Contents

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Lawrence Joiner

Bruce Banman: I stand in this House with a heavy heart. I learned that one of British Columbia’s outstanding agricultural legends, Lawrence Joiner, passed away last night.

For those who don’t know Lawrence, there is probably not a section of agriculture that Lawrence or his family were not involved with — mink farming, chicken farming. Joiner’s corn barns were scattered throughout the valley every year.

Most importantly, he also ran the OK Ranch up in the southern Cariboo. I believe the personal acres of that were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16,000 acres. We have probably had a beefsteak that was grown on that ranch at one time in our lives, if we are British Columbians. Lawrence has forgotten more about agriculture than most people will ever know.

My condolences go to his family, to those who know him.

May we take a moment to reflect on the great life that Lawrence lived and what he has contributed to agriculture and to feeding British Columbians. May he rest in peace.

Introductions by Members

Heather Maahs: My condolences to the Joiner family as well.

On the other end of life, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my two granddaughters, Marigold and Violet, a happy birthday.

[2:05 p.m.]

Statements

Williams Lake Mustangs

Ward Stamer: I’d like to bring to everyone’s attention that the Williams Lake Mustangs were fortunate enough — good work on their part, hard work — to be able to beat the Kamloops Storm in their series four straight. On behalf of MLA Milobar and myself, we’d like to congratulate the Williams Lake Mustangs.

Good luck on going through the playoffs with your next opponents in Princeton.

From our perspective, and from the House, can we give them a great round of applause for their win and carrying on in the playoffs.

Tributes

Ashley Chester

The Speaker: Hon. Members, it is on behalf of all of us that I rise today to express deepest condolences to former Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Janet Austin, who recently lost her dear husband, Ashley Chester, a friend to many of us here and whose memorial service at Government House earlier today several of us were privileged to attend.

At the service, Ashley was remembered, over and over again, for his genuine interest in people and his intellectual curiosity. He was known for his wit, quiet thoughtfulness and creativity, and Her Honour perfectly summarized his extraordinary character by describing him simply as a lovely man.

Our deepest sympathies go out to his wife, the Hon. Janet Austin, his sister Carole and all of those who loved him.

Michael Sather

Hon. Lisa Beare: I rise today to honour the life and service of Michael Sather, who had been a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and who passed away on March 27 at the age of 78. Michael was a good friend to so many of us here in this House. He was a fierce advocate for the people of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and a passionate environmentalist.

Before serving in public office, Michael led a life of community advocacy in many forms. Alongside the Pitt Polder Preservation Society, he helped drive preservation of the Blaney Bog and Codd Wetland regional parks. He was also involved in fighting wildfires, studying wildlife as a biologist and being a wilderness tourism guide with Hummingbird Nature Tours. He fought both for nature and for its preservation.

Outside of his advocacy, Michael remained connected to the world around him, often spending his days fishing for salmon on the coast of B.C. or birding. In fact, in speaking with his wife, Annette, she shared fond memories of his hiking together with their daughter on the Santa Rosa trails in Palm Springs and the work that they all did to protect the land around them.

While his love for the environment ran deep, it was his desire to help people, coupled with his strong respect for community, that drove him to public office. He started with an eight-year tenure as a constituency assistant to former MLA Bill Hartley. In 2005, Michael was elected to the B.C. Legislature, where he was able to represent his constituents with perseverance, thoughtfulness and a deep sense of responsibility.

Throughout his time as MLA, he was known as someone who listened carefully, spoke honestly and approached public service with integrity and an independence of mind. Michael never shied away from thoughtful debate. He was reflective and committed to evidence-based decision-making, guided by the belief that public office exists to serve people, particularly those whose voices are often unheard.

He was a different type of politician. Michael was not afraid to uphold his values and provoke his colleagues with conversation and a difference of opinion. After all, it was his community that he was fighting for. This included reaching across the aisle at times to achieve the greater good or being present for tough conversations.

Annette shared a time with me where Michael worked with over 30 charities that had been cut off from funding. He took action, working directly with the minister to reinstate the funding, protecting all those services for people in our community.

Perhaps the strongest we saw Michael was in his public battle with frontal-temporal dementia and aphasia later in life. Michael held a master’s degree in psychology and was able to self-diagnose his disease, catching it at an early stage.

[2:10 p.m.]

While vacationing in Hawaii, he realized he was not able to recall the names of the birds that he loved. Later in life, this resulted in aphasia-related shortcomings in communication and impairment of language.

As a result of this diagnosis, Michael founded another community through the Maple Ridge Purple Angel dementia support group. Annette shared that they supported him with grace and kindness. I’ve been so privileged and honoured to participate in the community walks that the Purple Angel organized to help carry on Michael’s story and legacy.

But to be clear, this disease never slowed Michael down. He continued to return to nature and admire his environment. Beyond his professional accomplishments, Michael must be remembered as a kind, curious, deeply humane individual. His compassion for others and his enduring commitment to public life left lasting impressions on colleagues on all sides of this House and on the community he served.

His impact to Maple Ridge’s ecosystem is clear. Thanks to Michael, agricultural land was protected. He left a lasting impression on colleagues on all sides of the House and in the community that he served. Regional parks were stewarded and an ongoing awareness of dementia grew. While we mourn Michael Sather’s passing, we also give thanks for his years of service and the legacy that he leaves behind.

Given his passion for nature, I want to leave the House with a funny story shared to me by the member for Port Coquitlam. During a hike one day, Michael came across two baby bears, and he immediately thought to himself: “Uh-oh. Where could the mother bear be?” No sooner than the thought had crossed his mind, Michael turned around and was smacked down by a big mama grizzly. When Michael came to, he later reflected that he could tell he was still alive because he could immediately feel the pain. It was a story he would tell time and time again in this building.

On behalf of all the members, I extend our sincere condolences to his wife of over 30 years, Annette, his family and his friends, who all had the privilege of working with him. And I want to thank Annette and his whole family for sharing Michael with us, for sharing Michael with the province. May his memory continue to inspire a moral and thoughtful service in this Legislature and beyond.

We will all miss you, Michael.

Ram Labhai Sarpal

Sunita Dhir: I rise today with profound sadness to honour the life of Mrs. Ram Labhai Sarpal, a cherished and respected member of our community who passed away on March 24 at the age of 82.

Mrs. Sarpal leaves behind a loving and devoted family — her husband, her four children and their spouses, nine grandchildren, two great-grandchildren and many extended family members who will continue to carry her legacy forward.

Thirty-eight years ago she immigrated to Vancouver with her family, and together with her husband, Mr. Devraj Sarpal, she built a life rooted in love, hard work and determination. In 1998, they opened a clothing business on Main Street that remains a valued part of our community today. She will be remembered for her gentle nature, her kindness, her hospitality and the warmth she extended to everyone she met.

Mrs. Sarpal was also an active and valued member of the Sunset Seniors Society, where she regularly participated in weekly gatherings, making new friends and strengthening community bonds. Her passing leaves a deep void, but her love and kindness will always be remembered.

May her soul rest in eternal peace.

Question of Privilege

Claire Rattée: I’m rising on a question of privilege. I reserved my right yesterday, and I am raising this at the earliest opportunity.

This matter concerns statements made in this House by the Minister of Health regarding the destruction of addiction, homelessness and public safety data. During question period, I asked the Minister of Health:

“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.

[2:15 p.m.]

“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?”

The Minister of Health stated:

“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.”

Those are categorical statements. They go directly to the integrity of the information being provided to this House. This matter is highly material. It concerns one of the most comprehensive data sets in the world on addiction, homelessness and public safety, a data set tracking outcomes for more than 300,000 individuals — data that relates directly to major public policy decisions, including decriminalization.

I’m now going to refer to a written directive issued by Leigh Greiner from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to Dr. Somers on March 5, 2021. Dr. Somers received this letter one week after his deputy minister briefing “incorrectly stating that all our ISAs were about to expire and that the DIP could replicate all our data.”

It states: “All data must be destroyed, and all media storage devices that housed ministry data must be sanitized. This includes all backup copies, uploads and data on any media devices.” It further requires confirmation that this destruction has taken place. “Once complete, please send me a confirmation letter that these steps have occurred and the data has been destroyed.”

This creates a clear contradiction. The minister told this House that the data was not destroyed. The government directive states that the data must be destroyed. Both of those statements cannot be true. I have confirmed with Dr. Somers that he never transferred the data to the government.

In addition, the data collected by Dr. Somers was the result of numerous research projects designed by international collaborators and funded by external grants, not under contract to the B.C. government.

I will also place on the record Dr. Somers’s statement: “Any denial that scientific data were irretrievably destroyed is demonstrably incorrect.” He further indicates that this included unique data sets, including randomized trial data, that cannot be recreated. “The data we were forced to destroy included data from randomized, controlled trials that were obtained with the consent of participants. There is no way to re-create that data. Those studies alone are valued at more than $30 million in taxpayer funds.”

When Dr. Somers refers to data being irretrievably destroyed, he is not referring to general information that could be re-created elsewhere. He is referring to linked, longitudinal data sets and randomized trial data developed by teams of scientists over the course of decades, data that cannot simply be reconstructed after the fact.

This is not a question of administrative transition or duplication. This is a question of whether unique and irreplaceable research data was destroyed. The minister suggested that this data was simply transferred to another system. However, the directive before us does not describe a transfer of identical data sets. It explicitly requires destruction of the data and sanitization of all storage devices.

Instead of addressing that contradiction, the minister chose to dismiss the concern and characterize it as misleading. She further chose to attack the credibility of the researcher rather than address the substance of the issue.

Dr. Somers is a trusted adviser to governments in Canada and internationally. He is one of North America’s most accomplished researchers regarding addiction policies and services, and until this government launched our decriminalization and safe supply, his expertise was regularly sought by the B.C. government.

The Speaker: Member, I would ask the member to conclude her remarks quickly, because when we are speaking on a point of privilege, we don’t have to go into extended debate. The member can provide her submission to the Chair, and the Chair will take that under consideration and seek information from the other side as well. So you don’t have to go into the details.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member…. In order to inform the House of the relevant elements of privilege…. That’s stated on page 399, Parliamentary Practice, fifth edition.

Claire Rattée: I will just jump ahead to that, then.

First, was the House misled? There is a clear and direct contradiction between what the minister told this House and what is set out in a written directive issued by government. The minister stated that the data was not destroyed while the directive explicitly requires that it be destroyed irretrievably. For the record, I have the letter that states that, and I will table that as well.

Second, was it material? This issue goes to the core of government decision-making on addiction policy and public safety. It concerns the evidentiary basis for a major public policy initiative, including decriminalization and their supposed safe supply experiment.

This government implemented a first-of-its-kind experiment, costing millions of dollars, that it now admits did not achieve the results it had hoped for. At the same time, British Columbians were told this approach was evidence-based. Dr. Somers’s team had designed an evaluation plan for B.C.’s….

The Speaker: Member, again, all the Chair needs to hear are the elements of the privilege question that you are raising. We don’t need a detailed submission. You can provide that in writing to me.

Claire Rattée: I will provide it in writing, then.

The last point is, was there intent or recklessness? I think I’ve already gone over that in some detail.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you find that a prima facie breach of privilege exists so that this matter may be properly considered by this House. I will table these documents.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Government will take its time, and the minister will respond at a later opportunity.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson: In here, I call continued second reading on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

In Section C, Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Bryan Tepper: I was partway through my speech and was put off till today. I’d just finished actually through clause 20 so moving on from that.

I would actually, before I get started…. I had time to reminisce about what debate has gone on before myself. I note that I’m very glad to see that there has been a lot of agreement with the Third Party, with my comments that I had made after the fact, and even from some of the government speakers that had agreed on a lot of my points.

I will start again at Bill 11. It talks tough on safety, but it ignores unsafe housing conditions that fuel the problems day after 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 section 4.8 simply allow eviction of people found with weapons and nothing further. No mandatory police involvement, no risk assessments and no protections for elderly residents nearby who could be in danger 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.

[2:25 p.m.]

Locking people out inflames conflict, especially for those in crisis. Who responds when a tenant is armed? It’s not clarified. Eviction takes time, unlike current 911 urgency.

Bill 11 expands eviction but ignores smoke, fires and unsafe buildings. Supportive housing needs staffing, safety and treatment, not punishment. This is about looking tough, not real work.

Consider real stories. In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, fires from butane torches have killed residents in SROs with faulty sprinklers. Current RTA doesn’t fix buildings. Bill 11 seizes torches but ignores wiring. Elderly tenants with dementia wander into danger. Lockouts exacerbate this. Municipalities like Surrey and Burnaby report endless calls, needles, overdoses, yet no mandatory supports here.

Compared to current law, Bill 11 weakens tenant property rights in section 32 without reciprocal landlord duties for safe housing. Eviction expansions under section 47 sound strong, but residential tenancy branch backlogs, RTB, mean delays, displacing problems.

Weapons clause. Current danger grounds actually do cover it. This just rebrands without urgency.

No protection for recovery folks. Eviction sends them back to the streets, worsening cycles. If serious about safety, mandate 24-7 staffing ratios, fire retrofits, addiction services. There are none here. Fund treatment beds. Consult first responders. We’ve had silence.

The elderly deserve dignity, walkers, meds, safe spaces that we provide to our college students, but government dodges costs, fools municipalities with eviction carrots. Problems displaced, not solved.

They say: “Fix the system. Enforce building codes. Integrate services.” This bill fails. It’s symbolic, not substantive. British Columbians demand more in 2026, but this appears to be par for the course for this government — bills full of symbolic wording, but no real effect to those words. This displaces risk rather than eliminating it at the source. I’ve found myself saying that every day this week during speeches and debate.

British Columbians expect far more than this kind of symbolic legislation from their government in 2026. They expect homes that are genuinely safe and supportive for all residents, not regulatory experiments that prioritize political optics over real outcomes and try to fool municipalities into accepting more of the same failed approach that has caused so many problems already. This bill fails that fundamental test.

I have a little bit of time left, so I actually would like to say a couple of more things. On this bill, I’ve found that strengths are minimal and procedural, with clearer definitions. There’s some consistency in how supportive housing fits under the RTA, and it does have the targeted weapons language that operators have requested.

But weaknesses dominate this entire thing. Everything of substance is delegated to future regulation. We have no minimum staffing, no mandatory supports, no police integration required at all. Tenant protections, looking through it, are diluted. We have property seizure, access restrictions, easier evictions with vague safeguards, left to cabinet though.

[2:30 p.m.]

This bill ignores root causes — underfunded treatment, crumbling buildings and absent on-site clinical supports. It creates real risks of abuse or displacement of the very vulnerable people it claims to help.

This bill has had critics, which are tenant advocates. They’re already warning it could increase homelessness by making eviction easier, which…. I will note the Third Party mentioned that that exact scenario was their number one fear in this bill.

It has become classic incrementalism. We respond to operator and municipal pressure with regulatory tweaks and headlining safety measures while dodging the far harder and more expensive work of funding actual supports, enforcement and treatment.

No one wants to be seen as soft on weapons in supportive housing, but this bill solves none of the underlying policy failures. To me, it appears this is more political management of municipal backlash than really genuine system reform.

So I would thank you, Madam Speaker, and have my seat.

Hon. Grace Lore: I’m grateful to be here today and to have a chance to speak to this legislation. I’m also grateful to the Minister of Housing for bringing the work here forward. A lot was done to thread a needle to balance really difficult questions, and this legislation, in my opinion, does this.

As the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I represent a lot of communities with supportive housing in them, and I represent a lot of people who need and have benefited from supportive housing. That includes the provision of meals, available supports, life skills training and other care and services that sometimes people need.

There is a lot of this supportive housing in the community I represent. Unlike some, I think this is a good thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think my community benefits from this supportive housing. It means people in my community are in this housing instead of, for example, sleeping rough or in encampments. That’s good.

One thing has been clear. Supportive housing is housing. It is people’s homes. It is meant to offer to people that sense of home, that sense of stability and the services and supports that our community members often need.

Supportive housing, however, for all the same reasons that it’s essential, especially for those who need additional supports than they can access in market or low-income housing — for those facing substance use, mental health or concurrent disorders; for those who have experienced brain injury or addiction; or any number of other reasons that people need supportive housing — can have its own challenges.

This is what these changes are about. It’s about giving practical, usable tools — tools that reflect the reality in supportive housing — while still protecting the rights of tenants and keeping supportive housing under the RTA.

It’s not about choosing between safety and rights. It’s about doing both and doing both well. Frankly, that’s what providers need. It’s what communities need. It’s also what tenants themselves deserve. They deserve protection of their rights as tenants, and they deserve safety and security in their own buildings.

Let me walk through what some of these changes actually do. I do this because some of these changes reflect conversations I’ve had with community providers who are looking for new tools and who are looking to do something other than eviction.

First, and very importantly, this legislation provides a clearer, stronger tool to deal with weapons. Of course, supportive housing has always had rules around weapons. The ban is not new. Until now, though, providers have often had to prove not just that a weapon was present but that it was used or intended to be used to cause harm. That can create delays and uncertainty and risk.

[2:35 p.m.]

This legislation and these amendments fix that change. Now the presence of a weapon, whether it’s a firearm or a replica, whether it’s Tasers or other dangerous items…. The existence of them themselves can be sufficient grounds to end a tenancy.

That’s a practical shift. It means providers can act earlier. It means less time spent building complex evidence when providers know and the neighbours of someone with a weapon in their supportive housing know that the whole building community would be better served.

Now, this concrete change, this practical and usable change, is one of many. I’m going to share a few others. I also want to ground us in something really important. The vast majority of people living in supportive housing are doing exactly what all of us want. They’re working towards stability, healing and building a sense of home. They’re our neighbours, community members, people trying to build or move their lives forward.

When I talk about the challenges, say, of weapons in supportive housing, I do so to talk about the tools that are available and what supports might need to be there to help someone do just that — to rebuild their lives.

In doing so, it’s important that we don’t suggest that people in supportive housing are inherently dangerous or not worthy of safety and security. We need to be able to ensure that folks have safety in their own units to pursue that life improvement, to find that stability. This is the balance that this legislation is seeking to find.

In those cases where something difficult happens, where there’s a real and immediate risk to other tenants, to staff, to the broader community…. When those moments happen, we know that in the past, providers have not always had, and they tell us they have not had, the tools that they need to respond quickly and safely. So this is about those practical, usable tools.

I need to say that for myself, in my community with significant amounts of affordable and supportive housing, there have been real tragedies. There has been violence. There has been loss. But there has also been hope. There has also been recovery. There has also been connection. We add these practical tools so that there can be more of the latter and less of the former.

These changes also provide a continuum of response, not just eviction. This is a direct ask I’ve had from my community. These are conversations I’ve had with housing providers, particularly those who’ve dedicated their lives to creating housing, to ensuring everything possible is done for those folks that we might call “hard to home, hard to house.”

I hate that language. People need services and supports. They are not inherently hard to house. Folks have had experiences, violence, brain injury.

There are folks in our community who dedicate their lives to wrapping around these neighbours, to making sure everything possible is done, that they can be housed and stay housed. Part of this, part of their ask, is a continuum of options and not just eviction.

Before these changes in the status quo, it could be difficult to manage a dangerous situation with limited tools, or it could force moving straight to eviction. Neither of these options work well in complex human environments with complex neighbours and tenants, like supportive housing.

Housing providers in our community that I know are not in the business of housing to evict people, though of course it is a necessary tool. It’s an important tool. But I think of one housing provider in particular who told me about the nature of the work, the work to support people with harm reduction, with care, with recovery.

[2:40 p.m.]

They need the tools and opportunities to keep folks connected in their housing. They need the tools and opportunities so they can share and provide those tools and opportunities with their neighbours. That is what these changes offer.

Amendments will create, essentially, a cooling-off period. Not every situation should result in someone losing their housing. Sometimes what is needed is time, space, de-escalation.

This tool allows providers, again, to respond immediately to safety risks, because we must stabilize a situation and, where possible, preserve tenancy. People who are living, say, with addiction or concurrent addiction and mental health, who’ve had brain injuries, don’t disappear when they are evicted. They remain in our communities, and they do so with less support, less security, less stability.

This is not about forcing staff and tenants to remain in an unsafe situation either while trying to keep someone housed or while a complex process unfolds to move towards eviction. It’s about something different altogether, alternative tools.

There are also faster, clearer pathways for urgent action, because sometimes these situations do require speed and clarity. Providers have told us when serious incidents occur — violence, fire-setting, repeated threats — the system can be too slow to respond. These changes support faster access to the residential tenancy branch in these high-risk cases. Instead of prolonged uncertainty, there’s a clear path forward — immediate safety measures followed by a fair and expediated process.

That’s the balance. Quick action and due process. Both are essential, and they’re essential to staff doing the work and to tenants, both the tenant involved and their neighbours.

Again, I want to ground all of my comments here in two realities.

Most folks, I would say all folks, in supportive housing are trying to rebuild or build lives; to move forward; to get the security, hope, connection and services that all people deserve. Yet these are complex environments. These are situations in which we need to be able to react to someone quickly.

The second thing I want to ground my remarks in, once again, is the reality of some instances in supportive housing. Again, in my community, that has been violence in cases, that has been the loss of people. Providers need these tools, and their neighbours deserve quick action as well.

Several tools to manage guests. Sometimes the risk doesn’t come from a tenant; it comes from someone brought into the building. The amendments provide stronger abilities to enforce guest policies, limit access when needed and respond to non-residents when they are creating unsafe conditions.

I know some of the situations here in Victoria that have raised significant concern were the result of guests, not tenants. Residents don’t want to live in buildings that aren’t secure themselves. They don’t want to live in places that aren’t safe from the guests of their other tenants. These tools are necessary.

We’re also talking about protection for workers and others. These changes strengthen these broader protections. While tenants need a safe place to live and people deserve housing, staff also have a right to work in safety, to go to work and know their safety is an equal consideration. So now providers will have clearer authority to act when anyone on site, not just a tenant, is put at risk.

Finally, these changes bring more clarity, greater clarity, between supportive and transitional housing. That may sound technical, but it has real-world impacts. Transitional housing is meant to be that — transitional, temporary. It’s not meant to be a forever home. Clarifying the difference provides understanding of what rules apply when and where, ensures tenants can understand their rights and ensures that response is quick and appropriate to the type of housing involved.

Let’s also be clear what this bill is not doing. These changes are not about making it easier to evict people. In fact, creating additional tools is about the exact opposite.

[2:45 p.m.]

When we have tools to de-escalate and preserve housing, we’re talking about less eviction, not more. When eviction is necessary, though, it should have both quick results and due process.

Also, supportive housing remains, of course, under the Residential Tenancy Act, so tenants keep their rights. Due process remains in place, but it is about more tools for cooling off or accountability. It is about being able to act fast, especially when tenants or staff are unsafe.

This bill, these amendments, are part of a broader commitment. This bill is about improving a system, one that we have been investing in. In my community alone — I’ve mentioned my community a number of times specifically — 742 units of supportive housing since 2017. That’s huge. There are 304 more supportive housing units under construction. These are folks who are not camping in Beacon Hill Park, who are not among the folks who are still making Pandora or other locations their home.

Those housing units are the right kinds of homes, with supports. They’re meant to support people in such a way as…. Additional efforts have been made to ensure they’re person-specific.

We have youth-specific supportive housing. I can see it from my downtown office, my community office, and I love it. I love when I see it across the street. That is supportive housing for youth who may otherwise be unhoused and extremely vulnerable. The vast majority of them have had experience with MCFD. It’s about doing what’s right.

We also have recovery-oriented housing that opened just this week and culturally grounded, Indigenous-led supportive housing.

I connect regularly with service providers and recently met with neighbours, police and providers all at once. This is about collective work, community work. At the end of the day, it’s not just about policy. It is about the place we call home. It’s about our neighbours, and it’s about getting it right by those neighbours, housing providers and the broader community.

I’ll close with this. Supportive housing works. It is a gift to have it in my community. I welcome all 742 units. I look forward to the remaining 300. It helps people stabilize and improves health outcomes.

A provider in my community always tells me that they took photos of folks when they first moved in, and six months later they had to take them again. People were unrecognizable. They did not look the same. They had their photos taken for ID so staff could get to know them. They were unrecognizable. It works. It builds stronger community.

But for it to work, it has to work for everyone. It has to be safe. It has to be safe for the people who live there, for the people who work there, for the surrounding communities. These changes are about making that possible, improving the system with practical tools, balanced policy and through a continued commitment to doing this work thoughtfully, responsibly and together.

I am thrilled to support this bill and appreciate the opportunity to speak to it.

Misty Van Popta: I am here today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, a piece of legislation that, at first glance, seems responsive to the complex realities of housing insecurity in our province. It is a bill that attempts to reconcile two difficult truths — that housing systems must adapt to serve vulnerable populations and that legal protections must remain firm, predictable and just.

Yet as we examine this bill more closely, we find ourselves confronting a far more complicated picture, one that demands not only cautious support in select areas but also serious critique; scrutiny; and, frankly, concern.

Let me begin by acknowledging a few things. For too long, our legislative framework has struggled to adequately account for supportive housing. The original Residential Tenancy Act was built around traditional landlord-tenant models, ones that assume independence, stability and relatively equal bargaining position between the parties.

