Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Darlene Rotchford.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: Earlier today I had the opportunity to present the official provincial proclamation to declare that April 2026 shall be known as Safe Digging Month in the province of B.C.

In the gallery today, we have 27 members of the Common Ground Alliance and B.C. One Call. They include Tony Millikin, the chair of the B.C. Common Ground Alliance; M.J. Whitemarsh, government and stakeholder relations for the BCCGA, who’s well known to people in this Legislature; Donna Grant, the president of B.C. One Call; and Paul Chernikhowsky from Fortis, the vice-chair of B.C. One Call.

Now, members on all sides of the House had the opportunity to meet over lunch with the Common Ground Alliance, with B.C. One Call. We learned a great deal about what they have to tell us about safe digging.

It is occasionally the case that what I say doesn’t unite all the members of the Legislature. But let me say this. I think I can do this today. Let’s all remember to dig responsibly. Call or click before you dig.

Scott McInnis: I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, when I first started hanging out with my wife, as a lowly teacher, I felt like a bit of a loser.

I have three members of my wife’s family here today, and you’ll know why here in a second.

First of all, my wife’s cousin Marlis Neumann is here. Marlis plays the harp in the Munich Chamber Orchestra, a responsibility she’s had for over 30 years. She’s one of the best harpists in the world.

Joining us here also is my wife’s sister Kelly Fowler. It’s amazing she balances being a lawyer with raising their two beautiful children, Lyndon and Maeve.

Lastly, my brother-in-law Maj. Joseph Fowler, who flies the CF-18 Hornet with the Canadian Air Force. Very proud to have Joe here today.

Funny enough, mentioning Mr. Hansen who’s on his way to circumnavigate the moon…. That was Joseph’s first commander in the air force. So a funny connection there.

Would the House please make them all welcome here today.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’m so pleased to be able to introduce members of the B.C. Police Association visiting us today. These are 15 members of the 3,673 BCPA members that represent 14 police associations and unions across our province.

With us today are Jason Chan, BCPA president James Hubert, Bill Naledine, Brandon Steele, Sean Shipper, Dan Young, Adam Sutherland, Sebastian Fazzino, Arthur Wlodyka, Neal Schaffer, Kieran O’Reilly, Eddie Harper, Matt Sorensen, Adam Sutherland and Don Cogel.

Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature and thanking them for their service and the work they do every day to keep our communities safe.

Kristina Loewen: Today it’s a pleasure to welcome to the chamber my new friend. She is a human rights activist and author. Her book Unveiled has been translated into 19 languages. She’s an incredible human being, a podcaster. She has a charity called Free Hearts Free Minds, and she’s co-founder and co-director of the CLARITy Coalition. Amongst raising her two daughters and just being an amazing human and doing a million interviews, she’s just an all-around incredible human.

Please join me in welcoming Yasmine Mohammed to the chamber today.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s very rare that I get to talk about field hockey two days in a row.

One of my former teammates from the Sydney Olympics, Ian Bird, is in the House today. He tried to sneak into the building quietly without me noticing, but I have sources who informed me he was here.

[1:40 p.m.]

If you had a poster child for what leadership should look like, from sport to business to not-for-profit work, Ian is that poster child. I was so fortunate to make the junior national team as a young man and then have mentorship from Ian. Ian has mentored a lot of people, whether he knows it or not. I’m so excited for him in his new role, that he’s coming back.

I won’t steal the thunder from my colleague, who’s going to share it, but I want the House to join me in welcoming Ian Bird to the building today.

Larry Neufeld: While my colleague from across the way did beat me to the punch, I feel remiss in not acknowledging the presence of the British Columbia Common Ground Alliance. Well done.

My 30-year career prior to taking on this honourable position has, in fact, shown me how incredibly important it is — on a day-to-day basis, saving lives, literally, of workers and saving lives of the public — to ensure that we call before we dig and that we do follow all appropriate procedures.

Please help me join the minister in welcoming these individuals.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two members from the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction who are joining us here in the gallery. As you know, steel is a major component of construction projects here in British Columbia and indeed across our entire country. I’m very pleased to welcome Rita Rahmati, the director of public affairs; and Chris Weckesser, manager of business initiatives for western Canada.

Would the House please make them most welcome.

Sheldon Clare: I have two introductions to do today. First, I want to extend my congratulations, and I hope the House will join me, in welcoming Adriana Ramirez and Alejandra Garcia, who have just achieved their Canadian citizenship. They were with us in the Legislature here today. I was glad to be able to drop in at their ceremony this morning, very briefly. Some 3½ years ago, they arrived here from Colombia in July of 2022. Congratulations.

Would the House please join me in congratulating the new Canadians.

Secondly, I also want to acknowledge the presence in the precinct of the B.C. Youth Council members Maslow Low, Antonio Iannidinardo, Colin Sparks, Leo Chen, Sarah Black, Declan Williams and Madison Perrault. They are visiting the Legislature here today, meeting with government and opposition members to advocate on behalf of youth.

I ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to introduce and welcome two of my constituents visiting the Legislature today, my friend Raman Sharma and Urmila Sharma. Raman is the president and founder of the Tradesman Association of B.C.

The Tradesman Association of B.C. is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and advancing the construction industry through collaboration, innovation and knowledge-sharing. Last week I had the opportunity to attend the ninth Construction Expo, organized by Raman Sharma and his team — well done, very well organized and well attended.

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

Brennan Day: I’d like to take a moment to introduce Ben Colling, with Rhodes Wellness, and Jeremy Sabell, with Stenberg College — fantastic post-secondary education in the health care space. An interesting fact: Jeremy Sabell’s father, Bob — who has, unfortunately, recently passed — was my first boss in a Christmas tree farm that my parents now proudly run and carry on that tradition. Thank you very much.

Make them feel welcome.

Tributes

Chris Bush

George Anderson: I rise to recognize Chris Bush on his retirement and thank him for his years of service to the Nanaimo News Bulletin. Local journalism matters. It tells the story of a community in real time. It helps people stay informed. It preserves the moments that shape a city. And it strengthens our democracy by asking questions and keeping us all accountable.

[1:45 p.m.]

Through his reporting and photography, Chris helped capture the life of Nanaimo — its challenges and its triumphs. I want to thank him for his service and congratulate him on his remarkable 28-year career.

I hope that the entire House will join me in congratulating Chris and wishing him every happiness in retirement.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Grace Lore: I have a few introductions, for the second time this week. So thank you for your patience.

First, I am beyond thrilled to welcome some of the incredible team from the Victoria Foundation who are joining us today, celebrating the foundation’s 90th anniversary. You will have a chance to hear more about the foundation from my colleague from Juan de Fuca–Malahat, but let me say that this organization is the second-oldest in Canada. It started with $20 during the Great Depression, it has changed and transformed lives and communities, and it has connected people across generations to causes that the community cares about.

Will the House please help me welcome Rob Gareau, who is the foundation’s board chair. He’s been with the foundation for 13 years. I had a chance to hear about what keeps him, over lunch.

Sandra Richardson, the CEO of 25 years — a quarter of a century of lifting Victoria up.

He’s already been introduced by the Minister of Jobs, but Ian Bird is the Victoria Foundation’s incoming CEO. What a vote of confidence from my colleague.

I’m grateful to have you joining us.

We have 90th anniversary committee volunteer co-chairs Bruce Williams and Lori Elder.

We have Jonathon Dyck, Victoria Foundation senior director of marketing, communications and facilities; and Brin Morgan, who is senior director of governance and executive operations.

I’m grateful to have them here and for all their work.

Will the House please help me make them very welcome.

Tributes

Edward (Ted) Arkell

Ward Stamer: With regret, I want to announce the passing of Ted Arkell, from Campbell River.

Ted spent over 50 years in the forest industry, working with the B.C. forest service, Evans Products and Ainsworth Lumber in Lillooet, B.C., before purchasing Dyer Logging Ltd. in Campbell River in 1989.

Ted served on many forest industry boards, including the Truck Loggers Association, later serving as president, working tirelessly for the betterment of the forest industry. Ted was an avid boater who enjoyed fishing with his family and his friends.

We extend our regrets on Ted’s passing to his wife and his family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Today I would like to wish my very favourite high school teacher, Mrs. Day, a happy 80th birthday. She was my teacher, but now she is a dear friend.

When I sang her happy birthday this morning…. She always reminds me that I am allowed to call her Regina, but she will always be Mrs. Day to me. She has been an incredible mentor. I love going over and visiting with her and hearing her stories. I look forward to having dinner with her this weekend.

Happy 80th birthday, Mrs. Day.

Macklin McCall: I want to recognize a delegation here today from the B.C. Police Association. This organization represents front-line municipal police officers serving across British Columbia, including in Vancouver, Victoria, Saanich, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Delta, Port Moody, West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Oak Bay and Nelson.

They’re here today meeting with the B.C. Conservative caucus to discuss issues impacting their members and the state of public safety across British Columbia. These are important conversations as we on this side of the House look forward to engaging with them.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

Hon. Lana Popham: Mr. Speaker, you have a very special person who works in your office, by the name of Tabitha Bernard. Tabitha is also a constituent of mine.

[1:50 p.m.]

Her parents are visiting here today, in the gallery, from Ottawa, and I would like to introduce the House to Sandy and Ken Bernard. Sandy is a retired early child educator, and Ken is also retired, but he has taken on a second career as a volunteer firefighter and has community boards coming out his ears.

Would the House please welcome them to British Columbia.

Tributes

Howard E. Grant

Á’a:líya Warbus: I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge a great person and the celebration and the send-off I was very honoured to attend today, Uncle Howard Edward Grant, qiyəplenəxʷ VII.

There are no words for the incredible send-off. Over 600 people in attendance, leaders from across B.C., Canada, to share with his children and his legacy — Trent, Larissa, Wade, Gordon, Keegan and Logan. I just want to take a moment to really honour him and his memory. There were definitely more people that could not attend and that watched and joined and prayed with the family on Zoom.

To all of you, what an amazing, incredible send-off for our uncle, our leader. We lost somebody very incredible in the world, and he’ll be greatly missed. I just wanted to share my condolences and strength, love, prayers with the family.

[Halq’eméylem was spoken.]

Introductions by Members

Rohini Arora: I’d like to take a moment to introduce the Afghan community society of Nanaimo.

Please stand up so everybody can see you.

These are amazing advocates that support newcomers from Afghanistan with a special focus on women, ensuring to build leadership capacity so that they can support all the other members of their community. They came from across B.C. They’re supporting people in Burnaby, Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo.

We’re so thankful you were able to make it today.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Larry Neufeld: I believe that I may have beat the minister to this one. I would like to make known the presence of Doug Slater and the Fortis group.

I’d like to have everyone help me welcome them to the precinct.

Hon. Grace Lore: I have not yet mastered the art of honouring with enthusiasm my guests without moving quickly enough on to my other guests, so I appreciate the second opportunity. I have two other introductions.

On behalf of my colleagues, I also want to recognize Adriana and Alejandra. I’m grateful for the kindness and warmth.

I know folks see you in the hall, but that opportunity to connect — I know we’re all grateful for it. Congratulations on your Canadian citizenship.

They both became citizens last week, and we’re better for it.

We’re better for you here in our Legislature, in our community and in our province. I don’t know about other members of this House, but your new citizenship makes me think about what being Canadian means and what being Canadian means in this place of democracy. So thank you so much. I’ve got a few things for you, so I will find you around later today.

Lastly, I have a constituent, Felix, who’s in the House, a constituency member and volunteer. I’m grateful for him. He is heading off to McGill — or Concordia; I might have that wrong — to start political science. It’s his first time watching question period.

Please, everybody, one more time for Alejandra and Adriana, and welcome my constituent Felix.

Amna Shah: I’m so pleased to welcome in the gallery here today Jeremy Sabell from Stenberg College in Surrey as well as Ben Colling from Rhodes Wellness College.

[1:55 p.m.]

Stenberg College’s presence in Surrey has helped establish Surrey as a regional education and workforce hub, with the college contributing directly to local talent development and economic activity. I am so pleased to be able to meet with these gentlemen later on today to see how they’re are going to be contributing to my community and also the accessible education pathways at Stenberg for students who go on to work as psychotherapists and other jobs in this caring profession.

Will the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Statements

Passover

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’d like to acknowledge that today at sundown, Jewish British Columbians will observe the first night of Passover. Families will gather around the Seder table, retelling the story of Exodus and reflecting on the enduring theme of freedom. This is a beloved holiday for so many.

I invite members to join me in wishing our Jewish neighbours a very happy Passover. Chag sameach Pesach.

Wildfire Season and
B.C. Wildfire Service

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s April 1. It’s a day of jokes and laughter. But it’s also a very important day in British Columbia. April 1 marks the beginning of the wildfire season in British Columbia.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in Kamloops at the B.C. wildfire service headquarters, where I was pleased to be able to share that, two years in a row, we broke a record. Over 2,400 British Columbians have put their names forward, wanting to participate as wildland firefighters, from every corner of this province.

With the start of the wildfire season, I know that this brings a lot of feelings for British Columbians. We’ve gone through very difficult wildfire seasons over the past number of years, but we also come together. We support one another.

I want to take this opportunity as we begin this wildfire season. We don’t know what the wildfire season is going to bring, but we do know we’re going to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

The reason we can do that is because of the outstanding members of the B.C. wildfire service — hundreds, if not thousands, of people that put their names up here in British Columbia, all throughout Canada and around the world. When we’re running away from fires, they are running into fires — to put them out, to protect people, to protect communities.

I hope all members of the House will join me in a thunderous round of applause for the hard-working men and women of the B.C. wildfire service, for all that they do to help keep communities safe all year round.

Introductions by Members

Gavin Dew: I know she has already been acknowledged in a different capacity twice, but I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge my friend M.J. Whitemarsh and to acknowledge her long service on the Small Business Roundtable, her many years of contribution in that regard and those of her fellow former members of that group.

The Speaker: I think we have recognized everybody sitting upstairs today. If not….

Member for Cowichan Valley.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will try to make this quick.

I’d like to introduce Declan Williams, Leo Chen, co-chairs of the B.C. Youth Council; as well as Antonio Iannidinardo, director of youth engagement initiatives; and his team: Maslow Low, Madison Perrault, Sarah Black and Colin Sparks.

The B.C. Youth Council is an organization dedicated to increasing youth engagement and participation in politics through regional youth councils and initiatives like today’s session on youth homelessness. They work to help Members of the Legislative Assembly connect directly with young people in their communities.

Please join me in welcoming all of them here to the House today.

Janet Routledge: Joining us today in the gallery from the Lower Mainland is the public policy sector of FortisBC.

Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I am pleased to introduce Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

This bill amends the following statutes: Judicial Review Procedure Act, Fuel Price Transparency Act, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, Local Government Act, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, Residential Tenancy Act, University Endowment Land Act, Vancouver Charter, Correction Act.

[2:00 p.m.]

This bill also makes consequential amendments to other statutes.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Harold Johnson and Work
in Vancouver Chinatown

George Chow: Last week the Vancouver Chinatown community came together to celebrate the life of Harold Johnson, who worked in Chinatown as a security guard for two decades, helping to keep the neighbourhood safe. This gathering meant a great deal to Harold’s wife, Brandy, and to the Chinatown community to see so many people gathered to celebrate his life.

Harold was more than a security guard. His connection to the community went far beyond his job. He was a constant presence, a familiar face and a source of comfort for many people in Chinatown. Day after day, year after year, he walked the streets of Chinatown, not just doing his job but truly caring for the people and businesses that make up this community.

Harold would stop in to visit the merchant shops. He never rushed those moments. He would check in to ask how they were doing and genuinely listen. It wasn’t just about safety. It was about connection. It was about making sure people felt seen and supported.

But what truly set Harold apart was how he treated people. Part of his job often meant asking people sleeping in doorways or storefronts to move along so businesses could open. That could easily have been confrontational, but Harold never treated people like they were a problem. He treated them like human beings — with patience, with respect and with dignity. Even in difficult situations, Harold understood that the people he encountered were still part of the same community. That compassion is something many people remember.

Four years ago Harold was brutally attacked while patrolling in Chinatown. He suffered a broken nose, a broken cheekbone, a black eye and head trauma. Despite this attack, Harold returned to work, serving the community he loved until his retirement.

The merchants and residents of Chinatown are deeply thankful for Harold’s years of service but even more for his kindness, his presence and his unwavering care for the community.

Harold, you will be missed but never forgotten.

Let’s give a big clap to Harold for his community service.

Role of Police Officers

Macklin McCall: I want to take a moment to speak about policing in British Columbia, because for most people, policing is something they only think about when something goes wrong, when they need help, when they need someone to show up, when something has already happened. But for police officers, that’s every day. Every shift starts with the unknown. They don’t know what the next call will be, only that they will be expected to respond, to take control of the situation and make decisions that matter.

They deal with the violence. They deal with people in crisis. They deal with addiction, mental health and disorder — often all at once. They do it in real time. There’s no reset. There’s no second chance to get it right. Every decision carries weight. And those decisions are made in environments that are unpredictable and often dangerous.

But what stands out is not one moment. It’s the consistency — showing up, taking responsibility, doing the job regardless of the conditions. Much of that work is never seen. It doesn’t make headlines. It doesn’t get attention. But it matters to the people they help, to the communities they serve and to the stability of the province. Public safety doesn’t exist on its own. It exists because there are people willing to step into difficult situations and deal with them.

Every day across British Columbia, police officers stand between order and chaos, and they do it without hesitation. For that, they deserve more than acknowledgement. They deserve our respect. They deserve our support.

Today I want to say clearly: thank you. Thank you for the bravery, the dedication and the professionalism shown by our police officers across this province, including those represented by the B.C. Police Association, because every single day in communities across British Columbia, they are out there doing the work that keeps people safe. And that matters.

[2:05 p.m.]

Food Security and Work
of Burnaby Organizations

Janet Routledge: Since COVID, people around the world have been facing growing food security crises, even here in British Columbia. Food Banks B.C. recently reported a 32 percent increase in the number of people accessing food banks compared to 2019 and an 81 percent increase in households doing so.

I’d like to recognize the people in Burnaby, where I live, who are organizing to ensure that our neighbours do not have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

For example, Refood rescues surplus food and redistributes it to families in need.

The Burnaby Neighbourhood Pantry provides a safe, non-judgmental space where people can access essential groceries.

Ryan’s Rainbow Emergency Food Outreach offers weekly food distribution and basic supplies to those facing difficult times.

The Long Table Society — guided by the belief that if you are more fortunate than others, it is better to build a longer table than a higher fence, among other initiatives — brings people together for culturally appropriate community dinners. They run a network of community gardens.

Burnaby Neighbourhood House provides low-barrier access to groceries and meals through their community food hubs while also creating welcoming spaces where neighbours are greeted with dignity and connected to other supports.

It may come as a surprise to many of us that there is a food bank on campus at Simon Fraser University. It’s run by the student union for their fellow students. They also offer a free breakfast and grocery voucher program.

It shouldn’t be seen as normal for students to have to choose between their education, their rent or their next meal. Knowing that students are volunteering to support their peers, often at the expense of the precious time they themselves could be studying or working, helped convince me that our future is in good hands.

Sikh Heritage Month
and Vaisakhi

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Today I’m honoured to speak about Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi.

In British Columbia, the month of April is known as Sikh Heritage Month. It is a time to learn about and celebrate the history, culture and contribution of the Sikh community. The Sikh community is based on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. He taught values like equality, honesty, kindness and helping others.

Sikhs also remember an important event in history when the Khalsa was created in 1699 by Guru Gobind Singh. This teaches us to be brave, to stand for justice. During this time, the Sikh community goes to gurdwara to pray and serve langar, which is a free meal for everyone. This shows equality and unity, because everyone sits together and eats together, no matter who they are.

Across British Columbia, communities also hold Nagar Kirtan parades that bring people together in celebration. In Vancouver, the Nagar Kirtan parade will be held on April 11. In Surrey, which has one of the largest parades in the world, it will take place on April 18. It will be celebrated across the globe in the month of April.

Sikh Heritage Month gives all of us a chance to think about values like equality, respect and community, which help build a strong and welcoming society.

Waheguruji Ka Khalsa Waheguruji Ki Fateh.

[Punjabi text provided by Mandeep Dhaliwal.]

Victoria Foundation

Dana Lajeunesse: I rise today to recognize an extraordinary milestone for one of our province’s most enduring and impactful community institutions, the Victoria Foundation, which this year celebrates 90 years of service, partnership and philanthropy in our region.

Although it’s going to be difficult to cover 90 years’ worth of service in just two minutes, I’ll give it my best.

Founded in 1936, in the midst of the Great Depression, by Burges Gadsden, the Victoria Foundation began its life in the Rainbow Soup Kitchen on Pandora Avenue in Victoria. Its establishment was formalized on April 1, 1936, through an act of this Legislature, making it the second-oldest community foundation in Canada.

[2:10 p.m.]

The foundation’s very first gift, a modest $20 donation from Fanny Gadsden in 1937, set in motion nine decades of generosity that have shaped the capital region. Since that time, the foundation has granted more than $406 million to support local organizations, including over $31 million in 2025 alone.

From its early grants in 1969, when it administered $22,000 in assets to its leadership in programs such as vital youth, the Gadsden initiative and Victoria circle, the foundation has worked tirelessly to foster engagement and philanthropy across generations.

A cornerstone of its community leadership has been Victoria’s Vital Signs report, an annual evidence-based snapshot of well-being in our region, now entering a new chapter after its 20th anniversary last year. This work has inspired significant initiatives, including the Civil Society report of 2018 and the recent Architects of Belonging report, which highlighted that registered charities now contribute $5.4 billion directly into our local economy, a remarkable increase of $1.4 billion since the first report.

Today is the foundation’s official anniversary with the government of British Columbia, and we look forward to community celebrations throughout 2026, culminating in its major 90th anniversary event at the Victoria Conference Centre on September 26.

For 90 years, the Victoria Foundation has helped build a region where everyone can belong. Today we acknowledge their legacy, their leadership and their countless community members who have contributed to this remarkable journey.

Thanks to the organization’s incredible leadership, we look forward with gratitude and optimism to the next 90 years of impact.

Avery Hornosty and
Canada Cord Award

Scott McInnis: It’s a true honour to celebrate something extraordinary today, Revelstoke youth Avery Hornosty earning her Canada Cord.

This award is not simply a badge or a milestone. It represents one of the highest achievements a Girl Guides Pathfinder can attain in Canada. Only a small number of Pathfinders across the entire country earn the Canada Cord each year. Here in Revelstoke, it has been more than a decade since anyone has reached this level. That alone speaks to how rare, rigorous and meaningful this accomplishment is.

The Canada Cord is awarded to those who demonstrate outstanding dedication in their community, leadership, personal development and project work.

Avery, you have met and exceeded every one of these requirements with grace, creativity and determination. Stories show your leadership in action: your composure during the Europe trip, your creativity in crafting a packageable board game for a snowy adventure in Mount Revelstoke National Park and your deep commitment to environmental stewardship through your painted turtle conservation project.

These are not just activities. They are examples of how you elevate the people around you, how you think ahead and how you care for your community.

What stands out even more is your humility. When speaking at an event about her achievement, Avery said: “All of this wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for all of you.” In a moment where many would focus on their own efforts, you chose to highlight your community, your family and your girl guiding roots. This humility is the mark of a true leader.

This Canada Cord is not an ending. It is a stepping stone, one of many more to come. With your talent, drive and compassion, there is no telling how far you will go. And who knows? One day you may find yourself standing in our provincial Legislature, continuing to serve in new and inspiring ways.

Avery, congratulations on this remarkable and very rare achievement. Revelstoke and all of British Columbia are incredibly proud of you. We cannot wait to see where your leadership takes you next.

[2:15 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and
Property Ownership Concerns
of Richmond Residents

Steve Kooner: Yesterday my colleague from Richmond-Bridgeport and myself received a letter from the city of Richmond.

It showed that Richmond residents and the city remain deeply concerned about the implications on private property around the Quw’utsun decision. Despite assurances from this government and the Quw’utsun in a joint statement, uncertainty persists.

Will the Attorney General commit to Richmond city council to elevate the joint statement to a legally binding agreement that protects private property owners, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very complicated and very serious issue, one that this government is putting a lot of effort behind clarifying — protecting and bringing the certainty to property rights and sitting down with the Quw’utsun to sort out that decision and appealing it to the court.

We also received a letter from the city of Richmond that noted: “We have appreciated the supportive position taken by the provincial government in the Quw’utsun case. We were pleased to receive a recent statement by the Quw’utsun Nation’s Chief and the province of British Columbia containing a quote that addressed the approaches to privately held fee simple titles.”

This is how we are going to get through this issue: working together to solve these very complicated issues. It’s not the approach from the other side, which is to demonize First Nations People, spread fear and misinformation for political points and not arrive at any concrete examples of how to solve the issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members, that’s enough.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, wait. Wait. Members, order.

Please conclude.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are going to work through this issue not only with the city of Richmond, in the courts; with the Quw’utsun; and on behalf of protecting private property rights here in British Columbia. We’ll keep doing that work.

The Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough, supplemental.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General should read the rest of the letter from the city of Richmond for the record.

“Richmond residents affected by the Quw’utsun case are concerned that without a successful court appeal, an Aboriginal title declaration could continue to mark their private property, affecting market value.”

This isn’t fearmongering. This isn’t a fearmongering concern coming from Richmond residents. These are real concerns, and those concerns are documented in that letter from the city of Richmond.

Will the Attorney General amend the court appeal to call for the extinguishment of Aboriginal title on private property in Richmond, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have read the entire letter, and we have been working with the city of Richmond. In fact, they’ve noted that directly: “We are appreciative of the provincial government and their supportive position in the Quw’utsun case.”

We are working through not only complicated issues but we are driving for certainty when it comes to private property. That is our work every single day. That means appealing the court case. That means sitting down with the Quw’utsun. That means making sure that private property interests are protected in any way that we can. We will continue to work with the city of Richmond to do that.

What it does not involve are the ideas coming from the other side: “Stop talking to First Nations. Rip up our agreements. Don’t sit down. Don’t do the work that we know needs to happen to get to the certainty that we need.” Those are the ideas coming from the other side. They’re divisive, they’re unhelpful, and they’re not going to get us to certainty.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford: Let me just read into the record some of this correspondence that my colleagues received from the mayor of Richmond and council. “For months, residents and business owners in Richmond have expressed concern over the uncertainty about private property title as a result of the Supreme Court of B.C. decision pronounced in August 2025.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Here’s part of the problem. When legitimate questions are raised in this House, outside of this House — and unfortunately, this government, this Premier, this minister, multiple ministers don’t have answers — their only answer is fearmongering. That is what they fall back on, because they’ve got nothing else to say. That should scare every British Columbian, and we are seeing that today.

We are talking about uncertainty for property right owners, and that’s just not my opinion, because depending on what day the Premier wakes up, it might be his. He will say: “We will go to the wall for property right owners. We will actually go as far…. We will backstop mortgages.” That’s what the Premier of this province is prepared to do.

But then it changes. “Private property rights are never in question” is what he’ll say in one room.

It is April 1. The public is waiting. The province is waiting. This Legislature is waiting. First Nations are waiting.

Where, oh where are these amendments, and when will this Premier and when will this government get on with it and actually do what the public is expecting them to do?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have been very clear since day one. The decision came down, and we were the first out of the gate…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …to ask for an appeal. We were the first out of the gate to try to figure out how we sort through the legal uncertainty that’s created.

We are in court with our lawyers fighting and appealing this case. We’re sitting down with the Quw’utsun, and we’re trying to figure out our path forward on behalf of the private property owners there. That includes the joint statement that we released with the Quw’utsun that makes it clear that the province and the Quw’utsun are not seeking to go after the private property rights.

We will continue to make that progress.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: But can I just tell you the political opportunism that’s coming from that side? The day after the Quw’utsun decision came down, they issued a fundraising email to try to make money off what was happening in this matter.

The day after the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement, they issued a social media post saying that the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are going after your land.

This is the type of rhetoric that’s coming up from that side that is not helpful. It’s not going to get us certainty for those private land owners. It’s not going to get us anywhere except for dividing this province up.

We are going to continue to do the work, and we’re going to get that certainty.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I do.

Here’s part of the issue. We do have to get to work. We do have to do the work of the people. We can’t do it when this government continues to overpromise and underdeliver on something as important as the legislation that they committed to do in this House.

It is April 1, and there is nothing other than incompetence. The fact is that we are starting to believe that the government doesn’t even have a plan to introduce this legislation this spring or get it complete. The fact of the matter is this government is not doing the work and actually having the debates in this House. So if they want them to stop happening outside of this House, table that legislation today, put it forward, be transparent, stand behind it and have those debates in this House.

Will you table that legislation today, yes or no?

The Speaker: Member, all questions through the Chair.

When the question was asked, the courtesy was provided to listen, and I hope the same courtesy we’ll get when the answer is given.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve been very open with the public about the need that we see…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …to look at DRIPA and move forward with addressing the Gitxaała decision. The Premier has been in the media. I’ve been in the media. We talked about it with the public.

When legislation comes forward, everybody knows in this House it’s publicly debated. We go through three stages of public debate where they get to give their opinion…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …and we get to give our thoughts. That’s the process, and that’ll be, obviously, the process we follow when it comes to these amendments.

