Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis: Unfortunately, she’s not able to be here in the gallery today, but I know that she’s watching at home. A very special constituent in the town of Revelstoke, Mrs. Helen Anderson, turned 103 years old yesterday.

I know she has put on a smiling face and is already planning a big party for her 105th birthday.

If the House would help me in wishing Mrs. Anderson a very happy 103rd birthday.

Darlene Rotchford: I have two guests in the House today. One is Coun. Ken Armour, and his stepdaughter is Leah Massine-Folliott.

I had a lovely time spending my time in local government with Councillor Armour, and now I get to work with him in another capacity.

I’m always excited to see our local government in the House, so hopefully, everyone can give them a big welcome to the House.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would like to wish my son, Diltaj Singh Dhaliwal…. It’s his 12th birthday.

So can the House please welcome and make him feel special.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I have a few sets of introductions today.

First, I would like to introduce somebody who is a fierce, fierce advocate for working people in this province. Karen Ranalletta, the president of CUPE B.C., is here with us today.

CUPE is literally in every community, in every sector, helping us to build strong communities. I am so grateful for the work that every single CUPE member does across our province.

[1:35 p.m.]

I want to thank Karen for being here. She’s joined today by the new legislative coordinator for CUPE B.C., Caitlin Gilroy.

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

Also, somewhere in the House — I don’t see him yet, but I know he’s going to be here — is somebody who is very special to me, a dear friend and former colleague, Baljit Sandhu, who is the regional vice-president of the Interior for the Hospital Employees Union. Baljit works at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. He is a care aide. He has been a good friend and a strong ally for many, many years.

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

Finally, I have to say I see the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour in the House, Hermender Singh Kailley.

Welcome, Hermender.

Larry Neufeld: I know that I’ve introduced my beautiful bride of — I like to say — 360 years. Those of us that have been married that long might appreciate that inside humour.

The last time that we sat in this beautiful place of honour, I was alerted on my phone to a tragic event where my beautiful bride did attend the emergency room twice over a very short period of time. At the fear of encroaching upon some type of a copyright issue, I would say to the effect that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.

Please help me welcome Tammy Neufeld.

Amna Shah: I am absolutely honoured to introduce three very special people in this House.

Today we are joined by my parents — my father, Syed Ashiq Ali Shah; my mother, Shahr Bano — and my brother Syed Raihan Ali Shah.

I don’t think that my parents nor I would have imagined that 20 years after we arrived to this country, their mildly opinionated daughter would somehow end up in the B.C. Legislature. As I examine their life, their sacrifices and their experiences, my challenges and my experiences absolutely pale with regards to their sacrifices that they’ve made for me, my brother and my sister in this country.

I just want to give them a huge thank-you. Thank you for giving me the courage, the strength and the teachings to always speak in the face of injustice and to stand for what’s right in every aspect of my life. Thank you.

Harman Bhangu: Last Friday, April 10, was my daughter Audriana Bhangu’s birthday. She’s just been a guiding joy throughout the whole time. Now she’s six, but my son is seven. So you all know that what I’m going to hear non-stop is the six-seven.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M241 — Interpretation
Amendment Act, 2026

Elenore Sturko: I rise to introduce the Interpretation Amendment Act, which is on the order paper in my name, the Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026. I ask that it be read a first time now.

The Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026, aims to repeal section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act is a crucial piece of legislation in British Columbia that outlines how laws should be interpreted and applied. It includes definitions and rules that apply to all statutes and regulations in the province. In 2021, the act was amended to include section 8.1, which makes it a legal requirement that every act and regulation must be interpreted in a way that does not derogate from the declaration.

Section 8.1 has already contributed to court decisions, including the Quw’utsun decision. While the Interpretation Act was not the only basis on which she reached her decision on Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, Justice Young relied on this to support her conclusion that the Land Title Act does not protect property owners from Aboriginal title claims.

[1:40 p.m.]

Her exact words were: “I find support for the view that the indefeasibility provisions in the LTA do not apply as against Aboriginal title in section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, which directs that legislation be interpreted in a manner that does not derogate from Aboriginal rights. To construe it otherwise would also be inconsistent with UNDRIP.”

Interpreting all laws and regulations so that they must be consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act will fundamentally change how reconciliation is carried out. It is taking the power away from negotiations with government and placing it directly into the courts. For this reason, I believe section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act must be repealed.

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

Division has been called.

[1:45 p.m.]

Members, it seems like all the members are in the House. Is there any wish to waive the time? All right. We’ll continue, I guess.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members, the question is first reading of the bill introduced by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

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

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Nina Krieger: It is my honour to welcome the emergency service dispatchers who are joining us in the House today and to recognize 911 awareness week.

These professionals provide such a vital link in our public safety system in the service of all British Columbians. In moments of fear, uncertainty and confusion, they provide vital information and play such a key role in keeping our community safe. It’s my honour to thank them on behalf of the province for the work they do every single day to keep our communities safe.

With us we have Krista Morrison, who is E-Comm 9-1-1’s operational manager.

I invite you to stand. Thank you so much.

Adrian Dawson is E-Comm 9-1-1’s operations support supervisor. We have Janine Vasilakopoulos and Troy Goodger, who are emergency call takers and police dispatchers; Simon Lay, who is an emergency medical dispatcher; as well as Krysta Stafford and Megan McMath, who are both alarm dispatchers with Saanich fire.

I invite everyone to join me in please making them feel very welcome.

Members’ Statements

Artemis II Lunar Mission

Dana Lajeunesse: Many of us will still remember gathering around the TV with family to watch grainy video imagery of the Apollo moon missions. Now 54 years later, over the past week or so, the appropriately named Artemis II mission came to a successful completion.

[1:55 p.m.]

For those who may not be aware, according to Greek mythology, Artemis was Apollo’s twin sister — a symbolic reflection of how times have changed over the past half century, a fact that is evident in this chamber.

Artemis II’s capsule, Integrity, transported its crew of four, which included Cdr. Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, mission specialist Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen.

Notably, Glover, Koch and Hansen not only represent the first Black person, the first woman and the first Canadian to travel safely to the moon and back but, in doing so, also set another historic milestone. As the ship completed its arc around the dark side of the moon, it reached a peak distance of 252,757 miles from Earth, a distance greater than any human had previously travelled.

Friday evening, as I watched Integrity splash down into the Pacific Ocean, memories of gathering around the TV with family to witness Apollo missions came flooding back.

During a later press conference, the day after their safe return to Earth, the crew of the Artemis II mission each delivered emotional speeches as they described their experiences. When Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen stood to reflect on his experience, he concluded by gathering his fellow crewmates together and relayed to the audience: “You’re not looking at us. You’re looking at a reflection of yourselves.”

I suspect what he meant was the Artemis II mission signifies the beginning of a new era in space exploration, and it is a true indication of the unlimited potential of our species when we endeavour to work collaboratively and when we refuse to place limits on our capacity for innovation.

As we celebrate historic as well as recent triumphs, let us also continue to expand the boundaries of our ingenuity as we strive toward a future better for all humankind.

Sage Transition House

Lynne Block: Today I rise to take a moment to acknowledge an extraordinary place in my riding — a sanctuary, a lifeline, a true haven for women and children in crisis — Sage Transition House.

For decades, Sage Transition House has quietly provided safety, support and hope to women and children fleeing situations of abuse and violence. Its exact location remains confidential — even I had trouble finding it; it’s so well hidden — because safety is paramount. This is a place where women can finally breathe, feel secure and begin to rebuild their lives without fear.

At Sage, the focus is on healing and empowerment. Women and children are welcomed into a warm, supportive environment with access to comfortable living spaces, counselling, educational programs and essential resources to help them regain independence. From meals to mentorship, from emotional support to practical guidance, every aspect of Sage is designed to nurture both safety and self-confidence.

What makes Sage truly remarkable is not just the services it provides but the people who bring it to life — the dedicated staff and volunteers who offer compassion, guidance and hope when it’s needed most. For the women and children who arrive, often at their lowest points, Sage is more than a shelter. It’s a lifeline, a place where fear begins to lift and hope takes root.

The work of Sage Transition House reminds us of the power of community and care. It’s a quiet, steadfast hero on the North Shore, saving lives and giving families a chance to start over, stronger and safer than before.

For anyone visiting or supporting Sage, the message is simple. This is a place of courage, compassion and transformation. And for the women and children who call it home, it is nothing short of life-saving.

Farkhunda Muhtaj
and Refugee Resettlement

Rohini Arora: Last month at the Darpan’s IWD event, I was introduced to an amazing woman panellist, Farkhunda Muhtaj. A professional soccer player and coach from Calgary, she’s captain of the Afghanistan national team and shared her story as being a key figure in evacuating the girls’ youth team from Afghanistan following the Taliban’s takeover.

[2:00 p.m.]

To say I was incredibly inspired would be an understatement. I asked her if she wanted to share a message with us, and I’ll read directly from what she had to say.

“I would like legislators to know that although Canada has historically been supportive of resettling refugees, we cannot forget about the root cause of this crisis. We cannot contribute to the displacement of people through war economies and then also seek to manage the displacement of those same people.

“As beautiful as Canada is, people around the world don’t want to be forced out of their homes to rebuild a life here. What they want is peace and to be able to live in a dignified manner in their own countries. Ultimately, we need to be more serious about the refugee crises by actually reducing the conditions that create them and not being complicit in the crimes against humanity, regardless of which nation is committing it.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to say Halat chetor ast ayn to the MLA for Surrey City Centre’s parents for being here. As you can see, Afghan women lead the way again and again.

It is a pleasure to be working with your daughter.

Seabridge Gold and KSM Mining

Sharon Hartwell: Seabridge Gold holds 100 percent interest in several North American gold projects. Their principal asset, the KSM project, is in northwest B.C. in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. The northwest of the province is rich in resources and opportunities. The government is setting their attention to these prospects.

And 2026 marks a milestone for Seabridge Gold. They are celebrating 25 years of investment in the northwest. During this time, they have invested $1.2 billion in their property here in the northwest. This success at KSM has defined one of the world’s largest copper and silver projects, containing 19.4 billion pounds of copper and 414 million cubic ounces of silver. The combined gold, copper and silver constitute an outstanding economic opportunity.

Being leaders in their sector, the subsidiary KSM Mining has received the AME David Barr Award for excellence in mineral exploration health and safety. The awards celebrate remarkable individual and team achievements, contributions and innovation in mineral exploration and recognize excellence across the industry, including health and safety and innovation.

KSM Mining earned its distinction for its pioneering efforts to foster collaboration and enhance emergency preparedness across British Columbia’s remote Golden Triangle. In fall of 2023, they launched the Golden Triangle emergency response coordination meeting, bringing together emergency response and safety professionals from multiple projects and organizations.

Rudi Fronk, Seabridge chair and CEO, said: “I’m very proud of our team for establishing a collaborative approach to regional safety capabilities, including supporting community emergency responses. This is our commitment to safety and community.”

AME president and CEO Todd Stone said: “On behalf of the AME board of directors, we congratulate and thank all 2025 AME award recipients. Their leadership exemplifies the spirit of mineral exploration and will continue to develop minerals that are essential to our future.”

Whalley Little League

Garry Begg: They have been to the World Series seven times — 1947, 1973, 1978, 1997, 2005 and 2024. They are recognized well as the powerhouse in Canadian baseball. They, of course, are the proud members and alumni of the Whalley Little League, and the World Series they have participated in are Little League World Series.

On Saturday, I was pleased and proud to attend the opening of their 70th season for those dedicated athletes and their parents and friends at Whalley Athletic Park — the atmosphere was electric and festive — hosted by president Clint Stewart. I know it meant a great deal to the players, families and volunteers, who showcased to Surrey the strength of our community and the positive impact of youth in sports.

The official Little League motto is: “Character, courage and loyalty.” Added to the official logo in 1960, this motto serves as a guiding principle to develop well-rounded citizens and instil lasting values through baseball and softball.

[2:05 p.m.]

The motto emphasizes building good character, fostering courage and promoting loyalty in participants. The courage and commitment of the supporters from all over Surrey is a testament to the value of that sport. Often recited before games, there is a pledge that reinforces those values. “I trust in God. I love my country and will respect its laws. I will play fair and strive to win. But win or lose, I will always do my best.”

Whalley Little League, you always do your best, and I hope that this is the best year ever.

Cancer Awareness

Jody Toor: As a cancer survivor, I know firsthand the emotional and physical toll this illness can take. Cancer does not discriminate. It touches people of every age, every background, every family. The reality is severe. One in two men and one in three women will face a diagnosis in their lifetime.

Right here in our community, there are individuals and families walking this road today. Some are in the middle of treatment. Some are waiting for answers. And some are learning how to live again.

This is where I want us to stop for a moment and not just listen but truly take stock. Think about someone you know — a friend, a family member, a neighbour and, maybe, even yourself — and decide how you want to respond. Maybe you respond differently, because this month is not just about awareness.

It is about truly being aware, aware in a way that asks you to pause and consider where you might not be paying attention right now. It’s about looking and booking that screening you may have been putting off. It is about making that phone call to check in on someone who is fighting. It is about choosing small daily habits that protect your health. I have seen firsthand how those small decisions can make a meaningful difference.

We also need to recognize that this journey is not just physical. It is emotional. It is financial. It can also feel very isolating. That is why community matters, compassion matters and showing up for one another matters.

As your MLA, I am committed to advocating for stronger support systems, better access to care and continued investment in research that brings hope to those who need it most. Progress happens when we keep pushing forward together.

This month reminds us that every story matters. Every life matters. So let’s not simply acknowledge April being Cancer Awareness Month. Let’s respond to it. Let’s stand with those who are fighting, support those who are grieving and take real steps to protect our own health and the health of those around us.

When we turn awareness into thoughtful, intentional action, we do more than just raise awareness. We change outcomes, we strengthen one another, and we save lives.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Members, following oral question period on Wednesday, April 1, the member for Nechako Lakes raised a point of order regarding words spoken by the Attorney General during oral question period. The Chair advised the House that the matter would be taken under advisement so that the Hansard transcript and audio could be reviewed.

Having now done that, in the view of the Chair, the Attorney General’s language approaches the margins of what is ordinarily considered acceptable parliamentary language. While the Chair will not direct the Attorney General to withdraw any particular phrase, the Chair again encourages all members to exercise care in their choice of words.

Parliamentary debate is most effective and least likely to cause disorder when it is framed in terms of policies, arguments or their consequences rather than language that could be perceived as questioning the intentions of other members.

Although the point of order is not upheld, the Chair offers these comments as guidance to remind members to be temperate in their language.

[2:10 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Government Priorities
and Confidence of House

Trevor Halford: In December 2025, the Premier said: “A court decision creates a legal crisis requiring immediate action.” I want to stress the word “immediate.” April 1 of this year, the Premier said: “Amendments are non-negotiable.” Non-negotiable. “We have to get these through.” He said that three times.

He also said: “We are working with the Chiefs to find a path forward. We have to do it, and we will do it.” Then he said, on April 2: “Changing British Columbia’s declaration of the rights of Aboriginal Peoples act is non-negotiable, and it will be pushed into law.” That’s what the Premier said on Wednesday, April 2, 2026.

Another word the Premier used multiple times was the word “confidence.” I want to stress that word, the word “confidence.” I think it’s important because it’s very clear that this Premier no longer has the confidence of members of this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Trevor Halford: My question to the Premier is: what changed? What changed? I thought that the crisis that we were in — the legal crisis that this Premier articulated, where immediate action was necessary to come into this House and do the changes that the Premier said would legally protect property right owners — was a matter of confidence. A matter of confidence. Today, as expected, he has backed down. What has changed?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: I know the member is really wanting to see a draft of the legislation that we’re proposing around the Declaration Act. I understand the urgency. He has a right to see it as quickly as possible. I’ll just assure the member that what we’re doing right now is what I told the member and the public we’ve been doing for a while. We’re trying to find a path forward with the Chiefs.

These are important partners for us in the work we have to do to grow our provincial economy and to address long-standing injustices in this province. If we can find a path forward that is less invasive, we’re going to do it. But we will be introducing legislation.

If the member is concerned about the level of confidence this House has in the government, we can always introduce a motion of confidence. There will be budget bills. But I’ve spoken to the House Leader, and he’s prepared to introduce a motion if the member is concerned.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Let’s be clear. The Premier is trying to find a path forward to save his job. That’s the path forward he’s trying to save.

At the end of the day, the biggest problem that we’ve had on this file — I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — is that the Premier will go into one room and say one thing, he’ll go into another room and say another thing, and it just keeps going, and it keeps going, and it keeps going.

At what point does the Premier actually back up what he says when he says that there is extreme legal liability right now, that there are over 20 court decisions that could be pending right now and that we need immediate action to make sure that British Columbians, property right owners, are protected?

He promised that he’d have that legislation. He promised that he would get that passed in this House. He promised that he would protect property right owners. And today he has backed down on all of it because he does not have the confidence of his caucus.

When is this Premier going to do the right thing, put this legislation forward, put it to a vote and have the confidence of this House?

Hon. David Eby: What the member says simply isn’t true. We’ll be introducing the legislation.

I understand his desire that we get it into the House as quickly as possible. I will assure the member and all members that we will make sure, through the House Leader and their House Leader, that there is the time needed to debate this, and all members will get to fulsomely debate and discuss this. This is an important issue for the province. I’ve underlined that on multiple occasions.

If the member is seriously interested in a confidence motion, we can bring that motion. But I think what the member is seriously interested in is becoming Premier without a leadership race. The people of British Columbia are not….

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, order. Order, Members. Shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. The Premier has the floor. Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby: Our caucus is strong. Our caucus is united. We have the confidence of the House. Every member of our caucus understands the crucial importance of this work and the challenging moment that it’s in but the need for it to continue.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal the Declaration Act, causing chaos, the loss of thousands of jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, wait for your turn, please.

Hon. David Eby: There are two mines alone that represent thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of investment, that rely on the very act that he is proposing to repeal.

There is a clear difference in opinion in the House. We have the confidence of the House. We will introduce the bill as quickly as we can.

Gitxaała Mineral Rights Court Case
and Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Scott McInnis: Chaos? This is chaos.

After nine long years of staunchly supporting the Declaration Act, we see that the NDP’s tone has shifted, maybe.

The Gitxaała decision from December is an extremely serious one. It states that all B.C. laws must immediately be in line with the Declaration Act.

Can this government guarantee today that any type of pause, or whatever other idea they may come up with, will actually reverse that reality?

Hon. David Eby: The member glosses over, of course, the fact that this was voted on by all parties that were in the Legislature at the time and many members that currently sit with the Conservative Party who voted in favour of the Declaration Act.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby: Well, those that weren’t here were staff.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South will come to order now.

Hon. David Eby: I know it’s upsetting for them to hear that, but it’s true.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. David Eby: The Gitxaała decision does have a serious implication for the province. We are working with Chiefs to try to find a path forward that is the least invasive way to address that litigation risk for the province and supports the work that we have to continue to do with First Nations to grow our economy, create jobs and opportunity in this province.

It is crucially important work. We stand by it. We’ll be introducing legislation. I hope, if the member is concerned about this, that he will support it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: I think everybody is forgetting that the Premier stopped debate after a whole 14 minutes for the Interpretation Act, which is why we’re in this position today — 14 minutes.

This legislation has been flawed from the beginning. Legal experts from around the nation have been warning since 2019 that we would be in this position today. There’s no plan; no certainty, moving forward; maybe, a pause. Litigation is coming fast and furious at this province — a promise that the Premier said DRIPA would avoid.

Will this NDP government do the right thing for B.C. and repeal the Declaration Act once and for all?

Hon. David Eby: Here it is. Without any explanation for how the Conservatives would deal with the fact that multiple billions of dollars of investment in this province is built on the Declaration Act, is built on agreements enabled by this act….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: Their proposal would repeal not just the act. It would repeal those jobs and those opportunities.

What about the crucial agreements…?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, wait for your turn, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, you have already asked the question.

Hon. David Eby: What about the crucial agreements between the province and First Nations about children, about the children of First Nations in this province who are in need of the support of their culture and language and strong communities — the agreements struck, again, under the Declaration Act?

They gloss over all of that and the very serious and important issue that this province was settled without, for a large part, treaties. Section 35 rights are a big deal that we have to work with, with First Nations to grow the economy, especially in rural and remote areas of this province, where some of the largest opportunities are.

[2:20 p.m.]

Their proposal would cause the loss of jobs. It would cause major economic damage, and they ignore that.

We’re doing the hard work, the important work…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: …that should have been done a long time ago.

Funding for Long-Term-Care Facility
and Affordable Housing in Squamish

Jeremy Valeriote: Once a quiet forest and rail community, Squamish is now a bustling regional hub; centre for innovation, outdoor recreation, tourism and the new B.C. economy.

I’ll also mention it’s a shining example of reconciliation and action with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation.

Squamish is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. After decades of neglect, Squamish was just inching onto the radar of this government, to their credit to be fair. Unfortunately, they were the first to be dropped when money got tight.

Squamish Hilltop House long-term-care facility was slated to be completed in 2030. This government gathered community leaders for a 2024 election campaign announcement but has now pulled the plug, along with six other facilities, with 2030 scratched out and replaced with “to be confirmed.”

My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Squamish can’t wait. The demographic pressures are real and growing by the day. When will the desperately needed new Hilltop House be open for the seniors of the Sea to Sky?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to thank the member opposite for his question, for standing up for his community and advocating for the seniors in his community.

I absolutely agree and our government also agrees that seniors need support and that communities right across the province require more long-term-care beds. That is exactly why the work that we’re doing right now is so incredibly important, because when we have projects coming back with cost estimates of upwards of $1.8 million per bed, we know that we can’t deliver at the scale that communities really need.

We’re looking forward to the work that is already underway with health authorities — within my ministry and in partnership with the Ministry of Health — to get those costs down, to find ways so that we can actually deliver the number of beds that communities require.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: We spoke at length about government procurement in the House this morning, and I don’t believe it’s the job of the opposition to figure this out. So $1.8 million per bed. There have got to be creative solutions to that.

Anyway, the same scenario in Squamish applies to the community housing fund. Non-profit Housing Squamish’s Government Road housing project intended to take advantage of construction synergies with a B.C. Housing project next door. This project application went in last June, with a response expected in September and then December — strung along only to be cut on budget day.

Housing Squamish is now left holding the bag, having invested half a million of its own dollars, expecting a go-ahead that never came. Again, the rug pulled out after nine months of the province of B.C. being counted on as a reliable partner in housing.

I’d like to ask the minister, with the utmost respect, if we can skip past the part about the work that’s been done — 95,000 units delivered or underway, rents decreasing — and that the community housing fund is not dead, only paused or mostly dead. I’d like to skip to the part where the minister can tell us how she’ll honour the work of this community non-profit housing society and make Housing Squamish whole.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I am happy to speak both to the historic investments that we’ve made and the path forward.

I was glad to be up in Squamish recently, and Sea to Sky with the member, announcing Squamish being part of phase 2 of the government’s HEART and HEARTH programs, working together with the district of Squamish to bring people out of encampments and indoors. There are good, tangible programs that we’re doing in partnership with Squamish on that front.

I don’t mean to be glib here. I don’t think it is skipping past to speak to the significant investments that our government has made in delivering housing in communities across this province, including Squamish. It’s 333 student housing beds, 54 supportive and transitional homes, 84 low-income homes, 137 affordable rental homes, 31 shelter beds plus the HEART and HEARTH programs we’re working on.

After years and years of underinvestment from the members opposite, when many of them were in government, we are stepping up and investing, because we know what a difference it makes. I know there are projects that we’re looking forward to funding out of last fall’s community housing intake. We continue to work with project proponents and, in our work with the federal government, to see more dollars come in to continue those investments, because we know it matters.

[2:25 p.m.]

Cowichan Hospital
Replacement Project Workers
and Cowichan Tribes Contractors

Bruce Banman: I want to revisit a topic from a couple of years ago, specifically the Cowichan Hospital replacement project.

Jon Coleman, who is actually sitting in the gallery today, was cut out of working on that project because of this government’s exclusionary policies.

My question. How does the minister justify hiring temporary foreign workers on the Cowichan Hospital instead of hiring Indigenous Quw’utsun contractors like Jon Coleman?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’d like to take this question on notice, given the context that they provided here.

The Speaker: The member has a different question?

Bruce Banman: Actually, I do.

The government really needs to look into the mirror when talking about temporary foreign workers.

Maybe this government wouldn’t need to increase the number of temporary foreign workers by 110 percent since 2018 if they stopped shutting out British Columbian construction workers.

My question….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister. Minister, please.

Bruce Banman: How does the minister justify shutting out British Columbians, construction workers when the Cowichan Hospital is now $5.6 billion over budget?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.

I’m just rolling back to this morning, when we had an opportunity to stand outside with members from the B.C. Building Trades — people who literally build this province and who are extraordinarily concerned about positions that the opposition has taken, discussion that is happening in this House and outside of this House, that would literally reach into their pockets, harm their families, take work away and ship it outside of our province.

I just want to be really clear here. And I’m going to speak about projects….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members. Come to order. Come to order, Members, please.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: We on this side of the House are investing in our communities. We are investing in skilled trades. We are investing in jobs in our communities.

I can speak to my own community. I can speak to the work done on the stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge. Ninety-three percent of the labour force on that bridge was homegrown. They came from B.C.

Likewise with the Royal Columbian Hospital, the oldest hospital, where we are building a brand-new, beautiful hospital that will dramatically increase beds.

I want to just tell a quick story that we heard this morning about Cowichan…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: …where because of the work that we are doing, investing….

The Speaker: Take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Health Care Facilities
and Government Management
of Capital Projects

Misty Van Popta: Wow, it appears that some members of the government are not aware of the unintended consequences of their policies. Jon Coleman is a direct result of how exclusionary procurement has left out First Nations on contracts.

We know this government has horrible track records when it comes to completing capital projects, and now, instead of being transparent, this government is going to hide all major projects that are less than $125 million. That’s most schools, expansions into the health care system now hidden from scrutiny.

[2:30 p.m.]

You know what this government’s record is though? It’s $17 billion over budget and 158 years of delays. That’s the legacy of construction policy under this NDP government.

Will this government admit that they failed at delivering projects on time and on budget, like the Richmond Hospital redevelopment project that is $1.1 billion over budget and two years behind schedule?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Our government is proud of the investments that we have made in capital infrastructure across the province. We have been implementing the single…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: …largest capital infrastructure investment in B.C. history, working to catch up on decades of infrastructure deficits left behind by previous governments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Kamloops Centre and the Leader of the Official Opposition will come to order.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members, both sides, come to order. One member at a time. One minister at a time.

The minister will complete.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’ve been building record levels of infrastructure — schools, hospitals, transit — to meet the needs of British Columbians. And while we are doing that, we have been taking a responsible approach to re-pacing some projects so we can continue to build what people need.

The members opposite talk about debt and servicing costs, which is certainly…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: …a serious issue that needs to be managed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: But I really think that members opposite need to figure out what their fiscal plan is, because they have spent entire question periods accusing us of not taking the deficit seriously, demanding cuts to services….

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister will continue.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: They have spent entire question periods demanding cuts to services, cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to projects….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Minister, please conclude.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Then they turn around, go into communities and demand that we carry on with projects regardless of how over budget they are, regardless of how expensive they are. They criticize us for the work that we’re doing to try to manage projects. I really think that members of the opposition need to get on the same page about how they actually want to fiscally manage this province.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Misty Van Popta: I hear that they’re proud of their record investments in infrastructure, yet they cut $7 billion from the capital plan in this year’s budget.

As a result of this government’s mismanagement, they now have to cancel projects because they’ve run out of borrowed money. That includes cancelling long-term-care facilities that are desperately needed.

When the government mismanages capital projects, everyone is infected, including union and non-unionized workers.

The Burnaby hospital phase 2 was approved for $180 million, and I am told that the latest estimated cost is $180 million, yet it is still on pause.

When will this government get serious and stop with the exclusionary procurement processes and get projects in B.C. built on time?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: If the member of the opposition, the critic for Infrastructure, believes that you can build an entire hospital tower for $180 million, I would really seriously think that they have to….

Interjections.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The work that we are doing right now is to take the time to work with health authorities to ensure that we can actually deliver projects sustainably — work that the public expects us to do.