[2:50 p.m.]

But supportive housing does not fit neatly into that framework. It involves individuals who are often navigating homelessness, mental health challenges, addiction or systemic marginalization. It involves operators who are not merely landlords but service providers, caregivers and intermediaries between tenants and broader social supports.

In this respect, Bill 11 performs an important function. It recognizes that supportive housing is different. By formally defining supportive housing, supportive housing rental units and housing stability support, the bill brings clarity where ambiguity has long existed. It attempts to bring these arrangements into the legal fold rather than leaving them in a grey zone of partial exemptions and inconsistent application. That, in principle, is a positive step but has taken entirely too long to get here.

Similarly, the bill’s effort to remain certain outdated exemptions, particularly those related to housing connected to health facilities…. It reflects a desire to ensure that residents in those environments are not entirely outside the protections of tenancy law. Moving from a model of total exclusion to one of conditional inclusion has the potential to extend at least some degree of legal recognition to individuals who previously had none.

Yet this is where the bill’s promise begins to unravel. What Bill 11 ultimately creates is not simply inclusion but stratification. It establishes, in effect, a two-tier tenancy system, one for traditional renters and another for those in supportive housing. And while differentiation in law is not inherently problematic, the nature of that differentiation matters profoundly.

In this case, the distinctions introduced by the bill overwhelmingly trend in one direction, toward the dilution of tenant protections. Let us consider what that means in practice. Under this bill, tenants in supportive housing may face reduced protections in several key areas: entry into their units, access to their property, control over their personal belongings and even the stability of their tenancy agreements.

Landlords, redefined in this context to include supportive housing operators, are granted expanded authority, often through mechanisms that will be defined not in legislation itself but in future regulations. This brings us to one of the most troubling aspects of the bill, the dramatic expansion of regulation-making power.

Almost every piece of major legislation we’ve touched in the past year continues to move important information into regulation, where it doesn’t get scrutinized. Traditionally, core rights and obligations in tenancy law are set out clearly in statute. This ensures transparency, predictability and democratic accountability. Changes to those rights require legislative debate, public scrutiny and the consent of this assembly.

Bill 11, however, shifts a significant portion of that authority away from the Legislature and into the hands of the executive. It allows for the creation of rules governing entry into rental units, restrictions on tenant access, seizure of personal property, amendments to tenancy agreements and even the circumstances under which tenants may be evicted — all through regulation. This is not a minor procedural change; it is a fundamental rebalancing of where power resides in our legal system.

While flexibility is often cited as a justification for such shifts, and indeed there are situations where flexibility is necessary, we must ask ourselves: flexibility for whom and at what cost?

For tenants, particularly those in supportive housing, flexibility can translate into uncertainty. It can mean that the rules governing their homes may change without the full weight of legislative oversight. It can mean that protections they rely on today may be altered tomorrow, not through open debate but through administrative decision-making.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is especially concerning given the population that supportive housing is meant to serve. These are not individuals with abundant resources, legal expertise or the capacity to navigate complex and shifting regulatory landscapes. They are, by definition, among the most vulnerable members of our society. Yet under this bill, they are the ones who will be subject to the most flexible and therefore the least certain legal framework.

Let us now talk about issues of tenant rights within supportive housing. The bill introduces provisions that allow landlords to enter units under broader conditions than those permitted under the original act. It enables restrictions on tenant access to residential property. It creates the possibility of interfering with tenant property in ways that were previously prohibited.

Each of these changes may be defensible in isolation. One can imagine scenarios in supportive housing where staff need to enter units more frequently, where safety concerns necessitate restrictions on access or where intervention in a tenant’s personal environment is part of providing care. But the problem lies not in the existence of these powers; it lies in the lack of clear, enforceable limits on them.

By leaving the specifics to regulation, the bill does not establish a firm baseline of rights. Instead, it creates a framework in which those rights can be adjusted, expanded or contracted over time. In doing so, it risks normalizing a lower standard of tenancy protection for a specific class of residents.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This raises a fundamental question. Should the level of legal protection one receives in their home depend on their vulnerability? If anything, we might argue the opposite — that those who are the most vulnerable should be afforded the strongest protection, not the weakest.

Another area I’d like to discuss is the expansion of eviction powers. Bill 11 introduces new grounds for eviction, including provisions related to the possession or presence of weapons. It broadens existing grounds by replacing specific references to landlords and other occupants with a more expansive term, “authorized person,” which includes a wide range of individuals.

On the surface, these changes may appear reasonable. Safety is, after all, a legitimate concern, particularly in shared or supportive housing environments. But we must be careful with overreach.

The introduction of weapon-related eviction grounds, for example, raises important questions about proportionality and context. What constitutes a weapon? Under what circumstances is its presence considered grounds for eviction? How will these provisions be applied in practice, particularly in cases where individuals may possess items for legitimate or non-threatening purposes?

Similarly, the expansion of eviction grounds to include impacts on any authorized person significantly broadens the scope of what may be considered disruptive or harmful behaviour. This could lead to situations where tenants are evicted not for clear violations of tenancy agreements but for conduct that is interpreted, perhaps subjectively, as affecting a wide range of individuals. Again, the issue is not that these concerns are invalid, but that the bill does not sufficiently constrain how they are addressed.

It is also worth noting the changes to tenancy agreements themselves. Under the original act, amendments to tenancy agreements generally require the consent of both parties. This reflects a basic principle of contract law that agreements should not be altered unilaterally.

[3:00 p.m.]

Bill 11 introduces exceptions to this principle, allowing for changes to standard terms under certain conditions, particularly in supportive housing contexts. While there may be practical reasons for this, such as the need to adapt agreements to evolving support needs, it nonetheless represents a departure from foundational legal norm. It shifts the balance of power further toward landlords and operators and away from tenants.

Finally, we must consider the broader philosophical implications of this bill. At its core, tenancy law is about more than contracts and regulations. It is about homes. It is about spaces in which people live, rest, recover and rebuild their lives. When we create different standards for different types of housing, we are making a statement about whose homes are entitled to what level of protection.

Bill 11, intentionally or not, creates a hierarchy of housing rights. It suggests that those in supportive housing, those who arguably need stability and security the most, may receive a more conditional; more flexible; and, ultimately, more precarious form of tenancy.

There are elements within this bill that are necessary, even overdue. The recognition of supportive housing within the legal framework is one such element. The effort to bring previously exempt housing into the scope of the act is another. The acknowledgement that a one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy law may not be sufficient is, in itself, a valuable insight.

But support for these objectives does not require full acceptance of the bill in its current form. If anything, it demands that we do better. It challenges us to ensure that flexibility does not come at the expense of fairness, that efficiency does not override dignity and that the needs of the system do not eclipse the rights of the individual.

At the same time, in that sense, this bill is not an end point. It is a beginning.

We must ensure that the creation of a specialized framework for supportive housing does not come at the expense of fundamental rights. We must ensure that flexibility does not become a euphemism for reduced protection. We must ensure that the expansion of regulatory power is accompanied by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability. Above all, we must ensure that the people at the centre of this legislation, the tenants, are not treated as an afterthought.

A true measure of this bill will not be found in its definitions or in its clauses but in its consequences. It will be found in how it shapes the daily lives of those who depend on supportive housing. It will be found in whether it provides stability or uncertainty, protection or vulnerability, dignity or diminishment.

Let us proceed with caution, let us amend where amendment is needed, and let us strengthen where strength is lacking. Let us remember that in the pursuit of flexibility, we must never lose sight of fairness.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, and I do so with a growing level of concern the deeper one looks into what is being proposed.

At the outset, I think it is important to ground this discussion in what the Residential Tenancy Act is intended to do. It is the primary piece of legislation that governs the legal relationship between landlords and tenants in this province. It establishes rights, it establishes responsibilities, and it provides a framework that is supposed to bring clarity and stability to something as fundamental as housing.

On the surface, that sounds straightforward, and for many people, it is. So it is entirely reasonable to ask why changes of this magnitude are being brought forward at this time, who has been asking for them and whether the consequences have been fully considered.

[3:05 p.m.]

This legislation introduces a new framework for what is described as supportive housing within the residential tenancy system. It creates a new division dealing specifically with supportive housing rental units. It expands the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations, and it alters provisions related to tenant conduct, landlord authority, inspections, compensation and dispute resolution.

These are not minor adjustments. They represent a shift in how housing is categorized, managed and enforced within the province. That shift carries with it implications that extend well beyond the wording of the bill itself.

One of the first challenges that arises when reviewing this legislation is the lack of a clear and practical definition of “supportive housing.” The term is used broadly, yet it captures a wide range of circumstances that are not the same and should not be treated as though they are.

There are individuals who require affordable housing due to income constraints, including seniors who are trying to maintain independence on fixed incomes. There are individuals experiencing homelessness who require stability and access to services. There are those dealing with mental health challenges. There are those navigating substance abuse.

There are distinct realities, each with different needs, different levels of support and different expectations around supervision and safety. What this bill appears to do is bring those different realities together, under a single legislative approach, without sufficient distinction.

That creates uncertainty for those who are expected to implement the policy and for communities that must live with the outcomes. When definitions are unclear, interpretation fills the gap and that leads to inconsistency. It also makes it difficult to establish appropriate standards because the needs of one group may be very different from the needs of another. Without that clarity, there is a risk that housing solutions will be mismatched to the populations they are intended to serve.

There’s also the question of who has been consulted in the development of these changes. Concerns have been raised about the process; about the level of engagement; and about the absence of key voices, particularly those involved in public safety. Fire service stakeholders and emergency responders have been clear in expressing that their concerns have not been adequately addressed.

These are individuals who understand how buildings function under pressure, who respond when situations escalate and who are often the last line of defence when something goes wrong. Their perspective is not theoretical. It is based on experience. It reflects what is happening on the ground in communities across the province.

When those voices are not meaningfully included in the development of legislation that directly affects the environments they respond to, it raises serious questions about whether the full scope of risk has been considered.

This bill addresses tenant behaviour, and it does so in a way that suggests conduct is at the centre of the issue. While behaviour is certainly a factor in any housing environment, it’s not the only factor, and, in many cases, it is not the root cause of the challenges that are being observed. There are broader issues that come into play, including building safety, security staffing levels, maintenance and environmental conditions within the units themselves.

There are also concerns related to drug activity within these spaces, which adds another layer of complexity that cannot be addressed simply through tenancy provisions.

Focusing on behaviour without addressing those underlying factors risks creating a situation where the symptoms are managed without dealing with the cause. It also places expectations on tenants and on those managing these facilities that may not be realistic given the conditions that they are working in.

Housing environments are shaped by their design, by the resources available to support them and by the systems that are in place to respond when issues arise. Without a comprehensive approach that takes all of these elements into account, the framework remains incomplete.

There’s also a practical concern about enforcement and responsibility. The bill does not provide a clear indication of who is responsible for ensuring safety when situations escalate beyond what would normally be considered tenancy matters. In cases where tenants may pose a risk to themselves or others, where there may be the presence of weapons or where behaviour becomes unpredictable or dangerous, there needs to be a clear understanding of who is responsible for responding and what authority they have to do so.

In many of these environments, supportive housing workers are the individuals present on a day-to-day basis. They are tasked with providing support, managing cases and assisting tenants in navigating complex challenges. Their training is centred on support and harm reduction, not on enforcement or crisis intervention at a level that involves significant risk. Expecting them to manage situations that fall outside their training creates pressure that is not sustainable and raises concerns about safety for both workers and residents.

[3:10 p.m.]

This issue becomes even more pronounced in smaller and rural communities. Many of these communities do not have facilities that were designed with supportive housing in mind. Instead, they are dealing with temporary shelters or adapted spaces that may have little or no supervision and staff who may not have the specialized training required to respond to a wide range of situations.

Resources are limited, and access to additional support services is not always readily available. In those settings, the introduction of a legislative framework that assumes a certain level of capacity can create additional strain. It can place communities in a position where they are expected to meet standards or manage situations without having the necessary tools or support to do so effectively.

That is not a reflection of a lack of willingness at the community level. It is a reflection of the reality that different communities have different capabilities and policy must take that into account.

Another concern relates to the classification of those housing environments. Many of the buildings being used for supportive housing were originally designed as single-room occupancies. They were not built as care facilities, and they do not necessarily include the features or safeguards that would be expected in a setting where residents may require a higher level of supervision or support.

When those buildings are used in ways that extend beyond the original design, it introduces risks that need to be fully, carefully managed. Those risks are not limited to structural considerations. They extend to how spaces are used, how occupants interact and how emergencies are handled.

Without clear standards and appropriate oversight, there is a potential for conditions to develop that are not safe for residents, for staff or for the first responders. The legislation does not provide sufficient detail to address those concerns in a way that inspires confidence.

There is also the broader context of housing supply in the province. There is no question that there is a shortage, and there is pressure to find solutions. However, the approach reflected in this bill suggests an attempt to incorporate supportive housing into a broader effort without fully addressing the unique requirements that come with it.

Housing is not a single category, and the needs of different populations cannot always be met with a single framework. When policy moves in that direction, there is a risk that solutions become generalized to the point where they lose their effectiveness. Housing that is intended to serve one purpose may be asked to serve another, and over time, that can lead to challenges that affect both residents and communities. It can also place additional demands on systems that are already under strain, including emergency services and local support networks.

Emergency responders are already dealing with increasing demand, and supportive housing environments often contribute to that demand due to the complexity of the situations involved. Calls may involve medical emergencies, mental health crises or incidents that require coordination between multiple agencies. These are not routine situations, and they require resources, training and clear protocols to manage effectively. The legislation does not appear to address how these pressures will be mitigated or how coordination will be improved.

There is also the matter of regulatory authority. The bill expands the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations related to supportive housing. While regulation-making authority is a common feature of legislation, the scope of the authority being granted here raises questions about how key aspects of the framework will be defined and implemented. When significant elements of policy are left to regulation, it can reduce the level of scrutiny and debate that would otherwise occur within this House.

That approach may offer flexibility, but it also creates uncertainty. Stakeholders may not have a clear understanding of what is expected until regulations are developed, and those regulations can be changed without the same level of legislative oversight.

For a framework that has such broad implications, there is a strong argument to be made for greater clarity within the legislation itself. All of these considerations point to a broader issue, which is the need for a more comprehensive and deliberate approach to supportive housing policy.

The intent to provide housing and support for those in need is not in question. It is something that all members of this House recognize as important. The context lies in how that intent is translated into policy and whether the framework that is being established is capable of achieving its objectives in a way that is safe, effective and sustainable.

[3:15 p.m.]

The decisions we make in this area have real consequences. They affect individuals who rely on those housing environments for stability and support. They affect workers who are committed to providing assistance under challenging circumstances. They affect communities that are working to balance compassion with safety. They affect the systems that respond when things do not go as planned.

For those reasons, it is essential that legislation of this nature is clear with this intent, grounded in practical reality and informed by those who have direct experience. At this stage, there are too many unanswered questions and too many areas where clarity is lacking. That is not a position that lends itself to confidence in the framework being proposed.

As I continue, I think it is important to reflect on the communative effect of what is being proposed. Legislation of this nature does not operate in isolation. It interacts with existing systems, with existing pressures and with the realities that communities are already navigating. When those interactions are not fully considered, the result is often a layering of complexity rather than a solution of the underlying issue.

There’s a growing concern that what is being advanced through this bill is an attempt to streamline or consolidate multiple challenges to a single legislative approach, and while that may appear efficient on paper, it does not reflect the lived experience of those who are directly affected. Housing challenges are not uniform across this province. They vary by region, by population and by the resources available to support them. A framework that does not account for that variation risks creating outcomes that are uneven and in some cases counterproductive.

In many communities, there is already a sense that systems are being stretched beyond their intended capacity. Local governments, non-profit organizations and service providers are doing their best to respond to increasing demand with limited resources. They are adapting, they are innovating, and they’re often stepping in to fill the gaps that exist at a broader level.

When new legislation is introduced, it should serve to support those efforts, to provide clarity and to strengthen the overall system. It should not introduce additional uncertainty or place further strain on those who are already operating at their limits.

What is particularly concerning is the absence of clear accountability mechanisms within the framework being proposed. When responsibilities are not clearly defined, it becomes difficult to determine who is responsible when something goes wrong. That lack of clarity does not remain within the pages of legislation. It manifests in real situations where decisions must be made quickly and where the consequences of an action or misdirection can be significant.

There are also implications for landlords and housing providers who may find themselves operating within a framework that is not fully defined. Expectations around inspections, compliance and dispute resolution appear to be shifting, yet the details of how those expectations will be applied remain uncertain. That creates a level of risk for those providers, particularly smaller organizations that may not have the capacity to navigate complex regulatory environments without clear guidance.

It is also worth considering the impact on tenants themselves. Individuals who reside in supportive housing environments often face complex challenges, and stability is a key factor in their ability to move forward. When the framework governing their housing is unclear or subject to change through regulation, it can create uncertainty that undermines that stability. Predictability in housing is not a minor consideration. It is a foundational element of well-being.

Another issue that arises is the relationship between this legislative framework and existing enforcement mechanisms. When disputes occur within the residential tenancy system, there are established processes for resolution. The introduction of a new category within that system raises questions about how those processes will adapt and whether they are equipped to handle the unique circumstances that may arise within the supportive housing environments. These are not always straightforward disputes, and they may involve factors that extend beyond traditional tenancy matters.

The role of inspections is also an area that warrants attention. Inspections are a critical component of maintaining safety and ensuring compliance with standards. However, the effectiveness of inspections depends on clarity in what is being assessed and consistency in how those assessments are conducted. Without clear standards that reflect the realities of supportive housing, inspections may vary in their application, leading to inconsistencies that undermine their purpose.

There’s also the broader issue of how this framework aligns with other areas of policy, including health services, social services and public safety.

[3:20 p.m.]

Supportive housing does not exist in a vacuum. It intersects with multiple systems, each of which has its own mandates and challenges. Effective policy in this area requires coordination across those systems, and that coordination must be reflected in the legislative framework.

At present, there is little within this bill that provides assurance that such coordination has been fully considered. The absence of that consideration raises concerns about how effectively the framework will function once implemented. It also raises questions about whether the burden of coordination will fall on those at the local level, who may not have the authority or resources to manage it effectively.

It is also necessary to consider the long-term implications of the approach being taken. Housing policy is not something that can be addressed through short-term measures alone. It requires a long-term perspective that takes into account demographic trends, economic conditions and the evolving needs of the population. When legislation is introduced without that perspective, there is a risk that it will need to be revisited or revised in relatively short order, creating further uncertainty.

The expansion of regulatory authority within this bill contributes to that uncertainty. While it allows for adjustments to be made over time, it also means that key aspects of the framework may shift without the same level of public debate or legislative scrutiny. That can make it difficult for stakeholders to plan and to invest in the systems and infrastructure needed to support supportive housing effectively.

There’s also a question of balance that must be considered. The Residential Tenancy Act has traditionally sought to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. That introduction of a new framework within that act must maintain that balance while also addressing the unique circumstances of supportive housing.

Achieving that balance requires careful consideration and a clear articulation of how rights and responsibilities are allocated. At this stage, it is not evident that the bill achieves that balance. The emphasis on certain aspects, combined with the lack of clarity in others, creates a framework that appears uneven. That unevenness can lead to challenges in implementation and can affect the confidence of those who are expected to operate within it.

Throughout this discussion, there has been a recurring theme, and that is the need for clarity — clarity in definitions, clarity in responsibilities, clarity in standards and clarity in how the framework will be applied across different contexts. Without that clarity, even well-intentioned policy can fall short of its objectives.

It is also important to recognize that clarity is not something that can be achieved solely through regulation after the fact. It must be built into the legislation itself. It must be present at the outset so that those who are affected by the policy have a clear understanding of what is expected and how the system will operate.

There’s an opportunity here to take a more deliberate approach, to engage more fully with those who have expressed concerns and to ensure that the framework being established is one that reflects its realities on the ground. That approach may take more time, but it is time that would be well spent on developing policy that is both effective and sustainable.

I do not believe that anyone in this House would suggest that the challenges associated with housing can be addressed through a single piece of legislation. They are complex, they are interconnected, and they require a range of responses. Supportive housing is one part of that response, but it must be developed in a way that acknowledges its complexity and its importance.

The bill before us represents an effort to move in that direction, but it does so in a way that leaves significant gaps. Those gaps are not minor, and they have the potential to affect the safety, stability and effectiveness of supportive housing across the province. Addressing those gaps requires more than incremental adjustments. It requires a reconsideration of how the framework is structured and how it will be implemented.

As members of this House, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation we pass is not only well-intentioned but also well designed. That responsibility includes taking the time to ask difficult questions, to listen to those who are affected and to adjust where necessary. It also includes recognizing when a proposal is not yet ready to proceed in its current form.

This is one of those instances. The concerns that have been raised are substantive, and they reflect the experience of those who are directly involved in housing, in public safety and in community support. They are not abstract concerns, and they should not be set aside.

[3:25 p.m.]

There is still an opportunity to address these issues, to refine the approach and to bring forward a framework that commands broader confidence. Doing so would strengthen the policy and would better serve the individuals and communities that it is intended to support.

In its current form, however, the bill does not provide that level of confidence. It introduces significant changes without sufficient clarity, it expands authority without corresponding details, and it does not fully address the practical realities of implementation. For those reasons, it is difficult to support.

The goal of providing safe, stable and appropriate housing for those in need is one that we all share. It is a goal that deserves careful attention and thoughtful policy. Achieving that goal requires more than broad frameworks. It requires precision, consultation and a willingness to address complexity rather than simplify it.

I would encourage the government to take a step back, to engage more fully with stakeholders and to ensure that the framework being developed is one that reflects the diversity of needs across this province. That approach would not only improve the legislation but would also contribute to more effective outcomes in the long term.

Macklin McCall: I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, and specifically to the parts of this legislation that are being presented as addressing safety within supportive housing.

Let me say this at the outset. Safety in supportive housing matters. It matters to the people who live there, it matters to the workers who show up every day, and it matters to the communities around these buildings who are relying on the system to function properly. When it doesn’t, we don’t see small consequences. We see escalation. We see instability. And, in many cases, we see real risk, both to the people inside those buildings and the people responding to them.

Now, this bill is being framed as a step toward improving safety. But when you actually read it, when you look at what it does and, just as importantly, what it does not do, a very different picture starts to emerge.

This legislation creates new powers, it creates new mechanisms, and in particular, it introduces a pathway to end a tenancy based on the presence of a weapon. On its face, that sounds reasonable. Most people would hear that and think: “Of course, that makes sense.”

But legislation isn’t judged on how it sounds; it’s judged on how it works. The moment you move from how this sounds to how this actually would be applied on the ground, you run into a very real problem, because this bill does not clearly define what a weapon is. That is not a small oversight. That is the foundation of the entire provision.

If you are going to create a law that allows someone to be removed from their housing, you need to be absolutely clear about what triggers that consequence — not vague, not left open, not deferred to regulation at some other date. Very clear. Without that clarity, you are not creating safety. You are creating uncertainty for tenants, for staff and for the people who will ultimately be expected to respond when something goes wrong.

That’s where I want to focus. The difference between something that looks like safety in legislation and something that actually functions as safety in the real world comes down to whether the people on the ground understand exactly what they’re dealing with and exactly what they’re expected to do. Right now this bill does not give them that.

This is where the problem becomes very real. When we talk about a weapon, most people picture something obvious — a firearm, a large knife, something clearly designed to cause harm. But that’s not how this actually works in the real world, and it’s not how the law treats it either.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 2, a weapon is defined broadly and intentionally so. It is not limited to firearms and knives. It includes anything used, designed to be used or intended to be used to cause injury or to threaten or intimidate another person. That means a weapon is not just about what something is. It’s about how it’s used.

That distinction matters because a knife on its own is not necessarily a weapon. It depends on the context, and it depends on the intent. The law recognizes that.

[3:30 p.m.]

In fact, we see this play out very clearly in the courts when conditions are imposed on someone after they are released. A judge doesn’t just say, “Do not possess a knife,” because everyone understands that a knife can mean many things. It could be a machete, it could be a large combat-style knife, or it could be something as simple as a butter knife.

The courts are precise. They will say: “You are not to possess a knife, except for a knife used in the preparation of food or except under specific, clearly defined circumstances.” That level of clarity is not accidental. It exists so that police know when a condition has actually been breached, the individual understands what is allowed and what is not, and a judge, after the fact, can fairly determine whether an offence occurred.

Without that clarity, you create confusion, you create inconsistency, and you risk punishing behaviour that was never intended to be captured in the first place. Without that level of clarity, you create absurd outcomes. A person preparing food in their unit, using a knife for its intended purpose, should not be put in a position where the same subject, without context, could trigger enforcement or eviction. That is why the courts are precise. They understand that the object is not the issue. The behaviour is.

Take that reality and apply it to this bill. Here, we are not talking about a criminal charge. We are talking about someone losing their housing. Yet the legislation does not clearly define what a weapon is. It leaves that to regulation. It leaves that to interpretation. That creates a very real problem.

