that I won’t be looping back again in future clauses as we get to that, if that makes sense. So a little bit of mercy, at the minister’s discretion, would be appreciated.

Can the minister please explain to us the justification for reducing the overall independent oversight of public service hiring practices that essentially guts and removes the Merit Commissioner — not essentially, it does remove the Merit Commissioner — in clauses 14 through 27?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The change that we’re making in regard to removing the Office of the Merit Commissioner does not reduce oversight. In fact, oversight continues, and HR managers within the ministries will continue to have that very important role of making hiring decisions.

With moving the oversight into the PSA, there are three components that will be provided through the PSA. The first is quality assurance, the second is evaluation, and the third is governance. In fact, the changes that are made under this legislation increase the role in that it’s more systematic. Rather than random audits, there’s going to be a very systematic approach to this.

I think it’s important to note, also, that the creation of a public report every year will continue within the same time frames as they were before.

Peter Milobar: What would be the equivalent to a replacement now in the PSA for the role of the Merit Commissioner and the actions and function of what the Merit Commissioner previously was doing?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do want to point out to the member that this change is about taking these responsibilities and bringing them to the deputy minister of the PSA, who will continue with these accountabilities. This is not an unusual practice. In fact, as the member well knows, there are ten provinces and also territories and all of them, except British Columbia, do it this way.

The important roles of quality assurance and evaluation and governance will be the responsibility of the deputy minister, reporting in to the Minister of Finance and reporting publicly every year to ensure that accountability.

[2:50 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: A lot to unpack there. But I would think B.C. wants to be a leader. That would mean, actually, it’s a good thing that we’re doing things differently than the rest of the country — not a follower and trying to emulate what is or isn’t working in other provinces — and set a path of best practice in terms of making sure that there’s confidence in decisions that are being made, especially, broadly, for the members of the public service that may need to access the Merit Commissioner because of a grievance around steps taken in the workplace.

How does the minister rationalize, in the same year that the minister and the Premier are talking about removing 15,000 public sector jobs, that the removal of the Merit Commissioner is an appropriate time for that to happen, in the same year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll take this opportunity to provide a couple of corrections for the member in terms of his understanding of the role of the Merit Commissioner.

First, folks who are involved in a grievance would not go to the Merit Commissioner. The grievance process has a stand-alone, separate process from the Merit Commissioner and remains intact, exactly the same last year as it will be next year, so no change there at all. The Merit Commissioner would provide oversight through random audits.

In regards to the 15,000 public sector reduction over a three-year period, the Merit Commissioner had no oversight over the public sector. That’s a misunderstanding. Neither did they have oversight of the structure and workforce management. In fact, really the only commonality between what the member has identified, the 15,000 reduction that we’re compelled to do, and the Merit Commissioner is that they’re both a result of expenditure management.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, when I used the phrase “grievance,” it wasn’t in the traditional sense of a union member filing a direct grievance. It was meant as in overall grievances and concerns around whether or not there’s impartiality in terms of HR issues, whether or not it was politically motivated.

The Merit Commissioner, to my understanding, was an independent officer of the overall governmental structure, not classified or thought of, in any means, as a political hire in that regard. However, the deputy minister of the public service is a political hire.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s an appointment made by order in council, directly by cabinet, not by the Legislature as a whole. And that process unfolds within the confines of cabinet and the Premier’s office, not the way a Merit Commissioner would.

How does the minister reconcile those dramatic differences when a large portion of the Merit Commissioner’s role was to ensure fairness and not political gamesmanship when it comes to things going on in terms of dismissals, hirings, firings and overall practices within government?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, I just want to, at first, make very, very clear I completely reject their framing of the public service and the good people working in the public service, including our deputy minister of the PSA. These are professional people who are not politically motivated, who do excellent work, and I reject your framing.

I also want to point out that it’s not true in regards to the question of political appointees. The 2024-2025 merit performance audit was published and released in December 2025. The findings included no — zero — patronage found.

An 8 percent increase in the finding of merit applied from the previous year, the second-highest rate of merit finding since 2012. Merit with exception decreased 8 percent to 23 percent and the lowest number of errors since 2020 and 2021.

My role as Finance Minister is a challenging one. We are in very difficult economic times. I made the decision to get rid of this independent office because we are looking for savings everywhere. I am absolutely confident that the role of merit can be delivered and has been delivered in our public service and will continue to be, going forward.

Peter Milobar: I’m not taking issue with any particular person. There are certain realities around how jobs are appointed and hired in government.

Can the minister confirm that the deputy minister of the PSA is appointed by an order in council through cabinet?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, it is correct that this role is filled by an OIC, as recommended by the head of the public service. But I do want to be very clear. I’ll use the current deputy minister as an example — 30 years of service in a non-partisan public service before accepting the role of deputy minister.

Very significant accountabilities for this agency head, which include: establishing and maintaining effective human resource management policy; delegating human resource management responsibilities through formal delegation agreements; monitoring and providing corporate- and organizational-level reporting on human resource matters; representing the employer at the corporate-wide level; and ensuring that non-delegated human resource management responsibilities are carried out in a manner consistent with the applicable legislation, collective agreements, terms and conditions of employment of the corporate human resource management policy framework.

The Chair: The Chair is going to call a recess for five minutes. It is now 3:01. Please return by 3:06.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call us back to order.

Peter Milobar: Again, the minister keeps citing the qualifications of the deputy minister. I take absolutely no issue with that whatsoever. My questions aren’t about any particular person. These are about titles, and these are about positions that change. Ministers change. Opposition members change. That’s just a fact of life. Deputy ministers will change.

The legislation, though, that we’re dealing with will make permanent the change around the Merit Commissioner, and that’s what we’re trying to ascertain here with these questions around the roles.

The minister has confirmed that it’s an order in council, a cabinet decision of who becomes the deputy minister of the PSA. Can the minister confirm that the Merit Commissioner was an independent officer of the Legislature?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes.

Peter Milobar: So under the system with the Merit Commissioner, we had somebody that was an independent officer of the Legislature reviewing hiring practices and dismissal practices of the public service and we have a deputy minister that is given the role through an order in council, through a cabinet agreement.

[3:10 p.m.]

That person — I believe the phrasing is something along “serves at the pleasure of,” which is standard language.

When I was on the board of B.C. Transit, when I signed off on my paperwork, it said that I served “at the pleasure of the minister,” or however it’s phrased, and it was a political appointment. There’s no dispute about that.

But the Merit Commissioner would be tasked with overseeing and evaluating decisions made within the public service in and around hiring and firing and things like that. So who would now be in charge of overseeing those decisions that are made by the deputy minister, given that that used to be the Merit Commissioner’s job?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Again, an opportunity to provide a correction on what the Merit Commissioner did and did not do. The Merit Commissioner was never overseeing the deputy minister of the public service. The deputy minister is overseen by the Deputy Minister to the Premier and the head of the public service, as well as myself, the Finance Minister.

I think it’s important to understand that unlike the Merit Commissioner, the deputy minister is held to a number of really important tools, including the Standards of Conduct, the ethical framework, the HR framework and the HR accountability framework.

Peter Milobar: Again, I understand that. What I was conveying was that if an employee had concerns around hiring practices, appropriateness of postings, dismissals — things of that nature, which do fall under the purview, even if not a direct decision, of the deputy minister — that’s what the Merit Commissioner was reviewing. That will now be reviewed, it sounds like, by the deputy minister.

Can the minister, then, confirm that the full workload of the Merit Commissioner will now be dealt with exclusively by the deputy minister?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll just review the dismissal process under the Merit Commissioner and where things are currently.

First of all, the dismissal process reviews. The Merit Commissioner dismissal reviews were administrative reviews only and did not assess the termination decision itself. They provided no recourse or benefit to the former employee.

In regards to an employee’s ability to request a review of just cause dismissal post–Merit Commissioner, employees dismissed for just cause have never been able to request a review of their just cause dismissal with the Merit Commissioner. That’s incorrect. Employees dismissed for just cause have recourse through the British Columbia legal employment framework, including access to the courts, Human Rights Tribunal and grievance and arbitration processes.

In regards to oversight of just cause dismissals in the public service, B.C. courts, arbitrators and tribunal members provide independent oversight of BCPS just cause dismissals. Employees dismissed for just cause have recourse through B.C.’s legal employment framework, including access to the courts, the Human Rights Tribunal and grievance and arbitration processes. The options available to employees are unchanged by this legislative amendment.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister explain how the government feels it’s better to have the ability for reports, annual reports about merit oversight, to now be posted online but only at the agency’s discretion, instead of an independent officer’s report coming to the Legislature itself?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There’s no change here. The independent Merit Commissioner published a report online. We will continue that process, as well as the report being delivered to me and me delivering it in the House.

Peter Milobar: What privacy safeguards are in place now that politically accountable executive roles gain broader access to staffing records previously guarded under the independent office?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s important to understand that folks will have the same protections as they did under the Merit Commissioner. Employees must request staffing reviews, so there is no anonymity in the process. The deputy minister, the hiring manager and the employee are all subject to the standards of conduct and must respect privacy and confidentiality.

Historical Merit Commissioner records that come under the custody and control of the B.C. Public Service Agency through the transition will be managed separately from other PSA records, and access to these files will be strictly controlled and limited.

Peter Milobar: What assurances will be given to the public servants that they’re not going to perceive this as an invitation for more political interference in staffing?

It seems, again, like we’re kind of shifting away from what was seen to be a good model. The minister seems to think that one year’s report of good numbers means you never have to do anything again. The flip side to that argument is that things were being done reasonably well because there was oversight and that pressure for oversight.

Again, this is about creating a governmental structure and a government oversight structure and a merit structure that outlive and outlast any one person in any one position. That is the nature of why these things are put in place — so that if there are problems, there’s a way to identify them. It becomes very clear sometimes whether or not appropriate people are in appropriate positions, in terms of senior management.

Again, what type of assurance to the broader public service is there that this is not creating a situation with more political tinkering and involvement than we’ve previously had?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I really just want to confirm with the member that we have a very high-quality and professional public service and that merit is deeply embedded into our public service. Merit-based hiring requirements have been embedded in the public service for a long time. They are part of the Public Service Act, and there have been no changes in this principle. Merit-based hiring in the B.C. public service is supported through supervisor learning, human resource policy and related online resources.

Now, the member suggested that based on one year of not finding patronage, this decision was made. That is factually incorrect. Since the beginning of the Merit Commissioner’s posting to the end of the Merit Commissioner, there has never been a finding of patronage, not one. Appointments of political staff and corporate executive are order in council appointments and have not been subject to oversight by the Merit Commissioner.

Returning the Merit Commissioner function to the PSA supports a more integrated approach to HR service delivery and ensures ongoing promotion and oversight of merit in the B.C. Public Service. Continuous improvements in quality assurance functions will be supported through a newly established governance and review unit within the PSA. For certain quality assurance functions, the mechanism and approach of delivery may differ and be improved.

The Merit Commissioner has never had legislative ability to overturn or direct changes to a hiring decision. That’s incorrect. The Merit Commissioner can recommend the consideration of a hiring decision during staffing reviews. The Merit Commissioner was not able to make any recommendations regarding hiring decisions that were made during audited hiring competitions.

Peter Milobar: I noticed that — we’re dealing with 14 to 27 right now — all Merit Commissioner–related clauses are to come into force and effect by orders in council. I’m just wondering if those orders in council have already been signed off on by the regulation of Lieutenant Governor in Council or if that will come at a future date. If so, what date will that be?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m sorry, Member. We’re not fully understanding what you’re getting at with the question. If you could just flesh it out a little bit for us, please.

Peter Milobar: The commencement dates for 14 to 27 are by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Have there been any of those already issued, or if not, what date will those regulations by OIC come into force and effect?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s important to understand that nothing is in force at this time in respect to the process of what we are doing now and the budget. Should this budget pass and go forward, then those OICs would follow.

Peter Milobar: Is the Merit Commissioner still on the job then?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The acting Merit Commissioner is in place. The former Merit Commissioner’s appointment expired on March 10. The acting commissioner’s appointment began on March 13 and will be in place as we do this transition, should this go ahead.

Peter Milobar: What provisions have been made? What severance provisions, then, does this change of legislation create with the Merit Commissioner and the people in that office?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The prior Merit Commissioner was a term appointment, an OIC appointment for a specified term, and as such does not attract severance. The interim Merit Commissioner, should this legislation pass, will be responsible for transitioning to the public service and the decisions that will be made at that time.

Peter Milobar: But my understanding was that if this is a $2 million decision, there must be other staff — surely, we weren’t paying the Merit Commissioner $2 million a year — or a lease and everything else.

So what is the overall exposure to the government to make this change? I’m assuming that the employees of the Merit Commissioner are not being removed from their duties for any fault of their own — any job performance issues, anything like that. It’s because the government has decided to shut the office down. So what type of exposure does that look like?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The savings in the Merit Commissioner’s office is not just the wages that the Merit Commissioner was paid but also, of course, physical space and the contracting out of the audits that occurred in the independent office.

In regards to the public service employees working in the merit office, they will be treated as other public service employees. There will be opportunities within the public service and, of course, this work will be led by the acting Merit Commissioner.

There is work underway right now in regards to the overall freezing of public service hiring and identifying when there are vacancies, opportunities to move within the public service, and these members would be treated as any other public service members in that regard.

Peter Milobar: I have no more questions for 14 to 27. The next questions will be on 13, Madam Chair.

Clauses 14 to 27 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Now we will move back to clause 13.

On clause 13.

Peter Milobar: Just wondering if the minister can share with us and the public where whistleblowers are supposed to take merit-related hiring integrity concerns now that their previously independent, wholly independent, reporting channel that had various privacy safeguards in it no longer exists. Is it to take those whistleblower concerns to the deputy minister of the public service, and what if those concerns are about that same person?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: PIDA is, in fact, unchanged. There are multiple reporting opportunities available for people in regards to whistleblowing. They include direct supervisor, agency-designated officer and the B.C. Ombudsperson. The options to seek advice are numerous and, in fact, remain unchanged and never did include the Merit Commissioner.

Peter Milobar: With all the changes to the Merit Commissioner in the backdrop of the time frame of all the negotiations going on with the various public sector unions, was there ever any discussion with any of the unions about removing the Merit Commissioner?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Because the rights and entitlements of the union members are unchanged by this, they were informed of this decision on budget day.

Peter Milobar: It’s just interesting that there would’ve been no pre-discussion with the unions. If this is fundamentally not supposed to be changing anything and shouldn’t create any issues, why did the government choose to not have an open and transparent conversation with the unions? Even after budget day, it doesn’t sound like there was that discussion. This could always be withdrawn after a budget is presented.

I get the government can’t talk in advance necessarily without NDAs, which they tend to get people to sign at will these days. But I don’t understand, if this is not meant to be impactful, why there would not be those conversations, especially in the middle of union negotiations for collective agreements, where some unions may find solace in the fact that there’s an independent Merit Commissioner, versus the deputy minister of the Public Service now being the head of these types of things.