I’m not going to pretend to talk about what they believe on that side, because they believe a lot of things that are not factual and are not based on the reality that British Columbians are facing right now. We’re going to continue to focus on solving those issues that are important to British Columbians and real solutions to those problems.

[2:25 p.m.]

Government Management of
Climate Change Policies

Jeremy Valeriote: It is April Fools’ Day, and exactly a year after dismantling the carbon tax to appease Pierre Poilievre, this government’s climate policy has turned into a fool’s errand.

It all started so promisingly with transformational programs like the climate action secretariat, also courtesy of the late B.C. Liberal government; and the CleanBC plan, thanks to the NDP’s 2017 agreement with the B.C. Greens. We also had a thorough review of CleanBC last year that seems to be gathering dust on the minister’s bookshelf.

We hear all the right things about the environment and climate action, but when the polling landscape shifts, it looks like this government is only motivated to act when a couple of Greens raise a ruckus. So here is your ruckus.

My question for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions: now that the climate action secretariat has been disbanded, how will this government provide the leadership and cross-ministry coordination needed to meet our existential climate commitments?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member’s statement is simply untrue. There were two divisions of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions: the climate action secretariat and the energy decarbonization division — two smaller divisions. They’ve been made into one division, working together — people working on decarbonization across government, across the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and leading on these questions.

Our CleanBC plan is leading Canada. The impacts of the low-carbon fuel standard on reducing emissions and creating jobs, our actions to support EVs in B.C. and heat pumps in B.C., working with industry to lower emissions standards with the output-based pricing system — this is why we’re leading B.C.

Bringing together two divisions of the same ministry is not disbanding them. It is 181 public servants working hard to ensure that the implementation of CleanBC happens for the benefit of everybody in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Ban on Glyphosate Spraying
and Action on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Health Framework

Jeremy Valeriote: That’s not what we’re hearing. We’re hearing staff who have dedicated their lives to climate action being forced to work in the oil and gas industry, which is a symbolic slap in the face.

Moving along, all three parties in this House had the same 2024 election promise: to ban aerial spraying of glyphosate. Glyphosate, as we know, is a toxic chemical linked to cancer, kidney disease and brain damage — not to mention biodiversity loss. But this government is still letting Roundup cloud our forests and nearby communities.

On the important topic of biodiversity, B.C. has more species at risk than anywhere else in Canada. We’re one of the only provinces without stand-alone species-at-risk legislation. Three years ago, this government announced a draft framework. We’re still waiting for a final and a law to back it up.

I know the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship will say that she cares about this work, and I truly believe that. But if raising a ruckus is the only way for these initiatives to make headway in the Premier’s office, I’ll do my bit.

When will this government ban glyphosate, release the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework and back up its promises with legislation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: On this side of the House, we pride ourselves on the ability to be able to work with all parties on the steps forward that we need to take to be able to tackle the big challenges before our time.

On glyphosate, we’re proud on this side of the House that there has been a significant reduction in glyphosate use in the province of British Columbia, in our forests.

But I have to take the opportunity to remind that member that we had an opportunity to be able to work together in our CARGA agreement. But because a new leader decided to show up from the Green Party who is more focused on social media video likes than actually changing lives here in British Columbia, those two members turned their backs on workers and on people in their communities.

On this side of the House, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; the Minister of Environment; the Minister of Forests; all members of our cabinet; and all members of our government are continuously focused on building our economy and doing it in a way that looks after our environment and looks after ensuring that we’re building a more sustainable economy, delivering for British Columbians.

Implementation of
Health Professions Legislation

Anna Kindy: I’ve heard from hundreds of health professionals concerning the Health Profession and Occupations Act.

They’re telling me that they’re planning to take early retirement or leave B.C. rather than deal with NDP-appointed health colleges and government-appointed disciplinary panels. I know the minister has received the same letters.

So can the minister tell us how many health care professionals they expect to leave B.C. or retire because of the HPOA?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, any claim that the Health Professions and Occupations Act is going to make health professionals leave the province is unfounded. It is simply untrue.

The Health Professions and Occupations Act is about strengthening and protecting patient safety and the public interest. We put our confidence and trust in health care professionals, and we need to ensure that the transparency and accountability is there in regulating health professionals that deliver these critical care services to us.

Regulatory bodies are there to protect the public, not to protect the profession. That is why, for the first time in 30 years — after years of work, after reviews that showed that the regulatory framework needed to be strengthened — we have taken the steps to modernize this framework.

Today is the first day that this new framework comes into force. The new health regulatory colleges are stood up. Their board members are appointed through a merit-based process. They are ready to take the work forward, to ensure that that transparency and accountability is there for the trust in their health professions.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Anna Kindy: What you’re saying is very insulting to the front lines.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Anna Kindy: Through the Chair, what the minister is saying is very insulting to the front lines.

The Doctors of B.C. have been pushing against the HPOA for years. It was drafted with little or no consultation with the front lines.

What the Doctors of B.C. is saying is that the HPOA politicizes health care. It doesn’t increase the safety of patients when you politicize health care. This HPOA increases censorship, and what does that do? It decreases safety of patients.

All positions on college boards are now appointed by the Minister of Health, and every four years, the Minister of Health changes. How is her knowledge? What’s her base of knowledge, to be able to do those appointments?

All positions in the disciplinary tribunals are appointed by government. There are no external appeal processes. This is the definition of political interference.

The question to the Health Minister. Make sure that the answer does not insult the front lines here. Why does the minister refuse to let health professionals elect their own representative to be part of the college board?

Hon. Josie Osborne: First, it is just so unfortunate to see this member spreading misinformation about the act and the role that it plays in regulating health professionals here in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I would expect the member to understand that the purpose of the regulatory framework is to protect patients. It is to protect the public interest. The legislation is about keeping people safe from harm and discrimination. It has always been the role of regulatory colleges, and that isn’t changing.

But let’s talk about the board appointments. We saw in the Cayton report, in a review of health college regulation and the way that this was undertaken through an elected process, that that invited the opportunity for board members to put the interests of the profession before the interests of the public.

But we know that we must make sure the public interest comes first. The member knows but she hasn’t talked about the fact that the independent superintendent’s office is using a merit-based process…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …with policies that are published on its website and open and transparent for anyone to see how that works.

Eighty percent of the former college board members have been appointed to the new boards, together with members of the public, to hold that balance there of professional service, professional expertise, together with the interests of the public — to ensure that our health professionals are delivering health care with competency, with ethics and with the right qualifications.

Brennan Day: The HPOA act removes elected merit positions from health care colleges and moves boards to fully appointed by government.

[2:35 p.m.]

Cindy Oliver was just appointed as chair of Fraser Health. Oliver is a longtime donor to the B.C. NDP and was chair of the post-election review committee to analyze why the NDP lost the 2013 election — something you may need her for again.

These are the types of people this government is appointing to run our health care authorities.

Does anybody in British Columbia and does this minister or this government truly think anyone believes professional college appointments are going to be any different?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member may have missed the answer that I just provided around an independent superintendent and their office in undertaking a merit-based process…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Have the courage to listen now, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …looking at the skills and competencies of professionals and using that process to come forward with recommendations to the minister.

If the member reads the legislation, he will also see that the minister cannot reject those recommendations without specific reasons that must be made public, that the superintendent would then need to go back and redo the appointment process.

Eighty percent of the existing college board members have transferred. They’ve been appointed to the new boards of the regulatory colleges.

We rely on professionals for their expertise and for their knowledge. And we entrust the boards of these colleges to protect the integrity of the profession; and first and foremost, to protect patient safety; to ensure that our regulatory system is transparent; that it is accountable; and that people can have the faith, the trust, the confidence that they need to do when they receive treatment or care from health professions and health occupations.

The Speaker: The Member has a supplemental.

Brennan Day: The only thing this legislation does…. It’s designed just to protect from this government’s incompetency.

Wait-lists are growing in British Columbia, 1.3 million British Columbians don’t have a doctor, and this government is dismissing real concerns from care providers across this province. Check your email boxes. Mine is full.

Regarding HPOA…. Don’t take it from me. The Doctors of B.C. president and family physician, Adam Thompson…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Brennan Day: …said: “The key thing at the moment is that we want to recruit and retain doctors in British Columbia, and we need to realize that this will reduce the physician’s desire to live and provide care in B.C.” That’s the Doctors of B.C.

I’ve got dozens of emails in my office, so why does this minister keep dismissing the real concerns of care providers across this province?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Well, we know that if they were on this side of the House, health care and education would bear the brunt of budget cuts that they would bring forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: So maybe one of the things they would do is cut regulatory colleges.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just hold it, Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne: On this side of the House, we are so focused on attracting new family physicians, specialists, nurses, nurse practitioners, allied health care workers to come be a part of B.C.’s public health care system. A strong regulatory framework is part of that.

As part of this new legislation, colleges are directed to reduce the burdens and make it easier for the doctors and nurses coming to British Columbia to be credentialed. This is the work of a government that is wholly focused on strengthening health care, bringing in new health care workers — like today, today’s announcement of over 500 U.S.-trained nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners.

We know the opposition was opposed to that recruitment campaign. I guess they’re opposed to us bringing new doctors here. They were opposed to a new medical school coming in at SFU. But on this side, we are going to keep attracting more professionals. We’re going to strengthen our health care system, not cut it.

Government Action on Homelessness
and Safety Issues in
Abbotsford Encampments

Bruce Banman: You know, no matter how hard this government tries to hide their housing failures, encampments growing across the province and in my community of Abbotsford prove in real time how incompetent they really are.

There are encampments on Cole Road rest stop, Whatcom Road park-and-ride, McCallum park-and-ride and the Peardonville underpass. And what do they all have in common? They’re all on Ministry of Transportation land.

[2:40 p.m.]

They’re posted with “No trespassing,” “No camping over 24 hours,” yet local police and the RCMP have been told they are not allowed to enforce the area unless it’s a 911 call.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain to the police officers in the gallery why he is prohibiting law enforcement from policing these encampments to make the public safe?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the member asking the question, particularly this member asking a question on homelessness and encampments, given his record on the issue.

I’d like to make it clear. Police are not prohibited from protecting public safety and homeless encampments. What is happening is that we are working very closely with the Ministry of Housing to find appropriate housing and services for these particular individuals.

We are working very closely with the city of Abbotsford, which has been appreciative of our efforts, and in particular, around one camp that the member referenced in his comments around Whatcom, where I have instructed my staff to come up with short-term solutions in terms of increasing the security in that area as well as to look at what other steps need to be taken over the long term.

We are working collaboratively with the city of Abbotsford and their policing agencies and Housing to find appropriate accommodation for these particular individuals in a way that is humane, addresses their needs and ensures the public safety of the residents of Abbotsford, which is something that never seemed to happen when that member was the mayor of Abbotsford.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Bruce Banman: I’ve been warning this government that there are dangerous issues with homeless encampments across Abbotsford for years. Last Monday there was a fatal shooting at the Whatcom Road park-and-ride encampment and a huge fire. This was preventable.

I want to remind this government, this minister, about Brianna, the 13-year-old girl who died of an overdose just over a year ago in the Lonzo Road encampment. I shudder to think about what her last few weeks were like.

My question to this NDP government: how many more people have to die in encampments before you let police do their job?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Police are always able to do their job.

What I find fascinating, every time I hear this member and other members on that side of the House stand up and talk about encampments, the problems with encampments and, “Why are there not services in place…?” When we go and try and put services into communities, they stand up and say: “We don’t want them in our communities.” They stand up and demand public safety. They stand up and demand services. Yet they vote against every single initiative to provide those services, every single time.

I’ll also say this. When it comes to giving police the tools to do their job, no government has done more than this government has in the last five years — the largest investment in policing in the history of this province, with 250 RCMP officers; the first witness protection program in this province, done by this side of the House; the first forensic firearms lab in this province, done by this side of the House.

They had an opportunity when they sat here, and they failed every single time.

Drug Decriminalization Program
and Data Collection

Claire Rattée: It’s really rich to hear the Minister of Transportation talking about how this side of the House is against solutions for homeless encampments, when I’ve been trying for almost a year to get a permanent shelter in my community and I’ve been turned down every single time. Not to mention the three months it took me to get a response from that minister’s office when I’m just asking for a bit of clarity around what’s going on, on my highways.

[2:45 p.m.]

Since the minister refused to answer my question yesterday, I’m going to try again in light of the letter that she received this morning from Dr. Julian Somers. Dr. Somers spent over two decades building one of the most comprehensive databases in the world on addiction, homelessness and public safety in British Columbia, tracking real outcomes for more than 300,000 people.

In his letter, he confirmed that just as the province was preparing to move ahead with major policy changes, including decriminalization, his team was ordered to destroy that data — data that he says would have allowed independent evaluation and could have pointed this government in a very different direction.

I’ll ask again: why did this government order the destruction of critical addiction and public safety data right before launching its decriminalization experiment, and will she release all underlying data for independent review today? Or is this government still choosing to control the evidence, instead of being honest with British Columbians?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Let me be perfectly clear. This is false and absolutely misleading, what the member is saying.

The data that Dr. Somers collected was not destroyed. He had been contracted by government some years ago to undertake research, and in 2021, he was asked to transition his data to a new government database. The data still exists. That database allows for increased data collection and provides broader availability to researchers and academics. The data was moved to this new database. It is being used to this day by researchers.

It’s no surprise that the Conservatives would try to spread misinformation on Dr. Somers’ behalf. This is a person who thinks that the COVID vaccine kills people and that Dr. Bonnie Henry has blood on her hands. He also said the Premier is forcing vulnerable kids to get opioids implanted. That’s what’s shameful. This is completely false. It is harmful.

On this side of the House, we are going to keep working to correct misinformation and to improve care for all British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Claire Rattée: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege.

Rohini Arora: May I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Rohini Arora: I just wanted to give a shout-out to a home school group that is visiting from my riding. I wanted to shout out Tiffany Blaskovich and students from kindergarten to grade 11.

Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Point of Order

John Rustad: I rise on a point of order.

Language that was used by the Attorney General in her first response today I found to be offensive, insulting and unbecoming of a minister of the Crown, and unacceptable language to be used in this Legislature.

I ask that you request her to withdraw and apologize for the use of that language in this Legislature.

The Speaker: Members, the Attorney General made her answer. It was part of the debate, what she said, but I’ll still ask the Attorney General if she has anything to clarify.

The Chair will also review Hansard, and we’ll check it out.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I have the honour to present the InBC Investment Corp. annual legislative report for the year 2024-2025.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 14 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 14 — Change to Legislative
Schedule for April 2

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 14, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which adjusts the sitting hours for tomorrow, April 2, to accommodate the memorial service for His Honour the late Ashley Chester.

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1),

a. the adjournment time of the sitting of the House commencing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 2, 2026, be modified to immediately following the conclusion of Oral Question Period; and,

b. the start of the afternoon sitting on Thursday, April 2, 2026, be modified to 2 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of Motion 14.

Motion approved.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act.

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

In Section C, in the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We are going to call this chamber back to order, where we are….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, could I ask you to take your conversations into the hallway, please, so that we can carry on with the business of the day.

We are going to continue our debate this afternoon on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

Claire Rattée: I’m happy to continue talking about Bill 11 and about, honestly, the horrors that are going on right now in supportive housing units.

Yesterday when I began my speech, I was talking about some very personal stories of things that have happened to people in supportive housing units. Now I’m going to speak about some really tragic events. This is going to be talking about a few of the deaths that have happened in recent years in supportive housing units.

The importance of this is in looking at why this piece of legislation did not address this. These are things that the minister is aware of. These are stories the minister is aware of, that the ministry is aware of, that B.C. Housing is aware of, yet there is still nothing to address what’s happened to these people that passed away in supportive housing units.

One of the most disturbing realities that we’re confronting in this debate is what happens when people are placed in housing without the supports that they need and then, effectively, ignored.

One of the most disturbing cases I have ever encountered, which cannot be ignored, is that of Diane Chandler, a 60-year-old woman who died of an overdose inside a supportive housing unit at the Foxglove facility in Surrey. Her body was not discovered for 11 days.

This was a woman living in a provincially funded supportive housing unit — a building that is supposed to provide oversight, safety and support. Yet she died alone, unnoticed for nearly two weeks. I had the opportunity to sit down with her son and hear firsthand what this has meant for him and what this has meant for his whole family — the grief, the confusion, the anger, not just at losing his mother but at how she was lost.

This was not an unavoidable tragedy. This was a failure of every safeguard that was supposed to be in place. When I had the opportunity to speak with her son about this, what really struck me was that he felt very confident that while Diane had had some struggles with substance use in the past, before moving into Foxglove she wasn’t using her drugs. This was not somebody that was at risk of overdosing and dying.

In the short amount of time that she lived there, her life went completely downhill. She developed a very severe addiction because she was surrounded by it. She was surrounded by open drug use. It was likely encouraged, as it is in many of these facilities, to just continue down that path. We know that there are a lot of very dangerous individuals living in these facilities and preying on vulnerable people. I believe Diane was one of them.

What makes Diane Chandler’s death even more devastating is what we learned about the circumstances surrounding it. During a wellness check, staff reportedly mistook another resident for Diane, meaning that they believed that she was alive and accounted for when she was not. Think about what that means. Not only was there a lack of proper follow-up, but the systems that are supposed to ensure that people are safe were fundamentally flawed.

[2:55 p.m.]

Even more troubling than that, the same resident who was mistaken for Diane also passed away shortly after. The really troubling part is the person that was mistaken for Diane — where did they think that she was during this time?

This is not a one-off mistake. This is a systemic failure. It raises serious questions about how wellness checks are conducted, how residents are identified and whether there is any meaningful accountability when those systems break down.

This bill does nothing to address that reality. Diane Chandler’s story brings us back to the central issue that we are debating today: supportive housing. That is what it’s called. But where was the support? Where was the oversight? Where was the care?

Her death — like the deaths of Travis, Shawn and Lindsey, who I will speak about next — exposes the reality that in too many cases, supportive housing is not functioning as a system of care. It is functioning as a place where people are left — often with significant needs, often without adequate supports — and expected to manage on their own.

When something goes wrong, when someone dies, we are left asking how it could have happened. The truth is that it is happening because the system is not designed to prevent it, and nothing in Bill 11 addresses that fundamental failure.

In another case brought forward through reporting and freedom-of-information requests, Travis Fox died of an overdose inside supportive housing, and his body was also not discovered for days. This was not someone disconnected from the system. This was someone living in government-funded housing, in a building that is supposed to provide support, supervision and safety. Yet no one checked on him. No one intervened. No one noticed.

That is not just a tragic outcome. It is a complete breakdown of the very purpose of supportive housing. When we talk about safety in this House, we cannot ignore the reality that people like Travis Fox are dying alone, unnoticed in buildings that are supposed to keep them safe.

What makes Travis Fox’s death even more troubling is what we learned afterwards. Through freedom-of-information documents, it became clear that concerns had already been raised about the conditions in these buildings. Risks were known, issues had been flagged, yet meaningful changes were not implemented. That tells us something critical. This is not a problem of awareness. It is a problem of action. It is a problem of accountability.

Bill 11 does nothing to address that. It does not establish minimum standards for wellness checks. It does not address staffing levels. It does not create any mechanism to ensure that people are being monitored and supported in a meaningful way. Instead, it focuses on enforcement and on what happens after something goes wrong, rather than preventing tragedies like Travis Fox’s death in the first place.

There is also the case of Shawn Richards, a man living in supportive housing that was operated by RainCity Housing, who died after experiencing significant distress and repeatedly seeking help. His story is deeply troubling because it highlights a failure to respond to clear warning signs.

Reports describe a situation where Shawn Richards was deteriorating, where there were visible indicators that he was in crisis, where intervention could have made a difference, yet the response was inadequate.

This is what happens when housing is used as a substitute for care and when individuals with complex needs are placed in buildings without proper clinical oversight, without timely access to medical or mental health intervention and without the level of support that their condition requires. This is warehousing addiction, warehousing people that are suffering, warehousing people with mental health or mental illness issues, warehousing poverty and expecting this to somehow be enough.

What is most concerning about Shawn Richards’s case is that it is not unique. It reflects a broader pattern, a system where people in supportive housing are clearly struggling, clearly deteriorating yet are not receiving the level of care that would be expected in any other setting. If someone were in a hospital, if someone were in a treatment facility, if someone were in a properly resourced care environment, those warning signs would trigger immediate intervention. But in supportive housing, too often, they do not.

This bill does nothing to change that. It does not increase clinical supports. It does not mandate intervention. It does not create pathways to treatment. It simply assumes that housing alone is enough. Clearly, based on cases like Shawn Richards’s, it is not.

Another heartbreaking case is that of Lindsey, whose story was brought forward by legal advocates. Lindsey is someone who was, effectively, left to die in supportive housing. They were vulnerable. They were struggling. And they did not receive the intervention they needed.

[3:00 p.m.]

Their story is incredibly difficult to read, but it is important that we acknowledge it because it exposes a fundamental truth about the system. Supportive housing, as it currently exists in many cases, is not a system of care. It is a system of placement. It puts people somewhere, but it does not ensure that they are safe, that they are supported or that they have access to recovery. And when something goes wrong, the response is often too late.

We need to be honest about what that means. When we place people like Lindsey — people with severe addiction, people with complex trauma, people who are deeply vulnerable — into buildings without adequate supports, without clinical supervision, without meaningful pathways to recovery, we are not helping them. We are warehousing them. We are placing them in environments where harm continues, where risks escalate and where outcomes are often tragic.

Then we bring forward legislation like Bill 11, which focuses on managing a very narrow scope of behaviour within those environments, rather than addressing the fact that those environments are fundamentally not equipped to meet the needs of the people living in them.

This is something that, again, I know that the minister and the cabinet are very aware of, particularly given the fact that we just saw yesterday Larry Campbell give a press release. He did a press conference on the work that he’s doing on the Downtown Eastside, at the direction of the Minister of Housing, to be able to determine what’s going wrong on the Downtown Eastside. I think that is an area that we are all aware is the hardest hit throughout the province by these issues.

One of the things he said was that SROs are not working. We know they’re not working. We know that this system doesn’t work. He’s gone in there and seen it firsthand. I’m sure — I hope — that many members of government have also done that. I know I have. We’ve seen these things firsthand. We know that this system isn’t working and that something has to change. But again, this legislation does not address that.

We are also seeing growing concern around environmental exposure inside of these buildings, particularly when it comes to airborne drug contamination. Reports have documented that residents and workers in supportive housing are being exposed to substances like fentanyl through secondhand smoke and airborne particles. People are being exposed to highly toxic substances simply by living in their own homes or going to work.

This is not theoretical. It is being reported by tenants, by workers and by health professionals. It raises serious questions about safety, about basic living conditions and about what standards we are willing to accept in publicly funded housing.

Once again, Bill 11 does not address this in any way. It does not establish standards for air quality. It does not address ventilation. It does not create protections for workers or residents who are being exposed. It does not even acknowledge the issue.

The minister and the cabinet know about these concerns. This has been well documented. I’ve already spoken about some cases throughout my speech of where tenants are being impacted by this.

At what point do we not determine that the majority of people living in supportive housing don’t want to be exposed to secondhand drug smoke? Why are we allowing this to continue? Why are we risking the majority’s health and safety? Not to mention the risk that it actually places on the people that are using the drugs by not helping them with pathways to get into recovery. This is not acceptable behaviour in a housing unit. It shouldn’t be happening.

When we step back and look at these cases together, whether it’s Travis Fox dying alone and unnoticed; Shawn Richards not receiving intervention in the moment of crisis; Diane Chandler — her body was left for 11 days; Lindsey being left without the care that they needed….

What’s happening to Erin with her unit becoming uninhabitable for her and her children, despite reporting the issues for three years? Three years and nothing changing.

Diana’s story about the fear and anxiety that she experiences daily, the lack of sleep and exposure to secondhand drug smoke coming from right outside her bedroom window. The threats, the intimidation, the fact that she’s been punched in the head and that there have never been any consequences. She’s repeatedly reported this, and there are no consequences.

Or Dayna, unable to find parking or do laundry due to overcrowding in her unit.

Residents and workers that are exposed to airborne fentanyl.

We are forced to confront a very difficult truth. The problem is not that we lack enforcement tools. The problem is that the system itself is not designed to deliver safety, care or recovery. Until we address that, fundamentally, no amount of legislative enforcement will fix what is broken.

[3:05 p.m.]

Temporary access restrictions are another aspect that’s been addressed in this bill, which is effectively locking people out of their homes. These are individuals in crisis. Where do they go? Again, this legislation provides no answers. This is unlikely to de-escalate many of the situations that arise. It may de-escalate it within the building temporarily, but it will probably just make it someone else’s problem rather than addressing the issue.

Again, we see much of this legislation will be determined by regulation — critical details deferred. We are being asked to pass a framework without knowing how it works. This is not clarity.

I want to talk more about fire risk. There are lithium batteries, thermal runaway, explosive ignition, buildings that are not designed for it. We know that risk. We have identified the buildings, yet there is no action in this bill.

I also happen to know, or I’m fairly confident from what I’ve heard, that there are a few buildings in the Downtown Eastside where known arsonists are being housed together in the same units. This bill is not doing anything to look at how we determine who we’re housing in which units. For the life of me, I’m not really clear on why or how that decision was made. But that is a fundamental issue that we are seeing in supportive housing, and there’s nothing being done to address it in this piece of legislation.

Increasingly, tenants are also bringing e-bikes in off the street into their units and then jerry-rigging a charging system that is unsafe and causes a fire. The staff knows that this happens, but they are helpless to stop it. The other tenants know that it happens, and again, they are helpless to stop it. They have no legal authority to confiscate items that they know will likely cause a fire. These are often mentally ill individuals, whether drug induced or not. They often cannot recognize the inherent danger that items like these e-bikes or locking torches pose.

This is a basic safety issue, but this government has not provided any solution to it. The reality is that in many of these facilities, you have people that are struggling with severe mental illness because they have nowhere else to go. There is no psychiatric hospital. There is no secure care for them. So they’re getting housed in SROs and supportive housing.

They cannot recognize how dangerous these items are. They don’t recognize the threat to their personal safety or the safety of those around them, and that is evidenced by the fact that many of them are repeatedly overdosing, sometimes multiple times in a day. They aren’t able to recognize the danger that they’re posing to themselves and to others.

There has to be a different way to approach supportive housing that allows the operators to recognize when somebody has brought in something like a modified e-bike and to remove it from the premises for the safety of everyone else involved, including that tenant. That should be a bare minimum. But again, this legislation does not address it.

The misuse of the SRO model is also not addressed in this legislation. Buildings that were designed as hotels are now used as care environments, without redesign and without infrastructure, a glaring gap between needs and capacity.

Worker safety has in no way been addressed. These workers are not trained for enforcement, and now they are expected to manage dangerous situations.

Again, there is no clarity in this piece of legislation about who is supposed to intervene when a weapon is found. Who is supposed to confiscate it? Is it confiscated? Are police or RCMP supposed to be called? There has been no clarity provided in this legislation.

What about the potential liability implications, the WCB claims that could come forward from workers, retention of staff? This is not sustainable.

I don’t know if no thought was given to it or if this is just something that’s going to come forward later by regulation, but personally, I am uncomfortable with passing legislation that I don’t understand, that that clarity hasn’t been provided to me on. We don’t understand what that system is or what that process is going to look like. We need to have clarity around that. Tenants require that clarity. The providers require that clarity.

This is not a housing issue alone. This is a failure of system design. This bill does not address that. It doesn’t address drug use in buildings, secondhand smoke, fire risk, building design, worker safety, tenant placement, treatment capacity. It doesn’t answer: who enforces? What is a weapon? What happens next?

[3:10 p.m.]

It does not reflect consultation with law enforcement, fire services, municipalities. It does not explain why the working group’s findings were never released. It does not confront that supportive housing is being used as a substitute for care. In many cases, it’s warehousing addiction — placing people in buildings without support, without pathways to recovery — and calling that compassion. It is not.

True compassion is care, treatment, support, stability. Erin deserved a safe home. Diana deserves to sleep. Dayna deserves stability. And all of the people I spoke about, that lost their lives, deserved to live.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than this bill. We cannot evict our way to safety. We cannot enforce our way out of failure. We cannot ignore the conditions and expect change. This bill is not enough, and until we address the root causes, we will continue to fail.

I really hope that, in good faith, the minister is willing to work with me on some amendments once we get into committee stage, because I have a number of ideas on how we could really significantly improve this piece of legislation. I think that there’s an opportunity here, and I’m happy to do that work and try and find ways to approach this so that we can actually improve supportive housing for everyone in this province that needs to rely on it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Claire Rattée: I was supposed to be the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Oh, thank you for letting us know that.

Claire Rattée: I’m not going to be too much longer. Don’t worry. Thank you.

But I think that that’s incredibly important, and I do think that it’s incumbent upon us to be able to work together, both parties, because I think that we both come at it with different ideas, different perspectives, but we want the same things.

I think that everybody in this House wants supportive housing to work for the people that it’s supposed to support and represent. I think that we’re all aware that it would be great if we weren’t fielding any more concerns and complaints from people, because we’d feel like we’re actually doing our jobs properly and we’re providing British Columbians with the supports that they need.