In supportive housing environments, the distinction between a tool and a weapon is not a theory. It happens in real time. A kitchen knife used to prepare food is not a weapon, but that same knife held in a threatening way during a conflict becomes one. A piece of broken furniture, a tool, even something as simple as a rock can become a weapon depending on how it is used.

That’s the reality that the law has to account for. If you don’t clearly define what triggers action, then the people on the ground are left to guess. In situations involving potential violence, guessing is not acceptable.

This is where the issues move beyond definition and into real-world risk. Once you accept that a weapon is not always obvious, that it can be anything depending on how it’s used, the next question becomes unavoidable. Who is expected to deal with that?

This bill creates the condition, but it does not clearly define the response. It does not say who makes the call that something is a weapon, who is responsible for intervening and what that intervention is supposed to look like in the moment. That matters, because in supportive housing environments, those situations do not happen in a controlled setting. They happen quickly. They escalate unpredictably, and they often involve people who are already in crisis.

Now, I’ve dealt with these kinds of calls, and I can say this clearly. A situation involving a weapon, real or perceived, is not a low-risk situation. It is a high-risk call. It is the kind of call that requires training, equipment and backup.

When police respond to someone who is armed or potentially armed, they do not walk into that situation casually. They assess. They coordinate. They rely on their training. They have tools available to them — a firearm; a baton; OC spray; communication skills; and, most importantly, backup. Even with all that in place, those calls are still unpredictable. They can turn in seconds.

Now compare that to who is actually present in supportive housing: housing staff, support workers, in some cases volunteers — people who are there to provide support, not to manage violent encounters, not trained to assess threat levels in the moment, not equipped to intervene safely and not backed by immediate support when something escalates.

Yet under this framework, they are the ones most likely to be first on scene. They are the ones who will see the behaviour. They are the ones who will have to decide. Is this a weapon? Is this a threat? Do I act? Do I wait? Do I call police? Those decisions are being made without clear legislative guidance.

Let me walk through how this actually plays out. A staff member observes a tenant in distress. There’s an object in their hand. Maybe it’s a knife. Maybe it’s something else. It’s not immediately clear whether it meets the threshold of a weapon. Now that staff member has to make a decision. Do they intervene? Do they wait? Do they call police immediately? Once police are called, this is no longer a low-level situation. This becomes a high-risk response.

If that call is delayed because the situation wasn’t clearly understood, then by the time the police arrive, the risk has been escalated.

[3:35 p.m.]

That is how these situations unfold — not in a controlled, clearly defined way, but in real time with incomplete information and real consequences. That is not a safe system. Hesitation in those environments can lead to escalation, and overreaction without clear standards can lead to unnecessary conflict.

Either way, the people placed in that position are being asked to manage risks that they were never trained to manage. That is not fair to them, and it is not fair to the tenants. It is not fair to the first responders who will ultimately be called when something goes wrong, because by the time the police are brought in, the situation has already escalated. Now we are no longer dealing with prevention. We are dealing with response.

This brings us to the core issue with this bill. When you step back and look at it as a whole, what it is really focused on is removal, ending a tenancy, removing someone from a unit, creating a mechanism to push risk out of a building.

Again, on its face, people hear that and think that makes sense. If there’s a problem, remove it. But that’s not how safety actually works. Removing someone after a situation has escalated, after a weapon is involved, after a threat has been made, is not prevention. That is response.

Often it’s a late response, because by the time you are invoking these provisions, the risk has already materialized. The situation has already reached a point where someone feels threatened, where staff are concerned, where police may already be involved. The question becomes: what has this bill done to stop that from happening in the first place? The answer, when you look at it carefully, is: very little.

The reality in supportive housing is this. The behaviours that lead to these incidents do not appear out of nowhere. They’re connected to unmanaged addiction; untreated mental health issues; unstable environments; and a lack of consistent, structured support. Those are the drivers. That is where risk begins.

This legislation does not address those drivers. Instead, it focuses on what happens at the end of the chain. It creates a mechanism to remove someone from the situation if it becomes serious enough. What happens next? That individual does not disappear. They do not suddenly become more stable. They are simply moved to another building, perhaps another neighbourhood, another part of the system that is dealing with the same pressures and often without the supports they needed in the first place.

The behaviour continues, the risk reappears, and the cycle repeats. We remove someone from one building, but we do not remove the underlying issue. What happens? That individual ends up somewhere else — another building, another neighbourhood, often the same conditions, the same pressures and the same lack of support. The behaviour does not disappear. It follows them, and now another group of staff, another group of residents, are dealing with the exact same risk.

This is not resolution; this is repetition. This is not a solution; this is displacement. We have seen this pattern before. We move the problem instead of solving it. We respond to the outcome instead of addressing the cause. Then we wonder why these same issues continue to show up in different places under the same conditions.

If the goal of this legislation is truly safety, then it cannot stop at eviction. It has to address what is happening before that point. It has to reduce the likelihood that these situations occur at all. Right now this bill does not do that.

This is where the gap in this legislation becomes even more clear. While this bill focuses heavily on the idea of weapons, it largely ignores the risks that are most commonly present in these environments — the risks that actually drive calls for service, the risks that put people in danger on a daily basis.

One of the biggest of those risks is fire — not theoretical risk; real risk. We’re talking about open flames inside units, butane torches being used indoors, improvised heating or cooking methods and electrical setups that are unsafe. These are not rare situations. These are the kinds of conditions that lead to fires that put entire buildings at risk, not just one unit; that put other tenants at risk; that put staff at risk; and that put fire crews in danger when they have to respond.

[3:40 p.m.]

Yet when you look at this legislation, those realities are not the focus. Instead, we see an emphasis on control measures tied to individuals rather than addressing the conditions that create the danger in the first place.

It doesn’t stop at fire risk. There are also ongoing issues tied to drug use within units, the storage of substances and the presence of materials that can be volatile or hazardous.

Again, these are not isolated issues. They are part of the day-to-day reality in many of these buildings, and they require a coordinated response, not just from housing operators but from fire services, paramedics and police officers, because each of those services sees a different part of the problem. Fire sees the hazard. Paramedics see the medical impact. Police see the escalation and the risk to others.

This bill does not bring those perspectives together. It does not create a framework that reflects how these situations are actually managed on the ground. Instead, it narrows the focus. It identifies one type of risk, labels it in broad terms and builds a response around removal. In doing so, it misses the bigger picture.

Safety in supportive housing is not defined by a single factor. It is the result of multiple risks interacting at the same time — fire risk, health risk, behavioural risk, environmental risk. If you do not address those together, you are not improving safety. You are only addressing part of the problem and leaving the rest in place.

When we talk about safety in these environments, we cannot ignore the people who are there every day — the staff, the support workers, the people tasked with managing these buildings and supporting the individuals who live in them. Right now under this framework, they are being placed in the middle of all of this. They are expected to observe behaviour; to assess risk; to determine when something crosses a line; and, in the case of this bill, to recognize when something constitutes a weapon and decide what to do next.

Let’s be clear about what we are asking of them. These are not police officers. They are not trained to respond to high-risk, potentially violent situations. They do not have the tools, the authority or the backup that is required to safely intervene when someone is armed or acting in a threatening way.

Yet they are the ones who will be the first to encounter these situations. They are the ones who will have to make that call. That puts them in an incredibly difficult position because, if they hesitate, if they are unsure whether something meets the threshold, the situation can escalate. And if they act without clear guidance, they risk inflaming a situation that could otherwise have been managed differently.

Either way they are being asked to manage risks that the legislation has not properly defined. That is not fair to them. It is not fair to place that level of responsibility on individuals without giving them the clarity, the structure and the support they need to do it safely. And it is not just about physical safety. There is also the reality of what they are exposed to on a daily basis — high-stress environments, unpredictable behaviour, situations that can shift very quickly.

Adding uncertainty on top of that, especially around something as serious as potential weapons, does not improve safety. It increases pressure, it increases risk, and it increases the likelihood that something will go wrong. When systems are unclear, the burden does not disappear. It gets pushed down onto the people on the front lines, the people with the least authority to change the situation but the most exposure to its consequences. If this legislation is serious about safety, then it needs to reflect the reality of who is actually carrying that responsibility, and right now it doesn’t.

When you step back from the individual provisions in this bill, there is a broader issue that cannot be ignored. This legislation does something very deliberate. It creates powers in law, but it leaves the details to regulation. Over and over again, key elements of how this weapon will actually function, what qualifies as a weapon, how tenancy agreements can be changed, when access can be restricted and what procedures are followed are not clearly set out in the legislation itself. They are deferred, left to be determined later by cabinet.

That matters because there is a fundamental difference between what is written into law and what is left to regulation. When something is in legislation, it is debated in this chamber. It is scrutinized. It is visible to the public. But when it is placed in regulation, those decisions can be made without the same level of transparency, without the same level of debate and without the same level of accountability.

[3:45 p.m.]

In some cases, regulation is appropriate but not when you are dealing with things like this; not when you are creating powers that can remove someone from their housing; not when you are dealing with safety, risk and the responsibilities of people on the ground. Those are not minor administrative details. Those are the core elements of how this system will operate. Yet instead of clearly defining them in law, this bill pushes them out to be decided later. That creates two problems.

First, it creates uncertainty because the people who are expected to work within this system — staff, operators and first responders — do not have a clear framework to rely on. They are being asked to operate within rules that are not fully defined.

Second, it creates a lack of accountability. If the system does not work as intended, if there are unintended consequences, if people are put at risk…. Those decisions were never fully tested here. They were never fully debated. That is not how legislation dealing with safety should be structured.

If the government is confident in these powers, then they should be clearly laid out in this bill so that everyone understands them; so that they can be properly examined; so that the people affected by them, both tenants and workers, know exactly where they stand. Clarity is not optional in a system like this. It is essential. Right now that clarity is missing.

When we talk about safety, especially in environments like supportive housing, we have to be honest about what that actually means. Safety is not created by broad language in legislation, it is not created by leaving key definitions unresolved, and it is not created by introducing powers that only take effect after a situation has already escalated. Safety is created through clarity — clarity in what constitutes a threat, clarity in who is responsible for responding and clarity in how that response is carried out.

In the absence of that clarity, what you do not get is flexibility. What you do not get is consistency. You get hesitation in moments where decisions need to be made quickly. You get uneven application from one building to the next. Ultimately, you get a system that does not function the way it was intended.

This bill had an opportunity to bring forward a framework that reflects the realities on the ground, a framework that recognizes the risk in supportive housing is not defined by a single factor but by a combination of behaviour, environment and available support.

It could have brought together the perspectives of those who actually respond to these situations — police, fire, paramedics and the workers who are there every day. It could have provided clear definitions, clear roles and a coordinated approach to managing risk before it escalates.

Instead, what we have is a piece of legislation that focuses on one outcome, removal, without fully addressing how we prevent situations from reaching that point; without clearly defining the threshold that triggers that outcome; and without ensuring that the people responsible for managing these environments have the tools, the guidance and the support they need to do it safely.

The consequences of getting this wrong are not theoretical. They are very real. They affect the safety of tenants, they affect the safety of workers, and they affect the safety of the broader community.

If we are serious about improving safety in supportive housing, then we need to do more than create mechanisms to respond after the fact. We need to build systems that reduce risk in the first place; that provide clear direction; that support the people on the front lines; and that ensure that when something goes wrong, there is no confusion about how it is handled.

Safety is not defined by what we intend; it is defined by what actually happens when the system is put to the test. Right now this bill leaves too much uncertainty in the moments that matter most.

Scott McInnis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to start by wishing you a happy Easter and everybody in the gallery a happy Easter coming up.

I also want to make a note of the Deputy Speaker’s comments earlier today and how brave she was in her words that she delivered to the House. It was quite an emotional delivery, and I applaud her courage for doing that.

[3:50 p.m.]

I understand there’s quite a remembrance ceremony taking place in her community over the break, and I just wish everybody that was impacted by that tragedy all the best over that time. I’m sorry I can’t be there, but I will be there in spirit.

My comments are going to be relatively brief for a couple of reasons. One, I’m not a housing expert. My critic portfolios are, as everybody knows, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, tourism and resort municipalities and the Columbia River treaty.

Also, I live and represent constituents of a riding that has small communities and some of the supportive housing models…. I don’t think it’s as prevalent, obviously, as we see in some of the more urban areas. I’m going to try and address my comments from more of a rural lens, specifically, and some of the challenges, perhaps, that will be faced with this legislation related to communities such as Revelstoke.

I have to start by saying that it is unfortunate…. I understand where the government is coming from on this. I really do. There’s an attempt here to make these spaces safer for everybody who occupies them. I understand that component of it. I think there’s some really good debate to have in the committee stage of this bill about some of the particulars and the nuances that come along with this.

As my friend from West Kelowna–Peachland made very clear, we’re talking about a spectrum of issues here, when we’re looking at those that are in distress for various reasons. Everybody that requires various levels of supportive housing has a different story. We’re looking on that spectrum at the end result here. If something wrong happens, we kind of boot them out.

I think there’s a lot more to be discussed here as far as what the challenges are that individuals face before we get to that point. I know my friend from West Kelowna–Peachland…. His expertise specifically in law enforcement made that very, very clear.

Before I get into that, I want to say that, unfortunately, one of the housing projects that was scheduled for Revelstoke is one of the ones that’s on pause. I do have a call with an individual later today to discuss that. She’s quite upset and frustrated. It’s been a long process since 2018 to get this project moving forward in Revelstoke. I know the minister knows this, because we’ve had lots of communication.

Revelstoke is in a bit of a unique housing crisis in its own right for various reasons. But that’s a debate for another day.

Some of the supportive housing that we’re talking about here in the communities I represent are small organizations, and the units are not large, like with the number of rooms. In turn, they are staffed at a bare minimum. Sometimes it’s kind of a skeleton staff.

I know a lot of these staff members are not necessarily equipped with the skills and the training needed for some of the situations, the crisis situations, that arise when individuals, for various reasons, whether it’s mental health challenges or addiction issues, are faced with a crisis. A lot of the employees at these various centres just simply don’t have the training or the expertise available to them in order to deal with some of these situations.

I really worry, to be honest with you, about…. Situations do arise in the small communities. I’ve spoken with the RCMP and operators about this as well. Although it’s a little bit different than we see, I think, in some of the more urban centres, they do arise. It’s complicated, and it’s difficult for folks who run some of these facilities to deal with those situations. I worry that with some of the regulation and legislation that comes down here, by essentially locking people out, that might escalate some of these situations and perhaps create a situation that’s worse than what we see.

The reality is that in Columbia River–Revelstoke, we don’t have a lot of full-circle wraparound services. We don’t have the additional shelter spaces, detox facilities and other services that are required for people that are going through challenges in their life.

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s a by-product of…. Again, our communities are quite small, and these issues that we’re talking about are fairly localized. Having said that, like I mentioned, they still exist.

With the enforcement piece here…. Just to kind of lay a bit of a picture out for this, our first responders in Columbia River–Revelstoke are world-class. I want to start by saying that. But at times, they can be a little bit understaffed. The resources aren’t quite there for several reasons, particularly the geography.

Police and fire in Columbia River–Revelstoke are managing quite a large geographical area. I’ve spoken to the firefighters in Golden many times, as well as Revelstoke, and I’m using these two specific examples for this reason. They cover a huge area over Kicking Horse Pass between the two communities, Golden and Revelstoke. When there are accidents, the ability for them to respond to these issues can be very strained at times — to these situations that will arise from, I think, the intention of this legislation.

I just worry a little bit here. I didn’t see…. Again, I think it’s a good conversation for committee stage. We’re looking at the removal of weapons, which I think is a positive step in the right direction, obviously, to keep everybody safe in these housing units.

As everybody has mentioned, a weapon can be fairly subjective. I know the member for Saanich North and the Islands mentioned a broom handle. Others had mentioned forks, steak knives. These things can be used as weapons, so I think we have to sort of delineate. What does it look like to have a regular tool for life, and when does it become a weapon?

I think that’s a fair conversation to have. I didn’t see it, going through the legislation, and I’m sure this will be, perhaps, in some of the regulation that’s talked about in the discussion.

But when a tenant is going through crisis and is armed and perhaps dangerous, who’s the first line of response to that? Again, I know that the folks that I know personally that are employed in these units are definitely, like I said, not trained for this.

Coming back to my point about first responders, if they are at a call, halfway up Kicking Horse Pass, to a fatal car accident, heaven forbid…. It’s the most dangerous stretch of highway in the country. That’s a reality. How do we deal with that? It could be hours before the ability of a first responder to address the situation.

I just worry about, knowing the people that run the operations, them being in a potentially dangerous situation that has an escalating chance of risk for them being a serious consideration. Again, there are a lot of volunteers that work at a lot of these supportive housing facilities in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Again, I just hope there’s a really good conversation in the committee stage about how we equip them with the proper tools to deal with what is an increasing number of people that require this supportive housing.

That’s the reality. We have seen, over the past ten years in Columbia River–Revelstoke, an increased need for this, and I think part of it is just changing social dynamics. But also, I think there are…. People come to these communities for various reasons, whether they’re working in the resort sector and then aren’t able to leave, perhaps.

I just wonder. If people are forced out of these units, there’s just really nowhere else for them to go. That’s my biggest concern, especially when we’ve seen additional spaces being paused. The result of that is increased encampments or people being on the street. That’s a serious worry.

I mean, in Columbia River–Revelstoke, when people don’t have those supportive housing facilities available to them, they end up in encampments just outside of town on Crown land. That creates a whole new set of risks on its own. So I worry about the ability to remove people. Then what happens?

[4:00 p.m.]

I think this is a pretty common concern across rural British Columbia, for my friends that represent different areas of the province as well.

Again, it wasn’t clear to me in the legislation who is responsible for the confiscation of a potentially dangerous weapon. Where is it stored until it can be properly disposed of or taken care of? I just think those are important details that we have to get around here, when we’re looking at some of this.

We did have a…. Unfortunately, in a private operation in Radium, there was a fire which burned several units a few months ago. So it’s a serious concern.

I worry, again, about how, on overnight watch and supervision and things like that, it’s often a single employee here. So again, dealing with a crisis situation, if somebody is removed or weapons have to be confiscated…. I just worry about the safety aspect, thinking about it from a rural British Columbia lens.

I think there’s a lot to pull through here. I know my colleagues who are experts in housing have a lot of really good questions to ask about the details of this legislation. Unfortunately, again, it’s a piece of legislation which enacts a series of regulations which we don’t have the chance to look at or debate here today. So we’re kind of counting on the government to get those pieces right.

Specifically for rural British Columbia, again, I just have those specific concerns that are unique to us when we’re looking at the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act here. I really hope that there’s some really good conversation and questions asked about those specific components, when we get to it.

Thank you for the time today.

Korky Neufeld: Again, it’s a privilege to be here to serve the constituents of Abbotsford West, and I’m honoured to rise to speak to legislation that impacts all of British Columbia.

I rise today to speak, with reservation, to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026. I really appreciate the lens that the previous speaker brought up, which I think needs to be highlighted here, and that is that different areas of the province have unique challenges with respect to supports, wraparound supports, for these housing units. What I also want to do is start off by talking about the context which I live in.

Supportive housing in the Fraser Valley provides low-income adults experiencing or at risk of homelessness with private, self-contained units and 24-7, on-site support services such as meals, counselling and life skills training. Managed by organizations such as B.C. Housing and local partners, key sites include, in Abbotsford, Hearthstone Place, an 18-24 month program providing 24-7, on-site supports. The second one is Riverside Road, but it’s up-and-coming — 63 new supportive housings near Cole Starnes Residence focused on Indigenous programming.

But there was, on Riverside Road, a 40-bed temporary shelter right in my neighbourhood. So if you can picture this, I would drive out of my driveway, turn right on King Road, go down a windy road and head to Riverside. Right at the corner of Riverside, there’s this 40-unit temporary housing. You turn left, and you go right under Highway 1.

Every day, sometimes at 6:30 in the morning or seven o’clock in the morning, I’d be heading off to my construction job. Then at about 4:30, five o’clock, I’d be driving right back to that same location. Here are some of the things that I noticed, just keeping an eye on this 40-unit temporary housing unit.

[4:05 p.m.]

Cars were parked there — not of people who resided there, but they were offering their goods to the people living inside the units. Drugs. I saw open drug use. I saw violent and aggressive behaviour on a regular basis. Now, I didn’t witness half of it because I was only driving by, but I know there were many visits by the police, by the ambulance and by city staff on a regular basis.

We also have, in our city, SARA for Women. It’s also another supportive service. It offers transition housing in Abbotsford for women and children escaping violence or at risk of homelessness — a great facility. I visited there. I had an event there and talked to the ladies there. It’s a really great, safe environment. Nobody knows that they’re there. It’s kind of quiet, stuck in right by a school, and it works for them.

Then we also have Lookout Housing and Health Society, which operates shelters on Pauline Street in our region — 24-7 care.

Now, what are some of the concerns in the Fraser Valley of supportive housing? These are some of the key ones. It’s not exhaustive.

The first and foremost is safety and crime. It doesn’t take long to go through the Abbotsford newspaper or to watch the news on Global or CTV to find a story relating to some sort of supportive housing unit in our province and even in our city of Abbotsford. That safety and crime causes neighbourhoods to push back. When proposed projects come into our area, they face questions and opposition and the concerns about proximity to schools, secondhand fentanyl smoke and fire risks. Those are the main things that keep coming up in the Fraser Valley when it comes to supportive houses.

Another one is operational challenges, increased reports of crime in surrounding areas. I was in my house, oh, ten or 11 o’clock at night, just before bedtime. I was just watching the highlights of the Blue Jays. I’ve got a window looking out my back here, and there’s this guy trucking off with my propane tank. So I go out and I say: “Hey, what’s happening?” He looks at me, puts it down and just walks right on by. Anyways, I’m not sure where he was from, but I would imagine….

Anyways, reports of crimes in surrounding areas where supportive housing is located, alongside the need for specialized care for residents with severe mental health and addiction challenges…. Again, I witnessed that firsthand just in my neighbourhood.

Let me begin by acknowledging what this government will say in defence of this legislation. They will say it’s about safety, and the reason is because most of these facilities have safety concerns. They will say it’s about protecting residents of supportive housing from dangerous neighbours. They will invoke images of weapons, fires and chaos in single-room occupancy and say that this bill is the solution British Columbians have been waiting for.

Those problems that they’re speaking about are real. Anyone who has spent time in supportive housing communities or who has spoken to front-line workers, who has read the incident reports from housing providers across this province, knows that the status quo is not working.

When I went on my wonderful ride-along with the APD, we made several stops at these locations in my city. So I saw firsthand what these officers were dealing with just in one shift. You can imagine now in a week how many times they go by, in a month and in a year, how many resources are spent.

People living in supportive housing do deserve safety, they do deserve dignity, and they deserve a stable place to call home. But the community around these units does as well.

The test of this legislation is not whether it identifies real problems. The test is whether it actually solves them and whether it does so without creating new ones. I would say that on both counts, Bill 11 fails on that count. This bill talks tough on safety while ignoring the conditions that make supportive housing unsafe in the first place.

[4:10 p.m.]

It dramatically expands the power of cabinet and operators to evict, to restrict and to seize while doing almost nothing to address the staffing shortages, the drug crisis, the fire risks and the lack of mental health support that makes supportive housing a daily emergency for the people who live and work there, for the community around them and for the first responders. This is a bill about looking like you are doing something. It is not a bill about actually doing the work that’s required.

Before we get to the specific provisions, we need to talk about the structure of this bill, because the structure itself is the problem.

Bill 11 is not — and I am going to repeat: is not — in any meaningful sense, a complete piece of legislation. I cannot emphasize that enough, and here’s the proof. It is an authorization for cabinet to write the legislation. When? Later — in private, without debate, without amendment, without the scrutiny of this House. That is not democratic process, and the word “democratic” is in their party name. Look at how many times this bill defers substance to regulation.

Section 4.2, what qualifies as a supportive housing rental unit? The answer? It’s subject to prescribed criteria not yet created.

Section 4.3, whether landlords can unilaterally amend tenancy agreements, is subject to regulation, deferred sometime in the future.

Section 4.4, whether landlords can seize tenant property, is subject to regulation, sometime in the future. “Trust us. We’ll get it right.”

Section 4.5, when landlords can enter units, is subject to regulation. Who knows when; who knows what.

Section 4.6, when landlords can restrict tenants from accessing their own homes, is subject to regulation. No one will be able to question or debate this now or in the future.

Section 4.8, what constitutes a weapon, is subject to regulation, not yet clarified.

Section 4.9, what compensation tenants are owed when landlords violate their rights, is subject to regulation.

This bill is woefully incomplete. It is not ready for debate. What are we debating? We’re debating something in the future. The expansion of regulation-making authority is perhaps the most consequential clause in this entire bill, and it has received almost no public notification. It authorizes cabinet to make different regulations for different classes of persons, for different classes of residential property and for different circumstances or purposes. This is an extraordinary grant of executive authority.

When we pass legislation in this chamber, we’re accountable to the people of British Columbia for what we can enact. Considering that side of the House, I need just to remind them that this is not democracy. This is not how democratic processes are made. It’s in fact the opposite. When cabinet writes legislation, that accountability disappears. The public cannot amend the regulation. The opposition cannot propose changes. This Legislature cannot reject it. This isn’t democracy.