The member opposite wants to go into communities and tell people that we need to build long-term-care homes even if it costs $1.8 million, $2 million, $2.5 million per bed. That is her prerogative.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’re going to do the work that it takes to be strong fiscal managers….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I can’t hear myself think when everyone is screaming.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Continue.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This is important work. We’re proud of that work. We’re going to continue to do that work for British Columbians.

Government Management of
Capital Projects for
Highways and Infrastructure

Lorne Doerkson: Let’s be clear. Management of projects by this government is absolutely abysmal.

If a 34 percent budget overrun on the Kicking Horse Canyon isn’t bad enough, how about a 143 percent overrun on the Illecillewaet highway — budgeted for $35 million, now costing $85 million?

My region was once promised a complete four-laning of the Cariboo connector, and the government cancelled it. Infrastructure in my riding is in horrendous disrepair. It is literally crumbling, and in areas, it’s unsafe.

Will this government stand up and support the residents of Cariboo-Chilcotin and get serious about the improvements to our highways and infrastructure, yes or no?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s been interesting hearing the questions from the opposition on infrastructure investment in the province of British Columbia.

You know what? We’ve said yes to building the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it’s your time. You want to continue to waste it? Be my guest.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve said yes to investing $195 million in northwestern British Columbia — $195 million to open up billions of dollars in mining exploration and jobs for British Columbia. We are investing over $35 million on Highway 97, $105 million on another part of Highway 97. We’re spending over $90 million on the Kicking Horse bridge replacement in Golden. We’re spending money in the Okanagan, Trepanier Bench intersection improvements.

All in opposition ridings, and they complain about the expenses. It’s jobs that are being built by this province, something they don’t seem to understand.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. If you let him answer, he will. Please.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

I’d also like to make this point, given the questions that have been asked, because they’ve been talking about the workers in this province. Well, let me remind this House: when the members on that side, some of them, sat on this side of the House, what did they do? They….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Actually, no. It’s one, two and three over there and a staff member for your leader, and other staffers probably.

But the bottom line is this. They so weakened labour standards in this province that other provinces were refusing to recognize the Red Seal program in this province, because the people that that member’s private bill benefits wanted to do just that.

Guess what. On this side of the House, we’re building infrastructure. We’re training apprentices. We’re training more Indigenous apprentices. We’re training more women apprentices. We’re training the future of this province, and we’re going to continue doing that.

Government Financial and
Project Management and
Federal Infrastructure Funding

Kiel Giddens: Unfortunately, it’s the workers…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh. Let’s hear the question.

Kiel Giddens: …in this province that will have to pay for the three credit rating downgrades the province has just had in the last couple of weeks.

The federal government released their streams for build Canada strong. It includes a program that matches provincial investment in areas like housing and health care. While our cost of borrowing is going up, this government has mismanaged the capital plan so badly that we could end up leaving federal funds on the table because we can’t afford to match.

Dawson Creek hospital, $212 million over budget. Cowichan Hospital, $560 million over budget. This has led to cancelled health care infrastructure, like phase 2 at Burnaby Hospital, cancelled long-term-care homes. When projects actually do go ahead, they are billions over budget.

[2:40 p.m.]

In the real world, project managers would be fired for this kind of mismanagement. Well, it’s about time we fire the NDP.

Can the Minister of Finance guarantee that British Columbians will not lose out on federal infrastructure dollars for much-needed long-term-care homes and health care infrastructure because of this government’s credit downgrades and capital project mismanagement, yes or no?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There is nothing more ludicrous than that question, the idea that this side of the House will leave federal money on the table. We will not do that.

But the biggest threat….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, if you don’t stop heckling and interrupting others, the Chair would have no choice but to ask the member to leave the House.

The minister will complete.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I know the member really would like to find a way to become Premier, but I want to assure him this House is not going to collapse. The member on the other side, to his right, is going to be able to participate in a leadership race, and he may or may not win.

But the bottom line is this. We do not leave money on the table. The only threat to projects and the only threat to workers is the policies and the ideas of that side of the House. We’ve seen it in the past, where they stripped away workers’ rights, where they ensured that we didn’t have the apprentices that we need to build the projects in this province.

They stripped away the qualifications of workers. We received reports that that government received, when they sat on this side of the House, that said we were in danger of not having our Red Seal certifications recognized. That’s the danger to the building of this province — not ensuring that we’ve got trained, skilled, well-paid, unionized workers building British Columbia in every part of this province.

[End of question period.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m sitting here in the House, in the middle of question period, and my aunt and uncle walk into the House. I don’t know. They didn’t tell me. I don’t know what that says about me.

I want to recognize Poli and Gurbaksh Kular, Inderjit Hayer and Pinder Hayer, from my community. My uncle Poli played with my dad on the field hockey team for many, many years. He coached me when I was a kid. His son went to the Olympics with me.

I’m just surprised to see them here.

I’m hoping the House can please join me in making them really welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Mike Farnworth: A couple of things.

First, I rise to inform all members that pursuant to Standing Order 25C, I have formally advised you, hon. Speaker, and all House Leaders of the two forthcoming addresses to the House with respect to treaty-related business.

The first address, by a representative of the K’ómoks First Nation, will take place on Tuesday, April 14.

An address by the Kitselas First Nation will take place on Wednesday, April 15.

In order to inform the House and in anticipation of the forthcoming items of business, by leave, I move that the K’ómoks First Nation treaty and Kitselas treaty be tabled.

Leave granted.

Question of Privilege
(continued)

Hon. Josie Osborne: I rise to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Skeena.

The raising of a question of privilege and the finding of a prima facie breach of the individual and collective rights of this place is the most serious undertaking that you must consider.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you provide me with a little bit of latitude to outline the two elements in my reply for your consideration.

The issue at hand is regarding Dr. Somers and previous Speakers’ rulings around the form and completeness of engaging in Standing Order 26. Regarding Dr. Somers’s research data, since 2005, the inter-ministry evaluation database, or IMED, was an integrated data set consisting of governance from a multiministry steering committee of B.C. citizen data that was housed at Simon Fraser University and shared with Dr. Julian Somers.

[2:45 p.m.]

In March 2021, following months of discussion and in alignment with the expiry of IMED information-sharing agreements and with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, section 33(h), the data was transitioned to the province’s new data innovation program. This action was taken to ensure appropriate stewardship and because it is standard practice with all research agreements that provide access to and the use of B.C. citizen data.

Any published findings produced with this data and any data Dr. Somers personally collected were not impacted by this order, and they remain in Dr. Somers’s possession. The principal effect of the transition is governance-related. Dr. Somers is no longer the sole custodian of the data, consistent with public sector data stewardship and equitable access principles.

To be clear, the data continues to exist. The request was for Dr. Somers to transition the data to the DIP and to destroy his copy of this data housed within the IMED, consistent with general practices around provincial data on B.C. residents at the end of a research project.

As I stated in the House, the data set continues to exist in the data innovation program and is now, in fact, accessible to other researchers. It is being used by researchers both inside and outside government to this day.

Now, regarding the procedures around a question of privilege, I believe that I’ve addressed the concerns the member for Skeena raised in an effort of being transparent and open and not by engaging in debate.

However, I would be remiss to not address the procedure for raising a question of privilege under Standing Order 26. Parliamentary Practice in B.C., fifth edition, lays out the procedure and essential elements of raising a question of privilege in chapter 17, pages 399 and 400.

“The essential elements when raising a question of privilege are (1) a brief written statement of the matter prepared by the member, which cites relevant authorities; (2) a copy of the offending article, if applicable.

“Three, a copy of the motion that the member intends to move, should the Speaker find a prima facie breach of privilege has been established, must be tabled.

“Four, as a matter of practice and courtesy, members are encouraged to give prior notice in writing to the Speaker of the intention to raise a matter of privilege.”

In addition, Parliamentary Practice in B.C. continues on page 400, “If a question of privilege involves another member or includes an allegation of another member, that member should be present when the question is raised,” as found in the B.C. Journals, June 26, 1991, p. 62.

Further, Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Practice in B.C., 17.8.4 on page 404….

The Speaker: Minister, maybe you can submit a submission to the Speaker. You don’t have to read it here.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, I can absolutely do so. I have documentation to submit the government’s position and will submit that now. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture estimates.

[2:50 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are going to contemplate Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act of 2026.

I would call on our Minister of Environment to introduce the bill.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move that this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce for a second time the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026. The 2018 act was a landmark piece of legislation designed to support and create durable decisions. It introduced requirements to seek consensus between the province and First Nations at key steps in the environmental assessment process, and it provided dispute resolution provisions to support that when necessary.

We have heard from First Nations and industry that this aspect of the act has not been working as intended. That is why we are taking action today to revise the dispute resolution framework so it can better support consensus-seeking, predictability and trust.

Over the past six months, we have done extensive consultation and cooperation with 46 First Nations and engaged with First Nations organizations, industry representatives and project proponents. We have listened. We have learned. And we have reflected.

We heard strong interest in focusing on early issues resolution to support consensus-seeking. Meaningful collaboration should begin early in a way that respects Indigenous governance, knowledge and decision-making. When issues are not resolved early, they accumulate, creating pressure points and impacting timelines late in the process. The message was clear. Improving issues resolution reduces the need for formal dispute resolution.

We’ve also heard that the existing legislative framework requires more structure to bring clarity to dispute resolution provisions. The amendments address this input.

The first major amendment is the creation of a new tool, the issues resolution protocol. This protocol is designed to facilitate early issue resolution and support consensus-seeking throughout environmental assessments. It will be grounded in a standard issues resolution protocol which has been co-developed with B.C. First Nations.

First Nations that are participating in the environmental assessment can use it as a template, starting at the first phase of the process, customized to their specific governance context. This protocol will clearly outline how issues are discussed, escalated and resolved, and when the other parties should be involved.

The protocol is directly responsive to input from First Nations consulted during the development of these amendments.

It is a new tool under the act, but it is not a new concept for First Nations or the environmental assessment office. First Nations and the environmental assessment office have used this kind of approach to successfully resolve issues, government to government, for many years. It supports early identification of issues, respectful discussion and collaborative resolution. This brings more transparency, certainty and predictability to the process along with the flexibility to incorporate First Nations governance systems and legal traditions.

The second major amendment revises section 5 of the act to update the dispute resolution process. The revised provisions clarify how dispute resolution is initiated, when it is available and what issues it can address.

Dispute resolution will be available at early phases of the environmental assessment only, used by mutual agreement and focused on issues within the scope of the act. It will no longer apply during the effects assessment or recommendation phases, as experience has shown it is not effective at this late stage of the process. Instead, at those stages, outstanding issues can be addressed through the issues resolution protocol.

The intent is to resolve issues early and prevent the need for dispute resolution in the first place. The amendments also strengthen transparency for all participants in the environmental assessment.

[2:55 p.m.]

At its core, this legislative package supports consensus-seeking, provides clearer pathways for issue resolution and ensures that dispute resolution remains a constructive tool. It also supports predictability for all participants in the environmental assessment process, helping to ensure that environmental assessments remain timely, transparent and effective.

This brings us to the third amendment. Relationships with First Nations located in B.C. are a priority and a core focus of this government. The Supreme Court of Canada’s Desautel decision in 2021 confirmed that Indigenous groups located outside of Canada with a credible claim to Aboriginal rights in Canada may be owed a duty to consult. That ruling clarified that where the province has a duty to consult, that consultation may be different from consultation with First Nations in Canada.

We’re introducing updates to the Environmental Assessment Act to support the environmental assessment office’s ability to differentiate its consultation with U.S. tribes. Consistent with recent orders under the Environment and Land Use Act, the legislation will clarify that U.S. tribes cannot participate in the environmental assessments as participating Indigenous nations.

We take very seriously our obligations to consult with Indigenous groups who may be impacted by a proposed project. That consultation with U.S. tribes will take place outside of the participating Indigenous nation framework. This ensures a clear approach that respects the unique relationship B.C. First Nations have with the province, while upholding our consultation obligations to U.S. tribes.

These amendments reflect consultation and cooperation with First Nations, engagements with other parties that participate in environmental assessments and collaboration on the path forward. This shared commitment to improving environmental assessments in British Columbia was clear throughout our discussions. These amendments respond directly to what we’ve heard from First Nations, industry and participants across the province.

For First Nations, they offer a process that respects governance and treaty rights through early consensus-seeking and issues resolution. For industry, they provide increased transparency, predictability and the certainty needed to invest in British Columbia. For the public, they give assurance that our natural resources are managed through a fair, rigorous and predictable system.

With the introduction of these amendments, we are fostering reconciliation and building a stronger, more economic future for all British Columbians.

Donegal Wilson: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 15 as the designated speaker for the opposition — legislation that proposes changes to British Columbia’s environmental assessment framework.

Environmental assessment is one of the most important responsibilities entrusted to this Legislature. It is where we make decisions that shape how development proceeds, how landscapes are protected, how watersheds are safeguarded and how communities understand their place in the future of this province.

These decisions are not abstract. They affect whether projects move forward with clarity or uncertainty. They affect whether communities feel heard or left behind, and they affect whether British Columbians continue to have confidence in the systems that guide land and resource decisions across our province.

As the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I approach this legislation from the perspective that environmental assessment must do two things at the same time. It must protect what makes British Columbia extraordinary — our landscapes, our water and our wildlife — and it must provide a clear, stable pathway for responsible development to move forward.

[3:00 p.m.]

These are not competing objectives. They are complementary responsibilities and something that we must figure out for the prosperity of British Columbia. Environmental assessment exists to ensure that projects proceed in a way that respects ecosystems, supports communities and provides certainty to those making long-term investments and jobs in our province. That balance matters, especially in rural British Columbia, where many of these projects exist today.

In the communities I represent, environmental assessment is not a distant administrative process. It is part of our everyday reality. I come from a region rich in mining, forestry, water, recreation and all of the things that require environmental assessments. It shapes whether infrastructure is built, whether resource projects proceed, whether employment opportunities expand and whether environmental values that define these regions are protected for our future generations.

When we consider legislation that proposes changes to how environmental assessments operate, we’re not simply debating process. We’re debating how those decisions are made, and we’re debating today who participates in those decisions. We’re debating whether the framework we create today will provide the clarity British Columbians expect tomorrow.

I want to acknowledge at the outset that the Environmental Assessment Act review process did include engagement with Indigenous governments, local governments, proponents, environmental organizations and communities across British Columbia. That work was completed last year. Participants identified areas where the system could be strengthened, particularly with respect to early issue resolution, coordination between decision-makers and clarity in how those assessments move forward.

I believe this Bill 15 is an attempt to work towards those goals. They are important objectives. They are objectives that deserve careful attention in this House.

Bill 15 proposes to respond to some of these priorities. But as legislators, our responsibility is not only to consider what a bill is intended to do but what the actual outcomes it creates are. We are to examine how clearly those intentions are reflected in the legislation itself.

Predictability in environmental assessment does not come just with intentions. It comes from structure. It comes from timelines. It comes from transparency in the process overall. And honestly, it comes from clarity about how those decisions will be made in practice and applied in every single project equally.

Many of the changes proposed in this bill introduce new mechanisms intended to support that coordination and earlier resolution of issues within the environmental assessment process. Those mechanisms may prove useful — I believe they could — but many of the details that determine how they will operate remain to be defined through regulation at a later date rather than established directly in statute.

That distinction, I believe, matters, because environmental assessment functions best when communities understand how the process works before it begins, not after it has already started. It also functions best when proponents understand the sequence of decisions they will face with attached timelines. Investors need to know how long they’re planning for. It also needs to function with Indigenous governments, local governments so that the public can see clearly how their participation shapes that outcome.

Today my remarks will focus on three questions that I believe are central to understanding the legislation before us.

First, how does Bill 15 respond to what participants identified during the Environmental Assessment Act review process? I think that’s a really valid question.

Second, where does the legislation strengthen the environmental assessment framework? Are those timelines clearly defined?

Third, where does the bill leave important operational details to regulation that will need further examination as it moves forward through committee stage? Regulation doesn’t have that, whereas statutes do. We need to understand in committee stage what’s being moved to regulation and what that’s going to look like, going forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

Environmental assessment is one of the places where this Legislature most directly shapes the long-term future of British Columbia’s land, water and communities. It deserves careful attention. It deserves thoughtful scrutiny. It deserves legislation that provides the clarity that British Columbians expect from the framework that guides the most important decisions in our province.

With that in mind, I would like to begin by speaking about the role environmental assessment plays in protecting British Columbia and the natural resources and landscapes that define it.

Environmental assessment is one of the most important tools this province has so that development proceeds responsibly and the landscapes British Columbia depends on are protected for future generations. It is where environmental protection and economic opportunity meet. It is where long-term stewardship is translated into practical decision-making, and it is where the province demonstrates how it intends to balance growth with responsibility.

Bill 15 is an important tool to try to meet that responsibility. As the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I see environmental assessment as part of a broader system that protects the natural foundations of our province — our watersheds, our forests, our wildlife habitat and the landscapes that define both.

It is not simply a procedural requirement; it is a safeguard. It ensures that projects are evaluated not only for what they build but what they will affect for this generation and the generations that follow. It ensures that cumulative impacts are understood before decisions are made. It ensures that our drinking water, our fish habitats, our agricultural land and our species at risk are all considered in that decision-making to influence outcomes. And it ensures that decisions made today do not create unintended consequences for future generations.

That is why I think Bill 15, introducing the dispute resolution earlier in the process, really helps us in this process. British Columbia’s natural environment is not only central to our identity as a province; it is essential to our economic future.

We need to figure out how to get this right. We need to figure out how to bring that investment to our province. That comes from predictable timelines with known processes for all investors and companies in British Columbia. We also need to support our landscapes for tourism, recreation and other economies that exist within our landscape. We need to support biodiversity that is recognized around the world as one of our defining strengths in this province.

Environmental assessment plays a role in protecting all of these values and is why we have worked so hard over many years to make sure this act learns and grows. It also provides the framework that allows Indigenous governments, local governments and the public to participate meaningfully in decisions.

I think that Bill 15 is aspiring to create that framework but is lacking in the public and proponent sections. I look forward to digging into that in committee, because I think that those are two key things that seem to be missing in this legislation.

I know in many rural communities, major projects are not abstract discussions. In my own communities at Princeton, we’ve been on a long journey together as a community, as Princeton has looked to expand their copper mine. We have seen views from all sides. Hudbay Minerals has worked very hard to get through the environmental assessment and to bring the community along. We are thankful to see that the permit has come through but, at the same time, feel sad that not all communities came out and supported it, in the end.

The Lower Similkameen Indian Band has come out with a letter. They do not support this project. I don’t know whether this bill would have prevented that or what that looks like, going forward, but my hope is that this bill would have caught that and solved it much sooner and not created that instability for my community.

I lived in Princeton in the 1990s when the copper mine closed the first time, and I can tell you the devastating impacts it had for that community. More than half the community lost their jobs. We lost doctors. We lost dentists. We lost everybody who supported that industry. It became somewhat of a ghost town. So I am fearful that the boom and bust will again come to Princeton if we can’t get this solved. If this bill helps prevent that, then I look forward to committee stage to learning how that could happen.

In many rural communities, major projects are not abstract policies. I just shared what it means for one community. I have many other mining communities in my riding. I have Greenwood, which has built a whole legacy on mining.

[3:10 p.m.]

I have forestry. I have recreation. I have tourism. I have community forests. I have all of these things that go through environmental assessments. It’s really important that we figure out how to get this right, because they do shape employment opportunities and infrastructure investments long term.

They also shape land use decisions that affect entire regions for decades. They shape whether development proceeds in a way that strengthens communities or creates uncertainty within them. Environmental assessment helps ensure that those decisions are made carefully. It helps ensure that development proceeds with awareness of the long-term impacts. It helps ensure that British Columbians can have confidence that projects moving forward have been reviewed through a structured and accountable process.

It also plays an important role in supporting reconciliation. It creates opportunities for Indigenous governments to participate in decision-making that affects their territories. It supports collaboration between governments, and it helps establish processes through which knowledge, priorities and stewardship responsibilities can be reflected in project review. I am hoping that Bill 15 will be able to move that process through sooner so that we don’t have these communities in disagreement at later stages of the project that create more uncertainty.

I believe that environmental assessment works well when it protects ecosystems and it supports communities. It strengthens public confidence. I believe the minister said that in her opening remarks. I did hear her say, specifically, that providing public confidence was a key thing in this particular piece of legislation.

I look forward to committee stage, where we’re able to dig into that a little bit, because I don’t necessarily see how communities do participate in this process, how proponents participate in this process. I see a government-to-government protocol agreement, but I don’t see how the rest of the people involved in the decision are brought into that process. So I look forward to digging into that in committee stage.

But I know what happens when environmental assessments lack clarity, when timelines are uncertain, when participation structures are not clearly defined or when operational details are left unresolved. Uncertainty does not remain contained within the assessment process itself. That rolls out into community. It rolls out into investments. It rolls out into housing.

In Princeton we have a large number of unhoused people, largely because of the uncertainty of that permit in Princeton. People did not move their families and purchase properties or build new town and community housing because they didn’t know whether employment would continue long term. It had a lot of social implications to that permit being held up for many, many years.

I hope that this process, without a timeline in it defined within the statute, isn’t going to just add a length to that but will actually translate into quicker decisions on the ground. But I do know that it does spread outward.

It affected the community greatly. It affects proponents. Definitely Hudbay spent I don’t know how much time trying to bring the community along in their process, trying to educate people — open houses, one-on-one meetings — trying to get through the process of the environmental assessment.

It did affect the confidence of British Columbia’s system as a whole. It is an unknown — a lot of the environmental assessment process. We outlined that it’s going to be 180 days, but there have been many mechanisms to pause it. This process, actually, is before the 180 days start, and there is no timeline with that. So this could take years, and those investors have no idea how long that timeline is, how long they’re going to be out that money or whether they can actually invest and move forward in British Columbia.

I think that’s why we need to figure out a predictability in this environmental assessment amendment. I think the changes proposed in Bill 15 deserve really careful attention as we consider how they will shape that framework going forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

Before turning to the specific changes proposed in Bill 15, it is important to recognize that British Columbia’s environmental assessment framework already reflects many years of development, experience and improvement. We’re not writing this on day one. We know exactly what we have learned. We went and we consulted. We have a whole report on what we heard on what the changes need to be to the Environmental Assessment Act.

So we’re not starting from zero. It is a system that has evolved over time in response to lessons learned from projects; from communities; from Indigenous governments; and from those responsible for implementing the process itself, our staff here at the ministry. It is also a system that already contains important strengths. We have some strong winds within that legislation.

I think that the what-we-heard report outlined some key recommendations that we need to bring forward to make this act really work for all British Columbians. My concern is that this particular Bill 15 is only one of the many recommendations that are included in this act. I did not see or hear from the minister her plans to implement or introduce more legislation to implement the changes requested by community and industry.

I believe that the commitment to early engagement is a great commitment. I believe that it is a necessary commitment. I hope that the government actually implements that, that it’s not just lip service — that we just put this in legislation and then we end up in court later and find out we knew we had to consult, but we didn’t.

It’s similar to what has happened in Okanagan Falls, where they knew that the First Nations should be consulted on their incorporation, but at the same time, they just kept pushing it off and saying: “Yeah, we’ll do that. Yeah, we’ll do that.” Well, they sent it to referendum without including First Nations and then sent it to First Nations after a decision was made.

Not surprisingly, the First Nations have some concerns. They have things they want to see implemented into those changes. But it was already after the referendum, after the community thought they decided on something. So now we are in a perpetual conflict. There is anti-Indigenous sentiment in my communities. People don’t understand what is happening. We have moved to tables.

I bring that up because Bill 15 talks about moving into tables. How do people in communities know what is happening at these tables? How do we understand when we are not there to hear the history, to hear what we are going to do and why we’re doing these decisions? All we get is a decision at the end.

I did not see in this Bill 15 anything that talks about reporting out to the public about how that decision was made. It says: “to the parties.” How do the rest of us understand how those decisions were made and what happened at those tables? I’m concerned that they’re separate tables. These aren’t community tables. They’re Indigenous tables.

I understand the government-to-government relationship, but by not including the proponent and, possibly, the local elected officials in those tables, we are setting our communities up for division because we can’t bring them along. We can’t include them in why these decisions were made.

I went a little off script there. That’s okay.

I think it’s important that the communities stay engaged, that they know what’s going on, and I’m hoping that this Bill 15 can be adapted to allow that participation, that it isn’t just government to government with a final decision and the rest of us have to live with it.

I think that there’s a real need to bring community along. Reconciliation includes the people that live in the community and where the project is taking place, the people that work at that particular business that are going to be impacted by it, both negatively and positively. Everybody needs to be brought along so that they understand the decisions.

Over time, our framework has evolved to better reflect the importance of Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous priorities and government-to-government relationships within project assessment. I know that work continues, and it remains an essential component of building a system that reflects the realities of decision-making.

It also supports coordination across ministries and agencies. It’s supposed to be kind of a one-window application process, but we can see clearly in the engagement that that is not how industry feels. They don’t feel like they’re dealing with one particular agency on the environmental assessments. They are being sent all over — into WLRS, into Environment, into Forests, into Mining — and they don’t know where they’re going next or what the steps are. I’m hoping that Bill 15 will help to clarify some of that, but I’m concerned that it just adds another layer and doesn’t provide that clarity.

Environmental assessments often require decisions from multiple parts of government. As I just said, the environmental assessment office plays an important role in bringing all those decision-makers together and ensuring those assessments proceed within a structured framework rather than through disconnected approval pathways. That is our stated goal — structured framework.

[3:20 p.m.]

But I think the reality on the ground is disconnected approval pathways. That is what we heard in the what-we-heard report. It doesn’t seem to matter which what-we-heard report. Whether it’s on the Environmental Assessment Act or any of the other bills that we’ve heard in this House, the disconnected approval pathways continue to be the number one concern.

I was at COFI last week, and we heard that clearly. Disconnected government processes, the unknown, not knowing the pathway, not understanding how permits necessarily go through decision. Yes, once they get to a certain point, they go into the timeline, but it’s all the steps prior to that that are really unknown.

I think that this environmental assessment process has the ability to build public confidence if we do make it public and we do bring them along. I believe that there need to be clear participation opportunities that are understood, that communities are better able to follow the decisions that affect their regions and that transparency supports trust, not just in individual project decisions but in the broader framework overall.

People need to understand the framework, how it works, when they can expect to be updated and what those updates look like. I think environmental assessments intend to provide better project outcomes, and I think that in those what-we-heard reports, that is the desire but, obviously, not our current practice. We heard that, clearly, in there. It allows technical issues to be examined before they become barriers later. I’m hoping that Bill 15 allows us to get to that.

I think that engaging participants during the environmental assessment doesn’t require wholesale change. I think it’s there. It’s in the act already. I think it’s creating that framework for how we are going to deliver on it.

The participants in the what-we-heard report called for targeted improvements. They asked for earlier issue resolution, which we’re discussing here today. They asked for clearer timelines, which is not in this legislation.

This is actually one of my biggest concerns going forward. What are the timelines for this new process? We introduced it, but we have not attached any kind of timeline to it.

They asked for the better coordination across approvals. They want that one window. They want a single point. They want to understand the framework of how their decisions are made, when they’ll know and how they will be communicated with. Bill 15 responds to a couple of their requests but is pretty silent on some of the big ones.

Again, I’m going back. I did not hear from the minister when she introduced this bill if this is the first of upcoming legislation changes that will implement the what-we-heard recommendations or whether we’re just cherry-picking a couple. The question becomes, then: if you only do part of it, is it enough? I hope that, in her response at the end, she will clarify whether there’s more legislation coming.

As part of the Environmental Assessment Act review process, the province undertook engagement across the province. I’ve mentioned before that it included Indigenous governments, local governments, industry, environmental organizations, technical experts and members of the public across B.C.

These participants were not asked whether this should exist. That is a given. The environmental assessment process must exist. They were asked how it would work better. What could they do or what could they implement to make things better?

The responses were remarkably consistent across British Columbians. They asked for predictability in timelines. It was their number one ask. They asked for clarity about how decisions move forward and when those decisions can be expected. Are you sensing a theme? This is coming forward in this speech.

They asked for transparency in how issues are raised, discussed and resolved during assessment. They asked for clearer participation structures so that everyone involved in the process understands their role and their responsibility. They asked for earlier resolution of issues so that concerns are addressed before they become barriers later in project review. That’s No. 5 in what we’re talking about today.