So has there been any consultation and discussion with the unions, and if so, were there any concerns raised that they would like to see this decision reversed?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Because this is not relevant to the Merit Commissioner — the collective agreement is silent on the Merit Commissioner — this was not part of our consultation process.

Clause 13 approved.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

[3:45 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I’ll be asking a few questions about this clause.

Clause 28 adds a new section saying the assessor is “not required to consider” certain non-government restrictions when determining actual value. What is the policy intent of this change?

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: Oh, go right ahead, Minister. I’ll re-ask after you’ve changed, if you prefer.

Let’s restart on 28 here, now that everyone’s settled.

Clause 28 adds a new section saying the assessor is “not required to consider” certain non-government restrictions when determining value. What is the policy intent of this change?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This amendment confirms the current practice by B.C. Assessment to not consider private encumbrances when valuing property. They only consider limitations on the use of land imposed through government powers, rather than private agreements made between property owner and another party to restrict the use of a property.

A recent B.C. Supreme Court decision — Fraser Park Realty, 2024 — noted that the Assessment Act does not explicitly authorize assessors to exclude private encumbrances from their determination of land value. This change provides clarity that B.C. Assessment only needs to consider encumbrances by specified public bodies that restrict the use of a property.

The benefit of this change will be preventing property owners from manipulating their property tax bills by placing restrictions on their property to change its value. The second is to ensure that our property assessment system operates efficiently and fairly.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation of the background court case. Is it the minister’s take that the entire purpose of this amendment is to address that specific court case, or is there a broader scope of discussion involved?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, this clause is entirely about the court case and maintaining the existing practices.

Gavin Dew: To confirm my understanding, is the intent of clause 28 to ensure assessors are no longer required to reflect private, non-government use restrictions in actual value, even when they are registered on title and buying subsequent purchasers? Is that accurate?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In fact, it’s not a change. It’s confirming the existing practice. The court case pointed out that it had not been entrenched in law, so that’s the change that we’re making. It’s not a change to practice; it’s continuing the practice.

Gavin Dew: I certainly accept that that may be the intent, but it, obviously, has elicited a fair degree of concern. So I’m just asking clarifying questions to make sure that I and the public can fully understand what not only the intent but the potential effect is of the change.

Clause 28 turns on the phrase “restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements” and on who counts as “a person other than the Crown, local government or local trust committee.” What categories of restriction does government believe fall within this? Is it limited to private contractual restrictions, restrictive covenants, easements, rights of way, injunctions or some broader definition?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It could be any of those examples. I’m going to refer to the decision that has led to this change, the Milman decision.

The potential for private encumbrances to affect property value has now been referenced in case law, and without changes to the Assessment Act, it could reasonably assume a rise in property owners registering private restrictions on their land for the primary purpose of reducing property values to lower their property tax. That’s what we’re addressing here.

Gavin Dew: Is government drawing any distinction between restrictions that are registered on title and those that are not? If yes, where is that distinction reflected in the bill?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No distinction.

Gavin Dew: Why are only the Crown, local governments and local trust committees listed? Why not include other public bodies or statutory decision–makers whose instruments can meaningfully restrict land use?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: These particular organizations were designated in consultation with B.C. Assessment, and these are the entities who would encumber in this way.

Gavin Dew: Does the minister accept that market value can be reduced by real-world uncertainty and restrictions affecting use? If yes, how is it fair for assessed value to potentially ignore these impairments, especially as real and perceived uncertainty on the land base increase?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: B.C. Assessment assesses on the unencumbered fee simple ownership, and this is how they assessed before this clause. It’s how they will assess after this clause. It’s the common practice, and what this does is enshrine that practice.

Gavin Dew: Given the present public dialogue around fee simple land, can the minister understand why individuals in the public reading this amendment, with zero context to it provided, whatsoever, in any budget documents anywhere, might have concerns about what the effect would be, regardless of the intent?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will mention to the member that on page 87, there is a clarifying paragraph in regards to the technical measure taken here: “Effective June 30, 2026, the Assessment Act is amended to clarify the existing practice that B.C. Assessment is not required to consider the effect of private encumbrances affecting use when determining the assessed value of property.”

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much for drawing my attention to that particular note. Is there a reason why this was not referenced in any depth in technical briefings, in the budget speech or in any other materials until I drew attention to it through a speech in the House and through media?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Because this is a minor technical change that entrenches behaviour that has already been in practice and is common practice.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Gavin Dew: Does the minister acknowledge the concern that has been raised that a fee simple owner could face a situation where market or appraised value falls significantly because buyers and lenders price in uncertainty or private restrictions but assessed value is effectively propped up, resulting in higher taxes against a lower real market value and a situation in which land is virtually unsellable?

[4:00 p.m.]

These are the kinds of non-hypothetical situations that landowners are facing, and these are the kinds of questions they have been asking about this section.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member’s question is not relevant to this section.

Gavin Dew: Well, the minister seems to think it’s not relevant, but it has been a matter of considerable question in the public. I think saying the questions are not relevant when there is significant concern being expressed is rather arrogant.

Global News reports that financing was refused for a major Richmond project because of Quw’utsun-related uncertainty. The minister’s own Attorney General says the ruling creates serious uncertainty for fee simple property rights. In that context, can the minister confirm whether clause 28 could allow assessed values to remain higher, even where the market value has been reduced by uncertainty that is not captured through a Crown or local government restriction?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 28, this amendment, is not related to the Quw’utsun decision or to Aboriginal title claims and their potential effects on assessment values.

Privately held properties within the area affected by the Quw’utsun decision will continue to be assessed based on market value. B.C. Assessment is monitoring activity within that area, and if the market shows a change in value, it will be reflected in future assessments.

Gavin Dew: I’m hearing the minister speak about what I think is the intent of the amendment. What I am concerned about and what people have expressed concern about is the effect of the amendment and the ways in which it could be applied or it could create uncertainty.

So regardless of the minister’s stated intent, can she confirm whether it is possible that as a result of clause 28, a property owner could face a significant divergence between the market value of their land and the assessed value used for taxation purposes? Again, the market discounts the property for certain non-government restrictions or uncertainties, but the assessor is now explicitly not required to consider those restrictions for determining the value that drives taxation.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Again, this is not a change to common practice, to the practice here that has been in place since the ’70s. This simply entrenches that common practice in clause 28.

Gavin Dew: If that is the case, I am curious as to why the clause is so poorly defined. Clause 28 hinges on the word “restriction,” but Bill 2 does not define it, and the Assessment Act does not define it either.

Why did government choose not to define restriction in Bill 2? Was the intent to leave it broad and flexible, or is there another reason? Can more specificity be provided as to exactly how the word “restriction” is intended to be understood in this bill?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The folks who worked on drafting this legislation share with me that restriction on use is, in fact, very common nomenclature in the assessment world and not in need of definition.

Gavin Dew: So to confirm, is there a specified common legal meaning of the word “restriction” that should be imputed into either the Assessment Act or into this legislation, or is there a specific reason why it’s undefined?

[4:05 p.m.]

Again, I’m not trying to be unnecessarily harsh on the question. I’m just trying to understand. Restriction has very, very significant meaning in the context of this amendment, and it’s not defined anywhere.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I understand that the member won’t have this in front of them, because they’re looking at the budget and I’m looking at the legislation more broadly, but I will point out that section (5) above section (6) also uses the word “restriction.” This is a terminology that would be defined in case law, used in case law and assessment at practice, not defined in section (5) either.

I will also point out that it’s limited in scope by section (6), where the right of the owner for the fee to terminate that interest is not a restriction within the meaning of that subsection: “Subject to subsections (5) and (7), in determining actual value, the assessor is not required to consider any restriction placed on the use of land and improvements by a person other than (a) the Crown; (b) a local government, as defined in the schedule to the Local Government Act; or (c) a local trust committee, as defined in the Islands Trust Act.”

Gavin Dew: Just for my clarity again, to the minister’s understanding, is the word “restriction,” for these purposes, limited in its intent to formal legal restrictions on use, or does it include functional real-world constraints that affect what an owner can actually do with their land?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As I read out just prior, this clause is guidance to consider these legal restrictions as identified in (6.1)(a) the Crown; (b) a local government, as defined in the schedule to the Local Government Act; and (c) a local trust committee as defined in the Islands Trust Act.

Gavin Dew: Let’s move on to some scenarios, just so we can get an understanding of how this would come into effect. These, again, are situations that people have outlined in expressing their concerns around what the unintended effect of this amendment could be. Again, I’m seeking clarity in good faith to try to make sure that we are able to understand how this would work.

Let’s first start with an unresolved asserted land claim scenario. If a fee simple owner’s market value is diminished because an unresolved asserted land claim creates practical uncertainty for buyers and lenders, does the minister consider that “a restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements” for the purposes of this amendment?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That example has nothing to do with the clause we’re discussing.

Gavin Dew: I think it has a lot to do with the clause we’re discussing. If there is a…. I think it’s a very simple, simple good-faith ask. My job in opposition is to ask the minister what the intent of legislation is. If people who have read this amendment in plain English are uncertain as to what it means, I find it extremely disappointing that the minister is unwilling to engage with what that meaning might be and unwilling to give certainty to the public and to landowners around what the effect would be.

So I will ask again. If a fee simple owner’s market value is diminished because an unresolved asserted land claim creates practical uncertainty for buyers and lenders, does the minister consider that “a restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements” for the purposes here, and if so, who is the “person” placing the restriction?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This amendment is not related to the Quw’utsun decision or to Aboriginal land claims and their potential effects on assessment values. Privately held properties within the area affected by the Quw’utsun decision will continue to be assessed based on market value. B.C. Assessment is monitoring activity within that area, and if the market shows a change in value, it will be reflected in future assessments.

The member says I’m not being clear on the intent of the legislation. I will once again be clear on the intent of the legislation. With the Milman decision, the potential for private encumbrances to affect property value has now been referenced in case law. Without changes to the Assessment Act, it could be reasonably assumed that a rise in property owners registering private restrictions on their land is for the primary purpose of reducing property values to lower their property tax.

Gavin Dew: The minister has asserted the intent of the amendment, and I take it in good faith. What I’m trying to elicit here is not “is there an intent?” but “is there an effect?” It is not my assertion that the amendment has anything to do with Quw’utsun. What I’m trying to understand is what its practical implications could be were it to be brought to bear in a variety of different situations.

I will move on to another scenario, which, again, has nothing to do with Quw’utsun and everything to do with understanding what the potential implications of this amendment could be as it is codified.

So let’s talk about a situation where there is access disrupted by a dispute. If an owner’s entry road is blocked or gated due to a dispute over land title or competing claims, is that “a restriction” as envisioned in this amendment, and if it is, does the minister accept that clause 28 would allow the assessor to be “not required” to consider that impairment if it is not imposed by the Crown, a local government or a local trust committee?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As I’ve explained multiple times now, this clause is about enshrining the practice that has long been in place and continues to be in place, which is common practice. It makes no changes.

The hypotheticals that the member is coming up with really don’t have anything to do with this clause. The example that they gave is not a private encumbrance and is outside of clause 28 consideration.

Gavin Dew: Again, I’m simply trying to make sure that I understand this clause and that the public can understand this clause, because it does elicit considerable uncertainty. I think the minister could acknowledge in good faith that there’s a fair bit of uncertainty going around about land title and that some of it has been caused by a lack of clear communication by her government.

These are good-faith questions designed to elicit an understanding so that people can understand whether or not they need to be concerned about this section, so I find the tone of the response quite disappointing.

Let’s talk about a loss-of-access scenario. If a property’s use and value are impaired because of a loss of use or a loss of an easement or access right, whether through interference or dispute, is that considered a restriction for the purposes of this amendment? For example, if there is a loss of an easement, a loss of access because of a change, a disposition made by a private individual or group.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This member is continuing to bring forward hypotheticals that really aren’t related to what clause 28 is doing and really aren’t examples of private encumbrances and are outside of what we’re discussing on clause 28. I would say that if there is someone watching who has a concern about property, B.C. Assessment is a good place to go and have that conversation.

What we’re discussing here is clause 28, and clause 28 is specifically encoding practice that has been in place since the 1970s. It’s not a change in any way. It came out as a regard to a specific legal case from 2024 that identified that while this practice had been in place, it hadn’t been codified.

[4:20 p.m.]

That’s what we’re doing. It’s not a change. It’s not related to what the member is trying to make it related to, and I encourage the member to move on.

Gavin Dew: I really don’t agree with the minister’s assertion and unwillingness to have this issue teased out. I think it’s a very important one, and I think it’s very important that we fully canvass an understanding of how this works, because people are very, very concerned about private property.

We’ve talked about private encumbrances. I want to, again, get a really clear understanding of the effect, because this has been a rather loosely defined section, and I have not been satisfied with the answers I’ve gotten.

Let’s hypothesize a scenario. This is a very real scenario where, for example, there is a transfer of Crown land. Having transferred that Crown land, the new owner of that Crown land decides to make an easement no longer available or decides to place a gate on the only source of access for a piece of private, fee simple property. That is a private encumbrance, but that is a private encumbrance that comes into effect after a transfer of land by the Crown.

Let’s imagine a scenario where you have a piece of fee simple land, which is located — it’s functionally an island — in the middle of a lake of Crown land. That Crown land is transferred, and the new owners of that Crown land — who are not the Crown, a local government or a local trust committee — decide to gate a road or restrict an easement.

That is a private encumbrance that will affect the value of that land. Is that covered?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 28 is talking about private encumbrances on a particular piece of land, that particular piece of land, not how a gate might affect another piece of land. So the hypothetical that this member is trying to engage us in is not related to clause 28.

The Chair: Just before the member moves on, I’m going to point out that the member has posed an extensive series of scenarios with respect to the interpretation of restrictions within clause 28. The member may not agree with the minister’s responses. However, it appears that his line of questioning, in my opinion, is becoming repetitive. I encourage the member to move on to a new line of questioning in order to use the committee’s time effectively.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m simply seeking clarification of the answer. I have very little more to ask about clarifying on this particular matter, and I will move on.

I’m still struggling to understand this situation here because, again, “restriction” is not defined in the amendment nor is it explicitly spelled out in the act. And the exact kind of situation that I am describing is exactly why we need that clarity. What we’re talking about is, again, that the assessor is not required to consider any restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements.

[4:25 p.m.]

So help me understand. If I have a hunting lodge, if I have a ranch, if I have a home, and if, in the scenario that I have just described, I am no longer able to access that hunting lodge, that ranch or that home because a restriction on use has been created by a gate being erected or an easement being withheld, then I no longer have the functional use of that property. And as such, the value of that property will rapidly diminish.

The minister has just told me that that would not be considered an encumbrance, that that would not be considered a restriction. If somebody cannot access their land or they cannot use their land, whether for their own personal purposes or commercially…. If they have a hunting lodge they can no longer reach, they can no longer rent it out, sell it or provide services there. If they have a ranch they can no longer access because a gate has been erected or because an easement has been withdrawn, then the minister has said that that has no effect on the land.