We need to make sure, in a democratic process, that the public can see it, that the opposition can see it and that we can debate it in this House. The government has chosen to put the most important decisions — what can be seized from tenants’ homes, when a tenant can be locked out, what counts as a weapon, how much landlords owe for violating rights — not in this bill, but in regulations that have not yet been written.

So what are we debating? We’re debating a hollow bill, in fact. It cannot be debated here, and the public has no meaningful ability to shape it. That is not good governance. It’s actually a blank cheque that says: “Trust us. Trust us. We’ll get it right.”

[4:15 p.m.]

Let us turn to the eviction provisions because this is where the real-world consequences of this bill become most clear. Clauses 15 and 16 significantly expand the grounds for ending tenancy. Under the existing act that we have now, conduct that could trigger eviction is tied to the tenant. This new bill expands those grounds to include the conduct of occupants and persons permitted on the property.

In other words, individuals that the tenant did not necessarily invite, did not necessarily know and may not have been able to control could trigger an eviction. Think about what that means in the context of supportive housing. A resident whose neighbour enters their unit uninvited and causes a disturbance — I’m sure this happens on a regular basis — or a resident whose caseworker brings in a colleague who behaves inappropriately; or a resident whose family member, during a visit, gets into a conflict with another resident.

Under this bill, the resident’s tenancy can be terminated for the actions of who are not them. That is a profound departure from the basic principle that we are responsible for our own conduct. It will fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable people in the province — people with complex mental health needs, people in recovery, people who have already experienced homelessness and for whom losing housing is not just an inconvenience; it could be potentially fatal.

When we evict them, where do they go? As the previous speaker said, in some of these remote communities, there’s no place for them to go except on the streets, in a park.

Then there’s section 4.8, the weapons eviction provision. I’m not going to stand here and defend weapons in supportive housing. No one should be at risk from a neighbour with a knife, a machete or a firearm. That is not a debatable position. But section 4.8 creates an expedited pathway for eviction tied to the possession of a weapon or — here’s the key one — the observation of a weapon in plain view in a unit. It doesn’t say whose observation.

It raises more questions than it answers. What is the definition of a weapon? The bill does not say. That definition is left entirely to cabinet by regulation. When? Well, nothing that we can debate here today. It’s going to come sometime in the future. Does it include a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a hunting knife owned by someone who has never threatened anyone? We genuinely do not know because the government has chosen not to tell us. That’s why I say Bill 11 is incomplete.

Some more questions. Who assesses whether a weapon has been observed in plain view? A housing worker who entered the unit for inspection; an operator; an employee who may not have training in crisis intervention, de-escalation or safety assessment? Think about that. If someone is brandishing a weapon and you’re an operator or an employee of an operator and, like my previous speaker said, you’re the only one in the building and, in some cases, the police are far, far away, what are you going to do, put your life in danger? I don’t know.

What happens when the person who possesses the weapon is armed and in crisis at the moment the eviction is served? The government left police, fire and paramedics out of the room when they wrote this bill. It does not address who responds when a tenant is armed and dangerous. It does not establish protocols for front-line housing workers to safely navigate those situations. It creates new eviction pathways but does not build the safety infrastructure to support the people who have to carry it out.

I’ve said this before. We can write legislation in this building, but we’ve got to look at that legislation. How is it going to be fulfilled on the ground, on the front lines? Housing workers are being put at risk. Without clear rules, without clear authority and without clear protection, this is not tough on safety. That is offloading risk onto the most underpaid, under-resourced workers in our social system.

Section 4.6 may be the most troubling provision in this entire bill. It allows cabinet to create exceptions permitting landlords to restrict tenant access to residential property in prescribed circumstances, and it permits the interim orders to be made without notice.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let us be clear about what this means in practice. On the ground, under this provision, a person living in supportive housing, who is likely dealing with mental illness, possibly addiction and mental illness, trauma and housing instability can be locked out of their home, potentially without warning, based on criteria that have not been defined.

You know, I think Swiss cheese has less holes in it than this bill. There’s no guarantee to the right to notice. There is no guarantee to the right of hearing before the order takes effect. There’s no guaranteed timeline for challenging the restriction. These are all left to regulation, but regulations that do not yet exist. Again, this bill is woefully incomplete.

Locking a person in crisis out of their home does not make them safer. I want to repeat that. Locking a person in crisis out of their home does not make them safer. It does not make their neighbourhood safer. It puts vulnerable people on the streets.

We have heard from businesses and we have heard from neighbourhoods that see this day in, day out, and now we’re going to kick them out of their home when they’re aggravated, when they’re angry. Now we’re going to kick them onto the streets in front of businesses, in neighbourhoods, potentially in withdrawal, potentially in mental health crisis, potentially in danger. Now we’re endangering everyone they come in contact with. They’re left on the street while their belongings remain inside, their legal status in limbo.

This government prides itself on details. It prides itself on making evidence-based decisions. Well, let’s look at the research. The research on this is not ambiguous. Temporary evictions, temporary lockouts and temporary displacement in supportive housing populations consistently lead to worse outcomes. It leads to more hospitalization, more emergency room visits and more deaths, never mind the havoc it creates in the surrounding neighbourhood and the possible danger it puts on to first responders.

The government is proposing a tool that the evidence tells us will inflame conflict, not resolve it. Section 4.4 allows cabinet to create exceptions to the existing protections preventing landlords from seizing or interfering with tenant property.

The government has given the example of butane torches, fire hazards that pose genuine risks in supportive housing buildings. Again, no one disputes that fire safety is important. It is. Buildings with shared kitchens and common areas and residents who smoke present real fire risks, and there are legitimate conversations to be had about how to manage those risks.

But the provision is not limiting butane torches. It grants cabinet the authority to prescribe the classes of property that can be seized, without defining those classes, without establishing independent oversight, without guaranteeing that tenants have a meaningful way to challenge a seizure and without clarity on what happens to seized property afterwards.

A person’s belongings, especially someone that is at the lower end of the economic ladder, however humble…. I remember I worked with a young…. Not a young man — well, he was younger than me. His name was Bruce. A beautiful man. He was not a drug user. He’s got OCD, and he can’t even walk down a sidewalk where there are cracks without doing a massive, massive dance back and forth. He had trouble, but he couldn’t stay in a closed building.

He had an apartment, but it was full of junk. He had three storage units that were full of junk, and he lived out in the open. I’m telling you that you would look at his cart every day, and it’s junk. But to him, this cup that he found had meaning to him. That piece of newspaper with a word had meaning for him.

These are all of his humble belongings. They’re amongst the most important things these people own. In supportive housing, those belongings may represent everything a person has left after losing their home, after losing their family, after losing their independence.

[4:25 p.m.]

The right to security of property is not a luxury right. It is a foundational one, as humble as those belongings are. This bill proposes to carve exceptions into that right and fill in the details later. That concerns me. Through regulation, at the government’s discretion, again in secrecy, behind closed doors, with no opportunity for debate. That is not an acceptable approach.

But you know what? We see this again and again with this government — legislation that is not complete, that will be done later by cabinet. “Trust us.”

For all that this bill does, there’s actually a longer list of the things it refuses to do. It does not address staffing. Supportive housing across British Columbia is chronically understaffed. Workers are stretched thin, covering a multitude of floors, managing complex caseloads and — here’s the key one — often alone on overnight shifts. I would venture to say that most of the problems happen in the evening.

You cannot create a safe, supportive housing environment without adequate staffing. This bill does not add a single worker nor fund a single position nor set a single staffing standard.

Another thing this is woefully short on is that it does not address drugs. Again, from my city, there was an announcement of supportive housing units, and the community of Abbotsford is citing concerns about its location. The project is located on Martin Street, on B.C. Ministry of Transportation land, across from Abbotsford Traditional School. Actually, it’s 80 metres from a middle school. Middle-school age — what would that be, 12? So 12-year-olds within 80 metres.

The most disturbing thing about this is that until we as MLAs pressed on that, they kept the consumption room out of any announcement. Until we dug and said: “Is there going to be consumption space, drug use, on this site?” Only after we pushed did that come out. So there’s a trust issue.

This bill does not address drug issues. The toxic drug supply crisis is killing people in supportive housing every day. Fentanyl, methamphetamine and benzodiazepines are driving the violence, the chaos and the instability that this bill purports to address, along with mental health illness. You take drugs and mental health, and I’m telling you….

The bill does not create a single new harm reduction service, not one single treatment bed or a crisis response protocol. If you want safer supportive housing, you have to address the drug crisis inside those buildings. This bill does not.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Another thing this bill does not do is that this bill does not address fire safety. Building after building in British Columbia’s supportive housing stock is unsafe. They’re usually older buildings with old electrical systems, inadequate sprinkler infrastructure, insufficient fire exits and overcrowding. These are conditions that kill people.

This bill does not fund a single fire safety upgrade or mandate a single inspection standard or create a single accountability mechanism for operators who run these buildings. It also does not address mental health supports. It creates more tools to remove people from housing, and it creates no tools to help them stay there.

The government has chosen to address the symptoms of underfunding, understaffing and under-supported systems by expanding the authority to punish the people that the system has failed. That is not housing strategy. That is abdication.

I want to return briefly to clause 18 in the few minutes I have left, because its implications extend far beyond supportive housing. This clause expands regulation-making authority under section 97 to include transitional housing definitions; inspection procedures; compensation provisions; and, most broadly, the authority to make different regulations for different classes of persons, property, circumstances or purposes.

[4:30 p.m.]

That is a sweeping grant of authority. It means that government can, through regulation alone, create entirely different legal frameworks for different categories of tenants, different types of housing or different geographical areas without returning to this Legislature — with no accountability, with no open debate.

That concern is not hypothetical. We’ve seen this before in other jurisdictions and other policy areas, how broad regulation-making authority gradually becomes the instrument through which government reshapes policy without accountability. The more we move substantive decision-making from the Legislature, the more we hollow out the democratic function of this institution. This chamber exists precisely to provide that check. Bill 11 is an extensive reliance on cabinet regulation that deliberately avoids democracy.

In conclusion, supportive housing in British Columbia is in crisis. The people who live in it deserve better. The workers who staff it deserve better. The communities that are surrounding it deserve better. The families of people in supportive housing who lie awake at night wondering whether their loved one is safe deserve better.

But better does not come from legislation. The expansion of eviction grounds without expanding supports; the authorization of property seizure without defining what can be seized, that permits lockouts without guaranteeing due process and that has cabinet’s sweeping regulatory authority to fill in every important detail…. When? Later. In private. Without debate.

We believe in safe housing. We believe in adequate staffing and treatment and clear, fair rules that protect both tenants and workers. We believe that people who live in supportive housing are not problems to be managed. They are people who have been failed by the system, and Bill 11 does not solve that.

We will fight for amendments that find the terms that government has deliberately left undefined. We will advocate for workers and tenants who bear the consequence of this legislation, and we will continue to demand a government that measures success not by the number of evictions it enables but by the number of people it actually helps rebuild their lives.

Lynne Block: Actually, I sit here, and it’s such a privilege to be in this chamber. I am reminded every day that what we debate, what we say, is extremely important because it has repercussions and consequences not just for us but every single person in this province. So I feel, sometimes, the pressure, but I feel that it’s also an honour.

Today we are gathered here to deliberate on a piece of legislation that touches the very foundation of our society’s duty to its most vulnerable citizens, Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026. Now, at first glance, best motives, I’m sure. This bill presents itself as a framework, a good framework for supportive housing, a structure intended to protect residents, maintain safety and address the urgent, the really urgent, housing crisis that affects so many in our province. Its language suggests a commitment to stability, to rehabilitation and to guidance for those in transitional or supportive housing.

But like all things, you have to look at it closely. You can’t just take it for what it is. You have to look at it and examine it carefully, line by line, clause by clause. A different picture emerges — a framework riddled with uncertainty, executive overreach and a troubling preference for punishment over support. And that’s something that is really, really critical here. It’s more prohibitive and punishing than it is supportive.

It is our responsibility to look beyond the surface promises of this legislation and ask: does Bill 11 provide homes, or does it provide sites of surveillance? Does it empower tenants, or does it leave them vulnerable to arbitrary authority?

Now, I always look for the good, and I also look for where we can improve. So I want to outline some of the flaws in Bill 11, and then I offer at the end some possible positives because I always like to finish on a positive.

[4:35 p.m.]

Today outlining the critical flaws in Bill 11 demonstrates how its approach undermines stability — exactly what it wanted to do — and highlights the global best practices around the world that offer viable alternatives. One of my favourite countries for best practices, not only in health, not only in education, not only in affordable housing, is Finland. That’s one of my places I’d like to visit because I am so in awe.

This is not merely a technical or legal discussion today. It is a matter of what I would call human dignity. It is also about safety and the trust we owe our citizens — not just the most vulnerable but all our citizens.

One of the most systematic flaws of this bill is what I would call the transparency deficit. Legislation is meant to provide clarity. It is meant to provide predictability, and it is meant to provide certainty. Yet Bill 11 relies almost entirely on future regulations to define its most critical elements. That’s the cart before the horse.

Key terms such as “housing stability support” — sounds good — or “supportive housing operator” and “transitional housing” are not defined in the act itself. Why not? They should be. They definitely should be, because my idea or my view of housing stability may be very different from yours, Madam Speaker, or my colleagues’ across the aisle. Transitional housing. What I envision may be totally different from even my fellow MLAs on my side of the aisle.

Instead of defining and ensuring clarity and predictability, this act defers these definitions to future prescriptions by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Now, I don’t think that this is a minor drafting oversight. It is a fundamental failure of legislative responsibility. We are responsible. We are. A law that tells tenants what they might be entitled to instead of what they are entitled to definitely creates uncertainty. It also creates confusion. It also creates fear.

For our most vulnerable…. Oftentimes they have issues, perhaps with substance abuse, mental illness. They need clarity. They need definitive, definitive definitions.

Imagine a tenant signing a lease today, believing they understand their rights, only to discover tomorrow that new regulations have changed everything. Their access to services has changed. The conditions under which they may be evicted have changed — or even the definition of their eligibility. That’s a huge issue for these people.

Besides the people who want that housing, the operators, too, are often left in the dark. How can a staff member educate tenants about rules that do not yet exist? As an educator myself, I would like to know the rules so I can tell my students exactly what my expectations and the expectations they should have of me and the classroom are. So they go along, and then I go: “You broke the rules.” “Well, I didn’t know what they were.” How can they prepare for crises without knowing the limits of their authority?

This is a recipe for inconsistency; misapplication; and, ultimately, failure. And we don’t want to see failure here. This is so important. Often the people for this supportive housing have had failure after failure. Let’s have them be successful.

Compare this to one of my favourite jurisdictions, New Zealand, where tenancy laws clearly codify rights and obligations up front. Regulations provide operational detail but do not replace the law’s fundamental clarity.

[4:40 p.m.]

There, tenants and operators can operate with confidence. Everybody knows the rules. Everybody knows the regulations, and they agree to them.

This Bill 11, by contrast, leaves its most important rules in shadow, creating what I call a “rule by regulation” system, a system where authority is granted but guidance is withheld. This transparency deficit is not a trivial flaw. It is a failure to provide the educational foundation that supportive housing requires.

Housing is not only a roof over one’s head. It is a learning environment for these people. It teaches individuals their responsibilities, their rights and how to navigate society. By leaving critical definitions undefined, Bill 11 undermines this function.

Erosion of contractual stability. Another alarming aspect of Bill 11 is its erosion of that contractual stability. Clause 7, section 4.3 grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to override tenant agreements unilaterally. In practical terms, this means that tenants who believed they had signed a binding, stable lease may find that the government has altered the terms without their consent. The “teachable moment” of understanding responsibilities in signing a lease is absolutely erased.

I would offer that the person signing the lease in all good faith, very excited, and finds that the next time it’s all changed…. That is not the right way to do it. Housing stability is not just about the physical roof. It is about predictability and security of one’s life.

Now back to Finland. It’s called the Housing First model. Why I love it? It emphasizes this principle. Tenants enter into agreements with clear, stable terms, creating the foundation for rehabilitation and integration. What I love about that — they are what we call dry housing. People go there. They have no issues because the rules and regulations are very, very clear, and they have people who are educated and trained in crisis management, in absolutely everything. So everything is safe, it’s predictable and it’s clear to everybody — the operators, the counsellors and the tenants. Bill 11, however, removes that foundation, replacing it with uncertainty.

Surveillance and restrictions on rights is the next area which is of concern. Bill 11 further undermines tenant autonomy through broad powers of surveillance and restriction of access.

Section 4.5 limits landlords’ access but then introduces vague exceptions for “prescribed purposes” or “reasonable grounds.” Who determines what’s reasonable? What some person thinks is reasonable may not be what the tenant feels is reasonable, and he might feel that: “Gee, you’re imposing on my home. What right do you have to come in here? I did not give you permission.”

Section 4.6 allows restrictions on tenant access to their own homes, sometimes without notice. Can you imagine someone…. They are so excited they’re home. They bring their little plants home. They feel safe, they feel secure, and all of a sudden they come back and they’re locked out. How is that going to help them? How is that going to improve their lives? They’ve been betrayed.

[4:45 p.m.]

This represents a profound departure from due process. And isn’t that what we’re supposed to have in this Western world, in a democracy?

Supportive housing should be empowering, not coercive. Under Bill 11, the most vulnerable tenants risk being surveilled, restricted or displaced, without clear safeguards. We know that disproportionate impacts are most likely to fall on all those people already marginalized — individuals facing mental health challenges, disabilities or language barriers. A system that treats tenants as potential liabilities right from the onset, rather than as human beings deserving respect, undermines the very principles of support and dignity.

Perhaps the most troubling feature of Bill 11 is its emphasis on punishment rather than support. We’ve gone away from punishment as parents, as teachers, yet somehow or other, for our most vulnerable, we are choosing to punish them rather than support them. Why?

Section 4.8 introduces expedited eviction for the mere observation of a weapon. Someone may have been playing baseball down the block, comes back with a baseball bat. Is that perceived as a weapon by the operator? Could be.

Safety is paramount, yes. But this approach addresses symptoms, not root causes, and that’s the key here. It’s the symptoms, again, that we’re putting band-aids on, but the root causes, we’re not addressing at all.

Supportive housing is not a zero-tolerance enforcement mechanism. It is meant to provide guidance, rehabilitation and pathways towards stabilities. Yet Bill 11 expects housing operators to act simultaneously as law enforcement, mental health responders and social workers. How can you expect one person to be having to do law enforcement, mental health and social work without training, without clinical support or integration with first responders? That’s a recipe for disaster.

Again, in Finland, they have everything. They have absolutely all the foundation, and it all works together because they all want to be successful.

So here we have it. We have Bill 11. It is a recipe for disaster, just like so many other failed experiments we’ve been listening to. Good intentions, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, but certainly no clear and consistent processes or frameworks.

Global best practices tell us a different story. I want to go back to Finland. In Finland, integrated support services and harm reduction education accompany each housing unit. I do know that when they’re housed there, some are there for the rest of their lives, because their mental health or their physical health is not conducive for them living on their own without protective environments. And what do they do each day? Some cook. Some clean. Some do gardening. Some do carpentry. They have good lives, quality lives.

Eviction is also rare in Finland. Crises are prevented proactively. It’s not reactive; it’s proactive. Tenants are supported to develop safe behaviours, and that’s key. If the expectations are so low that we expect them to continue to drink, take drugs and be mentally ill and set fires, then they’re going to do that.

Now, another great model is in the Netherlands. It follows a similar model, training operators in conflict resolution, mental health crisis intervention and social service integration. There’s a whole network, a whole framework, supporting these vulnerable people.

Why, then, does this government keep repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results? Why doesn’t this government learn from past mistakes, learn from best practices around the world?

[4:50 p.m.]

Bill 11, in contrast, risks creating a climate of fear. Tenants are treated as problems to be removed rather than individuals to be supported. Homes risk becoming sites of surveillance rather than stability, undermining the very purpose of supportive housing.

The legislation also shifts undue liability to tenants. Clause 12 and clause 15 state that tenants are responsible for damages caused not only by themselves — they’re accountable — but also by occupants they allow onto the property. This creates an environment of constant risk. A tenant may find their home threatened due to the behaviour of a visitor or even another tenant. Supportive housing should focus on systemic solutions, including building safety, staff support and community education, rather than punishing tenants for factors beyond their control.

Now, authority without support is hollow. Bill 11 grants operators expansive powers — eviction, access restrictions, property seizure. But here’s the absolute worst part of it. It does not provide funding for mental health staff, social workers or housing navigators. No support. This is another huge recipe for failure.

It is so disheartening to observe this government repeat the same mistakes over and over again, and it can be fixed before we go down that path. This is not hypothetical. Without resources, tenants face crises alone, and operators are left to enforce laws they are not equipped to manage.

Back to Finland. Finland’s Housing First approach demonstrates that pairing authority with dedicated support staff and crisis intervention funding significantly reduces evictions and promotes long-term stability, not just for the tenants but also the operators. Bill 11 ignores this lesson entirely. It expects success without providing the tools or resources to achieve it.

Bill 11 lacks robust oversight mechanisms. There is no structured process for auditing compliance, tracking evictions or evaluating tenant satisfaction. Without these checks, arbitrary decisions, bias and neglect are inevitable. That is huge.

I see, not only in this bill but in other bills, the data is not there. Whether it be on education or health or now for housing, you need data. You need to take statistics. You need longitudinal data to see what’s working, where it’s not working. How do we fix it? That is really important.

If you don’t have any auditing framework for compliance or tracking evictions, then how can we improve it? How can we find the mistakes? How can we find the issues that are happening?

Moreover, vulnerable populations, those with mental health conditions, substance use challenges or marginalized identities, face compounded risks. Expedited evictions may disproportionately affect those most in need of support, entrenching inequity rather than addressing it. Global best-practice models mitigate these risks through transparency, reporting and cultural competency training, ensuring interventions are safe, fair and equitable.

Those are the negatives. Let me make some suggestions for reforms. To transform Bill 11 into legislation that truly supports tenants, I would encourage this government to look at the following.

One, codify rights in the act. Move critical definitions from regulations to law, ensuring transparency and stability and no misunderstandings.

[4:55 p.m.]

Two, equity and accessibility. Provide plain-language guides. Also, make them multilingual resources and accommodations for cognitive challenges. Make sure that the people understand.

Three — I love this one because it’s my bailiwick —shift from seizure to education. Education is my very reason for living. You have to educate people on anything and everything. Shift from seizure to education. Replace punitive measures with mandatory harm reduction and fire safety education.

Four, mandatory collaborative training. Another thing I just love — collaboration, cooperation. Integrate training for operators, first responders and mental health professionals.

Five, protect contract stability. Remove cabinet powers to unilaterally override leases.

Six, address systemic safety. Focus on infrastructure. That’s what my colleague was talking about today. Focus on infrastructure and building safety, not only tenant behaviour.

Seven, tenant participation. Establish advisory boards or councils for policy input. That is really important. Give them a say. Give them responsibility. Give them accountability. Believe it or not, they will rise to the occasion. So tenant participation.

Eight, have clear eviction pathways. Ensure neutral review, safeguards and accessible accommodations. I think that’s really key. Not only neutral but also objective. I think there’s the slight delineation between the two terms. A lot of the things we have right now in education or health are subjective — subjective reviews, subjective safeguards. I think that it’s really important to have it objective so that then we can all agree what that looks like.

I want to go back to my best practices. I just love Finland. I think I should go there, don’t you? Housing First provides guaranteed tenancy, social service support and harm reduction education. Evictions are extremely rare.

Netherlands. Operators receive mental health and conflict resolution training integrated with social services.

New Zealand, Kiwi Land. Tenancy laws codify rights up front, avoiding reliance on regulations.

These examples demonstrate that clarity, integration and education are far more effective than punitive measures in creating housing stability.

Bill 11, while framed as supportive housing legislation, risks creating a two-tier system, one in which the most vulnerable have the fewest rights, least support and greatest exposure to uncertainty and fear.

I don’t have time today, but I have several examples, one on the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation, one in North Vancouver and then one that is being proposed also in North Van. The pros and the cons. Perhaps I’ll have a chance in committee stage.

If this government is serious about safety, if it is serious about stability and serious about dignity, it must do more than appear tough. It must educate — please educate — support and empower.

A truly effective residential tenancy amendment act manages people with clarity, manages people with support and manages people with resources, not with arbitrary authority and fear. Tenants must understand their rights. Operators must be trained and supported. Buildings must be safe. Homes for our most vulnerable must remain spaces of learning, not uncertainty.

[5:00 p.m.]

On this side of the aisle, we advocate for legislation that does justice to its name, one that educates, protects and empowers rather than punishes, destabilizes or confuses. Let’s make this truly supportive housing legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs to close the debate.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. Throughout this debate, we’ve heard strong and shared recognition of two essential priorities: first, the importance of keeping tenant rights protected under the Residential Tenancy Act; and second, the need to ensure safety and security for everyone who lives and works in supportive and rental housing settings.