In No. 6, they asked for better coordination across ministries and agencies, recognizing that environmental assessment does not operate in isolation of other approvals. They asked for consistency across projects so that expectations do not change depending on sector, region or individual assessment pathways.

[3:25 p.m.]

We don’t want to see different decision pathways with different facilitators. We don’t want to see the huge differences from region to region, or we risk that decision framework, that investment, because nobody knows…. “If I’m going to this region, it’s different than if I go to that region.” It’s important that the framework is consistent.

In No. 8, they emphasized the importance of meaningful Indigenous participation throughout the environmental assessment and a foundation of the decision-making, moving forward. I think that one, as well, is what we’re discussing here today.

I don’t think these are abstract policy observations. They were operational concerns raised by people working within our system and participating in it directly. These are the people on the ground. Participants were describing how environmental assessment functions in practice. They want to know how this looks, how it feels, what it looks like on the ground. They were describing where improvements could make processes more understandable, more efficient and more predictable for everyone involved.

Predictability emerged as one of the strongest themes throughout the engagement. I’m hoping that Bill 15 actually introduces clear predictability for proponents, for the people in the community, so that we can all understand how this is going to work and what the timeline attached to it is.

I believe that the people that made those recommendations believe that we need all eight. I don’t think that only addressing two of the eight recommendations will necessarily create the improvements on the ground that they want. I acknowledge this is a first step, but I hope to hear from the minister that there’s more legislation coming, that she is going to signal in committee what’s happening in regulation around timelines and what those changes to those timelines could look like, what pauses a project.

Participants indicated that they understand how assessments move forward and when decisions are expected. It is essential not only for their proponents but for their communities, for their investors, for their local governments and everybody affected by those decisions.

Transparency was the other consistent theme. While this bill talks about transparency and the reporting, that reporting seems to live within the tables. It doesn’t necessarily go out to the proponent, that I can see, in the wording that has been provided, and it certainly does not speak to the public. So I’m interested to dig into that at committee.

I think that participants emphasized that environmental assessment works best when the processes are clear, visible and understandable for everyone. That’s not laid out in the legislation necessarily, the whole process, and I’m hoping that, again, the minister can speak to that in committee — what this will look like on the ground in regulation.

She spoke to having a template that they would pick up. I’m hoping she’ll be able to table that template for us to consider at committee so that we can really see how this works or is intended to work, understanding that there are differences between nations and governances and that it’s not going to be the same for everyone, but the template and the framework should be similar.

I believe that earlier issue resolution was also one of their clear priorities, and that’s why we’re here today. I believe this government is trying to meet that. I do feel like it falls short, and I look forward to perhaps making some amendments at committee or at least getting clarification on the record of the minister’s intent during that process.

I believe that coordination across approval systems was also raised consistently. Not waiting for one permit from one ministry that cascades to another permit for another industry, which cascades to needing some kind of archaeology, which cascades to…. It just keeps going.

I also think that I’ve seen on the ground that for many of the professional members, whether they’re engineers or whatever, their credentials are not necessarily accepted these days, and I wonder where that is going as a government overall. These are people that are qualified, and we have people within government staff not necessarily with the same qualifications yet that have decision-making over these items. I could go into that, but I’d be down a rabbit hole of us talking about docs and other things, which I won’t do today.

I believe that aligning assessment timelines with permitting decisions needs to happen, and it needs to happen to strengthen the process overall. Participants indicated that stable expectations across sectors and regions strengthened confidence and that confidence will translate into investment, jobs, economic opportunity for our communities.

[3:30 p.m.]

I believe that the maintenance of the public confidence…. That is lacking. It was so lacking in our incorporation in Okanagan Falls. It’s so detrimental to our community.

We have an open house coming up. After a year, the people in Okanagan Falls are going to find out what’s happening. I know that it’ll be a respectful discussion, but it’s really late in the process, considering that those letters patent have to be approved so they can have an election this fall. My understanding is it’s by June, from the minister, so I don’t know how much input the public is actually going to have at this point. I’m a little disappointed in that.

I’m hoping that this Bill 15, if it had been there…. I know that’s not an environmental assessment, but the core beliefs of this…. The minister said in her opening remarks that they use this process in other applications. I hope she takes that to heart, and the other ministries as well, that we need to do this stuff earlier. We need to figure it out. But they can’t be tables isolated from community and from the proponent.

I think that the one area where Bill 15 doesn’t respond directly to engagement feedback is the request. Clearly, Bill 15 is trying to do it, but I feel like we didn’t hit the nail on the head with the issue resolution.

I see that the First Nations have a way to escalate into this process, but how does the proponent have a way to escalate into this process? If they get into a stalemate where they’re not able to move forward, how do they escalate into a process?

I’m not terribly familiar with the Environmental Assessment Act. Perhaps that exists. But I think that the proponent also needs to be able to move into this framework if they are also feeling like something is being flagged and not being addressed — that government, First Nations or proponent can initiate the tables to start this. I look forward to committee to be able to ask those questions, whether that’s something the minister would consider.

They’re looking for predictable issue resolution, predictable timelines, predictable structure. What does that look like? None of that is outlined in the bill. Again, the minister referenced a template that I’m hoping can be tabled during committee stage for us to have a review so we can better understand what implementation on the ground looks like.

Predictability is one of the strongest and most consistent themes in the what-we-heard report. We need to know what the timelines are. I can’t get past that. Without knowing the timelines, this could create a two-year process to do these tables properly.

I don’t know if I’m allowed to speak to the treaties because they’ve been tabled. Theoretically, there are some treaties coming. I believe that the need for those tools to operate in practice is necessary.

Transparency is the priority identified repeatedly through this engagement. They emphasize that environmental assessment must remain understandable to communities affected by project decisions.

If I look at Princeton, what does that look like? We saw an announcement by the minister. Everybody celebrated for about one hour. Then we get a letter from the Lower Similkameen Indian Band that says they do not support it. What does that mean? The people in Princeton, again, don’t know what’s happening, what’s going forward. Is the Lower Similkameen Indian Band not supporting it enough to stop the application? We don’t know.

I don’t know whether this process or these timelines will do that. But the treaties took 15 years, some of them 30 years, to get to where they are today. Yet this process could be the same. We don’t know how deep the resolution or the issue is that we’re trying to resolve.

So what is the timeline? Do we say that you have six months to get through this process? Do we actually put some framework around it? My fear is that without framework or a timeline around the process and the tables — they’re consensus tables — we may never get there. So what does that look like?

[3:35 p.m.]

It also doesn’t establish any reporting expectations to the public or to the proponent. I think the decision will be communicated, but the reasons for decision may not be. It may be communicated at a very high level.

We were at a First Nations presentation last night over at the museum, which was an amazing opportunity to celebrate with First Nations and hear their concerns. It was a great opportunity. But how do we ensure that those opportunities for our communities continue? How do we make sure that our communities stay intact, neighbours to neighbours?

These assessments involve multiple decision-makers. If we go to these tables and the technical table doesn’t have the technical expertise it needs to make a decision, then what happens? Do we have to wait another month to get the technical expert? What does the timeline look like? I think that is going to be key for how this bill moves forward.

I invite the minister to put a timeline in an amendment into this bill. I would support that 100 percent. I believe that we need to put some framework around this. Otherwise, these could be ongoing, never-ending tables where we try to get to consensus and can’t. What does that mean for the project proponent who is sitting there waiting and waiting to get into the 180-day window to get into the…?

We could go on about all the reasons they pause and all the things that happen after that. I think an average application right now is three to five years, with some of them going as long as ten. What is this going to add to that window? Is it going to shorten it, or is it going to make it longer? I think we need clarity around that.

I think that the environmental assessment must align more clearly with other provincial decision-making processes so that projects do not face unnecessary duplication or uncertainty.

What do these tables look like? What is the information they are going to require? Is it included in the original application? Are we looking at another huge bundle of preparation for the proponent of data and information that they need to bring forward? We need to provide some guidelines around that for the proponents when this comes into implementation.

I don’t think that this bill describes how these mechanisms interact with approvals outside of the framework. I think that that’s typical within government. We move within silos, and this bill could really become its own silo, where it sits outside of the other decision-making. But all the other decision-making is likely to be held up while that silo is working.

How do we make sure those silos don’t start, and how do we address them, going forward? I think that many of these details would allow communities to understand how the processes operate and figure out how they can be involved in it.

I think that this bill reflects some of the direction identified through engagement, particularly around earlier issue resolution and structured collaboration between governments. But I think most of the most important expectations identified in the report remain deferred to regulation rather than established in this statute. I don’t know that that is just a detail.

I know why we do things in law versus regulation, but I think that the framework itself needs to be in law so that we can clearly understand what the timelines are; what the structure of this is; and how it will fully integrate and not become its own siloed, stalled process, where we still can’t get projects done in B.C.

I think that the predictability…. I must have said it ten times. I’m sure someone’s got a little ticker going over there on how many times I’ve said it. I need my colleague here who keeps a running ticker.

The reality is we need to do these things and we need to ensure that this bill gets it right. I think the participants were clear about what they wanted.

I keep going back to why this is the only piece that we’re working on in this sitting. Is there more coming? That was not mentioned in the minister’s remarks. I’m hoping there’s more coming, because there was a lot more in that report than this one little piece.

We need to make sure, in order to make the improvements that people need, that we implement the changes they requested. We engaged them. I’m not familiar but I’m going to guess, having participated in many other engagements, that government, industry, non-profits and ENGOs probably all had countless hours, days, travel, written comments and everything into this report.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now what government does with it, I think, is key to signal to those people that what they did matters. It actually fed into a decision. We didn’t just take one thing out of your — I’m going to guess — year’s worth of work and make that happen. We actually heard you, and we’re going to implement it all.

I believe that Bill 15 does support several mechanisms that will get to earlier issue resolution. It doesn’t include what the issue is. There are no guidelines around what kind of issue can be lifted. That may be a positive, but it could also, perhaps, have unintended consequences. We may go into this dispute resolution process about title that may be not anything to do with the actual environmental assessment. We may end up, in that process, trying to solve something that’s actually not part of the environmental assessment.

I look forward to hearing the minister in committee share a little bit around how she sees that and how they’re going to limit the scope of those tables to the actual project they’re working on and not have a creeping scope on those tables, which could further delay the time that they have.

I believe that those statutory timelines have to be included. I feel like if we don’t put some timelines around this, we actually could just be adding more to the process. We could be driving away more investment and jobs in British Columbia. We are one of the hardest jurisdictions to do business in, in Canada and, I would challenge, maybe North America.

We do have a complicated land base. We do have unsettled land claims. We have reasons for those complications. But we are seeing jobs and investment flee this province.

We need to solve it, and I don’t know that Bill 15 alone can do that. I hope that it doesn’t just add another regulatory burden, another consultant report that is required, another eight months of legal requirements from the proponent to participate in these tables and that government properly resources the tables and the people participating at the tables to get to a resolution, that we don’t just strike the table and set it up for failure. It is integral that those tables are set up for success, especially with a timeline that’s attached to it.

I think distinction matters. I think legislation provides certainty. Regulation provides flexibility. I get the difference between the two. I think we should signal to our investors that…. We need to have a defined timeline on these tables so that we can signal to our investors exactly what is expected. That should be in law; it should not be in regulation. I hope the minister will either introduce it or accept an amendment in committee that adds a date to the legislation.

I don’t think that the timelines eliminate the complexity, but I do think that it will provide assurance to investors and people that are…. It’s not even necessarily investors. Snowmobile clubs, ATV clubs, cross-country ski clubs — they all do environmental assessments as part of their trail-building. Many outdoor water recreation groups also do environmental assessments. House-building. Just about everything we do in British Columbia requires some kind of environmental assessment.

Speaking of properly resourcing, what are we going to do if this gets triggered on every environmental assessment we have currently in B.C.? What does that look like? What does the resourcing for that look like? How do we plan for that? How do we make sure that this process is reserved specifically for resolution of items that are big and that need to be resolved, that not just every single environmental assessment gets triggered into this process? Some of that would, I would suspect, come from the uncertainty that we have on the land base in British Columbia.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think that it’s not clear, also on the timelines, whether this pauses the other processes. The investor goes through the environmental assessment, and they think that they’re going to be 180 days to the first phase decision. Lo and behold, this pops up. Does that pause the 180 days, or does this have to be completed within the 180 days? My belief is that it’ll pause it, but I think that we need some clarity on that in committee.

I think, again, that it creates an unknown. How long is that pause? What does that mean as an investor in B.C.? You think you’re finally at the 180 days to getting to a decision and — poof! — a new process pops in, and you’re now on an unknown timeline again for what investment in British Columbia looks like.

I believe that this does provide predictability by doing it before the process begins. Maybe this all happens before the 180 days. But I think, from reading the legislation, that it could be brought in at any point as a dispute resolution. It doesn’t say primarily that it can only happen at the beginning, though there is other dispute resolution.

I did hear the minister speak specifically about another dispute resolution process, so maybe this is only the pre-process and then they go into the other dispute resolution once they’re in the 180 days. I’ll look for some clarity on that in committee.

I think that predictability depends on understanding the structure of a process before it begins. Environmental assessment does not operate in isolation from the broader approval system. Projects move forward within financing windows. They move forward within construction seasons. They move forward within regulatory sequences that involve multiple ministries and multiple governments.

When they’re undefined, the uncertainty created within that process extends outward into those broader decision-making systems. Looking, even, at the Indigenous governance system, many of their elections happen, I think, every two years. What does that look like for these tables if the decision-making bodies of government are changing as well?

Bill 15 introduces a structured issue resolution pathway between governments. But again, where is the proponent? How does the proponent participate in these tables? I think that we need to understand who has authority at each stage of the process and where this particular Bill 15 legislation fits into that legislation.

I think details may emerge later through regulation. I believe, in reading this…. There’s not enough in the bill to actually implement it, so there must be lots coming within regulation. I hope that the minister is able to speak to some of that regulation in the committee stage, as we move forward, on what that looks like. Because I think that without knowing those regulations and what it looks like on the ground, this bill, standing alone, does not create the necessary steps to create that certainty in British Columbia.

I think that multiple agencies and multiple interests need a process, and I’m hoping that that regulation outlines what that is. I think that that matters for Indigenous governance as well. I think that they need to understand, again, what the timeline and expectations are for them and what resourcing requirements they should be asking for to participate in these processes. I believe that creating the pathway between the governments without proper resourcing could have a negative effect for all of us.

The consistency across assessments. I think I want to talk about this a little bit. This is specifically the regional nuances between these processes. As each of these tables are set up, they’re going to be local, project-specific tables. I think that the possibility exists for precedent-setting to happen between table and table. We could see, again, that creeping scope where we don’t know…. The decision-making in the North went really smooth, and we were done in 21 days. The decision-making in the Kootenays took two years.

[3:50 p.m.]

How do we make sure that that comes together and becomes workable for the people of B.C.? I think that we need confidence in that timeline and what the process is going to look like that’s going to be outlined in regulation later. I think that consistency doesn’t mean it has to be identical. It doesn’t have to be the same for every single project, but it does have to have a structure.

It has to have that framework, and I’m hoping it has that template. I’m so excited that the minister mentioned the template, because this tells me that it exists today and that maybe we’re going to be able to see it at the committee stage. I look forward to seeing that. I made myself a note: “Yay, there’s a template. Let’s see what that says and what it looks like on the ground.”

I think that the regulation-later framework is necessary as a government, but at the same time, we want to make sure that we legislate what is required, that it’s debated in this House, that we understand clearly what should be debated and what should be left for government decision-making. So I am concerned that much of the decision-making around how these tables operate and how this bill is implemented is left to regulation that we don’t know about today.

As we move to committee stage, I look forward to examining how the changes proposed in Bill 15 will operate in practice. I think that it allows us to examine how those are implemented and perhaps see the template. In legislation that introduces new coordination mechanisms and new issue resolution pathways within the EA program, I think that distinction matters.

I think that it’s important that we put it on the record so that all of the proponents that are looking to invest in British Columbia clearly know what to expect when this bill passes and what it means for investing in B.C., that we clearly get that done.

In closing, I believe that environmental assessment is one of our most important decision-making frameworks this Legislature is responsible for maintaining. I believe that it is where we protect our watersheds, our ecosystems and the landscapes that define our province, and it is where communities, Indigenous governments and local governments and proponents come together within a structured process to consider projects that shape the future of our province. I believe it supports responsible development and it can create a path forward for prosperity for British Columbia.

Hon. Randene Neill: It is my pleasure today to speak in support of the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, otherwise known as Bill 15.

The 2018 act, when it was first created, was an absolute landmark piece of legislation designed to support free, prior and informed consent and create really good, durable decisions. But like all pieces of legislation, there are always areas where improvements can be made.

We realize now that we needed to introduce requirements to seek consensus between the province and First Nations at key steps in the assessment process. We needed to provide and update the dispute resolution provisions to support that when necessary. As we’ve heard from industry and First Nations, there are certain aspects of the act that have not been working as intended. That’s why we’re taking action to revise the dispute resolution framework so it can better support consensus-seeking, predictability and trust.

What we’re creating with these amendments is a transparent, predictable path for resource development, honouring reconciliation and protecting our natural environment. This is something that business, industry, First Nations, local governments and everyone who has a stake in the future of British Columbia asks for — transparency and predictability. These targeted amendments create clarity and predictability, as well, for timelines in the environmental assessment process.

The government is working with industry and First Nations to make sure provincially significant projects are able to move forward quickly, efficiently and transparently while making sure we maintain the highest environmental standards in the entire country. This is how we protect our environment, grow our economy and do it in reconciliation with First Nations.

[3:55 p.m.]

Looking at a couple of commonly asked questions…. The member opposite asked a couple of these questions. The first one was: what type of engagement was done in developing these amendments? Well, changes to the dispute resolution framework were developed through extensive consultation and cooperation over the past six months with 46 different First Nations and several organizations along with extensive engagement with industry representatives and project proponents.

Another question that the member opposite asked is: why are these changes necessary? When we look at some of the feedback we received from industry across the province and First Nations as well, there was some concern that dispute resolution hadn’t been working the way it was intended when the bill was first passed in 2018. It had seen extended assessment timelines and deepening mistrust between parties, in some cases.

That’s why the EAO, the environmental assessment office, has spent the past half year consulting with industry, engaging with First Nations, to find a more effective approach to resolving matters of disagreement in environmental assessments.

Finally, what impact is expected on assessment timelines from these changes to dispute resolution and introduction of the new issues resolution protocol? This is an incredibly important question that a lot of people have been asking. By focusing on resolving and closing issues earlier and throughout the assessment, instead of carrying them forward to later stages of the process, it is the government’s aim to improve the timelines and predictability of the process.

That’s how I started this, and perhaps that’s how we’ll end it as well. Our goal is not only to ensure the highest environmental standards, not only in Canada but also North America; we also owe it to our First Nations and to our industries in British Columbia, on clear, transparent and efficient timelines. This is what these amendments aim to do.

Sheldon Clare: I rise today, as the official opposition critic for Environment and Parks and for Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, regarding this legislation, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, commonly referred to as Bill 15.

I want to begin by stating something very clearly, because it is important that it’s not mischaracterized in this debate or subsequent to it.

This is not an opposition to consultation with Indigenous nations. Far from it. This is not opposition to reconciliation, and this is not opposition to improving environmental assessment processes. Those are legitimate, necessary and constitutionally grounded objectives under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and under the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada — including decisions such as Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004 SCC 73, and Tŝilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.

Those obligations are real. They are binding, and they must be respected. But what we are dealing with here today is not simply a question of intent. It is a question of legislative design.

When we examine the design of Bill 15, what we find is not a strengthening of certainty and environmental assessment. We find a fragmentation of process. We find a multiplication of procedural layers. We find an expansion of discretionary authority without corresponding statutory limits. We find, most concerning of all, a system that risks replacing clarity with complexity at precisely the moment British Columbia can least afford it.

British Columbia is entering a period of extraordinary economic and legal pressure. We are facing global uncertainty in commodity markets. We are facing sustained inflationary impacts on infrastructure development. We are facing capital competition from jurisdictions that are actively streamlining permitting processes to attract investment. We are facing ongoing trade pressures, including tariff risks, that directly affect British Columbia’s export-dependent resource economy.

At the same time, we are navigating a rapidly evolving legal environment under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[4:00 p.m.]

That legal environment is not static. It is expanding, it is deepening, and it is increasingly being interpreted through complex and fact-specific litigation involving land title, consultation adequacy and Crown decision-making authority.

We have seen this trajectory over decades of jurisprudence, from the Haida Nation to Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada in 2005 to the Tŝilhqot’in Nation. More recently, we have seen continued litigation in British Columbia involving assertions of Aboriginal title and competing claims over land use decision-making authority, including high-profile decisions in the province that have raised serious concerns about the certainty of tenure and governance authority.

In that context, legislation governing environmental assessment is not just administrative housekeeping. It is foundational economic infrastructure. It determines whether British Columbia is a place where major projects can be built or whether it becomes a jurisdiction defined by procedural risk. Bill 15 moves us in a direction that raises legitimate concern on that front.

Let us examine what this bill actually does. It first replaces an existing dispute resolution framework with a new system built around issue resolution protocols, technical tables, leadership tables and formal dispute resolution processes. It introduces new mechanisms for engagement between the environmental assessment office and participating Indigenous nations. It establishes structured forums for discussion and escalation of issues. It provides for written protocols that govern how these issues are to be resolved. It creates a dispute resolution system that can be triggered by either Indigenous nations or the chief executive assessment officer under specific conditions. It introduces publication requirements intended to increase transparency.

On the surface, this appears comprehensive, and process complexity is not the same as legal certainty. When we look more closely at how these mechanisms operate, what becomes clear is that this is not a linear decision-making system. It is a layered and conditional system where each step depends on agreement, discretion, timing and procedural alignment between multiple actors.

When systems become dependent on multiple discretionary triggers, the result is not predictability. The result is variability, and variability in environmental assessment law is not neutral. It is the source of legal and economic risk.

Let us begin with the issue resolution protocols under section 18.1. These protocols are not mandatory. They are initiated only if an Indigenous nation provides notice and the chief executive assessment officer agrees to enter discussions. Even then, the content of the protocol is subject to negotiation.

Critically, subsection (4) provides that if notice is not given on the same day as participation notice, the chief executive assessment officer may, but is not required to, enter into discussions. That is discretionary participation in a foundational engagement mechanism. We are therefore creating a system where access to structured engagement is not uniformly available. It is conditional. It is discretionary.

That raises a fundamental governance question. How does a project proponent or participating nation predict whether they will be able to access the full suite of engagement mechanisms available under this act? The answer is that under this bill, they cannot. They can only wait to see how discretion is exercised in each case, and that is not certainty. That is administrative variability embedded into statute.

We then move to part 4.2, the dispute resolution framework. Here we see a system that appears formal but is actually structurally fragile. A dispute can only proceed if parties agree on the terms of resolution, including participants and the facilitator. If agreement is not reached, section 18.5(7) is clear: “there is no dispute resolution process.”

Let us pause on that. There is no fallback mechanism. There is no default arbitration. There is no mandatory adjudication. There is simply no process. So what we have is a dispute resolution system that is, in effect, opt in at multiple stages. And if agreement fails at the procedural stage, the system collapses entirely.

From a legal perspective, that is highly unusual in administrative frameworks that govern complex regulatory approvals because it creates a structural risk that disputes will not be resolved. They will simply persist, and unresolved disputes in environmental assessment are not benign. They translate directly into delay, litigation and injunction risk.

[4:05 p.m.]

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized that consultation under section 35 must be meaningful, but meaningful consultation also requires structure.

In Haida Nation, the court made clear that consultation must be conducted in good faith, with the intention of substantially addressing concerns. But the court also recognized that governments must be able to make decisions. Consultation is not a veto. It is a process of reconciliation within the Crown’s decision-making authority.

What Bill 15 risks doing is blurring the line between consultation and procedural dependency. By embedding multiple discretionary engagement layers and by allowing dispute processes to be contingent on agreement, we risk creating a system where decision-making becomes contingent not on statutory authority but on procedural alignment between parties.

That is where legal risks begin to emerge. When statutory decision–making becomes procedurally fragmented, courts are more likely to intervene to clarify obligations, and judicial intervention in environmental assessment is not merely hypothetical. It is well established in Canadian administrative law.

We must also consider the absence of statutory timelines. Nowhere in the core dispute resolution provisions do we see binding timelines for completion of issue resolution protocols or dispute resolution processes. Nowhere do we see mandatory deadlines for escalation. Nowhere do we see limits on how long a process may remain in limbo.

This is not a minor omission. In environmental assessment law, timelines are central to certainty. They are central to investment decisions. They are central to project financing. And their absence creates what economists and legal scholars often refer to as “regulatory latency risk,” the risk that approval processes become open-ended and unpredictable.

British Columbia already faces challenges in this area — to make an understatement — as we all in this House know. We are mindful of the massive effect the Quw’utsun court decision has had regarding uncertainty and how that is affecting not just investors but all British Columbians.

Capital investment decisions increasingly compare jurisdictions based on permitting certainty. Competing jurisdictions are actively reducing approval timelines. In that context, adding procedural layers without timelines is not neutral. It is a competitive disadvantage.

We must also address discretion. The chief executive assessment officer is given significant authority under this bill. They may enter into discussions. They may decline to do so. They may discontinue attempts to agree on dispute resolution terms. They may shape the procedural pathway through which disputes are handled. All of this is subject to consideration of internal policies and written reasons. But there is no independent review mechanism outlined in the statute for these discretionary procedural decisions.

That raises a fundamental administrative law concern, that of consistency. When discretion is broad and oversight is limited, outcomes become variable. When outcomes become variable, legal predictability declines.

I want to emphasize again what the official opposition’s position is not. We are not arguing against Indigenous engagement. We are not arguing against structured consultation processes. We are not arguing against reconciliation.

We are, in fact, arguing that reconciliation must be implemented within a framework that is legally coherent, economically sustainable and administratively predictable. Without those elements, we do not strengthen reconciliation; we weaken implementation and we increase litigation risk for all parties involved.

Having outlined the structural features of Bill 15 and the procedural architecture it creates, I want to now turn to the constitutional dimension of this legislation under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the legal risks that arise when environmental assessment regimes become procedurally fragmented in the way that this bill proposes.

Section 35 is not aspirational language. It is constitutional law. It is binding on the Crown, and it has been repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a manner that requires both meaningful consultation and legally coherent decision-making structures.

In Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, the court established the foundational principle that the Crown has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous interests when contemplating conduct that may adversely affect asserted or established Aboriginal rights.

[4:10 p.m.]

But importantly, the court also emphasized that consultation is part of Crown decision-making. It does not displace it; it informs it.

In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, the court went further and confirmed Aboriginal title as a proprietary interest in land, requiring that Crown decisions affecting title land meet a stringent justification standard.

In Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40, the court reiterated that while the duty to consult applies at the executive level, courts retain a supervisory role where processes fail to meet constitutional standards.

Taken together, these cases establish a consistent principle. Consultation must be meaningful, but it must also be structured in a way that produces decisions. What the courts do not accept is procedural ambiguity that effectively prevents decisions from being made or obscures whether consultation obligations have been fulfilled.

This is where Bill 15 becomes legally significant in ways that go beyond administrative reform, because the bill does not simply enhance consultation. It restructures the decision-making environment in which this consultation occurs. It introduces issue resolution protocols, technical tables, leadership tables and dispute resolution mechanisms that are not strictly sequential, not uniformly mandatory and not bound by clear statutory timelines.

My colleague has spoken to the need for clear statutory timelines.

The result is a system in which consultation is no longer anchored to a single coherent process but, instead, distributed across multiple procedural layers that may or may not be activated, depending on discretion and agreement between the parties.

From a section 35 position, that raises a critical question. If consultation is fragmented across multiple optional or conditional mechanisms, how does the Crown demonstrate that it has met its constitutional obligation in any given case? The answer is not clear in this legislation, and legal uncertainty at the level of constitutional compliance is not merely a theoretical issue. It is a litigation risk.

We have seen in recent years that environmental assessment decisions are increasingly subject to judicial review where consultation adequacy is in question. Courts are not reluctant to intervene where statutory frameworks are unclear, inconsistent or fail to provide a coherent record of consultation.

The danger with Bill 15 is not that consultation is absent. The danger is that consultation becomes procedurally diffused. And when consultation becomes diffused, the evidentiary record required to defend Crown decisions becomes more complex, more contested and more vulnerable to being challenged.