As somebody that has lived in supportive housing, somebody that has spent a lot of time touring through supportive housing, somebody that has spent the time with vulnerable populations and speaking to them — people with lived experience, firefighters, RCMP and police — trying to better understand these issues and how we can actually improve this, I do feel like I have valuable insight. I do feel like I have some ideas that could really improve this legislation. So I am very hopeful that the minister will be willing to work with me on that on some amendments.

There are so many aspects of what’s wrong right now in supportive housing that I just really feel weren’t addressed in this piece of legislation. I would love to think that, okay, we’re going to bring forward another piece of legislation, maybe in the fall, that’ll address some more of those issues. But I don’t really think we can wait any longer.

This is a situation that’s getting worse by the day, so until we’re willing to really take some bold action and figure out what the problems are, this is not going to go away on its own. There’s, really, nothing that’s been given thought in this on how we’re going to address the issues that we’re seeing right now.

We’ve got a concurrent, really significant issue with the drug crisis, and that’s the crisis of people with permanent acquired brain injuries. Again, they need care environments. Again, these are people that are not typically capable of making decisions that are in their best interest. And it’s not their fault. They have a brain injury.

But I think it is incumbent upon us…. I think this is one of those few times where it is important for government to recognize that there is a duty here, a duty of government to step up and make sure that we care for the people that are the most vulnerable among us.

There’s nothing in this legislation that addresses those concerns — the need for actual care environments for people within these supportive housing units — or again, like I said, that looks at: how are we determining who goes into which facility, and is that facility adequate for their needs?

We have a lot of different people in British Columbia that need to access supportive housing. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach.

Yes, it will not be the easiest thing in the world to go through every single tenant and look at what their needs are and what their story is and what we have available and probably have to move some people to accomplish it. But it’s work that has to be done because the situation right now is untenable. This is not going to work in the long term. It’s already not working. We’re already seeing what’s happening.

Another piece that I want to just speak really briefly about before I close is around the fact that while there is supportive housing available in this province, first of all, we don’t have nearly enough. We determined that, very clearly, during budget estimates a couple weeks ago. There is not enough capacity. I know the government knows that and they’re trying to work on it, and I understand that. But there simply isn’t enough capacity.

[3:15 p.m.]

But beyond that, what’s really concerning for me and what I struggle with greatly is the fact that when I’m doing outreach work with vulnerable populations, with people that are experiencing homelessness, the story that I probably hear the most frequently, maybe besides…. They don’t want to have to wait so long on a wait-list to be able to access treatment, and many have given up because of how long the wait-lists are.

The most common story that I hear is: “Okay, even if I get into treatment, then what? Where do I go? I’ve been told that I can get put in such-and-such facility. It’s a supportive housing facility. This is the place they’re going to send me to, and I’m not willing to go there.”

I don’t blame them. We have more people right now in this province that would rather stay living on the street than go into a supportive housing unit that is run by this government. That is incredibly concerning.

I don’t lay that all at the feet of this government because, as somebody that was in an SRO many years ago under a different government, I recognize that these conditions have been very poor for a very long time. But they have significantly deteriorated in recent years. That is very concerning.

When I was somebody that was experiencing homelessness, I knew people that would intentionally go out and commit a petty crime so that they’d be arrested and put in jail so that they would have a roof over their head. Most people weren’t going to pass up the opportunity to have a roof over their head, but now they are. They feel safer on the street.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My apologies to the member across the way. May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Minister.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My apologies. I’m a bit excited about this introduction, because usually we have school groups from across British Columbia that get a chance to be able to come and watch the proceedings, but we have a school group from Mexico in the House, from Maple School.

We’ve got 18 grade 12 students, 23 folks in total, that have travelled all the way over from Mexico to be able to watch our parliamentary democracy in action.

You’re going to be watching my colleague debate a very important piece of legislation, and I hope you enjoy your time here in British Columbia and at our Legislature, the people’s House.

So will the House please join me in making these students from Mexico very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed. Welcome, everyone.

Welcome, everybody in the chamber, where we are continuing debate on Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act of 2026, and we are hearing from our MLA for Skeena.

Debate Continued

Claire Rattée: I was just talking about the difference back in 2010-11-ish and now and the way that people that are unhoused, that are street-entrenched, are feeling about supportive housing units and the desire not to go into one.

I was talking about the safety concerns that they feel. They’re valid. They are valid safety concerns. Whether it’s being fearful that there might be a fire in the middle of the night, that somebody might attack them….

Again, I understand that this legislation is trying to address that by addressing the issue around weapons, but as I highlighted earlier when I spoke about Diana, she was assaulted with someone’s fist. So what good would this legislation do? It wouldn’t do anything. It wouldn’t have prevented what happened to her. It wouldn’t have kept her safe.

We need to do more to address those safety issues because they are really real concerns. At this point, as I said, they’re actually preventing people that should be accessing supportive housing units from doing so.

There are also a lot of concerns over people having their things stolen. That’s something that happens frequently in shelters and supportive housing.

There’s concern around bugs, and it’s a very valid one — pests of all kinds, whether it’s bedbugs, cockroaches, body lice. This is something that’s happening frequently in supportive housing units. I don’t know how many people in this House have ever had to experience something like that, but I can tell you it’s incredibly awful. It’s degrading. I don’t think anyone in British Columbia should have to face that.

I don’t think anyone in British Columbia should have to live in a unit where they’ve got bugs crawling on them in the middle of the night, or their ceiling is rotting and making their only washroom unusable. It’s just not acceptable.

I really think that we need to do better, and I do truly believe that the minister cares about this and wants to.

So again, I’ll close with just saying I really hope that the minister is willing to work with me in committee stage to bring forward some amendments that, I think, will really strengthen this bill and ensure that we can do the best job that we can, if we’re going to reopen this piece of legislation for the people of British Columbia.

[3:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I’ll be the designated speaker, although I don’t expect to take the full time.

I rise today to speak to Bill 11, legislation that seeks to amend the Residential Tenancy Act by expanding landlord powers and government regulatory flexibility, giving broad jurisdiction to modify tenancy agreements, seize property and restrict access to housing and determine and intervene on “weapons” use. I put weapons in quotes for reasons that’ll become apparent further along in my speech.

Recognizing that the ministry’s approach to the prioritization of housing safety guides the development of Bill 11, we appreciate and understand the bill as a response to concerns from members of the supportive housing sector about limited tools to address violence against people and property.

That being said, this bill holds potential to give broad discretionary powers over and against populations that are already heavily regulated and policed. It reads as a desperate and shortsighted response to the impacts of the housing crisis on front-line workers at the expense of tenant rights and dignity.

In this way, we understand this legislation as one that puts workplace safety up against tenants’ rights. This contributes to a cycle in which individuals are pitted against each other, distracting us from the reality that both workers and tenants are experiencing harm at the hands of increased housing and living costs, worsened mental health supports, an ongoing toxic drug crisis and ever-deepening, overlapping inequities. In essence, the government has selected one part of a systemic problem that has many elements.

A central concern we have with this legislation rests in its capacity to claw back tenant rights. These include section 14(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act, which clearly states that amendment to a tenancy can only happen if both the landlord and tenant agree. However, under clause 7, section 14.1, this legislation gives the government regulatory power to make exceptions to this right, thereby making it more likely that tenants will experience eviction and housing instability even in the midst of their term. So we’re sacrificing the rights of tenants in this way.

Further, this legislation would allow landlords to make an application to the director to restrict access to the residence without notice to any other party. This is a fundamental departure from precepts of procedural fairness that others in society expect to be respected and expect to have the protection of.

Further still, clause 16 provides the ability to end a tenancy earlier if the landlord convinces the director that a tenant is likely to adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of another person who is authorized to be on the property. We wonder, in reviewing this, how this is possible, considering that previous amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act excluded supportive housing residents from the right to quiet enjoyment in the first place.

[3:25 p.m.]

Further, this framing makes way for bias, discrimination and racism, considering that a large number of supportive housing residents are Indigenous and racialized, and leads us to wonder why tenants are to be punished when they haven’t done anything wrong.

In regard to weapons, this legislation provides that a landlord can request an order to end a tenancy if the tenant has been in personal possession of a weapon on residential property or if the landlord has observed a weapon in plain view in the tenant’s rental unit. Considering that the definition of “weapon” is prescribed and that tenants would risk eviction if the landlord observes a weapon, the power given to landlords and housing operators to control tenants here is unbelievable — simply, huge overreach.

How many of us have objects in our house that have the potential to do any of these things? Kitchen items: knives, scissors, forks, bottles. Cleaning supplies: bleach, mop and broom handles. Things that can be thrown: cell phones, lamps, vases. Things that can be used as rope: clothes, cords, Christmas lights. Pets if they have the capacity to cause harm — for example, some dogs. Sports equipment: bats, walking or skiing poles, ice skates. The list goes on and on.

We don’t have the comfort in this legislation, the clarity, of how this is going to be limited and how procedural safeguards will be in place to eliminate the very real risk that a landlord could observe a weapon and it could result in these far-reaching consequences for the tenant.

Danielle Sabelli, a lawyer at the Community Legal Assistance Society, is quoted on this proposed legislation: “This isn’t safety; it’s control and surveillance. When you give housing providers the power to exclude someone from their home and the power to enter their unit with fewer safeguards, you create the conditions for abuse. You create a pipeline to homelessness.” This quote brings our attention to a gaping hole in the government’s approach to this legislation — that of attending to the issues that make tenants vulnerable in the first place.

Let me just stop here. Can you imagine anybody in this chamber, anybody viewing this speech and viewing this on Hansard, being subjected to this type of arbitrary, subjective power by another individual without safeguards? This is really, really concerning. And here we go again. What we’re doing is we’re giving a degree of power in a relationship that is already asymmetrical to the landlord and not building in the safeguards.

Indeed, this piece of legislation does nothing — and beyond this, the weapons issue and other issues I’ve mentioned — to attend to the current conditions that lead to increased risk of violence, harm and eviction.

An example of this includes consistent issues with elevator function, including one at the Portland Hotel in Vancouver that had broken down for nine months, leading to multiple residents, especially ones who use wheelchairs, being unable to leave their floors for weeks and months at a time.

[3:30 p.m.]

To be clear, this means that residents were disconnected from community, unable to access medications, even get groceries. Others were forced to actually crawl up and down the stairs, to sleep in the lobby. They were left to use the courtyard in the back of the building to relieve themselves since there is no accessible washroom on the ground floor. This is completely unacceptable.

This is British Columbia. This is a wealthy province. This is a province that has protected, and aims to protect, rights of the most vulnerable, and here we have legislation that goes in exactly the opposite direction.

Giving more powers to survey, police and expel tenants does nothing to increase safety, despite this government’s claim through their introduction of this bill. To the contrary, risk of violence and a vulnerability to harm are not inherent to individuals. They are instead drafted into the systems we create, the same systems we have the power to change.

We ask whether this government is, in fact, interested in increasing safety or simply in solidifying a system that hurts supportive housing workers and tenants alike. And that is the issue. This is going to impact, in a very negative way, both workers and tenants alike.

Once a person is denied access to their possessions, to their home, once they no longer have a home, where do they go? How might they access support in actions taken against them?

We know that the people targeted in this legislation are already more likely to experience poverty, addiction and barriers to service. What happens when another stabilizing force, sometimes the only stabilizing force, is taken from them?

I know from personal experience — working for 25 years with First Nations across this province, sitting on a housing panel to ensure that housing is made available — that housing that is safe and accessible is at the very core of the wraparound support that’s needed to support the most vulnerable in our society. It’s not a question of taking this type of measure. It’s a question of building the supports so that there’s not even a thought that this type of measure is needed.

So what guarantee can the NDP make that those evicted won’t become homeless? That’s the question. What guarantee can the NDP make that those evicted won’t become homeless?

A common answer, to brush this question under the rug, is that these people will have to “connect to other resources,” but the reality is that resourcing is not only scarce in housing. Our health care system is overburdened. Legal services are usually either far too expensive or stretched thin. And addiction and mental health services are under ever-increasing pressure.

In short, other support services are at capacity, and the answer of “connecting people to other resources” sidelines the reality that the government is, at best, not equipped to deal with the fallout of ruining the lives of people who have no recourse. B.C. cannot afford this.

When we don’t deal with the fallout, this is often the last step, and it sets back the life chances, the safety, the mental and physical health of the very tenants that we’re trying to support to move to a life that is much better than the circumstances that they’ve experienced. It’s just a mechanism to turn the clock back and undo the progress that’s been made without those additional services.

We have no evidence that this legislation is accompanied by increased services to ensure that anyone evicted does not end up homeless, that it’s seen as a way to keep working at supporting these tenants and these individuals.

[3:35 p.m.]

While the government claims that they have engaged with multiple external parties in developing this legislation, the lack of transparency about who these partners represent and the feedback we have received about this bill from those in community, those with lived experience, raises concerns about whose voices and experiences are at the centre of this process. As a bill that holds such tremendous impact for tenants, we wonder what consultation exists with those who have lived experience of living in social and supportive housing and being evicted.

In my riding, we have supportive housing, and there is an obligation on the government, when it takes this sort of approach and proposes this sort of legislation, to do extensive consultation not just with those who are advocating for the change but those that are going to experience the impact of the change.

This research need not be started from scratch, as those with lived experience have been offering insight and solutions for decades. As we spend time debating whether or not to make it easier for people to be homeless, and that is what this legislation does, solutions such as those proposed by SUDU could be taken up and applied to the roots of the issues we are facing.

These include consulting people with lived and living experience of unregulated substance use and supportive housing residents, to inform policy developments in supportive housing; fairly compensating, training and resourcing positions in social and supportive housing, to prevent burnout and maintain working conditions; creating authentic, peer-led support, operational and emotional first aid and de-escalation roles for housing residents; and more. This type of step of eviction should be the very last resort.

In the world of law, there’s an expression: best efforts. What that means is no stone unturned. There is, absolutely, no stone unturned in trying to find alternative solutions to the ones presented and enabled in this legislation.

These solutions are publicly available. As SUDU board director Gina Egilson shares: “It is abhorrent that the Minister of Housing has established a task force to dismantle what scant rights still exist for supportive housing residents. If the upstream solutions to the intersectional crises of housing and toxic drug supply were adequately addressed through meaningful consultation with residents, this incredibly harmful, punitive policy response would be unnecessary.”

Punitive. That’s the fundamental way to describe this legislation in one word: punitive.

Making it easier for landlords to evict tenants, prohibit their movement, seize their property does not make social housing sustainability safer. It’s a band-aid on the multiple gaping wounds left by a lack of resourcing for both tenants and staff. We don’t need a band-aid. We actually need to deal with the core causes and ensure that we are making best efforts to find every other conceivable solution than this heavy-handed type of legislative eviction response.

With the emphasis of governmental powers in this bill, protections for tenants will come in through regulation, of course. That’s standard practice for this government. When in doubt, don’t spend the time to lay out in detail the criteria that will guide decisions that have huge impacts on British Columbians in this province. No, put it in regulation.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’ll put it in regulation. We’ll figure it out later. Then we’ll send it off to cabinet. Then cabinet, meeting behind closed doors, subject to very broad exemptions from disclosure, will decide what the regulation will do, will pass the regulation. Then those of us who enjoy looking at the Gazette and spending hours trying to work out the meaning can go and dig out the regulation.

It’s a fait accompli, the regulation. The decision’s made. That’s not reassuring. We’re supposed to just believe the minister that this will occur in a thoughtful, considered way, with full consultation and despite the fact we won’t see, beforehand, the criteria. We won’t have an opportunity to debate the issues, the contents, because it’s all prescribed.

That’s the path forward that this government is taking in so many pieces of legislation, and it fundamentally sidelines the role of this Legislature. It is completely disrespectful of the public in this province, who deserve a right to have the opportunity to participate in consultation on either side, whether you’re a landlord; a tenant; or somebody potentially impacted, like workers.

That is the issue there. Why is the removal of rights enshrined in legislation and protections tacked on with regulation? Let me repeat that. The removal of rights is enshrined in the legislation. And the protections? They’re in regulation. We’re being asked to support a bill and we don’t even know what some of the key criteria are that will guide this.

I acknowledge that in limited circumstances, doing work by regulation is a completely acceptable approach. But for things that are as fundamental as the items that are left to regulation in this bill, it is deeply concerning that we are taking this approach.

What would we do…? First, the Green caucus, my colleague Jeremy Valeriote and I, we’re not about simply….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we don’t refer to our other members by name, please.

Rob Botterell: Right, right. Thank you. I apologize.

The Third Party caucus supports a housing-first model. Evidence is clear. Providing housing without conditions gives people the security and stability that they need to solve other challenges in their lives. Whether people are struggling with addiction, with health challenges, with unemployment, with language barriers or a confluence of these challenges, making sure that people have somewhere safe and warm to sleep that they know is safe and will be there for them at the end of every day is key.

Many, many individuals who are struggling with these types of challenges have come to understand that they are not going to be treated the way that we others are treated. They’ve come to realize that they don’t get the same treatment we do.

Can you imagine if we gave these sorts of powers to people in our community? If you were renting an apartment in Victoria or renting an apartment in Vancouver and you weren’t in supportive housing, can you imagine what the uproar would be? But here we are. We’re proposing legislation to basically codify that we’re going to treat tenants in supportive housing in a much less humane way and remove fundamental human rights without procedural fairness.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve spoken earlier about the solutions put forward by people with lived and living experience in supportive housing. I can only pass along their concerns and their approaches and their recommendations because I don’t have the lived experience. But I can say I can, certainly, understand how I would react if I was subjected to any of the provisions in this legislation.

Let me take you back to the definition of weapons. What if I had a…? Oh my gosh, maybe I have a broom handle. Oh, it’s a weapon. Who gets to decide that it’s a weapon? Maybe that’ll be defined and won’t be included in regulations, but we don’t know. We don’t know what’ll be in and out in regulations. We don’t have any assurance that it won’t be, that we can rely on.

As I said, I’ve spoken earlier about the solutions put forward by people with lived and living experience, and I’d like to re-emphasize them briefly because they are important to the way we need to think about this problem.

We know that there are people living in supportive housing who have complex needs, who pose challenges to staff and to other tenants. We get that. We understand the challenge that the government is trying to solve with this bill, but we disagree fundamentally with the approach that they’re taking.

People with complex needs require more support and more self-determination, rather than less. They need us to believe in them, rather than exercising punitive powers, as has been described. Evidence is clear that eviction does huge harm — increasing stigma, eliminating trust in systems and pushing people further away from supports.

Who are many of the individuals in supportive housing, through no fault of their own? Indigenous people, who have suffered for hundreds of years. They bring a history of an experience in our communities of being distrusted, treated badly, marginalized, attempts at assimilation…. Yet here we are. We’re going to take an eviction approach.

The evidence is clear. Eviction does huge harm, and it eliminates trust. Once you’ve eliminated trust…. We all know through experiences in other parts of our lives that trust is extraordinarily difficult…. It takes a long time to rebuild. Where are the safeguards?

We know stability is one of the key determinants of health and social outcomes. That’s why the Third Party caucus has been so supportive of initiatives like the Village model, which provides not only stability but wraparound supports and community outreach. It’s why we’ve been so consistent for years that we need to target the systemic drivers that are increasing homelessness and despair and we need to ensure that low- and no-barrier housing is available to everyone that needs it — low- and no-barrier housing.

So the government is bringing forward this legislation. They’ve set out an approach, and we don’t see the procedural safeguards here. There are many unanswered questions that have been left to regulation. We don’t see any accompanying increased investment to ensure that if these draconian powers are used, we’re not going to have another homeless person that we don’t have the resources in place to support, that we don’t have the supports to provide a path back to the type of treatment that we should expect as British Columbians, whoever we are, whatever our circumstances are.

The government release for this bill cited a recent study showing that people living in supportive housing were incarcerated nearly 84 percent less than people experiencing homelessness in 2022 and had nearly 32 percent fewer hospital admissions in 2022. With this statistic obviously on the minds of the government, we ask: why would you choose to make eviction easier rather than supportive housing safer?

[3:50 p.m.]

The Third Party caucus will not be supporting this bill due to the fact that, one, it increases the chances that tenants will be surveilled, criminalized and thrown out of their homes with no resources or recourse. Two, it pits the safety of workers against the safety, rights and dignity of tenants. Third, it gives powerful regulatory authority to the government, leading to a lack of transparency and increased vulnerability to tenant rights. Fourth, it is not engaged with or implementing the experience and expertise of supportive housing tenants, especially ones who have experienced eviction.

If the government is truly worried about safety in communities, about homelessness, about the toxic drug crisis, about reducing costs in our health and justice systems, then we urge them to rethink this punitive approach.

People experiencing or at risk of homelessness are part of our communities, and they deserve to feel as much. We should be treating them in the same way we would expect to be treated, and I don’t believe that there are many British Columbians that would find this type of punitive framework something that they would embrace and welcome.

Models that are culturally safe, connected and well designed improve safety for the people they support, for the staff that work there and for the wider community in which they are situated. Eviction does not.

Hon. Terry Yung: I’m pleased to rise today in the House in support of the proposed amendments to the RTA, Residential Tenancy Act, as relating to supportive housing.

I first want to thank, for the passionate comments, the member for Saanich North and the Islands as well as, earlier on today, the member for Skeena. I also want to thank the Minister of Housing and her staff for this key and important piece of legislation that will make a difference to a lot of people.

Just to recap the clear points of what we tried to accomplish here. This amendment will try to help keep weapons out of supportive housing. It will help de-escalate serious safety situations for the people living in supportive housing, will clarify when the Residential Tenancy Act can apply and, also, improve site staff and guest protections for the people who actually work and live in supportive housing.

Before I start, I also want to keep in mind, in this discussion, the vast majority of people in supportive housing are looking for stability — peaceful people. They want a place to belong and a place to call home instead of being on the streets or being homeless.

Across B.C., in this province, approximately 15,000 people live in supportive housing, and most are working hard to rebuild their lives. They want a roof above their head, and they want peace and quiet, dignity and independence and, also, to be very good neighbours to the people living alongside them — no different than in a strata, no different than in housing anywhere you see in this province.

Supportive housing provides people with a safe place to live, alongside voluntary support, as is the case of supportive housing in the Downtown Eastside — the latest one in Bob and Michael’s Place, across from the Woodward’s building. For many people, this is a step to move forward for people that have faced homelessness, trauma, mental health challenges or substance use challenges.

[3:55 p.m.]

Supportive housing is also a workplace. People work at supportive housing. It’s where the front-line workers and staff members on site show up every day to support residents. It’s a community where tenants share space with their neighbours, neighbouring to the supportive housing sites. That means tenants, workers and guests all need to feel safe.

These amendments are about increasing health and safety in supportive housing while continuing to protect tenant rights under the RTA, the Residential Tenancy Act. You may ask why we need any changes. Why? It’s because this is in response to real challenges that supportive housing providers and tenants — many of whom I’ve met, and I’ll go into that later — have identified.

At the same time, housing providers are supporting people whose needs are due to past interactions, experience of the toxic drug crisis, growing mental health and substance use challenges affected by all these prior lived experiences, as my friend from Saanich North has stated.

Providers and site workers, staff, made it clear that they need additional tools to help them deal with situations. And they are rare. The vast majority of the residents are peaceful, good neighbours, but in the rare situations where health and safety risks arise, we need to protect the people who call supportive housing home. These are situations that involve violence, the presence of weapons and behaviour that places other tenants and staff at risk.

Right now operators facing situations don’t have flexible rules and tools they can use. These amendments are designed to address these gaps while protecting the important protections and oversight provided by the Residential Tenancy Act. They’re still going to be followed. We still have to keep that. It’s not an arbitrary decision of rejection or eviction.

As you know, I spent time at the Vancouver police department. I also spent four years as a uniformed beat officer in the Downtown Eastside. I’ve been to hundreds and hundreds of 911 emergency incidents at the SROs, on the streets — stabbings in progress, etc.

Going back to the SROs, I want to give you an example. I remember this really clearly. I showed up on a call. A neighbour was brandishing an axe, chasing about five or six neighbours along the hallway. When we showed up, the neighbours on the same floor were petrified. They were hiding in a corner. They didn’t know what to do. They didn’t know what this person was going to do with this axe. He’s waving it around. They were just scared. I saw fear in their eyes.

Now, fortunately, we took the person into custody without incident. What stood in my mind is that at the end of all this — bail conditions and what have you — because that place of supportive housing is the primary residence of the accused, of the subject that was charged, the housing operator had very little latitude to have a no-go to his own home. Subsequently, the person returned back to where something had just happened.

I can tell you that the neighbours did not feel safer after the incident. They were saying: “How about our safety? How about the way we feel safe going home again, instead of being chased around by somebody with a weapon?” Now, I must say that this is the exception, not the rule. The majority of people, as I said before, in supportive housing are not violent. They just want a home. They just want a place to belong. And I get that. That’s why we have to do a better job at protecting them.

The vast majority of the residents just simply want a place to live peacefully. They want a place to call home. They don’t want to be subjected to crimes, violence and somebody arbitrarily waving a weapon around and chasing them around. Trust me. I’ve been chased around with weapons at my job. It’s the profession I chose, but I think most people don’t enjoy that, especially where they live.

[4:00 p.m.]

The second part is close to home. Four months ago I was talking to a young lady close to here, on Douglas Street. She told me she lived in a park. I said: “Why?” I mean, it must be cold. It’s dangerous when you live in a park. You’re 16 to 20 times more likely to be a victim of a crime when you’re homeless. It’s common knowledge.

She told me: “You know what? I was in supportive housing, but one of the tenants on my floor is a predator. He’s after me. They couldn’t do anything about it. So I felt safer living in that park than living in the government-funded supportive housing.” That really stuck with me, and I said: “Who are the people supposed to safeguard her safety and her interest?”

Going back to what my friend from Saanich North said, and I agree, we have to balance safety with tenants’ rights. We can’t just arbitrarily evict people. But this is actually still subject to the tenants, under the protection of tenant rights under the RTA. There’s no change to that.

Some people said that we should just remove supportive housing from the RTA protection altogether. This is not what this amendment is about. Supportive housing will continue to be governed by the RTA, hence to extend the protection for tenants. Tenants will have access to a fair dispute resolution process through the RTB. It means eviction decisions remain subject to review. This will provide a balanced approach by strengthening safety tools while maintaining protections for tenants.

The other part that we want to do here is to keep weapons out of supportive housing. For me, that’s a lot of common sense. People will…. What do you mean by weapons? What are dangerous weapons? I can tell you. Firearms, imitation firearms, knives, flip knives, brass knuckles, etc. If I’m waving it around and it’s menacing, it actually makes people feel unsafe. It’s threatening.

In the past, housing operators had to not only demonstrate that a weapon was present but that a person had the intent to use the weapon to cause harm. That’s a little more difficult at times and actually limits their actions to follow up, because if a tenant continues to become a safety issue for tenants on the same floor in the same building, then what kind of recourse do we have? What can we do?

In this case, under the proposed changes, the new changes amendment, a landlord or operator would be able to apply to the residential tenancy branch to end the tenancy based on the presence of a weapon at a supportive housing site. It will enable the operator to move more quickly when weapons are present in an environment where residents and staff members deserve to feel safe coming to work or coming home. As I said before, these weapons could be firearms, Tasers, knives, energy-conducted weapons or what have you.

The second part of that speaks to bail conditions. Immediately after arrest and release, sometimes you need to have, in certain cases, temporary access restrictions. It doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense to release the same accused back to the same building where, maybe two hours ago, he was seen chasing after people with an axe. This happened before, and it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence and trust in the victims and the complainants. So this amendment will give new options to supportive housing providers to maybe, in cases where it’s needed, restrict access to a site where serious safety concerns occurred.

Currently operators face a difficult choice. They have to go through a long process, in some cases, to manage an escalating situation while they’re waiting for an eviction process that could take a protracted period of time. Or they may feel forced to pursue eviction immediately in situations where a tenancy might otherwise be preserved. So we’re, actually, sometimes not giving them more options by not giving them more tools.

[4:05 p.m.]

These amendments introduced will provide a continuum of options that allow operators to restrict access in some cases where it’s needed and also allow for a cooling-off period during situations of sustained conflict, harassment or escalating behaviour that poses a risk to other people. I met many of those complainants and people that actually, over the years, didn’t feel like they’re protected. In extreme circumstances, operators in this case may restrict access while waiting for expedited eviction hearings through the tenancy branch.

As you know, there’s a difference between supportive housing and transitional housing. Supportive housing is permanent housing with voluntary support to help people transition into living in permanent housing, whereas transitional housing is temporary housing designed to help people build stability before moving them to permanent accommodation. They might look similar in practice but they’re not.

I just want to make sure that we clarify that so we’re not confusing people on where the legal framework applies here. Once again, this amendment will provide more clarity.

These amendments also strengthen protection for workers and guests across all rental housing. Currently a landlord can only end a tenancy if a tenant interferes with the health and safety of the landlord or another tenant. However, the law does not clearly extend what protection it gives to workers and guests of the housing unit.

These amendments will close that gap, will ensure that landlords can act when a tenant jeopardizes the safety of any person permitted on a property. That includes site workers, staff and guests. Everyone needs to feel safe where they live and where they work, regardless of whether it’s supportive housing funded by the government or private housing or strata housing.

As a law enforcement officer, we respond to 911 calls regardless of what type of housing unit it is. When it’s an emergency, then we show up to make sure we protect life and property.