I would dispute that very heavily. If you can’t access your own land, then it will functionally cease to have market value. Its market value will be rapidly diminished. What the minister has just said goes to exactly the point I’ve been making for half an hour — that based on the way this is laid out and based on the lack of clear definition around restriction, I am describing a scenario in which a piece of land collapses in market value. And the minister has explicitly just told me that even in the scenario I’ve described, there’s no restriction on that land. Help me square this circle.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That’s not at all what I said. What I said was that we’re discussing clause 28 and the use of restriction in clause 28. The hypotheticals that the member is coming up with are outside of clause 28, which is what I said.

Clause 28 does not deal with the question about disputes with neighbours or any other hypothetical that the member would like to throw at it and try to shoehorn in.

Clause 28 is very clearly about us bringing into codification the common practice — the practice that has been in place since the 1970s, the practice that was in place a year ago and will be in place a year from now — to not include private encumbrances and assessment. That’s all that clause 28 does. The member might be unhappy that their attempts to shoehorn in multiple scenarios that they’d like to get excited about don’t fit here, but they don’t.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Chair, I also would like to just rise on a point of privilege for clarity, through Hansard, of my answer to your prior question, which you misquoted me on.

The Chair: Minister, can I just clarify that you are reserving your right to raise a point of privilege at a later time?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I am reserving my right to have a point of privilege at a later time in regards to being misquoted deliberately by the member opposite.

[4:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Member, I’m just going to caution you again that while you may disagree with the minister’s responses, your line of questioning is getting repetitive. As Chair, it is my responsibility to make sure we’re using the committee’s time wisely. We have 107 clauses, so I encourage you to move on to a new line of questioning in order to make sure we use the committee’s time effectively.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. Every one of my questions has been a new line of questioning.

I’m not sure where the minister is coming from. I’m not sure if she expects me to quote Hansard in real time. My understanding of the answer she previously provided was that the situation I described would not be a restriction. I am simply looking for clarity. I think the property owners are looking for clarity, and clarity has been distinctly missing from this government, particularly over the last few months.

Let’s just close this one up, really simply. Clause 28 turns on an undefined term, explanations of which have left me more confused than I was at the beginning of this discussion. Again, the descriptions of what constitutes a restriction, in my view, have been contradictory and unclear. Perhaps the record will show that they have been crystal clear.

However, given that clause 28 turns on an undefined term, it could affect real property tax burdens. In particular, reasonable people, having read this amendment and having seen what the minister has said about it, remain concerned about the implications. Perhaps they’re totally wrong to be concerned. Perhaps I’m wrong to be concerned. I am more than willing to accept the possibility that I’m incorrect to be concerned.

I have not gotten clarity today, and I don’t believe that anybody reviewing the Hansard of this day would walk away with a clear understanding. I don’t believe they would walk away with a crystal-clear understanding, based on some of the answers that were just provided.

In an effort to try to seek clarity and to try to ensure that there is no further confusion around this clause, will the minister commit to issuing clear, written guidance, including examples, of exactly what “restriction” means for the purposes of this amendment, so that property owners and lawyers and others involved in dealing with matters around property assessment can understand, in advance, exactly what will and will not be reflected in assessed value?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will provide some examples to the member, but I do also just want to be really clear about what clause 28 is. The member is clearly trying to make it about something that it isn’t.

Clause 28 is a response to the Milman decision, which was the potential for private encumbrances to affect property value and which has now been referenced in case law — very accepted definitions in case law. Without changes to the Assessment Act, it could be reasonably assumed, a rise in property owners restricting private restrictions on their land for the primary purpose of reducing property values to lower their property tax…. That’s the issue we’re addressing in clause 28.

The Milman decision was about private encumbrances. This clause is about private encumbrances. That’s what we’re discussing, despite the member’s efforts to discuss other things.

The encumbrance in the Milman decision required a specific property to set aside 2.5 parking stalls for every one unit in the building and disallows the land to be used for a grocery or retail store exceeding 1,000 square feet. The restrictions arose in 1959, when the property was subdivided.

An example of another type of restriction that could be affected in clause 28 is of a chiropractic clinic that might require that the next occupant of the same unit not also be a chiropractic clinic, after their lease expires. Or a strip mall may allow for only a single grocer. These are examples of private encumbrances.

[4:35 p.m.]

Similar restrictions may occur in residential properties. For example, a downhill property may have its height restricted by an uphill property through a private agreement which preserves the view for the uphill property. These are the kinds of things that we’re talking about in private encumbrances in clause 28.

Gavin Dew: I am earnestly striving to get clarity here. I appreciate those examples.

I have previously provided an example around a private encumbrance in a scenario where, for example, there is a transfer of Crown land. There is now a piece of property that is in the middle of that Crown land, the Crown land has new ownership, and the new ownership has functional control over access to that land.

I use, again, the example of a hunting lodge. I use the example of a ranch. I use the example of a private residence which is in the middle of land that was previously Crown land. There was a clear understanding of what restrictions existed and did not exist. New restrictions of access and use are imposed. To riff off the minister’s examples, the owners of that surrounding land have full control over the ability of a property owner to access and use their land for personal or commercial purposes.

If, for example, they impose a restriction that suggests that a fee must be paid to access that land, if they impose a restriction that says hunting may not be based off that land, if they impose a restriction that says no commercial use may be used on that land or if they impose a restriction about the kinds of goods that can be sold on that land…. Help me understand whether that constitutes a restriction.

Please, I am hoping the minister will help me to understand this, and help property owners to understand this, by making a very simple, clear commitment to issue guidance around these kinds of scenarios.

We are currently sitting at a moment where, despite her efforts to suggest that nothing is in scope here and that I’m attempting to shoehorn in examples — I’m looking across the aisle here at people holding their chins, mulling and trying to figure out what the implications are here — clearly, we need to figure out how this works.

I am asking for a simple issuance of guidance by the minister and her ministry that can assuage people’s concerns about exactly how this will work. Will the minister commit to doing that, yes or no?

Point of Order

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m rising on a point of order, Chair. I think that the member is continuing to be repetitive. The Chair has given him direction. I don’t believe he’s following the direction.

He also just made comments about people in the room that I find highly inappropriate, so I’m going to ask the Chair to make a ruling on the actions of the member opposite.

The Chair: I’ve already encouraged the member to move on to a different line of questioning, with the recognition that the member may not agree with the minister’s responses and that there does seem to be some repetition in the extensive series of scenarios that the member has provided. That has already been provided.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This exact scenario was asked and answered.

[4:40 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: This will be my final question on this clause. Will the minister acknowledge that at a time when British Columbians are deeply concerned about fee simple property, when they have been left with unclear and contradictory answers by this government, when people have logical reason to be concerned…?

We’re not talking about inflammatory rhetoric. We’re talking about highly nuanced questions of land title. This is exactly one of these nuanced questions around the impacts on title, the impacts on property value of an amendment that was made with very little communication.

If the minister is unwilling to provide clear written guidance that would help to mitigate the concerns of people who have very serious concerns about what’s happening with their fee simple property rights and if the minister is unwilling to do this simple, tiny gesture of providing clear written guidance about a section that she says is insignificant and is of very minimal impact, can she acknowledge that her unwillingness to provide that basic gesture to property owners in British Columbia is likely to exacerbate rather than address their concerns? Will she just acknowledge that, if she won’t provide the guidance?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will acknowledge that this member is continually trying to drag in issues that have nothing to do with clause 28. That’s what I’m seeing consistently.

Clause 28 is a technical amendment. That’s what clause 28 is. It came about as a result of the Milman decision, and it is an amendment that codifies behaviour of assessment that has been in place in the 1970s. That’s what this is about.

On that note, Chair, I ask that we take a bio break.

The Chair: The committee will recess and return at 4:47. Five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:42 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

Peter Milobar: I have a few questions on 29 to 36, all around the homeowner grant.

Welcome to the chair. Just like can happen with deputy ministers in the public service, we can have new chairs coming in as well. So welcome.

A question for the minister around the homeowner grant, the removal of “northern and rural area,” the repeal in section 29.

Just to confirm, this is the $200 homeowner grant that people outside of the 604 area code, basically, can see removed off of their property tax this year. In other words, their property tax bill will go up by $200. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that is correct. The northern and rural homeowner benefit was funded by the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which has now been ended. With the removal of the carbon tax, the northern and rural homeowner grant benefit is being repealed as of January 1, 2027.

Peter Milobar: What does that mean for this year’s property tax bills? Will people still see the $200 on their homeowner grant? Or will it be removed for this coming property tax season, which is statements about to go out now? I’m assuming not but just want clarification.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In fact, it does stay for this year.

Peter Milobar: What are the overall dollars saved by the government by removing people or adding $200 to their property tax bill?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The impact to the fiscal plan is $97 million per year.

Peter Milobar: Were there any discussions with a seniors advocate or any other agencies in regard to how this would impact those in the rural and northern areas in terms of that much of a price shock, a cost pressure added on to a property tax bill? I’m thinking, specifically, higher prevalence on a percentage basis of a more modular, mobile-home type of living that happens, where this will be a significant difference to the property tax bill that they would have otherwise, essentially, not even had to pay.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: When the carbon tax was introduced, there were concerns raised that the northern and rural communities would be disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax. With the removal of the carbon tax, these concerns no longer apply.

Peter Milobar: But the question was whether there was any discussion with the seniors advocate, any discussion modelling down how this will impact people that, as they say, on a percentage basis would have, typically, a slightly lower income, a more fixed income.

The housing in rural and northern B.C. — there’s a much higher prevalence of modular and mobile type of housing, lower-cost housing that people are in, especially in depressed mill towns and areas of the province that are seeing massive economic uncertainty with mill closures.

So was there any discussion? Was there any modelling done? But more importantly, discussion about what this impact would mean with any of those types of advocacy groups or oversight groups.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This was specifically related to the impact of the carbon tax, and in fact, in repealing it, it actually brings $97 million back into the government coffers, which would, of course, allow us to do other things with that money, including affordability measures and supports for seniors and, most importantly, protecting health care.

Peter Milobar: It would also fund the Premier’s $400 million slush fund. There are lots of things that it could fund.

Again, the question was: was there any consultation done with the seniors advocate, any of the groups that would deal with seniors on fixed income or low-income pension-type groups or low income in general?

It is sounding like the minister made a purely economic decision and did not care to, want to or try to understand the magnitude of this impact on people’s property tax bills on a personal, humanized level. This sounds like it was just a calculated balance sheet decision where there was none of that consultation. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member, I’m sure, knows, repealing the carbon tax was a $3 billion tax break. This was an offset to the carbon tax and is no longer an impact. That’s actually what’s happening here.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m very well acquainted with this. I’ve had to educate several ministers in the NDP over the years about why this extra $200 is in existence and the history of it. I was told repeatedly by various ministers that that’s not why that homeowner grant existed, and then I would have to bring out the old documentation and show how it used to be accounted for.

It goes back to even the days of George Heyman as the Minister of Environment, when carbon tax first started to go up. As it went from $30 to $50, there was no change in the $200 homeowner grant. And as it went from $50 ever upward, until the Premier had an epiphany and decided that he no longer supported the carbon tax after years of saying he did, I brought it up then.

In fact, I brought it up during the debate around the removal of carbon tax and asked the minister what the plan was for this or not. The government was non-committal last year because when they removed the carbon tax, they actually had no plan on how to remove it and what the impacts were actually going to be. Again, I understand all of that. I’m not asking the question of what the genesis of the $200 was.

[5:00 p.m.]

The question I’ll ask yet again…. Again, this sounds like a repetitive question because the minister is refusing to answer the question. Was there any consultation with the seniors advocate, any advocate groups for seniors on pension incomes, low-income people, UBCM, local area associations like SILGA or NCLGA — any type of conversation with any of those groups?

It’s been a year. The government could have been working on this in terms of possible changes post carbon tax removal. Was there any type of that outreach or conversations done to get a sense of the human impact of this decision, or was this decision strictly a balance sheet decision by government to cut $97 million of support from low-income people in northern and rural communities?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The answer is no.

There were not those consultations because this is a change that is related to the carbon tax repeal, which was a $3 billion tax reduction for British Columbians. The prior carbon tax had funded the northern and rural $200 broad-based tax incentive that people got. It was not designed as an affordability measure. It was very broad based. It didn’t disproportionately affect seniors. It was a specific economic tool to counter the outweighed effects of the carbon tax on rural and northern folks.

When that went away, it’s very logical that, in fact, this would also change.

Peter Milobar: Well, I specifically asked if this was going to change last year when the carbon tax was removed, and I was told no, it would be thought about. Everything was under review. The government had no problem immediately removing low-income supplements when the carbon tax was removed, but they didn’t actually indicate that this was on the chopping block.

Then, out of the blue, this year we see that it actually is now, with no consultation, no discussion and a decision by government that suddenly, a year later, this is a program that’s no longer tenable.

Why the change of heart from the minister in terms of refusing to remove it last year but suddenly deciding that this year, a year down the road, when people were expecting that this program would continue on, on the basis of the fact it wasn’t removed…?

When asked about it last year, the decision was made. It sounds, once again, like it was a decision not made taking into account the human element of this decision but just strictly a balance sheet.

The Chair: Member for Kamloops Centre, is there a question?

Peter Milobar: Sure. Did the minister contemplate making the Premier’s slush fund $300 million instead of $400 million this year? As a result, they wouldn’t have had to cut out the rural and northern homeowner grant.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think that last year we were clear that there would be a review of all of the components that the carbon tax was funding, and we did, in fact, do that review. This is not a sudden change for folks. The carbon tax was removed in 2025, and the change to the rural homeowners will occur in 2027.

But I do want to take advantage of the opportunity that the member has given me to talk about the $400 million strategic investment fund, which I am a huge fan of, so thank you for that opportunity. This has very little to do with clause 29, but the member introduced it, so I’ll take it.

The strategic investment fund is such an important component of the Look West strategy. I’ll share with the member that when I was previously minister on the Jobs, Economic Development file, one of the challenges that we had is that when opportunities came to help particular sectors grow, and I’ll talk here about biotech, it was apparent to us that the only tool we had in terms of government investment was a direct grant.

We would see the federal government and some other provinces, when they were working on particular sectors, focusing on growth. They had more tools. They had the tool of loans. They had the tool of equity investments, and that’s not something that we had.

I have seen how effective it is when industry and government work together to really anchor and grow a particular sector. Again, I’ll point out the biotech sector. When I was in the role previously, we made an investment into a major biotech company.

The biotech strategy identified what it would take to really make British Columbia a competitor for the fastest-growing biotech sector. Why is that important? It’s important because not only does it grow jobs, not only does it grow solutions for people in terms of health care; it grows intellectual property that can stay right here in British Columbia.