That increases the probability of injunction applications against major projects. It increases the cost of defending regulatory decisions, and it increases the likelihood that the courts will be asked to interpret whether the process as a whole meets constitutional requirements. This is not a desirable outcome for any government seeking to balance reconciliation with economic development.

I also want to address a broader governance issue — the role of discretion in environmental assessment. This bill places significant procedural authority in the hands of the chief executive assessment officer. That office determines whether discussions occur and whether the dispute resolution process proceeds, or they may discontinue attempts to reach agreement on process terms. They shape the procedural pathway by which issues are escalated or resolved.

Now, discretion in administrative systems is not inherently problematic. In fact, it is often necessary. But discretion must be bound by clear statutory principles, timelines and review mechanisms if it is to be consistent with the rule of law. Where discretion is broad and procedural outcomes are contingent, the result is variability. Variability in environmental assessment law translates directly into uncertainty.

Now let’s consider the dispute resolution mechanism itself. At first glance, it appears to be a structured system designed to facilitate agreement, but structurally it is conditional at multiple stages. First, a dispute can only be initiated on specified matters. Second, it requires written notice with defined content. Third, it requires agreement on procedural terms, including participants and facilitators. Fourth, it requires that the chief executive assessment officer agree or not discontinue discussions. Fifth, if agreement is not reached on terms, the process ends entirely.

[4:15 p.m.]

There is no mandatory arbitration. There is no statutory adjudication fallback. There is no requirement that disputes proceed to resolution. This is not a complete dispute resolution system. It is a conditional facilitation framework, and conditional systems, by their nature, are vulnerable to non-completion.

This matters because environmental assessment disputes are not abstract disagreements. They are directly tied to whether projects proceed, whether or not permits are issued, whether or not construction begins, whether or not capital is deployed and whether or not communities receive the economic benefits associated with development. If dispute resolution mechanisms are incomplete or optional at critical stages, the system does not eliminate conflict. It defers it, and deferred conflict in regulatory systems tends to manifest as litigation.

I want to turn now to the economic dimension of this bill, because it cannot be separated from the legal and procedural analyses. British Columbia’s economy is highly exposed to resource development cycles, infrastructure, investment and export markets. Major projects require regulatory certainty before capital is committed. They require predictable timelines. They require clear consultation pathways, and they require confidence that disputes will be resolved within defined institutional frameworks.

Bill 15 introduces some certainty in all four of these areas. There are no binding timelines for dispute resolution. There is no guarantee that dispute processes will proceed if agreement is not reached. There is significant discretion at multiple procedural stages. And there is a lack of clarity around how overlapping engagement mechanisms interact. From an investment perspective, this creates what is known as process risk — the risk that regulatory approval timelines are unpredictable or extend beyond reasonable planning horizons.

Process risk is one of the primary factors that drives capital away from jurisdictions. In an era where global capital is mobile, jurisdictions compete not only on resource quality but on regulatory certainty. British Columbia must be extremely cautious not to inadvertently position itself as a high-risk jurisdiction from a process standpoint.

I also want to address the political context in which this legislation is being addressed. Over the past several years, the province has been engaged in an increasingly complex and sometimes strained relationship with Indigenous nations, particularly in the context of land use, resource development and consultation obligations.

This is not unique to British Columbia. It is part of a broader national evolution in the interpretation and implementation of section 35 rights. However, within British Columbia, there has been growing public concern about uncertainty in land use governance, particularly where overlapping claims, consultation disputes and litigation intersect with major economic projects.

Court decisions — such as those involving Aboriginal title claims in various parts of the province, including recent litigation in the Lower Mainland and other resource regions — have reinforced the reality that these issues are not settled. They are actively evolving, and in that environment, legislative clarity becomes more important. Uncertainty at the legal level translates into uncertainty at the investment level, and uncertainty at the investment level translates into delayed or cancelled projects. That is a cycle we must avoid.

This is why the stakes of Bill 15 are so high. This legislation is not being introduced into a stable, low-risk environment. We are teetering over a historic precipice in this province regarding Indigenous land claims and the section 35 constitutional framework. We have been witness to this government completely up-ending traditional treaty-negotiating processes, replacing them with legal uncertainty and political chaos.

All this has been unleashed on the economic stability but, moreover, on the economic goodwill of the reconciliation journey and the goodwill of it generally. It’s all very troubling. It affects a great many people who care deeply about the implications of legislation like Bill 15, and I am one of those people who is deeply concerned.

As I have stated, Bill 15 is being introduced into a high-complexity constitutional and economic environment where clarity is absolutely essential, in light of the far-reaching implications of the Quw’utsun decision.

Yet throwing caution to the wind, what we see in this bill is an expansion of procedural architecture without the corresponding expansion of statutory certainty. We see more mechanisms but not enough certainty. We see more engagement points but not more resolution certainty. We see more discretion but not more structure. And in governance terms, that is a dangerous imbalance.

[4:20 p.m.]

I want to conclude by addressing what this bill represents at its core — beyond its clauses, beyond its procedural architecture and beyond its technical language. Legislation is never about what it just says. It’s also about what it does in practice. We’ve certainly seen that with DRIPA in this province, I would argue.

Let me be clear again. What Bill 15 does in its current form is fundamentally reshape environmental assessment in British Columbia into a system defined by layered discretion, conditional processes and unresolved procedural dependencies. That is not a minor adjustment. That is a Pandora’s box structural redesign of how the province makes decisions about major projects.

When governments undertake structural redesigns of core economic governance systems, they carry a heightened responsibility to ensure clarity, certainty and constitutional coherence. On that test, this bill needs to do better. It needs to meet the standards that British Columbians should expect.

Let us be direct about what this bill does to decision-making certainty. It replaces predictable statutory pathways with negotiated procedural frameworks. It replaces fixed timelines with open-ended engagement structures. It replaces mandatory resolution mechanisms with conditional agreement–based processes. It replaces clarity and administrative authority with expanded discretionary points.

This is not modernization in the meaningful sense of the word. Modernization implies simplification. It implies efficiency, and it implies clarity. This bill doesn’t get there. It layers process upon process, each dependent on agreement, discretion or procedural alignments that may never materialize. When that happens, the system does not become more functional; it becomes fragile.

We are told that this is about improving relationships and supporting reconciliation. Yet again, no one in this House disputes that importance of improving reconciliation. We live it daily here. But reconciliation cannot be achieved through structural ambiguity. It cannot be achieved through procedural uncertainty. And it cannot be achieved by creating systems where outcomes depend on a discretionary alignment rather than clear statutory pathways.

When pathways are unclear, they do not strengthen relationships. They strain them, and they create inconsistency. We do not need to generate more disputes. We must also face the truth and reconcile it with the current economic reality of this province. We do not operate in isolation in British Columbia. We compete for capital investment. We compete for infrastructure funding. We compete for industrial development, and we compete with jurisdictions that are actively streamlining regulatory processes to reduce uncertainty and accelerate project delivery.

Every additional layer of uncertainty introduced into our environmental assessment system has a cost. This cost is borne by workers. It is borne by communities, and it is borne by taxpayers. This bill has the potential to increase those costs. Not intentionally, perhaps, but the road to Hades has been said to be paved with good intentions.

Structurally and inevitably, we cannot also ignore the constitutional risk profile that this legislation could introduce. It’s not static law. It’s evolving, and it is shaped by ongoing judicial interpretation. It imposes real obligations on the Crown that must be met with clear, consistent and defensible processes.

When legislation introduces fragmentation, it increases the burden on government to demonstrate that consultation obligations have been met in each individual case. That means more documentation, possibly more litigation exposure, more judicial scrutiny and more uncertainty for all involved. These are not theoretical risks. These are the lived realities of Canadian constitutional law, and these are the realities driving tremendous upheaval and uncertainty in this government in British Columbia.

The principality of this question is why we would introduce additional complexity into a system that is already under constitutional, economic and political pressure. Why would we introduce added discretional authority without simultaneously strengthening statutory certainty? Why would we create dispute mechanisms that are conditional at multiple stages without ensuring that disputes will actually be resolved? Why would we introduce procedural uncertainty into a province that dispends so heavily on major project investment?

We’re not opposed, in the opposition, to improving environmental assessment. We are not opposed to meaningful Indigenous engagement and consultation under section 35. We are not opposed to reconciliation. In fact, we believe in economic reconciliation. We are not opposed to modernizing outdated systems.

[4:25 p.m.]

But we are opposed to legislative frameworks that create further complexity, lack clarity and create uncertainty. That’s what we need to prevent. If there’s going to be discretion, there also has to be accountability. If there are going to be regulatory structures that increase the risk of litigation, that’s going to be a problem.

At the end of the day, good governance is not measured by how many processes are created. It’s measured by whether or not these processes work; whether they produce timely decisions; that they withstand constitutional and legal scrutiny; and that they bring certainty, both to Indigenous Peoples and industry in order to plan for the future.

We are at a critical juncture in British Columbia. We have economic headwinds, legal complexity, growing competition and increasing demands on infrastructure and services. In that environment, stability is not optional. Certainty is not optional. Clarity is not optional. These are essential elements of good legislation that governs environmental assessment policies, so it must reflect that reality.

Bill 15 needs to do better. We have concerns about the way this bill is presently drafted, and we urge the government to have a close look at this — go back to the drawing board to some extent — to strengthen the statutory clarity of this framework, to introduce binding timelines, to simplify procedural pathways and to ensure that constitutional obligations under section 35 are met through clear and defensible processes.

British Columbia cannot afford uncertainty in its environmental assessment regime — not now, not in this climate and not in this constitutional landscape.

We owe it to the people of British Columbia to get this right. We owe it to Indigenous nations to ensure that the engagement processes are clear, consistent and meaningful. We owe it to the workers and industry to ensure that investment decisions are done well. We owe it to future generations that British Columbia is doing it right for everyone’s benefit.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I am pleased today to speak in support of Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026.

I would just like to thank the minister and her incredible team for all of the hard work on being able to draft this bill and getting us to where we are here today.

Originally, the 2018 act was a landmark piece of legislation seeking consensus; creating durable decisions and making the process more transparent; working to bring the province, First Nations and proponents together. This added dispute resolution provisions to support when needed.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Through the EA process, we have heard from both industry and First Nations that this process wasn’t having the intended outcomes, and that is why we have introduced the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act. We listened and are taking action to change the dispute resolution framework — making it better able to support the process and create more predictability and certainty for industry, creating transparency and trust between all parties.

The EAO has worked tirelessly over the past six months to consult with First Nations and industry alike. Hearing from proponents, First Nations organizations and project proponents, our government listened and learned, and we are taking action now.

There was a strong interest in working towards early issues resolution. This collaboration will now happen earlier in the process. One of the amendments creates the issues resolution protocol. This creates a tool to facilitate early issue resolution and supports. There will be a standard issue resolution protocol co-developed with B.C. First Nations. It can be used as a template to be customized to each nation’s governance context.

[4:30 p.m.]

The issues resolution protocol will very clearly outline how issues are discussed, how and if they are escalated and if other parties should be involved. This will work to identify any concerns and issues early on in the assessment process and work through them in a transparent and respectful manner, creating collaborative and predictable resolutions.

The second piece in this bill updates the dispute resolution process, making it more clear how dispute resolution is initiated, when it can be initiated and the types of issues it can address. Dispute resolution is available early in the assessment process, if needed — a place it can be more helpful than near the end, where it has shown to be not helpful or effective. Instead, the issue resolution protocol is used to resolve any outstanding concerns.

These changes will, again, create more transparent and predictable processes for both industry and First Nations. These amendments, through months of engagement and work together with First Nations and industry, will provide more certainty and transparency for environmental assessments.

Larry Neufeld: As most members of the chamber will be aware, I am a professional engineer and have been one for more decades than I should probably admit. Why I feel that’s important to mention is that my degree certainly is civil in nature but it’s also environmental, and I acted as an environmental engineer for 30-odd years. The Environmental Assessment Amendment Act is something that I feel that I can speak to with reasonable authority because I’ve spent a fair amount of my professional career working in that area.

What I would like to start with is that Bill 15 has promise. I will say that from the beginning, that I see a lot of promise. I do see some opportunities for efficiency improvement, and I do see some opportunities for bill improvement here as well.

Certainly, as an engineer, the opportunity to improve efficiency and predictability in environmental assessments is incredibly important. The fact that business needs…. As others have said in the House, equity has legs. Equity is portable. We need to create certainty so that we can attract that equity and that investment into this province.

There are, again, a few issues within the bill where clarity could potentially cause some concern. Clarity of the timelines has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and that is something that I think would…. Well, I don’t think it. I believe very strongly that that would go a long way to providing the predictability that we speak of so often, the incredible need for that predictability.

A deeper issue for this bill is it potentially opens up the government to challenges in the courts. If that were to happen — lengthened delays, as opposed to the efficiency that this bill was intended to create — it would have potentially the opposite effect. In my estimation, it’s very important to make sure that this bill does not worsen the problem that it is attempting to solve.

Overall, I do believe that this bill could be a good thing for British Columbia. As I’ve already stated, I do believe that it needs some targeted amendments. I will start with the positive aspects.

This bill does change the definition of “participating Indigenous nation,” as found in the Environmental Assessment Act, to explicitly exclude United States tribes. I’m certain this is a positive development. When projects are put forward in this province, it should be British Columbians who get to express their views on the projects, not our neighbours to the south.

At a certain point, there can be too many parties involved in the assessment process — again, potentially significantly slowing down the process itself. This could potentially result in the province having more lengthy delays. I do believe that including tribes from the United States in the assessment process would do nothing more than muddy the waters for completing projects in this province. It does add a party that does not have a stake in the economic success of this province.

[4:35 p.m.]

This is British Columbia. Decisions should be made by British Columbians. It adds a party that is likely not going to be directly impacted by the project — again, potentially adding delays.

While the exclusion of U.S. tribes is necessary to improve efficiency in the assessment process and to protect B.C.’s economy, the way in which this legislation does so does merit some concern, in my mind. It is important to make sure that this reform can withstand court challenges. By invalidating existing notices and dispute processes that are in place involving U.S. tribes, my concern would be that the government is opening itself up to potential litigation.

Additionally, cross-border impacts will need to be addressed. Even if it is undesirable to deal with, there are still some real concerns. In any case, the courts will likely demand a way for the U.S. tribes to make their concerns known. Does the government have a plan for how cross-border impacts will be addressed going forward?

The next portion of the bill that I would like to speak to is section 5, the dispute resolution process and timeliness. Section 5 does establish dispute resolution facilitators and outlines their duties and requirements. These dispute resolution facilitators will be appointed by the minister after considering the recommendation of an Indigenous nation.

Under this new bill, dispute resolution facilitators will be appointed under the new section 18.5. Now, the individual serving as dispute resolution facilitator must be someone agreed upon by all parties in the dispute. As I move forward, I’m going to get to why, in my mind, that’s very important to have that distinction or, perhaps, commonality in how the two parties are signed.

In addition to agreeing on the dispute resolution facilitator, the parties to the dispute must also, as soon as practicable, attempt to agree on the substance of the dispute and who may participate in the resolution of the dispute.

Once these terms respecting the resolution of the dispute are agreed upon by the parties involved, the chief executive assessment officer must refer the dispute to the dispute resolution facilitator.

If the two groups are unable to agree on the terms, there will be no dispute resolution process. That was something in section 18.5 that jumped out at me right away. The chief executive assessment officer has the ability to discontinue attempts to agree on terms respecting the resolution of the dispute after considering the views of participating Indigenous nations involved in the dispute.

I’ll get to that further in my comments. If people decide not to agree, it just goes forward without a dispute mechanism, is my understanding, how I read it.

I have some questions related to this section, as I’ve already stated, regarding the changes to the role of dispute resolution facilitators and the initiation of the dispute resolution process.

My main concern, as I believe we’ve all stated in this House many times, is it’s absolutely paramount that we speed up processes within this place of honour to ensure that projects are built much more quickly and with certainty. Timeliness would be the concern that I would have, as outlined in this section.

It’s not clear. I read it multiple times, and I don’t understand it. I don’t believe it’s actually…. Well, it’s not there. It’s not established.

[4:40 p.m.]

In my mind, with the work that I’ve done in the past, I certainly am familiar with the word “practicable,” but in this context, what is written is “as soon as practicable.” That phrase can mean a lot of different things to a number of different people. I do understand that that’s a legal term, but it does create some uncertainty, again, in the end.

In my mind, it would be helpful if some clarity could be provided around how quickly the parties to a dispute need to agree to the terms respecting resolution of the dispute — i.e., give us a timeline whereby investors and individuals involved in the process would have a thorough or at least a reasonable understanding of what to expect timeline-wise.

Another question I would have is: what actions must the parties to the dispute take in order to show that they are attempting to come to an agreement — that agreement being on the terms respecting the resolution of the dispute? I do believe that this is a very important issue, because I could see this actually being used as a filibuster-type technique by certain individuals to stall a project. I think, again, that’s contrary to what the intent of this bill is.

Regarding the chief executive assessment officer’s power to discontinue attempts to agree on terms respecting the resolution of a dispute, how long does the officer have to wait before making a decision? Again, timelines. We do need distinct timelines.

There does appear to be a significant amount of discretion left to the chief executive assessment officer. Again, my concern is around timelines and around the ability for certainty. There needs to be clarity on how the officer will make those decisions. I don’t see that in the bill. Perhaps regulation will show, and I certainly hope that it does. That’s something that, during committee stage, I would certainly be interested in delving into. It’s without certainty or without structure around how those decisions are made. It just does leave more questions than answers.

I do have concerns, as I’ve already stated, around timelines. While I do appreciate that the steps in the dispute resolution process are clearly laid out…. Absolutely, they are, without question. It’s well done. That section is well done. Even if there are still questions around what it will look like in practice, I believe that this process is promising.

To the minister: well done on drafting that section.

That being said, I would still be very inquisitive as to what quantitative improvements to the process can be expected. I think that’s something in committee stage that we can certainly delve into.

One of the main questions, I think not only for myself but many others, would be: how much time, if any, can this new process be expected to save? Certainly, on its basis, it looks very promising. But I think without the timelines…. Again, my concern is around how we attract that investment without certainty.

I would go further to say that the lack of clear timelines, which I’ve already identified, opens the province to several problems. It could cause assessment processes to drag out indefinitely — I’ve already alluded to that — effectively stalling projects without formal denial.

In addition, it makes it more difficult to hold disputing parties accountable to the dispute resolution process, as there is no deadline for them to take the steps required to engage in this process. That’s further to what I had stated earlier. If someone who disagreed with the process decided to use a filibuster-type method, this is without timelines. That’s an opportunity for them to do so.

I would also suggest that other jurisdictions currently are working on creating firm timelines around assessment processes. I would further state that if B.C. does not follow suit, my concern is that we would be left behind and miss out on a number of, if not many, economic opportunities. Without the certainty that clear timelines provide and the efficiency that quick timelines provide, British Columbia runs a real danger of being left behind.

We are in a world economic situation, a global situation, and I’ve stated that before, as many others have. Equity has legs, and it’s going to go where it has certainty and where it can make a reasonable return with a known quantity.

[4:45 p.m.]

A question I have would be why there are no legislated timelines for dispute resolution protocols. Perhaps that’s something we can get into in committee stage as well.

The other question — as I’ve already stated, but I’ll do it a little more clearly — is: what prevents a project from being delayed indefinitely through repeated or prolonged dispute processes? What safeguards exist to prevent repeated or strategic use of dispute resolution in order to delay projects?

Another question that I would love to see addressed during committee stage is: how many dispute processes can be initiated on a single project? Is there a finite amount, or is this something that can just go on in infinity?

I would also ask the question: why are there no limits on cumulative delays arising from multiple disputes? I’ve heard my other colleagues talk to the same question.

I would also ask: will the government commit to binding timelines in regulation or statute?

One of the deepest concerns, if not the deepest concern, that I would have with this bill is the potential to expose the province to court cases, which would lead to delay in the assessment process for projects even further. My concern is that the legislation does not seem well suited to withstand future court cases.

While the dispute resolution process appears, on the surface, to provide a clear framework, there are several unanswered questions, as I’ve already illustrated. As an example, what happens when parties cannot agree on dispute resolution terms?

According to this legislation, the dispute resolution process will simply not happen. Then what happens? If the parties cannot even agree on dispute resolution terms, it seems likely, to me at least, that the dispute has a very real chance of ending up in a court challenge. And if the government has simply ignored the dispute, since there was no dispute resolution process, will the courts agree with the government’s decision? I would question if that’s the case.

Since all parties need to agree on dispute resolution terms for the dispute resolution process to go forward, all parties have a veto on whether or not the process occurs. If this framework for dispute resolution is effectively optional, how will it improve outcomes?

The dispute resolution process does look good if it is actually followed. What assurances or what mechanisms do we have to ensure that proponents do follow it? And if not, is there a fallback mechanism to ensure disputes are actually resolved? If there is not a mechanism in place, it would beg the question as to whether the legislation creates more problems than it does solutions.

I would actually suggest at this point, having discussed section 18.5, that 18.7 is another one that spoke to me when I read it. The comment, from memory, was to the effect that the First Nations that were participating have the opportunity to identify proprietary information. I’m curious. The legislation does not seem to…. I have no issue with that.

What the question in my mind would be is the mechanism by which that’s done. Are NDAs signed? Is there a legal process followed, and is it something that the First Nation would be held to account for, similarly with proprietary information that would be coming from the government or other proponents?

I think, coming from a business background, to me, that level of certainty is very important. We want the equity here. We want the people that can make the decisions to invest their money here.

[4:50 p.m.]

I would go further to say that there is a legal requirement to come to the negotiating table, without question. If this legislation creates a situation where the disputing parties cannot even reach the table, I would question whether the courts will accept that it fulfils the duty to consult, section 35. We’re all very aware in this place what section 35 is and how important that is. I have no doubt that that can be rectified through regulation, but that’s one of the questions that I do have.

If this legislation is going to be successful, the dispute resolution process, in my mind, needs greater clarity in order to proof it, if we could use that word, from court challenges.

This bill has the potential to be a step in the right direction. When I first read it, when I first saw it…. Again, my role is to critique, so I’m doing my job. I see a smile on the other side. I do agree with the premise, without question. I think we can tweak things here and get it a little bit better, without question.

One of the main reasons why I felt initially that this bill was very much a step in the right direction, which I’ve already spoken to, is the investment climate, attracting investment. We all know that we desperately need it in this province. We know that investment creates taxes; creates wealth in the province that pays for health care, pays for education, pays for how we provide services to citizens. To me, that is an incredibly important role.

Where I believe that we could definitely improve is around the efficiency and the clarity as to how things are stated in the bill. I would suggest that the lack of clarity on some of these key issues poses a risk to the investment climate. That’s something that I don’t think any of us here want to see come to fruition.

By increasing procedural steps and missing clear timelines on important parts of the dispute resolution process, it unfortunately could, or has the potential to, reduce investor confidence. The heavy reliance of this bill on discretion could also reinforce a perception of regulatory unpredictability. I believe, with all the work that has been done over the last year, certainly, that’s something that has been recognized — that the predictability of different processes is something that is being demanded by equity.

I would go on to ask: how does this framework compare to competing jurisdictions in terms of certainty and timelines? I’ll be very frank. I didn’t have the time this afternoon to research that, but I think that’s something in committee stage that would be very important to understand. The reason why that is important, in my mind, again, coming from a business background, is: what message does the lack of certainty and timelines send to project proponents who are considering British Columbia?

I’ve already said it more than once. This bill does contain good ideas — some. Well, no. I’ll say good ideas. I think the process overall is valid, without question. It could be improved through some changes. I think there are some important questions that need to be answered, particularly clarity around timelines and the dispute resolution process.

Without question, we need to ensure that the assessment process will be efficient but will also be able to avoid or withstand court challenges. We don’t want to end up in a situation where we’re standing here five years from now and having that same conversation.

I believe that it is time to come together to address the issues in this bill and produce something that will benefit all British Columbians. From my background, again, having been an environmental engineer for — well, I will admit it — over 30 years….

I see you smiling, but it could be seen as a badge of honour or could be seen as I’m an old guy. I don’t know. But, yeah, there you go.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: That’s why I saw you smile, yes. That’s as long as I’ve been a professional engineer.

[4:55 p.m.]

I have no doubt, as I said in the beginning, of the need to protect the environment for the future. I have grandchildren. You’ve all met my one grandchild. I have a second on the way, so you’ll have a chance to meet that individual at one point.

I’m not ignorant to the fact. It’s common knowledge. I’ve worked oil and gas for 30 or more years. I have seen things in that industry improve beyond…. Orders-of-magnitude improvement.

I’ve worked internationally. Canada and, in particular, northeast British Columbia has nothing to be ashamed of from an environmental perspective — nothing. I have been to places that you would consider First World countries, and you look at it, coming from where I work, and you shake your head. It’s just stunning to believe that that 1960s-style atmosphere is still allowed to exist. Even worse than that, when you go to a Third World country, you’ll question, certainly, why that was ever allowed to happen.

That being said, not to use up my last five minutes right to the last second here, the need for something like this, the need for environmental protection, is critical. The need for it to be done in an expeditious, efficient and absolutely known structure is critical to, again, getting that investment to choose British Columbia over the many, many other jurisdictions that are available.

I feel that I’ve lost everyone, so I am going to conclude with that. I’ll allow everyone to move on to the next speaker.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for allowing me this time to speak to Bill 15. There are some promising elements to this bill. I agree with the intention to create an environmental assessment system that is more efficient. I think that that’s the work of this House that’s really important for all of us to be doing together.

I’ll go into it. I do have a few concerns with the way that this bill attempts to do some of this work. Before this bill is passed, there might be some questions that need to be answered.

The bill needs clear timelines, and we need to be confident that it will hold up to legal scrutiny. It’s no secret that legislation can be interpreted in ways that courts could stall things, so it’s really important that any legislation that we have go through will hold up to legal scrutiny. When these things happen, we will have a bill that can fix B.C.’s broken regulatory system.

The lack of timelines in the new dispute resolution process created by this bill is very concerning. Not a single firm timeline is given in part 4.2. While the structure of this new framework is promising, it is meaningless if it doesn’t come with timelines. That’s a part of the surety that we need to see what is expected of our legislation. Timelines are always important, so to have it not outlined in this bill is concerning.

According to section 18.5, the parties to a dispute “must, as soon as practicable, attempt to agree on terms respecting the resolution of the dispute, including, at a minimum, terms respecting the substance of the dispute, who may participate in the resolution of the dispute and the individual who will serve as the dispute resolution facilitator.”

[5:00 p.m.]

Again, missing is any timeline telling us how long all that will take. What exactly is meant by “as soon as practicable”? Will this go to regulation? Where does this become something tangible that those who use this legislation can rely on?

For this legislation to be successful, the language needs to be precise. “As soon as practical” can mean different things to different people. We all have experiences with people in our lives where urgency for me is not urgency for you, and there’s nothing more frustrating than trying to come to terms with people who have different senses of urgency. When it comes to dispute resolution, that’s actually very important to temper frustrations.

How quickly does the process of agreeing to terms respecting the resolution of dispute need to start? How long can this process continue? Both project proponents and Indigenous nations require clarity for how this process will work. I think that’s what’s fair if we’re going to be addressing amendments here — that there’s surety in what we’re trying to accomplish.

If this process is going to be efficient, people need to know what to expect. They need to be able to prepare, and they need to know how much urgency the situation requires. A deadline on how long the process of agreeing on terms respecting the resolution of the dispute can take would be immensely helpful.

The bill states that the chief executive assessment officer may discontinue attempts to agree on terms respecting the resolution of the dispute. Before making a decision to discontinue attempts to agree on terms respecting the resolution of a dispute, the chief executive officer must consider any applicable policies which have been developed by the chief executive assessment officer in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous nations and the views of the participating Indigenous nation.

Having conditions on why the chief executive assessment officer can decide to discontinue an attempt to agree on terms respecting the resolution of a dispute is good, but there’s still a lack of clarity. This gives a lot of discretionary power to the officer. An overreliance on discretion, instead of clear legislation about why attempts to agree on terms can be discontinued, doesn’t help anyone.

It could take Indigenous nations by surprise, and it could diminish investor confidence in B.C.’s regulatory system. We need to stop creating legislation that does anything more to diminish investor confidence in British Columbia. We see that time and time again right now, and we just need to bring confidence back to the investor in British Columbia.