As I said before, these amendments will help keep weapons out of supportive housing. They will help de-escalate serious safety situations. They will clarify where the Residential Tenancy Act applies and will also improve protections for site staff, workers and guests. More importantly, they maintain the principle that tenants living in supportive housing will continue to be protected under the RT Act, 8, the Residential Tenancy Act.

For these reasons, I’m pleased to support these amendments, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same and to remember the people that need to feel safe to go home to government-funded housing, to supportive housing. Otherwise, the alternative, in this case, is not as feasible or safe for the people out there.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, as the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough and as the official opposition critic for the Attorney General.

I will say this clearly. We’ve heard a lot of speeches today. I would say this bill does not go far enough, because while this government is focused on rewriting tenancy rules inside supportive housing, it is ignoring what is happening outside those buildings, in the neighbourhoods that are being directly impacted every single day.

Now, this legislation talks about illegal activity, talks about preventing certain behaviours, and it talks about all this because there have been significant public safety issues related to certain supportive housing. These issues have spanned Richmond, New Westminster, throughout the Lower Mainland and throughout British Columbia.

In my riding of Richmond-Queensborough, and the New Westminster portion in Queensborough, during the summer, I had many residents approach me for a meeting because they had significant concerns related to supportive housing. Most of these individuals were young mothers with young children ages three, four, five, six and seven.

[4:10 p.m.]

There were huge concerns because they were saying that not all of the residents of supportive housing were an issue, but there were some select few that were causing significant problems within the neighbourhood.

The residents in the neighbourhood of that supportive housing mentioned that they tried to get certain actions done, but they never had any success, so they had to approach me as a local MLA.

The issues that they were complaining about in regard to public safety…. They were talking about discarded needles in a nearby park. They were talking about aggressive behaviour on the part of guests of certain supportive housing residents. These parents were significantly terrorized by these public safety incidents that were happening, so it was a significant issue in one part of my riding.

We’ve also seen similar issues in Richmond. So this seems to be a significant issue. In the last session, we heard, during question period, supportive housing come up many times. This provincial government was failing to acknowledge there were some issues related to supportive housing.

But in the summer, in July, there was a news release that said the provincial government was going to take certain steps to deal with those public safety incidents that are happening within supportive housing. We are seeing now this legislation that has been introduced make an attempt at addressing some of those public safety issues.

But the crucial point that’s missing…. Many of those complaints about public safety were actually happening from outside the supportive housing units, the neighbourhoods that these supportive housing units have been a part of. The complaints have been going to the operators of these supportive housing units, the landlords of these supportive housing units.

Now, this bill is focused on the tenants, but the Residential Tenancy Act deals with two different parties. It deals with the tenants, and it deals with landlords. There’s been less of a focus on the landlords that may be responsible for some of the public safety risks that have been caused by some of the issues that are coming out of supportive housing.

Now, if the government was taking initiative to deal with some public safety risks by addressing some legislation within this bill, it’s my submission that the government neglected to go far enough, because these public safety risks that we are hearing about constantly in the news are not going to stop by this specific legislation that’s very narrow in scope.

It’s a serious issue, and it’s an ongoing issue. These issues have come directly to me as a local MLA of an area that has supportive housing in it. I’ve seen many other areas of the Lower Mainland that have been affected by these supportive-housing-related public safety risks. So this is a missed opportunity here. We’re talking about public safety risks related to supportive housing. There could have been a lot more done.

Across British Columbia, communities are dealing with the consequences of failed policy around supportive housing. They are seeing open drug use in public spaces surrounding supportive housing. They are seeing discarded needles on sidewalks and in parks that are neighbouring certain supportive housing. They are seeing strangers loitering and trespassing in residential areas, in neighbourhoods that have such supportive housing. Neighbours are also seeing aggressive and unpredictable behaviour. Neighbourhoods are also seeing violent incidents tied to individuals coming and going from supportive housing units.

[4:15 p.m.]

Let’s be clear. This is not contained only to the tenants. There’s a responsibility on the landlords, the operators as well. So there are two parties that come into the discussion when we’re looking at the Residential Tenancy Act. One is tenants. The other is landlords, landlord-operators. The landlord-operators seem to be missing in this discussion of this Residential Tenancy Act amendment.

These types of public safety risks are spreading within neighbourhoods, and neighbourhood people are paying the price. So I want to bring this out of the abstract and into the real world. It’s happened in my constituency. These public safety risks related to certain residents that have resided in supportive housing have resulted in some real public safety risks. It has affected the living of neighbourhood residents, and that’s unacceptable.

Like I said, over the summer I received numerous reports from many constituents in Queensborough, New Westminster, about what they were experiencing, specifically around issues with discarded needles. Violent, aggressive behaviour that a lot of the residents mentioned was due to some guests being attracted to the supportive housing unit that may not have actually resided at the supportive housing unit.

This created a lot of concern in Queensborough to the extent that families said: “Look, we moved into Queensborough thinking that it was going to be a safe spot, a nice, safe spot to raise young families.” They were now second-guessing themselves. The parents, the young mothers, were now second-guessing themselves. Was this the safe neighbourhood to move to?

I honestly feel there’s a missed opportunity here to address all public safety issues that have been kind of connected to certain supportive housing units. I’ll be clear. The parents that complained to me about a certain supportive housing didn’t complain about all the residents. They said, on the most part, most of the residents that were living in the supportive housing that they were dealing with…. The parents never had any public safety risks related to them.

But there were a select number of some of those residents living in that supportive housing unit that were causing some public safety risks for those parents. Some of the activity, some of the illegal activity that was happening, some of the safety issues that were happening were actually very significant because they were…. Those actions, those public safety incidents and the actions related to that were significantly affecting those families that were dealing with the consequences.

Like I mentioned earlier, I spoke to young mothers that told me that they actively avoided going to a nearby park that neighboured supportive housing in their neighbourhood not because they didn’t want to go to that park, not because their kids didn’t want to play, but because they were afraid — afraid that their children would be exposed to needles, afraid of who might be there, afraid of what might happen.

This is the reality of what’s happening on the ground. This legislation was supposed to address significant public safety issues that have been happening. The target of this legislation seems to only be the tenants, but there’s no focus on the landlord-operators.

[4:20 p.m.]

If we really want to get to the bottom of any sort of public safety incidents that are happening as a result of regular incidents that have happened related to supportive housing within our province, this was the opportunity to really deal with the issue; really come to some sort of understanding, some legislation that would direct landlord-operators to maintain certain order that would protect their buildings and, also, protect the neighbours and the neighbourhoods that supportive housing buildings are in.

I feel that this was a missed opportunity because this legislation doesn’t go far enough.

Those are my submissions for today.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

As the MLA for Surrey–Serpentine River and the opposition critic for Housing, I rise in opposition to this bill, not because I oppose the intent to improve safety in supportive housing but because it represents a timid, half-hearted response to a crisis born of years of poorly conceived and badly managed and recklessly funded policies.

This legislation implicitly admits the failures of past approaches to supportive housing, which have left communities across our province up in arms over safety concerns, disruptive behaviours and a shocking lack of accountability.

Yet while corrective measures are desperately needed to make these facilities safer and more palatable to the neighbourhoods they impact, Bill 11 fails and falls short. It tinkers around the edges without addressing the root causes or providing robust protections that operators — who are essentially landlords in this context — and everyday landlords across British Columbia need against bad tenants.

As a leader who demands results and fiscal responsibility, I see this exactly for what it is, a band-aid solution on a wound they themselves have created through bloated budgets and ineffective spending and a policy model that puts at-risk tenants — and seniors, often — in a cohabitation free-for-all.

Let me begin by outlining what Bill 11 proposes, based on the bill’s text and government explanations.

This bill creates a new part 1.1 in the Residential Tenancy Act targeting supportive housing, subsidized units with on-site supports that don’t often exist for those at risk or experiencing homelessness.

It defines key terms like “supportive housing operator,” “housing stability support,” “authorized person,” expanding on who can intervene in tenancy matters. The changes restrict landlord entry to prescribed purposes or with notice but allow operators to amend tenancy agreements, unilaterally in some cases.

It permits regulations for temporary access restrictions to de-escalate health and safety risk and enables evictions if tenants or guests possess weapons — defined by regulation, not defined within the bill. So we don’t know what is a weapon. A weapon could be a fork. It could be any number of things. Who defines a weapon comes at a later time. If weapons are in plain view, operators can then seek expedited orders.

The bill sets minimum compensation for non-compliance while creating exceptions for seizing property, unit cleanliness and ending tenancies for disturbance or illegal activities.

[4:25 p.m.]

The government presents this as a balanced fix for rare, they say, but serious safety issues in supportive housing. I would submit to you it is probably not rare. I have a number of cases, as the Housing critic, around areas where supportive housing has badly failed. I simply can’t accept that the government is putting forward that it is a rare case because I think it has been, quite often, a usual case.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

They reference a 2025 working group and boast about investments on housing, including the 9,900 supportive units. But this narrative glosses over the reality. Their consultation excluded the very people who best describe the inadequacies and the issues around supportive housing.

It excluded law enforcement agencies. It excluded fire departments. It excluded paramedics and neighbouring residents — first responders who deal with the emergencies that these failed policies create every single day and then those that live in proximity to those units.

Supportive housing policies under this government have been rushed, underfunded and poorly managed, resulting in facilities that exacerbate rather than alleviate community concerns and put fragile lives in jeopardy.

In my riding of Surrey–Serpentine River and across the province, I hear daily from landlords and operators who are exhausted by this pattern of throwing money at problems with no accountability, only to deliver chaos. We’ve seen projects plopped into neighbourhoods without adequate consultation, leading to fears of increased crime, drug use and disorder near schools, parks and family homes.

Recently in Burnaby, a proposed 40-unit supportive housing and complex care project was abandoned after intense process from residents worried about safety and lack of input. Over 13,000 signatures opposed it, citing the potential for drug-related issues.

In Abbotsford, council voted down a 42-bed modular facility due to its proximity to an elementary school and, again, concerns of off-site drug use and crime. Surrey council blocked a project with supportive units, ordering a reassessment amid community outcry over safety. New Westminster neighbours pushed back against transitional housing, fearing impacts on local schools and families. Even in Vancouver, a Kitsilano project was quashed after lawsuits and a resident challenge highlighted inappropriate siting.

These aren’t isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a flawed approach. Communities are up in arms because supportive housing has, too often, become synonymous with unmanaged chaos, violence, weapons, disruptive guests and the inadequate supports that fail to address the needs like addiction and mental health; or we’re combining these serious needs and putting those at risk in a very ineffective system, without the kinds of supports that need to be in place to ensure both public safety and the safety of those residents themselves.

[4:30 p.m.]

Worse, the bill ignores critical building safety hazards that landlords and operators are left to manage — secondhand smoke from fentanyl and methamphetamine that poisons the air for staff and neighbouring tenants, fire risks from butane torches and lithium e-bike batteries — unsafe conditions with zero new standards or enforcement. This act does not address any of those serious, serious things.

Operators, including non-profits and Indigenous providers, have begged for reform. Some have even called for the exemption from the Residential Tenancy Act entirely, in order to handle these issues effectively.

The government’s underfunding and lack of oversight, while the budget balloons, have turned what should be lifelines instead into flashpoints, eroding public support and stalling new projects.

I speak from experience in delivering supportive housing into Surrey. I know what it takes to deliver supportive housing. I know what it takes to make sure that they are safe. I know what it takes to work with the operators. I know what it takes to ensure that every single supportive housing tenant understands what is required of them but, more importantly, that the operators know what those supportive housing tenants need.

I can tell you that it takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of personal individual care, understanding. You can have one tenant that is, by nature, a hoarder. You can have another tenant that needs a lot of mental health assistance. You can have another tenant that needs both mental health and hoarding assistance. Drug use. The plethora of what you can get in those environments is critical.

What is needed is a much more definitive plan around how those can be more properly addressed. This bill simply does not go far enough. But does the bill deliver any strong protections that the landlords, the operators and the communities deserve? Hardly.

While it does offer some tools, like eviction for weapons and temporary restrictions, it is a watered-down compromise. The weapons provision is so vague with no clear definition, leaving operators uncertain, with unclear enforcement protocols thrust onto untrained staff and putting them in dangerous situations. Who responds when a tenant is believed to be armed? Will the operators face liability if something goes wrong?

The bill stops short of the bold reforms needed. It ignores calls for better funding of supports to prevent problems, leaving operators as de facto enforcers rather than caregivers — all while the budget this year quietly suspended the community housing fund, upending those projects provincewide. It refuses to fund proper training or cover rising WCB claims when front-line workers face traumatic incidents. It has had no consultation with the first-responding agencies who have the best firsthand knowledge, and I think that is one of the critical oversights of this bill.

It does little, Bill 11, to address the broader need for landlord protections against bad tenants, and those needs are not just in supportive housing but across the entire rental market. Every day, landlords face rising challenges from disruptive or destructive tenants. These tweaks don’t solve the core issue.

[4:35 p.m.]

All landlords need faster, fairer tools, obviously, to evict bad actors who damage property, disturb neighbours or engage in illegal activities. But Bill 11’s expansions are limited, and they’re limited to supportive housing, leaving general landlords in the lurch amid a housing crisis the NDP’s spending failures have only made worse.

The shortsightedness of Bill 11 is part of an ongoing pattern of half-measures, proposed changes that favour ideology over results and budgets that waste taxpayer dollars without delivering safe communities or a stable housing supply. Safety in supportive housing requires addressing the conditions inside those buildings — poor maintenance, lack of security staffing, drug activity, fire hazards — not just tenant behaviour. Yet this government refuses to respond to that.

Instead of these half-measures, we do need some comprehensive reform. We need to invest in trauma-informed supports and training. We do need to invest in mandated community consultation for siting and stronger eviction tools for all landlords.

Who suffers from this inadequacy? The communities continue to resist, stalling progress. The operators burn out without real tools or clear safety protocols. The front-line workers face unacceptable risks. And the landlords writhe under unbalanced laws that this government has refused to fix. The government’s defence that this balances safety and rights rings hollow when their past and current policies create the imbalance.

In conclusion, I can tell you that the supportive housing, the whole program around how we deliver safety within a supportive housing environment, needs a whole rethink. I think that Bill 11 demands bolder action. I think that we can get there. I think we need to have a broader discussion with those across the aisle on why communities are resisting and what it will take for communities to say yes.

I know, when I was bringing in some supportive housing into my city of Surrey some years ago and working with a former Minister of Housing, Selina Robinson, we took a measured approach on how we were going to individually help each person that requires the kinds of assistance that supportive housing should deliver. Right now it is not delivering effectively for both the supportive housing tenants nor for the communities in which we’re asking it to be placed.

While I, regretfully, cannot support Bill 11, I can say wholeheartedly that I support finding a way where supportive housing programs will work, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Tony Luck: It’s a pleasure to be here in the House this afternoon and speak to Bill 11.

Public policy is often judged not by its stated intent but by its structural design and its real-world consequences. Governments frequently introduce legislation framed around urgent and legitimate concerns — public safety, social stability or economic necessity. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that the effectiveness of such legislation depends less on its framing and more on how power is allocated, how rights are preserved and whether underlying problems are genuinely addressed.

Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, is a compelling example of this dynamic. Presented as a targeted response to safety concerns within supportive housing, the bill is positioned by government as a necessary intervention to protect residents, staff, communities and owners.

[4:40 p.m.]

At face value, this objective is both reasonable and widely supported. Supportive housing environments have experienced serious safety challenges, including incidents involving violence, threats and absolute disorder.

However, a deep examination of the bill reveals that Bill 11 is not merely a safety-focused reform. It represents a significant restructure of tenancy law within supportive housing, characterized by expanded discretionary authority, increased reliance on regulation rather than statute and a shift in the balance of rights between tenants, operators and government. More importantly, it attempts to address symptoms of instability without meaningfully confronting the systematic failures that have produced those conditions.

Bill 11, while grounded in legitimate concerns, ultimately reflects a policy approach that prioritizes control over capacity, enforcement over support and executive discretion over legislative clarity. As such, it risks exacerbating the very challenges it seeks to address, particularly in rural and smaller communities where the impacts of homelessness and addiction are much more acute.

To properly evaluate Bill 11, it is essential to situate it within the broader context of British Columbia’s evolving homelessness and addiction crisis. Over the past decade, these challenges have expanded significantly beyond major urban centres, increasingly affecting smaller cities, towns and rural communities. How do I know that? I am from a small, rural community.

In these environments, the impact of homelessness and untreated addictions are not only present; they are amplified. Unlike large metropolitan areas, where social order may be diffused across a larger population, smaller communities experience these issues in a more concentrated and visible manner. The absence of anonymity, combined with limited service capacity, intensifies both the perceptions and the reality of the problem.

Empirical evidence supports this observation. Overdose deaths in rural and smaller communities are often higher than provincial averages, reflecting reduced access to treatment, harm reduction and recovery services.

At the same time, substance use remains one of the leading contributors to housing instability in Canada, accounting for more than a quarter of the homelessness cases. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle. Addiction contributes to housing loss. Housing instability exacerbates addiction.

Breaking this cycle requires more than temporary shelters. It requires integrated, sustained, supportive systems, yet in many parts of British Columbia, particularly outside urban centres, these systems are incomplete or entirely absent. Treatment facilities are limited and often located far from communities in need. Mental health services are stretched thin, shelter capacity is insufficient, and as a result, individuals experiencing complex challenges are frequently unable to access the care necessary to stabilize.

The outcome is a pattern of circulation rather than resolution. Individuals move between emergency departments, temporary accommodations, interaction with law enforcement and periods of unsheltered homelessness. Without sustained intervention, the underlying issues remain unsolved and the cycle continues.

Supportive housing has long been recognized as a critical tool in addressing homelessness and addiction. When properly implemented, it provides not only shelter but also access to essential services, including mental health, addiction treatment and social support. Evidence from multiple jurisdictions demonstrates that well-designed supportive housing can reduce reliance on emergency services, improve health outcomes and enhance community services.

However, the effectiveness of supportive housing is contingent upon adequate resourcing and appropriate design. It requires sufficient staffing, integrated clinical support and clear pathways to treatment and recovery. In British Columbia and, in particular, in rural communities, these conditions are often not met. Supportive housing units are frequently under-resourced, with limited access to clinical services and insufficient staffing levels. In some cases, facilities are expected to manage individuals with complex and high-risk needs without necessary infrastructure.

[4:45 p.m.]

This mismatch between expectation and capacity has contributed to the emergence of safety concerns within the supportive housing environment. Incidents involving violence, threats and disorder are not indicative of a failure of the supportive housing model itself but rather of its incomplete implementation. It is within this context of strained capacity and rising instability that Bill 11 seems to have been introduced. It seems to have reasonable intent. But the structure….

Bill 11 introduces a new legal framework for supportive housing within the Residential Tenancy Act. While presented as a targeted response to safety concerns, the bill fundamentally alters the governance of tenancy relationships in this sector. Three key structural elements define the legislation.

One is creation of a distinct tenancy regime. Bill 11 establishes supportive housing as a separate category of tenancy, distinct from traditional rental housing. This distinction is not merely administrative. It has substantive implications for the rights and obligations of tenants and operators. Under this new regime, the criteria defining supportive housing may be determined by regulation or, in some cases, by the operators themselves where regulations are not explicitly described.

This introduces a level of variability and discretion that is not present in the standard tenancy framework. The creation of a distinct tenancy category enables deviations from established protections under the Residential Tenancy Act, effectively placing supportive housing tenants in a different legal position from other renters in the community.

Two, expansion of executive orders and operative authorities. A central feature of Bill 11 is that its reliance on regulations defines key aspects of the new framework. Once again, this supports the theme that has been going on in this new parliament with a lot of the bills that are being introduced.

Cabinet is granted broad authority to determine when tenancy agreements may be modified, without mutual consent; the circumstances under which personal property may be seized or interfered with; conditions under which tenants’ access to a residence may be restricted; definitions of prohibited items, including weapons; and procedural rules related to enforcement and compensation.

As noted in the legislative analysis, the bill establishes the framework while leaving many substantive rules to be defined later by cabinet. That’s the theme that has been going on in this parliament. It’s defined later by cabinet and orders in cabinet. This approach shifts decision-making authority away from the Legislature and into the executive branch, reducing transparency and limiting opportunity for proper scrutiny by this duly elected Legislature.

Three, expansion of enforcement and eviction mechanisms. Bill 11 introduces new pathways to eviction, particularly in cases involving weapons or threat.

I think, on the surface, we would probably all like to see some different rules in place to deal with some of these weapons and threats. But it can become problematic because it also broadens the scope of misconduct provisions through the use of the term “authorized person,” extending the range of individuals whose interactions with a tenant may trigger enforcement actions. These changes collectively lower the threshold for intervention and accelerate the process by which tenants may be removed from housing.

At its core, Bill 11 is an enforcement-oriented response to instability within supportive housing. It provides operators with additional tools to manage risk and respond to dangerous situations. However, this approach is limited by a fundamental constraint that enforcement mechanisms cannot substitute for system capacity.

If individuals are removed from supportive housing due to safety concerns, the effectiveness of the removal depends on the availability of alternative supports. If treatment programs and transitional housing and recovery services are accessible, removal may serve as a step toward stabilization. If those alternatives are lacking, removal becomes displacement.

[4:50 p.m.]

That is why I began this debate with comments around rural communities, because rural communities are stretched, at best, to provide those alternative services to anything like this. In the current context, where supportive capacity is already insufficient, displacement is the more likely outcome. As the policy analyst indicates, removal without adequate alternatives does not resolve underlying issues. It redistributes them across other parts of the system. So we have a systemic failure in the process and in the system.

Implications on rural and small communities. The consequences of this redistribution are particularly significant for rural and small communities, as I have mentioned. These communities operate with limited infrastructure and fewer resources. They lack the capacity to absorb increased demand for services.

When individuals are displaced from supportive housing, the impacts are immediate and highly visible. Increased homelessness, greater pressure on local health and policing systems and heightened concerns about public safety can quickly emerge. Unlike in large urban centres, there is little ability to diffuse these effects across a broader population.

This dynamic raises concerns about the potential for policy decisions to disproportionately affect communities that are least equipped to manage the resulting challenges of such displacement.

From an economic perspective, the implications of Bill 11 extend beyond the supportive housing sector. While the legislation may reduce certain risks and costs within the individual facilities, it may also contribute to increased expenditures elsewise. We’ve kind of laid a few of those out already, but let’s continue.

The costs associated with homelessness — including health care, policing, emergency services and the justice system — are well documented and often exceed the costs of providing stable housing and support. If Bill 11 leads to increased displacement without corresponding increase in supportive capacity, it is more likely to result in higher overall system costs.

The key question, therefore, is not whether the bill reduces costs in a specific context but whether it contributes to more efficient outcomes across the system as a whole.

Another critical aspect of Bill 11 is the reliance on regulation to define substantive rules. While regulation is an essential component of modern governance, its expanded use and its content raises concern about transparency and accountability. By delegating significant authority to cabinet, the bill reduces the role of the Legislature in determining the rights and obligations of tenants and operators.

This shift has implications for democratic oversight — once again, a troubling pattern; another bill concerned about implications of democratic oversight, oversight that the House should be doing rather than going into another process — as regulation decisions are subject to less rigorous scrutiny than statutory provisions.

In areas affecting fundamental aspects of daily life such as housing, clarity and predictability are essential, especially for the people that we’re dealing with in the supportive housing. A framework that relies heavily on discretionary regulations will undermine many principles.

It is important to acknowledge that the safety concerns addressed by Bill 11 are real and require attention. Nobody doubts that for a minute. Staff and residents in supportive housing have a right to safe environments, and incidents involving violence or threats must be addressed effectively.

However, safety in….

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. Can I just ask you to reserve your place and adjourn the debate? We just have a report back from the committee.

Tony Luck: Okay. I reserve my right, my place, and adjourn debate.

Tony Luck moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026

Stephanie Higginson: Section A reports Bill 2 complete without amendment.

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

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026.

Division is being called.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026.

Motion approved on the following division:

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

The Speaker: Members, the votes being equal, the Chair is required to make a casting vote. Bill 2 is a confidence matter, and confidence of the House should not be decided at the sole vote of the Chair. Therefore, the Chair votes in favour, and the motion for third reading has passed.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026, has been read a third time and has passed.

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move third reading of Bill 6.

The Speaker: Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026.

Division has been called.

[5:10 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.]

Members, is the House willing to waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just for a reminder, in this chamber, it is second reading on Bill 11.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, we are now in committee stage on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Act.

Then, of course, in the Birch Room, we are doing Committee of the Whole on Bill 8.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Tony Luck: That was a little confusing there. I’ve never been interrupted before, but we’ll get ’er done. I’ll just cut back here.

It’s important to acknowledge that safety concerns addressed by Bill 11 are real and require real attention. Staff and residents in supportive housing have a right to safe environments, and incidents involving violence or threats must be addressed effectively.

[5:20 p.m.]

However, safety and support are not mutually exclusive. Effective policy must integrate both elements, ensuring that immediate risks are managed while underlying causes are addressed.

A comprehensive approach would include (1) expanded access to treatment and recovery services; (2) increased investment in supportive housing capacity; (3) enhanced staffing and clinical support within facilities; (4) clear service standards and accountability mechanisms; and (5) tailored strategies for rural and smaller communities, because they seem to take the brunt of the challenge of some of these things out there with the supportive housing.

Without these complementary measures, enforcement-focused policies are unlikely to produce sustainable improvements any time soon. The legislation reflects a broader policy approach that prioritizes control over capacity and executive authority over legislative clarity. In doing so, it risks addressing the symptoms of instability without resolving its causes.

The challenges of homelessness, addiction and mental health are complex and require comprehensive solutions. Policies that focus primarily on enforcement may provide short-term responses to visible issues, but they do not create the conditions necessary for long-term stability.

Ultimately, the effects of Bill 11 will depend not only on its provisions but on the broader system in which it operates. Without significant investment in supportive capacity and integrated services, the legislation is unlikely to achieve its intended goals. In evaluating this bill, policy-makers must consider not only the immediate benefits it may offer but its long-term implications for individuals, communities and the system that it serves.

The question is not whether safety is important. It is how safety is achieved. If it is pursued through a balanced approach that integrates support and accountability, it can contribute to stability and recovery. If it is pursued primarily through control without addressing underlying needs, it may lead to displacement and continued instability. That distinction is critical, and it is the standard by which Bill 11 must ultimately be judged.

In the end, let’s be very clear about what this bill does not do. These are some of the things that will need to be addressed when we move into committee and have that discussion. Hopefully the government will be willing for amendments to this bill, and hopefully we can resolve some of those issues that we’ve been talking about here.

It does not expand mental health treatment capacity. It does not expand addiction recovery services. It does not improve staffing ratios. It does not provide the clinical support so badly needed. It does not address root causes of instability. Instead, it manages the system.

As the historian Joseph Tainter observed, complex societies try to solve problems by increasing complexity but eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. This bill risks being exactly that — more rules, more authority, more enforcement but not more solutions.

I hope we’ll be able to speak to this more in committee.

George Anderson: I rise today in support of Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

I rise to support it for a reason that is larger than any of the clauses, larger than the headlines and larger than some of the slogans that members of the opposition are likely going to put forward that often weaken serious public debate.

I support this bill because there is a point in the time of us being in a legislature that we have to decide how we are going to govern or merely describe the world as it wishes to be. This bill is about that choice because supportive housing confronts some of the hardest truths in public life all at once — homelessness, trauma, mental illness, addiction, fear, recovery, instability, human dignity, public order, the rights of the individual and the safety of the community.

[5:25 p.m.]

When all of those realities meet under one roof, in one building, government does not have the luxury of being sentimental. Government must be humane. Government must also be clear-eyed. In my view, this is what Bill 11 attempts to be.

I want to be clear that something should never be lost in this debate. The overwhelming majority of people who are living in supportive housing are not the problem. They are not there to bring disorder into anyone’s lives. They are not there to make more work or to make work more dangerous for staff. They are not there to terrorize their neighbours, and they are not there because they’re trying to cause disruptions.

They are there because they are trying, often against tremendous circumstances and tremendous odds, to bring some stability to their own lives. They are trying to hold on. They’re trying to get well; trying to get through the night; trying to rebuild trust, routine and dignity. They’re trying to live indoors in peace instead of outside in crisis.

Our province has a responsibility to those individuals. The province’s own materials make this point so clearly. And they matter because the legislation that we build is about ensuring that we help as many people as possible.

The rights of the majority in supportive housing include the right to live in safety. The rights of the majority include not to be terrorized by the conduct of a few. The rights of the majority include the right to know that the law will not ask them to absorb obvious danger in the name of misplaced delicacy. That’s, again, what this bill is trying to do.

A peaceful tenant in supportive housing also has rights. A person who’s in recovery has rights. A person who’s working on these shifts also has these rights.

When serious danger enters the building, our laws must be capable of seeing all of them, not just the loudest person in the room, not just the person who most immediately is before an adjudicator — all of them. That’s why I support this bill.

One of the great mistakes in social policy is to imagine that the only vulnerable person in a dangerous situation is the person creating the danger, and that is not true. It’s the people who are living next door, the workers, the residents who are trying to stay sober. The older tenant who doesn’t feel safe in the corridor may also feel vulnerable, and our Legislature must have the courage to stand up for those individuals.