We heard from tenant advocates who emphasized how critical RTA protections are for people who call these homes their own. We also heard from housing providers and workers about the real challenges they face responding to serious and sometimes urgent safety risks. Both perspectives are valid, and both informed the approach taken in this proposed legislation.

This bill reflects that balance. It preserves core tenant protections and continued access to dispute resolution under the RTA. At the same time, it provides targeted and practical tools to help address serious health and safety concerns and to protect tenants, guests and workers.

Everyone deserves a safe place to live and work. The changes proposed in this bill support that goal in a way that is responsive to the realities on the ground.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I call second reading on Bill 14.

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I don’t know if, Madam Speaker, as the minister introducing the legislation, I get to be the designated speaker or not. I only get 15 minutes, I think, or maybe ten minutes until we wrap things up.

Deputy Speaker: Member, maybe you can officially move the motion, and then continue with your remarks.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Oh, sorry. Absolutely.

I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much. It’s my first time — a little bit of grace, thank you.

I’ve got ten minutes, but then I’ll be back for an hour and 40. I know my colleague across the way will enjoy listening to me for an hour and 40, and then I’ll enjoy listening to him for two hours as well.

It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House for the next ten minutes and then be back in a couple of weeks to speak to Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, really important amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act.

At the outset, as the Minister of Forests moving this bill forward, Bill 14, I want to take the opportunity to be able to thank my team in the Ministry of Forests, the forest service team, outstanding individuals representing our incredible forests, our forest sector, in every corner of this province. I’ve had the opportunity to be able to visit many of the staff that make up the Ministry of Forests in district offices across the province.

This is a hard-working team dealing with a very challenging sector, a very complex sector. It’s not just forestry. We’re responsible for archaeology, for range. We’ve got the B.C. wildfire service team. We’ve got, of course, B.C. Timber Sales, which is a big part of the work that we’re doing in Bill 14.

[5:05 p.m.]

I just want to take the opportunity to thank this incredible team — in particular, my deputy minister, the entire executive, a particular shout-out to ADM Melissa Sanderson and her team, Al Powelson, Amanda Fouty, all the people that worked on developing this legislation. Our thanks to the Ministry of Attorney General for their support as well.

I’m just so honoured, as the Minister of Forests, to be able to work with an incredible team. The words that I’m going to speak about today and when we come back from the break are words that are reflective of their hard work and the hard work that they do every day.

I don’t get enough of a chance in this House to be able to talk about the incredible forest service and how blessed I am to be able to have an incredible team, with a particular shout-out — in this case, that is — to the incredible public servants that work as part of the BCTS team. It’s a team that works hard every day, that has faced considerable challenges over the last number of years but is working very hard to be able to deliver a strong, sustainable forest sector for the next 100 years.

Also, it’s bigger than that. These are folks that are stewarding our lands and developing powerful partnerships with First Nations, with local governments and also with our employers, with our forest sector as well, and I’m very grateful for that.

At its core, this legislation is really about one thing, and that is ensuring that British Columbia’s forest sector is stronger and more resilient and better positioned to deliver for workers, communities and future generations. At its foundation, forestry is a source of good-paying jobs.

We talk often about the challenges that we’re facing in forestry right now and the job losses that we’re seeing in the form of curtailments and mill closures. It’s also important to recognize that forestry is a formidable sector. It is the foundational sector here in British Columbia and always will be. I think that is something that we can share, as all members from all sides of the House — our support for this sector, especially as it’s going through a very challenging time.

Like I said, at its foundation, forestry is a source of good-paying, family-supporting jobs — 50,000 direct jobs, over 100,000 indirect jobs. Again, there are entire towns and communities built on forestry and operating and living off of forestry. It is the backbone of communities in every corner of this province, up and down the Island, throughout the Lower Mainland.

I often joke with my colleagues in Surrey that Surrey is a forestry town. I was just in Ottawa, talking to Randeep Sarai, who is a Member of Parliament and the Secretary of State for International Development, and he was telling me that, per capita, he has some of the highest number of forestry jobs in Surrey Centre.

Again, forestry is the backbone of communities, and it’s also a strategic economic asset for our province and our country. It’s why we take every opportunity to be able to remind all members and all British Columbians and all Canadians that not only is it a strategic economic asset but for British Columbia, we remind the federal government, forestry is our auto sector. Forestry is our steel sector here in British Columbia. We’re certainly going to fight like hell for this sector, because we also know that there are real challenges facing forestry.

That’s why it’s so important we talk about forestry in the context of Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act. We know there are real challenges. We have market uncertainty, and we’ve seen the pressures from the unfair trade practices of Donald Trump — unjust, unfair — and the absolute attack that he’s put on our forestry workers. The workers are paying the price of that.

Also, at the same time, I’m reminded that it’s not just workers here in British Columbia, workers throughout Canada, where we see 45 percent duties in tariffs. In the case of Canfor, one of the largest companies here in British Columbia — 57 percent duties in tariffs, all because we want to be able to provide the world-class lumber to our American brothers and sisters to build the homes they need.

They know that they need our wood. They need our lumber to be able to build homes. It is so unfortunate that, in this case, the President of the United States has taken the actions he has in the form of increasing the U.S. Commerce Secretary’s ability to increase our duties.

My colleague across the way will know that we have just heard today that we may expect the next set of duty determinations to be released next week, probably in time for the annual COFI Convention, which will be happening next week, where 600-plus people are turning out to talk about the future of forestry in the context of the challenges we’re facing today.

[5:10 p.m.]

I recognize that as it’s a tough time for British Columbia, it is also a tough time for workers here and from coast to coast to coast. But it’s also a tough time for U.S. homebuyers. These duties and tariffs are nothing but an attack on the ability for young families, for middle-class families in the United States, to build homes, to build community.

I had an opportunity, as did the Premier, yesterday to be able to meet with Ian Fillinger, who’s the CEO of Interfor, a very large company — 28 sawmills operating across the country and, really, across North America, lots of operations in the United States. Ian was telling me about how difficult it is to do business in the United States right now.

In the U.S. south, he was telling me, in Georgia…. I wouldn’t have expected that Georgia’s forest sector is one of its largest job creators. But in the case of that, they are losing jobs. They lost two sawmills and two pulp mills just in the last few months.

I think we often talk about the challenges we face with forestry in the context of British Columbia and jobs. We also have to recognize that just last year, the United States lost 7,000 forestry jobs, and that’s a really big deal as well.

It’s not just duties and tariffs that we’re facing with our forest sector. We’ve seen the impacts of wildfire, pests, the end of the pine beetle and, of course, the impact of climate change as well. This is going to be really important as I dive into Bill 14 and the amendments that we’re bringing forward to the Forest Act and the Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

I think it’s fair to say, over the course of the last year and a bit, since I had the honour of being appointed by the Premier to serve as British Columbia’s Minister of Forests…. Bill 14 is reflective of the thousands of conversations I’ve had on the ground with workers, truck loggers, contractors, communities and First Nations, who acknowledge very clearly to me that the system is broken. The structural challenges we face in forestry are bigger than one solution.

I think all members would acknowledge the challenges we’re facing in forestry. I think it is often easy for folks to just say: “You can do a couple of these things, and boom, the sector is fixed.” That is not the case. Forestry has been boom and bust for decades. The reason I asked for this job, and the reason I’m so grateful that the Premier has allowed me to serve as Minister of Forests, is I want to truly transition this sector away from boom and bust to stability and certainty.

Again, it is so important that we acknowledge, as part of the conversations and development of Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act — nations, workers of all types, community leaders, local government leaders, those who care about forestry in different ways — not just the timber values but also the economic, cultural and social values.

They acknowledge that our system here in British Columbia…. I would argue it’s not a conversation we’re having just here in B.C. It’s a conversation we’re having in provinces and territories across the country. It’s so important that we acknowledge that the system is broken, and the steps we have to take to resolve it will certainly take some time.

Forestry is about people and place. When we come back from the break, I’ll get the opportunity to talk for an hour and 40 minutes about how important this piece of legislation is. I’m going to talk a bit about the importance of forestry in the context of people and place. When I say people and place, I talk about the people of British Columbia. Everyone cares deeply about our forests, not just from the aspect of extracting value from our forests but also the societal benefits that we get from our forests, the cultural values that we get from our forests.

Also, we have to recognize the formidable sector that forestry has been and will continue to be because of the work that we’re doing with this piece of legislation, Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

We represent a province, a very large land base…. I often joke that, as the Minister of Forests, I’m responsible for a land base larger than the size of most countries in Europe. We have a deep responsibility to be able to do the important work of ensuring that people and place are as important.

[5:15 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I look forward to the opportunity in the next couple of weeks, when we come back to the House, to be able to continue my remarks on how important Bill 14 is in the context of the times we’re living in; and, of course, in the context of B.C. Timber Sales, an outstanding organization that has been facing challenges. I’m fully committed to ensuring that we can get it back on track.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue debate, and I adjourn the debate.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section A reports Bill 13 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Darlene Rotchford: Section C reports Bill 10 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

The Speaker: Members, Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. The question is third reading.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call a motion to adjourn the House and wish everybody a very happy Easter and break week and safe travels.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock on Monday, April 13.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, to order.

On clause 1.

The Chair: First of all, Minister, did you want to make any opening remarks?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Sure. Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to make sure I introduced the team that’s going to be joining me virtually to help me through this, and that’s Isobel McIntyre and Gabe Hill, who are here. I just want to thank all the team for the work that they did in putting this legislation together.

The Chair: Member, did you want to make any remarks?

Steve Kooner: Yes, sure.

Once again, I want to thank the Attorney General’s department staff that’s here that has prepared to provide help and assist the Attorney General in providing answers to the opposition’s questions. I know it takes some time to prepare, so I thank the Attorney General’s department for that. I look forward to asking some very important questions about this legislation.

With the spirit of the precedent for clause 1 on bills that we canvass here in committee stage, I will be asking some general questions first. General questions will go to the intent of the bill and other general points.

The first point I have is: what was the extent of consultation in regards to this particular bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There was quite a bit of consultation done on this. I guess it would start from…. On a personal note, a few years ago, when I started hearing from faith leaders about different concerns about incidents that were happening in places of worship, we stepped in with some security funding and had been in regular contact with them.

[2:30 p.m.]

I think there were some pretty high-profile incidents that the member probably knows about that happened at mandirs, gurdwaras, synagogues and mosques.

In terms of specific organizations that were consulted, the B.C. chiefs of police, B.C. Assessment, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, courts. FNLC, the modern treaty Nations and the rights holders were also consulted.

We also did very many round tables with many faith leaders. They were from different backgrounds — whether it was Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, Catholic and also different branches of the Christian faith. There were other churches that were involved. We made a point of connecting with multi-faith organizations to talk to them about the bill and the contents of it and what we were hoping to achieve and then receive their feedback.

Steve Kooner: What was the substance of those consultations? What was discussed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The content of the discussions was, I think…. At the outset, it was about incidents that were happening on various places of worship.

Then as we got into a more detailed policy solution that ended up being this bill, we had deeper discussions with faith leaders and the various other entities about what we were planning on doing with respect to this piece of legislation, the contents of it and what we thought would be a good legislated solution to the challenges they were facing and then got their feedback on that.

Steve Kooner: What were the challenges that these faith groups were facing?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They were very disturbing, the different things that I heard that were happening on places of worship.

I heard from a Muslim organization that was talking about mosques in the Interior where groups that were promoting hate were showing up to mosques at the time of worship.

We heard from synagogues about the threats and the safety concerns that were occurring and the need for particular legislative protections. Some of them, I think, have been widely reported, some of those incidents.

We heard from gurdwaras about really disruptive protests and behaviours that were happening around gurdwaras. When people were entering, they were having difficulties. We heard from others similar things.

We also heard from churches that there were times when…. There was sometimes a very reoccurring type of disruptive protest or behaviour that was happening in and around their churches.

Just really disturbing things, and at some points, leading to altercations. Because of those kind of widespread impacts that different places of worship had happening, we developed these policy responses.

Steve Kooner: Was a copy of the draft of this legislation provided to the faith groups and advocacy groups that were consulted?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The draft was provided — of course, when we share draft legislation, we require, as is the normal course of things, confidentiality protections in place when we provide that draft, when it hasn’t been tabled in the Legislature — to most of the organizations that I mentioned off the top.

With the faith leaders, we brought them into pretty detailed discussion about the contents of what the policy asks for, but we didn’t provide the draft legislation to them. Essentially, the content of it was revealed through a slide show.

Steve Kooner: There were numerous groups that were consulted, according to the Attorney General. There were faith groups. There were the B.C. chiefs of police. There were different municipalities. One name I never heard was civil liberty groups. Were there any civil liberty groups consulted in regards to this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No civil liberties groups were directly consulted with a draft of this legislation, although I have a whole team of lawyers that are very equipped with understanding the different rights of people and individuals and how the law works.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General just mentioned there’s a whole group, a team, of lawyers that assist the Attorney General in advising about rights. Could the Attorney General talk more about that and specifics? What type of rights were canvassed and discussed, and how much of that emphasis was on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As we mentioned, I think, under the debate that we had about the safe schools act, similar principles are involved every time you create this type of legislation. This one in particular, I think, is a bit different, because you could say that there are, in a sense, different Charter rights that are at play — the freedom to express your religion, along with the freedom of expression.

These are the types of principles that, every time we design this type of legislation, we need to weigh. When we go through the legislation, I’m happy to talk through the different components of it about where we landed on those decisions.

Steve Kooner: Out of the groups that were consulted…. What was the reaction to this detailed legislation that was being proposed from all these groups? Was it all positive in nature, or were there any negative remarks as well?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The consultations that we had…. I said that initially, when we talked about it, it was the groups identifying an issue to us. So when we talked in more detail about the policy solutions we were coming up with, it was, by and large, very positive.

At the announcement, I think you saw that. We had leaders from multiple faiths across the province that were standing with us because they were appreciative of the work and where we landed.

During the discussions, I think they each raised what was happening within their place of worship and how we need to take care to balance Charter rights so that freedom of expression is balanced appropriately with the right to practise one’s religion; that we would find that balance by making sure that the appropriate behaviours are stopped in an area to provide access; and that we were content neutral in the kinds of things that we talked about on the safe schools act about making sure we were striking that balance.

The Chair: If I can just remind the committee that when the minister or the member is speaking, if everybody else would mind not speaking at that time, it would be appreciated. Thank you so very much.

Steve Kooner: We’ve heard the nature of the remarks from these advocacy groups, these groups that were consulted. But the question was: were all the remarks positive, or were there some negative as well? I didn’t hear any sorts of words in regards to some of the consultation being negative.

Can the Attorney General confirm whether the Attorney General heard any negative remarks about this proposed legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. The consultations were not…. The comments were more constructive, about us finding the right balance. Nobody has said to me that they’re in opposition to the legislation or steps we’re taking to protect places of worship.

Steve Kooner: Did the Attorney General’s department compare this proposed legislation with any other jurisdictions, whether other jurisdictions have similar legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of course, every time we step into an area of policy or legislative development, we do a scan of any existing legislation or models that we can follow. That’s a normal course of things, and we can learn from what different jurisdictions have done and where we think we should step in.

I would say the most pressing precedent that we used, and you can see that in the wording in the legislation, was our safe schools act and the history that we talked about with that and with the Access to Abortions Act that was actually considered by a court here in B.C. Those are the kind of strongest legal precedents and, I guess, precedents for this type of legislation that we developed.

The other really important one, I think, was Bill C-9, which was the federal legislation that was working to amend the Criminal Code with respect to criminal sanctions related to access to a variety of things. We were looking at that legislation as working in concert with some of the changes that we would make.

[2:45 p.m.]

I guess that was based on the fact that what we saw with the safe schools act was that by just putting in this type of bubble zone — I think, with places of worship, you can think of it as a sanctuary zone or an access zone — the deterrence level was pretty high. So if you just put this in place, it prevents a lot of the behaviour from happening and creates a safe access zone for people to do what we think they should have a right to do.

So those were, I think, some of the key precedents that we relied on that led to this legislation.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General just mentioned the Criminal Code of Canada. There are provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada that talk about harassment, talk about intimidation, talk about criminal impeding, obstruction to access.

Is there a reason, when we have the Criminal Code, which provides for some of the fundamental items that this legislation is designed to capture…? Was there a reason why this legislation was brought forward regardless of the Criminal Code of Canada existing? The Criminal Code of Canada exists, and law enforcement actually has access to it to enforce that. Perhaps the Attorney General can provide a comment on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Similar to the safe schools act that we talked about yesterday, there are a few things going on between the difference between the civil and criminal processes. Obviously, the criminal standard is different. The types of behaviours in Bill C-9 that are attached to criminal sanctions potentially are different. The standards are different.

This is a civil remedy that we know has a deterrence factor. So we’re actually using it as a tool to prevent harm and to make sure that worshippers know that they have safe access to their place of worship. And that’s a standard that we’re setting across the province through legislation like this, which is a powerful thing just in and of itself.

I will also note that the B.C. chiefs of police, the organization that I mentioned that we consulted off the top…. Their response was favourable to this type of tool. Having a geographical zone was something that they mentioned was really important with the safe schools act. That you had a geographical zone that was circled around, where some behaviours were not allowed in, was a useful tool in their enforcement. So they were favourable to something like this.

[2:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Okay.

In regards to this actual clause, the first definition is “access zone.” Can the Attorney General explain why this definition was included?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an important definition to make sure that it’s clear that the term “access zone” has the meaning that’s established under this act. You can see the reference to section 3. This is the setting of the geographical zone, which is actually pretty key to the functioning of the act.

Steve Kooner: The next definition here is “interference.” Can the Attorney General explain why that word was included and defined?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a term…. Of course, the reason that the act is important is not only about the establishing of the zone but actually defining what behaviour is not allowed within that access zone. So then you think about how these definitions of the types of behaviours actually become quite important. “Interference” is defined for that reason. It’s not just the ordinary meaning of the word. It’s a specific meaning of interference related to places of worship.

This is a very similar definition to what was in the school act. Of course, it has changed to include places of worship because of the different application, but it’s just to define the type of behaviour we would consider interference.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General elaborate on the next definition here, which is “multi-use building”?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is important, also, because I think, as most people know, a lot of times places of worship are multi-use buildings in the sense of where other activities besides worship can occur, or there can be other buildings or portions of the building associated with other uses. So the reason for this definition is to make clear that just because it’s a multi-use building does not mean it’s not a place of worship that is under an access zone.

Steve Kooner: Does the definition of a “multi-use building” include the outdoor space of that building, such as a lawn or patio or other non-indoor spaces?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the question was related to front lawns or what the extent is of the property covered, even if it’s a multi-use building. I think to answer fully, you have to think about the act and how it defines an access zone.

The access zone is the end of the property line plus 20 metres. So if there is a lawn in the front of the place of worship and that’s part of the property, then it would be included in the access zone plus 20 metres around that property line.

[3:00 p.m.]

There’s a particular thing related, and we can get to that when we get to clause 4. I can explain that in more detail about multi-use buildings where the sign is instead posted at the point of entry if it’s a complicated situation.

But we can get to that when we get to clause 4.

Steve Kooner: Just a question related to that.

It’s my understanding that we have a prayer room here at the Legislature, just as an example. The Legislature building is a very large building. Around the Legislature building, we do have lawn and property. That’s also a very large piece of land. Beyond that, another 20 metres makes it a very round, far, distant radius around the building.

We have had protests here at the Legislature, and there’s a prayer room here at the Legislature. So if this legislation were to come into force, and if there are protests happening here at the Legislature, would they be prohibited under this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To explain that a little bit deeper, you have to look at the definition that’s coming up, which is: what is a place of worship? The prayer room in the Legislature would not be defined as a place of worship. It’s a property that….

We tied it to the tax exemption. This was something we talked about with faith leaders as well, that religious institutions benefit from tax exemptions that are held under various community charters and municipal bylaws. It defines the property at which the tax exemption is allotted to.

We tied our definition of “place of worship” to that, because we decided it was the clearest way to understand which properties we were talking about. In the example that the member gave, a prayer room inside of a bigger building, it doesn’t receive the tax exemption for a place of worship, which is a different standard related to that. This legislation would not be applicable.

Steve Kooner: Let me just elaborate on that question.

I believe I used the wrong terminology when I said “prayer room.” There’s actually a chapel here at the Legislature. In addition to that, I believe…. My understanding is that the Legislature is property tax-exempt.

Now, looking pretty closely at the words in this legislation, based upon that tax exemption and based upon there being a chapel at the Legislature, would protest activities be prohibited on the grounds of the Legislature and within 20 metres beyond the grounds?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it would not be. We were pretty clear that every time you design this piece of legislation, you need to have a clear idea of which properties you’re talking about and which ones you are attaching through the signage, these types of access zones.

If you look at the definition of place of worship, it very particularly ties it to subsections of the Community Charter, the Vancouver Charter and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. It also gives a regulatory-making power in the case we need to add anything.

So that’s a very specific cross-reference to those statutes that ties it to properties that are places of worship and primarily places of worship.

Steve Kooner: Some explanations were provided, and the references were made to other statutes such as the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter and, I believe, the Taxation Act. But under “place of public worship,” subsection (iv) talks about “property that is within a prescribed class of property.”

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, subsection (iv) does not refer to any sort of statute. It talks about a prescribed class of property. How does that come into the explanation? Does the Attorney General’s explanation change as a result of subsection (iv) not referring to any particular statute?

The Chair: Members of the committee are again reminded that when the member or the minister is speaking, it would be preferred that nobody else was doing so. Thank you so very much.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason that we added that subsection, the “property that is within a prescribed class of property,” was specifically because of feedback that we received from faith leaders.

One thing that’s very important with this type of legislation is to have a clear, defined boundary so it’s very clear what the prohibitions are, and it’s limited to that area.

We heard from some faith leaders that there are…. Most of them, I think, are captured. Most places of worship that we would think of as primary places of worship in all our communities would be captured by the first three.

Some of them said that they have certain situations that are like: “Oh, we rent this place. So we’re not necessarily owners with the property tax exemption, but we rent this place.” Or there are other scenarios that, at this stage, we didn’t have a legal or legislative solution for, trying to piece through how you could define that and set boundaries on it.

We wanted to leave space for the fact that governments in the future or when people grapple with this as a sunset clause…. If there are issues that are happening in places of worship that are primarily places of worship that are outside of those definitions in the first three subsections, there would be a regulatory-making ability to add a class of property that would capture what we might have been missing.

Steve Kooner: I just want to kind of clarify my understanding here. In subclause (iv), under “place of public worship,” there is some leeway for the government to determine what would be a place of public worship, although clause (iv) doesn’t refer to any of the statutes mentioned under “place of public worship.”

So if that is the case, if we have here the Legislature and it has a chapel that has grounds around the building, does this clause not provide the government a mechanism to prevent protests here at the Legislature?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The suggestion that I think the member made is wildly out of scope with anything in the legislation. We have to remember our legislative principles, first of all, that any regulation is put in place under the context and binds of the piece of legislation it sits within.

This is clearly a piece of legislation that’s about safe access to places of public worship. I cannot imagine a scenario that’s not wildly ultra vires, or out of the scope of the legislation, that some future government would make a regulation that says the Legislature was included in that. I can’t conceive of that, and even if that did happen, it would be struck down, probably pretty quickly, in a court if the government were to take such a dramatic, out-of-scope and likely illegal step.

Steve Kooner: I have one final question here on clause 1, and I believe the leader of the Green Party has one question, as well, after this. So I will pass it off to him after I ask this final question on this one.

My last question in clause 1 has to do with the parcel. It’s stated here that a parcel means “a lot, block or other area in which land is held or into which land is subdivided” — so other area in which land is held.

How does this…? We have this thing called trespass. It’s a legal definition of trespass. How does trespass jibe with this definition of parcel? To add to that, why is trespass not part of the consideration?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Happy to explain this one. The term “parcel”….

You’ll see it’s used in subsection 4. It’s obviously important to this act in terms of defining what the clear area of land is, but also you have to remember it’s 20 metres around it.

[3:15 p.m.]

It was something that was important to a lot of faith leaders — that it wasn’t just the property line; it was an access zone around the place of worship. In that scenario, for the 20 metres that we’ve extended the access zone around, the Trespass Act would not apply. There’s a differentiator there in terms of what the access zone is, and the definition of “parcel” is important in section 4.

Steve Kooner: I just have one follow-up question. Does that mean somebody can be on their private property, and they come within 20 metres of the access zone — they’re on their private property, their own private property that they’ve purchased, but they’re within that 20 metres — and they cannot do any form of protest? Is my understanding accurate based upon what the Attorney General just stated?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to answer that question quite fully in subsection (4), because the member can look at 4(4), where private residences are excluded.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister.

I have one. I might slip in a second one on clause 1. Pretty straightforward. Considering that places of public worship are often used as venues for secular events, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the public’s right to protest non-religious events is maintained?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s, I guess, a multilevel answer to that question.

First of all, I would say that there is no reference to protests in the types of behaviours that are prohibited. The types of the behaviours that are prohibited, and this comes up in one of the future sections, are about obstructing somebody’s access to their place of worship, intimidation affecting their mental/physical well-being — those kinds of things. We picked certain, particular behaviours that are not allowed in the access zone so when somebody’s accessing their place of worship, that won’t be something that impacts them.