Presumably, the reason why the chief executive assessment officer would decide to discontinue the attempt to agree on terms would be because no progress was being made on one side or one side was being unreasonable. But there should be clear standards about what would constitute a justifiable reason to discontinue the attempt to agree on terms.

There must be objective criteria that guides the chief executive assessment officer’s decision. We need guidelines. Somebody in this position needs to be able to communicate to those who are involved what is expected of them. Additionally, it would also be beneficial if there was a timeline showing when it would be permissible or even necessary for the chief executive assessment officer to make this decision.

[5:05 p.m.]

Without this clarity, the dispute resolution process could become confusing to all parties and the government could even expose itself to court challenges against its decisions. Again, we need to stop creating legislation that ends us up in court. We need to have surety in our legislation — clear, concise information so that all parties understand what is expected so that we stop having things litigated.

The bill further states that if parties to a dispute do not agree on terms respecting the resolution of the dispute, there is to be no dispute resolution process respecting that dispute. Obviously, it makes sense that you can’t continue the dispute resolution process if the disputing parties can’t even agree on how to start the process, but this possibility, essentially, gives every party a veto on whether the process takes place. The bill fails to explain what happens when parties cannot agree on dispute resolution terms.

How does this framework improve outcomes if participation is, effectively, optional? There needs to be a fallback mechanism to ensure disputes are actually resolved. Otherwise, again, the courts may have something to say if the dispute resolution process is rarely actually completed.

Without timelines, this process also faces the risk of being abused by parties seeking to delay projects. There need to be safeguards to prevent repeated or strategic use of dispute resolution to delay projects.

This bill also does not answer how many dispute processes can be initiated on a single project, which is important information for all parties to know. What if there were multiple disputes? How do we know which is prioritized? How do we know how they intersect between the disputes? How do we know if they’re competing disputes? Additionally, I do not understand why there is no limit on cumulative delays arising from multiple disputes.

When creating a bill like this, it is of the utmost importance to be careful — careful to ensure that the bill aligns with established legal principles, careful to ensure that there are no loopholes that can be abused, careful to ensure that the parties affected will be able to understand and efficiently engage with the process it establishes.

As it is currently written, this bill was not developed carefully enough to succeed. Overall, the lack of clear timelines and objective criteria regarding decisions in the dispute resolution process is a major flaw in this bill — we need to close that — and a flaw that could, effectively, cripple it.

If this bill is going to work, there need to be timelines. It is imperative that all parties involved will know how long the dispute resolution process will take. Indigenous nations need to know. Investors need to know. I can’t stress that enough. We need to bring back investor confidence into British Columbia. Pieces of legislation like this that have good intent but are not clear still do not provide that clarity.

I hope that we can work together to fix this. It seems as if the NDP government is not completely serious about reforming the assessment process. Will the government commit to binding timelines in regulation or statute?

Additionally, by completely up-ending the way in which consultation with Indigenous nations is conducted, the government is opening itself up to some difficult court challenges when it’s not intended, I don’t believe, in this legislation. Again, we have to create legislation that is absolutely clear in its intent where things end up in court.

[5:10 p.m.]

The government has had a rough time regarding Indigenous court challenges as of late. The lack of clarity in this bill has the potential to make that a lot worse. When changing the system, we need to be very careful that there won’t be any unexpected adverse effects.

For one thing, the way in which U.S. tribes are excluded from participating in the dispute resolution process has the potential to become an issue. It is necessary to make this exclusion, but doing it so abruptly could open the government up to legal challenges. We need to have greater clarity about how this will work and about how cross-border issues will be addressed. Again, there needs to be that surety.

This is a bill that I could potentially support. It creates an opportunity to make the assessment process more efficient. But the concerns that I have raised around surety of timelines and other issues need to be addressed. While this bill has the potential to make the process more efficient, it also has the potential to make it more convoluted and the potential to make the process take even longer.

B.C. needs to keep up with other jurisdictions which are creating clear timelines in their approval processes. If we put forward legislation like this, which doesn’t include any timelines and lacks clarity on several key issues, this province is going to get left behind or is going to end up in court.

In this economic crisis, that is something that we simply cannot afford. We cannot afford for our investors to look somewhere else for their projects. We cannot afford to pass legislation that the courts will strike down. We cannot afford to pass legislation with loopholes that could allow for bad-faith actors to abuse the dispute resolution system. We cannot afford for investors to have no idea how long the assessment process is going to take. We cannot afford for Indigenous nations to have no idea what is expected of them in the dispute resolution process.

This legislation needs to be clear. This legislation needs to give firm timelines. It needs to rely less on discretion and more on objective measures. But if we can make those changes, this legislation helps the B.C. economy get back on track, and getting B.C. back on track is something that I absolutely support.

So I thank you for this time to speak to this bill and hope that we can see it in committee and work together towards some amendments.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Good afternoon. I rise today to also speak to Bill 15. This legislation proposes changes to British Columbia’s environmental assessment framework. I want to begin by stating very clearly that environmental assessment matters deeply in this province. I know that we live in a province that is known for its beauty; for its landscapes; for clean air; and for many, many parks, oceans, waters, hiking trails — the list goes on; for recreational activities that anyone can enjoy throughout this province.

The need to look forward to our future and ensure that we are moving responsibly is critical. I think that that is not what we’re here to debate today. How we move forward in terms of development, especially in the landscape now, with Indigenous leadership, with proponents, with stakeholders, even communities…. I’ve experienced this in my riding and in ridings that are adjacent. When communities are impacted by development, there is often a mechanism for that feedback and for that consultation to happen on that impact.

I have a great group in my riding. I have to shout them out just briefly. It is related to this class. This is a community group. They’ve organized themselves. They are not funded. What they do is they meet monthly and talk about issues in and around the lake. When there were issues with the lake and the colour changing, they were worried about being able to enjoy that, not in generations to come but in years to come.

[5:15 p.m.]

They took action, and they took that action upon themselves as a community group to be vocal. I bring that up because it’s related to how we orchestrate that feedback, how we organize those tables, how we do it in a timely manner and how we ensure that everyone understands what their roles are and what timelines they have to work within. Again, we’re not putting one before the other, but they’re working in tandem, they’re working in partnership, they’re working in lockstep.

One of the issues that I continuously hear about legislation is legislation moves forward without that clear communication of exactly how this is going to change the landscape; how proponents, stakeholders and Indigenous leaders move through, work together and know exactly what the playing field is; what the rules are; and that it does create that clarity and that certainty.

It’s not meant to be a hindrance, absolutely, but in looking at this legislation, there are questions. That is what we’re here to do as the opposition. It’s to ensure that we’re representing any concerns and any conversations that need to happen before we can stand up and support it.

With that being said, again, just going back to the premise and the idea behind the bill around protecting the land and the water, responsibly moving forward with development and with projects — communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, really look to understand what the future is going to look like. That means what these tables will look like, who gets to participate at these tables and exactly when decisions are meant to be delivered. These decisions aren’t abstract; they’re very real.

Again, going back to my own experience in my own riding, when I was elected, I went and I met with different community groups. A couple of the people that I met with were scientists. They worked in the consulting process in helping anyone who came up against what would be deemed as a need for an environmental assessment. They created an entire company and a livelihood around navigating this process for people because it becomes so complicated.

They don’t understand…. As they’re just working to add something to their property, they don’t realize that they may be in an area that is deemed to be at a high risk for a certain species — those kinds of things.

What they explained to me — I learned so much, but it was really just scratching the surface. They talked about paperwork. They talked about forms that have to be submitted.

Although I appreciate that this bill looks to clarify, I think what’s at the heart of the debate today is that we offer that clarity without adding more confusion or more process for people — where now, all of a sudden, the conversation can tend to focus on the wrong things. It’s not about creating more red tape or anything like that. We want to ensure that if a process can be better, it’s made better, that it’s made simple, that it’s streamlined but still achieving the goals of what it set out to do.

I really approached this bill from two perspectives. I find that weighs heavy on me at times. I’m elected as an MLA for Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. I’m a leader, in this space, of other MLAs from across the province, and that brings so many varying perspectives.

I know from working around the edges of the environmental assessment and referrals office, with Indigenous leadership as staff…. I did hear a lot of the conversations happening at that level, where they would look at the quality of the participation. They would look at: who did notices for referral go out to? Did those things happen in a timely and efficient manner? How many of these were they able to move through efficiently?

I know, just being adjacent to that work, how complicated it can be but also how things can move and how it can be done efficiently, ensuring that — even in a place like S’ólh Nation, where you have many nations — the right people are being involved at the right levels and at the right stages.

[5:20 p.m.]

It’s a model that I think is exemplary in this space. So I’d be interested in seeing where this legislation lands in comparison to the work that is happening on the ground and that some nations, some communities may not have the capacity to carry through. If they don’t have the capacity to do that work, where will that capacity be offered? How will it be supplemented?

Again, as the MLA for Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, I balance two perspectives. I’m elected by the citizens and by the people of my riding for what I ran on. That platform includes accountability. It includes transparency, but it also includes efficiency.

From those perspectives, I do have very intimate knowledge of the land. I myself go out and make sure that I’m spending ample time on the land. I’m putting my feet in the river. I’m offering those prayers and putting that tobacco down. I’m spending time in nature because that is actually where we practise our spirituality. It doesn’t happen in any one place. We practise our spirituality throughout the entire territory, and I know that I’m just one of many.

Again, going back to my riding, there are 6,000 Stó:lō people, and many of them are returning back to culture. When we talk about that need for environmental protection, it’s so real for me in my personal story, in my personal livelihood, from my community, from my culture. It’s not just something to be checked off. It’s something to be really thought about and to really be integrated into process. But I also understand from the other side.

Again, I talked about meeting these scientists. I talked about our referrals office. I talked about nations that do want to move forward. They want to move forward and be involved with economy responsibly and with development responsibly. They come with that understanding that there’s a balance to be struck.

One of the principles, actually, and one of the ways that we understand this practice is…. An example I’ll give you would be the cedar tree. If you’re going to go out and harvest cedar from the tree…. This is how we made our clothes. This is how we did baskets. This is how we survived. We lived by the cedar tree. It was one of our main resources. This is how we made our canoes, our paddles, a lot of our regalia. We do medicine by the cedar. We do spiritual practices with the branches. Very important to our traditional economy, actually, is the cedar tree.

One of the examples I’ll give is that when you go out to harvest, you’re taking every so often. You’re taking enough that’s going to leave a majority, that is going to be able to feed back into the system. That’d be an example of traditional protocol, how we would think about sustainability with environment.

Again, I go back to that work being enacted, being triggered, being led by those nations and them having that fine balance of understanding and these processes working for them already. The difference being that this legislation…. It may support their work, but at the same time, if there are parameters that perhaps don’t line up with how they’re doing their work currently, then that would be where I would say conversations could happen to understand those differences — those gaps in capacity or, perhaps, even an overreach in terms of how that work’s already being done in a good way.

I only talk about my riding and take it back to my own personal experience as the MLA because I think about other areas that I don’t have intimate knowledge of, other areas where the landscapes are vastly different.

I’ve talked about this before in the House. A beautiful community and territory: ’Wuìk̓inux̌v. That’s on the coast of southern British Columbia. It takes two boat rides to get there. Absolutely beautiful but very small.

[5:25 p.m.]

The way that they operate their community, the way their leadership interacts and may be able to interpret something that is completely out of practice for how they do business in their own territory, in their backyard…. That would be an area, again, where I would want to know capacity measures that are going to be available or thought of.

If this threshold is going to be the new bar that perhaps many nations have exceeded but perhaps many nations will not be able to, those are questions that we would definitely have in relation to a piece of legislation like this.

These decisions — again, they’re not theoretical. Oftentimes they’re very practical. We talk about wetlands and protecting wetlands. Those conversations that I’ve had with people who work in this space…. It’s very scientific. It’s very detailed. I won’t pretend to understand that side of it and that side of the work.

But all of the work they do to ensure, again, that the processes are being followed ever so and that they understand if new legislation, new partnership, new tables, new rules of engagement are going to be brought in, it is going to make it more effective. We are moving to an area where communication around these changes and the ability to give people time to adjust and to adapt and to give feedback on it is going to be honoured. It’s going to be supported all across the vast territory of British Columbia.

We want to make sure that the systems are not just well intentioned — that they are clear, usable and predictable for all of the people who depend on them.

I go back to the sort of straddling that I do between these two world views, and I understand this perspective very well. I have a lot of business owners, as well, in my area and in my riding that I talk to who are already a little bewildered, and they’re feeling overwhelmed, and they want to abide by the proper steps and the orders of engagement.

Again, I worry about them having to shoulder more change, that we can ensure it’s going to happen in a very supported way and that we’re not going to see stalls. It’s hard to predict, oftentimes, exactly how an industry, how stakeholders, how different technical tables and leadership tables are going to react.

Those would be some of the things that I would bring forward in the committee stage to ask in a more detailed way in some of the clauses — about the engagement, the consultation, about testing or reports and those kinds of things. It would be very interesting to hear, at that stage, with regard to where these decisions were made.

When I think about that for myself, it’s clearly related to the timelines, the predictability piece, having clear participation structures and even better coordination in terms of approvals, getting into the work way earlier — we hear that a lot — resolving issues before they become a conflict.

The hope is that this legislation steers us to that and that we’re going to see that language either be adapted to some of the concerns brought by the official opposition with regard to the timelines….

I know that we can talk about regulation and the difference between regulation and legislation. The issue that I see, oftentimes, is that when it’s left too wide open, then we are not getting that certainty. And certainty is a big concern today. I know so many businesses, business owners — this includes the nations themselves — who actually have to engage with their neighbours oftentimes. It gets frustrating. They come to an impasse. They’re not able to come to a decision.

Then what is the mechanism, very clearly, to have that dispute resolution in place, to have the decision made by a certain time in relation to the project? Then, also, what is the percentage of participation? Is it based on a percentage of claims to the land? Is it based on a table of elected leaders and then it has to be a 50-plus-one?

There are so many different areas of concern that I hear from the conversations that I’ve had where I don’t see those parameters in the legislation. I don’t see that, particularly, before us today.

[5:30 p.m.]

So asking for that clarity, wanting that clarity, needing that certainty so that everybody knows these are the rules of engagement. Whether or not we can all agree, communicate that clearly and then provide that capacity and that support, especially for communities where this could be a big curve to achieve — understanding that many communities have asked for this, to put that on the backdrop of those processes and those conversations and just make sure that the alignment is there.

Without that clarity, you may not always get stronger environmental protections. You may not even get better collaborations. We’re in a time right now where the delays and the confusion are adding to the frustration and oftentimes adding to conflict.

For myself oftentimes, as the MLA, I am between two sides of a conversation. I feel for the people that…. At the end of the day, their goals are very similar in terms of success, but their way to get there is different.

Although I see that the legislation in front of us today is attempting to answer to that, I worry about some of the shortcomings and how the public, in the way that they interpret, and stakeholders, in the way they see this, that it is communicated and that the resources are matched with the desires of legislation like this.

It’s set out to improve coordination. That coordination is critical. It’s critical right now in this province, and environmental assessment is a key example of that.

I think that so many people have a claim and they have a stake in this. Even if you come from an urban community, you probably still have a cabin or you have relatives or you have a place that you like to go and that you like to visit where you’re going to spend time enjoying landscapes that you get to enjoy when you’re going on a vacation — something like that.

To me, that is why it really matters. Even if people think that this is not applicable to them in their own backyard and they may not understand these complexities, it is going to affect everybody.

Again, I bring it back to the responsibility we have in the conversation. We’re trying to achieve what might seem like two different goals at once, but in reality, at the end of the day, I think we all want to be able to enjoy what this province has to offer for years and generations to come. We want to ensure that the voices of the many people affected by this are heard.

But at the same time, people would like to also see their businesses be successful — that they’re going to be able to get through a process without having to put a whole bunch of money in on the front end to achieve the process that is asked of them, only to potentially not be successful.

That is one thing that I hear that can be really disheartening for companies. They’re not huge companies. They’re not big proponents. They’re family-owned companies. They have a goal that they feel or they think is achievable. Then, when it comes down to it and it’s brass tacks and they go through a process like this one here, the roadblocks and the red tape and the things they didn’t understand or they didn’t anticipate could be what cements the demise of their dream.

I want to make sure that we are living in a province where we support people to grow and to build and to build success as well, but of course, not at the cost of the beauty and the longevity of our landscapes and, of course, our water.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’ll go back to, just briefly…. I noticed that I’m already running short here. I could probably get really passionate about this topic, but I’ll go back briefly just to kind of wrap it up about the clear timelines.

When proponents are expected to invest without knowing how decisions will unfold, that does give that angst. That’s what I was leading to when I was talking about family-owned businesses, about people who want to invest in B.C. who have different recreational aspirations for a space than, perhaps, people who use it for a completely different reason. How do we reconcile that?

So much of these conversations have been not just about reconciliation where we talk about the reconciliation between Indigenous nations and elected leaders and decision-makers, municipal councillors and mayors but when we talk about reconciling the way that we want to share space.

What I want to get to is to ensure that legislation like this that’s coming forward is going to create that certainty, that if there are going to be additions and things that will anticipate what could stop a project ultimately…. I appreciate that this legislation works to bring that process in.

We can give some assurance to proponents, to investors, to people who are looking to invest in B.C. — to build a future for them and for their family, who want to add to the richness of a community — that they are not going to feel overwhelmed or hampered or, honestly, so unsure if the initial dollars they put in are going to generate the investment return that could or would be expected.

To me, that is about timelines. That is about clarity of when something is first started and when we can foreseeably see that there should be some sort of answer and that people can work today, in today’s world, within those timelines and building those capacities out where they don’t currently exist.

Bill 15 introduces new issue-resolution mechanisms, but it does not clearly define when the processes begin, as I said, exactly how long they may last, whether timelines can be paused and by who and who ultimately decides and determines when the issue is resolved.

Although it does point to an independent body that would work in tandem, how that body is decided upon exactly, appointed, and where we may see that the public and the democratic process is reflected somehow and how those positions are appointed in relation to the MLAs that sit in this House…. These aren’t minor details. They’re mechanisms that determine whether a process is predictable or not. Right now those mechanics are not in the legislation, as I read it.

They’re left to regulation. So then it leaves for us to see not today but in the future how those decisions will be made by government and by the minister. I think British Columbians should really be paying attention to this.

When key pieces of decisions are left to regulation, then it means that we don’t get to see, on the public record, exactly how those mechanisms come to life; how they operate; and to ensure that, against those backdrops of all the conversations I know we’re all having in our respective ridings and areas, it’s going to be accountable to those conversations and to that feedback and to stakeholders who spend a long time in this space — a lot longer than I have, for sure.

[5:40 p.m.]

We need more certainty. We need to talk about, as I said, reconciliation — and again, not just the way that we understand it. It’s often not just about reconciling the world view of Indigenous Peoples and the way that they — but I should say we — would understand decisions but, spinning that on the other side, about how that fits into a process that really is completely foreign.

It’s not an easy job. I recognize that. But what we can do to make sure that it’s clearly communicated is providing those goalposts — let’s say it that way — and that certainty where people know exactly: “Okay, I’m heading here. This is what I need to achieve by this point in time.”

Very different than the way we would do business on the floor of a longhouse, say, but I think there’s a willingness. There are a lot of nations that do want to also achieve that certainty in their own backyard with their own neighbours and other neighbouring First Nations that they do need to work with as well.

In getting to the closing, I just want to remind everyone here today that industry is watching very closely. They’re watching the decisions that are made here because it affects them. They’ve been very, I would say, involved and caught up with the conversation. I would look to hear what the reactions are, for sure, from those partners and those stakeholders in relation to how this legislation is being laid out.

We need a very clear pathway forward. It does need to involve all partners and voices. At a certain point, I think that without disrespecting anyone ever, we have to set the goalposts and the parameters so that they’re meaningful but that they’re also going to be efficient. We have to acknowledge everything that’s been done in this space and in this work to date, acknowledge what we’ve heard and do the work.

At the end of the day, predictability is not created just through good intentions. It’s created through clear rules. That is what British Columbians, Indigenous nations, communities and industry alike are expecting from all of us.

Gavin Dew: I rise today to speak to Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026.

I think that like many of my colleagues, I would start by establishing the basic facts that the goals behind this bill are, of course, not unreasonable. We need to strengthen alignment and coordination with Indigenous nations. We need to reduce conflict and uncertainty in project reviews.

Here, as elsewhere, we need to create more stable and predictable processes so that reviews can be understood, planned against and mapped onto project management timelines, enabling greater certainty for projects as they move forward.

Those are eminently reasonable objectives that I think members all across this House can very reasonably agree upon. I think, again, that the intent of this bill is certainly very solid in that regard.

For myself personally, and I think for those of us on this side of the House, we certainly are very supportive of efforts to improve regulatory and process efficiency. We want to see a coherent, functional, strong, institutionally oriented environmental assessment process that can be looked to and relied upon with certainty and that positions British Columbia as a jurisdiction, a place, in which our processes can be understood and navigated in a reasonable fashion.

Again, there is much to be pleased about in terms of the intention of this bill, and that is certainly our disposition.

[5:45 p.m.]

With that said, those good intentions alone are not enough. It’s important that we, obviously, test through this process and through committee stage both the intent of the legislation and also the effect of the legislation and whether it meets the test of being clear, timely and workable in practice. I anticipate those are the kinds of questions that we will canvass in further depths through the committee stage debate on this bill.

Centrally, I think the most salient issue that we really do still have some concerns around is the absence of clear timelines. This set of changes creates new processes but does not define how long they should take. That’s crucially important.

As someone who has been very involved in moving projects forward and in understanding the financial implications of delay, it’s very important that we understand that without clear, predictable timelines, it’s very difficult for projects to be planned; to be mapped against seasonality, construction seasons; to even be clear from a financial perspective.

It is, of course, extremely important that project proponents are able to understand what the kinds of project development costs might be. I’ve spent significant time working on major projects where delays in the permitting process have resulted in very, very significant additional costs.

When you’re operating on a burn rate that could be in seven to eight figures a month and you encounter unanticipated delays or unpredictable delays, that can be crippling for a project. That can be extraordinarily difficult. In particular, it can be very, very difficult to really understand the return on investment, the timeline and the commercial functions of a project when you just don’t know exactly how long processes will take.

So while there are definitely some laudable efforts that are put forward by this legislation, again, the concern is just around not having clarity at the outset around timeline.

There are numerous references to the addition of new issue resolution protocols, technical tables, leadership tables — a lot of processes, a lot of tables, a lot of meetings, not a lot of firm timelines, not a lot of service standards, not a lot of clear deadlines for decision-making.

A lot of loose language: “as soon as practicable,” “may enter into discussions,” “must attempt to agree.” I’ve negotiated a commercial contract or two in my day, and those are the exact kinds of pieces of language that you see when somebody wants to sound like they’re committing to something while actually committing to nothing.

These are not timelines. These are aspirations. Any reasonable counterparty who encountered that kind of language in negotiating a commercial contract would very reasonably be questioning the intent of that kind of language and wanting to understand just how real the commitment being made actually was. As I say, these are somewhat slippery weasel words that can allow a truck to be driven through them. They’re good on intention but very soft on actual binding, clear timelines that would provide individuals and project proponents with the ability to understand exactly what they’re getting into from a timeline perspective.

That matters because environmental assessments are not just abstract policy exercises. They’re not just fun conversations. They’re extremely important, and it’s very important that they are diligent. It’s very important that they fully consider all of the different implications that could be there for projects.

Certainly, we need to make sure that we are diligent around the environmental assessments. It’s also, of course, very important to understand that environmental assessments are the gateway and the gatekeeper to major infrastructure projects, to natural resource development, to clean energy projects and to economic growth in this province. That, I think, is the balance that is at the heart of this bill.

Again, I think the intentions are there around trying to address that balance. It’s making sure that we are being fulsome and diligent in our environmental reviews while also having greater clarity around the ways in which disputes can be resolved, around the ways in which conflicts can be addressed and around the ways in which we move forward.

Those timelines are absolutely crucial, because any proponent who is advancing a major capital project is going to be looking at it through a series of risk gates and decision gates and through considerations around timeliness. As they do so, it is going to be consequential whether they can understand from government what the actual timelines are.

[5:50 p.m.]

That, I think, is an area that we’ll have much more to say and much more to ask about during committee stage on this in order to elicit a greater understanding of the intent of government around those timelines.

While that may well come forth in greater detail through regulation, as is the habit of this government, we, obviously, will be asking questions in order to try to both understand for our own purposes but also provide clarity to individuals, investors, project proponents and others who will be watching this debate very closely and looking to understand exactly what they can reasonably expect in terms of any material changes to the timeliness, the promptness, the clarity of timelines that are offered here.

As members who have worked on projects, been on the governing side of projects know and understand, when timelines are unclear, projects stall. When timelines are unclear, there can be knock-on effects that are extremely consequential, where a small delay can become a long delay if it affects things like construction season and if it affects loan covenants and other financial obligations.

When there is uncertainty and when timelines are unclear, investment hesitates, because anybody who has ever calculated an internal rate of return understands that time matters. The discounted cash flow side of things matters. The time value of money matters.

Being able to accomplish the same project and being able to do so on a timely basis, versus a basis that is delayed and unpredictable, is very significant in terms of calculating whether or not a project meets the hurdle rate that’s necessary for it to exceed the threshold of risk-adjusted return that would allow it to move forward.

What I think, a lot of the time, people don’t understand is that many of the projects that are advanced in this jurisdiction and any other jurisdiction are being considered by capital allocators who are deciding between different projects in different jurisdictions. There might be a great project here. There might be a great project somewhere else. If they cannot get clear certainty and timeliness in terms of the project that they’re advancing here, they’re not going to do it, in many cases.

Again, often that comes down to uncertainty. We are living, in British Columbia, at a time of considerable uncertainty where, across Canada and in British Columbia in particular, we have created greater and greater uncertainty on the land base. That’s very problematic.

I think we have a tendency as Canadians to conflate safety and risk. Certainly, when the Minister of Mines engages with international companies who are considering investing in British Columbia, I’m confident that he makes the argument that we are a safe, democratic, solid jurisdiction with rule of law. By comparison, other jurisdictions that they might be contemplating mining in could be higher risk, higher possibility of there being significant risks to the safety of individual workers.

But the fact that there is a much lower likelihood of armed militias, the fact that there is a much lower likelihood of threats to life safety or of kleptocratic regimes in a jurisdiction like this does not necessarily mean that, from a quantifiable investment-risk perspective, risk is lower.

That’s the great challenge that we have as a jurisdiction, as Canada and as British Columbia. When individual companies — mining companies for example — are comparing their jurisdictional risk analysis, when they’re looking at country risk analysis, when they’re looking at subnational risk analysis, when they’re looking at British Columbia or at a region within British Columbia, they’re evaluating all the different factors that go into their decision-making. That, obviously, includes other elements of risk.

Timeline is a huge risk. Uncertainty around environmental assessments, how disputes are resolved, etc. — those are all very, very significant risks that can affect capital allocation and can affect decisions to move toward final investment decisions. It’s very important that we take a very fulsome look at this, which again, I think, is very much the intent of much of this bill — to try to create greater certainty, to create those resolution processes, to create greater predictability.

But there is more that we could do with this. There’s greater clarity that we could offer to markets, particularly in terms of the timeliness with which decisions are made and the clarity of timelines, the clarity of service standards, the clarity against which folks can reasonably expect that their projects will be evaluated.

Again, investors don’t make decisions based on goodwill. They don’t make decisions based on what a nice, friendly guy the Minister of Mines is, although he is a nice and friendly guy. They make decisions on the basis of the totality of factors, and among that totality of factors, obviously, is the timeliness with which decisions are made. We will, in the course of our questioning at committee stage, be asking detailed questions that would drive toward a greater understanding of that timeliness.

[5:55 p.m.]

Again, British Columbia does not operate in isolation. We’re not alone in the world. We’re not in a vacuum. We are not the only place where people could allocate capital to move projects forward. We’re competing with other Canadian jurisdictions. We’re competing with other Canadian provinces and territories. We’re competing with U.S. states. And we’re competing with global jurisdictions.

In every one of those places, companies that are moving forward are engaging in national and subnational risk analysis, which includes an understanding of what the environmental assessment processes that they will be expected to go through look like, how they fit together, what kind of timeliness they can expect in moving through those processes.