Now, there are some who approach a bill like this as though they must choose between two absolutes. One of those absolutes says remove supportive housing entirely from the Residential Tenancy Act, because safety demands hard power and immediate control; or the other, which says to leave the law, essentially, where it is, because any added tools must be treated as a threat to those rights.

I think that, from my position, I can’t accept either of those positions. The first would be an overreach, and the second, in my opinion, would be evasion. Good legislation requires us to reject overreach and evasion at the same time, and Bill 11 does it. It does not remove supportive housing from the Residential Tenancy Act. It does not strip tenants of access to a fair dispute resolution process, and it does not erase oversight. It does not hand operators unlimited, unchecked authority. The province has been explicit on those points.

[5:30 p.m.]

The bill’s text confirms that supportive housing remains within the act while adding targeted, regulation-backed power and an adjudicative pathway through the residential tenancy branch. These things do matter. They matter morally, legally and politically.

As the people who live in supportive housing are still tenants, they are not outside the protection of the law. They are not second-class rights holders. They are not people whose legal status should vanish because their lives have at some point been marked by instability, illness, poverty, disability or addiction. These individuals are tenants.

I believe very strongly that our legislation should be slow to remove legal protections from people who already live so close to the edge of precarity. That is why I believe the bill begins from the right precedent and premise. By keeping supportive housing under the Residential Tenancy Act, by keeping fair hearings, by keeping dispute resolution, they keep these rights intact.

But I do not pretend that a supportive housing site presents exactly the same realities as every other form of rental housing, because it does not. Legislation that refuses to recognize real differences is not principled. It’s not adequate. That’s why the clarifying work in the bill matters.

Bill 11 more clearly distinguishes supportive housing from transitional housing. There is clarity where there was confusion between the two — that actually created uncertainty for providers, tenants and law enforcement — because the Residential Tenancy Act applies to supportive housing but not, generally, to transitional housing. So now actually having a bill text that defines those terms and creates a dedicated supportive housing framework within the act is a positive thing.

Some may hear that and think: “That’s just technical.” But for myself, I don’t see that as just technical work. A law that cannot understand is a law that can’t be trusted. It needs to be understood by the individuals who are needing to interact with it. Laws that blur categories, that carry different legal consequences — that’s not a rights-protecting instrument. It ends up being a source of confusion, conflict or even delay.

Having that clarity actually makes things much easier for the people who must operate these buildings or the tenants who are living within these supportive housing units to know whether or not those protections apply to them. To those in law enforcement, we need to understand the legal framework and effect without creating powers that those individuals in law enforcement don’t actually have. And further clarity is provided to our Legislature, because legislating an ambiguity isn’t kindness to anyone.

The next question that I think we ought to be looking at is whether or not Bill 11 actually strikes the right balance once it preserves that core legal framework, and I would say that it does.

Let’s first talk about weapons. A home cannot be called supportive if residents and staff are expected to accept weapons in these buildings as though they’re just simply another unfortunate circumstance of the job that they’re in or of modern life, because it’s not. Many of the supportive housing units already prohibit dangerous weapons but have struggled to enforce those rules.

Through Bill 11, there’s the creation of a specific order of possession pathway where a tenant or a person permitted by the tenant has been in personal possession of a weapon on the residential property or where a landlord lawfully observes a weapon in plain view in the rental unit.

[5:35 p.m.]

We can say and look from what has been said by the ministry and so on that the intended list includes firearms; replica firearms; automatically opening knives; energy-conducted weapons such as Tasers; push daggers; and brass knuckles.

That is serious power, and it should be, because civilized government should not require the peaceful people in a building to wait until a risk matures before the law begins to take it seriously. The presence of a firearm in supportive housing is not a technical breach. It is a warning. The presence of a weapon in a building full of concentrated vulnerability is not some minor tenancy issue. It is a threat to the peace of that building, and I do not believe a responsible legislature would avert its eyes from that fact.

Now, does supporting this provision mean one should be careless about its implementation? Obviously not. Any serious legislators should care very much about how the word “weapon” is defined in regulation, how evidence is assessed, how adjudication distinguishes true threats from lesser situations. But the need for prudence and implementation is not an argument against the legislation itself. It’s the argument for governing well.

Too often, in this chamber and in politics, generally, a confusion can arise where some might say that because power must be used carefully, power must not be granted at all. That just doesn’t follow, because we can’t be absolved from simply acting because acting requires care. But here care is not the reason for paralysis. It’s the reason for precision.

Bill 11 also, importantly, looks at the humane, something that critics have actually acknowledged. It provides a continuum of options for temporary restrictions on access in supportive housing in prescribed circumstances, including mechanisms involving the director and dispute resolution. These tools are meant to de-escalate critical health and safety risks and, in extreme cases, actually allow operators to restrict access while awaiting an expedited residential tenancy branch hearing.

Some might wonder: “Why does that matter?” Because public debate, too often, collapses into a false binary: do nothing or someone is thrown out. Those aren’t the only options that a sophisticated or mature legal system should permit.

Sometimes the just answer is not an immediate, permanent separation. Sometimes the answer is just a de-escalation or temporary distance or a cooling-off period. Sometimes it’s in the creation of enough space to prevent a terrible night from becoming a terrible headline or injury. In those circumstances, a law that provides a temporary, structured, reviewable middle option may actually be more protective of housing stability than a law that waits too long and leaves the harshest remedies that are going to cause things to just spin out of control.

That’s why I say that this provision is not just about control. It’s about preservation — preservation of tenancies where possible, preservation of order, preservation of human dignity.

I don’t want to minimize the seriousness of temporary loss of access to one’s home. That’s very important. For a person who’s lived through instability, it can be very destabilizing. For a person who has known homelessness, it can be frightening in a way that many people probably never understand, and we should say that plainly.

[5:40 p.m.]

But if we’re serious, I think it’s really important that we also state plainly that it’s profoundly destabilizing to a tenant who has done nothing wrong and is nevertheless expected to live beside threats or harassment or weapons or destabilizing behaviour because the law has left the operator with too few tools and too much delay. That tenant matters.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. I ask you to reserve your place and move adjournment of the debate. We have a report from committee.

George Anderson: I’d like to reserve my right for continued debate and also adjourn the debate.

George Anderson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture
Amendment Act, 2026

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section C reports Bill 8 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 8, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 8 has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, we will continue our discussion around second reading of Bill 11.

In the Birch Room, we will continue now with committee stage on Bill 10.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

George Anderson: Right before we took the break, I was just talking about the challenges that would exist for a tenant who, essentially, had to deal with situations that create instability for them in just trying to live their lives and move on into the next phase of their journey in life. Many of those individuals who are, indeed, tenants shouldn’t have to live beside terrible situations such as threats or harassment or violence and that actually leave an operator with not enough tools to be able to help that tenant. That’s extremely important.

I think, often, when we look to some of the very unfortunate situations that have occurred across the province or in other places in the world when supportive housing is mentioned, we look at that situation that’s occurred in that home, but we’ve forgotten the tenants who’ve been impacted. Those individuals are often forgotten in these debates.

In my mind, it’s disheartening because that tenant…. It’s not enough to draw a headline for that person. There’s no powerful process, no legal response. All that tenant is trying to do is just live, sleep or, essentially, remain housed.

One measure of whether or not legislation is just is whether or not it remembers the quiet person who’s at risk, not just the louder individual who’s dealing with a crisis. I think that Bill 11 actually takes serious consideration of that individual who is most vulnerable, who is trying to ensure that they can develop their life in a way that’s going to give them endless opportunity or just get themselves out of a situation in which they’ve had to deal with crises or addiction.

[5:45 p.m.]

Another feature that I think is important to highlight in this bill is the protection for workers and guests across rental housing by broadening the existing provisions that cover significant interference with the health and safety of an “authorized person.”

The bill’s text adds that defined term and then uses it in the amended eviction provisions. That’s intended to protect workers and guests, not only landlords and occupants — to me, another wise move in this particular piece of legislation. For far too long, law in this area has too easily imagined the building only in the terms of the circumstance of the landlord and the tenant as though no one else lawfully crosses its threshold.

We know that’s just not how real life works. Real buildings have cleaners. Real buildings have support workers. They have contractors and maintenance personnel. There are guests who are lawfully invited by occupants. Real buildings have people who enter because they’re helping hold the place together.

Those individuals who enter lawfully, who have been invited and who are in these spaces deserve safety too. Just because you’re a plumber doesn’t mean that you deserve fewer protections because the statute forgot to imagine your presence in that space. Support workers shouldn’t be treated as legally incidental, either, nor a guest.

It reminds me of Donoghue and Stevenson and how manufacturers’ liability actually came to exist and the principle that we should care for our neighbours. That’s a foundational case that we learn about when we’re in law school, and let me tell you, I think that’s what this bill does so wisely. We are actually caring about other people who may be within a supportive housing unit that also deserve the same types of protections. That bill corrects it, and I support it for doing so.

Some critics may say that this legislation makes supportive housing residents more vulnerable. I don’t think that that concern should be taken lightly. It should be answered, and my answer, at least, is that the bill does create tools to respond faster to serious danger. It does so while preserving the core framework of the Residential Tenancy Act. It does so while preserving fair hearings and dispute resolution. It does so without giving police new, warrantless powers and without exempting supportive housing from the act.

The real question is whether the bill introduces stronger responses. The real question is whether it introduces these responses in a way that still respects the basic proposition that people in supportive housing are rights-bearing tenants. In my view, it does, and that’s why I support it. I don’t believe the choice in front of us is between compassion and safety. That would be a false choice. I do not believe the choice before us is between due process and public order. Again, that would be a false choice too.

The real challenge of government is much harder than that. The real challenge that government faces is to protect dignity without surrendering to disorder, to preserve rights without becoming paralyzed by them and, again, recognizing vulnerability without becoming blind to the vulnerable people being harmed by someone else’s conduct. That’s the challenge, and not every bill meets it. In my opinion, this bill makes an honest effort to do so.

There is a broader point here that goes to the legitimacy of supporting supportive housing. Supportive housing is necessary. For example, people in supportive housing in 2022 were 84 percent less likely to be incarcerated and had nearly 32 percent fewer hospital admissions than people experiencing homelessness.

[5:50 p.m.]

Also, 9,900 supportive homes have actually been delivered or are on the way since 2017, within a broader figure of more than 95,000 homes that are delivered or underway.

In other words, bringing people inside is better than abandoning them outside. We know that, and I believe that we should say that and we should defend it.

But for supportive housing to endure politically and morally, it must retain public confidence, not perfection. People must believe that supportive housing is governed, not merely popped over. That is compassionate, yes, but also credible — that peaceful residence matters, that the worker matters, that serious danger will not be indulged until it becomes a catastrophe.

If supportive housing loses that confidence, what follows will not be something kinder. It will actually be a retreat. It’ll be cynicism. It’ll be harder politics with much worse outcomes.

So when this House acts to make supportive housing safer while keeping it under the rule of law, it means that we are not undermining supportive housing. We’re actually preserving it, and that is what our Legislature ought to do.

There was a time when I was a city councillor and a regional district director and I was part of opening supportive housing within our community. I still remember entering this facility for its opening. Some of the people had already moved in. One of the tenants had actually written a poem about the fact that they had a safe place to live, that it was a place that they felt that they belonged, that they weren’t out on the streets, that this place was their sacred home.

I still remember that time, going to that supportive housing opening with Mayor John Ruttan and Coun. Diane Brennan, but all of us sort of leaving that space saying: “This is why we’re all here and we’re in it, to be able to make life better for people.”

I still think of that individual. I don’t know where they’ve gone, but that moment does arise in my contemplation about the fact that that supportive housing unit, for them, was their home and where they now felt like they had a safe place. When I was speaking with him, he talked about how all of them would speak to one another about how it’s important that they save their collective home.

Another thing I learned as a former city councillor is that housing issues do not arrive in a tidy file marked “tenants’ rights, public safety, worker safety, mental health and community confidence.” They arrive all at once, in one building on a block, in an emergency. They arrive in the lives of people who can’t wait for us to become philosophically comfortable before we act.

As a lawyer, I’ve learned something else, that rights-based systems only endure when they are tethered to reality. If the law can’t answer the ordinary pressures of real life, the public begins to lose confidence in the law itself. When that happens, rights do not get stronger; they get more fragile. That’s, again, another reason why I support Bill 11.

In 2025, it’s clear that there have been working groups that occurred — with housing operators; Indigenous housing providers; law enforcement; union representatives; tenant advocates; and people with real experience, lived experience — and that the province is going to keep, and I believe the ministry is going to continue, that engagement as the regulations are implemented, as it should.

I think it’s good that there have been those conversations. I’ve said this earlier, but a home cannot be truly supportive if peaceful people inside of it are left unprotected, and a tenancy system cannot be truly just if it leaves workers and lawful guests in the shadows.

[5:55 p.m.]

Compassion is not measured by how long we are willing to tolerate obvious danger. Compassion is measured by whether we can act to protect human dignity without losing our fidelity to fairness.

That’s what this bill does. It’s telling a worker walking into a difficult shift: “Your safety matters.” What this bill does is tell a resident who’s done everything asked of them and still feels afraid that the law still sees them. It tells operators that if a rare but serious threat emerges, the law will not require helplessness. It’s also telling the public that the province believes in supportive housing, that the province believes that supportive housing must be supportive, in fact, not just in our aspirations.

In every bill that comes before us, often we’re going to have to choose between extremes in where we draw the lines. I think with a bill such as Bill 11, we demonstrate what we want to accomplish with supportive housing. We ensure that the duty that we have to the most vulnerable in those buildings…. This bill tells them that they’re entitled to protection, just as is everyone else.

I support Bill 11, again, because we aren’t looking at slogans. We’re actually looking at how we impact the everyday lives of British Columbia citizens.

So let’s protect the safety of workers, tenants and guests by giving the law better tools where there is real danger. Let us choose balance over abandonment and rhetoric. Let’s also say clearly and without apology that in British Columbia a supportive home must also be a safe home. For those reasons, I am proud to support Bill 11.

Teresa Wat: I rise today to speak to Bill 11, legislation that the government claims will improve safety and accountability in supportive housing but could, in reality, expose the very failures of their current approach.

Let’s be clear about what this bill does. It amends the Residential Tenancy Act to create a separate legal framework for supportive housing. It expands the powers of cabinet, granting the Lieutenant Governor in Council sweeping authority to regulate nearly every aspect of supportive housing operations: tenant access, landlord entry, inspections, compensation and even the ability to amend tenancy terms. It also broadens the grounds for eviction and makes it explicit that the actions of occupants or permitted guests can lead to termination of a tenancy.

On the surface, the bill talks tough on safety. But talking tough is not the same as doing the hard work required to actually make housing safer. After years of mismanagement by this government, we are now left with a system that is strained, unsafe and, in many cases, failing both residents and the surrounding community.

Let me take you to my riding of Richmond-Bridgeport. At Alderbridge temporary modular housing, we have seen firsthand what happens when low-barrier supportive housing is implemented without adequate safeguards. Residents in the surrounding neighbourhood have raised repeated concerns — incidents of crime and disorder, open drug use, fire risks, threats to personal safety.

[6:00 p.m.]

What’s been the response from this government? Too often, silence. Too often, deflection. Too often, a refusal to acknowledge that their model is not working as intended.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Now, with Bill 11, instead of fixing the system, they are attempting to legislate around its failures. For far too long, single-room occupancies and supportive housing have been environments where a small number of individuals are allowed to ruin the benefits for everyone else, both residents within those buildings and the broader community. This bill acknowledges that problem, but it does not solve it.

Yet it introduces provisions that will allow for the seizures of dangerous personal property, items like butane torches that can start fires or weapons used to threaten others. Let me be clear. Those are necessary tools. But where was the government when these risks were first identified? Where was the proactive planning? Where was the investment in staffing? Where was the coordination with first responders?

This is what this bill does not address. It does not address the reality of drugs inside supportive housing. It does not address the persistent fire hazards that residents and neighbours have been raising for years. It does not address the unsafe physical conditions of some of these buildings.

Instead, it places a heavier burden on tenants, expanding eviction powers, broadening enforcement and focusing on punishment rather than prevention. That is the contradiction at the heart of Bill 11. It targets tenants while ignoring the systemic issues that created this unsafe condition in the first place.

We must also ask who was consulted in the drafting of this legislation, because from what we are hearing — police, fire services and paramedics — the very people who are called when things go wrong were left out of the room.

Housing workers who are on the front lines every day continue to operate without clear rules, without adequate protection and without the support they need to manage high-risk situations. This bill does not clearly answer a fundamental question. What happens when a tenant is armed or dangerous? Who responds? Under what authority? With what protections in place?

Silence. And that silence is dangerous. Without clear protocols, we are not just failing tenants; we are putting workers and first responders at risk.

Now let’s talk about evictions. Bill 11 expands the grounds for eviction and makes it easier to terminate tenancy based on the actions of occupants or guests. But what happens when someone is in crisis? What happens when someone is struggling with addiction or mental health challenges?

Locking people out in those moments does not resolve the problem. It inflames it. It pushes individuals further into instability, further away from support and, often, into more dangerous situations. That is not safety. That is displacement. It does nothing to address the underlying issues that brought them into supportive housing in the first place.

[6:05 p.m.]

Supportive housing should be exactly that — supportive. It should include proper staffing levels, strong safety protocols, access to treatment and recovery services, clear expectations and consistent enforcement. Instead, what we have seen under this government is a model that prioritizes rapid deployment over responsible management.

Now Bill 11 attempts to retrofit rules onto a system that was never properly built. That is not leadership. That is damage control. This government wants to appear tough. They want to say they are taking action. But this bill is more optics than outcomes.

If this government was serious about safety, they would fix the system at its core. They would invest in treatment and recovery. They would ensure facilities are properly staffed and resourced. They would work hand in hand with municipalities, law enforcement and emergency services. They would listen to communities like those around Alderbridge, in my riding, that have been raising concerns for years. Instead, they are expanding their own powers, centralizing decision-making while leaving communities to deal with the consequences themselves.

Compassion without structure is not compassion. It is negligence. Accountability without support is not fairness. It is failure. We can and must do better. We need a model of supportive housing that actually supports people — one that stabilizes lives, reduces harm and creates real pathways to recovery.

We need to restore balance so that community safety and individual dignity are treated not as competing priorities but as shared responsibilities. We need a government that is willing to listen, not just legislate.

To the residents in my riding and to the communities across this province: your concerns are valid, your safety matters, and your voices deserve to be heard in this Legislature.

One more point. Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, significantly expands cabinet’s regulation-making authority, particularly in areas such as tenant access, landlord entry and eviction provisions. It also broadens the grounds for eviction and makes it clear that the conduct of occupants or permitted guests can trigger the termination of a tenancy. These are substantial changes. They raise important questions about balance, fairness and how this power will be exercised in practice.

On one hand, this government has consistently taken a very strict approach toward private residential landlords, emphasizing the protection of every tenant’s rights and holding landlords to a higher standard of compliance and accountability.

But on the other hand, when the government itself acts as a landlord, particularly in the context of supportive housing, there appears to be different applications of this principle. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring communities and residents about safety, oversight and responsiveness. Yet the same level of enforcement and transparency does not always seem to apply.

This raises a fundamental question. How can the government justify imposing increasingly stringent rules and expectations on private landlords while appearing to operate under a different standard in its own role as a housing provider?

[6:10 p.m.]

If these expanded powers are truly about fairness, safety and protecting communities, then they must be applied consistently, regardless of whether the landlord is private or government.

British Columbians deserve a system that is not only robust but also equitable and accountable across the board. Bill 11, as it stands, falls short. It identifies problems but avoids accountability. It expands powers but neglects responsibility. It talks about safety but fails to deliver it.

I urge this House to not settle for legislation that looks strong but acts weak. Let us do the hard work. Let’s fix the system. Let’s ensure that supportive housing in British Columbia is truly safe, truly supportive and truly worthy of the people it is meant to serve.

Bryan Tepper: I rise in this House today to address Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

For far too long, single-room occupancies and supportive housing across British Columbia have been plagued by chaos that ruins the very benefits these places are supposed to provide for our vulnerable people trying to rebuild their lives — disruptive tenants, unchecked drug use, weapons, fire started by butane torches or discarded cigarettes. Threats and violence have turned what should be safe havens into danger zones for the majority of residents, who simply want stability and a chance at recovery.

Neighbours in surrounding communities have grown weary of the constant spillover effects — increased crime; needles scattered in parks and playgrounds; property damage; and endless emergency calls that drain already overstretched police, fire and paramedic resources night after night. Municipalities have pushed back hard for years, often pausing, delaying or outright cancelling proposed projects because they see the very real and ongoing costs to public safety, community livability and local budgets.

This bill is the government’s latest response. On the surface, it talks tough about safety and cracking down on problem behaviour in supportive housing, but when you scratch beneath the surface and examine the details, clause by clause, it does very little to actually solve the deep, systemic problems we face every day in these facilities. It carves out a special legal framework for supportive housing inside the Residential Tenancy Act, hands massive new regulation-making powers to cabinet, broadens some eviction grounds and makes a few limited tweaks to tenant conduct rules.

That is essentially it — no bold new investments, no comprehensive fixes. There are no new mandatory staffing ratios, no guaranteed treatment beds or addiction services, no requirements for meaningful on-site clinical supports and no clear protocols on who actually responds when a tenant is armed and dangerous inside the building.

It completely ignores the unsafe housing conditions that continue to breed these problems in the first place: dilapidated buildings with faulty wiring, absent or inadequate maintenance, poor ventilation systems, broken or missing sprinklers; and a total failure to bring police, fire departments and paramedics into the planning and design process for these facilities.

[6:15 p.m.]

This is not serious, meaningful reform that will make a lasting difference. It is little more than a bureaucratic bandage designed to make the placement of vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals with complex medical needs, mobility challenges or dementia or those who might otherwise end up in drug-recovery-style environments — more palatable to wary municipalities that have grown tired of the repeated fallout and community complaints.

The NDP is clearly trying to pull the wool over the municipalities’ eyes with this legislation, hoping no one notices the lack of real substance. By giving supportive housing operators easier ways to evict disruptive tenants, seize certain personal property or temporarily lock them out, the government hopes local councils will lower their guard, stop resisting new projects so vigorously and quietly accept more supportive housing developments in their neighbourhoods without demanding the hard, expensive solutions that are actually needed.

Palatable does not equal safe, effective or sustainable in the long run. It does not fix the underlying crisis of open drug use, repeated fires, violence, overdoses or the enormous strain these issues place on emergency services and neighbourhood residents. It simply shifts the problem from one location to another, while the government pretends it has taken decisive, responsible action.

To truly understand the shortcomings of Bill 11, we must compare it directly to the current Residential Tenancy Act, which has long provided a balanced protection for tenants while allowing evictions for serious misconduct. Under the existing RTA, section 47 already outlines grounds for ending tenancy, including serious damage, disturbing others or illegal activity. These require evidence, hearings and due process through the residential tenancy branch.

Bill 11 amends this, in section 15, by expanding those grounds to include conduct by an “authorized person” — a new, broad term — and guests, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the process. Evictions still go through the RTB, which can take weeks. Critically, the bill’s much-touted weapons provision in new section 4.8 simply allows a director to grant an order of possession if a weapon is in plain view or possessed by a tenant or permitted person.

This is just another eviction tool, not an immediate removal or safety protocol. Compared to current law, where weapons could already trigger eviction under dangerous-conduct or illegal-activities clauses, this adds little beyond expedited paperwork. There is no on-site authority for operators to act without residential tenancy board involvement, no police integration, no protections for bystanders — and they’re likely elderly residents — during the process.

Now let us walk through the bill clause by clause so that the record is crystal clear on exactly what this legislation does and, more importantly, what it glaringly fails to do.

[6:20 p.m.]

Clause 1 is purely structural. It repeals and replaces headings to reorganize part 1 of the act as interpretation. This is administrative housekeeping with zero impact on safety, tenant protections or the daily realities in supportive housing. It changes nothing for elderly tenants facing fire hazards or violence.

Clause 2 adds a definition of “authorized persons,” which includes landlords, other tenants, permitted individuals and anyone lawfully on the property. It also amends the definition of “landlord” by removing reference to service agreements — minor on its own, but this sets the stage for later expansions that blur lines of responsibility, potentially holding vulnerable tenants accountable for the actions of casual visitors, far beyond the current Residential Tenancy Act’s focus on the tenant themselves. Under existing law, occupant conduct is already somewhat covered, but this broadens it without safeguards.

Clause 3 adds definitions for “housing stability support,” “supportive housing,” “supportive housing operator,” “supportive housing rental unit” and “transitional housing.” This establishes the terminology necessary for a separate supportive housing framework.

However, assessment criteria for who qualifies may be prescribed by regulation or even set by the operator if none are prescribed, giving enormous discretion while leaving elderly tenants or those with cognitive challenge at risk of misclassification or rushed processes, with no statutory safeguards. The current RTA has no such silos. It treats all tenancies uniformly, providing consistent protections that this bill starts to erode without replacement.

Clause 4 creates a new heading called “Part 1.1, Scope of Act, Division 1, Application of Act.”

Clause 5 removes reference to “service agreement” from section 3.

Clause 6 simply removes an exemption for certain housing-based health facilities that provide hospitality support services and personal care. These are mostly headings and cleanup, funneling more units into the framework without adding real protections or addressing unsafe conditions, like faulty wiring, that plague current facilities.

Clause 7 gets to the heart of the bill, the new division 2 on special provisions for supportive housing.

Section 4.1 confirms this division applies specifically to supportive housing rental units and clarifies that it does not affect existing exemptions.

Section 4.2 defines what qualifies as a “supportive housing rental unit,” requiring operation by a supportive housing operator, tenant assessment as homeless or at risk and support available. But again, criteria are flexible via regulation or operator discretion. This gives operators and cabinet significant leeway, contrasting with current RTA’s rigid tenant rights.

Section 4.3 allows cabinet to permit landlords to amend existing agreements, remove or change standard terms, create exceptions to mutual agreement requirements and impose conditions. This is a substantial expansion of executive authority over tenancy agreements in supportive housing, undermining current RTA section 23’s mutual consent rule for amendments.

[6:25 p.m.]

Section 4.4 on personal property allows cabinet to create exceptions to protections preventing landlords from seizing or interfering with tenant property. This reduces standard tenant protections under the current section 32, potentially for items like butane torches that cause fires. But it says nothing about mandating that landlords fix the building where those items become deadly hazards.

Section 4.5 restricts landlord entry to prescribed purposes, tenancy agreement terms or reasonable purposes with notice. Cabinet regulates conditions. Under current law, entry is already regulated in section 29 with notice. This just adds flexibility without enhancing safety.

Section 4.6 will allow cabinet to permit landlords to restrict tenant access in, again, prescribed circumstances, possibly with director approval or interim orders without notice. This grants huge power over tenant movement, far beyond current Residential Tenancy Act provisions, and risks elderly tenants being locked out from vital medications or care.

Section 4.7 lets cabinet create exceptions to cleanliness requirements on vacating.

Section 4.8, order of possession on weapons, creates a specific ground for ending tenancy if a tenant or permitted person possesses a weapon on the property or if it is in plain view. The director may grant an order. Cabinet defines “weapon” and considerations.

This is the bill’s big tough-on-safety headline. But compared to current law, it’s just a streamlined eviction path under section 47, still requiring RTB process. No immediate police response, no operator training mandates and zero protection for elderly or recovering residents caught in crossfire. It evicts people found with weapons but does nothing further — no de-escalation protocol, no mandatory supports to prevent reoffending, no safeguards for our seniors. So if we look at it, the one big thing in here is not providing safeguards for our seniors or the vulnerable.

Section 4.9 allows cabinet to prescribe minimum compensation for non-compliance. So clauses 8 through 9 are organizational, adding headings and repealing minor ones.

Clause 10 amends section 12 with minor wording, which is “every tenancy agreement” to “a tenancy agreement,” potentially narrowing scope slightly from current law.

Clause 11 makes section 23 obligations subject to regulations, increasing flexibility beyond current fixed rules.

Clause 12 amends sections 32 and 33 to include “occupants” in responsibility provisions, expanding beyond the current tenant-focused accountability.

Clause 13 makes section 35’s obligations regulatable.

Clause 14 repeals the “occupant” definition in section 45(1) to align with “authorized person.”

Clause 15. We’re amending section 47 as grounds for ending tenancy by expanding conduct grounds, replacing references with “authorized persons” and broadening illegal activity to include permitted persons. This significantly expands eviction grounds from current law but still funnels through the residential tenancy board hearings.

Clause 16 does the same for section 56.

Clause 17 amends section 89 to include weapons and prescribed service methods, again, bringing in really the most important point of this bill.

Clause 18 massively expands regulation-making under section 97, covering definitions, inspections, weapons, compensation and differentiated rules by class. This dwarfs current regulation powers, letting cabinet rule by decree without legislative scrutiny.

Clause 19 repeals unproclaimed 2006 provisions.

Clause 20 staggers commencement by regulation.

[6:30 p.m.]

This clause-by-clause reveals a bill obsessed with operator tools but blind to systemic failures. Bill 11 talks tough on safety but ignores unsafe housing conditions that fuel the problems day to day. It targets tenants with broader eviction powers, especially the narrow weapons clause, while completely ignoring drugs, fire risk and lack of supports. The weapons provisions in 4.8 simply allows evictions of people found with weapons, and nothing further — no mandatory police involvement, no risk assessments, no protections for elderly residents nearby who could be endangered during removal.