There’s no reference in this one to protests. If the protest does not lead to those kinds of prohibited behaviours…. That’s one answer to that.

The other one is that when you design legislation like this, it’s super important that it’s content neutral. That means that the government of the day has no power to decide what they agree with or what they don’t agree with related to the content of somebody’s political expression, because that’s not the role of government, and I think in a free and democratic society we never want that to be the role of government.

So once we define behaviours that are not allowed, it’s content neutral on what they’re about or why they’re doing it. It’s just whether or not they’re doing it. That is prohibited in that access zone.

Of course, it’s not everywhere. You have to be outside the access zone if you’re doing the prohibited activities or just the things that are not allowed within the access zone. This is 20 metres outside of the property line of the place of worship.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister for clarifying. I apologize for using the term “protest” to incorporate what is basically interference under the legislation and other behaviours. So that was a bit of an oversimplification.

Just one more. I have a very dedicated constituent who thinks that the solution to all the world’s problems is to tax religion. I’m not necessarily endorsing that, but let’s say that the legislation changes so that the tax exemption under section 220 of the Community Charter or 396 of the Vancouver Charter changes.

[3:20 p.m.]

How would the government have to change this? Would it move to prescription by order in council, or is there another method that was considered that could be used?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think probably the government of the day would have to consider two different things or two different solutions.

One is that I’m sure there would be a misc bill with consequential amendments that would have to respond to take out the references to outdated cross-references to those acts that the member was talking about.

Then they would have another policy problem, which would be trying to figure out how to have a clear definition to define places of worship. I think it’s an easier task when we looked at how you define a school ground, because schools are very regulated and legislated entities. This definition, attaching to a property exemption, was, I think, the clearest one that we could find.

If that were to happen, there’d likely be consequential amendments. The government of the day would have to figure out how to define a place of worship. Maybe there’d be a way to use those existing definitions to carry it to here.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Sheldon Clare: Would any of the activities listed in section 2 impart a criminal record upon conviction? Would such conviction be by summary, would it be indictable, or would it be a hybrid?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This isn’t structured as a…. Of course, we don’t have authority under the Criminal Code. It’s not a criminal offence. What the enforcement mechanisms are, are a ticket or an arrest, but then it goes to the Offence Act after that. It doesn’t go through the Criminal Code procedures.

I heard we were recessing also, Chair. Is that correct?

The Chair: Okay, at this time we will have a five-minute recess. I have 3:25 on my watch. At 3:30, please, everybody be back in their seats.

The committee recessed from 3:25 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, back to order. We are on clause 2.

Sheldon Clare: I wish to thank the minister for her answer to my question.

I have another one. As I understand it, you mentioned the Offence Act. I believe the Offence Act works on summary conviction, if I understand my long-ago days in taking a few courses in such matters.

In that regard, where in section 92 is the constitutional authority to make such a law, as is included in clause 2 and under the Offence Act? I’m a little confused as to how the province has the constitutional authority to make a law like this. I would just draw your attention to subsection 92(15) of the Constitution Act. I will also draw your attention to section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, about the role of the law.

Now, I know you did try to make the point that this was not criminal law but that it was by regulation, which means the imposition of a fine. And I’m to understand that there is no jail time associated with this too. Is that correct?

[3:40 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think if the member wants to clarify that…. If we got the question a little bit off, then he can have a follow-up question.

I think he’s saying that the Offence Act is outside of our jurisdiction as a province. The Offence Act has been in place since 1996, and it’s for any breaches of provincial enactments. It sits under our constitutional jurisdiction of property and civil rights — this particular type of law.

Yes, if there are breaches to provincial enactments, the Offence Act does kick in. It has been around since 1996, and there have never been any constitutional issues with it in terms of us crossing over into the federal jurisdiction on criminal law. So using the Offence Act through this piece of legislation is within our constitutional jurisdiction as a province.

Sheldon Clare: So you’re arguing that subsection (13) of section 92 applies, then, I take it. I think I understand your answer, and I appreciate your consideration of that constitutional question.

I have some other questions. In terms of the word choices in subsection 2(1)(a), the choice of the word “impede.” Was this chosen based on other legislation, or was this taken from a legal definition? What was the origin of that particular choice of word?

In order to save time and not impede the matter, I would also say I will be asking the same question with regards to “disrupt,” “engage” and “intimidate.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just go through a general answer for each of the words that the member…. I appreciate the advance notice of what he’s going to be asking. I’ll try to answer it globally, and then if there are specific questions, the member can let me know.

First of all, when we’re drafting legislation, the consideration that the policy-makers make is: does the word in its ordinary meaning capture the thing that we want it to capture? If it, in its ordinary meaning, doesn’t, there may be a need for some form of definition.

In these cases, the words “impede,” “disrupt,” “engage,” “intimidate….” First of all, those are the behaviours that came from the consultations with the places of worship. As a policy decision to put it in legislation, it started with: what were the behaviours that we’re hearing from faith leaders are behaviours that we want to prohibit in a place of worship?

So it starts from the problem statement. What’s the thing we’re trying to solve? And then the policy-makers, the drafters, would think about how to consider that in the document of the legislation.

Then that balance I talked about is that…. Can we use the ordinary meaning of the word to get the concept of what we’re trying to prohibit? If we can’t, is there a definition needed?

So you’ll see “interference” is defined, because it’s a little bit of a more nebulous concept that needed to be pinned down by a definition.

Hopefully that helps.

Sheldon Clare: To the Attorney General: thank you for the answer. It is helpful.

I wonder what the source of determining ordinary meaning of these terms would be. Did you also consult any legal references or other use in legislation of these particular words?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, you would do all of the things that the member suggested. So looking at other pieces of legislation — I’m told the word “impede” shows up quite often in legislative drafting and concepts — or case law, if it’s applicable to the scenario, to guide what words you choose to get the concepts you want nailed down in legislation.

[3:55 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I was asking, again, about the sources for those particular choices of words. I mean, I appreciate the generality of the answer, but the question is rather a specific one.

Do you have specific sources? Was this other legislation? Was this Black’s Law Dictionary? Was it another province’s legislation? Were there any sources like that considered in determining what would be chosen in use with ordinary meaning?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This type of legislation is modelled after various previous ones — the safe schools act, the COVID bubble zone and the Access to Abortion Services Act, which are pieces of legislation that came from B.C. as well.

You can see these words or similar words located in those pieces of legislation. That’s the primary guide. That was the choice of what you see before you in this section. Again, they’re the ordinary meanings of the words.

Sheldon Clare: There was one question I asked a little earlier that I don’t believe I got an answer to. Do any of these offences come with any jail time, or are they just fines? What other sanctions are imposed against a person who is deemed to have committed an offence and been convicted under the Offence Act or this act on summary conviction?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Within the structure of this act, in terms of what the punishment might be, there’s a ticket option, which would be associated with a fine that would be implemented through regulation in terms of the amounts. There’s also, through the Offence Act, the possibility of imprisonment. Of course, the discretion for that is left to law enforcement and the justice system to decide. Likely it would be the most serious of offences under this act that would lead to that.

I also want to talk about — I think it’s helpful in this conversation — what our experience has been with the school act. So of the times that this…. This has been in force for a couple of years, or similar legislation under the Safe Access to Schools Act. There has only been one ticket, and that, I think, was…. The primary method that the police use to enforce this is to just move people along, which makes it an effective deterrent.

[4:00 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: In subsection 2(1)(d), the term is “attempt to intimidate.” How is intent determined in an attempt to intimidate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Putting a concept of attempting to do something is pretty well established in the legal realm.

Let me give you an example that I think would be helpful of where this might show up. If you have the intent to do something but you don’t actually do it, then you would be captured — of course, under the discretion of the enforcement officer — on the attempt category.

Let’s give an example of…. You’re at the place of worship. You have the signs and everything. It’s clear that you’re going to be attempting to intimidate the worshippers, but nobody is there to worship. The police might be able to capture you on the intent to do so.

Or if you did do all the things that would intimidate a person, but the person is not intimidated, that would also capture it. It’s just a legal concept that’s put in place to capture what the person’s intent is, even if it’s not achieved through the outcome of what they’re doing.

Hopefully that helps.

[4:05 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your answer. That is helpful.

I wonder. Is it possible that another religious activity could be taking place outside of a religious establishment of a different faith, and this could be seen as intimidating? Would that be a potential conflict? Say religion A is inside and has the place of worship, and religion B is outside engaged in some of these activities, but they see this as part of their particular religious faith or culture or means of demonstrating their religion.

Is that a possibility that could engage this particular act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have to start with the fact that everything within this legislation is content neutral. Again, it’s not government’s job to decide whether or not the content of what you’re doing is appropriate or not. It’s just the behaviours that would be triggered into being stopped in this area.

In the scenario that the member describes, it’s totally fact-specific, depending on the facts and the discretion of the enforcement officer. But let’s say that religion B was on that ground, or whatever the scenario was, in front, and religion A didn’t like that they were practising their faith or found it intimidating.

Well, the question would be, depending on the facts: did those individuals impede access or egress to the place of worship? Did they disrupt the activities of the place, or did they engage in interference or intimidate or attempt to intimidate?

Now, I think one that would be a fact-based scenario, if one of the groups called a police officer to enforce, is whether there was intimidation in the conduct of whatever parties that were not there for, primarily, the religion of where that place of worship was.

To some extent, it’s a fact-specific answer to that, in terms of who’s enforcing and interpreting the law. But this gives them the discretion to determine if specific behaviours that are caught by this act were at play in that specific fact scenario.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer.

I think what I want to just point out a little bit more in this…. Is it theoretically possible that the activities of religion A could be intimidating to religion B, or vice versa, in terms of the activities that are, in here, called “intimidate or intent to intimidate,” just by them being practised within the 20 metres of that particular religious place of worship?

Is that a possibility, that officers would have discretion to assess, deal with and issue a ticket or other sanction?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t have a different answer than the one that I gave before. It really is fact-specific. I mean, we could sit here probably all day and think of scenarios where a decision-maker in that scenario might actually see that conduct as intimidating to the other religion or not.

When you design legal thresholds and legal provisions like this one, you always leave discretion up to the specific facts of the matter. As the law evolves, different facts get thrown at different provisions, and then there are determinations that evolve the law in one direction or another.

It’s really hard for me to speculate in hypotheticals. But yes, theoretically, I guess there’s a level…. There could be a determination based on a fact scenario that there is intimidation at play, but it really depends on what’s going on and what the officer sees at the time of arrival.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. Thank you to the Attorney General for the answers.

In subsection (3), there is a sub-subsection (c), “a prescribed activity or class of activities.” Could you, perhaps ,enlighten us with some examples of possibilities where impeding access, disrupting activities, engaging in interference or intimidating or attempting to intimidate could be prescribed as being okey-dokey at a place of worship, with regard to the other sections there about striking and things authorized by the owner, as opposed to those in juxtaposition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a typical just-in-case regulatory power.

The reason it’s there is not because I can tell you specifically what might be included in a future regulatory power. It’s just a way, when you’re designing legislation, to see if there was something that was not contemplated at the time of drafting that emerges as a societal issue or that just emerges through the course of human action that actually should be a prescribed activity — that there’s an ability to do that through regulation.

Jeremy Valeriote: A couple of things on clause 2.

In the interest of clarity and to mitigate the risk of subjective perceptions on the part of enforcement, under section 1(a) of “Access protected”, what could impeding access look like? Is it limited to physically impeding access, or would other situations be considered impediments?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: That is very specific to the plain reading of it. So if you’re impeding access to or egress from the place of worship, that’s very much a physical block to have somebody accessing their place of worship.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that.

Just also asking the minister to define or describe the terms “disturbance” and “mental safety” as they are intended by this legislation.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think it was the subsection (b), “disrupt activities at the place of worship.” This is as it reads in the ordinary meaning, that if somebody showed up and stopped an activity that was happening at a place of worship, that would be not allowed in the access zone.

In terms of mental safety, I’ll give you a really clear example. This also comes from the COVID-19 bubble zones, where people were, obviously, intimidating health care workers that were trying to make it to their life-saving work.

I’ll give you a very clear example of why this is needed in this type of legislation. During our consultations, we heard about mosques that were…. The Sons of Odin group was showing up at mosques, and they are intimidating. They were showing up to spread their perspectives to the worshippers. Obviously, that affected the mental safety of people that were there just to pray.

It gives the ability of a clear statement to people like that, saying: “You can’t show up at a place of worship around this zone and conduct this type of behaviour.”

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner: Clause 3 talks about signs and posting of signs. My question is: will these signs be multilingual, or will they be just in one language?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer to that is that it can be in as many languages as could be appropriate for the place of worship, including English.

You may have to…. The place of worship may consider that other languages besides English are also necessary for it to be clearly visible or clearly understood by the users of the place of worship.

Steve Kooner: Who has to pay for these signs, and who will install these signs?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The idea behind this is to make it as low barrier as possible. That’s why we took great care to list as many of the details of what’s needed in the legislation.

For example, if you just put up a printed sign on your door that was visible in the ways that are described in the legislation, that would be acceptable. It’s meant to be not an expensive and a very low-barrier thing for places of worship to do.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Steve Kooner: There were some questions that were asked earlier, and they had to do with the access zone and the 20 metres from the place of worship. We left one question to be answered in this particular clause, so I’m going to go back to that.

Subsection (4) of clause 4 says: “Despite subsections (1) to (3) and the regulations, the following are excluded from an access zone: a private residence; a place to which the public does not ordinarily have access.” The Attorney General referred my attention to “private residence” because I asked the question about private property. What if somebody is on their own private property? Would this legislation prevent them from doing a protest on their own property that they have purchased?

Now, this has an exemption for private residence, but that states “residence.” What if somebody has bought a piece of commercial property? They don’t live there, but they own that property. It’s theirs. They may do some business from there, or they may use it for some other purpose other than residential. Would they still be prevented from using their property to the fullest extent of their rights as a result of this legislation under clause 4 and the rest of the clauses?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The key to answering that question is subsection (b). It’s “a place to which the public does not ordinarily have access.” That’s also included. So the thinking behind that was…. Let’s say there’s a parking lot of a restaurant that’s in that access zone. That could be used to conduct the behaviours that we want prohibited, so that would be captured.

If it was another commercial zone where that wasn’t true, where the public doesn’t ordinarily have access to it, then it wouldn’t be captured.

Steve Kooner: Going back to those trespass laws, the public may have access to a certain piece of property. It may be private property. That’s because the landowner has allowed certain people to come, so it’s now accessible to the public. But that landlord or that owner of that property still has control. They could say: “Okay, now I don’t want to use it for that purpose.”

[4:30 p.m.]

My question is…. This legislation seems to state that regardless of whether it’s somebody’s private property, this legislation could apply. I’d like confirmation from the Attorney General if that is accurate.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. It’s complicated in the fact that it’s a private residence, and subsection (b), a place to which public does not ordinarily have access, is also captured.

You have to remember that that could be some area of a commercial property, but you have to remember that it’s only the behaviours that are prohibited that are captured. I think just members of the society would pass the smell test.

Like if you’re just standing in a commercial area and doing your business, and it’s separate, then that is fine. If you’re there in a parking lot of an area but what your behaviour is, is intimidating the people accessing the place of worship, well, then, it should be captured. If it’s inside that access zone, it should be captured.

So it was a way of balancing the ability to make the access zone actually have teeth to prevent people from kind of skirting them by thinking that if they just stood in the parking lot of a restaurant or something that they would be able to do that inside the access zone.

Steve Kooner: This does seem that…. Well, it seems to be an assertion from the government that private property rights will be limited to a certain extent in certain situations.

I’ll ask another question on this particular clause. Subsection (3) deals with passageways in multi-use buildings. Now, when I try to think about what passageways could be, I think about a strata building where there are multiple floors. There are multiple units. Then there are passageways. There are hallways.

Under this subclause here, subclause 3(c), these passageways…. Would that cover hallways in a multi-use building such as a strata building?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it would.

Steve Kooner: So to that extent, if that’s a strata building, that could be a form of private property too, or commonly held property in terms of hallways. It could involve the mixed-use building. It could be partly residential. It could be partly business use.

But there could still be restrictions. It doesn’t really differentiate in terms of the use of the building. It’s multi-use. So it could actually affect….

I guess the answer is that it can affect…. There’s no real distinction. Hallways are covered.

[4:35 p.m.]

Is there anything in this legislation that would allow the private property holders, whether it’s like strata property, some leeway where they could try to limit the exposure on their private property?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m not sure where this line of questioning is going because it’s not an infringement on people’s property rights, and that seems to be the line of questioning that is happening. You can see private residence is clearly excluded. If it’s somebody’s private home in a strata, obviously, they have the ability to be in their home without any problem.

If somebody’s in the hallway in this scenario that we’re talking about and they’re there to intimidate and harass and interfere with and all the things that are prohibited around somebody’s access to their place of worship — that’s what we’re saying is not allowed.

I’m a bit confused about the line that we would be infringing upon somebody’s property rights at all here. It’s about protecting people’s ability to practise their religion and access their places of worship free from the, I think, clearly abhorrent behaviours that are listed in this access zone.

I guess I’ll just leave it there because I think we can all agree that if somebody, like the Sons of Odin I mentioned, is going to a place of worship to do these hateful things to people accessing their place of worship, even if they’re in the passageway as described, that would still be something that should be stopped.

So I’m not sure what the member is asking that we want to give private property owners relief from. Maybe if he can clarify that question, I can answer.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Sheldon Clare: In schedule B of the Constitution Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it’s commonly called…. I wonder, in reference to the section about arrest, clause 5: do sections 8, 9 and 11 apply?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As the law of the constitution of the country, then those provisions of course would apply. If there’s a follow-up question in particular about that, you can let me know.

Sheldon Clare: Is the action of a police officer arresting an individual without warrant limited only by the fact that they must witness the contravention of section 2?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If the member is, I think, wondering about arbitrary arrest, if it meets the Charter compliance, the balance is that there has to be reasonable grounds, so it’s not an arbitrary action by that police officer. There is a similar provision under the Offence Act.

Sheldon Clare: What are considered reasonable grounds?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We were debating on this side whether or not to give you the big quotes of case law that define this standard.

I’ll just direct you to R. v. Storrey — which, I think, is the case that really talks about it. It’s a very well-defined legal standard, and it can’t just be somebody’s personal belief that there’s something. There has to be an objective standard that a reasonable person would believe that there were grounds, that there was a contravention of those sections.

So that’s the case, and there are provisions. There are paragraphs there, in many cases, that really define this legal standard.

[4:50 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the Attorney General for the case reference. I appreciate that.

Would a peaceful protest with blunt-language placards justify an arrest?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This really depends. It’s really hard. Sometimes when we get in these debates, I get asked hypothetical questions about what legal standard is met in the scenario. In a hypothetical scenario, it’s just impossible for me to give you a legal opinion on whether or not it’s met.

I can just tell you what the legislation says. The rest is left to the discretion of the arriving officer. That’s, I think, the normal functioning of a lot of things. With the legislation, we set the boundaries, and then we leave it to the discretion of the police officer and the court system and the facts that are present at the case.

I’ll just say that it doesn’t capture peaceful protest. There’s nothing in here that would say that a peaceful protest, as the member said, would be captured. It’s the behaviours that are prohibited. There could be scenarios where something on a sign might reach that level or might not. It just kind of depends on the facts of each case.

Sheldon Clare: For example, would people standing around shouting justify an arrest? What is the de minimis standard for the shouting? Is there a decibel level that applies, or is this entirely at the discretion of an officer involved? Is there a standard where something goes from being peaceful, legitimate protest to intimidation? What is the standard here that determines whether or not an officer arrests without a warrant?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is a standard that’s set out in the legislation. There must be reasonable grounds for the officer arriving at the scene, or in conduct of the matter, that the contraventions listed in the section that lists out all the things that we’re prohibiting…. Impede access or egress from the place of worship, disrupt activities at the place of worship, engage in interference or intimidate or attempt to intimidate a person — those provisions. If there are reasonable grounds that one of those has occurred, then the police officer has the choice.

Like I said under the safe schools act, a lot of times it’s just used as a tool to move people along, as only one ticket was issued in that scenario. But the police officer has a choice, depending on what they see before them, on how to respond.

Bryan Tepper: I’ve just a couple of quick questions. If I could ask the….

The Chair: I’m so sorry. You can’t use an electronic device when asking a question.

[4:55 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Okay. Perfect.

As a police officer, right now, without this legislation, would I be able to arrest somebody without a warrant if I was stopping them from walking towards a place of worship or, really, anywhere in British Columbia, at this point, with or without this law? Is that an arrestable offence?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If the member’s question is about this power of warrantless arrest, it does exist in other laws, including the trespass law and also Criminal Code provisions. There’s a lot of discretion to the police officer in the scenarios where it already exists. This law puts that ability to do that when somebody is doing these behaviours to disrupt a place of worship.

Maybe that answers the question, and I’m happy to go further down a different path if it didn’t.

Bryan Tepper: Maybe this will be quicker and easier if I say now that the next question would be: can I arrest, without a warrant, somebody I find causing a disturbance at a place of worship or, really, anywhere else in British Columbia?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re having some trouble answering this question. Maybe I’ll try, and then we’ll see if we can clarify.

The police generally have a power to arrest — I mean, not in every circumstance but within a range of circumstances, particularly when they’re witnessing a crime happening — without a warrant. You can imagine police showing up in some situation where maybe there’s violence or there’s something happening. They don’t go to a court to get a warrant to arrest that person. They have this authority for certain things to be able to arrest without a warrant.

That’s not a new thing, what we’ll find in this act. What we’re saying is this is available to them if the person in an access zone, so in a limited area around a place of worship, is doing the very particular behaviours that we’ve outlined in here, if this law were to come into force.

Bryan Tepper: To speed things up, the point, I think, is that arrest without a warrant is available in those under clause 2. The questions were around (a) and (b). And (c) and (d) basically also come under the Criminal Code. It’s counselling somebody to commit an offence of the same thing, and the other one is basically threatening somebody. I think we all know those are criminal offences that can be arrested on in any case by a police officer without a warrant.

Having said that, the arrest without a warrant refers back to clause 2. I would say all of these are things that are covered under the Criminal Code, and you’ve talked about them being already available to police officers. What does this bill do that allows police officers to do something different than is already allowed under the Criminal Code?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve canvassed this question quite a bit, and I’m happy to break it down again.

Civil remedies and criminal remedies are separate in their scope and their thresholds and the processes that are available to them for individuals. Access zones like this work in cooperation with any Criminal Code provisions.

I’ll give you an example. When we did consultation, we talked to the B.C. chiefs of police. They got to see a draft of this legislation, and what they found and what they reported was what happens with access zone legislation.

For example, the safe schools act, which was an example that was running for a couple of years, gives the police the ability to have a defined geographical zone to control behaviour and act as a deterrent to prevent harm or things from happening. It also de-escalates issues in a clear way, because what you’re saying is that you can conduct this activity, just not here in this space. In the school, it was during school hours. We saw a drop in the escalation and harm done by those types of activities.

Now, in terms of places of worship, criminal thresholds are much different than the thresholds that you see here. The way that it would operate is the police would have a defined access zone in which to work, and also the places of worship would have a defined access zone. It would be a deterrent for people that are coming there to know which types of behaviours are just not allowed.

There is a separate tool that exists around an access zone, and the chiefs of police acknowledge that it’s very useful in terms of their enforcement and their ability to prevent harm and prevent crimes from happening.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

Jeremy Valeriote: Apologies for the inexperience. I haven’t dealt with sunset clauses or repeals.

Can the minister just help me understand how the four years was chosen and why?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. There’s no magic to this. It’s a good question in terms of how these things operate.

The general idea is that when you have something that is impacting people’s Charter rights or freedoms in different ways, it’s upon the government doing it to understand that there are certain protections in place where it’s clear what’s prohibited. It’s time-limited. That’s why sunset clauses are often found in this type of legislation. It gives the Legislature a time to consider — whether the balance was right, whether there need to be changes to it and the impacts of that legislation — at a certain point that’s clear to everybody when that will be happening.

I think the idea of four years was just landed on as a policy decision as something that we considered would be long enough for people to receive those protections so that society would adjust to know that these are the access zones and that the places of worship would receive that benefit for long enough for those shifts to happen.

We saw that with the school act. Once we set the legislation in place, we saw a steady decline in the number of disruptive activities during school hours around kids. We’re hopeful that this certain timeline will also do that so people can protest or do these types of activities not around these access areas — just to make it really clear.

That’s kind of why we landed at the four years, but there’s no set legal requirement there.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that.

Then, just in terms of evaluating this, as we come closer to the four-year mark, how will the impacts of the legislation be measured, evaluated, assessed? Will there be metrics such as enforcement data, incident prevention, number of institutions using access zones? Will that data be collected and reported?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the member’s list. I think it’s an excellent list, and those are exactly the kinds of things that we would consider when we think about whether it’s needed. You’re always hopeful that this type of legislation at some point is not needed, at a certain time.

All those things would be exactly the type of information that we would look at and would be debated in the House if it was renewed or extended or if it wasn’t extended. I’m sure there would also be a public debate about that.