When they decide whether to invest, they’re looking at how long approvals will take; how predictable the process is; what risks exist of delay; and what precedents can be seen in terms of unexpected risks and unexpected delays that could cause significant heartburn or could cause significant increases in the overall capital costs required to advance a project, whether that be greater costs that are required from a significant capital side or simply needing to keep a team up and running for longer — a team of consultants, a team of staff, a team of lawyers, a team of project management experts.

When you’re burning seven or eight figures a month, that’s very, very significant. Even if you’re a small project, it can be very, very material in terms of just understanding what your return on investment is and whether you still like that return on investment.

If our answer to the questions being asked by those companies that are considering investment here in British Columbia is that there’s a process but there’s no clear timeline, that’s just not good enough. That actually puts us at a disadvantage relative to other jurisdictions that are moving in the opposite direction, where they’re doing their utmost to provide clear timelines, streamlined approvals and defined escalation processes. If B.C. can’t offer that same clarity, we, obviously, risk falling behind.

I think that an understanding of elements of that is certainly in this bill. There are lots of positives in this bill, but we really just are not convinced that there is quite enough there and that all those questions are adequately addressed.

Looking deeper into the bill, obviously, there are some other elements that we will be examining further. That includes the new issue resolution protocol framework, which on paper sounds very constructive. Certainly, having early engagement is important and good. Having structured dialogue and an escalation pathway — those are good and positive things that we, certainly, would all want to see.

I return to that issue of timeliness. There is, as it stands, no requirement that discussions conclude within a set time. Having discussions is great. Having processes and structures and ways of going about discussing and trying to address issues or address conflicts is certainly a very good and positive thing that we should endeavour toward. But if there is no requirement, if there is no ticking time clock, no shot clock, then that certainly is problematic in terms of our ability to give confidence to project proponents that they can expect their projects to move forward on a timely basis.

If there is no deadline to finalize a protocol and if there’s no consequence if negotiations stall, then that is a significant delay risk, in which there’s a real risk that pre-assessment phases could stretch indefinitely. We want to make sure that we’re actually getting clarity, timeliness and a clear understanding of exactly how this will work from an investment perspective.

Obviously, the bill also addresses technical tables and leadership tables, bringing together a more formal structure. That is a reasonable idea, but we see no timelines for meetings, no timelines for resolutions, no limits on how long issues can sit unresolved. These are crucial questions that project proponents would reasonably be asking if they were looking at this legislation. Hence, of course, we’re asking those questions.

We’ll be providing opportunity for the minister to provide greater clarity around the thinking on that front, recognizing that we obviously expect that some further detail will be fleshed out in regulation, fleshed out operationally. We do still want to understand from the minister what the thinking and intention is there, or at least just understand that there is an understanding of the importance of timeliness within the process.

As I look at the dispute resolution elements of the bill, this replaces the previous system. It requires parties to agree on terms and on a facilitator, but if they can’t agree, the process doesn’t proceed at all. That alone is, obviously, a major concern, but even where agreement is reached, there is no timeline for reaching agreement or conducting the process.

[6:00 p.m.]

That is certainly challenging in terms of ensuring that there is timeliness to the process, predictability of the process and an ability for both project proponents and for the individuals who might be advising them to understand what they’re getting into and to understand how this will all proceed. In the absence of that clarity, key project decisions could be delayed indefinitely.

One phrase that certainly stands out that is used repeatedly in the bill is “as soon as practicable,” which again is fairly conventional legal language. We’ve all seen it in a gazillion contracts. But when you see that language in a contract or, frankly, when you introduce that language into a contract, what you are doing is you are providing wiggle room.

That is language that is subjective, flexible and difficult to enforce. It does not provide certainty, it does not provide accountability, and it does not provide predictability. In a complex regulatory environment, that ambiguity can become delay, that delay can become risk, and that risk can become lost investment. These are the kinds of questions and details that we certainly hope to see more of as this proceeds forward.

It’s very important to recognize that those impacts and those timeliness questions are crucial to building good, strong relationships and good, strong Indigenous partnerships. It’s very important to recognize that clear timelines can, in fact, strengthen those relationships, set expectations, prevent fatigue and make sure that things are moving forward on a clear and time-bound basis.

Now let’s talk for a moment about the economic consequences of the bill. As I previously alluded to, delays in environmental assessments can be extraordinarily consequential in terms of delaying construction, job creation, economic development, tax revenue and infrastructure — all across different sectors. I think that we all share, across the aisle and across all parties and all independents in this House, a desire to see projects move forward on a timely basis.

Again, that’s where we want to make sure that we are being clearer around this. Capital is mobile. Capital can leave. Capital can go elsewhere. Capital makes decisions on the basis of a set of different factors, including timeliness and predictability.

I’m reminded of the words, actually, of a former Premier, Glen Clark, who at a very interesting event a couple of years ago said: “Capital is a coward.” Mr. Clark, I believe, is correct in that regard. Capital seeks risk-adjusted return. Capital seeks clarity. Capital seeks timeliness. Capital seeks an understanding of exactly what it’s being allocated against. That’s not an emotional decision. That’s often a hyper-rational, quantifiable decision.

The way in which we often talk about projects, the way in which they are reported on in the media, the way in which they would be talked about in this House is often as if the projects are anthropomorphized. They’re people. They’re emotional. They’re filled with story. They’re filled with narrative. That’s important too. The stories around what projects do for us, the stories around the opportunities they unlock, the stories around the jobs they create are good and important things.

But stories and photo ops alone do not a project make. Clarity, predictability, timeliness, quantifiable ability to understand exactly what you are getting into, exactly what your timelines are and exactly what the implications of risk-adjusted return are, are absolutely crucial to projects being able to move forward.

That’s why we’ll continue, as we move forward with this bill, to ask questions designed to elicit improvements to the bill, to elicit a greater understanding of whether or not timeliness has been adequately considered by the drafters of the bill and whether and how it will be made clearer moving forward.

I think it’s crucial to establish that we’re not alone in asking those questions. We are mildly disappointed that government has not thought more about those questions before, because many other jurisdictions have been more proactive in establishing clarity around timelines.

Other jurisdictions have introduced legislated timelines. They’ve introduced maximum review periods, and they’ve introduced binding decision deadlines. Those are all things that do not entirely eliminate complexity, but they do create predictability. They create discipline. They create the ability to map a project budget, to map an understanding of the financial reward of a project against really clear and established timelines.

Things slide, stuff happens, and nothing is ever perfect. But I do think that there is opportunity for this bill to be strengthened, either through amendments or as it is enacted, to ensure that we’re being clearer around that timeliness, that predictability, the ability to provide clear expectations and understanding to proponents so that they can model exactly what they should reasonably expect when moving a project through processes here in British Columbia.

[6:05 p.m.]

Again, this bill is positive in its overall direction and intention. It’s something that I can, certainly, see us being broadly supportive of. But it is a bit of a missed opportunity to fully modernize the assessment system, to continue to strengthen collaboration and efficiency, and some of that is missed. Time discipline is the most important aspect that is missed here.

There are good efforts toward modernization. There are good efforts toward collaboration. There are good efforts toward efficiency. There are good efforts toward conflict resolution. We look forward to hearing more about those and about the ways in which they’ll be implemented during committee stage.

But once again, without clear timelines, without time discipline, even well-designed processes can fail, become cumbersome or so frustrating that despite the fact that they are well-constructed, they become ineffective; they become sources of conflict; and they become sources of delay, simply because no clear timeline has been established.

I don’t raise these concerns to oppose the bill outright. I don’t raise these concerns in any spirit other than constructive examination of the bill and of what might be possible if amendments are brought or if conversation elicits an understanding that, through the regulatory process to follow, there will be a greater emphasis on time discipline.

But I do think that they’re extraordinarily important. I do think that they’re absolutely crucial to the signals that we are sending for project proponents with the bill and also the signals that we’re sending to individuals who might be taking part in these processes as third parties, as concerned individuals, as communities.

We owe everybody that obligation of timeliness. We owe everybody the ability to understand exactly what they’re getting into. We owe them a clear, predictable, timely process, and that simply just is a better process for everybody.

Regardless of whether they’re advocating for a project, advocating against a project or simply trying to understand a project, the more we can be really, really clear with timing, the better that is and the more of an investable jurisdiction we really make ourselves at the level of granular detail that increasingly people are looking at our province with.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, we are at a time of considerable uncertainty on the land base, which we need to do everything in our power to mitigate. There are other broader conversations. Yes, some of them very political, but also some of them legal, some of them very policy-wonkish around how we can try to return stability on the land base; how we can try to return greater clarity around property rights, which are the fundamental cornerstone of any market economy.

When we’re in that situation where some of the macro-level risk considerations are very fluid, very uncertain and there are mixed signals going out to markets, it’s so important that the kind of detailed, incremental, nitty-gritty adjustments that are being made in processes like the EA process are dialled in, really clear, really specific and really responsive to the kinds of considerations that are going to be really major at the level of capital allocation.

Again, it’s sometimes easy to forget that it’s not just…. When it comes to these huge, giant, major projects or to smaller mid-sized projects that are proceeding through these kinds of evaluations, it’s not just the PR and GR people that make the decisions, folks. It’s a lot of bean-counters with a lot of Excel spreadsheets implementing a lot of variables and a lot of spreadsheets and Gantt charts.

They’re making decisions as to whether or not they see the projects as being viable on the basis of a whole range of different risk considerations. Some of those are costs and cost escalation. Some of those are what kind of conditions might be imposed on a project and what the associated cost of those conditions might be. And some of those are very much around timelines.

That’s why it is so incredibly important that we dial in the timeliness factor in this legislation — make it clearer, make it so that the individuals who are going to be reporting back to their respective companies, proponents, etc., are able to look at those and see in British Columbia what they need to see in order to help them establish a balanced scorecard relative to the risks that could be faced by any project attempting to move forward here in British Columbia.

The kinds of suggestions that we may have through amendments or through questions are not radical. They’re not wild. I don’t think that the conversation around this bill need be particularly politicized. But I do think it’s important that we delve into commonsense governance changes that would allow this to just be a little bit clearer, a little bit better and a little bit more focused on timeliness.

As I begin to wrap up, at its heart, I think this bill reflects attention that is important between flexibility and certainty. It reflects, I think, an earnest desire to try to create greater clarity, to try to create stronger processes, more collaborative processes, processes through which we can advance projects. But without boundaries, flexibility becomes unpredictability.

[6:10 p.m.]

Again, I return to the fact that this bill is lacking in increased transparency. It’s lacking in publication of reports. It’s lacking in public explanations for decisions. Those are questions that we found ourselves asking of many bills over the last number of months. We’re really just looking to make sure there’s greater disclosure for the public. We’re looking to make sure that individuals who are trying to understand and navigate these kinds of processes are able to have a precedent-based understanding of what they can expect as they move through the process.

We asked some of the same questions and asked for some of the same reporting around recent legislation brought forward on interprovincial trade barriers — legislation that we supported, legislation we felt was solid legislation, legislation that stakeholders reported back that they were generally comfortable with. We asked questions around what kind of reporting would be made available, and ultimately, we were, frankly, disappointed that government did not accept amendments to allow for basic transparency and basic reporting.

We will be asking, again, a lot of questions as we get into detailed analysis in committee stage that focus on the practicability of the bill, that focus on the ways in which it will work on the ground for individuals, companies and organizations proceeding through it. As I say, we’ll be very focused on the timeliness of the bill.

In summation, British Columbia has enormous potential. We all want to unlock that potential. We want to make sure we can advance projects that bring prosperity to communities, to nations, to individuals; that create the private sector jobs that have been sorely lacking in a jurisdiction that has the worst private sector job creation record over the last number of years in all of Canada. In order to do that, we need to make sure that we get this right. We need a regulatory system that’s fair, collaborative and predictable, particularly around timeliness.

As I previously said, Bill 15 certainly takes steps in the right direction. I think there are many laudable aspects of this bill, but without clear timelines, it risks undermining its own goals and leaving uncertainty just at a time when it’s absolutely crucial that we create certainty. Certainty equals competitiveness. Timeliness equals competitiveness. It is being competitive in a world where capital is being allocated all over the place that will allow us to really capture and grow the great opportunity we have here in British Columbia.

Thank you very much. With that, I’m done.

Lorne Doerkson: I’m certainly happy to bring greetings from Cariboo-Chilcotin to you here today.

I want to pick up a little bit where the member for Kelowna-Mission left off. I want to give a couple of examples of permitting, environmental processes that have been kind of slow, frankly, in my riding. Frankly, I want to talk a little bit about the cost to British Columbia with respect to that permitting process, whether it’s EAs or something else. The permitting process is pretty robust already in our province, and certainly, I have some definite living examples of it.

What I will happily say is that I think that most people in this House will agree that this bill has taken some great steps. But I think there are some concerns around, obviously, the timelines, which the member laid out quite clearly, and I will continue to speak just a little bit more about that.

It really is important, I think, for any of those businesses that are involved in this process or any of the proponents, frankly.

I’m working on a permit or helping to represent Tsi Del Del, which is a very large logging operation in Cariboo-Chilcotin. They’re fantastic at what they do, but they’re currently in a process that started in September or October of last year.

I’m grateful to the Forests Minister for help that he has offered on that file, but it’s shocking to me that they could be in that process for that many months. Of course, their biggest fear right now is the fact that even if they had the permit now, after waiting all those months, the roads are too soft to actually go do the task at hand.

The next fear, of course, is wildfire. There really are some challenges with even conducting the work once you get the permit, but the process itself has been pretty tedious and pretty slow.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think that costs us, not just as residents in Cariboo-Chilcotin but the province. Now, Tsi Del Del operates, as I mentioned, a very large logging operation, and they employ around 200 people. Those 200 people are waiting. Maybe not all 200 in this case, but certainly, many of them are waiting to go to work. I think that that is concerning.

I agree with the member. I think he mentioned the fact that capital has to make a decision. It has no choice. When those timelines are not clear, when they’re frightening for business or any other proponent, I think that they really do look at other jurisdictions. They look at places that it might be a little more appealing.

At the end of the day, I really do think that the bill itself, Bill 15, has certainly got some good things to be talking about. I think that we will definitely have an opportunity to go through committee stage and, obviously, ask many questions. Certainly, I think there’ll be a lot of focus on the timeline question.

I do want to talk a little bit about a permit. This is a specific permit, and it happens to be, probably, in a pretty sensitive area on the Fraser River. That permit actually expired a couple of years ago. During that time, it took us almost two years to advocate on behalf of the proponent to get that permit in place. The frustration is that that permit really was in place. It just expired. So as they went through the process, it took about two years to sort of get back into that situation where that proponent could carry on working.

I can actually name names. His name is Dan Peron. He’s a great guy, and we’re working with him now to renew that permit again.

This is the frustration on the landscape, because the real reason is that when we talk about companies like Tsi Del Del…. We’ll talk about a mine here in a couple of minutes, as well, that might employ hundreds of people.

Dan is typical of so many of our small entrepreneurs. Dan employs about four or five people. He was employing eight before the permit expired. The frustration is that when it expired, it took two years to get back through that process.

I can assure you the day that I phoned Dan to congratulate him on his new permit, he was too busy to talk to me. The reason he was too busy to talk to me is that he had just hired four or five people, he was buying a new digger in Kamloops and he had just bought a bunch of used trucks to carry on his operation. Everything that he was doing that day was related to income to this province through GDP and taxation.

I will never stand in the way of anything like Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Act, or any of the other acts that will actually help this process. I am extremely favourable to anything that will help us move through the complexity of what we have in the landscape. I know that there are all kinds of questions around the landscape right now, but the goals of this bill are certainly worthy. They’re important, because it is costing all British Columbians.

In a region like mine, where we have had a number of mill closures, where we have seen some pretty significant affects of what’s happening in other industries, I can assure you that everybody is talking about permits and how to move them along quicker — right? — in just about every single area.

Certainly, Bill 15 talks about the goals of improving coordination with Indigenous nations. Of course we have to do that. There are 14 nations in Cariboo-Chilcotin. They are all very active on the landscape. Tsi Del Del, I just mentioned, is one of probably the biggest loggers in the area.

But there are other things to talk about, and that is the opportunity potentially around Prosperity mine, which went through a very robust environmental process. I think it cost Taseko Mines somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $100 million, and they never really did get the approvals that were needed for that mine.

But now there are opportunities, of course, for Xeni and for that area, which is fantastic because now there is potentially an opportunity to go forth with that.

[6:20 p.m.]

The process itself was significant. I saw some of the work that was done at the time, which was years ago, and I would expect that it has gotten even more complex now. That’s why I could probably find my way to support anything like Bill 15, if we were in a position to actually move that process along, because it took years and years to get through that.

They studied everything from the path that grizzly bears and everything else took, light pollution, sound pollution…. This is a mine in the middle of nowhere, but all of that was contemplated through the process. I think it’s really, really important that we do have a good structure to move that along in a real effective way.

Like I said, we’ll have all kinds of questions about that. But certainly, I think that we can openly talk about the fact that we would like to potentially bring some amendments forth to this bill that might help that process. I really, genuinely hope that they’ll be considered or contemplated when we do.

Reducing conflict in project reviews, creating more predictable processes — those are all positive things in the world that these companies and certainly that these First Nations are working in. We’re seeing now so many partnerships across the board, whether it be mines or whether it be forestry companies, etc.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There’s no question that we have pretty good companies forming together between so many of these nations. There’s no question that we want to create a more predictable future.

I want to talk a little bit about the dispute resolution process. I’m concerned that that’s not, potentially, as transparent as it could be. I think that we really have to open up that transparency. I think we owe it to British Columbians, and I think we owe it to the proponents, which in some cases are First Nations. I can appreciate there is a relationship that is government to government. I appreciate that. But I think it’s really time that we get this a little bit more before all of the people of British Columbia.

We talk about tables, new tables, that will help us move through this — with respect to leadership tables, technical tables, those kinds of things. We have had forestry landscape plans brought before this House, I think, a number of years ago. I’m actually not sure if any of those are complete yet. I know that they’re working on one in Quesnel. I know that they’ve been working on it fairly feverishly. But the reality is, I think, that there are multiple challenges with respect to these tables. I think the tables….

I can appreciate the complexity as well, and I know that it is a serious conversation, but the reality is we have to get this open to all of the community so that everybody has the ability to understand what’s happening in their backyard, because let’s face it. They’re significant. We’ve got power projects being proposed. We’ve got solar projects being proposed. They’re all going to have to go through this process in some way. But it really needs to include all of our community members, and there has to be full engagement.

Just going back to Taseko, the plan that they put together was…. Honestly, the books that they had together covered an entire eight-foot table and stacked up on the sides. The effort that went forth was amazing. I can appreciate there was some frustration around that assessment, but honestly, there was quite a bit of community involvement. I just think that it’s definitely something that we have to do.

The economic consequences are grave. I really believe that. Without some transparency, honesty, an open dialogue with our residents, I really think that we do stand to lose some great business opportunities in this province, and that would be sad, particularly in my region, where we have had some challenges.

Noting the hour, I’d like to reserve my place to speak and would move adjournment of the debate.

Lorne Doerkson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 11 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Looking forward to a good and fruitful discussion on this bill.

I will happily take a moment and introduce the team that we have here to help answer questions in the discussion of this bill. Very grateful to be joined by Teri Collins, Meghan Will, Leah Smith, Tyann Blewett and Andrew Prosser.

This is really important work. I think everyone in the room understands the challenges and the thought that has gone into the legislation in front of us, and I look forward to a productive conversation.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to all the minister’s staff and the minister for doing this today. I know that this is really important work that we’re doing, and I appreciate your time in being here and, obviously, answering some of the questions that I have around this piece of legislation and the amendments that are being made to the Residential Tenancy Act.

I want to just start by saying that I recognize that we’re at a time where there have been a lot of issues around supportive housing, and certainly, that’s kind of the substance of this piece of legislation — to try and address some of those issues. I’m grateful for the work that’s being done on that.

I just see it as, potentially, this is a first step, but I think there’s a lot of work that’s left to be done when it comes to supportive housing and some of the issues that we’re seeing around that, to make sure that it’s safe and fair for everybody, both the tenants and the people working there and the taxpayers that are paying for it.

I’m hoping that we can get through some of those more substantive pieces as we move through this. I, obviously — I mentioned previously — have some amendments that I will be bringing forward eventually, to try and strengthen this legislation. I hope that we’re able to find some common ground on that work together to find ways in which we might be able to strengthen this even further.

On clause 1, I’m wondering why the government is reorganizing the headings of part 1 of the act and what practical impact this change is going to have.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. Given the introduction of a new division in the RTA for supportive housing, clause 7, adding additional headings, is simply housekeeping to break up part 1 into more specific parts to better organize the RTA. These new headings don’t create any substantive content changes to the RTA.

Claire Rattée: So just to be clear. This is purely administrative. It doesn’t signal any broader structural changes to how the act will operate.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Correct.

Rob Botterell: I’d like to start by thanking the minister and her team for being available for this. This is a very helpful part of the legislative process.

In terms of clause 1, we know that legislative amendments that directly affect supportive housing tenants should require the meaningful input and expertise of those most impacted. We know that Bill 11 increases the risk of eviction for tenants in supportive housing, making them the primary group affected by these changes. Despite this, the stakeholders most substantively reflected in this legislation are supportive housing providers, not tenants.

This imbalance raises concerns about whose perspectives have shaped the legislation and whether it adequately reflects the needs and realities of those most affected — the tenants. My question is: given that Bill 11 increases eviction risk for tenants, what role did those tenants play in shaping the legislation, and how is that reflected in specific provisions?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you for the question. The ministry convened a supportive housing working group made up of sector associations, housing providers, Indigenous housing providers, law enforcement and union representatives. The ministry also consulted with tenant advocates, persons with lived and living experience and Indigenous partners. As well, the Human Rights Commissioner has provided their perspective.

Specifically to the member’s question, in terms of people with lived and living experience, tenant advocates were consulted on August 14, 2025, as well as February 3 and February 26 of this year. The people with lived and living experiences advisory committee and the Surrey Union of Drug Users were also engaged in the fall of 2025.

Rob Botterell: Can you clarify if those with lived and living experience were consulted once the legislation was drafted, to go over its specific impacts on them?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: People with lived and living experience were engaged early as part of the policy development work that informed drafting, and tenant advocates were engaged on specifics of the legislation.

Rob Botterell: This bill has been presented as a tool to improve safety in supportive housing. However, its primary mechanisms — surveillance, control and eviction — focus on managing tenant behaviour rather than addressing the conditions that give rise to harms.

What evidence does the minister rely on to support the assumption that increased eviction and surveillance powers will lead to safer outcomes in supportive housing? Can the minister identify what in this bill meaningfully addresses the root causes of harm in supportive housing, beyond expanding powers to remove tenants?

Finally, how does the minister expect safety to improve if the legislation focuses on controlling tenants rather than addressing the causes of harm within supportive housing environments?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I do think, and I thank the member for the questions, that it’s important to be clear about the scope of what Bill 11 is. Bill 11 is an amendment to B.C.’s tenancy laws. The purpose is to address gaps in the RTA that providers and workers have identified as limiting their ability to respond to serious safety incidents.

The bill complements other work that is underway, including increasing health system capacity through increased funding through Budget 2026; intensive mental health and addictions treatment, including increased funding through Budget 2026; complex care housing, staffing and service delivery models in supportive housing; and building safety, air quality and environmental health in supportive housing.

These initiatives and other related initiatives are being advanced through other policy and funding mechanisms. Bill 11 focuses on ensuring that the RTA doesn’t prevent timely safety interventions while broader system work continues.

[3:10 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: What assurance can the minister provide that there will be monitoring in place to ensure that no tenant that is evicted as a result of this legislation is left without the full wraparound support that the ex-tenant needs in order to restore their ability to be in this sort of supportive housing.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks again for the question.

These changes are designed to support the safety of people living and working in supportive housing as well as the broader community, by responding quickly and proportionately to safety risks.

I think it is worth noting that eviction is not something new in supportive housing. Landlords, including supportive housing operators, have always had grounds to seek eviction through the residential tenancy branch.

The primary intent of this policy is to prevent evictions wherever possible through de-escalating immediate risks, through allowing space for intervention and creating time for proper adjudication while also protecting the safety of other tenants in a building and staff when it’s not possible to safely house a person any longer.

Providers will continue to make every effort to support people and preserve their housing. That includes providing alternative accommodation and access and connection to supports wherever possible.

Claire Rattée: I just have a question in regards to consultation. It’s something that was raised earlier. I had raised it during second reading as well.

I thought I understood who was consulted when drafting this legislation, but there was a name that wasn’t mentioned during my briefing that was just mentioned now, which was the Surrey Union of Drug Users.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m curious if the minister could please elaborate on why the Surrey Union of Drug Users was consulted in regards to this piece of legislation, given the fact that it has absolutely no scope, whatsoever, around drug use and it doesn’t touch that in any way.

The main reason I’m asking is because I had concerns over a lack of consultation with other key groups that I thought should’ve been consulted — whether that’s municipalities, fire departments, police. I have a fair bit of concern over the fact that they weren’t consulted in the drafting of this legislation, so I’m quite surprised to hear that this group was.

I’m curious if, potentially, there were recommendations that came out of that round table last summer that pointed in the direction of needing to address some of the issues around drug use in supportive housing units and whether or not this piece of consultation is what made the minister decide not to pursue that.

I’m just generally trying to get an understanding of why they were consulted and what really came out of that consultation process and what was understood by the ministry as needing to be addressed.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Happy to answer the question. The group, as a coalition of tenants and of residents, requested to meet with the ministry in their capacity as current and former tenants in supportive housing to provide input into the policy work that was underway.

Claire Rattée: If the minister could clarify. So this is a group that specifically sought out the ministry and asked to provide comment on this, which…. I’m unclear. Was it made public that we were looking for consultation on this, or who reached out to them?

I’m a bit unclear on how that process actually unfolded, because this didn’t appear to be a public consultation process, as far as I could tell. Like I said, there were a number of groups that wanted to be consulted on this and weren’t and didn’t recognize that consultation was even taking place. I’m just trying to understand how it came to be that this specific group provided consultation.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The work became public, as I’m sure the member remembers. I wasn’t in this role at the time, but a number of supportive housing providers publicly requested that the ministry look into actions on this front. On June 30, Minister Kahlon, in this role at the time, announced a working group. So it was public information that the ministry was engaging with the working group in conversation on this topic, and the group proactively reached out and requested a meeting.

Claire Rattée: I’m curious if the minister can elaborate, then, on what this specific group’s recommendations were, whether or not addressing the issues around drug use in supportive housing units was ever on the table and if that consultation had anything to do with why it is now not involved in this legislation.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. Tenant advocates and people with lived and living experience, including the meeting with this particular group, were focused on concerns about the removal of any tenant rights under the RTA. That was a repeat piece of feedback that the ministry received and that, of course, informed the balance of this bill, in keeping supportive housing within the RTA while looking at other tools to increase safety for both tenants and staff.

The Chair: I’d like to take a brief recess of five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:24 p.m. to 3:29 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 11 back to order. We are on clause 1.

[3:30 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Since we’re talking about the consultation process and the safety focus of this piece of legislation and how we’re trying to improve safety in supportive housing, I just wanted to ask why, then, we didn’t place some focus on issues of safety that have actually seemed to be more pressing than the issue of weapons being in supportive housing. That would, obviously, be issues related to fire risk and related to drug use in the buildings.

I think, mainly, my question is: why did the ministry choose not to consult with police departments, with fire departments and with health care workers on these issues? Why were they not addressed in this legislation? Just for context around that, I think that it is really important to recognize that there have been more issues with fires and drug use in supportive housing units in recent years than there have been with weapons.

I understand the point of not wanting to remove tenant rights. I understand that in theory, but the issue that I have with it is that I have an apartment here in Victoria for when I’m here working, and I’m not allowed to smoke drugs in my unit. I’m not allowed to have things in my unit that could potentially cause a fire. It’s actually a stipulation in my contract that I’m not allowed to light candles.

I’m just, personally, not understanding why we haven’t put stricter restrictions in this to address some of the very serious and pressing concerns that we know exist right now within supportive housing units — concerns that have been brought forward, as I said, by fire departments; by police departments; by front-line health care staff; and by many of the supportive housing unit tenants and operators themselves, many of which I’ve spoken to, that have told me that they want to see these issues addressed in supportive housing.