Our seniors in recovery deserve better than eviction-only. They need prevention, through staffing and treatment. The government left police, fire and paramedics entirely out of the room — no integrated protocols. Housing workers are put at risk without clear rules or protection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I call on you to adjourn debate just for a moment? We’ve got one of the Houses reporting to us. And reserve your place.

Bryan Tepper: Yes. I would reserve my right to continue and move to adjourn debate, please.

Bryan Tepper moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools
Amendment Act, 2026

Stephanie Higginson: Section A reports Bill 12 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools
Amendment Act, 2026

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

Division has been called.

[6:35 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, please take your seats. The Clerk needs to count people. Take your seats, please.

[6:40 p.m.]

I would like to remind the members participating remotely to make sure your cameras and mics are on, please.

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

[6:45 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 86
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Loewen	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Wat
Kooner	Banman	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Dew
Clare	Rustad	Wilson
Valeriote	Botterell	McInnis
Paton	Day	Bhangu
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	McCall	Block
Stamer	Gasper	Mok
Davis	Chan	Boultbee
Sturko	Brodie	Williams
Chapman	Bird	Doerkson
Luck		Tepper
NAYS — 4
K. Neufeld	Maahs	Armstrong
	Kealy

The Speaker: Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026, has been read a third time and has passed.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section C reports progress on Bill 10 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026, to order. We are on clause 40.

Clause 40 approved.

On clause 41.

Peter Milobar: Just one other follow-up question, and now I honestly can’t even remember if I asked this yesterday or not. That’s the joy of Zoom.

Why just amending, in terms of this being with the renters’ tax credit? Why not other tax credits as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s not just the renters’ tax credit. It also is the B.C. family benefit, the child and youth disability benefit. These three remain indexed, and these are all refundable tax credits that really behave more like social assistance programs.

Clauses 41 and 42 approved.

On clause 43.

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering. This section, this mechanism, seems to be more complex compared to much simpler indexation formulas elsewhere in the income tax acts. Why is this section seeming to be so complex compared to those other ones?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It perhaps might appear more complex. It is, in fact, a new section. What we’ve done there is we’ve copied over this section, obviously, with some changes from the B.C. family benefit. It’s really replicated for consistency.

Peter Milobar: How many DTC-eligible children who don’t live in families receiving the B.C. family benefit, therefore won’t be receiving support under this new provision as it appears?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: An estimated 28,000 families and 32,000 children should be eligible for the supplement. The average payment is expected to be $5,300, and 25 percent of families are anticipated to receive the full amount.

Clauses 43 to 45 inclusive approved.

On clause 46.

Peter Milobar: So this is making the farmer’s food donation tax credit permanent. How was that accounted for or the cost of the program covered off in previous years then?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s $200,000.

Peter Milobar: Okay. Actually, that wasn’t the amount I was thinking it was going to be, so never mind.

Clauses 46 to 53 inclusive approved.

On clause 54.

Peter Milobar: In terms of clause 54, why was the notice of intention to claim a production services tax credit no longer required?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This clause was part of the review that we did in updating, with the goal of competitiveness, our film and television tax credit regime. This particular change was a combination of two things — feedback from industry, but upon review, it was found that this was no longer necessary.

Clause 54 approved.

On clause 55.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister explain why the government is removing or relaxing the notice-of-intent requirement for production services tax credits?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This really is the same as the previous answer. It just shows up in a number of different places, and this is removing that reference in those multiple places.

Peter Milobar: Was there any assessment done on whether increasing the fees would potentially discourage productions from choosing B.C.?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, there was significant consultation, primarily with Creative B.C., which administers this tax credit and had discussions with industry. Industry indicated that this would not be a barrier for them. It also has the additional benefit of helping fund Creative B.C. in the important work they do with industry.

[3:10 p.m.]

Clauses 55 to 62 inclusive approved.

On clause 63.

Peter Milobar: We debated previously around provisions of procurement and sunset clauses and that, earlier on with the other minister at the front end of this bill.

In this, section 98(1) is amended “(a) by striking out a qualifying corporation that is a Canadian-controlled private corporation,” and it’s being substituted with “an eligible corporation.” Why the removal of defining that it needs to be a Canadian corporation for provincial tax help and seemingly opening it up to any corporation, regardless of where an eligible corporation may have its headquarters or its main shareholders?

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

I’ll just back the member up to clause 62, which includes a definition of the specific eligible Canadian public corporation and the previous use of the Canadian corporation.

Kind of two things that I’ll mention on this. One is that updating our SR&ED eligibility criteria aligns with the work that the federal government had recently completed on SR&ED. This puts us in alignment with the federal work on this file.

It’s worth noting that both of these are Canadian corporations. But in not including Canadian public corporations, there was an argument that had been made, and I personally think it’s valid, that it kept Canadian corporations from doing an IPO, initial public offering. Of course, we want to see our Canadian companies grow and be successful, so this change is pursuant to that goal.

Clauses 63 and 64 approved.

On clause 65.

Peter Milobar: It’s quite a lengthy clause. It’s several pages. It’s almost, actually, more pages than the projects over $50 million in the budget are.

If I jump to page 18, just for reference of the bill for the minister, at 110.2, I just want to get clarification in subsection (4). This is that you qualify on $2 million worth of equipment, this section, not $2 million of tax relief.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m just trying to make sure that I’m talking the same language before I dive into questions — that it’s actually that you can’t spend more than $2 million on equipment to qualify for this program. It’s not that there are $2 million worth of rebates available.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That’s correct.

Peter Milobar: So how much work went into talking to light manufacturing and others that would qualify for this type of a program, into the size and scope and what they actually need in terms of investment into their physical plants to expand, to grow, to even start up? Because $2 million in this day and age is actually not much equipment, especially if you’re trying to modernize or bring productivity into the workplace.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The way that these numbers were reached is analysis of historical data trends. That told us that 90 percent would fall underneath that $2 million threshold — 90 percent of investments in the sector. So that’s what helped us come up with the threshold.

Of course, it’s also worth pointing out that purchases made above the $2 million wouldn’t kick them out of the program. It just wouldn’t be eligible, and up to $2 million would be.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister walk through the 15 percent of eligible expenditures incurred? Whether or not…. As I read this, it’s 15 percent of the $2 million. Or is it 15 percent of the PST paid on the $2 million?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s 15 percent of eligible expenses incurred on the actual investment, 15 percent on the actual investment, so up to $2 million investment — $300,000, for example.

Peter Milobar: That’s kind of what I thought it was, but then I had others in industries who were saying no. They thought it was on tax. I thought it better to get a firm clarification on the record.

In terms of manufacturing and processing and definitions, what’s excluded? Why was the liquefication of natural gas excluded out of this?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The federal government sets definitions here, and we are aligning with some of that. They identify what manufacturing and processing isn’t, in this case. We’re using terms that are defined in the federal act and adopting the language used. It’s common practice, in fact, that liquefaction is not seen as manufacturing.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate trying to sync up with the federal act, but the subsections above actually refer to the federal act, and this is a specific example of another exemption, which leads me to believe it’s not a definition within the federal act.

Again, why did the government see fit to highlight liquefication of natural gas as something that would not qualify, when we have everything else referring to the federal act?

The Chair: Member, please direct all questions to the minister through the Chair.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This particular clause is really providing clarity and certainty to businesses. The reason is that about 90 percent of the time in the federal act, liquefaction is not included in the definition of “manufacturing input.” We just wanted, for absolute clarity, businesses to see that we are accepting that definition, the common one, 99 percent, and providing certainty.

Peter Milobar: Is there any other petrochemical or those types of what we’d deem to be emission-related industry that would be deemed to be exempt from this?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a situation where the terms are defined in the federal act and applied to all collection agreements in the provinces. There are a number of categories that are excluded. I’m hearing advice from my team that none of these are surprises to industry. They are used to these categories in regards to what manufacturing is and what manufacturing is not, to the member’s question, in regards specifically to petroleum and natural gas extraction, which I think was where the member was going.

An exclusion is “(d) operating an oil or gas well or extracting petroleum or natural gas from a natural accumulation thereof; (f)(iii) processing tar sands ore from a mineral resource located in Canada on a seven-year stage that is not beyond the crude oil stage or its equivalent; (i) processing natural gas as part of the business of selling or distributing gas in the course of operating a public utility; (j) processing heavy crude oil recovered from a natural reservoir in Canada to a stage that is not beyond the crude oil stage or its equivalent; and (k) Canadian field processing.”

[3:30 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: In terms of definitions with government assistance, I’m reading this as to mean you can’t double-dip. You can’t get the 15 percent on a $2 million piece of equipment and turn around and find a federal program that’s going to give you 20 percent and a local government that’s saying: “Hey, we’ll give you a bonus somehow.” That would be completely illegal under Community Charter right now, but who knows? People may try to get creative.

That’s how I read it. Then I went to 110.7, and I got even more confused. I’m just trying to get clarification that I’m reading that section properly and that that definition is meant to prevent so-called double-dipping, doubling up the provincial program with a potential federal program.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is correct. Yes, there are provisions here, as he has described them, to prevent double-dipping, although I will point out that the specific provision on 110.7 is actually the mechanism by which we provide a refund. It is a tool that is using deemed overpayment of tax to provide that payment.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, if somebody had a $4 million investment plan…. We’re talking taxation years, so I’m assuming that means December 31. Regardless of what the company’s fiscal year might be, it’ll be deemed to be December 31.

Somebody could conceivably schedule an invoice for one piece of equipment for December 31 and a second piece of complementary equipment on a secondary invoice for January 1. Both would be eligible under this scheme, recognizing that the January 1 purchase would cap them out for that subsequent tax year?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The timing isn’t based on the purchase of the piece of equipment. It hinges on when the piece of equipment comes into use. So in the member’s example, it’s more likely, for example, that a piece of equipment that might be purchased in October and brought into use on December 31 would be billed out in that year. It really hinges on when it comes into use.

Peter Milobar: I’ll come back to a different question I was going to ask next because with that answer, it kind of leads to a further-along-the-line question I had.

I don’t see any provisions in here for appeals. God forbid that there ever be a disagreement between a manufacturer and the tax branch of the province of B.C. But if on the off chance, a wild and crazy thing like that happens, where an adjudicator decides that it’s not deemed to be an appropriate expense under the definitions of what should qualify and the corporation does, what appeal mechanism is there?

This seems to be fairly open-ended. You purchase a piece of equipment. It doesn’t say when, how the reporting goes that it’s actually in operation. One would think either a delivery invoice or…. I don’t know how the government is reasonably going to get around the province to physically check and make sure something was in operation by a certain date in the calendar year.

If that gets rejected and someone is expecting $300,000 back on an equipment purchase, chances are they’re going to want to appeal. But I don’t see any provisions for appeal or timelines around an appeal or who the actual arbiter is on whether or not the business qualifies for their tax credit.

Is it just part of the regular tax appeals process? How is this going to be dealt with on that paperwork side of whether or not someone actually qualifies?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 52 of this bill adds the tax credit as one that is specifically appealable as part of the regular tax appeal process.

Peter Milobar: Okay. Yeah, I see the 110.7 there. Thank you for that.

In terms of how this functionally works, then, is it that the invoice itself, the piece of equipment or cumulative pieces of equipment has to be under $2 million? Or if someone invests $5 million in that year, they still get the value of the first $2 million and the other $3 million is just treated as normal?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That’s correct.

Clause 65 approved.

On clause 66.

Peter Milobar: Not that I’m necessarily opposed to it — my niece actually published her first book a little while ago — but why was the book publishing tax credit made permanent? Was there a specific request, or was it just…? And how significant is it, with that request, to the book publishing people within B.C.?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Congratulations on your niece’s book being published. It’s very exciting.

We’ve heard many years from the book publishing industry that having a tax credit with a sunset clause creates some uncertainty for the industry. Given there have been multiple years by which we extended this and the importance of this industry and their contribution to especially Canadian literature, we just decided to make it permanent in order to provide that certainty.

Clauses 66 and 67 approved.

On clause 68.

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering, on this, why the need to make such substantive changes.

Again, I recognize there are several clauses together, so I assure the minister that I won’t be groaning on and then ignoring or coming back, looping back around. But predominantly around 68 and 69, why such a change, at this time, to this program when seniors weren’t expecting it in the first place?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a decision to change the interest rates. It was made to lower government program costs and to address opportunities that have long existed and been exploited for program misuse through arbitrage while continuing to make the program available to those who most need it.

[3:45 p.m.]

Currently, the eligible property owners benefit from a low-interest program which is provided at a cost to government and subsidized by taxpayers. We’ve heard from taxpayers requesting a review of the determinant program to address the opportunity for program misuse. The arbitrage opportunity is the result of the program’s low interest rates and simple basis of accruing interest. The new borrowing conditions are more of a reflection of commercial lending terms.

What do I mean by “arbitrage”? In this context, arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of the differential in interest rate terms that allow a person to borrow at a much lower interest rate and invest in instruments that provide a much larger return in order to make a profit. This program was being used in that way.

Peter Milobar: Why the change of the calculation of the interest rate to become compounded monthly?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This was about alignment with commercial practices and, also, alignment with other programs within government.

Peter Milobar: At what date will the prime rate be deemed to be the rate that the prime plus 2 percent is charged, or is that a fluid monthly adjustment as well, as the prime rate fluctuates throughout the year?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The order of things here…. If and when the budget is passed, this will be done by regulation. It hasn’t been set yet, but I’ll share that the current practice is that under section 8(3.2), it’s every six months that the rate is updated.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, what else towards this program — that isn’t already in existence, that this would change — needs to be set by regulation? Nothing in the commencement or anything says “by regulation.” It just says in a manner prescribed by the minister. I mean, it doesn’t say “by OIC.”

I’m just wondering what else, then, I should be asking questions around, if we don’t know something as basic as how the interest will be calculated or readjusted for prime rate with certainty.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s just the interest rate that would be prescribed by regulation. And this is the practice in the tax act, to have interest rates done by regulation. Typically tax acts have an interest rate regulation that follows the legislation. It’s a ministerial order. It will be coming out soon after the legislation.

Peter Milobar: What is the current prime rate being charged, as we speak today?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Today it’s 4.45 percent.

Peter Milobar: That matters. So someone right now would be paying 2.45 percent under this program. Assuming we finish up this afternoon and it goes to third reading this afternoon, they would be paying — well, they already are paying — 6.45 percent. If somebody is paying 2.45 percent today, as we speak, when this passes, will they actually have a recalculation to make it 6.45 percent?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No. Anyone that has a current loan will continue to have the same rates that they have. This is future-facing, so were someone to defer their property taxes for 2026, they would attract the new rate.

Peter Milobar: Well, the property taxes aren’t out for 2026 yet, so they wouldn’t be able to defer. Then why does this section need to be taking effect on January 1, 2026, if there’s no retroactivity to it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Because property taxes are for the calendar year. So even though the notices haven’t gone out yet, the calculation is for that year.

Peter Milobar: To be perfectly clear — because I’ve had many seniors ask me this, and I can’t answer it — if they have outstanding years deferred, those deferments will stay at prime less 2 percent with the interest calculation staying the same. It’s only any new deferments that would be prime plus 2 percent with the new interest calculation. It won’t be punitive or rolled in and starting to be calculated that way, moving forward.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That’s correct.

Peter Milobar: What studies were done by the ministry to have empirical data showing how many seniors were actually using this deferment program for an investment vehicle versus the number of seniors that are using it to just stay in their homes?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We don’t have access to data on people’s motivations, but what I can share with the member is that we’ve heard that it’s common practice among wealth advisers to advise people on using this program to get low-interest money. That’s something that wealth advisers share with their clients.

We also know that the data shows there are extremely high-value homes where people are using this program. We believe that’s for arbitrage opportunity.

The goal here is to reduce what, in my view, is exploitation of this program by people who don’t need it and still make it available for people who do.

In choosing the rate that we did…. It’s a very competitive rate. It’s a better rate than many folks can get elsewhere. It doesn’t require monthly payments. It’s our intention to use this program as it was intended, which is to help people stay in their homes by deferring their property taxes.

Peter Milobar: It sounds like it was anecdotal evidence — “we heard from, we’ve had indications of” — but no actual, definitive….

I’ve heard from and I’ve had indications from many low-income seniors that actually rely on this. Some actually live in reasonably expensive homes because they worked hard. They paid it off.

[4:05 p.m.]

They don’t want and can’t afford and are terrified of the costs of going into other housing. That would erode away what equity they have left, and they wouldn’t have enough years to live that way.

It seems we’ve both heard from opposing sides of this, but I’m not making government policy based on a few conversations and a few emails. Is it the minister’s assertion that the value of the house someone maybe has lived in for 40 or 50 years is directly in correlation to the value of their bank account and their retirement savings?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No. That’s not the case. Certainly, I have heard from folks, as the member has, who find this program valuable and important to them because of the increased value in their home and their desire to stay in that home.

I do want to point out a couple of things to the member. We’re not cancelling this program. This program is available to people, and it’s available at commercially competitive rates. There’s no monthly payment that’s required in this program. They’re able to defer their taxes until the sale of their home.

What’s driving the change is not a situation that the member described. It’s a situation of someone living in a $10 million or $20 million or $30 million or $40 million home and using this opportunity — which, may I point out, is being paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia — for them to get low-interest dollars to make investments. It’s not appropriate, and we want it to stop.

Peter Milobar: Then why was there not just an income-means test put on this program, as opposed to a unilateral “everyone’s using it as a Bernie Madoff investment fund” scheme?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s not a handful of people or a couple of emails that is driving the desire to change this program.

I’ll draw the member’s attention to the website Scotia Wealth Management and the article “The Option of Putting Off Your Property Taxes.” This is a widely accepted use for folks who are getting wealth advice, to take advantage of this government program, and that’s what we’re looking to change.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’ll point out that income testing was something that we looked at and explored, but income testing would increase the compliance and administrative burden on the applicants and administrators due to annual income declaration requirements. The cost of enforcement and auditing would also increase. Adopting a higher interest rate not only eliminates the potential for program misuse but also provides the maximum savings that could be realized, with or without income testing.

Peter Milobar: Well, I fully expect the next round of GCPE ads to feature the minister hawking reverse mortgages, because that’s what this interest rate puts the government in the business of doing. It’s the same rates as what a reverse mortgage company has.

Despite the fact we have income testing for a wide, wide range of things that government handles.… It probably would not be that onerous for a senior to provide what their yearly income was, from their notice of assessment from their income tax form, to actually qualify for a program, because they have to do it on multiple things, including PharmaCare and many other government programs.

That seems to be too onerous for the government to tackle with this program, while wanting to characterize everyone as trying to cheat the system. The minister offered a reference of people who are in $10 million and $20 million homes taking advantage of this. Shortly we’ll be asking questions about house values tied to school taxes paid, which doesn’t seem too onerous for the government to figure out.

Why was there not just a threshold brought in for the value of the home, to try to counter those that, the minister feels, are living in very expensive homes and that should not qualify for this, while not unduly harming and then charging extra costs to homeowners that desperately need the lower-cost provisions of this?

[4:15 p.m.]

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Income testing was explored. It’s a fairly complicated and difficult outcome and doesn’t hit the goal of what we want to achieve with this program, which is to assist people to stay in their homes. If their homes have become valued beyond what they can afford in their property tax payments, it allows them to defer them until sale of the home and to not incur monthly payments.

Just to share some numbers with the member.… If we set the income threshold at $70,000, for example, it would mean that 56 percent of people who use the program would be kicked out of the program. It’s true that for homeowners, even senior homeowners, they have a relatively high income. There’s also a lot of fluctuation in income, for seniors in particular, if they’re compelled to take a RIF out of a particular year.

It’s not a tool that’s particularly effective for the program. The additional consideration is that there are many people of significant means who live off of their capital and show a low income. So it wouldn’t actually address the question that we’re trying to solve for.

Peter Milobar: What’s the percentage of decrease of applicants the government is expecting with this change? Surely they’re expecting a drop-off or there’s not much point in doing it. What is the modelled, expected result out of this?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Income testing is, in its nature, somewhat arbitrary, whereas the way that the program is designed now, it still remains available to everyone. The reality is that it deters people who are using the program for arbitration. That’s the goal.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, but the question was: what was the expectation for number of people, the drop of people that would no longer be applying with this change in interest rates? It’s meant to be a deterrent. It’s meant to have people not see it as an investment vehicle. What is the government’s expectation for people dropping off of the program?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: While my team is working on this answer, I wonder if we might have a five-minute bio break, please.

The Chair: Okay. We will meet back here at 4:30. Thank you, everyone.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We are on Bill 2, clause 68. The minister was just about to provide a response.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, the modelling that we’ve done on this is really focused on the question of costs and making this a cost-recovery, cost-neutral program. As these loans roll off, they’ll no longer have to be subsidized anymore, and the goal of the structure of the program is about cost neutrality.

Peter Milobar: Well, the modelling showed, I believe, it was an extra $35 million or $50 million coming in, so there had to be modelling done that had to be based on how many applications were going to be getting filled out versus what historically was getting filled out — the average cost per, the interest rate calculated in to get to that extra dollar figure.

Again, how many fewer applications…? What percentage less applications is the government expecting, and did they model into this new system? Otherwise, the government could not have come up with a dollar figure for what it’s expected to do for provincial coffers.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m going to do my best to explain what’s happening here.

It doesn’t really matter, in the modelling, the number of people, because this is a cost-neutral program. That’s not what is impacting the modelling.

What’s impacting the modelling — and we show $11 million, $23 million, $34 million, year over year — is that as the subsidized loans are rolling off, then it’s costing us less to deliver that program. The program was at $90 million, which was being subsidized by taxpayers.

So that’s what you’re seeing. As those loans go away and people are using the program in a neutral way, that’s why we’re seeing these numbers arrive.

Clauses 68 to 81 inclusive approved.

On clause 82.

[4:35 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: On 82, this is where we start to add all the extra taxation to small businesses or professional services. I’m just wondering. When I read the definition for “accounting records….” Is this 7 percent PST also going to apply to somebody that is on payroll, and if not, where does it define that it would be a contractor?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m going to the definitions in section 1 of this clause, and I’ll point out to the member, near the bottom: “but does not include services provided by a person to the person’s employer in the course of employment.” So no, it doesn’t include someone who’s on payroll in-house.

I will share with the member that in terms of what type of accounting this applies to, it’s the purchase of accounting and includes the following: (a) financial statements and notes to financial statements; (b) a journal entry; (c) a journal of accounts; (d) payroll; (e) budget; (f) an invoice, bill or statement of account; (g) a tax or information item; (h) any records related to a tax or information return; and (i) an application for a tax credit, rebate or refund.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for that. I wasn’t sure if that was only in relation to accounting services, which is why I asked. I did all the accounting records in my own business when I was still an employee of that business, which is why I was asking that.

Again, I’ll jump, hopefully, with the graces here to jump back and forth a little bit, and then I’ll just move things as a block.

In 82, we have definitions of “accounting records” and “accounting services” and “architectural services.” But when you get further on and you get into (g), “the definition of ‘taxable service’ by adding the following paragraphs,” you actually don’t have accounting records. You have accounting services, architectural services and engineering services, but there’s not accounting records.

I’m just wondering why there’s that omission if it’s supposed to be capturing what are these new definitions.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Accounting services, it says, means any of the following: (a) preparing accounting records. So it picks up accounting records, which were defined above that I just read out.

Clauses 82 and 83 approved.

On clause 84.

[4:40 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering what outreach to the business community — in general, around all the other provisions but in security, in particular — was done. I can’t imagine that the business community was asking for their security services to be taxed at 7 percent. I can’t imagine that there was a loud cheer coming from the business community that they are now going to pay 7 percent on security services in their stores.

What led to the government’s decision to make security services and, in general, all of these…? I believe the minister, in the past, has referenced that this is to sync up with Ontario. I’m not sure if that’s still the case or not. Is that indeed what this is doing, making these tax provisions for the business community more similar to Ontario’s taxes?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: By updating the PST as part of Budget 2026, we’re preventing costs to critical services that British Columbians rely on. We can continue to hire doctors and nurses and teachers and protect existing affordability measures all while keeping B.C. one of the lowest-taxed provinces for working and middle-class families.

B.C.’s PST base was the narrowest of any provincial-level sales tax in Canada. These changes help modernize our system and are not out of step with other provinces. Government has made and continues to make important investments in B.C. for businesses of all sizes, including introducing a $400 million strategic investment fund to attract new investment opportunities to the province, reducing the small business corporate tax rate and increasing the small business corporate tax threshold, increasing the employer health tax threshold.

I’ll just mention to the member in regards to the comparison-to-other-provinces question which he had, when we look at the changes made to accounting services and compare, for example, to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Manitoba and Saskatchewan, yes and yes. Architectural services, yes and yes. Engineering services, yes and yes. Also, when we look at security services, yes and yes. It’s also worth noting for the GST-HST-QST provinces, they also apply to these services.

Peter Milobar: What discussions, if any, were had with the building community in terms of all the architectural, engineering and other types of fees that will now be added on? My understanding is that their modelling indicates it could be up to $5,000 per unit of housing, extra cost. Was that factored into the decision-making of government?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We think that the early modelling done by industry is too high. We think it’s because they didn’t have the information or use the information that it’s 30 percent of an architectural bill, not the entire bill. When we run the numbers, the information that we get is that an increase would be in the range of 0.24 percent.

Clauses 84 to 107 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:47 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 5:23 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I’m going to call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to take a moment to recognize the team that’s here with me today, who did the work on the bill but also is supporting me through committee stage.

We have Kiersten Fisher, executive director of governance, legislation and workforce at Education and Child Care; Isobel McIntyre, senior policy and legislation analyst at the justice services branch; and Gabe Hill, solicitor, legal services branch.

I just want to thank them for their work.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to start by thanking the Attorney General staff for being here and being prepared to answer questions. I know that every time there’s a bill, a lot of work goes behind the bill, and….

[5:25 p.m.]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Go ahead.

Steve Kooner: I understand a lot goes into preparing for this session in terms of answering questions, so I really want to thank the Attorney General’s staff. I want to thank the Attorney General for answering the questions that are going to come up next. Thank you for being here.

The first question I have is a fairly general one. Clause 1 deals with amending the date of this act, the original act, which gets extended. We’re dealing with the Safe Access to Schools Act, and now it’s being amended through this act by, essentially, extending the older act.

Can the Attorney General provide us an update on the progress of the original act over the last two years? So we’re trying to get an extension now, but what has been the progress in terms of…? There was a two-year time limit for the original act, and now we’ve come to this period where we’re trying to extend it with another two-year period. What has been the progress of this act for the last two years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m very glad that the legislation has been working since it’s been in place. It’s one of the reasons that we’re changing the date to keep it in place. In 2023-24, there were 29 reported protests. The number of protests dropped to 13 in 2024-25, and to date there have been five in 2025-26.

It has been a tremendous deterrent factor. I’m told that in the operation of it, the deterrent factor shows up when the police or the school liaison or whoever is around can say, “Because of this law, you’re not allowed to do this activity in this area, so you have to move,” and/or just prevent people from even showing up. So it’s been a very useful tool to protect kids and teachers.

Steve Kooner: Originally there was a sunset clause put in for two years, and every time when you have a period of, say, two years, or there is a sunset clause, that kind of shows that that legislation was maybe meant to be temporary in nature. We’re now back here. We’re putting another two-year sunset.

How does the Attorney General’s department see this legislation? Is this still a temporary form of legislation that’s meant to deal with a temporary situation, or is this now more of a permanent situation? What’s the situation in terms of viewing the extent of this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The sunset clause has a very particular role in this type of legislation. In society, we’re always balancing rights and trying to find the right way to balance them. Every time there is an infringement on a Charter right — in this case, obviously, the freedom of expression, political expression and things like that — because we are restricting those types of behaviours around a certain perimeter….

One of the ways that we ensure that the balance is correct is by putting sunset clauses in there to force the Legislature to reconsider if the law is necessary, if it’s meeting its purpose, if it’s striking the right balance in a certain timed fashion. So the sunset clause helps with that balance of rights.

Steve Kooner: If, according to the Attorney General, this legislation is working and the sunset clause was there to kind of see if there’s any problematic incidental effects related to the legislation, what’s the reasoning behind putting another temporary two-year period versus, say, the Attorney General deciding to make this a permanent situation?

[5:30 p.m.]

Are we still seeing…? Are we still trying to figure out whether there are some consequential, incidental effects of the original legislation? Are we still at that stage?

The Chair: I’m going to ask the members to keep their commentary to themselves.

Quiet. Members, can we have some order, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reasons, specifically, for sunset clauses in this type of legislation are what we’re doing right now, which is that the Legislature has to revisit it and debate the effects of it and whether it’s still needed and either extend it or not.

It helps, again, with what I talked about before, about making sure we’re balancing rights.

Steve Kooner: We’re going by two-year periods. Is that like a standard norm, that you put it in two-year periods? I’ve seen other legislation with different lengths of time.

Is there a reason why it wasn’t four years, or it’s just two years? What’s the reasoning behind the actual duration of a specific time of two years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is no legislative requirement in terms of how many years you would put a sunset clause. It just depends on the policy goals of the particular circumstance and what you think the right judgment call is on when you would review or put that sunset clause limit on there.