Historically, we’ve had a challenge where intellectual property flies. It takes off. It goes to the U.S. It goes to other places. The opportunity in front of us is to invest in companies that are going to ground their intellectual property here in British Columbia and grow anchor companies. That’s what the strategic investment fund helps us do.

What’s different now than the direct investments we’ve made previously is that it provides a specific structure for those funds and it provides additional tools. So it’s not just a grant. It’s now a potential for equity or potential for a loan as well.

I think what’s also really important to understand is this $400 million fund is a long-term piece. It’s not one year. And it can help us unlock some of the investments that are coming from the federal government as well.

The member incorrectly juxtaposed and said: “You could do this with this money, or you could do that.” The $400 million is not the same as a specific thing that happens within the year. It’s money that will go out the door over time. It’s backup loans. It’s strategic investments. It’s not money that we’ve had to put forward immediately. It will happen over time as these projects unroll, in connection with the private sector, in connection with investments that are coming from the federal government.

This is one of the tools we have, to really focus on economic development. It’s going to be a very important tool. We know that there’s a lot of funding that’s rolling out of the federal government. This is an opportunity to partner with them on landing that funding in British Columbia, and it’s very, very important. I’m glad we’re doing it.

[5:10 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, that still results in homeowners paying an extra $200 in property tax, based on a government decision on how they want to spend. I won’t get off into budget estimates weeds on that right now. I will save that for budget estimates.

Again, governments can make decisions on how they want to spend their money and how they want to tax residents. I can tell the minister, as a former mayor, as a former city councillor, if I added $200 to people’s property tax bills in one year for, quite literally, no extra service, as this is going to do, people would be very, very angry. I think as people figure this out and as it rolls out, people will be very, very angry. So if the minister thinks that this is an inconsequential change, I think she’ll be surprised by the push-back.

I find it interesting timeline-wise. Should this government hang on the timeline, people will start to see it starts to get much closer to a general election. So I think they’ll start to understand just how upset people are going to be when they see their property tax bill go up by an extra $200, like I say, without any extra services provided to them.

Again, I’ll just try to approach these clauses, with the minister’s good graces again, from 29 to 36, treating them as one, because it’s all to deal with the legalese around removing “outside the northern and rural area.”

With 31(4), can we just get confirmation around the maximum of a veterans supplement? Is this just strictly a wording change, how it’s previously worded going back for how long the homeowner grants has been around, or is this impacting a special and specific veterans supplement at the same time?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There is no change to the veterans grant. It’s just removing reference to the homeowner’s grant.

Peter Milobar: In terms of the homeowner grant itself then. This is obviously tied to the carbon tax. Is this the only carbon-tax-related change? Was there no…? I didn’t see any changes in this bill to industrial carbon tax programs or any other residual CleanBC or anything else that carbon tax would have been funded. Is this the only carbon-tax-related change in the budget this year?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: After consultation with my colleagues, there is no other specific tax measure that’s tied to the carbon tax.

Peter Milobar: In terms of the removal of this $200 homeowner grant, was any consideration given by the minister to the fact that this is actually quite punitive? It’s not income tested. So if you’re a senior on a fixed pension income of $30,000 or $40,000 a year, this change is going to impact your ability to pay your property taxes much more significantly than a household that would have a higher income in the $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 range.

[5:20 p.m.]

Was there any thought given to the fact that this is actually going to be quite regressive in terms of impact and the punitive nature to lower-income households?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No, this change is really about the removal of the carbon tax, the benefit that people will get from that — particularly in northern and rural, where there was more consumption — and removing the $200 when the carbon tax was removed.

I will point out to the member, of course, there is a homeowner grant for low-income seniors that’s a separate grant from this one.

Clauses 29 to 36 inclusive approved.

On clause 37.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for the patience on Zoom. I’m there in person tomorrow, so there’s a heads-up to the minister I won’t be done today.

In terms of section 37, this is the change that, again, will impact people that earn $50,000 or less — pension incomes and low-income people, predominantly the most impacted. What modelling was done in terms of the number of income tax returns that are in the $50,000-or-less range?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The share of tax filers to income tax is as follows: 54 percent of filers have income below the first tax bracket, below $50,363, and account for 4 percent of income tax. It’s important to understand that when we made this increase on the lowest tax level, it was so that it will affect the entire tax ladder, and we did so while protecting those among us who earn the lowest.

The increased non-refundable tax credits will mitigate the impact of the tax rate increase. When combined with other tax measures, the average impact to British Columbians is $76 in 2026, with more than 40 percent of British Columbians seeing no increased taxes.

Clauses 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

On clause 40.

Peter Milobar: Both this and 41 appear to be the clauses that are going to freeze income tax brackets. Why freezing of the brackets when we have inflationary pressures on household incomes causing a lot of distress? Why was that decision made to freeze the brackets?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a revenue measure. Generally speaking, of course, government needs to balance the need for taxation and revenue to protect core services with the impact on taxpayers. These are the principles that are guiding the changes.

I’ll share with the member the impact of the de-indexation in 2027. The first bracket, the impact is $14.80. The second bracket is $21.15. The third is $56.30. The fourth is $41.32. The fifth is $67.55. The sixth is $79.81. The seventh is $196.

So you can see that this is very much a progressive measure and a cumulative $477 in 2027.

Peter Milobar: The minister said it’s a revenue measure. That would mean increased taxation. What is the modelling, then, for the collection per year of this freeze of the tax brackets?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: For the member’s reference, budget document page 79, third item down: 2026-27, the impact is $60 million; ’27-28, it’s $309 million; and ’28-29, it’s $590 million.

Peter Milobar: What order of magnitude would the minister consider a big income tax hike?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: What I will say is that these are tax measures that are very broad-based and moderate, and that’s the overall principle behind this change.

Peter Milobar: Why I ask that question is because two days before the budget, the minister said no large tax hikes. So I’m just curious what quantifies as a large tax hike if this isn’t it.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The approach that we’ve taken in Budget 2026 is to focus on protecting those among us who earn the least. Through our budget measures, the effect of the income tax changes protects 40 percent of British Columbians, who will not experience an increase.

The tax measures are designed to be progressive so those of us who are doing a little better can contribute a little bit more. There are moderate changes to a very broad base, and those are the principles behind the tax changes.

Peter Milobar: However, the question was: what does the minister consider a large tax hike or a big tax hike? Again, she said two days before the budget that there isn’t in this budget, and cumulatively, people are feeling like there is, especially people on fixed incomes and in other areas.

I’m just asking the minister to quantify, as we’re working through these various tax measures, what, in her opinion, would have been big tax hikes in this budget, if these are what she considers moderate.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I guess what I would define as a big tax hike would be one that really changes where we sit in terms of competitiveness. British Columbia remains one of the most competitive tax jurisdictions — for example, for someone making $149,000 or less. They are attracting the least tax of any province in Canada here in British Columbia, and I guess, a big tax change would be if we were at the bottom instead of the top.

Peter Milobar: Are the basic personal exemptions on income taxes frozen with these changes in this year’s budget as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The renters tax credit, the B.C. family benefit and the children and youth disability benefit will continue to increase with inflation.

[5:40 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I asked, though, if the basic personal earning exemption would. You know, it’s $16,773 before you start paying tax. Is the basic personal exemption frozen with this freeze of tax brackets?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that remains frozen.

Peter Milobar: So if somebody is earning minimum wage and their wage increases each year over the next three years and they continue to earn slightly more than over the basic personal exemption, they will pay more tax than they would have otherwise, had the basic personal exemption gone up at the same rate as the minimum wage had gone up, since they are both usually tied to CPI?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: If an individual has employment income below $26,750, they continue to pay no taxes. In 2026, under these changes, if an individual is a full-time worker earning minimum wage and claiming no additional credits or deductions, then this individual would pay. If working 30 hours a week, they’d get $30 tax savings for the year. If working 35 hours a week, there’s $2 additional tax savings for the year. If they’re working 40 hours a week, there’s an additional $2 tax savings for the year.

But when we pull the deductions that people usually do and look at the tax data and extrapolate from there, what we see is, considering the actual amounts claimed by taxpayers, an individual earning an annual income of about $37,500, which would be minimum wage at 40 hours per week, would get an estimated tax savings of $17.

[5:45 p.m.]

For an income of $33,000 or a 30-hour-a-week minimum-wage earner, their savings are $35. Someone making $28,200, their savings are about $50.

Peter Milobar: Well, what would their savings have been if you’d adjusted the personal basic exemption upwards as you would do every other year, as their income rises with the minimum wage increase?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In that scenario, where it had been indexed, they would receive no refund. There would be nothing owing because it’s a non-refundable tax credit.

Peter Milobar: What happens to someone on a fixed pension income that is in the $40,000 range, $50,000 range? They’re no longer getting the basic personal exemption increase. They’re also seeing their taxes increase. I guess, the point is when you’re freezing tax brackets and you’re freezing basic personal exemptions, there is an impact to people or you wouldn’t be booking almost $600 million, in year 3 of this, of new raw income.

I’ll go back to the middle of collective agreement discussions. What discussions, if any, did you have with any of the union brethren out there that are settling their public service wage packages and assuming, probably, that there’d be the typical inflationary rise in tax brackets, and they’re finding out through this budget that, in fact, that is not the case? Was there any discussion at all?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Two questions here. The first one was the pension income tax rate, the 40-to-50 range that the member gave an example of. That is not indexed already, so there would be no change there. It’s set at $1,000, and because of the increase to the bottom rate, there would actually be an increase.

Then the member also asked in regards to consultations. We did not consult on this tax measure.

Peter Milobar: This is a three-year freeze, as I understand it. What is the modelling and implication of freezing these tax brackets for three years? What does that jump in the tax brackets, modelled out, look like, and what does that do as a hit to the revenues?

I’m assuming if it’s ever-increasing from $310 million to $590 million, the year 4 would’ve been a substantive jump back up again. So what does that do to the modelling for government in terms of the revenues that are going to have to be made back up if there’s a sudden recalibration of the tax brackets to account for three years’ worth of inflation?

We just started today off talking about having to account for construction values and a one-time big lift. What does this big lift look like for tax brackets in a couple of years, after this has run its course?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to be sure I’m understanding the member’s question. If I understand correctly, I believe the member is asking…. We are making this change for ’27 to ’30, and I think the member is asking: “What happens in ’31, when indexing is turned back on? Is there a sort of catching-up on inflation that must occur?” I’m assuming that from your example of 21 years of construction inflation not being included.

The answer is no. It would just go back and behave the way that it has been prior to this change. So it would be based on the year prior’s inflation, that would then inform that amount.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, so the minister is saying that there is essentially a permanent reduction in what the tax brackets are then.

If there’s a three-year freeze and three years’ worth of inflation happens at the same time and then the tax bracket just continues on pretending that inflation never actually happened in the real world, people will be behind with that inflationary pressure, moving forward. Am I understanding this correctly?

[6:00 p.m.]

This is not a three-year tax bracket freeze. This is going to have an implication on every single tax year, moving forward, compared to what the current tax bracket changes are, based on inflation.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: What this measure does is pause indexation until 2030, and when it gets turned on in 2031, indexation continues. Yes, the brackets will be lower than they would otherwise have been.

As we approach the turning back on of the brackets, it’s a time to review where the impact and the distribution of incomes across the province lie. This is what has been done in other jurisdictions that have used this tool, and that’s what we will do, going forward.

Peter Milobar: What is the three-year modelling for what the brackets should have gone up by? Is it 5 percent, 4 percent, 6 percent…? What is the three-year cumulative impact? I’m assuming compounding because this government loves to compound things.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’ve assumed an inflation rate of 2 percent in the modelling.

Peter Milobar: So over three years, that would be 6 percent — with compounding, 6½ percent, 6.6 percent. Is that correct?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: So 2 percent compounded over three years is 6.1 percent.

Peter Milobar: Everybody, regardless of their tax bracket, will see that what should have gone up by 6.1 percent is actually not now. That’s a permanent fixture.

Can the minister explain, then…? I’m assuming the jump…. I’m trying to understand how it goes from $60 million to $309 million to $590 million — why, if it takes effect on January 1, 2026, it’s only accounted for at $60 million.

Is that because of only a few months of the fiscal reconciliation for the ’26-27, since it takes effect in January of 2026?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is correct. It starts January 1, 2027. It’s just a situation where the calendar year and the fiscal year don’t align, so that $60 million is a quarter of the calendar year.

Peter Milobar: We’re kind of covering off both sections 40 and 41 here with my questions.

I know that section 40 takes effect January 1, 2026. When does section 41?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The effective date for both 40 and 41 is January 1, 2027. That’s correct.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, 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).

[1:35 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: Back to the Global News exposé. I want to be clear when we’re talking about this that there are a lot of legitimate clients in real need, and what we’re talking about is curbing fraud.

Before the break, the minister said they catch a lot of fraud, and I have no doubt that they do. But allegedly, a lot is still being missed. In the exposé, they mentioned a lack of checks with ICBC, Equifax, B.C. OnLine and landlord checks. Additionally, my office spoke with multiple individuals who said the ministry lacks checks and balances, including checking NOAs and checking eligibility every few years.

My question is: what action is the minister taking to close loopholes and gaps, assuming that there is fraud being missed?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Again, I really appreciate the question from the member because it’s a really good opportunity to talk about the work that is happening, as the member says also, preventing fraud so that we protect the resources for the people that really need it.

Most people who apply for income assistance really do need it, but when there is fraud, we have to find it, and that’s why we have a whole division that’s focused on this.

[1:40 p.m.]

The ministry verifies information when applicants apply and continues verifying eligibility throughout the time that they receive assistance. In addition, we have the prevention and loss management services branch that I mentioned before lunch. It safeguards program integrity by addressing under-reporting, investigating fraud, reviewing eligibility and reducing financial loss.

My ministry conducts regular reviews and investigations to confirm clients continue to meet program requirements. That includes eligibility reviews, which check whether the information in a client’s file is correct and up to date. It compares the file with available information; gathers anything missing; makes any needed changes to the client’s assistance amount, including recording any overpayments.

Secondly, there are compliance reviews. They check whether a client was and is receiving the correct amount of assistance. It confirms whether the client meets the rules for eligibility both now and in the past.

Then, third, prevention reviews. That’s a focused check of a client’s file regarding a specific eligibility issue, such as duplicate payments or situations where a client may be incarcerated.

Front-line staff verify identity, assets, income, including completing direct checks with CRA. This is a change over the last year and a half. We now have an agreement with CRA which we’ve been advocating for, for a long time. We’re very glad that they’ve agreed to work with us in this way. We data-match our entire caseload against CRA files.

We’ve got a couple of other areas also, sources that our prevention and loss management team use to verify eligibility. It’s a wide range of federal, provincial and third-party data sources, including, in addition to CRA, other federal benefit programs like EI and CPP; consumer credit reports; ICBC; B.C. Assessment; land titles; advanced education student loans; and income assistance from other jurisdictions, both First Nations and interprovincial. All these sources help confirm accuracy and identify and manage risk of overpayment and fraud.