So I’m trying to understand, just from the consultation perspective and the decisions that were made by the ministry around actually drafting this legislation, why those elements were not taken into account. Why were those groups not consulted with?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you again for the question. The issues raised are real and serious concerns but are governed through existing provisions in the Residential Tenancy Act and other regulatory and enforcement frameworks — including the building code, fire safety regulation, health and environmental standards and contractual and funding requirements for housing operators.

Bill 11 wasn’t drafted as a comprehensive housing quality code. Its purpose is to remove tenancy law barriers that prevent timely action where safety risks arise. Further to that, worth noting is that other items that are not illegal to possess can also, of course, be dangerous, including in supportive housing. For example, items like butane lighters and modified e-bike batteries can pose a fire risk.

The RTA already allows landlords to include terms in their tenancy agreements prohibiting specific items from the property. If a tenant breaches those terms by bringing a prohibited item on the property and the tenant doesn’t voluntarily come into compliance with the rules, the landlord can seek to end the tenancy.

I also just want to mention — I know this has come up in other contexts before — the ministry does consult with a fire reduction working group, more broadly than just the scope of this bill, but that is certainly advice that we seek and take related to fire safety. Specific to the context of this bill, we consulted with a law enforcement working group as well as the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Claire Rattée: Just one more question, and we’ll move on to the next clause.

What I’m understanding, then, is that items like a butane torch or a modified e-bike would fall under the category of a dangerous item. This legislation specifically uses the term “weapon” though. So what I’m trying to understand here is: does that mean that that is, then, encapsulated in that or not?

My understanding is that at this point with this piece of legislation, what would change would be the ability for the housing provider to have that weapon removed and have the person evicted immediately because of this offence. But I don’t believe that that is the case in the case of a butane torch or somebody smoking drugs in a unit. There does not appear to be any current legislative mechanism by which somebody could be evicted for that.

I’m just trying to understand. Is the minister insinuating that those things already fall within this piece of legislation? Or would that still be governed under separate rules?

Hon. Christine Boyle: If a tenant is doing something that negatively affects the health or safety of others or puts the residential property at risk — for example, irresponsibly using lighters indoors — the landlord can end the tenancy either by applying for an expedited hearing or giving a one-month notice to end tenancy, depending on the urgency.

[3:40 p.m.]

The new eviction grounds due to weapons possession are only intended to capture limited circumstances where the mere presence of an item on the property jeopardizes the safety of others. Those new grounds due to weapons possession are intended to capture situations where the possessed item inherently poses a significant risk to others and/or is illegal under the Criminal Code.

As I spoke to a moment ago, based on the population of each site, housing providers are able to include terms in their tenancy agreements prohibiting specific items from their property.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Linda Hepner: Clause 2 has many definitions, and I’m going to just focus on a couple of them.

One is the housing stability support. It’s very vague, and I wonder if the minister could tell me exactly what that definition and what those supports….

Interjection.

Linda Hepner: That’s under the definitions of clause 2. Or is it clause 3? Oh, let clause 2 pass then.

Claire Rattée: All right, so clause 2. Why is the government introducing a new definition of “authorized person”?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The proposed legislation would amend the existing eviction provisions in the RTA to allow a landlord to end a tenancy if a tenant or a person permitted on the property by the tenant has significantly interfered with, unreasonably disturbed or seriously jeopardized the health and safety of an authorized person. That’s the terminology we’re looking at in this clause.

An “authorized person” is a new defined term that captures the landlord, another occupant of the property as well as a person permitted on the property by any of those persons or another person on the property with lawful authority.

This addition would allow a housing provider to protect workers, such as a person permitted on the property by the provider or someone on the property with lawful authority; and guests, a person permitted on the property by the occupant of the property, by ending a tenancy with one month’s notice or an application to the RTB. So the “authorized person” language is intended to capture all of those individuals rather than listing them at every point through the legislation.

Claire Rattée: Why is the reference to service agreements being removed from the definition of “landlord”?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is a housekeeping amendment related to clause 19. In 2006, government passed the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act which included provisions to govern assisted or supportive living under the RTA. Assisted or supportive living is what’s known as assisted living today.

These amendments also introduced the concept of a service agreement as part of an assisted or supportive living tenancy. While the provision from 2006 added a reference to a service agreement in the definition of “landlord,” it was never brought into force and doesn’t have any meaning under the RTA, so we’re just cleaning that up in alignment.

Claire Rattée: Why wasn’t that ever brought into force? This is legislation from 2006, so why wasn’t it ever brought into force?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As it was in 2006, that decision was made by a previous government, and I don’t know why they did not bring it into force.

Linda Hepner: If we could go under “authorized person” again just for a moment, it broadens who can make decisions affecting tenancies. I’m just wondering about the requirement and whether or not there is any need for these persons to receive training or liability protection as operators when they’re doing their work as if they were operators.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Happy to clarify.

The definition of “authorized person” expands who is protected. It doesn’t change decision-making. It’s not broadening who is making that decision. It’s simply expanding who is protected under the act.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Claire Rattée: Why is the government introducing new definitions for “housing stability support,” “supportive housing,” “supportive housing operator,” “supportive housing rental unit” and “transitional housing”? I’m just wondering why now the decision is being made to provide definitions for those.

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is not new. These terms are currently defined in regulation, and we’re bringing those definitions into the act.

Claire Rattée: My question, then, would be: understanding that, why were key elements of these definitions left in the regulation rather than being clearly defined in the legislation itself?

I agree with having them in the legislation, but it feels like certain things were brought in and other things were still left in regulation, so I’m curious how that decision was made.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We work closely with the legislative drafters on what goes into and what is most appropriately added to legislation versus regulation, and these were determined to be foundational definitions to the act.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

[3:55 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Are we on clause 4.2? I have several questions on clause 4. The first is under 4.2. What prevents inconsistent or arbitrary assessments of who qualifies as at risk or benefiting from support?

Interjections.

Claire Rattée: So my question…. I just felt like it was best suited to this clause, but it’s a general question about this piece of legislation. Is the intention to create a separate regulatory regime within the Residential Tenancy Act that’s specifically for supportive housing?

The main reason I’m asking this is because I do find it interesting that we’ve effectively removed care homes from the Residential Tenancy Act, but we’ve left supportive housing within it. In my mind, based on some of the issues that we have been facing with supportive housing, or at least specific forms of supportive housing, especially ones where I think that most of the tenants would benefit significantly from care being expanded and accessible within those units….

I’m trying to understand what the purpose is of actually not creating a separate regulatory framework that specifically deals with supportive housing, just based on how many issues we face with this. So I’m trying to kind of better understand if this clause and doing it in this way within the Residential Tenancy Act is to create somewhat of a pseudo-secondary regulatory framework that’s specific to supportive housing or not.

Hon. Christine Boyle: These changes to supportive housing are intended to add clarity. The Community Care and Assisted Living Act provides a framework for health facilities. We heard clearly from supportive housing providers and from tenants that they didn’t want to have supportive housing removed from the RTA. Instead, we’ve created provisions tailored to the unique realities of supportive housing, and that’s what the division and unique section is getting at.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[4:00 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Again, in clause 5, why is the reference to service agreements being removed?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is the same answer that I gave to a previous clause. It’s a housekeeping amendment.

Claire Rattée: I figured as much. I just wanted to confirm.

Just for confirmation, will this in any way affect how support services are delivered within certain housing arrangements?

Hon. Christine Boyle: No, it won’t.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Claire Rattée: Why is the government removing the exemption relating to certain housing-based health facilities that provide hospitality support services and personal care?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Section 4(g)(v) of the RTA states that the RTA does not apply to living accommodations “in a housing-based health facility that provides hospitality support services and personal health care.” Section 4(g)(v) of the RTA was historically intended to exempt assisted living from the RTA. However, the wording under this section is vague and created uncertainty about what housing is captured under this section.

To address this, the ministry brought forward an order in council to explicitly exempt assisted living from the RTA. This OIC was approved by cabinet on February 18, 2026, and is in effect as of February 23, so this section is no longer needed under the RTA.

It goes back to…. In 2023, the office of the seniors advocate published a report that included a legal opinion that assisted living is not exempt from the RTA, while the director of the RTB continues to interpret assisted living as being exempt under section 4(g)(v). The ambiguity posed by this section had left the director’s interpretation open to court challenge. So these amendments are needed to clarify government’s intent that assisted living is exempt from the RTA and ensure that the interpretation is invulnerable to court challenge.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Claire Rattée: Clause 7, obviously, is where most of the meat of this discussion is going to be. I’m sure this will take a while, and many colleagues have questions as well. I also have a number of amendments that I might introduce throughout here, but I’m going to start with just asking some general questions about clause 7.

[4:05 p.m.]

Why is the government creating a new division specifically for supportive housing within this act? I know we’ve kind of canvassed this a little bit already, but it really does feel like, specifically with this clause, there is a significant change. The stated intention of these amendments to the act is to improve safety and to address issues around weapons, but there do seem to be a lot of extra definitions that have been brought in.

I think what I’m trying to get to is: is the purpose of this solely because it was recommended that we take some of these things out of regulation and put them into the legislation, when it comes to a lot of these definitions and things like that, as they relate to supportive housing? Or was there a different intended purpose behind that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, these amendments will clarify how the RTA applies to supportive housing and establish unique provisions that only apply to supportive housing. The bill recognizes that supportive housing is different from conventional rental housing and, rather than exempting supportive housing from the RTA altogether, Bill 11 ensures that tenants in supportive housing continue to have access to core rights and protections under the RTA, including access to dispute resolution through the RTB.

Claire Rattée: Given that recently care homes and assisted living were removed from the Residential Tenancy Act, I would assume that seniors living in care homes still have access to many of those core protections and rights through a separate system and that that was something that was obviously doable for care homes and for assisted living.

I think my question is…. Essentially, there was really nothing prohibiting if we decided to make a separate act that governed supportive housing and the rights of tenants in supportive housing but, obviously, reflected the realities and the differences of what supportive housing is, or at least in specific situations. Why not, then, look at doing the same thing as we did with care homes?

I understand that there were advocates that advocated against doing that, but I’ve also spoken to many who have advocated for it, both tenants and operators alike. I don’t know — maybe the minister can expand on this — but I would assume it was similar with care homes and with assisted living.

I’m sure some thought it was a good idea and some thought it was a bad idea, but I believe that the core principles of making sure that tenant rights are protected and that there is a resolution process still applies in some form. It may not be the exact same form, but in some form it would be inhumane to not allow that to happen. So I really don’t think that precludes us from being able to do that, if we decided to actually create a separate act that dealt with supportive housing differently than we deal with most tenancies.

The minister stated in her last response that the realities of supportive housing are different. They are different from regular tenancies in many situations.

[4:10 p.m.]

So I’m really just trying to understand what was so different about a care home situation or an assisted-living situation that wouldn’t be applicable in these scenarios, given that many people that need supportive housing do need access to services, to care services, to some extent. And I think in most cases, they’re not being provided with them right now.

I see this as…. If supportive housing fell under a different set of rules and regulations, there could be the ability to provide for that, to ensure that care is provided to people that are living within specific types of supportive housing that are in need of that. I would just like that to be expanded on a bit more, please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The member is right. The provision of health care in an assisted-living facility falls under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Assisted living was never within the RTA, though as we spoke to, there was some dispute. The Community Care and Assisted Living Act already existed, so there was a clear place for those tenants to look to.

It is possible, as the member suggests, that we could have created a whole other act to move supportive housing to. The call that much of this work was in response to was identified as urgent by providers, and the creation of an entirely new, separate act would have taken much longer. So the approach under Bill 11 in creating a separate category for supportive housing was deemed to be the most efficient approach to getting at these tools and supported by the working group.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that.

Under section 4.1, I know we discussed already maybe why a separate interpretation section was necessary for supportive housing provisions. I’m just wondering. The minister mentioned this earlier, that supportive housing tenants will be treated somewhat differently from other tenants under the act as a result of this. I’m just wondering if the minister could clarify on the record, please, how a tenant in a supportive housing unit, based on her interpretation currently of these amendments, will be treated from a tenant in a normal rental situation.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The answer to the question is…. What’s spelled out in the legislation is how tenants in supportive housing would be treated differently from tenants in the larger rental housing population, but I’m happy to summarize.

The changes are focused on providing new tools for supportive housing providers under the RTA to respond to challenging incidents and behaviours. These tools include temporarily removing an individual who poses a serious health and safety threat so that operators, staff and other tenants are not remaining in an unsafe situation with an elevated risk of incident, injury or harm.

Again, as we spoke to earlier, one of the intentions of the temporary relocation tool is to de-escalate to preserve long-term tenancies wherever possible.

Additional tools include providing a clear pathway to eviction when a tenant possesses a weapon and allowing for evictions when a tenant disturbs or harms workers or guests.

Rob Botterell: The result of the ultimate passage of this legislation, assuming it passes, is that tenants in supportive housing will have fewer protections than other tenants in British Columbia.

So my question is this. How will the ministry and ministry staff and others respond to a question from a tenant which is: “Why do I have less tenant rights than other tenants in B.C.?”

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. Bill 11 recognizes that supportive housing is different from conventional rental housing. Rather than exempting supportive housing from the RTA altogether, Bill 11 ensures tenants in supportive housing continue to have access to core rights and protections under the RTA, including access to dispute resolution through the RTB.

Rob Botterell: The follow-up question. Not to be flippant, but is that what you would instruct your staff to say to a tenant? To me, that sounds like a thoughtful answer to the question. But what I’m curious about is: if I’m living in a supportive housing facility and learn that I have less rights, what will staff be and others that are being asked…? How will they answer that question in a relatable manner: why do I have less rights than others?

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

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Oh, welcome, Chair. Nice to have you here, and thank you.

As I said, Bill 11 keeps supportive housing within the RTA, which was a key request that we heard from tenant advocates and recognized the importance of, to protect those tenant rights and protections and the due process outlined.

The safety for tenants and workers in supportive housing is important for all workers. And the ability…. The tools outlined in the bill that create pathways to address health and safety concerns for those tenants or those workers are also important for tenants in supportive housing.

During the second reading debate, a number of members raised the experience of tenants who are complying with their tenancy agreements. They may be in recovery or they may simply be trying to live peacefully but are exposed to threats or harassment or weapons because operators lacked tools to intervene earlier. By allowing earlier intervention where serious safety risks exist….

I think, as I say regularly in the media as well, it’s important to recognize that the vast majority of tenants in supportive housing are good neighbours. They’re good community members. They’re living well with those around them.

By allowing earlier intervention where rare but serious safety risks exist, the bill helps ensure that tenants who are seeking safety and stability aren’t forced to leave, that harm isn’t normalized as part of supportive housing and that there are responses to, again, rare but serious situations before they become tragedies.

[4:25 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: As a follow-up to my colleague’s question, because I think it kind of gets to the crux of something that I was getting at previously…. It’s an interesting way of framing it, and I appreciate the way that he’s framed it: why would somebody have less rights than another tenant?

I think that’s really what I was trying to get at with the comments around looking at a separate framework and that being….

Somebody that is a young single mother that is struggling to get by and needs to access supportive housing to be able to shelter themselves and their children or a senior on a fixed income that needs to access supportive housing for shelter is very different from somebody that needs to access supportive housing because they have a brain injury or they’re suffering from a severe mental illness or they’re struggling with substance use but they don’t want to go to treatment or they haven’t been able to access treatment, which is quite commonly the case.

These are completely different situations. Part of the issue with supportive housing as it currently stands is that those people are all housed together in the same unit — which is, in many cases, why it’s caused a lot of safety concerns and why looking at a piece of legislation like this has become, unfortunately, necessary. Has there been consideration…?

I take the minister’s earlier comment that this is something that required immediate attention and that this was the simpler way to accomplish that. Is there the possibility of looking at, in the long term, creating a way of separating those two sides of supportive housing and ensuring that whether the forms of supportive housing that require care are potentially coming under the same piece of legislation as a care home or assisted living so that there is a care component?

Even still further, making sure that those two are still separate so that we’re not housing vulnerable populations together that are vulnerable for different reasons and expecting to just try and put it all under one roof and make it work.

I think that, like I said, the young single mother that needs supportive housing because she can’t afford rents right now doesn’t deserve to have any rights taken away that would be afforded to any other tenant. I can understand why it’s necessary in certain situations, but this is very much so blanketing the entire situation. That’s where I have some concerns about how this could end up playing out in practice.

As somebody that lived in an SRO for a short time, I carried a weapon because I was scared for my safety. Under this legislation, I could potentially be evicted for that.

I think of some of the constituents that have reached out to me — not my constituents, but constituents that have reached out to me that live in supportive housing units that have been exposed to…. One woman in her 60s was punched in the head repeatedly by another tenant in a supportive housing unit, and there was really no remediating action that was taken. So I have some concerns around someone that may want a weapon on them for their own personal safety being penalized under this, particularly.

Again, you think of that young single mother that’s just trying to protect her children and is now living in a very vulnerable situation, and I think we want to make sure that we are not further marginalizing or putting them at risk through legislation that we haven’t thought through those potential outcomes.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I think it’s important to note, and I think the member opposite would agree, there aren’t two types of supportive housing. Supportive housing operates along a spectrum. Supportive housing planning is a complex and multi-year process requiring partnerships and engagement with local governments and service providers, health authorities, B.C. Housing and the province.

Communities are increasingly requesting that specific types of supportive housing are prioritized to meet the needs of distinct populations. In many communities where there is a range of supportive housing providers and options, that already is the case that there are buildings geared towards families or seniors or women, to meet a specific set of needs.

It is also the case and continues to be important that supportive housing planning is grounded in research and responsive to the specific demographic and support needs of each community’s homeless population and the community of people at risk of homelessness.

B.C. Housing and supportive housing operators employ flexible operating models based on the operator’s skill set and the building and community need. It is, of course, the case that many sites efficiently operate mixed-model buildings and cater to diverse populations without needing to designate distinct sites for different purposes.

The tools that this bill seeks to add to the RTA are, as we’ve canvassed already, focused on improving safety for all tenants as well as workers in the building, recognizing that supportive housing is, of course, a home and also a workplace.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Surrey–Serpentine River.

Linda Hepner: Thanks, Chair, and nice to see you here.

We’re going to go on 7(4.2), since I had the numbers mixed up earlier. I’m just wondering if the minister could talk about what prevents inconsistent or arbitrary assessments of who qualifies as at risk and benefiting from support.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. The current situation is that supportive housing providers would have a set of tools through which they assess whether a person is experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness and whether they are a person who would benefit from housing stability support.

The proposed change in this section simply adds regulation-making authority if there is a need down the road to add additional assessment criteria to that section.

Linda Hepner: Let me be clear on this. The regulation currently does not exist, and the operators can define that criteria through a set that I understand you’ve identified, but there is no standardized, provincial-wide standard for assessment. Did I understand you correctly?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There is a current tool that providers use, a standardized assessment tool. It’s called the Vulnerability Assessment Tool. It is what providers use to determine eligibility.

Claire Rattée: Can tenants also appeal the outcome of an assessment that determines whether they qualify for supportive housing?

Hon. Christine Boyle: They could work with the provider directly, but it’s not within the provisions of the RTA.

[4:40 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I would like to move an amendment.

[Clause 7 be amended by adding the following subsection

4.2 (3) A landlord must ensure that the use of a rental unit does not expose other tenants or staff to hazardous substances, including smoke or vapour resulting from the consumption of controlled substances within indoor areas of the residential property.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: I’ll just speak to the amendment here.

The reason that I’m bringing forward this amendment is because I believe that it actually addresses one of the biggest concerns that I’ve heard when it comes to supportive housing from workers, tenants and others.

That is that people’s peaceful enjoyment of their home is being interrupted by the decision of some to smoke drugs within their rental units and sometimes within common areas.

I think that this is a pretty simple amendment that would actually prevent that from continuing. It would ensure that landlords would have to make reasonable efforts to ensure that people aren’t engaging in behaviour that is going to put their staff and their other tenants at risk of inhaling dangerous substances.

I think it’s a pretty straightforward one. I think it’s a fairly simple one. I think it’s something that most people within this space have certainly been requesting for a while now, and it would be fairly reasonable to implement.

The Chair: Noting that, this committee will take a recess so we can circulate the amendments to the other members in the gallery.

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

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

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

We are currently considering an amendment to clause 7 moved by the member for Skeena. The amendment is in order. We will proceed to debate on the amendment.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for this amendment, and I do welcome conversation and her feedback on this.

Because of the way in which various clauses of the bill interact with one another, it is, as I’m sure the member understands, very challenging to accept an amendment on the floor like this without a more detailed and thorough legal understanding of how an addition here might impact other clauses and ensuring that the whole bill works overall.

But I do, certainly, take to heart the issues raised, and they are important work that our government has been addressing. Improving health and safety for people who live and work in supportive housing, both through the tools outlined in Bill 11 and in other work, remains a top priority for the province.

B.C. Housing continues to support operators by helping them put immediate safety measures in place related to air quality and by monitoring site-specific risks as work continues. A technical working group is developing new provincial guidelines to help supportive housing providers reduce exposure to unregulated airborne substances. The group includes the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, WorkSafeBC, B.C. Housing and housing and health partners. Supporting materials, such as FAQs, have already been released to the sector.

The updated exposure reduction guidance will be released in 2026 and will give providers clear tools to recognize and assess risks and take steps to improve air quality and reduce exposure to airborne substances. Findings from these assessments are helping shape practical, consistent guidance for supportive housing providers across the province. It’s also worth noting that providers have the ability to create policies, and many providers have smoking bans or such as terms of a tenancy agreement.

Just to summarize, we can’t support the amendment but, certainly, recognize the conversation, and a substantive amount of work is happening on the issue.

Linda Hepner: I want to stand in full support of this amendment. In fact, I cannot think of an easier amendment to support than to say that smoking or vapour within a multi-unit supportive housing or any kind of housing…. When we go back and we look back a couple of decades to where smoking was not allowed in any buildings or near buildings even…. Certainly, today you don’t see smokers in residential buildings.

I think that one of the major issues that local government has around supportive housing and the current parameters of the various groups of those that are requiring the supportive housing…. I think my colleague has described them very well as being not entirely aligned — that there are two separate paths of need.

I think this certainly would address all of those concerns and make some of the less favourable responses by local governments to accepting supportive housing within their communities…. I just think this is something that would be very welcome, and I am in full support of it.

I cannot understand. I hear the minister say that they’re looking at other mechanisms and that there are…. But this is very cut and dried. Should you have smoke and vapours in a housing unit where others are housed as well? That answer, to me, is very simply no.

I’m in full support of this amendment.

[5:00 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: I’d also like to stand in full support of this amendment.

I worked my way through school as a waiter. Back then, that was where there used to actually be…. It goes back far enough that there actually used to be a smoking section. I can remember long enough back that the entire restaurant was a smoking section.

Then what we did is we started going and realizing that secondhand smoke is dangerous. It’s dangerous not only to the employees, but it’s dangerous to patrons. It’s dangerous to children. We used to be able to smoke on aircraft and on buses. We’re not allowed to do that anymore for good reason.

Yet when it comes to some of these noxious chemicals, and we really don’t know what’s in them, we’re exposing health care workers to secondhand smoke and noxious vapours that we know are harmful. We know it. To allow this to happen, I believe, is a lawsuit in the making, where someone that has been damaged by this will then go to the government and say: “You’re responsible for this because you did not protect me.”

This is dangerous to allow this habit to continue not only for health care workers and social workers and those looking after this but to other residents as well. I think this is just common sense, and it also stops a lawsuit in the making.

I will remind this committee that this is the same government that decided to have a lawsuit against tobacco companies for very similar reasons. Here they are, not only…. They’re being complicit in exposing others to some of the most noxious vapours that have ever gone inside a human body with regards to some of these chemicals.

It just does not make sense, and quite frankly, it bothers me that we would even think twice that somehow this is okay to expose health care workers and social workers and other people to these types of environments. It just makes no sense. If you can’t do a cigarette, why is something else okay?

Anna Kindy: I’m not sure that we would even accept anybody smoking illicit substances or exposing any of us in this room to toxic fumes. I’m not sure why we’re allowing people that are living in supportive housing to have to be exposed to that. I would challenge anybody here to let anybody sitting in one of those chairs smoke crack or fentanyl. We wouldn’t tolerate it. Are we considering people that are living in rental units, supportive housing, as second-class citizens?

We have to remember, too, that in those units, there are a lot of people in recovery that are trying their best to get better, and it’s a huge trigger to be exposed to people doing drugs.

We know that doing drugs also harms you and risks of overdose. So we hear of fires in these places. We hear of ambulances and such always being called. I know, in my community, that’s what’s happening. It’s the number one place where ambulances go. It’s the number one place where the firemen end up going, because of fires. We’re exposing people to that.

There are also pregnant women that are living in these units. I challenge any of you pregnant to be exposed to that.

I think it’s a minor adjustment to do when you think of the safety factors. I would consider that people living in those supportive rental units are not second-class citizens.

Claire Rattée: I just want to summarize a couple of things about this amendment.

I understand that the minister has already said that she won’t be supporting it, but I think it’s really important to recognize that I’ve just had three of my colleagues speaking in favour of this amendment. Two of them have been mayors of very large cities in our province. One of them is a doctor, an addiction medicine specialist.

[5:05 p.m.]

We know that right now one of the biggest factors that we’re seeing that’s preventing us from being able to build more supportive housing throughout this province is that municipalities are opposed to it. This takes care of many of their concerns, if not all.

I think that we also know that we’re having, obviously, a toxic drug crisis. We’re having issues with overdoses and everything else. Again, this could actually help people in recovery.

I’m going to speak with my experience as somebody that’s a recovered addict, as somebody that has lived in supportive housing, as somebody that has been homeless, as somebody that continually goes out and does outreach work amongst vulnerable populations — the type of people that we are supposed to be appealing to, to live in these facilities.

To be honest, the number one thing that I hear, the complaint from people that are living unhoused, on the street and that are struggling with substance use…. The number one thing is that the wait times are too long to get into treatment.

The number two thing is that if they even get a treatment bed, they say to me: “Well, what’s the point? Where am I going to go afterwards? If the government is going to put me in a supportive housing unit, I don’t want to go there.”

One of their main concerns is the use of drugs in those units. It’s not conducive to recovery. As somebody that’s gone through it, I had to move all the way up north to be able to go through my recovery after treatment because I knew that if I stayed in the Lower Mainland, I probably would not be able to stay sober.

I think that it’s inhumane to expose people that are in recovery to continued and prolonged drug use around them. I think that it’s inhumane to do it, as my colleague mentioned, to pregnant women; to seniors; to the workers, even just from a WorkSafeBC standard.

I think that we know we need to build more supportive housing units, and we absolutely need to address the concerns of municipalities. They are stakeholders in this. We need them on side if we want to be able to build more of these units.

This doesn’t address every single issue, because I hear many other issues of why people that are vulnerable, that should be accessing supportive housing are not doing so, whether that’s concerns around safety, concerns around their things being stolen, concerns around the really, really poor condition of these units — infestations of bugs and rodents and everything else. But this is probably one of the most common complaints that I hear.

I would really urge everybody on the government side, as well, to consider supporting this amendment, and if it’s not going to be supported, then to please try and work on a solution and bringing it forward as soon as humanly possible, because I don’t think this is something that can wait any longer.

The Chair: The question is the amendment for clause 7.

Division has been called.

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

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 7 moved by the member from Skeena.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Rattée	Maahs	Stamer
	Luck
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Sunner	Sandhu
Kahlon		Boyle

The Chair: Now we resume the debate on clause 7.

[5:20 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I’m going to move another amendment. I apologize in advance. You’re probably going to be really sick of me by the end of this, but I’ve got a few amendments.

I would like to move:

[Clause 7 is amended by adding the following subsection

4.2 (3) A landlord must ensure that tenants with complex health, behavioural, or substance use needs have access to appropriate supports, including supervision or services reasonably necessary to maintain the safety of the residential property.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: Just speaking to the amendment, again, I think this really goes to the heart of some of the issues that we’re currently experiencing in supportive housing. I think that it would go a long way toward alleviating some of those issues. It’s a fairly self-explanatory one.

So I’ll just move the amendment and leave it at that.

The Chair: Okay, Members, seeing that there’s an amendment on the floor, we’re just going to make copies so that the other members will see, and we will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 5:21 p.m. to 5:31 p.m.

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

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 7. On the amendment, do we have anybody who wishes to speak to it?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to thank the member for the intention here. Supportive housing, of course, includes supports. It’s a critical part of ensuring housing stability.