Two years is what we had before. We think it’s an appropriate level of time for us to make sure that it doesn’t need to be revisited, doesn’t need to be strengthened or changed, that the Legislature is contemplating this in terms of the protection of kids and teachers and school activities and the balancing of the restrictions.

Steve Kooner: To that reasoning that was just provided by the Attorney General, in terms of the Attorney General’s department thinking or opining that it’s a reasonable period of two years and that’s why two years has been set as the sunset clause time period….

In regards to that explanation of reasonableness, when we’re looking at reasonableness, what was the form of consultation that was done to determine that reasonableness? I guess we can start with that. What was the form of consultation that was done to actually form that opinion of reasonableness?

Was it consultation just taken from the last time around, when the original act came into force in 2023 or 2024, or was there another set of consultation to determine the current setting of two years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We didn’t consult specifically on this sunset clause time period, and the reason behind that is that it actually is a policy legal analysis that isn’t about the effectiveness of the policy. It’s about giving the Legislature the time to debate this again. So it’s about transparency when it comes to this balancing of rights.

We collected data on how it was working, and we talked about that in my first answer, I think, about how it was showing up. So we knew that it was an effective piece of legislation.

Because there were still, unfortunately, some of these protests, extending it to at least two years was part of the reason that we’re here. We thought that was necessary.

[5:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: In regards to those protests, can the Attorney General elaborate on what types of protests are seen? Where are these protests seen, and when are they happening?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can talk a little bit about the types of protests that prompted and are calling for the continuation of this type of legislation.

What our schools were seeing, both elementary and secondary schools, were individuals showing up to protest, screaming, loud disruptions and impeding safe access to schools. While kids were there to learn and teachers were there to do their important job of teaching, this stuff was happening directly around the schools, including signs that were very vulgar or terrible around the kids. It was a situation that required action.

As a result of the safe access, we’ve seen a big drop. I talked about those numbers of these types of protests.

Steve Kooner: Would the Attorney General be able to elaborate any further, other than just that it affected elementary schools and secondary schools? Do we know which elementary schools and which high schools were affected, and which municipalities these schools were in? Are there any further details?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Unfortunately, this was happening in various parts of the province — Abbotsford, Central Okanagan, Surrey, Grand Forks, Vancouver and Nechako Lakes. I think there are other places. Obviously, schools are not only regulated but there’s a lot of safety focus on these schools. So when there is a protest or whatever, it’s recorded, and there’s an idea of where they are, and then there’s a response.

These numbers that I’m giving you are based on the actual numbers that the school districts have gathered.

[5:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Do we know the total number of schools that were affected?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. I could just add the numbers up that I gave before — around 40 since 2023-24.

Steve Kooner: Did the Attorney General say that’s 40? Okay.

Going back to the consultation aspect, my understanding is that no consultation was done this time for determining the sunset time period of two years. Was there consultation done the first time, in regard to the two-year period that was put in the first time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. During that process in the development of the first version of the bill, it was definitely part of the discussion. It was talked about, about there being a sunset clause and it being two years, as part of the legislative scheme.

Steve Kooner: As a part of that discussion or the consultation with whichever groups were consulted in regard to the original sunset clause, were parent advocacy groups consulted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: At that time when the first legislation was developed, it was the BCCPAC. That’s the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils across the province. It’s a pretty far-reaching group because there’s a parent advisory committee — as the member, I’m sure, knows and the public knows — at every school.

Steve Kooner: Since that consultation period, since this is an ongoing situation with this legislation now with this amendment, has there been any sort of consultation over the last two years to say, “Well, how’s it working? How are those parents feeling about it? Do they like it?” and telling them: “Look, we’re going to try to extend this time period.” Has there been any consultation in regard to that?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are ongoing meetings with the education system partners. That includes boards, superintendents, the BCCPAC — all the kinds of partners in the education system, including those ones. The general feedback, over the course of that and the many meetings, for the Ministry of Education, was that it’s a very helpful tool and that there was lots of positive feedback about continuing it.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General confirm all the feedback from the BCCPAC was positive?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of the meetings that the ministry has had with the various educational partners, including the parent advisory committee, we’re not aware of any negative commentary on this.

Steve Kooner: When we’re looking at this act, it’s talking about safe access to schools, and the first thing that comes to one’s mind is children. Was the intent of the original act to protect children or, in addition to the children, to protect other groups as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: You can imagine a school environment is one of the most important in a society. Public education for kids and accessing public education is the great equalizer in a lot of democratic societies, including ours.

Of course, the primary goal of anything like this is to make sure that students continue to feel safe going to school, but it’s not just that. It’s also the teachers and the staff and anybody that would enter and work in a school across the province and, also, the families.

Pickup and drop-off is another thing. A lot of parents are coming into the school, around the school, to pick up their kids. There’s also the family interaction, and we want to make sure there’s a safe environment around the school. I guess it’s the totality, but of course, kids are the most important.

Steve Kooner: What’s proposed here is another two years, in terms of a sunset clause. Will there be any mechanisms to do some reviewing of this legislation and the original one, say, after this amendment passes? Will there be any mechanism to do some reviewing prior to the sunset clause?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the answer to that is yes, of course. I mentioned the regular meetings that the Ministry of Education’s team has with the various learning partners. This was a really big topic, I think, for a lot of people during the time of the protests, because it was really hard on schools, right? It was really hard on the schools that it was happening to and the families and the teachers involved. So that, of course, will be regular contact between now and the next sunset clause.

Steve Kooner: Going back to what was just discussed — the protests and then the review mechanisms — something that comes to mind…. We’ve discussed parents, parent advisory groups as well, and sometimes parents have some concerns for their children’s education. They want to take part in being vocal about what they would like their children to be taught.

Since this legislation was brought forward, the original one, has there been any extra mechanism to engage with parents, to make sure the content that is being taught in our schools is also taking the input of the parents of children that are going to these schools?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In a free and democratic society, people are entitled to their thoughts and expressions, and we should always be making space for debate and different perspectives and understanding, up to the limits that we afford ourselves to keep our society functioning.

This legislation is content-neutral. It’s not government’s job with these types of tools to decide what they’re supportive of or not. I think we would not want to live in a society where you have a government deciding on what expression is favourable or not and what is allowed or not. So when these are designed, they’re completely content-neutral.

What we’re picking at in terms of stopping things is certain types of behaviours that are being disrupted and saying, “You can’t do that here in this zone. You can go across the street. You can go to your school board. You can go to other places to express those perspectives,” because of the nature of that environment and the need, especially, I think, when it comes to kids’ education, that society values the protection of those environments.

The content neutrality is an important aspect of anything. Therefore, parents have many opportunities in different ways to express their perspectives to their school board, to many places. What we’re saying is: don’t disrupt kids accessing their school. Don’t create an unsafe environment for access. Don’t be loud on a school ground while kids are there to learn.

Steve Kooner: Just to go back, on the protests and the discussion that just was had. What was mentioned was that, essentially, it’s content-neutral in terms of the restrictions that are taking place around the schools. But the last, the original, legislation came about back in 2023 and was passed in 2024. Was there a specific type of protesting about a specific type of content at that time that led to the formulation of the original legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. The protests that were showing up that were causing a lot of disruption — and like I mentioned, sometimes with pretty vulgar signs and things like that — blocking, were anti-SOGI protests. I think the member knows that, because they were widely reported across the province.

Steve Kooner: So the original legislation that came about…. It came about as a result of protests related to SOGI 123, correct?

[5:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Before we continue, I just want to remind the committee that the scope of debate should not duplicate debate that has taken place during second reading.

The House has confirmed support for the principles and overall objective of the bill, and at this stage, the committee’s discussion is best scoped to the clause under consideration.

Steve Kooner: Okay, Chair.

Going back to the clause. This is a continuation of the original legislation, so what’s being debated is the continuation. This legislation is actually very directly connected to the original piece of legislation.

What we’ve discussed is whether there’s a need for this legislation to go forward and whether there’s a need for this legislation to deal with the type of stuff that it was, actually, originally dealing with. So it is highly relevant to know what those protests were about and to kind of figure out whether we have the need for this legislation to continue forward if we no longer have those types of protests. It is highly relevant because it goes to the actual specific time limit that we are dealing with.

The Chair: We’ll see if the minister has a response at this stage.

Hon. Niki Sharma: If the question is related to the need of the continuation of this legislation, I think I made out the numbers at the top — that we, unfortunately, still had five protests.

The member is, I think, raising what types of protests were leading to this, but again, our legislation is content-neutral. What we were restricting were the behaviours.

Don’t block kids from accessing school, which I think we can all agree to. Don’t be loud while kids are learning. Don’t create an unsafe access point to a school during class hours. Don’t protest in that vicinity. Go to another place across the street or somewhere else.

I think those are the clear behaviours that we were circling around. I mentioned that we’ve seen a drop in the number of protests and that it’s working as a tool, but there were still five. So we need to make sure that these protections are still in place.

Steve Kooner: Another question to not the actual subject matter. It goes to the actual piece of legislation and the wording of legislation.

Now, we do have a Criminal Code of Canada. If you look at the activities that it regulates or it prohibits, there’s some of the activity that’s underneath the original legislation that this amendment is trying to extend. The Criminal Code also deals with that. It deals with harassment, intimidation, impediment, and that’s exactly what this original legislation is dealing with.

If that original legislation exists, that Criminal Code of Canada exists, and we also heard from the Attorney General that as a part of the enforcement…. It’s law enforcement officers coming by and showing their presence and just having a piece of legislation to rely on. Those law enforcement officers would also have recourse to the Criminal Code of Canada, which prohibits intimidation, harassment, impediment.

What was the extra need? Is it the Attorney General’s opinion that the Criminal Code of Canada provisions were not enough to deal with the enforcement of any sort of disruptions that were to learning in schools that were happening?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are different legal standards when it comes to criminal law. Criminal law has oftentimes higher thresholds related to whether or not a crime is made out. So it is another tool that could be used. And in some circumstances, the intervention happens after a crime is committed.

The way that this has worked together with the Criminal Code is as a deterrent. So it’s a clear thing that police or school liaison officers or whoever is involved can just say: “You can’t do that here.” And then it creates a very…. It actually lessens the harm then, because then people are not doing it there, and we’ve seen that drop with the numbers.

Steve Kooner: We also have the School Act. Is it fair to say there are some remedies there in the School Act as well that could help in a school alleviating any sort of school disruptions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think just to say that what we were seeing with the protests was that the existing tools were inadequate to deal with what was happening.

I think the member might be referring to section 177 of the School Act, and that’s often used for individuals that are problematic or if there’s a problematic custody issue or if there’s somebody with safety concerns that’s around. They have a tool to issue — the 177 — to remove them. But it’s only up to the fence.

What this safe access school…. It creates an access zone around it, so 20 metres around it. So you can create a bubble zone around the school in a more holistic way.

Steve Kooner: But the Attorney General would agree with me that with the School Act, there is less of a burden for law enforcement to deal with school disruptions when compared with the Criminal Code. One of the reasons that the Attorney General cited for why there is another piece of legislation needed, other than the Criminal Code, is that there’s less of a burden.

The School Act is a provincial statute. So the Attorney General would agree with me that there is less of a burden to deal with the threshold of offences under the School Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. But as I mentioned, it was inadequate. It wasn’t stopping or giving the school enough of a tool to stop the behaviour in the whole area, including 20 metres across the street.

As I mentioned, we spoke to many educational partners in developing this, and their feedback has been, since its enactment, that this has been a very useful tool, especially since they were receiving in those areas a lot of distressed people at what was happening.

[6:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Since this involves the title “Safe Access to Schools,” are we talking about public schools, or are we also talking about independent schools?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If the member wants to listen to a lengthy debate about what this legislation covers, the last time we introduced this bill in Hansard, we talked about this a lot. It includes, under the School Act, independent schools and religious schools. And there’s a regulatory-making power in the case that this needed to add any additional ones that are not covered.

Steve Kooner: Just one other question. When this original legislation came about, which is now still the reason for this continuation, we talked about which types of schools would be affected or were affected — elementary and secondary. My understanding is that when we refer to the subject matter that led to the original act, it involved elementary school. Was there some reason that secondary schools were also included?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Secondary schools were always included in the beginning. I think what’s shifted is that because of the piece of legislation, protests have dramatically dropped everywhere but stopped in elementary schools. There are still, I think, five that happened in secondary schools. That’s not a legislated difference. That’s just what’s happening on the ground.

Steve Kooner: Just for context, when this legislation was originally brought, was the concern at both elementary and secondary school, or did it originate as a result of elementary schools, and then, the legislation was just brought to deal with elementary and secondary?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was at all schools but, obviously, awful at elementary schools. Those are the little ones — right? — that are going through these signs that say things or people yelling and whatever. I think everybody thought that that needed to stop.

The Chair: I just want to remind the member that the original bill is beyond the scope, and we’re on an amendment to the bill.

Steve Kooner: We’re debating the extension of the original bill, so I’ll focus my questions on the extension and anything that’s relevant to the extension.

What was mentioned earlier is that the effectiveness…. The Attorney General talked about the effectiveness of the bill, talked about the incidents going down and how incidents were originally 40, and they’ve fallen to five. And the Attorney General has briefly spoken about the enforcement and law enforcement involvement, essentially, coming by and telling people to move along.

Can the Attorney General elaborate on that, in terms of the enforcement action? Was it all, mostly, just to move along, that this contravenes this act, or were there arrests? Were there fines? Can the Attorney General provide any further elaboration?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It has mostly been used as a tool to move people along from those very important areas and their conduct. I’m told there has only been one ticket, and it didn’t result in further charges.

Mostly, this is a deterrent.

Steve Kooner: To clarify, these access zones are active and enforced during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: So 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.

I think this is in the legislation, and we’re not amending it, so we’d just take the Chair’s guidance again on whether or not we’re beyond the scope of the fact that we’re just changing one part of this one clause.

The Chair: I will encourage the member, once again, to stick to clause 1, which is the amendment, and not the original bill.

Steve Kooner: I’ll refer my questions to the amendment, and the amendment talks about extending the original statute for another two years.

There is some allowance in clause 1 to talk about context — at least, that’s what my knowledge has been in this House — to understand the context and the relevance of the bill and why it needs to be extended and to get an understanding of that. So I will focus my questions on the extension and the allowance that’s usually provided in clause 1, and I believe we are on clause 1.

We’ve talked about the enforcement powers. Moving forward, looking at the enforcement powers in the next two years, will the enforcement powers still be focused on the police carrying out these enforcement powers, such as municipal police forces and RCMP?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re not making any changes to any other part of the act except for this one date.

Steve Kooner: What’s the plan in terms of after the extension? Will it be a similar extension in another two years? What’s the plan?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That is up to the Legislature of the day when it goes back to the House for debate.

Steve Kooner: In terms of the Attorney General’s research on the two years…. Earlier it was mentioned that most of the purview and study or the advice that’s given is usually focused on the legal expertise. Based upon that, what’s the precedent in terms of…?

Could there be a more permanent legislation that comes about so people know what to expect? I know that there’s no crystal ball to see what the government of the day will decide to do with this. But what has precedent done in the past?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To start with, I think we’re hopeful that these types of disruptive behaviours on school grounds just stop happening. We’ve seen that decrease.

Just to clarify something I said earlier. I said there were five to date in 2025-26, but only two of those were around schools. Three were at board offices, and I think we would agree that a board office is a more appropriate place for a protest where you’re voicing your political opinion on something, rather than a school ground.

It would be up to the Legislature at the time to debate the need for the legislation versus the balancing of Charter rights that are involved in this type of legislation.

Steve Kooner: We are on clause 1, and it states that section 9 of the Safe Access to Schools Act, S.B.C. 2024, chapter 18 “is amended by striking out ‘July 1, 2026’ and substituting ‘July 1, 2028’.” Is this a standard substitution of date? Is this a standard clause? Is this how it’s usually done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Just another question here. It refers to striking out July 1, 2026, and substituting July 1, 2028. Why not just put a new paragraph in that states that the original act will be effective until such-and-such date?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Decisions like that are left up to our very skilled drafters of legislation that know exactly how to amend wording to get to what the policy goal is.

Steve Kooner: Now, the aim of clause 1 is to extend this act for another couple of years. Does the Attorney General foresee any sort of Charter challenges as a result of this law staying in force for another two years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The courts are open to anybody. Obviously, that’s their role, to test out government legislation, whether it’s in compliance with Charter rights and freedoms.

We haven’t seen a challenge to this one, but the goal of the team in drafting it was to make sure we were balancing those rights. I think one of the reasons that we haven’t seen a Charter challenge of this legislation is because society as a whole accepts that, although you have a right to political expression, disrupting kids while they’re going to school is something that we would all agree is probably not appropriate for our society. So we haven’t had a challenge to this piece of legislation.

Of course, the courts are there for people to bring their questions and challenge legislation if they see fit, if they want to.

Steve Kooner: I understand that there’s no prohibition to someone bringing a court challenge, but what is the understanding in the Attorney General’s department right now, based upon legal precedents? How does this hold up in terms of legal precedents?

I believe there were some references made to other types of subject-matter cases. Maybe the Attorney General can elaborate on that. What is the state of the law in terms of…? If we continue to extend the time limit here and there’s continuation of access zones into the future, what’s the legal precedent? What is the legal precedent saying in terms of different types of content, in terms of access zones? What’s the likelihood of there being a meritable Charter challenge into the future?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to give a little bit of a summary of the state of the law…. You got a lot of lawyers over here excited when you asked that question. They were pulling up case law and everything, so that’s great.

Generally speaking, there was an Access to Abortion Services Act that was…. We’re pulling up the year. Obviously, the policy…. The directive was different in that one, but it was a bubble-zone-style type of legislation. The Court of Appeal had a chance to weigh in on that and upheld the legislation.

We do have some case law guidance when it comes to the appropriate balance to strike when doing this type of legislation. Hopefully — but, like I said, you never know; it’s everybody’s right to challenge things if they want a court to weigh in — we’ve struck the same balance in this legislation.

Steve Kooner: We are dealing with extending this clause for another two years in regards to that. The enforcement of this clause has been law enforcement making enforcement. Now, moving forward, in the next two years, could there have been more done in terms of adding extra provision in this amendment act so that enforcement could actually be carried in a more efficient manner?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just the same answer. We’re not contemplating changes to any other parts of the act, just the extension of the date.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: Clause 2 deals with the commencement of this legislation. This act comes into force on the date of royal assent. Sometimes you do see tables in the Attorney General’s statutes for different bills. Here we are dealing with royal assent. What’s the reasoning behind having this bill pass on royal assent versus a different date that would probably be set out in a table somewhere in the back of this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This will ensure that the act stays in force and just to say the totality of the act has a regulatory-making power, so it’s by regulation that the bubble zones are enacted. That’s another step that’s required. This is just to make sure that the ability to do so is in force right away.

Clause 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

We are on clause 2.

On clause 2.

Macklin McCall: Just continuing right where we left off yesterday, can the minister provide data on how many civil forfeiture cases currently proceed without a response from the property owner?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I don’t have specific data on hand, but to recap the answer that I provided yesterday, of approximately 135 cases annually, 20 percent go to default, so it’s about 25 or so.

Macklin McCall: My next question, then, would be: why does subsection (4)(c) allow the director to rely on an affidavit stating they know of no defence, rather than requiring independent verification?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The section that the member is referring to is essentially court direction, so that is what is taken from court direction on how a director can take default.

Macklin McCall: Just so I’m clear with the minister’s response. Court direction — when you’re saying that with respect to this question, are you referring to that this section is providing the court with direction or that this is in the act because the court directed your ministry on doing so?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The answer is that it is in the act because of the court’s direction.

Macklin McCall: Did the ministry conduct any Charter analysis regarding due process or procedural fairness before introducing this provision?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. Yes, this has all been subject to legal analysis, including alignment with Charter.

Macklin McCall: I now have an amendment to propose here, if I may. I just need to sign it.

Okay, so this amendment deals with the issue of notice in civil forfeiture proceedings.

[CLAUSE 2, in proposed section 7.1 (5), by deleting the text shown as struck and adding the underlined text as shown:

(5) An order may not be made under this section without notice to any person.to any person unless the court is satisfied that:

(a) reasonable efforts have been made to notify all persons who may have an interest in the property that is the subject of the forfeiture, or

(b) providing notice would result in the disappearance, dissipation or reduction in value of the property or otherwise affect the property that is the subject of the forfeiture.]

On the amendment.

Macklin McCall: What it does is straightforward. It ensures that before a forfeiture order is made, reasonable efforts must be made to notify any person who may have an interest in the property. And it sets out a clear exception where providing notice would risk the property being moved, dissipated or otherwise affected.

The intent here is balance. Civil forfeiture already operates on a lower standard than criminal law. It allows the state to move against property without a criminal conviction. Because of that, the process around it needs to be as fair and as clear as possible. Notice is a fundamental part of that.

If someone has an interest in property that is being targeted, they should have the opportunity to know about it and to respond. That’s a basic principle. What this amendment does is make that expectation explicit. It requires reasonable efforts to notify — not perfection, not an unreasonable burden, but a clear effort to ensure people are aware.

At the same time, it recognizes the reality of these situations. There are clear cases where giving notice could undermine the process — where property could be moved, hidden or reduced in value. In those cases, the amendment allows the court to proceed without notice.

So this is not about creating obstacles. It’s not about preventing forfeiture. It’s about making sure that, where possible, people are given the chance to participate in the process before a decision is made, because without that, there is a real risk that property could be forfeited without the affected individual ever having the opportunity to respond. That goes directly in the fairness of the system.

This amendment simply puts that safeguard in place. It ensures that reasonable notice is the standard, with a clear, practical exception where it’s necessary. It strengthens the process without undermining its purpose.

The Chair: Okay. We will just take a brief recess as we make copies, and we’ll be back.

The committee recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I will call us back to order. We’re on Bill 8, and there has been an amendment moved to clause 2.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the proposed amendment, which I cannot support.

Maybe I should just reflect broadly on the intention of this clause and on the amendments more broadly, which are really about advancing fairness and efficiency for the process and mitigating against any unnecessary delays in court proceedings and costs to litigation.

[3:25 p.m.]

What is represented in clause 2 is not a new power; this is an existing power. I think the amendment that has been made relates to an existing court rule that would be problematic and unnecessary to amend. Today even uncontested cases require a full hearing, which does consume court time and legal resources. This default-order power will speed up uncontested cases but still preserve judicial discretion.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 2.

Amendment negatived on division.

Macklin McCall: I have another amendment for the same clause, for clause 2.

[Clause 2 is amended by adding the following subsections as underlined:

(8) A person whose interest in the property that is the subject of the forfeiture is affected by an order made under this section may apply to the court to set aside the order within 60 days after becoming aware of the order.

(9) On an application under subsection (8), the court must set aside the order if the court is satisfied that

(a) the applicant did not receive reasonable notice of the proceedings, and

(b) the interests of justice require that the matter be reheard.]

On the amendment.

Macklin McCall: Just going to explain that a little bit more here. This amendment builds on the issue of notice, but from a different angle. It deals with what happens after an order has already been made, in situations where a person with an interest in the property was not properly notified of the proceedings.

What this amendment does is provide a clear path for the individual to come back to court. It allows them to apply within a defined period of time — 60 days after they become aware of the order, to have that decision reviewed — and it sets out a clear test for the court. If the court is satisfied that the person did not receive reasonable notice and that it is in the interest of justice to rehear the matter, then the order must be set aside.

Again, the intent here is straightforward. Civil forfeiture is a powerful tool. It allows the state to take property without a criminal conviction. Because of that, the process needs to be fair not just at the front end but throughout.

This amendment recognizes that even with best efforts, situations will arise where someone is not properly notified. That’s reality. When that happens, there needs to be a mechanism to correct it. Without that, you’re left with a situation where a person’s property can be forfeited and they have no practical way to challenge it, simply because they were unaware that the process was happening. That raises serious concerns about fairness.

This amendment doesn’t create an open-ended process. It doesn’t delay proceedings unnecessarily. It sets a clear window. It sets a clear test. And it leaves the decision with the court based on whether justice requires the matter to be reconsidered. This is not about weakening the system. It is about ensuring that when something goes wrong, when notice isn’t properly given, there is a fair and structured way to address it. It’s a safeguard, a reasonable one, and one that strengthens confidence in how this legislation should be applied.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess, and we’ll be right back.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I will call us back to order.

Members, we have another amendment to clause 2. Does anyone have any remarks?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the amendment that, respectfully, I do not agree with. There is an existing court test, Miracle Feeds of 1979, that means that a person can apply to set aside the default, but they must explain to the court that non-compliance wasn’t wilful or deliberate, that they promptly applied to set it aside upon learning it and that they have a defence worthy of the court’s investigation.

So with this nearly 50 years of precedent, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The Chair: On the second amendment on clause 2, does the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 2 approved on division.

On clause 3.

Macklin McCall: My next question for the minister: why is the government doubling this time period from 30 days to 60 days?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. The increase from 30 to 60 days reflects the growing complexity of forfeiture cases in B.C. and better aligns B.C. with other jurisdictions. In Ontario, there’s 45 days; and in Quebec, 60 days. This is about providing a sufficient time for a legal review and initiation of proceedings, reducing the risk of error and the unlawful retention of property.

Macklin McCall: What operational challenges under the existing 30-day period prompted this amendment?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The civil forfeiture office, of course, needs to ensure that any information provided to the court is accurate. Given the complexity and increasing complexity of forfeiture cases, additional time is sometimes needed. Sometimes people supply new information that the CFO needs to review. Sometimes there’s additional information provided by police that the office needs to review.

This is really about providing the process with sufficient time, given that increased complexity of forfeiture cases. This shift from 30 to 60 days provides that time and better aligns B.C. with the practices reflected in other jurisdictions.

[3:40 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Just to expand a little bit on what the minister just said, I just want to be clear. I understand the response. I’m just wondering what prompted that. Was it a ministry review? Was it the courts that came and spoke to the ministry? What caused that change?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This change has been initiated by the civil forfeiture office and advised by lawyers, who have suggested that more time is needed to review and to prepare these cases given the complexity, again, of these proceedings.

Macklin McCall: Does this change mean property owners may wait longer before receiving notice or action in forfeiture proceedings?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks for the question. No, they provide adequate time to properly review without changing the overall timelines.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Macklin McCall: What clarification or legal issue prompted the change from “by the seventh day” to “within seven days”?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. This is really about providing clarity to mitigate against potential interpretive uncertainty that “by the seventh day” may cause. So this is just about ensuring that there is that clarity and consistency in terms of calculating timelines for administrative forfeiture disputes.

Macklin McCall: Was there ambiguity in the existing wording that led to litigation or inconsistent interpretation?

Hon. Nina Krieger: There have not been instances of ambiguity, but really, this is about mitigating against possible uncertainty and really just reflects housekeeping efforts here.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate the response with these questions for this clause.

I just want to be clear though. “By the seventh day” to “within seven days” — can you just explain the difference between the two, if there is one? Is there a difference, actually, in the timing with that wording, or no?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. No, there’s no difference between the actual days represented by that wording, but that wording has been advised as preferable by legal counsel and seeks to provide clarity and is simply a matter of housekeeping.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Macklin McCall: Why is this government restricting the circumstances in which a claimant can challenge forfeiture after the dispute period?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. Just to clarify, this doesn’t relate to restrictions of any kind but is really aimed to advance fairness and improve fairness and access to justice by ensuring that people are not penalized for mail delays that might be beyond their control. This is about addressing a legislative gap that could prevent legitimate contestation of forfeiture.

Macklin McCall: What protections exist for individuals who are unaware that their property had been forfeited during the dispute period?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the question. Of course, safeguards are important, and I’ll just point out that in all cases, all parties are served with documents and do have multiple opportunities to present evidence or to make arguments before any forfeiture or default order would be made.

Again, the Miracle Feeds test case…. Almost 50 years of judicial precedent apply. So there needs to be…. It includes that the failure to dispute is not wilful or deliberate, that proceedings can commence as soon as reasonably possible. People can claim up to two years post-forfeiture as well.

Macklin McCall: Now, has the ministry analyzed whether this change could affect innocent owners who miss deadlines through no fault of their own?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This particular clause is really to benefit respondents, and it makes an amendment that ensures that people, through no fault of their own, in the event of lost mail, are not penalized. So really this clause is about improving fairness and access to justice.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Macklin McCall: Now, why is the bill limiting examination for discovery to only one representative of the director?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Clause 6 is all about advancing efficiency and ensuring that the individual with the most knowledge is present, but it does not limit the number of people that may be called as well. So it does preserve judicial discretion to allow additional examinations where deemed appropriate by a judge, but to not call people unnecessarily.

Macklin McCall: In complex investigations involving multiple agencies, could this limitation restrict the ability of claimants to properly test the evidence?

Hon. Nina Krieger: No.

Macklin McCall: Why was the default rule written to restrict discovery rather than leave the matter entirely to judicial discretion?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. Again, this is about advancing efficiency and to really prevent the misuse of discovery as a tactic to potentially burden the director and expose staff to unnecessary litigation processes. But again, it does ensure that we are preserving judicial discretion and allowing for additional examinations where those are deemed appropriate by the judge.

Macklin McCall: I have an amendment now for this clause.