Again, I’m with the member. This is a small fraction of people that do abuse the system. We approach the work of qualifying for income assistance and supporting people who need extra help with compassion and dignity, but we have a very strong fraud prevention program.

It’s really good to have an opportunity to talk about it, because we want people to have confidence in the system.

Kristina Loewen: Just a follow-up to that. The checks and audits on the files — are they done randomly, as flagged, or are they done to every single person across the board routinely, yearly, in that manner?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: There are a lot of touchpoints in the system in addition to the ones that I’m going to talk about, so if the member wants to explore this further, then we can definitely go broader.

Specifically on the member’s question, eligibility checks are done randomly, and compliance checks are prioritized on a risk-based level.

[1:45 p.m.]

Case files are prioritized based on the likelihood of risk of overpayment or potential existence of fraud. Higher-risk files, including those with multiple allegations, are addressed first to prevent higher financial loss.

We analyze large data sets, including tax data, to identify instances and patterns of fraud, under-reporting and other issues that could lead to financial loss. Again, that we now run our entire caseload against CRA files — just in the last year and a half — is all consistent with this work and is a really good step up. We’re grateful to the federal government for finally agreeing to partner on that.

Kristina Loewen: Just to clarify then. There are no routine applied checks to each individual all the time. It’s random. I think that could be problematic when it comes to fraud, but I do see some good things being implemented as well, like the collaboration with the CRA. I think that’s good.

Another thing that was brought to my attention was the ticketed process. When a client calls in, they receive a ticket, and their ticket is followed up with, as opposed to case-by-case and that more personal touch.

I feel like I’m not explaining myself very well, but just the individual connections.… So if Kristina has a case in the ministry, Kristina is followed up with, and everything about Kristina is known by her caseworker. Now, we’re in a system where Kristina calls up, she gets a ticket, and the ticket is followed up with.

That’s kind of what I’m getting at with the fraud too. It lends itself to gaps and loopholes when you’re not looking at the individual, or every individual, the same way in this and applying the same thing. You’re just looking for flags, essentially, and then following up on the flags.

I guess my question is in regard to the ticketing system. Is that something the ministry is committed to, or is there room to change that, in regard to this line of questioning?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m going to ask clarification — because we each have different interpretations of what you’re asking — rather than speculate.

Through the Chair, is she seeking clarity on if an individual member of the public phoned in with a fraud allegation, then how would that allegation be treated? That’s what I am understanding her to talk about — the link between fraud and what might be a ticketed system.

Kristina Loewen: What I am intending is.… The system has moved away from a case-by-case management system, I think. My understanding is that they’re not necessarily looking at the individual, dealing with the individual and saying: “Has this individual been identified and verified? Is there any fraud with this person?” They’re just looking at the whole thing and going, “Oh, there’s a flag,” and then they’ll investigate that flag.

If a client calls in, they get a ticket. That ticket is followed up with, and then the ticket is settled, as opposed to a case management system, where individuals are assigned to people. So the whole thing kind of lends itself to some potential gaps.

My question is: is there a commitment to that system, or should we go back to case management?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Case management was ended by the previous government in 2006. We are not contemplating going back to it entirely, but we are returning to case management with some of the most complex clients. Maybe if we have this opportunity this time next year, we’ll be able to talk a little bit more about outcomes of that.

I also want to take a sidebar to just mention our community integration specialists and really welcome the opportunity to talk about them more. Outreach workers, SDPR workers — the almost 185 of them that work across the province — really, develop relationships, again, with the most disconnected people from government services.

So I think they would consider themselves in some ways to be case managers, but they, certainly, care for people in a very important way, linking them, whether it’s to health care, housing, signing up for replacing ID — so many things that they do.

Case management — yes, for the most complex people. Community integration specialists do very specialized care on an outreach basis, meeting people where they are. They don’t have to come into the office.

But more big picture, which I think is what the member is getting at, our front-line staff in every corner of the province really rely on local knowledge. They do recognize people. They do develop relationships.

[1:55 p.m.]

They give me and my deputy minister and senior managers very clear advice about where they’re seeing problems in the system. Either it’s people falling through the cracks or people abusing the system. I have implemented regulatory changes based on their direct advice, what I’ve heard from them directly. Their advice and observations are extremely important, and they’ve had impact.

Then finally, I’d say when an individual comes to a front desk or phones SDPR looking for support, there is history and there is context for every client, every report. It’s not that each person is met just as a one-off.

Within CIM, there’s a history section. There’s a comment section. The staff that is attending to that person’s request in the moment is able to see any outstanding service requests. They’re able to see patterns of repeated asks for the same kind of benefit. So nobody starts fresh when they talk to an SDPR worker.

Again, I’m going to express my gratitude to the really good folks that do this extremely difficult, very skilled and really important work on all of our behalf.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for those answers.

We’re going to move on a little bit more specifically to PWD. Yesterday I asked how many individuals currently receive PWD, and I received the answer of 155,724 individuals.

What percentage of the ministry’s total budget is allocated to PWD benefits?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Of the $5.98 billion budget, $2.28 billion goes to disability assistance, and the clarification that my team is encouraging me to make is that people with disabilities have access to budget beyond that $2.28 billion disability assistance. That is the straight financial monthly transfer. As individuals, they may well apply for supplementary assistance that would help them — for example, with health, with addiction treatment.

We can get deeper into that, but the simplest way of answering your question: of the $5.98 billion budget, $2.28 billion goes to disability assistance payments.

Kristina Loewen: What is the current monthly PWD payment for a single individual?

The Chair: Just a reminder to go through the Chair.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: It’s $1,483.50.

Kristina Loewen: What is the ministry’s estimate of the monthly cost of living for a single adult with a disability?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: As discussed yesterday, that is not a calculation that our ministry is making.

In addition to the $1,483.50, a single person on disability assistance can also earn income. We could talk in more detail about the earning exemption that we continue to increase. The most recent increase was this January 1.

Also, as discussed yesterday, a lot of other supplements are available through other ministries. B.C. Housing has a number of rental supplements that people can stack on. Also, within SDPR, a number of additional supplements — for example, health, nutrition. And especially PWD, with health technologies, breathing devices overnight. There’s a whole suite of health supplements that are available both on the medication or nutrition side but also medical equipment that people can apply for through our ministry.

Kristina Loewen: Do you know how many PWD recipients rely on food banks?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: That question was asked and answered yesterday.

Kristina Loewen: Could the minister answer what percentage of PWD recipients report difficulty meeting basic needs, such as food and housing?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: As discussed yesterday, we aren’t tracking on a per-person basis what I think the member is looking for. But I can give some numbers that give us a bit of a sense of when SDPR clients return to us looking for more help.

[2:10 p.m.]

From April 2025 to December 2025, we issued 180,000 crisis supplements, of which 120,000 were for food and 15,000 were for shelter. My ministry has issued about 20,000 more crisis supplements in the first nine months of this fiscal year than were issued in the entire 12 months of fiscal year 2023-24. In addition, approximately 9,000 health supplements were issued for medical equipment.

That is for all income assistance recipients, not just people with disabilities, as the member sought. We can probably try to tease that out if it’s important, but we don’t have that information here.

I can say, though, that the latest numbers we have are that, of the crisis supplements for food, 58 percent are for people with disabilities, people on disability assistance.

Kristina Loewen: What steps is the ministry taking to improve employment opportunities for persons with disabilities?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I believe that the question was in reference to people with disabilities.

Yes, thank you. I’m really glad you asked the question.

This is a really significant part of SDPR’s work, and a lot of really powerful stories come out of that connection between employment…. I really hear very strongly from people that it’s not just that a job helps get you ahead financially but has a lot of community inclusion, a lot of sense of pride and purpose and, in some cases, a new set of community and friends. It’s really that people are just so glad that our team….

My ADM Karen Blackman has just joined us here. It’s her team that heads up this work.

I’m going to just run through a number of different programs. I’m really happy to dig into any of these in more detail.

WorkBC remains…. The 102 WorkBC offices across the province are kind of the portal. People can always contact my office directly if they want to engage any of these, but we rely on WorkBC to be kind of the entry point, and then they connect to some of these programs that we deliver.

The WorkBC assistive technology services program supports people to address disability-related barriers in the workplace.

Also, my ministry supports job opportunities for people with disabilities by engaging with employers to shift perspectives and hiring practices. The Presidents Group is the advisory body that both encourages each other within the industry but also lets me and my team know how we can help remove barriers. We’ve got representation there from BCAA to TransLink to London Drugs. They’re really powerful. It’s also the smallest shops and tiniest cafés that all sit on the Presidents Group and that are an inspiring group of people. They’ve really helped enormously.

A third significant program. We’ve got employer-targeted marketing material promoting WorkBC as a place to find job seekers with a diverse range of skills and assistive technologies to support job retention.

Then we also have a whole suite of funding projects called community and employer partnerships. They can focus on improved employment outcomes for all clients, including those with disabilities. Those community and employer partnership projects are really built one community and one organization at a time to train and support a cohort of workers. It’s not like sustainable organizational funding. It’s aimed at the worker.

Those are funded largely from federal dollars, some EI dollars, so it’s workers’ money that goes back to workers. We’re really glad that the federal government continues to send those dollars through provinces and territories rather than deciding that out of Ottawa, they can design the kinds of employment programs that are most meaningful for a community.

In 2025-2026, as of December 31, 2025, WorkBC had served about 16,000 people over that year — people with disabilities who completed a disability-related employment needs assessment.

I will also talk about another program that I mentioned in my opening remarks, community-based employment services. They fund outreach-based pre-employment services to people with really complex needs related to substance use, homelessness and mental health issues who have experienced barriers to accessing employment supports and jobs. We’ve got that running in about five cities right now and are expanding it to more.

And then I’ll just take a minute…. These are, again, our projects but mostly federally funded, all employment related. I mean, I’ve got so many examples, but I’m just going to highlight three.

[2:20 p.m.]

Foundry B.C. is, with our funding, doing a peer-based employment support element of their work. I know the member is well familiar with Foundry, the peer-led model. Hiring youth peer-support workers is what we’ve been doing with this funding, including youth who identify as Indigenous, gender-diverse, neurodiverse, youth in care, youth from rural and remote communities, youth with disabilities. They have, again, a kind of one-stop shop within Foundry. They’ve been able to connect to employment.

We’re also funding through Canadian Mental Health Association, supporting employers to build psychologically safe and healthy workplaces for employees living with mental illness. This funding, ’23 to ’26, has developed a self-paced learning module for employers and leaders to better understand the importance of psychological safety in the workplace; strategies to prevent burnout; skills to support successive employees, including those living with mental illness, substance use challenges and concurrent disorders.

Then a third highlight, which, again, I touched on in my opening comments. We funded the work experience opportunities and initiative grant that we asked United Way B.C. to administer for us. It provides not-for-profit organizations with grants to deliver time-limited paid work experience for income assistance clients who face significant barriers to employment, including disability.

I’ve just heard amazing examples and experiences from people that have gone through this program. It could be adults with developmental disabilities — anyway, across the spectrum. It sets people up for success in the work environment, coaches them, supports them in being successful in their work.

And earned income from all of this. These are, at a minimum, minimum-wage jobs. Again, that’s where the earning exemption kicks in so that people are able to supplement their support allowance or shelter allowance with earned income.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Do you have the number of PWD recipients currently employed while receiving benefits?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: In 2025-26, 20,971 disability assistance cases declared income in at least one month, over the year.

Kristina Loewen: Has the ministry evaluated whether earning exemptions adequately encourage workforce participation?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for the question. This is a really important intersection area. I love the questions she’s asking.

Earning exemptions have had a positive impact on client incomes, especially for families with children. In 2025-26, $165 million of earnings were declared by people receiving disability assistance. That compares to 2015-2016, when it was $92 million. So $92 million in 2015-2016 and $165 million in 2025-26.

In 2025-26, $151 million of earnings was exempted for people receiving disability assistance, compared to $90 million in 2015-2016. We have significantly increased the earning exemption over that time.

Earning exemptions increased the total income for families with children by $38 million in the 2025-26 year.

Kristina Loewen: I’m going to move on to Community Living B.C. now. My first question: how many individuals receive services through CLBC?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Community Living B.C. supports over 29,000 adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

Kristina Loewen: What is the current total budget allocated to Community Living B.C.?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The budget for Community Living B.C. is $1.93 billion.

Kristina Loewen: How many individuals remain on wait-lists for CLBC services?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: This is, again, just a really important area. I’m going to give kind of a brief answer. If the member wants to go deeper, then we’ve got…. Now my CLBC team has joined us, so we’re well supported.

The short answer is that no Community Living B.C.–eligible person is left without some form of assistance while waiting for additional services. Individuals who have no other Community Living B.C.–funded services are offered individual and family wellness funding right away. Flexible monthly support of approximately $350 to $700 is provided. That’s the minimum, and that ensures that everybody who is on any kind of waiting-for-service list is receiving some level of assistance — unless they decline, and some people do.

All CLBC-eligible adults go through a thorough needs assessment to plan for Community Living support. That includes funded services as well as local resources and family and support networks.

I look forward to the member’s next question. There’s a lot of detail that we have to share.

Kristina Loewen: A further question on that. What is the average wait time for residential placement through CLBC?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: CLBC’s resource allocation process for services and for housing involves annual updates of requests and prioritizing all requests for service. Prioritization is based on the person’s disability-related needs, the availability of natural supports like family or community assistance and CLBC’s available capacity. Prioritization is based on level of need and urgency.

An example would be former youth in care with nowhere else to go. They get placed immediately.

I get at where the member is going with her question. I don’t mean to frustrate the question. The answer is, honestly, that this is done on a person-centred basis. It’s not first come, first served. We’re doing a lot of work — within MCFD, within the school system, between our ministries — to have the transition into Community Living B.C. services be as smooth as it can. We really are getting ahead, planning ahead.

The one sort of number that might be comforting…. If someone wants to be in a group home, if there is space, then we may be able to get a person placed within weeks. It’s really just as long as the paperwork and mechanical pieces.

In other cases, the wait is much longer. If it is longer, it’s because that person has other natural supports within family or community and we can take the time to get the right home-share placement or the right placement for the person.

Just while I have the floor, I’ll just say to the home-share providers, 4,000 or more of them across the province…. They’re doing such important work. We’re really grateful for the ways that, for home-share providers, they really make that family-like setting that allows people to live independently. We’re highly reliant on them and really grateful for their service.

[2:40 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: How many CLBC service providers have reported staffing shortages?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I don’t have a number for the member’s exact question. If we can find it, then we’ll definitely undertake to follow it up. But I do have some big-picture numbers and some trends that we can talk about.

[2:45 p.m.]

As we all know and feel, people who work in the community social services sector provide such valuable service for B.C.’s most vulnerable people. Community Living B.C. meets and consults regularly with sector groups like the B.C. CEO Network, the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. and the Provincial Association of Residential and Community Agencies. These meetings help Community Living B.C. understand service-provider issues and the impacts of recruitment and retention challenges as well as considering potential solutions.