Clauses 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: A big thank-you, before we wrap up, to my team for helping me out. I know it was a bit awkward virtually, but I really appreciate their help.

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 5:09 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:22 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole for Bill 10 back to order.

On clause 3 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back, everyone.

Thanks for the discussion we had yesterday. We were just getting towards the end of my questions on clause 3, but I just had a few more I wanted to clean up.

When we were last talking, we were looking at clause 3 and under the new section 76(f)(iii), under that. I wanted to just ask about “in any other manner that the director considers to be satisfactory.”

I think just for the public, that does sound very subjective. I understand why it’s probably written that way for some flexibility, but I’m just wondering how this has been managed and how it will be managed, going forward. Maybe the minister could just clarify a little bit about how that works.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Welcome back, everybody.

With respect to 3, this is not a new provision that’s being introduced. This is a long-standing provision and really is meant to cover non-monetary kinds of disputes.

The example that comes most easily to mind is a situation where there may have been a question about a leave provision, for example. Is an employee entitled to leave on a particular day? If there was a dispute between the employer and the worker on whether they were actually entitled to that leave…. Maybe, in that instance, the worker took the leave because they needed the day, and there was a dispute that the branch was helping the parties resolve.

If, in the course of the branch working with the parties to investigate the complaint, the employer said, for example, “I realize that I should have granted that leave; please come back to work,” if there’s a disciplinary issue, it would be incumbent on the branch to ensure that the resolution was satisfactory to the parties. But the act of, for example, the employer asking the worker to come back to work would be a satisfactory resolution, according to the director.

Given that the vast majority of cases that come to the branch are monetary, this is not a provision that’s used very often.

I would just maybe ask the member if there is, not related to this but related to the question about settlement agreements that we left off on yesterday…. If the member wants to come back on that, I’m happy to come back on that.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response.

Maybe I’ll just finish this one, and then I might touch on the settlement agreement piece again. Yeah, maybe to be clear, there’s no new discretion being provided under the new wording versus the old. I’ll just leave it at that.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, I can confirm there is no new or changing discretion afforded to the director.

Kiel Giddens: I just appreciate the minister bringing up, actually, the settlement agreements again. As our conversation had…. We had been finishing off in regards to the verification of the settlement agreements and how both parties…. How that sign-off that they both verified that what has been settled on is actually agreed to, executed by both parties and that there’s agreement…. So there’s no further dispute that is ongoing and left by a flawed process or something like that.

I’m not saying that’s the case, but I’m just wondering how that verification that both parties have gone into a settlement agreement…. The employer and the worker — they both agreed. How does that agreement actually be formalized?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thanks for the question.

As we had canvassed yesterday, we talked about the process that ESB officers work through with the parties in arriving at a settlement agreement and that the officer works to ensure that both parties are clear about what the terms of that settlement are. Those are enumerated in a document that is sent to both parties, typically by email, and then verified by the officer that those are the correct terms and the parties agree on that.

[2:30 p.m.]

The officer will then have a document that articulates, sets out the basis on which the dispute is settled — the amount to be paid, the time frame for the payment, the method of payment. That is all spelled out. That is verbally verified with the parties that that is the agreement, and then the director signs the document.

It’s important. This is an important point because we want to ensure, through this process, that employees can get the wages that they’re owed, the moneys that they’re owed, as efficiently and quickly as possible.

The ability of the director to sign the agreement means that in the event there is a lack of payment down the road, if the employer doesn’t comply with that agreement, the employment standards branch can take that agreement and file it in court, and it, in effect, becomes a court order. Then there’s a court requirement that the employer comply with the agreement.

We made changes in 2023 to this process in order to try and ensure the improved efficacy of this process, again, in order to try and ensure that workers get the wages that they’re owed as expeditiously as possible.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister. A very clear answer. I appreciate that. That order completely makes sense, and that director sign-off, I think, answers my question completely. So that’s good.

Just in terms of the ability for that order to be issued, the director’s signature gives that. I guess, also, as we get further down not in the current but in the entire statute of the Employment Standards Act, part 13 deals with appeals. So for the same reason, that director’s signature, I’m guessing, would also be what would say, basically, to the parties that if you disagree at this point, that’s your mechanism for saying you disagree.

The director has signed off on it, so the appeal process…. If you disagree with it at this point, this is your mechanism. Is that correct?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There would be no signed settlement agreement if there continued to be a dispute about the terms of the settlement. If the parties are not coming to agreement in that process and they want to continue to have a debate or if they’ve been in this sort of quasi mediation process but now want a formal investigation, those avenues continue to be open to the parties until the point where the signature is inked.

These are cases where there is a clear agreement between the parties, and the branch is taking extraordinary…. It’s really working with the employer and the union to make sure that the parties are in agreement. It is made very clear. There are very extensive internal policies that staff are following, step by step, to ensure that they’re verifying and checking in all along the way.

There is ample opportunity for either the employer or the worker to decide they don’t agree with that process and that they want to follow a different process. But once the settlement agreement is inked, then you’ve got a settlement, and that’s done. There’s no further process for appeal.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, yeah. The minister, at one point, referenced the employer and the union, but that was by accident, so I get it. It was the employer and the worker.

The only reason I’m asking this is because we’re actually not dealing with an employer and a union, which would have resources. We’re dealing with, probably, a small business and an individual worker. So their ability to….

If they go into a mediation, they’re not lawyers who are going in. These are people who may go there in good faith, but if they walk away from the table both thinking different things that they’ve just agreed to…. I’m just making sure that their ability to feel that they were resolved and that they had a fair case to….

Anyway, I’ll move on. I think we’re in agreement here. I’m going to just move to subsection (6). This deals with broader investigations, and it was in a different part of the act originally. From what I can tell, slightly different wording, but the subclauses underneath look the same.

[2:35 p.m.]

The clause allows the director to pause or stop investigating an individual complaint while conducting a broader investigation that may involve other workers. I think this is a very important power, as things are learned through the process. I think this is very important to have, but it has to be used wisely.

Just in terms of broadening the investigation, I know that the language isn’t changing much here, but just for the benefit, as the act is being reviewed here, how often does the branch currently expand individual complaints into broader investigations?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just wanted to say…. I mean, I think the member has made a very important observation that I think is worth restating about the role of the employment standards branch — which is, essentially, to set terms and conditions of work for workers who are not unionized, who don’t have the benefit of resources and an infrastructure and a representative to come and argue their case; likewise, on the employer side, businesses that don’t have the benefit of larger institutional supports to navigate some of these issues.

It’s why the branch is structured the way that it is with the mandate that it has to provide supports to workers and employers to really help explain, educate and help the parties navigate their way through what are frequently not complicated issues but occasionally are complicated issues. Thanks for that reminder.

With respect to the circumstances at clause 6 that the member is asking about, just to restate, as has been observed, this is not a new provision at all. It is the same provision moved from a different place and, really, is meant to cover circumstances where it becomes apparent that there is not just one issue but there is maybe a more systemic issue at play.

[2:40 p.m.]

An example would be if a business closes, and you have a few workers coming forward to say: “Well, this business has closed, and we’ve not received our appropriate severance pay.” The chances are that if there are more than three employees, there may be a broader issue there. The branch may want to support the employer to ensure that all of the employees affected are properly paid. If there is a systemic issue around…. Payment of overtime might be another example.

The branch doesn’t collect distinct data on the number of cases that come up under or that are dealt with under this provision, but I would say that it happens occasionally that an officer is looking at a case and identifies that there may be a more systemic issue and that they need to broaden the investigation.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, a good example, I think, is a business closing. I think that was the type of thing I had in mind.

The other could be an employer, for example, had an incorrect interpretation of leave provisions for parental leave or something. That would be something that could impact many employees, obviously, so that could warrant a broader investigation. The power of the director here is a good thing but obviously needs to be used appropriately within guardrails.

With that, it sounds like nothing is changing, but I just want to verify. Is the criteria for these broadened investigations publicly available? Is this something that is clear? Is it in regulation somewhere that is clear, or is this more at the discretion of the director in this case? Are there any changes, going forward, compared to what has been in the past?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Nothing is changing. There are no additional powers or changes in policy or procedures contemplated here. This determination falls under the statutory responsibility of the director, and, because of the nature of the judgment call that needs to be made, there are…. I mean, certainly, there is precedent with respect to cases that have come through over the many decades of operation of the Employment Standards Act, but there isn’t anything in regulation.

Kiel Giddens: Is there anything in the guidance documents? Employers, for example — say they end up in this process. Is there anything that explains….? I guess, how would it work? When an investigation is broadened, is there something that employers can immediately go to, to see: “Oh, why did this occur here?” Is that something that exists?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: By way of starting the answer, I just want to turn to the purposes of the act, under section 2, which essentially sets out the obligation of the director to ensure compliance with the act in every respect. So if the director becomes aware of a situation in which there is a lack of compliance with the act, there is a positive obligation to proceed with addressing the lack of compliance.

In the case of an employer who is potentially not in compliance with the act, there would be a conversation with the employer. The officer responsible for the case would have a conversation with the employer, would point the employer to the particular clause, particular section of the Employment Standards Act that the employer may be in contravention of.

Certainly, the interpretation and guidance with respect to the various clauses is in the interpretation guide, which is available. And that would be the conversation. That, again, is an important part of the education function that happens between officers who are investigating and both employers and employees.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, certainly something I should read myself at some point, the interpretation guide, just for interest’s sake. We’ve got a break coming up.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: A little light reading.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, exactly.

Okay, that’s a fair point. That completely answers it.

What happens to the original complainant’s case when a broader investigation…? Does it end up in a different process, or does it still continue on in the exact same manner in which it was started?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The original case, if it’s broadened, will essentially be held in abeyance, pending the outcome of the broader investigation. That original individual case may well be settled by the resolution to the broader case, or there might be something particular about that that requires some additional investigation and an additional resolution.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Kiel Giddens: All right, clause 4 — certainly one of the most substantive pieces of the act and, I find, one of the most interesting portions of it, which is good to get into discussion on.

Clause 4, as I understand it, introduces the new provision allowing the director to require parties to participate in the complaint resolution process. Previously, it was essentially more voluntary, and this would allow the director to mandate that participation.

Again, this is in an effort to resolve cases more quickly, which is something that I think we can certainly agree is a good step, important to do.

So the minister…. Correct me if I’m wrong. I do think that bringing the parties together is a good thing. It’s better for early resolution. So if I’m incorrect in how I’m framing this, please do let me know.

As it was voluntary previously, how often are resolution meetings currently used by the employment standards branch, and what percentage of complaints are currently resolved through these meetings? So just kind of knowing how much this actually occurs, and we’ll get into how much it will in the future.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What is referred to as the alternate dispute resolution, ADR, process was brought in as a pilot in 2024 and has proved to be really extraordinarily successful. In 2025, there were 3,463 complaints that kind of fit the general criteria for being suitable for ADR. Because it was a voluntary process, the opportunity to have a resolution meeting was provided. About 50 percent of parties declined that opportunity.

Of the 1,831 settlement processes that were conducted, approximately 72 percent resulted in the complaint being resolved with a full resolution within 30 to 45 days of the meeting, which significantly expedites the resolution of complaints.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that very specific answer.

I think that shows quite a bit of evidence that the pilot was bringing people together and having this ADR process has been good. So I’m wondering.

Maybe I’ll move on, actually. I think you’ve answered, actually, part of what I wanted to ask there, which is great.

Okay, so with the new requirement for that other 50 percent who declined previously, just wondering if we could get into a little bit about, in subsection (2), what participation really means in practical terms. If that participation is used, what has required the parties to participate? What’s expected of the parties as they go into this? Now that it’s required as opposed to voluntary, how is that framed?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There’s been lots of discussion and consideration about ensuring that the criteria for selecting cases that are suitable for ADR are the appropriate criteria.

Those criteria are cases where there is a fairly straightforward or clearly articulated fact pattern; where there’s a lower volume of evidence required that can be adequately managed through the process; where complaints only involve a single employer and a single employee; situations where the parties have the capacity to participate properly — for example, no significant language barriers; where there is a relationship between the parties that is suitable to the kind of mediation that is contemplated here.

Of course, all of this process is subject to the principles of administrative fairness.

So what it will look like for folks. When there is a complaint filed, the complaint will come in. It will be reviewed by the team, by officers. If it meets the criteria, it will be streamed into ADR. A meeting between the parties will be scheduled. It’s an online meeting initially. There will be a discussion with an officer to verify that the assumptions that have gone into their assessment of the suitability of the case for ADR are based on the criteria.

The parties will either agree to the process at that point, or if they are really…. If one party is really set on wanting an investigation and wanting to go the investigation route, that is still an option. The officer would explain what the next steps would be, and there will be either a decision to proceed with the ADR or to send the case to an investigation.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, that makes sense.

So when the director specifies the manner in which parties must participate…. I heard that it’s online. Is there an in-person option then? Can the director specify that?

Say, for example, the worker says, “I don’t have reliable access to internet; I’m in a rural area,” or something like that. Or someone just chooses…. Is that something that the director can specify, given those circumstances?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There would certainly be efforts made on the part of the branch to provide a reasonable accommodation if there were really extraordinary circumstances where someone needed a mechanism other than online or phone to participate in a hearing. To date, there has not been a single request for that.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would just note that the expedited approach adopted by the Civil Resolution Tribunal has also shifted these processes to online, and the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and the work that the tribunal does is largely online. So this is not at all an atypical or unusual process to expect that this work is predominantly conducted either online or on the phone.

Kiel Giddens: I think, just in terms of participation for those 50 percent who maybe wouldn’t have otherwise necessarily gone into the process voluntarily, the only thing we’re adding to that is the idea of meaningful participation. When it’s voluntary, they both go in with good faith. When it’s mandatory, one party may participate, and the other may just choose to…. Maybe they’ll show up to the meeting, but nothing occurs.

What happens in that case? What would that look like in the ADR process if one participates and then the other chooses not to wilfully?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to restate that, again, the experience, so far, with this process has been that the vast majority of cases settle through this process. The ones that have not have gone to investigation. They may also have reached a settlement agreement through that process before the actual issuing of a determination.

The expectation is the good-faith participation in this process by both parties. As articulated in 76.1(4), if a party fails to participate in a complaint resolution process as required under subsection (2), the director now has powers to continue to investigate the complaint or to stop investigating the complaint and then, subject to 78(1), proceed to make a determination under 79.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’d suggest that for both parties, the benefits of participating in a mediation process to resolve the dispute will be clearly articulated by the officers, who….

You know, I have to say, as well, that we’re very fortunate, across the employment standards branch, to have very many dedicated officers with vast experience and expertise in de-escalating and educating and bringing the parties along with what their responsibilities are, not only with respect to compliance under the act but their obligations and their responsibility to participate in a resolution process in good faith.

So the options are that if a party doesn’t participate, it would go to an investigation. There may be an extraordinary case where, if there is some really extreme resistance to participating at all, the director may need to use the new powers that are granted to them to simply issue a determination.

Kiel Giddens: So if I understand that correctly, is it fair to say that there are no immediate repercussions, but it could impact the investigation, going forward? Does that make sense?

There are no repercussions. There are no penalties or anything like that that are going to be added.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: No, it’s not like there’s a penalty for…. There’s not a particular penalty for not participating. I mean, the penalty is, in a sense, just kind of working against your own interests to be able to resolve the dispute and move forward.

For an employee who was bringing a complaint around lost wages, it would be against their interests to not participate in a process, unless they really found that they needed to bring more evidence or if the case became more complicated as the discussions went forward. Generally speaking, for an employee, their interest is going to be in participating in what’s going to be a much faster resolution to their complaint.

For an employer…. The vast majority of employers, we know, want to do the right thing and want to be in compliance. There may be those circumstances where there is, for whatever reason, real reluctance to participate, which is why the director….

It will be a very, very high bar to move to simply issuing a determination, but there’s no penalty per se. I mean, the penalty really is just the parties acting against their own best interest.

Kiel Giddens: The director or the investigator will have a little bit more work in this case, through the mediation process. So would they be the ones determining whether there’s been a genuine attempt by both parties to resolve the complaint? Sounds like yes.

Under the new powers that were just referenced in the previous answer by the minister, what does that look like from this process moving to what the investigator and the director will have the power to do, moving forward?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What will happen is, in the event that a case is referred to ADR…. The employee doesn’t show up. If they don’t come to make their case — the vast majority of cases, of course, are complaints filed by employees under the act — the file can be closed. That’s a power that currently exists for the director.

If an employer fails to participate in the process, and the employee brings forward evidence…. Say it’s an overtime case. The employee is making a claim: “I wasn’t paid correct overtime. Here’s the evidence that I actually worked the overtime.” The employer refuses to participate, refuses to pay.

After, of course, there being many attempts and efforts to bring the parties together and to provide opportunities for the employer to participate, if the employer simply will not participate, the director could issue a determination, based on the evidence that’s before them, that, in fact, the overtime was worked, that it’s owed, and they would issue a determination in that regard.

Kiel Giddens: Thanks to the minister for the responses there.

I think, in terms of that participation, it’s important that it is, obviously, a genuine attempt. I want to actually see some real benefits coming from this change. I think it’s something that is going to hopefully provide some efficiencies. Also, just the parties coming together, I think, is just a better tool, hopefully, for the workplace as well, and that’s the goal we’re trying to achieve here.

Maybe just in terms of reasonable excuses from participating…. That would be under the new subsection 76.1(3): “The director may excuse a party from the requirement to participate in a compliant resolution process if that party gives a reason the director considers satisfactory and continue to investigate the complaint after excusing a party under paragraph (a).”

So with that, what would qualify? What types of these excuses would actually qualify as a reasonable excuse that would be satisfactory?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The kinds of circumstances under which a director may excuse a party from participating are those that are extraordinary and serious in nature: if there’s a restraining order against a party; if there has been a threat made to an employee, for example, by the employer; if the employee is a temporary foreign worker and perceives that they’re under a threat by the employer with respect to their immigration status, for example; if there is a medical condition that may prevent the party from participating; if it’s a case of a young worker who would need to have a parent or a guardian there and they’re unable to actually have the parent or guardian participate. It is situations of that order.

Kiel Giddens: What I had written down…. Health, very serious situations such as danger, temporary foreign workers and age would all be factors.

What about…? I’m guessing there is leeway in the scheduling of this. Say there was a business constraint or something like that that would be harmful to the business. Is that a reasonable excuse?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes. I mean, efforts are always made by officers to accommodate schedules of both parties. Situations like there being particular business requirements on the part of the employer are going to influence how things are scheduled, not their participation overall. But it certainly would be taken into account with respect to scheduling.

Kiel Giddens: I’m just wondering if these reasonable excuse guidelines…. Will those be made public so there’s not going to be just an employer, for example, trying to make excuses in a way that it is frivolous or something like that? Just to clearly state publicly that, no, you can’t actually get out of this. You’ve got to participate unless you have these XYZ reasons. Is that something that’s going to be made public?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What will come out of this process, should the bill be adopted, is, I think, a much-improved set of guidance that is available to the parties that explains, certainly, this new provision very clearly and in plain language. So yes, there’ll be examples provided with respect to the kinds of reasons that are contemplated under 76.1(3).

I’d also say that it is always, always important for both parties to take up that first opportunity to have a conversation with the officer, because the officer will be going through all of these issues for both parties in that initial conversation. That’s going to be the best opportunity for the parties to have their questions answered and to understand what the process is going to look like and what their obligations are under the process.

Kiel Giddens: Overall, I think, with the ADR process, it’s going to be even more important now that it’s going to be mandated — hopefully, getting quick results, as I’ve already said.

[3:20 p.m.]

In terms of the parties both coming to this process and making it meaningful, I’m wondering why subsection (5) doesn’t have a little bit more specific requirement that evidence, submissions and other information submitted to a director be considered when making a determination.

It says, under the clause, that evidence may be considered, but why not have the parties bring the evidence to that meeting to begin with?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There are a few pieces at play here when it comes to this provision. Again, it goes to the nature of what ADR is and the way in which it works.

Firstly, that initial conversation. I mean, that might be the first time that the parties are receiving instruction or advice from the officer, from the branch, around what kind of information is going to be helpful. And again, bearing in mind that this process is really meant to deal with cases where there’s…. We’re not talking about voluminous piles of evidence or documents here. These are fairly straightforward fact patterns that should not be complicated to demonstrate.

ADR also serves for…. It sits within the broader investigative process within the branch, so for cases that may not settle through this mechanism, there may be evidence that comes forward or documents that come forward that are helpful in the investigation process if it doesn’t settle here.

There will be efforts made in the early stages to figure out what information is going to be helpful, what form that information comes forward in. The director needs the discretion to be able to decide what is useful and not useful, going forward.

You can imagine that there are times in which parties may think that there’s a whole stack of documents that are useful that turn out not to be useful. So we don’t want to compel the process to be required to use a whole lot of information or wade through a whole lot of information that actually isn’t going to be helpful in resolving the dispute.

Kiel Giddens: Just in terms of how the process currently works…. I mean, it started with pilots. It has been going on.

[3:25 p.m.]

We had the numbers that were provided earlier — how many have gone through it in 2025, for example. So just for public understanding of it now….

It’s still relatively new, a couple years old, I guess. Public understanding of the process…. Who actually runs the process? And is this active mediation involved, or is it really the parties just discussing among themselves? Whoever is running it, the investigator — are they just witnesses, basically, or are they actively mediating?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is a process that is actively facilitated by the officers. The parties are not left to their own devices to wade through it. There’s active facilitation, education, guidance on the interpretation.

Kiel Giddens: The reason I ask is to just try to understand how it works, and I don’t want to see the situation made worse in the workplace because they start arguing or things like that, which could occur, but we don’t want to, obviously, encourage that.

Would there be any case where the director would actually be involved? Would it get to that? Is it typically…? How is it decided who is actually participating on behalf of the branch?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There’s a team of investigators who are specialized in ADR who have been working for the past couple of years. It is that team. They receive the cases. So it’s an investigative officer who’s been well steeped in the development of this approach that gets the case and very unlikely that the director herself will ever become involved in this level of settlement.

Kiel Giddens: How many FTEs would be on that team? Given the new potential — obviously, there’s going to be more caseload here for it — do we have enough currently, or do we need to add more resources to that team to make this enacted?

[3:30 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair. I see we’ve had a shift change in the House.

With respect to that, just to clarify my previous response, there’s a team of 13 licensing and compliance analysts who are effectively triaging the cases that come in that are suitable for ADR. Then, of the 109 investigators within the branch, 84 of those investigators are trained up to be able to conduct ADR. A case, if it is actually referred for ADR, would be taken up by one of those 84 individuals.

The Chair: If I can remind the committee that when the minister or the member is speaking, I’d prefer that other committee members would not, please. It’s just such a small room. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, so there are the 13 licensing and compliance analysts, and then 109 investigators, 84 of which are trained to conduct ADR. So that 84 — there’s no anticipation of additional investigators needing to be trained or hiring new because of the changes here? The ministry believes they can fit within the existing FTEs?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yeah, the idea is that this process becomes even more streamlined, that we catch up more of those cases that are appropriate for this process so that we are actually able to free up investigator time for more complex cases. So the idea here is this process is not, in fact, taking more time. It should be taking less time.

Kiel Giddens: Hopefully, we can free up, because I know, obviously, resources are…. With the hiring freeze and all that in place, it’s challenging to actually add any resources at this time. We’re in a challenging fiscal situation at the moment.

I have tried to reach out to just ask different groups what they thought of the change and the new mechanism and the requirement, and I do think there’s a lot of support — broad support, actually — for this ADR process overall. One of the slight concerns that I did hear from various people I spoke with was that….

One of the concerns was that…. People were worried that anything that they say in the process could be used against them. We don’t want to put some sort of a chill on meaningful and honest dialogue, I would say. I think they just wanted to understand a little bit more about this process being in good faith, the parties participating in good faith and confidentially. I think they’re wanting to understand how they would compare this to, say, a legal process like an examination of discovery. How would…?

That is actually something that came up when I was…. I just want to maybe understand how the investigator would then take what they’ve heard from the meeting and then what that would mean for the investigation, going forward, if it didn’t come to a resolution there between the parties on their own.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think they were worried about saying anything because they just didn’t want…. And this is in an example where they….

Maybe, say, it’s a wage dispute, and there’s genuine disagreement. They tried to work it out in a mandatory way that they’re required to do. I think they just want to know how to participate in the process.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: We won’t be doing evidence discovery through this process. It’s not really comparable to…. It’s not a legal process. This is explicitly an administrative tribunal so that the parties can represent themselves; tell their stories; bring whatever documents are relevant; and, hopefully, have their issue resolved. It’s not as though anybody participating in this is prejudicing themselves down the road.

These cases are going to be very straightforward. There is compliance or not compliance. You owe money or you don’t owe money. You’ve got wage statements that say there was a failure to pay overtime. You’ve got a schedule that says overtime was worked. It’s those kinds of very straightforward circumstances.

There will be ample opportunity, throughout the process — whether it’s in the context of a settlement discussion in this process or whether this goes to a different part of the investigation process, because, again, this ADR process is contained within the investigation process.