[CLAUSE 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

6 The following section is added:

45.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) or Unlessunless the court orders otherwise, if in a proceeding under this Act the director is to be examined for discovery,

(a) the examining party may examine only one representative of the director, and

(b) the director must nominate as the director’s representative an individual, who is knowledgeable concerning the matters in question in the proceeding, to be examined on behalf of the director.

(2) The court may order that more than one representative of the director be examined for discovery if the court considers that

(a) the matters in issue cannot reasonably be addressed by a single representative, or

(b) additional examination is necessary to ensure procedural fairness.]

On the amendment.

Macklin McCall: To add onto that, this amendment deals with the discovery process, specifically how the director is represented when being examined. Under the current wording, the expectation is that only one representative of the director is examined for discovery.

What this amendment does is keep that as the default but allow the court to order more than one representative where it is necessary. And that’s the key point. This is not about expanding the process unnecessarily. It’s about giving the court the ability to respond to the realities of a case and putting it specifically in the document rather than just the discretion. It’s in there because it’s important.

Civil forfeiture matters can be complex. They can involve multiple issues, multiple sources of info and different individuals within government who have knowledge of different aspects of the file. In those situations, relying on a single representative may not be sufficient to fully address the matters in question.

This amendment recognizes that. It allows the court to determine when additional examination is required, either because the issues cannot reasonably be covered by one person or because doing so is necessary to ensure procedural fairness.

I think that last part is important. Procedural fairness is not just a concept. It’s what ensures that both sides, in proceeding, have a meaningful opportunity to understand the case, to test the evidence and to respond appropriately.

The information is fragmented across multiple individuals, but only one can be examined. That can limit the ability to properly explore the issues. The amendment gives the court discretion to address that. And it’s in the act, not: “Hopefully the judge will refer to something that’s in case law. Maybe they will. Maybe they won’t.” Literally in this act, it’s related to….

It does not require multiple representatives in every case. It does not create delay by default. It simply provides flexibility where it is needed. And importantly, that discretion remains with the court.

So again, this is about balance, maintaining efficiency in straightforward cases while allowing for a more complete and fair process in more complex ones. It’s a targeted change, a practical one and one that supports the integrity of the process without undermining the purpose.

The Chair: We will have a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will come back.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 6 in front of us. The amendment is in order, and I will look to the minister.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I do appreciate the member’s proposed amendment but believe that it is not necessary, again because of an existing test dating back to 2012.

If the first representative is unable or unwilling to inform themselves or to provide an answer, the test is that if that person is the person responsive, what efforts did they make to inform themselves? What is the most practical, convenient and expeditious means to obtain the information?

Essentially, the amendment is unnecessary given the existing court tests, and I believe it’s unnecessary to work that into the proposed amendments themselves.

The Chair: On the amendment to clause 6.

Amendment negatived on division.

Macklin McCall: Why is the legislation creating a statutory presumption that motor vehicles depreciate over time?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Currently the act doesn’t require the courts to consider depreciation when deciding whether to authorize the liquidation of assets, so this clause really supports earlier liquidation of vehicles to preserve the asset values and to reduce storage costs.

Macklin McCall: Does the presumption increase the likelihood that seized vehicles will be sold before the forfeiture case is resolved?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This is something that is up to judicial discretion and does not change that judicial discretion but, really, is about improving efficiency and asset management while still maintaining the court’s oversight and fairness.

Macklin McCall: What protections exist for owners whose vehicles are sold before a final court determination?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Judges retain full discretion to refuse a sale where fairness requires. If vehicles are sold, the funds are paid into the court and stand in place of the vehicle.

Macklin McCall: I have another amendment here for clause 7.

The Chair: We’re on clause 6, Member.

Clause 6 approved on division.

On clause 7.

Macklin McCall: Okay. So now the amendment to clause 7.

[CLAUSE 7, by adding the underlined text as shown:

7 The following section is added to Part 5:

Presumption – motor vehicles depreciate

59.1 (1) In an application for an order under section 9 (4) [interim preservation order] for the disposition of a motor vehicle or the whole or a portion of an interest in a motor vehicle it must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the value of the motor vehicle will decrease over time.

(2) Before ordering a disposition of a motor vehicle under section 9 (4) [interim preservation order], the court must consider the following:

(a) whether the disposition would cause disproportionate hardship to a person with a lawful interest in the vehicle, and

(b) whether reasonable alternatives exist to preserve the value of the vehicle pending the determination of the proceedings.]

On the amendment.

Macklin McCall: More to clarify my position on it. This amendment deals with how motor vehicles are treated in civil forfeiture proceedings, specifically when there is an application to dispose of a vehicle before the matter has been fully determined. What it does is two things.

First, it recognizes a practical reality that vehicles generally decrease in value over time. That’s simply how vehicles work. So the amendment allows the court to proceed with that understanding in mind.

But the more important part of this amendment is what comes next. Before a court orders the disposition of a vehicle, it requires the court to consider whether doing so would cause disproportionate hardship to someone with a lawful interest in that vehicle. It also requires the court to consider whether there are reasonable alternatives available to preserve the value of the vehicle while the case is still ongoing.

That’s the balance this amendment is trying to achieve. A vehicle is not just another piece of property. For many people, it is essential. It’s how they get to work. It’s how they take care of their families. It’s how they function day to day. When a vehicle is seized or disposed of before a matter is resolved, the impact can be immediate and significant. In some cases, the person affected may not ultimately be found responsible for any wrongdoing. That’s where the concern comes in.

This amendment doesn’t prevent the court from ordering the disposition of a vehicle. It doesn’t remove that authority. What it does is require the court to take a closer look before making that decision, to consider the real-world impact, to consider whether the hardship created would be disproportionate and to consider whether there are other ways to preserve the value of that asset in the meantime.

Once a vehicle is sold or otherwise disposed of, that decision can’t be undone in a practical sense. So this is about making sure that those decisions are made carefully, with full awareness of the consequences.

Again, this is not about weakening the legislation. It’s about ensuring that it is applied in a way that is fair, measured and grounded in reality. It’s a targeted safeguard and one that reflects how these situations actually affect people.

The Chair: Okay. We’ll just take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I’m calling everyone back to order.

The amendment that has been proposed from the member for West Kelowna–Peachland has been ruled in order.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the proposed amendment, which, again, I cannot support because it’s a duplication of an existing consideration of the court.

The court must not make an order for disposal unless it is in the interests of justice. That means trial fairness, convenience, efficiency or presence or absence of prejudice as well. Similar to the other proposed amendments, this does not add anything that is necessary to ensure fairness, which already is in the interest of the court and in the interest of justice.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 7 approved on division.

On clause 8.

Macklin McCall: Now, moving on to the next clause here, my question for the minister is: what specific types of prescribed information may be shared under subsection (1)(b)?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member for the question. There are no regulations planned or anticipated.

Macklin McCall: What privacy safeguards exist when information is shared with jurisdictions outside of Canada?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Sharing of information is limited to public or prescribed categories and remains subject to regulation-based oversight and cabinet control, and privacy protections remain in place. Section 68 of the act continues to prohibit disclosure of any information obtained by the office from parties during litigation, including information obtained through unexplained wealth orders.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the answer from the minister. I just want to be clear because with the answer just previous, there wasn’t any indication about information being shared outside of Canada nor did the minister say that that’s not happening.

I just want to ask, for clarity’s sake, again: is there any information potentially shared with any organization, group, investigators — anything to that effect at all — outside of Canada? Is there any information being shared?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The director is a member of the Camden Asset Recovery Interagency Network, or CARIN, which is a group of international law enforcement agencies started by Ireland’s Criminal Assets Bureau. The purpose is to trace, freeze and seize illicit criminal proceeds around the world. They are currently comprised of 61 member jurisdictions, and that number does continue to grow. The director may share publicly available information with CARIN under existing FIPPA laws and has done so already.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that clarification, Minister. Now, will individuals whose information is disclosed under this section be notified?

Interjections.

Macklin McCall: Yeah. If I may, just to kind of clarify, what I asked was: will individuals whose information is disclosed under this section be notified? Meaning that if their information is provided, if any information is provided outside of Canada or to these other jurisdictions or to these other organizations, is that person notified that that has occurred?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Again, this is publicly available information. This is not a requirement. The notification is not a requirement of FIPPA.

Macklin McCall: Has the government conducted a privacy impact assessment for the expanded information-sharing powers?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes, we have.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Macklin McCall: Why is the government removing the six-month limit on the prohibition against disclosure of the director’s requests?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This amendment also reflects the increased complexity of cases, and this is, really, in the event of ongoing investigations, that more time can be directed to those investigations.

Macklin McCall: Now, does this amendment allow individuals’ personal info to be accessed without their knowledge for longer periods?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: In six months or as soon as practical.

Macklin McCall: I don’t know if that answers the question, in my mind. I was just wanting to know: does this amendment allow individuals’ personal information to be accessed without their knowledge for longer periods? So is it a time frame? Yes, it does, or no, it’s not?

I’m just wondering if that is actually allowed to happen longer.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes, the person may not know for six months or as soon as practical.

Macklin McCall: What oversight mechanisms exist to ensure these powers are not misused?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This is really about ensuring transparency. The director must report to that person, again, as soon as practical after six months. That’s it.

Macklin McCall: Okay. So I just want to be clear with the minister’s response.

Oversight mechanisms that exist to ensure these powers…. To ensure that it’s not misused, it’s just reporting to the…. I’m sorry, I’m trying to recall what you said. It was a reporting process, I guess. Is that the only mechanism, or are there more?

Hon. Nina Krieger: They must report to the individual.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Macklin McCall: Why is the government extending this time period in this section? “Section 73(4)(a) and (b) is amended by striking out ‘30 days’ and substituting ‘60 days.’” Why is the government extending that time period?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This again reflects the increase in case complexity and better aligns B.C. with other jurisdictions. This is about reducing the risk associated with the seizure of assets without legal authority and ensuring that there’s adequate time for review of evidence and case assessment.

Macklin McCall: Does this extension delay the return of property or resolution of disputes for affected individuals?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This can affect this and increase this by 30 days, yes.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Macklin McCall: Why is additional regulation-making authority required regarding regular notice or service of orders under section 13?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This adds regulation-making authority for notice and service requirements under section 13, the order to produce records, which enables after-the-fact notification when records are compelled. So this is about addressing transparency concerns identified by the Court of Appeal and strengthens fairness safeguards in investigative processes.

Macklin McCall: Does this amendment allow the government to change notice requirements through regulation, rather than legislation?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Yes, it does.

Macklin McCall: What safeguards will exist to ensure individuals receive adequate notice when records are compelled under section 13?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This is currently being developed in the form of regulations to be considered by cabinet, we anticipate, in the fall.

Macklin McCall: Now I have an amendment to submit here.

The Chair: While we determine if the amendment is in order, would you like to speak?

Macklin McCall: Yes, Chair. Thank you.

[CLAUSE 11.1, by adding the following section:

Annual report

96 (1) The minister must prepare an annual report respecting the administration of this Act that includes the following information:

(a) the number of forfeiture proceedings commenced;

(b) the number of orders granted;

(c) the value and type of property that was the subject of a forfeiture under the Act;

(d) the number of applications made to set aside a forfeiture order;

(e) any other prescribed information;

(f) an itemized list of all grants including the names of the recipients.

(2) The annual report referred to in subsection (1) must be posted by the minister on a publicly accessible website.]

On the amendment.

Macklin McCall: I’ll expand on that by saying that this amendment deals with transparency and accountability in the administration of civil forfeiture.

What it does is require the minister to produce an annual public report that outlines how this legislation is actually being used. That includes basic but important information: the number of proceedings started, the number of orders granted, the type and value of property that has been forfeited and how often people are applying to have those orders set aside. It also requires something more specific: an itemized list of grants, including the recipients. All of that information must be made publicly available.

If we are going to expand or rely on a tool like civil forfeiture, a tool that allows the state to take property without a criminal conviction, then there needs to be a clear line of sight into how the property is being used. Without that, there is no way for this House or the public to properly assess whether this legislation is working as intended.

We won’t know how often it’s being used. We won’t know what types of property are being targeted. We won’t know whether people are successfully challenging those decisions. And we won’t know where the proceeds are ultimately going. That matters because civil forfeiture carries significant authority, and with that authority should come a corresponding level of transparency.

This amendment doesn’t change how the law operates on the ground. It doesn’t slow the process down. It doesn’t interfere with enforcement. What it does is ensure that there is accountability after the fact. It allows this House to see how often these powers are being used and in what way. It allows the public to understand how the system is functioning, and it creates a level of transparency around the use of funds that come from forfeiture.

I think that last point is particularly important, because when government has the ability to seize property and then distribute those proceeds, there needs to be clarity around how those decisions are being made, not just internally but publicly.

This is about maintaining confidence in the system. If people don’t understand how this legislation is being used or whether the outcomes are going, that confidence starts to erode.

This amendment simply ensures that the information is there, that it is accessible and that it can be reviewed. It’s a basic accountability measure, a reasonable one, and one that aligns with the level of authority that this legislation provides.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess to allow copies to be made of the amendment. Ten minutes? Five minutes. There you go.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back, Members. The amendment has been ruled in order.

The member has spoken to the bill. The minister would like to respond.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’m not quite sure that I do see the connection between the substance of the clause and the proposed amendment, but I’m happy to speak to it nonetheless. I will not be supporting the amendment but offering a few comments.

It’s important to note that all court decisions, in terms of civil forfeiture, are a matter of public record and are fully accessible.

Then in terms of the grants, all community grants have been reported publicly on the website since 2017.

To advance transparency, which is, of course, very important, the program released its first annual report in August of last year, providing an overview of the funding and highlighting selected projects that received funding in 2024-2025. This annual report and the publicly posted grant recipient list offer clear and, of course, accessible information about the allocation of funds and the impact of funded projects.

We are planning that future annual reports will include not only grants but broader figures and data related to the civil forfeiture program that I think will be of interest to the member and will certainly demonstrate our commitment to ensuring transparency.

I know we’ll discuss, likely, civil forfeiture further in the context of estimates. I’d be very pleased to offer a technical briefing to the member, in advance of estimates, related to civil forfeiture, where we’d be happy to share additional details related to the program.

The Chair: On the question of the amendment to Bill 8.

Division has been called.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Members, do we have concurrence to waive time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 11.1 on Bill 8.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Loewen	Van Popta	K. Neufeld
	Day
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Osborne	Krieger
Dix		Glumac

The Chair: We’ll allow you to swap out first, and then we’ll just wait for the minister to return her team.

[5:35 p.m.]

Member for West Kelowna–Peachland, do you have any further questions on clause 11?

Macklin McCall: No.

The Chair: All right. Thank you so much.

Now, Members, we are moving to the question of clause 11, as originally intended.

Clause 11 approved on division.

The Chair: Now we’re moving to the question of clause 12.

Clauses 12 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is now adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:37 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 5:46 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon again, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

Kiel Giddens: I look forward to some discussion on this legislation. Had a good, I think, chance to go over this bill at second reading. More of my questions are in later clauses, so with clause 1, I was hoping the minister could just clarify. A lot of this is rearranging, so maybe the minister could just clarify clause 1 — what it means in context.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Really, this is simply a reordering of clauses, that I’m sure we’ll get into substantive discussion on shortly, so that the definition of “determination” is referring to the correct future subsections.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Kiel Giddens: Clause 2, I recognize, is again very short. Just mentioning, obviously: “Section 19(4) is amended by striking out ‘within one year’.” But it does open up some questions. Just thought we could clarify a little bit, as it removes the requirement for the employment standards branch to hold unclaimed wages for one year before transferring those funds to the provincial unclaimed property administrator. I think we can get into, hopefully, a little bit of discussion about that.

My understanding is that the intent is to move those funds quickly into Unclaimed B.C., that system, so that the administrator can attempt to locate the worker owed the wages. Hopefully I understand that correctly. But maybe to understand a little bit more how this will work in practice, how frequently does the employment standards branch currently hold wages that cannot be delivered to an employee, and are there any metrics that the ministry holds on this?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The intention of the amendments to this clause is for the branch to be able to expedite the process for matching up the wages, the funds that are owed with the employee.

What currently happens is that the branch will receive funds, hold them in trust, make efforts to find the employee. They may not be able to find that employee. And then there is this one-year period that they have to wait in order to transfer the wages to the administrator.

What we’re proposing is that a much more efficient process would be for the branch to continue to make the effort to find the employee in the short term, after a determination is made, to be able to transfer those funds to unclaimed property B.C. more quickly, which is an agency that has the capacity and the ability to find people and match them with their money.

We don’t have the amount off the top with respect to how much the branch is currently holding in trust. We can certainly get that information and provide it.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

So just in terms of that one-year period, I guess, just to understand overall, sort of, how this will impact the branch’s operations as well…. I’m just wondering. If there’s not how much money currently, if that’s not at hand, what about how…? In the past, how many employees are we talking about that the branch is actually looking to seek funds from? Like, current resourcing requirements for this in the current system versus what we’re expecting from this new approach.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In terms of the work process within the employment standards branch, there are a few different places where the efforts would be made to try to match the worker with money they’re owed.

It might be if the investigator still has conduct of the file or has a good line of sight to that individual. They might be in contact with that person or be able to track that person down.

If not the investigator, it would go to the trust and finance team, which is the team within the branch that is charged, at the end of the day, with conducting the search for the individual.

[5:55 p.m.]

It’s difficult to speak with precision to how much resources this might save on the part of the branch, because really the intention of this provision is to be more efficient with trying to match people with money they’re owed more quickly.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think, obviously, trying to match workers with the funds more quickly is a laudable goal and also, hopefully, will create some efficiencies in the branch.

Just in terms of how much…. What are the average amount of wages transferred each year, currently, to the Unclaimed B.C. system? So it goes from the trust and finance team…. As I understand from the minister’s answer, they spend their own resources trying to locate the worker who’s owed funds. They’re not able to do so, so then it goes to Unclaimed B.C. eventually.

How does…? What kind of amounts are we talking about, going to that, that we’re actually trying to ensure are getting to those workers?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: We don’t have the number off the top of our heads. The cases vary greatly between one…. It really depends on what the particular determination is, whether it’s a matter of a week’s wages owed or three months’ or some large cases, as there have been, where there are many, many workers involved. Some of those cases might be in the hundreds of thousands.

There isn’t really a helpful sort of average. We can certainly get…. Not at the moment, but tomorrow we could bring the amount that was transferred to Unclaimed B.C. for last year, and that would give you a sense of what, overall, are the amounts of money that we’re talking about.

Kiel Giddens: I think that would be quite helpful, just to see.

It does lead, to just follow up…. Obviously, Unclaimed B.C. is a non-profit. Would just be interested to know what comments they have, perhaps, made on their capacity to be able to add some additional work into their workload. I didn’t really know much about Unclaimed B.C. until this process, so it was interesting to read some information about them.

But just as their capacity as a non-profit, if the minister could provide any comments on that.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Staff in the ministry were in touch with Unclaimed B.C. about our intention, and they’ve expressed no concerns about their capacity to take on the work that will be coming their way.

Kiel Giddens: Just to confirm, there wouldn’t be any requirement for the branch to support Unclaimed B.C. with additional funding? Is that the case as well, or…?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: No, not contemplated at all.

[6:00 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just for workers’ benefit, to understand the changes that people are…. Certain groups are used to the current system and now may be familiarizing themselves with trying to get a more…. I mean, the Unclaimed B.C. system is already in place, so people have been using it.

But for those that have been working directly with the branch…. In terms of how the branch is contacting workers now through the trust and finance team, how will workers know that wages owed to them may be sitting in the Unclaimed B.C. system? What’s the mechanism that that agency uses to make sure that they are contacting workers?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The process will be that if the worker is not able to be contacted by the branch — by phone, by email, by snail mail, all of the usual methods by which we communicate with individuals — the funds will be transferred to Unclaimed B.C. Unclaimed B.C., as I understand it, has a publicly searchable database.

So a worker surfaces a few months down the road or the next year. They either contact the branch, in which case the branch will refer them to Unclaimed B.C., or they would connect with Unclaimed B.C. and connect with them to receive their pay.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just a more simple question. What we’re seeing here is that Unclaimed B.C. has more tools available than the branch to locate the workers, so that is why that mechanism is being sped up. Is that correct?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Correct.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for that. I guess maybe to understand a little bit more of how that adds to the administrative efficiency, has that been quantified at all within the branch, to understand…? What does this mean for the branch’s operations, in effect?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just referring to my earlier answer with respect to that, you right now have a bit of a distributed system around who is contacting a worker who is owed money. It might be the investigator. It might go to the finance and trust team. So it’s difficult to quantify in precise terms that X number of searches or attempts to connect with X number of workers means this many FTEs. We really don’t have that.

That was, you know, sort of…. Efficiency and saving staff resources was not the primary goal of this particular provision. Really, this provision was about trying to make sure we’re moving funds through to an agency more quickly that has…. We’re, essentially, shortening the time frame by removing the one-year provision in the clause.

So we don’t have a precise sense of that. Of course, the branch will look at this. I mean, they’ll measure after implementation and see how that part of the business has changed, but this is not anticipated to provide a substantive amount of relief of staff time.

Kiel Giddens: This won’t be a question, just a comment. Perhaps in a future estimates and beyond this fiscal, it would be a good question to maybe canvass, just to understand that. So just noting….

[6:05 p.m.]

I’ve made a note of it, and I’ll keep that in mind, but appreciate the answer from the minister.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Kiel Giddens: Quicker on the draw than the Energy Minister there.

Clause 3 restructures section 76 of the act, the Employment Standards Act, and clarifies the circumstances under which the director can refuse to investigate, stop investigating or expand an investigation, as I understand it.

I believe the intent would be to give the branch greater flexibility in managing complaints. But since the complaint process is really fundamental for workers who are looking after, standing up for, their own rights, I think understanding how these powers will operate is important to get some…. You know, ask some questions about how this will work in practice….

I’ll start with the fact that the process of review and investigation of complaints is really one of the biggest amendments in the bill. So what operational issues in the branch prompted the need to restructure this section, which is a section that already exists in the act?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Again, the big change really is in 76.1, in the next clause. The drafters took an opportunity to just, essentially, rewrite section 76 for purposes of readability and clarity.

In terms of the substantive changes, the first change removes a reference to using the alternative dispute resolution process as part of complaint investigation, because we now have a much more fleshed out section that articulates the circumstances under which the director can require parties to or can refer the parties to the alternate dispute resolution process. So that is consequential to 76.1, but that change needs to be made in 76.

Then secondly, they took the opportunity, which I think is very helpful, just to clarify and pull together the circumstances under which a director can make a determination that a complaint has been resolved.

[6:10 p.m.]

The only new provision there is under 76(3)(f)(ii), which says: “By way of payment to the complainant of unpaid wages claimed by the complainant.” Point (iii) in section (f) existed but in another place, in the current iteration of the act.

I think, as you are aware, the Employment Standards Act is an act that has been around for a long…. It’s a statute that’s been around for a long time and has been the subject of numerous amendments. I’m grateful to the work that the drafters did to try to redraft and clarify existing provisions but lay them out in a way that’s clearer.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I’m also grateful for the drafters’ work. I think that modernizing statutes that have been around for a long time is important to be doing, especially one like the Employment Standards Act. But it does, obviously, open up the discussion on the act’s effectiveness and how it’s working and the public’s understanding of the act.

I just have a few questions on this clause and how it impacts section 76 of the act and maybe just to have the public understand a little bit more about how the process works.

On subsection (2), for example: “The director must refuse to accept a complaint if the complaint is not made within the time period under section 74(3), (4) or (5), as applicable.” How frequently does the director currently decline to investigate complaints and, just to clarify, does the complainant receive written reasons when a complaint is not investigated?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: A worker who has filed a complaint that is found to be out of time is generally notified by email. That communication generally happens by email.

[6:15 p.m.]

If they haven’t filed within the six months, they have an opportunity, through that initial communication with the branch, to clarify. If there’s been an error made or if there’s been some issue or misunderstanding with respect to the time frame, there’s an opportunity to clarify.

There is also an opportunity for the worker to appeal the decision and also to make an appeal to the director, for the director to exercise their discretion to accept the complaint, notwithstanding the timelines if there are extenuating circumstances.

Kiel Giddens: I’m assuming, obviously, all of this will continue under changes to the act — what the minister just described — which is good.

Does the ministry track how often complaints are declined or discontinued under the provisions there? Are those statistics reported publicly in any way?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There are, I guess, a number of reasons why a complaint might not be accepted. If there is not a written determination, then it’s not in the system. If, you know, an individual is covered by a collective agreement and they’re referred to their union, if they’re out of time and they don’t engage further with the branch, then that information is not available.

There isn’t a mechanism for tracking the numbers that the member is asking for.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the rationale. That makes sense to me.

Going on to subsection (3). This gives the circumstances regarding the director’s decision process on whether or not they accept the complaint investigation. Obviously, this, for the most part, remains the same besides some rewrites, and then there is the reference to subsection (f)(ii) in particular. We already talked about there.

But maybe just in looking at one in particular, subsection (b), how does the director determine if a complaint is frivolous, vexatious or trivial or is not made in good faith, as is included here? I think it’s important for employees who feel their complaint is valid to ensure that they know that they have access to justice and that it’s fairly considered.

What criteria is being used for this? Are there any changes being made as a result of opening up the act?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The guidance on the ESB website outlines what is meant by “frivolous,” “vexatious” and “trivial.”

“Frivolous,” for example, has no serious purpose and is not likely to succeed. “Vexatious” is defined as intended to harass, annoy, embarrass or cause financial cost in defending. “Trivial” means so minor or technical it’s not worth proceeding, not in good faith, motivated by unfairness or intentionally inaccurate, exaggerated or misleading.

What I will say is that the process under the Employment Standards Act is governed by principles of natural justice and administrative fairness. There are procedural rules in that regard. There are no changes contemplated by this. There are no changes by virtue of opening the act. This is very old language, and the director cannot think of a case in the last 25 years where a complaint has been denied because of these grounds.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you. Yeah, an interesting response from the minister. I appreciate it.

As I read the act in its current state, the former circumstance (e) was removed. That version stated: “There is not enough evidence to prove the complaint.” Why the change in that? Am I reading that incorrectly, perhaps?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is a really good example of where the act drafters have really tried to clean up the act. The provision that you read, which was formerly in this section, with all of the other provisions that articulate the process and the criteria by which a director accepts a complaint…. That item has been removed.

You will now see it in 8(c): ”The director may stop or postpone investigating a complaint at any time if the director is satisfied that” — (a), (b) and then — “(c) there is not enough evidence to prove the complaint.” It’s still there, just in a different place.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the response. For subsection (3)(f)…. Just within this process, how will the employee or the employer be notified that a complaint has been considered resolved by way of a settlement agreement made under section 78, by the way of a payment to the complainant of unpaid wages claimed by the complainant or in any other manner that the director considers to be satisfactory?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Section 78 refers to the director’s ability to bring the parties together to facilitate a settlement agreement. The parties are party to that settlement agreement, so they know whether it’s been resolved under item (1).

The complainant knows, under item (2), whether their wages have been paid or not.

Item (3) refers to circumstances where, for example, it might not be a wage issue. It could be another matter that doesn’t involve wages. If it’s a leave that has been denied, if somebody doesn’t know whether they should be coming back to work or not — and the employer agrees to bring them back; there has been some sort of error made — the director would likely consider the offer to come back to work to be a satisfactory resolution of the complaint. There are no wages owing.

Kiel Giddens: I think we’ll get into some more discussion on that.

Obviously, the settlement agreement process and all that is…. I think encouraging that is one of the benefits we’re trying to get to here. But also just the importance of…. We’re trying to maintain healthy workplaces. We want to resolve these conflicts in an expeditious manner. We want to make sure both parties know that they’ve been resolved as well, so that it’s not left hanging.

Is there some sort of a mechanism for verification that the complaint is considered resolved by both parties, that they both say: “Yes, I accept it”? How does that work in the system currently?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: We don’t add in extra steps that are not necessary to the process. We try and avoid that. If there has been a settlement agreement and the parties have agreed, it’s done. There isn’t another step that requires them to acknowledge that they have, in fact, agreed to a settlement agreement.

Likewise, if the employer has paid the wages and the employee accepts those wages and doesn’t say: “Well, no, hang on a sec, I was actually owed five days, not four days….” If the employee disputes what the employer has come forward with, then the process actually continues.

So there isn’t a…. The final steps are contained within the particular ways in which the dispute resolution occurs. If there’s a settlement agreement, the employer pays — “Yes, I understand that I failed to pay the wages. Here you go. Here are the wages” — and the parties agree that those are the wages owed.

In the case where the director is making a determination that doesn’t involve wages but the parties agree.… If they don’t agree, the process continues until there is an agreement.

[6:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Maybe a simpler way of me asking it, to just understand the process better…. When they go through the dispute resolution process and parties are working towards a settlement agreement, people could walk away from the table with different understandings of what was said. Is there some sort of…?

How would that agreement actually be executed by both parties? Is it that they both put in their signature to it at the table there? Is there some communication or verification process that goes to each party to say: “This is what you guys have talked about and agreed to at the table. Does this concur with your thought on what it is?”

Does that make sense to what I’m getting at, at all? Just in terms of how that works.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Really, the approach of the branch is to try to effectively and expeditiously resolve complaints. In the case of a settlement agreement that the parties agree to….

[The bells were rung.]

To be continued.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:32 p.m.