The issue of recruitment and retention is something that we also discuss through the Social Services Sector Roundtable, which I co-chair with my deputy, Suzanne Christensen. Through the surveys done by the Social Services Sector Roundtable, the turnover rate for staffing in the sector has been dropping. We’re really encouraged by that. Again, if I can get the specific numbers by the end of estimates to the member, then I will do that.

Some specific ways that Community Living B.C. has been supporting.… Then there’s a whole other tranche of ways that SDPR and other ministries have been supporting the sector generally, but I’m going to speak only to CLBC. In 2026, CLBC allotted Family Support Institute with almost $600,000 for a support worker central portal. That’s a job board where people with disabilities and support staff can connect.

In 2025-26, in direct response to service-provider feedback on inflationary cost pressures, CLBC invested $12 million to increase agency administration rates to 10 percent across all service-provider programs. That was effective April 1, 2024, to strengthen providers’ infrastructure and supports and for supporting improved workforce recruitment and retention across the sector.

A third way that CLBC helped was, in 2024-25, by implementing wage comparability increases to ensure competitive and equitable wages to support recruitment and retention across the community living sector, with over $5.3 million provided in retroactive payments.

Finally, home-sharing coordination increases were provided in ’24-25. Then a bunch of other ways that are supporting home share, which is a whole other area of inquiry I’m sure we can talk about….

On the staffing side, I’m really glad to see that some of those investments appear to be bearing fruit. Again, I’m extremely grateful to people that choose to take on and to stay in this really important sector.

Kristina Loewen: What percentage of CLBC clients are currently living with aging parents or caregivers?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: As of December 2025, Community Living B.C. supported 5,562 people aged 50 years or older, and about 2,000 are living with family, which doesn’t necessarily mean aging parents. We’re going to try to tease that number out more, and we’ll provide it before the end of estimates or follow up with the member. What I can say right now is that 2,000 of the 5,500 over-50s are living with family.

I’ll say also, though, that because of the continual assessment and checking in and looking at all the trends about future service impacts, especially with our provincial councils, it’s a very active area of inquiry, so there aren’t surprises for us here. If somebody is living with an aging parent and they themselves are aging, then we are actively meant to be planning and working together to not push anybody into an emergency situation.

That’s very much what my expectation is of Community Living B.C., and I know it’s a very active area of work within the organization. If we can get a more fine-tuned number, then we certainly will, to the member.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. You started to go into the answer to the next question, so that’s good.

A huge concern for many aging parents who are supporting their children with disabilities who are older…. What plans exist to support aging caregivers who can no longer provide support? If you could just get into a bit more of the specifics, I’d appreciate that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m going to answer the member’s question with a focus on people with disabilities as opposed to their families.

The work that Community Living B.C. is doing to support people with disabilities as they age is a real focus of the organization, especially because people with developmental disabilities might experience the effects of aging earlier than the general population, so aging-related supports and services might be required at an earlier chronological age than the general population. This makes this work especially important.

Some of the things that Community Living B.C. has been doing….

First, ongoing consultation with the Reimagining Community Inclusion health and mental health advisory and aging-related changes working group.

Second, throughout the 2025 calendar year, the CLBC aging knowledge hub has seen nearly 4½ thousand visitors. The page remains one of the top-ten most-viewed pages on the CLBC website.

Third, as of December 2025, a grant with Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network to support community response to planning was completed. It focused specifically on people and families who are aging.

Fourth, CLBC funded a project with the B.C. CEO Network. These are CEOs of social service organizations that are particularly focused on home share. They compiled a late-life-planning, easy-to-read guide for self-advocates. It was developed with self-advocate guidance, and it was released in January of last year.

Fifth, CLBC regularly collaborates with the Ministry of Health and health authorities to support aging-related supports for individuals. That work has included clarifying messages that confirm adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities are eligible for home and community care services funded by health authorities. It seems obvious, but it has been important for us to reassert.

Sixth, CLBC delivered training for the Fraser Health Authority staff to strengthen confidence in programs supporting older adult and aging populations.

Finally, relationships with new organizations have been established, including the Alzheimer Society of B.C.

Our provincial work continues to ensure that information and programs are available and inclusive of Community Living B.C.–eligible people and families, to make sure that they’re accessible and evidence-based.

Brennan Day: I’m just wanting to get a little more clarification on the average age of home-share providers working for CLBC or a CLBC contractor. We know, talking to many home-share providers, that they are now aging out of care.

[3:00 p.m.]

So a median and a maximum age of those individuals, because we know that they’ll be dropping out of the system soon due to retirement, as well as just explaining what CLBC is doing to recruit new home-share providers.

We know that there is an absolute shortage, and it’s extremely tricky, especially in rural and remote communities, to attract staff. It would be great to know what in this budget is addressing that incoming problem.

[3:05 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The first question was about average age of home-share providers. I think the member knows that because they’re subcontracted, they’re not CLBC employees. We don’t have access to that information. There is a data project that CLBC is working on that might help us. This time next year, if we have this opportunity, we may have some of the information. Again, because they’re not directly employed by Community Living B.C., we don’t have that number.

To the second question, recruitment and retention, we’ve been funding Home Sharing Support Society B.C. to raise public awareness about home-sharing in videos that share personal experiences of providers and people that live with them. That’s just on the external promotion, but I’m sure that the member would agree with me that the very best way we can recruit and retain home-share providers is by supporting them better financially. That is something that we have been doing.

I’ll run through a couple of different initiatives over the last bunch of years. In 2019, we lifted home-share rates for the first time in a decade. That was an $8.8 million provision in Budget ’19, annualized to $18.3 million starting in 2020-2021. Specific rate increases ranged from a 15 percent to a 42 percent increase, depending on support needs. In 2020, there were additional home-share rate increases and $1 million added for respite supports.

In 2023, when our government increased the shelter rate by $125 per month for people on disability assistance, it directly supported home-share providers facing rising housing costs. In 2024, CLBC introduced full liability insurance coverage for home-share providers, helping to cover the cost of damages, where applicable. Also in that year, CLBC provided additional funding to home-sharing providers for WorkSafeBC personal, optional protection coverage.

So we are a combination of making the financial calculation better but also doing that outreach to encourage more people to do this really important work at home share.

Brennan Day: I think it would be very important for CLBC to send out a survey to contractors to find out what those average ages are. There are caseloads, certainly on Vancouver Island, where the average age of the home-share provider is over 65, with home-share providers well into their late 70s now providing care, which is not a stable system. Obviously, those people are subject to their own health risks. I would recommend, for next year, that that would be a very important number for the ministry to understand, because that’s extremely fragile.

The other thing too. You did mention the rates that are being done. The maximum rate right now with CLBC, through their tiered system, is $3,335 a month for home share. Now, I understand that there are tax implications on that as well. That is for full room and board for somebody with extremely high needs. Given that basement suite rent now is pushing $2,000 a month in some areas, I think more needs to be done.

In that vein, in talking to long-term-care providers across the province, we know that CLBC is trying to push people that are aging out of care with CLBC into long-term-care facilities. I think it’s very important for everybody, including other ministries, to understand how many individuals who have extremely complex needs and cannot currently be accommodated in long-term-care homes are, potentially, coming into the system.

If you could please let me know how many CLBC clients are over the age of 50 years old and 65 years old. What plans does SDPR have to ensure there are long-term-care spaces available for those with extensive specialized care needs? I know, for a fact, that this is not being planned for adequately, and it’s being pushed into areas that cannot accommodate these individuals.

The Chair: Noting the time, folks, we will take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:15 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Good thing that the member asked multiple questions all at one time. We did a lot of work over the break to get answers.

The member’s first encouragement for us to do a survey about the age of home-share providers…. As I alluded to, just more briefly in an earlier answer, yes, that is happening. We just implemented, through the PRISM system, the ability…. Even though home-share providers are not employees of CLBC, we are pulling together that data. A survey is in planning right now. So as the members suggests, we’ll be able to talk about this in the future once it has generated some data.

Second point. The member said that the maximum rate for home share was $3,300 a month. In fact, it’s $5,800 a month — actually $5,856 for the most complex individual. That is straight compensation for the home-share provider. There would be more support available, in addition, to the individual — community inclusion supports, care, respite for the home-share provider. So that’s like the minimum, $5,856 for the highest level of compensation.

[3:30 p.m.]

The member asked the number of people served by Community Living B.C. who are aging. We don’t categorize the 60 or 65 plus for the same reason that I mentioned in an earlier answer. The people served by Community Living B.C. age much more quickly, so what we’re counting is the 50 age and up. The number that I gave before, 5,562, is the same.

Then in the fourth area of the member’s questioning, we reject the assertion or the suggestion that people are pushed into long-term care. If that is happening, I would love to hear about it. We don’t push people out of Community Living B.C., I am told.

Some people served by Community Living B.C. do want to go into long-term care. Sometimes their families want them to go into long-term care, but we also have a very strong aging-in-place strategy. Person-centred planning, which is at the centre of Community Living B.C., means that the individual served gets to decide. If the person does decide to go into long-term care, then community inclusion supports from CLBC can go with them — a support worker or what they need.

At a sort of broader health care level, there were collaborative care guidelines, initially completed in 2010 and then updated in 2022, which outline the working relationship between ministries, health authorities and Community Living B.C. The intention was to provide direction and support to regional providers in the development of policies and processes that meet the needs of adults with developmental disabilities in an integrated and sustainable manner.

Also, Community Living B.C. staff collaborate with health authorities to refer people to health care services and support the planning of care requirements. Regulated health professionals work with service providers and families to train, oversee and implement individual health care plans.

That’s my expectation as minister, and the work together to make sure that Community Living B.C.–served individuals have full access, when and where they want, to health care services has been an important focus of my time as minister and work that we are continuing to pursue.

Kristina Loewen: Just moving on to talk a little bit about the coroner’s report in the Florence Girard case. Last year I asked the minister what had been implemented of the 15 recommendations. The answer was that there was an increase to the home-share coordinator rate and that anything else that would have budget implications, we’d be building into the budget for this coming year.

What has been put into the budget this year in terms of the coroner’s report recommendations?

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Of the 11 coroner’s inquest recommendations that apply to Community Living B.C., two are complete, seven are underway and two are not underway because they weren’t budgeted. The things that we have been able to act on and that were included in Community Living B.C.’s budget, and the budget lift this year, are these actions:

First, a new information management system was rolled out in June 2025 to improve case management and further work to create an external portal to improve data consistency, collection and reporting.

Second is improved monitoring, tracking and follow-up on services.

Third is an updated information-sharing agreement with sector partners.

Fourth is additional resources for families. That’s being finalized. In April 2025, more than a 10 percent funding increase to home-sharing agencies and, also, flexibility for agencies to increase coordinator compensation.

Next, a pilot project introducing unannounced monitoring visits is now being tested.

Next, a new audit and investigations team to further strengthen oversight of home-sharing.

Next, a home-sharing standard update to strengthen home health care planning requirements.

Expanded training opportunities for home-share coordinators and agencies.

Finally, working with Home Sharing Support Society B.C. to expand supports available for home-sharing providers.

Kristina Loewen: Leaving the 11 recommendations for a moment and going to the four that were given to the ministry specifically, there was the immediate call to reinstate the provincial medical consultant position at CLBC. There was the immediate call to increase the capacity of the health services for community living, to better provide ongoing health care planning and reduce wait time to access services for health care plans for individuals.

Those were two immediate recommendations, and then there were two other recommendations: increasing the capacity of the advocate for service quality; and having all deaths, critical injuries and near misses involving people who receive support from CLBC reported to and investigated by the office of the advocate.

I kind of went into a brief summary on each of those, but you would, obviously, know the recommendations. Those were specifically to the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and to the Ministry of Health on the first two. I’m just wondering where we’re at on those four things.

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Madam Chair, I’m so sorry. We are wasting time on this. None of us have the materials that I want. If we could maybe go to the next question, and then as soon as the materials arrive, we’ll be able to get that on the record. With apologies.

[3:55 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: I’m going to take a little moment and let my colleague ask a couple questions.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I’d like to give some background and context on the question before I ask, just so I can ensure that we’re all on the same page and we understand where the question and the concern are coming from and the timeline that we’re dealing with here.

This was a letter that was addressed to me at my constituency office from the Stó:lō Dental clinic, which reads:

“As an office manager for the last 18 years at the Stó:lō Dental clinic, which is a not-for-profit dental clinic serving this and surrounding areas, I am writing with deep concern about our ability to continue serving vulnerable populations due to critically needed funding from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

“There are some facts about the number of NFP dental clinics, which states that they rose from 19 clinics in 2021 to 25 provincially in 2025, which demonstrates a growing demand and active community delivery. In 2025, the clinics provided 53,782 in-person appointments, which was a 13 percent increase over 2024, serving more than 24,300 unique patients, 32 percent of whom live in rural and remote communities.

“Stó:lō Dental clinic has been operating in the same location since 2005. We are proud to serve the community for the past 20 years. And in 20 years, you can imagine our need to update equipment, and repair costs have increased. We have over 7,200 active clients, with 20 percent being long-term MSDPR clients discounted at our cost, depending on our clinic.

“Many NFP clinics are facing mounting pressures due to the rising cost of living, operating with operational challenges, limited spacing and financial constraints. All of this comes in the face of increasing demand for services. Current MSDPR dental fees make sustainable care impossible. These fees have remained frozen for 19 years and have dropped to an alarming estimate of 27 percent of the B.C. Dental Association, BCDA, 2026 suggested fee guide, the lowest in Canada.

“Our clinic has been fortunate enough to receive an operational grant of $25,000 for both 2024 and 2025 years, administered by the B.C. Dental Association through the generous support of MSDPR. Should this critical source of funding not continue, it will impact on the service we can provide to our most vulnerable population. We will be forced to turn these folks suffering from dental pain away, thus increasing risk for worsening infection, leading to an increased need for emergency pain medication and, likely, emergency room visits.

“This cycle must stop. We need to be able to serve those who are in pain on an emergency basis. As you know, our health care sectors are already overwhelmed in general practice and hospital settings. Please let our expertise serve, as we are trained for the fees that are deserved for dental treatment.

“In B.C., low-income adults are six times more likely to visit the ER for dental reasons than non-MSDPR clients. If just 5 percent of the 2025 total patient appointments turn into ER visits, given each ED triage costs $250 and 20 minutes of an ER doctor’s time, that translates into roughly $672,000 and 900 hours of ER doctors’ time, when they are already in critical shortage conditions. Keeping NFP clinics sufficiently resourced will help address these cost factors.

“Sincerely, Corrina Diepold, Stó:lō Nation Dental clinic, not-for-profit dental office manager.”

Just in relation to this, there were some links that they provided as information as well. These I can certainly share with the minister as background. I don’t need to read them into the record. They are letters that were sent to MLA offices all over British Columbia from other dental clinics.

[4:00 p.m.]