Always an opportunity to clarify, correct, amend. It could well be that an employer, for example, doesn’t have a document or has trouble finding a document that they need, and maybe they don’t have access to that document in the first discussion but that document becomes available or they find it down the road. There’s no prejudice there. They’ll be able to bring it in to clarify what the circumstance was.

That will be clarified in very plain language again in the guidance and the instructions to the parties.

Kiel Giddens: I do appreciate that response. I think that idea of, fear of, “What if I screw this up? What if I…?” That idea that there’s not going to be prejudice against them — an “anything you can and say will be used against you” type of thing. It’s not a court process. This is different. It’s more…. They don’t need to hire lawyers to go into it or anything like that. We want to….

Interjection.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, that’s the idea of what we’re trying to get around, obviously.

I think that’s helpful, and to have that clarified clearly in the guidance documents, I think, would be useful — also just to overall demystify this process, trying to make sure it’s very plain language. As I said, we’re not talking about…. We’re talking about a worker and, say, a small business owner. They have to work together afterwards too, so we want to make sure that we’re doing this in a way that is respectful to both of them.

[3:40 p.m.]

Just maybe to touch on small businesses. I did reference this in my remarks in second reading as well. Small businesses, as I’ve just said, don’t have the HR departments. They don’t have other…. They’re not going to ask a legal counsel on something like this. That workability, the guidance documents, everything just needs to be simple for small businesses in particular, I think.

I’m wondering if the ministry assessed how mandatory resolution meetings may affect small businesses and how the guidance will be tailored to help small businesses, in particular, participate in the meetings. I mean, I can see a big employer, a big retailer or something like that…. It’s probably not as many. A lot of these are going to be small businesses that end up probably participating in employment standards disputes here.

How is that guidance going to really help them, and how has the ministry looked at small businesses through the lens of this change that’s being made?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I think that is precisely the point. This process is really designed for people. It’s very human scale. It’s designed precisely with small and medium-sized businesses in mind, because frankly, the member is quite correct. That is, those are the enterprises that by and large wind up using the services at the branch.

So yes, in the sense: was this designed with small businesses in mind? Yes. It’s why the orientation of the branch and the staff at the branch is really geared towards education, towards really helping folks navigate and understand: what are their requirements under the act, and how does that show up for them? What does that look like for them in their particular circumstances?

In that sense, there’s no real change contemplated. It will continue to operate as it has operated over the course of the pilot, where, again, we’ve seen considerable success in resolving issues.

Kiel Giddens: Were any small businesses or small business groups, for example, consulted prior to the amendments being contemplated?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Both the evolution of the pilot and the transformation of the pilot into the revisions that you see before you come from long, deep experience of the employment standards branch in the employer-worker ecosystem. We have regular contact with the B.C. Business Council, for example.

I think everybody thinks, pretty much, that a more efficient process, a shorter process is better for everybody. Nobody is coming and saying that we need to have a process that gives us an opportunity to have more hearing days or produce more volumes of evidence.

There is regular contact between staff in the Ministry of Labour, between myself, between the branch and the employer community, and I have not heard anyone suggest that this is not a helpful direction to move in.

Kiel Giddens: It’s fair to say there wasn’t any specific overall, including what we have in clause 4 but even overall in this statutes amendment act…. There wasn’t any overall consultation specific to this particular new bill, though, right? With employer groups or with labour or worker organizations — was there any new consultation with either group specifically to what we have here?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: These amendments come from the experience and the feedback that we’ve received about the way in which the branch functions from a variety of groups over a number of years. They were conceived of in the context of: how can we make the branch operate more efficiently?

There may well be other things that parties think that it would be helpful to do down the road. But for these, these are the immediate administrative changes that, based on the expertise and the experience within the branch, we think are important to move ahead with in order to place the branch on a more efficient footing.

Kiel Giddens: I think I can leave the consultation piece for the time being.

Just continuing on subsection (5), part (b) of that. Evidence, submissions and other information provided to the director by a party during a complaint resolution process, part (b) says, “are part of the record referred to in section 112(5).” If I look at the Employment Standards Act under section 112, that’s part of part 13 of the act under appeals.

This had me thinking a little bit about a topic that we’re actually going to get to as we get to clause 6 and the amendments to 78.1. But it did get me just thinking about the written report and what that means as part of the evidence, submissions and other information provided to the director.

We’ll get into talking a little bit more about the written report, but because it’s in this clause, I just wanted to ask a little bit about it.

Section 112(5) of the Employment Standards Act says: “On receiving a copy of the request under subsection (2)(b) or amended request under subsection (4)(b), the director must provide the tribunal with the record that was before the director at the time the determination, or variation of it, was made, including any witness statement and document considered by the director.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Obviously, in the appeal process, the written documentation becomes part of the record. This is saying that it’s the record that was made before the director at the time of the termination, so there’s all the evidence leading into the information that was collected prior to the determination being made.

If we’re removing some of what is required in the written report, will it water down some of the information in the appeal process? Will it impact how the appeal processes function? Is that something that the ministry has contemplated?

As I understand from…. We’ll get into this later, but we’re saying that there’s not a requirement for the full…. There is for the investigation report, but there are not all of the written reports that were previously required going into it.

I can clarify if the minister needs a little bit more, but hopefully, that makes sense. I’m wondering if the ministry has contemplated how this impacts the appeal process, including subsection 112(5).

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Chair, can I just clarify. Did we actually vote on clause 4?

The Chair: Not as yet. No, we’re still on clause 4.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for getting me back on the right track.

The written report that’s at issue here is really just another written document that in some cases, in fact, can slow down a process, which is why we’re seeking to ensure that we can, again, just keep the process moving along.

In the appeal process, all of the documents that are substantive to the decision-making process will be available to the tribunal — the pay stubs, the payroll records, the whatever it is.

Not having a written report by the investigator is not going to put any of the information or consideration that the tribunal will be making at risk at all. The core principle that the parties are entitled to see the evidence that the other party has and to be able to speak to it — that is retained throughout the entire process.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the previous clarification.

Clause 5. I don’t have too much. I just, perhaps, could ask the minister why this particular addition is actually required.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is a consequential amendment to the new 76.1 which just acknowledges and clarifies that complaints may continue to be resolved outside of the complaint resolution process that is articulated under 76.1.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Kiel Giddens: I know I opened up a little bit of discussion on the written reports — or the mandatory investigation reports, I guess, more formally — so now just a little bit on that, as we get into clause 6 here.

I see this, I guess…. As the minister described, there are administrative efficiencies that are provided by this. It allows the director to prepare an investigation report but removes the requirement to do so in every case. It’s been noted, though, that of course the decision report is still required and doesn’t change.

The ministry indicated, I think I heard, that this process can be time-consuming to produce these. So I’m wondering. A lot of these are, obviously…. There’s not a requirement in every case here. What percentage of cases, on average, currently involve a full investigation report to actually happen?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The answer is that 100 percent of cases that don’t settle require an investigation report. So if they’re not settled through the ADR process, if they proceed, it’s 100 percent.

Just by way of context, though, for last year, there were 700 determinations issued. So there would’ve been 700-plus, potentially more reports than that, so it’s a lot.

Kiel Giddens: Is it possible to give an approximate use of staff time to make one of these reports, just to give a little bit of a sense of…? What are we talking about in terms of workload for an investigation report?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: On average, issuing a written investigation report can add five weeks, or 35 days or more, to a complaint process, and that doesn’t include the estimate of time that it takes for the parties to then receive the report, review the report and respond to the report, which is at least a couple of weeks there as well.

Kiel Giddens: So a considerable amount of time we’re talking about here, for sure.

We’re in a situation where the ministry is likely to be constrained from future budgetary increases, by the looks of it. We’ll talk about that later in estimates a bit more, but that looks to be the case — that we’re going to be in a bit of a constraint scenario for sure.

Given that, obviously, these reports are part of the transparency and fairness for both parties going into this, this is very important work in that five weeks or more that this takes.

In terms of that transparency, if some of the investigation reports are not prepared, I’m wondering if, through the guidance documents that we’ve already talked about, it will outline when an investigation report should be prepared, because obviously, there’s discretion there.

I think it will be potentially important for the parties just to see that, so they don’t feel a sense of injustice — for a worker saying, “Why didn’t they do a full investigation?” for example, rather than just go right to pushing through the process. They may see that as: “Oh, I want to see more evidence of an investigation report.” I just don’t want to see a case where a worker says: “Oh, the branch didn’t bother to do the full investigation that I had requested.”

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The answer is yes. There will be guidance that illustrates the kinds of cases in which there is likely to be a need for an investigation report. Again, those would be files that have a high level of complexity to them — where there are multiple issues or allegations; where there’s a high volume of evidence, high dollar claims; where there may be multiple complainants or multiple witnesses; where there may be credibility issues, like an active and very animated dispute continuing to happen about the facts going on.

Again, the situations that we are trying to ensure move through the system really efficiently are those low-complexity cases where there’s a single issue or allegation; don’t require much documentation; not a large dollar amount; single complainant, single witness, single employer.

I think it’s really important to note that the investigation process is very dynamic, and there is a lot of communication between the investigator and the parties on a constant basis. It’s verbal communication, emails back and forth.

It’s not as though there is a lack of communication happening or a sense that there is anything going into a black box. It’s a process.

Again, because for the investigators, part of their role is to help the parties navigate and understand what their obligations are under the process, there’s always that active communication.

The Chair: At this time, the committee will take a ten-minute recess. I have 4:05 on my watch, and I’d like everybody back in their seats, please, at 4:15. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I invite the committee members that are online to please turn their cameras back on. Thank you.

Bringing the committee back to order on clause 6.

Kiel Giddens: We were just talking about the written investigation reports. I appreciate the minister’s clarification on the guidance to the parties on those reports. As I said, the thing I really just want to make sure is that workers don’t feel slighted that they’re not having this process.

So to add further clarification based on the minister’s answer, could the minister maybe just describe how the decision report includes all of the kind of evidentiary conclusions that the investigator made in making that decision report?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to clarify, the written report is a summary of all of the evidence that has been collected throughout the process, whether that is verbal or documentary. It’s all of the evidence from all sources that is going to come to bear on the decision.

[4:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Just to clarify, the decision report and, I guess, the written report, the investigation report, are two different things, from what I understand. Obviously, there’s the evidentiary, written report. But what about the decision report?

How it works currently and moving forward, will that decision report summarize the…? They won’t have all of the evidence, but they’re going to have, obviously, the rationale for the decision. So how is that incorporated now? How can people expect it, going forward, if we’re removing…? Are there any changes now that the written report…?

If a written report is not required, is there more summary that we’re going to see in the decision reports, for example? Just maybe to clarify how that will work, going forward.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: No change to how determination reports are going to be produced or how they’re going to look.

A determination report is based on all of the evidence that has been provided. It lays out the issue, the evidence, the findings at law and the penalty. There will be cases where there is no written investigation report, where the decision-maker may have to go look at the source documents that were the evidence, which would be in the case file.

Again, those will be situations where the complexity is really low. So it’s not going to be a complicated thing for the decision-maker to do. In complex files, they will still have the benefit of a summary of the evidence, which would be in the written investigation report.

So really, no substantive changes. Slightly more work for the decision-maker if they are needing to summarize the minimal evidence that there would be in cases where there isn’t a written investigation report.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the clarification as I’m picking up the nomenclature — the determination report versus, I was saying, decision report and all that. We’re figuring it all out.

All that written evidence still exists regardless. It’s still there. Will complainants still have full access to the investigative record for the appeal process if they wish to use it? Could they request it, and what would that process look like?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Short answer, yes.

Of course, I should just have clarified in my previous answer that there is always the opportunity, if a party disagrees with the determination report, that that is appealable.

[4:25 p.m.]

In the case where a party moves forward with an appeal, the entire documentary evidence, all of the evidentiary basis, is provided to the parties. It’s provided to the parties all the way along. They’re required to exchange all of the evidence all the way throughout the process. But in the case of a formal appeal, all of that goes out to the parties in order to prepare for the next step.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate, again, the clarification the minister just provided on ensuring the appeal process still has all that information.

Just a consequential amendment here. Again, we’re moving things around, so maybe just a quick question. Why is this particular section, 78.2, repealed? What’s going on here in the movement in the bill?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The advice from the drafter is that this obligation already exists for the director, so it’s not necessary to have it articulated in this way. Really, it’s a housekeeping matter to remove it.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Kiel Giddens: Similarly, why was the adjustment to include section 112 in the clause required for this consequential amendment?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is a consequential amendment to a subsequent change which introduces a new obligation to collect money and, therefore, to collect interest on that deposit under the new 112.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Kiel Giddens: This is another more substantive part of the act. On the appeal deposit requirement, again, as I understand it, this clarifies that when an employer appeals a determination involving unpaid wages, the amount owing has to be deposited with the branch while the appeal proceeds.

Again, my understanding is that we’re trying to simplify the administration of appeals and ensure wages are available faster once the appeal is decided.

[4:30 p.m.]

I agree with the efficiency principle that we’ve been talking about throughout, and I think this has some real merit. I guess maybe I’m thinking about the very small percentage of employers that may act badly in the appeal process, using it as a way of delaying paying workers the wages owed. This is helping to speed up making sure things like that aren’t a problem, going forward. I don’t imagine it would be a huge issue currently, but I can see that this would probably be helpful for getting workers their wages quicker.

Just in terms of looking at this, how frequently are appeals currently filed under the act, in general? Maybe that might help frame the discussion on this particular clause of the bill.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the past three years, the tribunal has issued approximately 120 to 130 appeal decisions. About 89 percent of appeals come from employers, and 90 to 95 percent of the determinations issued by the director are upheld by the tribunal. And we wind up with a fairly small number of very recalcitrant employers, particularly in big-wage awards.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the specific numbers. That’s really helpful to understand. Within those, obviously, not many of those appeals are successful — for good reason, of course, in most cases or in all cases.

[4:35 p.m.]

What, I guess, administrative challenges, really, is the ministry trying to overcome here? If the minister could maybe describe, for the record, just a little bit more detail about what this appeal deposit requirement is going to do to help speed up the process.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This essentially operates as a disincentive to try and outwait the employee when an employer has been found to be non-compliant with the act. I would suggest to you that in those few cases where there are wage orders outstanding and employers remain uncompliant with those orders, this will get moneys owed to workers sooner — much sooner, in some cases.

We have an example — I won’t name the employer — of an employer who continues to be non-compliant, even after the decision has been…. Was non-compliant, appealed, lost the appeal. There’s over $300,000 of wages owing to four employees, plus a penalty to the branch. It’s a fairly egregious case. This has been going on and on now for some time.

So it is these circumstances that we’re trying to capture through these provisions.

[4:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Good example provided by the minister. I think that highlights the importance of the branch’s work, overall. So easy example to highlight what we are talking about.

Again, I’m not trying to say…. I agree with the idea. We want to disincentivize “bad actors,” if there are any, from using the process in some way to try to slow down their obligations in any way. Also, in the process, we want to make sure that there’s, I guess, the fairness principle, balance….

The appeal process is there because it’s a legitimate mechanism, and you want to make sure that the accessibility of it is an option — if there still is a disagreement with the determination, that they have that right to go through that process.

So I think just particularly in a…. It sounds like a pretty large wage case that the minister referenced there, certainly, and an egregious one.

I think about a smaller employer in a different type of example — still maybe disagrees with the determination, wants to go through the appeal process. From a fairness perspective, I think they still need to be able to go through that if they wish to. They go through. The appeal deposit requirement is part of it. But for some small businesses on tight margins, they might….

A business might not even have, in some cases, $300,000 profit. That could be their entire year, for example. That wouldn’t be the case, probably, for a wage issue, likely, but for small employers, I just want to make sure they still have access to the appeal process. So I’m wondering if there’s a bit of a balanced thought of how to deal with these small employers.

Sorry, I’m just collecting my thoughts here.

Has the ministry assessed how the deposit requirement could affect very small businesses that wish to appeal a determination, and could this requirement, perhaps, discourage some employers from pursuing legitimate appeals? You assume that it’s legitimate at first. Some aren’t, obviously.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to be clear, when an order is issued at the end of the process, in order to not be…. There’s an obligation to pay. It’s an order. There’s an obligation to pay, irrespective of whether the party intends to appeal.

In order to not be out of compliance with that order, there currently exists a provision whereby a party can apply to suspend the order while they are going through an appeal process.

[4:45 p.m.]

The experience is that many employers miss that step and simply don’t pay and then appeal. That is the part of what happens in practice that this provision is looking to address.

So there’s an order that is an order to pay. If it’s an employer, an employer can seek for that order to be suspended while they go through the appeal process. They can also apply to the tribunal under 3.1(b) to deposit a smaller amount that the tribunal considers adequate in the circumstances.

So yes, there is provision, understanding that a business has to continue to function, for example, and the tribunal can take those particular circumstances into account.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response. That was 3.1(a) and (b), what I was looking at as well.

In terms of that smaller deposit amount, the smaller amount that the tribunal considers adequate in the circumstances, what factors will the tribunal be considering when deciding whether to allow a smaller deposit, and would one of those factors be the size of the business?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, I would say that the size of the business could be one of the considerations that the tribunal makes. I think it’s important to understand, in this case, that once we’re applying for a suspension of an order or moving into an appeal, that process now becomes the property of the tribunal.

The tribunal has very broad authority in this area to make determinations, and, certainly, they’re looking at factors such as financial hardship on the applicant as well as potential prejudice to both the applicant and the employee.

Kiel Giddens: Given that that’s up to this broad kind of authority of the tribunal, does the tribunal publish that in any way through any guidance or publicly available information, or is that just their own determination and discretion?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, the tribunal publishes suspension decisions, and the principles are there for employers to go look at if they’re interested.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Kiel Giddens: Moving along here. Clause 10. Another consequential amendment here. “The tribunal may, if requested to do so under subsection (1), suspend a determination for the period and subject to the conditions it considers appropriate.”

What conditions does the minister believe would be deemed appropriate to suspend a determination?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This provision, again, just to clarify, doesn’t add anything new. This removes language currently in 113 that is now in 112.

With respect to the question about the authority of the tribunal or their considerations, it’s really the same answer as the previous answer. They may consider a wide range of factors when making a decision about a determination and the conditions that they consider are appropriate, and they publish those decisions on their website.

I would say it is unlikely that they would agree to or issue a suspension of an order without a requirement to deposit some amount of wages. That has not been the practice of the tribunal.

Again, this is really more of a housekeeping issue, moving provisions to a different section.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, moving forward. More of these.

This is moving things around again. But maybe if the minister can…. Just an easy question. Why is this consequential amendment needed?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Clause 11 and 12 sort of go hand in hand because they deal with what happens with regard to the alternate dispute resolution process in cases where there is an appeal. There’s sort of a before there’s an appeal and an after there’s an appeal.

What this provision does is provide that, before considering an appeal of a determination made by the director, the tribunal may refer the matter back to the director for further investigation. Before they actually accept it, they may look at it, think that something’s missing or that something needs to be redone or that there’s a calculation that needs to be redone, so they’re going to send it back.

[4:55 p.m.]

In that case, it doesn’t make sense to require the parties to go through ADR. There’s something that needs to be fixed or addressed in the decision. This just clarifies that there’s no requirement for the parties to participate in ADR under that provision.

In the next clause, we’re going to see the circumstance under which they are able to direct them to move into dispute resolution.

Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

Kiel Giddens: Okay. On clause 16, maybe just a simple clarification. Can the minister confirm that all amendments made to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act mirror those made to the Employment Standards Act? Is that exactly what we’re trying to say in this?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, precisely. This is the same provision we dealt with in clause 8 in the Employment Standards Act.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Kiel Giddens: We’re moving right along here in this bill, so looking to wrap up pretty soon, folks.

Obviously, clause 17 introduces a similar deposit requirement for appeals under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Of course, temporary foreign workers can face significant barriers when asserting their rights. It can be more of an at-risk population of workers in the workforce, and we want to make sure that we are…. It’s the reason the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act exists, uniquely, to support their needs.

I’m wondering. Just a couple points of clarification. Does the ministry expect this measure to improve the timelines of wage recovery for temporary foreign workers, and are there any differences from what we’ve already discussed in the employment standards amendments?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The short answer is yes. Of course, under this provision in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, we’re primarily looking at…. Most of the straight-up wage recovery is dealt with under the Employment Standards Act.

In the Temporary Foreign Worker Act, we’re dealing with situations such as if a worker is charged a recruitment fee — which is illegal, according to the act — or if there is misrepresentation of the job. The employer has said, “I’ll bring you over and pay you $30 an hour for this job,” but they only pay $20 an hour for the job. In that case, that is misrepresentation of the job, and that’s covered under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Those wages aren’t recoverable under the Employment Standards Act.

[5:00 p.m.]

So yes, the idea here is that we will be able to be much more efficient in collecting moneys owed for temporary foreign workers, which is particularly important given the precarious nature of that work and the shortened time frames that often temporary foreign workers are actually in the jurisdiction.

Kiel Giddens: Were any organizations who represent migrant or temporary foreign workers consulted on this change, or was this part of the general long-standing conversation, I guess, with these groups that the ministry has similar to what was described in the case for the Employment Standards Act?

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes. As you’ll know, again, staff in the ministry and myself as minister have regular interactions, conversations with both temporary foreign workers and organizations that advocate on behalf of temporary foreign workers. We routinely hear concerns about the challenges associated with temporary foreign workers collecting the monies or wages that are owed to them.

In that regard, yes, I think this will be seen as a welcome change from the folks in the sector.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the previous answer.

With clause 18, how does this relate to clause 10? They seem to be, again, the same to me. Can the minister just maybe describe that relation?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is again a consequential amendment, similar to what we did in clause 10, relating to the Employment Standards Act. This has simply moved the…. Because section 2 is now covered in section 68 of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, it’s removed out of section 69.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Kiel Giddens: Obviously, we’re at the commencement. The act will come into force by regulation. I think it might be just an opportunity to talk about, obviously, the context of the overall bill as it’s being implemented through regulation just really quickly.

I did talk about, at second reading, something that we’ve canvassed before extensively…. The service plan indicates…. What we’ve learned is about 32 percent of employment standards complaints are resolved within 180 days. That’s averaged over a few years. Really, we’re trying to get much higher than that, to get up to 80 percent.

[5:05 p.m.]

Is there anything that the minister…? As they’re preparing regulations, as they’re implementing this bill, what would be the biggest improvement for the timelines and the resolution impact of Bill 10 overall in terms of these changes for how things are currently working?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just before I answer, I want to take a moment to express my deep gratitude for the staff who work in the five geographic regional employment standards offices that we have around the province, who support workers and who support employers with respect to their obligations under the act. They are often the one place that workers can go to when they don’t have any other opportunity to resolve a dispute, often in cases where they may be working in precarious sectors, where they’re living pretty close to the margins.

The work that the officers, the investigators, all of the staff do at the branch is an extraordinary support. I want to thank them for their work.

It is estimated that through the ADR amendments in this bill, the branch could handle about an additional 800 to 900 cases a year. That will go some distance to helping streamline the processes within the branch to allow for not only a quicker assignment of a file to an investigator, but it also will allow the cases that are coming in to be addressed in a more timely way but also allow us to start to dig into the backlog, which we understand is something that we have to….

I mean, these provisions are meant to position us to be able to get to the backlog. So I think the potential here is significant with respect to being able to process cases more timely and being able to get workers the justice that they need.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the minister. So 800 to 900 cases per year. I would definitely be interested in seeing the results of that as this is implemented and seeing what those numbers look like. I would love to keep in touch on that.

That’s the total caseload. The backlog…. Is there any estimated time frame of complaint resolution kinds of metrics that have also been estimated as part of this implementation as well?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’ll just say that the cleanest metrics are really related to the alternate dispute resolution process. Just to refresh our memory on that piece, through ADR, we were able to process those complaints in….

[5:10 p.m.]

There were 3,463 complainants that were offered the opportunity to participate in a resolution meeting, and 50 percent went through. So that was 1,831 alternate dispute resolution processes conducted. So 72 percent of them resulted in the complaint being resolved, full resolution, within 30 to 45 days.

That’s quite…. Combine that with some time saved from the written report at the investigation stage, there are several weeks that we are gaining in the process overall.

Kiel Giddens: I think this will be something to monitor as we’re having additional caseload to get through the backlog — the 800 or 900. I think the ministry resources and capacity will be something to monitor to make sure what this means for staff time overall. So I’d be interested in keeping in touch with this over time.

Maybe just in terms of the regulations, is there a time frame that those will be enacted over that is already contemplated?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’m anxious to get going, as you can imagine, so, as soon as the bill is passed, then we’ll be working on drafting the regulations. I’m hoping that we will be looking at a matter of months to implement.

Kiel Giddens: Over that matter of months, I do believe labour policy…. I think the minister would agree that it works best when both employer groups and labour or worker groups are consulted. Could the minister outline who will be consulted on the regulations as that is being implemented?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yeah, I’d be happy to provide the member with a list.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Apologies, Chair.

I’d be happy to provide the member with a list of the organizations we will be in touch with. It’s the usual list. We will certainly be speaking with employer groups, with employer representatives, with worker advocates to make sure that we get the regulations right.

Clause 19 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: 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 5:13 p.m.