There was support from dentists across British Columbia, as well, praising the work of these not-for-profit dental clinics.

I myself am a community member. I’ve been in need of these services at times.

The manager has worked diligently for the community of Chilliwack for years and oftentimes sees people who can’t access the federal program. They don’t have ID. They just recently moved. They’re living with grandma temporarily. These are people who just really need the service, and they’re able to patch that gap that exists in the system for them that day and help that person when they’re in an emergency situation.

I know so many family members and community members personally who only go there, because they feel comfortable going there. It is a community clinic that has served the community for so long and so reliably.

I’ll get to the question. Like I said, I’m very happy to share the information of all the different MLA offices that received letters from all of these clinics across the province.

My question today to the minister would be if she could please explain why this decision was made and what assessment was done on the impact it would have to patients.

[4:05 p.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question and for summarizing, in a very accurate and powerful way, the impact. I’ve got one of those amazing clinics in my community too.

This has been one of these funds that…. This isn’t SDPR’s ordinary line of work; 97 percent of our budget just goes directly to people’s bank accounts. We’re not ordinarily a service provider.

But you’re quite right. For a number of years, we had year-end grants — I think the last one was three years ago — that would go to the not-for-profit clinics. We didn’t make a decision not to fund them again. It’s just that there isn’t any year-end money that we had available.

You’re right. That extra support that SDPR was giving in the way of year-end grants…. That grant expired, and there just wasn’t anything left in the pool of money in order for my ministry to even be in a position to make that decision.

A couple of points, none of which speak to the gap that you’re describing.

For one, if anybody knows people that are having difficulty having ID replaced, please reach out to our office, Service B.C. or SDPR. Especially our community integration specialists are really, really good at connecting people with getting ID. It’s such an important opener.

As the member describes, if people do have ID, then they can apply to this new federal Canada dental benefit, which I’m just so encouraged and pleased is there. I just give real credit to my federal counterparts that worked really hard to get that benefit available.

In British Columbia, 421,000 people from B.C. have been approved for the Canada dental benefit. As the member mentions, you have to have ID in order to make that qualification. But again, if people know folks that are having difficulty qualifying for the program, please ask our office for help.

Of that 421,000, 372,000 in B.C. have received care. That has had an impact on, then, the people that are coming to SDPR asking for help with dental supports, because the federal government is the payer of first response, the first payer. Last year 5,000 fewer people in British Columbia accessed our SDPR rates to pay for dental services, so that is a sign that this is already taking pressure off.

The member certainly makes a fair point. Our SDPR rates for dental services are much lower than I would like them to be. That’s something that I continue to advocate for at budget time. We’re also doing work across ministries trying to bring together our health supplements and the rates that are paid out for different services between MCFD and Health and SDPR. That work is still a priority for me.

Again, I’ll just say I agree with everything the member has said about how if we get ahead on dental care, then we can prevent more expensive emergency response by the time somebody gets to a hospital. That’s why I’m so encouraged that, Canada-wide now, the Canada dental benefit is available to people. We are continuing to try to support people signing up for it and getting access to that federal money to help fund the clinics that do this really important work.

[4:10 p.m.]

Á’a:líya Warbus: I appreciate the response and a bit more background on the funds.

Given the risks that will inevitably reduce the access to dental care…. This is a highly vulnerable population. We did canvass that piece of why many people would be in a situation to need to access the funds in this way.

My question. Will the minister be able to commit to a timeline to reinstate this funding when it may become available, providing that timeline today for replacement? Clinics are left a little in the dark here on how they’re going to make up this gap and this shortfall. Many are going to have to cut services, turn people away and, in some instances, are unable to remain open.

I’d like to leave the question there, and my colleagues will be here to get the answer. I will certainly review it, but I, unfortunately, have to excuse myself to attend a family event.

I appreciate the time, both to you and to my colleague. Good luck with the rest of your estimates.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Again, I really agree with the member about the importance of not-for-profit dental clinics providing dental care to low-income and vulnerable people in British Columbia. I agree that affordable access to dental care is so important for health and to fight poverty. That’s why my ministry, when we have had year-end funds, had supported B.C.’s not-for-profit dental clinics by providing year-end grants. We’re not providing any year-end grants this year, with regret.

The B.C. Dental Association is a really good advocacy…. They have a very good relationship with our ministry. They’re in regular contact. We’re looking for ways, now and in the future, to be able to support people that need dental care.

My ministry is engaged with the Ministry of Health to try to find a path forward. It’s not satisfactory to anybody to be reliant on year-end grants, and I really recognize the place that the B.C. Dental Association members are in.

[4:15 p.m.]

I think the only bright point on the horizon right now is the advent of the Canada dental benefit and the way that it is supporting both people and clinics. I’m really grateful to them for doing the work, and my staff and I will continue to keep in good contact with them and, again, express gratitude for their really important work. We know how important it is. That’s why we have a relationship.

Kristina Loewen: Going back to the coroner’s report in the Florence Girard case and the recommendations for Community Living B.C., one of the recommendations was developing a case management system for CLBC. I believe the minister said it was rolled out in June 2025.

So my follow-up question was: will there be a check-in, maybe at a year, this June, to be sure that it’s working as intended and, in fact, as the coroner requested, alerting providers and coordinators to a person’s needs? Is it being used adequately? Is it accomplishing what it’s meant to?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for the question. There are two pieces here. The new information management system that was implemented in June 2025 — that was the foundation of the member’s question. Work is underway to develop an external portal, which is the second piece of the work, to improve information-sharing with service providers. The information management system is already in place, and then the portal attached to it is the work that is underway right now.

One of the first products will be the home-share survey that was mentioned by the member’s colleague from Comox.

Products or kind of outcomes of these will be…. Audit and investigation is the first piece. Enhanced monitoring, oversight of quality monitoring — these two tools work in tandem to achieve those things.

Yes, so far people’s needs are being met, and yes, CLBC will be doing regular check-ins to make sure that these two new tools are working as intended.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

On the second recommendation, I wanted to go into that one because it’s a really important one for families. I know, in speaking with families who have loved ones in CLBC and in care, that they just want to be part of helping make sure their loved ones get the best care possible.

I believe this might be one of the ones that’s underway as well. My question is: what is the plan — in terms of timeline, budget and scope — for allowing families to be part of their member’s care?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Yes, absolutely, families’ full participation is a vital part of the Community Living B.C. model and then is reinforced in recommendation 2.

As far as timelines, already there is an accessible FAQ on payment to family members, which was posted on the CLBC website in spring 2025. There is a new family information sheet that will be created this year in order to better document for families the importance of their participation, the ways that they can participate in person-centred planning and make sure that they’re fully involved in the lives and care of their loved ones.

Kristina Loewen: Just to further clarify, the second part of that recommendation was that if family members choose to keep their loved one in their home, they should be supported to the same level as a home-share provider and must meet the same expectations. Is that going to be implemented? Apologies if it is.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The part of recommendation 2 about paying family members to keep a loved one at home if they choose is, in many ways, largely already in place, so we’re not going to be making changes to our existing model as a result of coroner’s recommendation 2. But I’ll just get on the record the ways right now that we are already achieving recommendation 2.

[4:30 p.m.]

Siblings, aunts, uncles, extended family — a great number of family members can be paid instead of home share, for example. Parents do get wellness funding and respite funding, and CLBC is able to fund parents subject to the service provision by family members policy, which permits payment to immediate family members for service delivery only under an approved exceptions framework. Those processes and supports are in place already, were before the coroner’s inquest and continue to be in place to support families.

Kristina Loewen: It says the jury heard evidence of the difficulty of parents and family members becoming supported home care providers and the large cost associated should they do this without support. I’m hearing the minister say this is already in place, there are no changes, and sharing what is in place, but I think the coroner is asking us to go further.

I’m just wondering, I guess. Is this a decision not to?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: What Budget 2026 includes is funding support for family members, as I described before — siblings, aunts, uncles.

[4:35 p.m.]

The existing system for Community Living B.C. sees parents as having a unique place in the care of their adult offspring.

Community Living B.C. does provide, built into Budget 2026, individualized funding supports for adult offspring when they’re looked after by their parents — disability-related supports, community-inclusion-related supports and respite supports. That’s what’s included in this year’s budget.

Kristina Loewen: Recommendations 3 and 4 both said to immediately increase the compensation package for home-share providers and then, 4, for coordinators.

Focusing on No. 4, the specific recommendation was to make the compensation comparable to positions in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to the coordinators there. The jury heard evidence, repeatedly, that the pay is insufficient for the workload and responsibilities they’re required to perform.

Was this in the budget? If so, what are the specifics, and what is the full plan in relation to this recommendation?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Recommendation 3 is increasing compensation for home-share providers. As I said in an earlier answer, that was not included in this year’s budget.

As I also mentioned before, since 2019, almost every year we have been lifting home-share rates — $18 million in 2019, increasing funding for monitoring, the shelter rate increase of $125 a month in 2023, fully funding insurance for damages for home-share providers, respite for home-share providers. The track record of me and the ministers that preceded me says that we are committed to continuing to increase home share, and I will continue to try to get it in next year’s budget.

Recommendation 4, which is increasing compensation of home-share coordinators, has been fully implemented. CLBC provided compensation increases to agencies to provide home-share coordinator increases. The home-share coordinator wages have been benchmarked to wage evaluation completed by CSSEA. This resulted in a 10 percent increase in home-share manager funding to agencies.

Kristina Loewen: Recommendation No. 8 says to develop standards and ensure that CLBC practice analysts conduct risk-based, randomly selected and unannounced home visits.

If I’m correct, with the minister’s previous answer, I think this is the one that had a partial pilot project rolled out on it. So my question would be: if the pilot is successful, when will you know, how will you know, and when will it be rolled out everywhere?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: This is recommendation 8 about random home visits.

[4:45 p.m.]

Community Living B.C. created two new roles dedicated to strengthening oversight and monitoring and launched a pilot program for random visits of home-share providers. That pilot project is underway, with visits intended to verify physical and mental well-being of individuals living in home shares and overall quality of life.

This is being piloted right now. We think that in September 2026, we’ll have results of the pilot. Evaluation and outcomes are underway in the pilot region. Rollout, pending the outcome of that September evaluation, we hope, will happen by this fourth quarter.

That’s one piece of the work. That’s the pilot project.

In addition, we are setting expectations for agencies, to have them expect unexpected visits. That is happening right now and will result in us revising our operating standards. That work is happening already.

Those two pieces are both vital to implementation of recommendation 8.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

My last question on CLBC I want to ask is on recommendation No. 11, on “providing ongoing paid training, in addition to the living-wage compensation package outlined above, for home-share providers to take mandatory and elective courses related to the individuals in their care.”

My understanding is that there are some optional online webinars and modules available, but there’s nothing mandatory. My thought is there has got to be a way to make it streamlined, accessible, easy, mandatory and just a win for everyone, especially the most vulnerable clients.

My question is: how are we doing, and how can we get there?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m going to take the opportunity to return to the member’s question about the coroner’s inquest recommendations aimed at Health and SDPR, with apologies for the delay. Then we’ll get to the CLBC question on recommendation 11.

Recommendations 12 and 13 are under the purview of Health, so those could be taken up with the Health Minister. They’re the lead on that.

My ministry is the lead on 14 and 15. Just for the benefit of the audience at home — or at least my parents who are watching; nobody else is — recommendation 14 was to increase the capacity of the advocate for service quality, which is nestled within my ministry, to undertake systemic studies of the needs and challenges faced by individuals with special needs.

My response is that both I, as the minister, and the office for the advocate of service quality support the objective of being able to regularly conduct systemic reviews of the needs and challenges facing people receiving service from CLBC. The office of the advocate for service quality, for example, currently raises systemic challenges through his annual reports.

OASQ will be exploring ways to further dedicate resources to the needs and systemic challenges of CLBC-supported people — including opportunities to improve data sharing with CLBC, other ministries and individuals and their families — while also recognizing that other oversight bodies currently have the capacity and mandate to review systemic issues, including the Office of the Auditor General through program reviews and the Representative for Children and Youth through their expanded mandate.

Recommendation 15 was to have all deaths, critical injuries and near misses involving people who receive support from CLBC reported to and investigated by the office for the advocate for service quality, to ensure transparency and accountability.

[4:55 p.m.]

This one is a little bit more.… It’s just really important to say that unlike other residential programs under the purview of oversight entities such as the Representative for Children and Youth, the RCY, home-sharing is offered to an adult population that’s striving to live independently.

People participating in a home-share arrangement are therefore not deemed to be in the care of government and, as such, no parallel to the RCY exists as it pertains to legislative oversight. Instead, the office for the advocate of service quality was created to provide neutral, third-party support for individuals and their family members who have concerns regarding the quality of service being received from CLBC and its community agencies and service providers.

The OASQ is not an investigative body and has neither the training nor capacity to conduct investigations into critical injuries or deaths. Nevertheless, my ministry and the OASQ support the intent to have better access to critical incident data to inform the work of the advocate, and the advocate will be working closely with CLBC on ways to access the recommended information.

Critical incident report data is now available on the CLBC website annually, and we’ll continue ongoing reporting in that regard.

I’m now going to sit down, and then I’m going to answer the question that’s actually on the table around 11.

[5:00 p.m.]

We’ve got lots of content here. Thanks again for your patience.

We are speaking to recommendation 11. I absolutely recognize the important role of training to ensure home-share providers are ensuring that home-share recipients can live well in their homes.

Community Living B.C. is expanding training for home-share providers and encouraging uptake in two big ways.

One, delivering training through the Justice Institute of B.C. to support providers in their work, including supported decision-making.

The second big frame is that we funded the Home Sharing Support Society B.C. to…. We talked earlier about their raising public awareness to encourage more home-share providers to enter the market. They are completing research through public engagement and research on available models, skills and backgrounds to better define the supports necessary to enable home share to serve people with complex needs and then administer leadership to open future learning training platforms for all CLBC-funded home-share providers, respite providers and coordinators.

Kristina Loewen: I believe my time is up, so I want to thank the minister for her time today and her team.

I just wanted to leave a couple of closing remarks. This ministry is huge. It represents billions of dollars and takes care of the most vulnerable persons in our province, so very important. That level of spending demands transparency, accountability and measurable outcomes.

Through this discussion, we’ve asked questions about whether assistance rates have kept up with the cost of living, whether community living services are adequately resourced and whether the poverty reduction strategy is really achieving meaningful progress. The concerns raised by service providers, advocacy organizations and individuals receiving support suggest there is still significant work to be done.

Our goal as the official opposition is to ensure that government programs deliver real improvements in people’s lives. Public resources must be managed responsibly, but they must also be directed where they are most needed.

Like I did last year, I’ll remind you that my greatest fear is that this province fails to grow the economy and reduce costs for British Columbians. Like Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. We will continue to advocate for policies that improve independence, dignity and opportunity for British Columbians who rely on these supports.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if she has any closing remarks.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I do, just some brief ones.

I want to extend my deep thanks to my critic — I really appreciate the focus, the diligence — and also her colleagues the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the MLA from Comox, all coming at these questions and this debate from their own place of lived experience. I’m truly grateful for the opportunity to discuss and raise these issues.

[5:05 p.m.]

British Columbia is one of the only places in Canada that does estimates review in this way. When I was a Member of Parliament, we got an hour with the responsible minister, and most of the questions were taken up by members of the government. This is a completely different model that British Columbia has, and I’m really grateful to participate in the process.

Let me close by giving my thanks to all the Social Development and Poverty Reduction workers on the front line. You’re doing extraordinary work.

Community integration specialists are just a gem. They’re an incredible group, and I would encourage anybody, any of the MLAs, to reach out to the community integration specialist in your community. They’ll really be able to tell you a lot about the people that we collectively represent and the way that we can better knit together the great array of government supports across levels of government and across ministries.

The voices of lived experience resonate throughout this work. They certainly keep me accountable and are embedded in our poverty reduction strategy and in the work that we do. My Poverty Reduction Advisory Committee — I’m very grateful for the way that they help us build the work.

The Presidents Group of employers of people with accessibility needs is another advisory group that truly informs our work.

And then what we hear, also, from the service providers at WorkBC across the province, about how we can better connect people on income assistance into employment and change lives that way, is extremely important.

I’m very grateful to my minister’s office staff team, to the DMO staff team who have been supporting me here. Thank you for your work.

I’ll just give a parting thanks and goodbye to Allison Bond, who was, until a week ago or so, my deputy minister. I think she did estimates in this building for something like 30 years. I’m sure she’s watching because she’s surely experiencing withdrawal.

I’m especially grateful to my team for filling in that gap and making it a seamless experience.

If the member has any follow-up questions that we can fill in the blanks, then please let me know.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $5,976,762,000 — approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 5:08 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 5:22 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, to order.

On clause 1.

Hon. Nina Krieger: We’re looking forward to beginning the debate on Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. Before we do begin this debate, I’d just like to offer a few introductory comments.

We know that civil forfeiture in B.C. is administered by a non-partisan statutory office operating under the Civil Forfeiture Act. B.C. now has a leading civil forfeiture program in Canada, having led the way with administrative forfeiture, unexplained wealth orders and other measures designed to strengthen the office’s ability to seek out the assets of organized crime.

During second reading of Bill 8, members, I think, on both sides of the House reiterated that crime should not pay and recognized the value of the community projects funded through civil forfeiture recoveries. These projects offer supports for survivors, Indigenous-led healing, gender-based violence prevention, restorative justice and youth mentorship, among many others.

Also during second reading, several members correctly noted that procedural clarity and investigative capacity work together, and Bill 8 certainly supports that.

[5:25 p.m.]

The CFO’s, the civil forfeiture office’s, expanded analytical and investigative capacity, announced as part of Budget 2026, strengthens our ability to identify assets hidden by gangs and organized crime. The procedural amendments that are proposed within Bill 8 ensure that those files move through the system fairly and efficiently.

We know the civil forfeiture cases have become more complex over time, and litigation has revealed gaps that increase costs and delays. The amendments proposed in Bill 8 will improve clarity, fairness and efficiency, ensuring that the office can continue to disrupt organized crime and reinvest proceeds to support community safety.

Thank you so much, and I look forward to our discussion today.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill at committee stage. I want to start by being clear about something, because I think it’s important to ground this properly before we get into the details.

There’s a role for civil forfeiture — going after the proceeds of crime, disrupting organized criminal activity, making sure that individuals are not able to profit from illegal conduct. Those are legitimate objectives. I’ve seen firsthand how important it is to be able to disrupt criminal enterprises, not just by arresting individuals but by going after the assets that support that activity. If you only deal with one side of it, the system adjusts, so tools like this do have a place.

Where this becomes more complicated is in how civil forfeiture actually operates. It is fundamentally different from the criminal justice system, and I think that distinction sometimes gets lost.

In the criminal system, the structure is clear. The burden is on the state. The standard is high — beyond a reasonable doubt — and the process is built around ensuring that before someone is convicted, those thresholds are met. Civil forfeiture doesn’t work that way. It operates on a lower standard — a big balance of probabilities — and it allows the state to move against property without a criminal conviction.

Now, again, I’m not saying that shouldn’t exist, but it does mean that the safeguards are different. Because the safeguards are different, the level of care we need to take when expanding or adjusting that system has to be higher. What we are dealing with here is not just administrative process. We are dealing with people’s property. We are dealing with people’s assets. In some cases, we are dealing with people who may not have been convicted of an offence at all.

So when changes are made to this framework, even if they appear procedural at the surface, they can have significant consequences.

One area that stands out to me is the use of default judgments, where an individual does not respond within a set period of time and the matter proceeds without their participation. On paper, that can seem efficient. It keeps the process moving. It avoids delay. But in practice, it raises real concerns, because there are a number of reasons why someone may not respond.

They may not understand what has been served on them. They may not appreciate the consequences of not responding. They may not have the resources to obtain legal advice. They may be dealing with other circumstances that prevent them from engaging with the process in time. Yet the outcome can still be the loss of the property. That’s not a small thing, and I think it’s important that we recognize how that plays out in reality, not just how it looks on paper.

There’s also the broader issue of how the burden functions in these proceedings, because while the state initiates the action, individuals can find themselves in a position where they are effectively required to demonstrate the legitimacy of their own property. That is a shift from what typically, I understand, when we think about the justice system….

In criminal law, the expectation is clear. The state must prove the case. Here the lines are less clear, and that can create a situation where people feel like they are catching up to a process that has already started moving against them.

Another area I think deserves attention is the level of discretion that is being built into the system. Discretion is necessary. No system works without it. But the more flexible a system becomes, the more important it is that there are clear boundaries around how that discretion is exercised. If those boundaries are not well defined, then outcomes can start to vary. Similar situations can be treated differently, and that’s where confidence in the system can start to erode.

That brings me to what I think is one of the most important considerations here, which is: who is this legislation actually going to impact?

[5:30 p.m.]

The intent is clear. This is meant to target organized crime, to disrupt those who are benefiting from illegal activity, to go after the proceeds of crime. Again, that is something I support, but the way legislation is written determines how it is applied.

It is important that the scope of this does not extend beyond the intent. If individuals who are not part of organized criminal activity find themselves caught in this process without the ability to properly respond or defend their position, then we have a problem. This tool needs to be focused. It needs to be precise, and it needs to be used in a way that reflects its intended purpose.

As we move through this bill clause by clause, those are the things I’ll be looking at. How does this impact fairness? How does this affect the balance between the state and the individual? How clearly are the limits of this authority defined? How will this actually operate in practice, not just in theory? Ultimately, the effectiveness of this legislation will not be determined by how it reads; it’ll be determined by how it is used. That’s what we need to get right.

With that, I’ll start with my first question from clause 1 here, which is: what specific problem in the current Civil Forfeiture Act prompted the government to repeal and replace section 5?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Really, the purpose of section 1 relates to requiring a person who files a response to forfeiture proceedings to set out the full particulars of the nature and extent of their claimed interest in the property.

Section 5 currently requires a person filing a response to identify the nature of their interests but does not require detailed particulars or disclosure of beneficial ownership. The proposed amendment seeks to improve clarity and efficiency in litigation, ensuring that respondents provide sufficient information to substantiate their claim. It also prevents parties from contesting forfeiture without explaining their interest.

So this is all about reducing delays and potential misuse of the court process. Essentially, that is the purpose, to require somebody to elaborate on their claim or also describe who additionally might have a claim to the property.

[5:35 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that response, Minister.

I just want to be clear with respect to what the minister just stated. You explained that, and that’s helpful, but was that a problem that was identified by your government? Was it something the police were asking for? You explained the process. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain. Was there a problem identified, and did somebody come to the province asking for those things to be changed?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This was an issue identified by the civil forfeiture office and counsel and is really aimed to limit delays and potential misuse of court resources.

Macklin McCall: How many civil forfeiture respondents in the past five years have been self-represented litigants?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I don’t have a precise figure right now, but we estimate that it’s fewer than ten out of hundreds and hundreds of cases.

Macklin McCall: Just to clarify that, is it possible for…? Does that number exist somewhere? Is it out there? Would it be something that the minister may be able to obtain and provide at a later date?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the question. That is not something that’s tracked by the office, but again, the estimation is that it is a very low number.

Macklin McCall: Did the ministry assess whether the expanded disclosure requirements in subsection (1) could create barriers for self-represented individuals defending their property?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. This kind of thing is generally part of the policy considerations, but in this case, it is not deemed to be particularly onerous to expand on one’s claim to the property in question.

Macklin McCall: Could a respondent who fails to provide full particulars, as you said earlier, under subsection (1), risk having their claim dismissed or disregarded by the courts?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The courts provide ample and multiple opportunities for people to state their claims to property in question.

Macklin McCall: My next question then. What guidance will the government provide to ensure that individuals understand the level of detail required in a response?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Again, the vast majority of respondents will have legal counsel, but for the few people that do not, the court will provide that guidance.

Macklin McCall: That’s great. So there won’t be any, like, public service announcement that the province will put out, I assume. It’s just going to be on the defence lawyer and the courts to provide that information. Or will there be any other solutions to the issue?

Hon. Nina Krieger: There will not be a public notice per se, but the civil forfeiture office is in touch with individuals, and if insufficient information were received, for instance, the CFO office would raise that point and invite further submissions.

In terms of the line of questioning, I would just affirm that this is…. We would endeavour to provide opportunities and supports to allow people to fulfil this requirement. Again, the vast majority of people are guided by legal counsel, but for those that are not, there are opportunities to go back and request more information and clarify claims as well.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister.

I just want to ask a question on the specific response you just said. You made it very clear what that looks like, but there are still some number out there in the province that would potentially represent themselves, who may fall through the cracks. I just want to ask specifically about that question.

If someone did represent themselves, and there’s no public information out there from the ministry or from the province…? They go through this process, and they don’t respond to the courts, to anyone involved there, and they go before a judge.

If they were to say, “I didn’t get any information,” or “I was unaware of the changes,” would that be something that would be acceptable in court by a judge, based on the proposals and this amendment with the act? Would that be an acceptable defence in court, or would it be deemed, “Sorry, too bad. You missed out,” and that person now falls through the cracks?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s important to keep in mind that courts will always make decisions that are in the interest of justice. I can’t tell exactly what decision a court will make, but the decisions will be to advance that fundamental goal to seek justice.

Macklin McCall: Well, that segues kind of into my next point here with this clause.

I appreciate the minister’s response there. I think that’s important. Obviously, that’s why the courts are involved, but just to be certain…. If it’s not in the legislation when a judge interprets it, they may interpret it a different way. They may say: “Sorry, too bad. You’re found….” The judge would agree with the Crown and the province and the organization that has the civil forfeiture office rather than the individual.

So I actually have an amendment to clause 1 here that I’d just like to table, if I may. I can speak to that now or after or whatever you would like to do.

The Chair: This committee will take a five-minute recess while we distribute this amendment and share it with everyone.

The committee recessed from 5:46 p.m. to 5:54 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’re calling the committee back to order. The member for West Kelowna–Peachland has called for an amendment to clause 1.

If you wish to speak to that?

[5:55 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Yes, thank you, Chair.

[CLAUSE 1, by adding the following subsections as underlined:

Response must identify interest in property

5 (1) A person who files a response to proceedings commenced under section 3 must set out in the response full particulars of the nature of the interest or the portion of an interest that the person claims in the property that is the subject of the application for forfeiture, including all of the following:

(a) the extent of the interest or the portion of the interest in the property;

(b) the material facts in support of the claim, including how and when the interest or the portion of the interest in the property was acquired and the value of the consideration given, if any;

(c) whether the interest or the portion of the interest in the property is held, directly or indirectly, on behalf of another person and, if so,

(i) the identity of the person on whose behalf the interest or the portion of the interest is held,

(ii) how the person filing the response came to hold the interest or the portion of the interest on behalf of the other person, and

(iii) the nature and extent of the other person’s interest in the property, to the extent known.

(2) Without limiting section 92 [rules of court], Rule 22-7 (2) [Effect of Non-compliance] of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies in relation to a failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section.

(3) The court must make an adverse inference against a person solely on the basis of a failure to provide particulars under subsection (1) unless the court is satisfied that the person

(a) was provided reasonable notice of the requirement to provide those particulars, and

(b) had a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice.

(4) On an application by a person filing a response, the court may extend the time for providing particulars under subsection (1) if the court considers that

(a) the extension is necessary in the interests of justice, or

(b) the person would otherwise suffer prejudice.]

On the amendment.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: While I appreciate the intention of the proposed amendments, I am not able to support them and do feel that the drafting of the legislation, which does make reference to the Supreme Court civil rules in clause 1(2), already, really, meets the intent of the member’s amendments. These include a reference to reasonable time and that unless the court rules otherwise, a failure to comply with the Supreme Court rules must be treated as an irregularity and does not nullify a proceeding.

These amendments were drafted referring to those Supreme Court rules which, we believe, fulfil the purpose of the member’s proposed amendments.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 1.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 1 approved on division.

On clause 2.

Macklin McCall: I’ll start off with my next series of questions for clause 2. Why does subsection (5) allow forfeiture orders to be made without notice to any person?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I don’t believe it does do that, and that everyone has been served personally with the application orders and the director’s claim.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate the answer by the minister. Just to be clear on that, because…. I appreciate the response, but you indicated that you weren’t clear on that. I think it’s an important point to make certain is clear.

Can I just ask that in another way? Not trying to be combative by any means, but just if there are any forfeiture orders made without notice to any person…. Perhaps a better question to your answer there is: could you explain, maybe, the process of how notice would be provided?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: In terms of the process, the director files a civil claim in court and serves the person or anyone with a claim. If a person cannot be located, the court is asked for a substitute service order, and in every case, everything is under the direction of the court.

Macklin McCall: What safeguards exist to ensure that individuals are aware of proceedings before a default forfeiture order is granted?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The standard practice is for the director’s counsel to send a notice of intention to seek a default order.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister just briefly explain what a default forfeiture order is, just for clarity’s sake, please?

Hon. Nina Krieger: A default order is where a person has been served but has failed to respond to the proceeding.

Macklin McCall: How frequently does the government expect default judgments to be used under this provision?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I can provide the estimate that approximately 20 percent of the office’s files eventually result in a default judgment.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

So 20 percent. Roughly, to the best of your knowledge, what’s the total number out of that 20 percent? I assume that’s yearly, 20 percent a year? Maybe it’s total? Could you just provide the total number?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The estimate of 20 percent is annually.

Macklin McCall: And 20 percent of how many? What’s the total number? Is it like 100 a year, 20 percent of 100, 20 percent of 1,000? If you could just say the total number a year, for reference.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The 20 percent relates to an annual average of 130 cases. So 20 percent of 130 cases could result in a default judgment, approximately.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.