The legislation of the RTA and Bill 11 is speaking to tenancies. It is about managing the relationship between landlords and tenants. The scope of the amendment goes beyond that, of course.

Again, in wanting to speak in recognition of the intention here and our shared understanding of and support of that, I wanted to speak to what we’re doing outside of the confines of this bill but in support of what I understand the amendment to be trying to get to.

In 2023, the Ministry of Health launched Road to Recovery, a seamless continuum of care for addiction services from detox to treatment and aftercare, with significant investments and expansion since its launch. Road to Recovery is increasing access to treatment and recovery beds and services in B.C.

The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs recently partnered with the Ministry of Health to develop and circulate Road to Recovery information packages to supportive housing operators in each region across the province. This resource provides information on how clients or their support network can access Road to Recovery addiction services and be supported as they are connected to the help they need — again, really aligned with the spirit and intention of this amendment in concurrent work that the ministry is engaging in cross-government.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to speak in favour of my colleague’s amendment.

I think, having heard the minister talking about Road to Recovery, that this fits in very succinctly in terms of making sure that a landlord understands that in terms of safety of the building and in terms of the health of their tenant, there are other options available, and he can access Road to Recovery and discuss the needs of a tenant in the building that may or may not have been easily understood at the time of first tenancy.

I think when you’re looking at complex health needs and behavioural or substance issues, you have to be able to rely on those that are operating and managing that building. The landlord has very significant responsibility in terms of ensuring both the tenant’s health is well recognized and well supported but that the safety of the building is also included.

I think that this fits within the parameters of our existing Bill 11, and I am very much in support of it.

[5:35 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I would just echo my colleagues’ comments. I think that, respectfully, I somewhat disagree with the assertion that this wouldn’t fit into this piece of legislation. There are a few reasons for that. One of them is that we’re talking about, quite broadly, the ability for landlords to be able to keep their tenants safe and other workers safe, and I think that does fall within these parameters.

The issue that I see right now is that for many people that do have complex care needs, we don’t have housing available for them. Supportive housing is their only option. Road to Recovery is great, but it doesn’t house people.

When we’re looking at housing needs and we’re looking at vulnerable populations that we know are exploding right now within our province and they’re not being able to receive a lot of the care and the supports that they need, I think another simple way to accomplish this would be to change the designation within the building code of supportive housing and keep it in line with assisted living and long-term care.

I’ve floated that one already previously, and again, I would just reiterate that I think that would be another simple way to fix this gap and to ensure that supportive housing providers are providing care to tenants that are in need of it.

I do think that this speaks to a safety issue. I think we’ve seen multiple instances of that play out, so again, I would ask for support on this amendment.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 7.

The amendment has been defeated, and division has been called.

[5:40 p.m.]

Members. I’m just asking the room if you’re okay with waiving the time. We have four minutes and 47 seconds.

Leave granted.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 7 moved by the member for Skeena.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Rattée	Maahs	Stamer
	Luck
NAYS — 6
Routledge	Sunner	Sandhu
Kahlon	Boyle	Botterell

Claire Rattée: I would like to move another amendment.

[Clause 7 is amended by adding the following subsection

4.2 (3) In establishing eligibility or placement criteria, a supportive housing operator must consider the compatibility of tenants and the safety of existing residents, including the level of acuity and support needs within the residential property.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: Speaking to the amendment, thank you. The reason that I’m bringing this forward is, again, because there is a gap that I can see that I think might be able to be addressed, since we’re opening up this legislation with amendments anyhow.

That is the importance of looking at who we are placing in which units, who will be neighbours with one another. I think that this is a really significant issue that does need to be addressed. I understand that it may not be so cut and dried in every instance, but I do think it’s an important one.

[5:45 p.m.]

From my own personal experience, when I was on city council, one of the issues that I was addressing through some of my work was working with a local building manager. They had five or six apartment buildings in a fairly small area. They had a lot of issues with interpersonal conflicts between tenants because for a long time, it was just…. When a unit was available, they put someone in. This wasn’t supportive housing. This was just market housing.

What ended up happening was you had a lot of buildings where you would have a senior in one unit and, to be frank, a drug dealer in another one. There were parties going on, things like that, and there were a lot of conflicts and a lot of issues. So I sat down with the building manager, and we talked about how we can actually make this a better living environment for all of the tenants.

What we ended up doing was taking a look at all of the tenants and all of their needs and basically moving people around within these buildings so that we had one building that was specific for seniors and we had one building that was specific for young single mothers — and also taking into account the geography and the placement of each of those units. There was one that was closer to where the police station was, so it was easier to monitor if there were issues and things like that.

The result was actually incredibly effective. The seniors really appreciated being in a unit with other seniors where they were able to form connections, and younger people with younger people, just making a much more comfortable living environment, essentially.

Again, this is something that I hear quite frequently from constituents that live in supportive housing. They really have no other option. They need to be in supportive housing, but their issue is that if a senior is being housed in a building with other people that are actively in addiction and struggling with substance use, they feel very fearful. They are exposed to drug use and activity that makes them uncomfortable, and rightly so.

I think this really does speak to the issue of safety within supportive housing units and trying to find a solution that would provide the supportive housing providers with a bit of flexibility in how they are placing people within certain units. I know it would take time, and much of it would be through attrition, but I think this is something that is absolutely necessary for us to start looking at now so that eventually that problem could be fixed.

The Chair: Members, there is an amendment on the floor. We will take a short recess so everyone will get a copy of the amendment.

The committee recessed from 5:47 p.m. to 5:53 p.m.

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

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 7.

On the amendment, seeing if there’s anyone to speak to that.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ve had the chance to say this in other settings, but I want to say it here too. I really appreciate the experience that the member brings to these conversations.

The proposals outlined in this amendment are really geared toward program policy. As we canvassed earlier in this bill, providers already have a process to assess clients for suitability and placement — the Vulnerability Assessment Tool. I’m happy to share with anyone interested more information on it. It includes ten domains — including, among those, survival skills, basic needs, medical risks, substance use, communication, social behaviours and more.

I will add that where we created the regulation authority in 4.2, and we discussed this in that clause of the bill, there’s a possibility of inclusion, in those regs, for some of these details. I welcome the opportunity to meet with the member to discuss ideas that she has on that.

[5:55 p.m.]

I understand we might actually have time already scheduled for tomorrow, so I’ll look forward to looking to what of this that already exists through the Vulnerability Assessment Tool might be detailed in the regulations. I welcome the member’s experience and expertise in informing that.

The Chair: Any other discussion?

Seeing no other discussions, the question is the amendment to clause 7.

Amendment negatived on division.

Claire Rattée: Another amendment.

[Clause 7 is amended by adding the following

4.2 (3) A landlord must establish and maintain a safety management plan addressing emergency response, fire safety, and incident reporting.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: Speaking to the amendment.

I understand that this may potentially be something that exists, but part of the reason why I’m bringing it forward is that during budget estimates, I had asked a question of the minister in regards to the number of assaults that take place in supportive housing units with weapons. I was informed that that’s not something that’s tracked. That’s why the incident-reporting aspect of it is important.

I do think that it is important that we have some way for supportive housing to be able to track such incidents. I also know from my conversations with people within the fire department that this is something that they would welcome.

Moving forward, if we’re going to keep making better policies and improving our policies when it comes to supportive housing, I think that this is really an important piece and an important tool that we would need to be able to effectively do that. I think that having data is incredibly important so that we can learn, moving forward.

Anna Kindy: I commend my colleague for this amendment. If you don’t track it or measure it, you can’t change it. I think the only way to know if policies are working or not, or if we can implement policies that actually work, is if the numbers of assaults or issues that people have in supportive housing are tracked. Then we can actually see if policies are working or not. Without numbers, where are we going?

I think this is something that would be easy to do, and I think, like my colleague said as well, that the ambulance and the first responders would appreciate that.

Obviously, if you can decrease the number of incidents, everybody benefits — the people living in housing, the first responders and also the people that are working in those settings.

So I think it’s an excellent amendment, and I hope you will consider it.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

The amendment is on the floor. We are going to take a short recess so the copies can be circulated to the people in the chamber.

The committee recessed from 5:58 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.

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

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 7. Are there any additional remarks on the amendment?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, while I appreciate the issues being raised, this is really a program management issue and not a residential tenancy issue. These issues are governed through other regulatory and enforcement frameworks — including the building code and Fire Safety Regulation, health and environmental standards and contractual and funding requirements for housing operators.

Bill 11 wasn’t drafted as a comprehensive housing quality code. Its purpose, as I spoke to earlier, is to remove tenancy law barriers that prevent timely access where safety risks arise. I do want to speak to the concerns though. I certainly recognize their importance.

Any time an incident happens that implicates the safety of people who live in or near supportive housing, B.C. Housing and the service provider review the incident and work with local police and staff to make sure they’re doing everything possible to prevent similar incidents in the future. These incidents are, certainly, taken seriously and worked to address with local first responders and housing providers.

I’ll just go back to where I started to say that while I certainly recognize these as important pieces of the broader work, I’m not sure that the amendment is directly applicable to the bill and the residential tenancy work that is the focus of this bill.

Claire Rattée: I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to speak again, but I appreciate the opportunity.

I do understand concerns around…. I understand that the Residential Tenancy Act is not necessarily applicable to some of the things I’m bringing forward. You can’t fault me for trying. But I think that, like I said previously, the real crux of this issue for me is the lack of data collection.

I’m wondering if the minister would entertain a slightly different amendment or change to this amendment that would require, basically, the collection of these data points. Specifically, I’m asking in the context of…. If it needs to be a very, very narrow scope to what we’re discussing here, even if it could just be as simple as ensuring that there is a mechanism for tracking how often a weapon is confiscated, how often an assault takes place with a weapon.

Again, the primary concern for me here is that if we’re going to draft good legislation, if we’re going to make good policies, I think that it’s incumbent on us to ensure that that is based off of data and that we have a very clear framework that we’re working off of. It may even be as simple as…. It may point us in the direction of certain units that have a higher instance of this, higher prevalence. I’m just trying to better understand how we can craft better legislation in the future to ensure that we’re addressing some of these issues.

I’m curious if the minister would be willing to possibly take a look at that.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, this isn’t the place to make that amendment related to tenancy in the RTA. But it is an important program question, and I’m happy to follow up and have that discussion.

The member asked a good question during estimates about data and reporting that I took on notice and that we have been, I can assure you, working on getting a response to. Happy to follow up and look to how that data is currently tracked and possibilities for improving that tracking on the programming and not within Bill 11 on the RTA.

[6:10 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I appreciate the minister’s response. But the only thing I’m struggling with is…. I feel as though there are a lot of different pieces in this piece of legislation or in these amendments that do deal with this specific issue that we’re trying to address here, which is weapons in those units and prescribing different ways in which that should be handled.

I feel as though adding in some kind of a requirement to make sure that these instances are tracked should be something that could be put in here. I guess my question would be, for clarity: is this something that would be done through regulation instead?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The RTA governs the landlord-tenant relationship. The place, really, would be in operating agreements related to how the province and housing operators track and report data like we’ve been speaking about.

The Chair: The question is on the amendment on the floor for clause 7.

Amendment negatived on division.

Claire Rattée: On section 4.3, why does the bill allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to authorize changes to tenancy agreements without requiring agreement first from both the landlord and the tenant?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. This is so that changes apply to existing agreements and not just new tenancy agreements.

Transitional provisions are used to clarify how a change in the law affects tenancy agreements that are currently in place when a change takes effect. When a change is made to the RTA, government can include any transitional provisions as appropriate to give effect to the change. This could include grandfathering in existing agreements or avoiding existing agreements or amending specific terms in the agreement.

In contrast, while there are several regulation-making powers under the RTA that can affect landlords’ and tenants’ rights and responsibilities under the act, there are limited powers to make transitional provisions for regulatory changes.

Currently transitional provisions for regulatory changes can only specify the date on which the change takes effect. It can’t change or override existing tenancy agreements, which means that the policy intent of a regulatory change often can’t be achieved with existing tenancies. So the proposed regulation-making authorities would give government more flexibility and authority to clarify how regulatory changes apply to existing tenancies in supportive housing.

Claire Rattée: What protections will exist to ensure that tenants are not subject to unilateral changes to their agreements?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: In the interest of time…. The regulations will have to outline the circumstances for use of these provisions clearly.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $183,761,000.

The Chair: Thank you to the minister. Would you like to give us any opening remarks?

Hon. Anne Kang: Yes, thank you.

It’s an honour to be here as Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. I would like to begin by introducing the staff that I have with me today: Deputy Minister Silas Brownsey; assistant deputy minister of marquee sport, Kim Lacharite; assistant deputy minister for tourism sector strategy division, Nick Grant; assistant deputy minister for arts and culture division, Claire Avison; acting assistant deputy minister for sport and creative sector division, Amy Schneider; and assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, Adam McKinnon.

I would like to just begin by talking about the important role of tourism, arts, sport and culture. Tourism, arts, culture and sport are pillars of our economy and essential to the social fabric of this province. These industries fuel creativity. They inspire. They’re innovative and spark solutions that benefit every region in our province. Beyond that, these sectors are economic drivers for our province, and they employ hundreds of thousands of people throughout British Columbia.

Tourism is a key sector and a source of economic resilience, generating $23 billion in annual growth revenues and contributing $8 billion to our provincial GDP. This sector is also one of the largest small business generators and employers in the province, with almost 17,000 businesses directly providing services to visitors in B.C. It also supports 163,000 full-time direct and indirect jobs.

[3:00 p.m.]

In March, we launched the tourism sector action plan in collaboration with our industry partners, and we are using the spotlight from the World Cup to attract more visitors and encouraging them to explore communities throughout our province. The seven World Cup matches are expected to attract more than 350,000 soccer fans to B.C. Place during the tournament and generate over $1 billion in visitor spending for B.C.’s economy through 2031.

We’ve launched a refreshed approach to marketing B.C. to the world with Destination B.C., introducing six new iconic place and route brands to our core international markets. We continue to back major community events to drive overnight stays and economic benefit, including Touchdown Kelowna, the Grand Slam of Curling in Victoria and five nights of Bruno Mars at B.C. Place. These are all very exciting things that are happening in B.C.

We’re supporting development of our world-class mountain resorts, including long-term agreements for Kimberley resorts and the Clearwater ski area. We’re making tourism part of our trade and investment outreach initiatives and using attention from the FIFA World Cup ’26 to generate more tourism-related investment throughout B.C.

Now, I’m really excited about sports. I’ve been a sports fan and an athlete throughout my younger days and into now. But beyond the World Cup, sport is one of the most powerful tools that we have to bring people together. Whether it’s high-performance competition or weekend recreation, sport builds healthier communities and supports children, youth and adults in every corner of B.C.

That is why we invest approximately $50 million annually in sport to help bring healthy living and community economic benefits to the entire province. This investment directly supports over 70 sport organizations and over 718,000 members of amateur sport organizations to get active and engage in their communities. By supporting sport, we’re not just funding competition. We’re strengthening communities, creating jobs and driving local spending that stays right here at home.

I love arts and culture, and as a previous teacher of arts and music, I have a great passion in this area. The same passion that fuels our sports sector fuels our artists, bringing our communities together. We will continue to support the people who make arts and culture possible because their work strengthens communities and enriches life across our province.

Through the BCAC, B.C. Arts Council, we support programs that help artists and organizations thrive, from operating funding that keeps theatres and galleries and cultural centres open to arts training and community festivals that give kids their first chance to dance and sing and paint or perform on a stage. Programs like destination events program help festivals and culture experiences grow, reach new audiences and strengthen B.C.’s cultural landscape.

And of course, community gaming grants support approximately 5,000 non-profit organizations, including arts and culture groups, youth programs, food banks, parent advisory councils, local sport clubs, capital projects and front-line human service organizations. These grants help people stay connected, supported and able to participate in community life.

Creative industries. It is film, television, music, music publishing, animation and digital media. These are recognized globally as leaders in innovation and production excellence. Together these industries form a powerful cultural and economic engine, one that inspires employees and elevates talent across the province. They employ tens of thousands of highly skilled people, attract major productions and continue to seek incredible recognition for multiple major award shows.

Last year we boosted support for the motion picture industry, including increased tax credits for our domestic sector and for productions coming from other jurisdictions. We also increased the interactive digital media tax credit to support a strong digital media industry, and we also made the book publishing tax credit permanent for providing long-term support for B.C. publishers and authors. This support is critical in creating high-paying jobs in the sector and expanding opportunities for thousands of people living in B.C.

I am incredibly proud of the work that people across our sector do every day. We are building a strong, sustainable future for tourism, arts, culture and sports in British Columbia. Because we invest in this sector, we are not only making strategic investments to our economy; we are also investing in the well-being and pride of this province.

[3:05 p.m.]

I am very happy to be sharing estimates with the members across today. Thank you so much for this time.

The Chair: Thank you so much. I appreciate your comments, Minister.

I will now recognize the member for Surrey South, who is online, who will be joining us for questions.

Brent Chapman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Today B.C.’s creative sector — which includes film, television, interactive media, music, art, magazine and book publishing — generates billions in annual GDP and supports nearly 100,000 jobs. The high-profile B.C. film industry continues to evolve as B.C. is on the cutting edge of editing, computing, post-production, special effects, games, animation and production techniques that match and, in many cases, lead the world.

Yet when I look through the budget, I see this government has made some confusing decisions. In some areas, there are cuts where there probably shouldn’t be. In others, nothing has been cut, even though some cuts were probably necessary.

The NDP government has not presented the province with a coherent fiscal plan. These fiscal decisions are particularly confusing when it comes to arts, culture and film. This budget has included a major, major cut to arts and culture, but it is unclear what exactly this cut is affecting and how it will impact British Columbia.

B.C.’s local arts and culture industry is of great importance to the province’s economy. With a major cut to supporting local arts and culture, surely there are going to be some big changes to the industry that the provincial economy and many hard-working individuals are bound to feel. The question is: where will these cuts be felt?

In these difficult economic times, it is important to provide clarity, but the government has not yet been transparent about what specific programs have been cut and why they have been chosen. When dealing with programs people depend on for their livelihoods, it is important that all budget cuts are targeted and have a clear rationale. I’m hoping that the government will be open about what it is doing.

While $3.5 million is being cut from arts and culture, it appears that the government is continuing to throw money at the film industry without getting back clear returns. It is irresponsible to keep on spending money subsidizing the film industry if this province is not gaining greater value than what it spends.

Any government has the responsibility to justify what it spends taxpayers’ money on, but it becomes even more important to justify spending when we are in a fiscal crisis like this. In a fiscal crisis in which many programs have been cut, we cannot afford to have the government keep spending recklessly. It is time to take some accountability for what is being spent.

We need to get to the bottom of the government’s confusing choices. Some programs are being cut, while money we don’t have continues to pour into others. Why some are cut while others remain is still a mystery. The distinction doesn’t seem to be based off economic value.

It is time to unravel the reasons behind the government’s choices. It’s time to figure out what the government choices are going to do and what they’re going to mean to this province.

The Chair: Did you have a question, Member?

Brent Chapman: I do.

According to the minister’s service plan, the budget line item of arts and culture is being cut by $3.5 million or 8.5 percent in this budget plan. Can the minister please tell us which arts and culture programs they intend to cut this year?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you to the member for his question. The province is committed to ensuring the sustainability of the arts, culture and not-for-profit sectors, which contribute to our mental and physical health, community connectedness, strong communities and overall quality of life. We believe that a strong arts and culture sector plays a vital economic role and encourages creativity and innovation across sectors and in our workforce.

Our ministry has been making investments in the arts and culture sector. Since 2017-18, we have invested $25.748 million, and looking to today’s date, ’26-27, we are investing an increase, in investing $39.538 million.

[3:15 p.m.]

If I may inquire to the member where he got the $3.5 million reduction from? Also, to his question about film, I think we could address that in a later conversation so that we’re not grouping everything together. We have been increasing our investment. I’m just wondering where he got the $3.5 million from.

The Chair: Member, could you clarify for the minister?

Brent Chapman: The amount was found in our research, which determined that there is an 8.5 percent cut in the budget. That’s what we saw, unless there’s a mistake in there. If there are no budget cuts through the….

The Chair: I think it would be challenging for the minister to answer without, perhaps, further clarification.

If you’d like, we could go on to your next question. Then maybe you could ask for further clarification and come back to this question after.

Brent Chapman: Sure. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there a rationale as to why this program needed the additional $3.5 million to administer the department before this budget year?

The Chair: I think that question goes to the same topic. Is there another one, maybe, on a different topic?

Brent Chapman: Yep, I’ll move along. Thank you. I can address this after.

As a result of this government’s budget cuts, will the B.C. Arts Council receive less funding?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Yes, the budget will slightly decrease, by less than 1 percent, for BCAC. We will be working with B.C. Arts Council to minimize the impact on the people that it supports through the BCAC. They will be rolling that into the strategic plan and work.

Our province has committed to initial expenditure management targets totalling $1.5 billion over three years through management of administrative and discretionary spending, while protecting critical front-line services people rely on, lowering costs and growing the economy.

This whole-of-government expenditure management and efficiency review is the process whereby each ministry examines its programs and initiatives to optimize resources to protect key services relied on by people in B.C. while reducing the budget deficit.

Brent Chapman: The B.C. Arts Council disburses millions in grants and assistance to support B.C.’s arts and culture industry, which contribute more than $10.5 billion to B.C.’s GDP. Can the minister guarantee that their funding won’t be further cut in and around this fiscal plan?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you to the member across for this question. Recognizing that the arts and culture sector is a very important part of our economy, we have made historic investments to BCAC since 2017 until this year, and we will continue to work with them to make sure that the impact to those affected will be minimal.

But this is a whole-of-government expenditure management efficiency review, and we will continue to do our best to be advocates and to support arts and culture in B.C.

[3:25 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: As a result of the cuts, is the minister cutting funding to the First Peoples Cultural Council?

Hon. Anne Kang: The B.C. Arts Council remains committed to supporting the First Peoples Cultural Council, and they remain committed to working with them.

Brent Chapman: So there will be no cuts to the First Peoples Cultural Council?

Hon. Anne Kang: There are no plans for cuts.

Brent Chapman: What about Creative B.C.? Are they receiving cuts through this government’s budget?

Hon. Anne Kang: I do appreciate the member’s support and acknowledgement of the importance of Creative B.C. and its contributions to B.C.

Thank you so much.

Creative B.C. is B.C.’s agency for creative sector development, supporting motion pictures, interactive digital media, music and book and magazine publishing. Our government provides more than $3 million a year to Creative B.C. to deliver programs and services for the creative sector.

Creative B.C. also includes the B.C. Film Commission and administers the film and television tax credits on behalf of the province. Creative B.C. serves as a bridge between the government and industry, growing the sector through leadership and collaboration with partners like Books B.C. and the First Peoples Cultural Council. They also build funding partnerships with the Canadian Media Fund, Telus STORYHIVE and the city of Vancouver to bring more investment into B.C.’s creative ecosystem.

Government’s three-year commitment, a $42 million investment in the creative sector, concludes in March of 2027. However, we will continue to support the sector through annual funding to Creative B.C.

Brent Chapman: I ask the Chair if I can ask the minister again: are there cuts, though, in the government budget for Creative B.C. this year?

Hon. Anne Kang: No.

Brent Chapman: In 2024, this government committed to an expanded arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund. Can the minister confirm if this is in this budget?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: We know that B.C.’s arts, creative culture, heritage and sports sectors are facing growing challenges due to aging infrastructure and increasing demands from population growth. As a result of this demand, supporting the development of infrastructure has been included in TACS mandate letter.

Infrastructure requirements range from local community sports facilities to major public cultural venues. Addressing these needs is crucial for the well-being of people across the province.

Some of the items from my mandate letter include the continued advancement of this mandate through our community gaming grant, which provides $5 million annually for small-scale capital projects, including recreation, community, art- and sport-related infrastructure. In ’25-26, 39 projects were funded representing all regions of B.C. in the sectors of arts and culture, sport, public safety, environment and human and social services. In ’24-25, the B.C. Arts Council funded 57 arts infrastructure program grants, totalling $4 million.

We will continue to invest in infrastructure.

Some of the infrastructure investments that our government has made throughout the years — examples as in the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, investment of $6 million; the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver, $25 million; Vancouver Art Gallery in 2022, $50 million; the Royal B.C. Museum PARC campus, $270 million; and the Chinese Canadian Museum, $48.5 million.

We will continue to be supporting this sector and its infrastructure.

Brent Chapman: With respect, is there a difference between spending and investment?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: We use the word “investment” because we believe that the taxpayers’ dollars that are going out to the community are bringing back value to our growing communities, to the needs of arts and culture. Really, revitalizing this infrastructure is very important. Yes, it’s an investment into the community.

Brent Chapman: The government platform promised “bringing people together to celebrate their communities, cultures and love of local arts by providing stable year-over-year funding for fairs, festivals and events.” Does the minister believe that this year’s budget quotes are completing these promises?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you to the member for his question. Festivals, fairs and events are important parts of our community. They build vibrancy. They bring people together. We see how communities are able to benefit from that, especially in being able to showcase local talent and local food vendors during these activities. The fairs, festivals and events program was one-time funding to help kick-start and support fairs and festivals during the COVID period.

Now what we have is the destination events program, which continues to support important parts of B.C.’s tourism, arts and culture sector activities. The DEP program plays a valuable role in supporting communities to host events that draw overnight visitors, create jobs, boost local economies and help communities thrive.

Absolutely, yes, we will continue to be supporting B.C.’s festivals and events all across different regions.

Brent Chapman: I’d like to move on to film now, if I could. Does the minister know how much in tax credits B.C.’s film industry is projected to cost the province in this fiscal year?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: In 2024, the motion picture industry supported an estimated 41,999 jobs, generating $3.1 billion in gross domestic product, making it a key economic driver for the province. We are working hard to ensure B.C.’s motion picture industry remains competitive.

In 2024, the motion picture industry had employed many people, so when we see this, the strong numbers for 2024 reflect larger, more costly projects and inflationary pressures. We do see fewer productions overall, but they are increasing.

To the member’s question, the latest forecast for 2026-27 from the Ministry of Finance shows $176 million for Film Incentive B.C. and $751 million for the production services tax credit, for a combined total of $927 million.

Any further questions about tax credits can be directed to the Minister of Finance.

Brent Chapman: I wonder sometimes, with all the other jurisdictions that are slashing costs, if it becomes a race to the bottom sometimes.

With the current fiscal pressure and budget cuts that this government is going through, that the existing film and TV credits are not being considered to elimination…. Is there some point where we close this off?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The Minister of Finance and previous ministers who have consulted and had good discussions with the sector…. We created the tax credit just this year. What I’ve been hearing from industry are thank-yous, thank-yous and lots of gratitude on how this is so helpful in being able to attract productions and talent to come back to or remain in British Columbia.

As Minister of Tourism and for the creative sector, I would hope that this benefit will continue to be there for our sector.

B.C. has the largest volume of foreign-serviced motion picture production in Canada and is the third largest for motion picture production overall. Creative B.C. has seen an increase in activity levels, largely through Budget 2025 tax credit increases. In 2025, several major productions confirmed B.C. as their filming location, which is expected to create significant economic benefits and jobs for 2026.

Other exciting things. Just last week I visited a new studio. The second Netflix studio in Canada now is operating in Vancouver. This really tells the story of how important these tax credits are. We want to continue to invest for big companies and corporations to come, to recognize the talent that we have here and to continue to use the film and creative services and talents that we have here.

Brent Chapman: Former Deputy Minister to the Premier, Don Wright, who advocated that this government cut these tax credits because he had stated that “film was a money-loser….” And then: “The negative numbers for the film industry reflect the very significant subsidies that B.C. provides to this sector.”

I just want to confirm that this is not going to be the policy of this government due to their budget constraints.

Hon. Anne Kang: Questions regarding tax credits will be best asked through the Ministry of Finance, but from my ministry, what I can say is that I’ve seen lots of positive effects as a result of the tax credit decisions that were made. Industries which are filming here — unions, actors, Netflix — are all telling me one thing: “Thank you so much for the tax credits.” It’s making choices for them to be filming and relocating to British Columbia such an easy choice. We are very competitive because of our tax credits.

Brent Chapman: Could I also just confirm that the Minister of Finance did not ask this minister to inquire about a reduction or a total elimination of these credits?

Hon. Anne Kang: No.

Brent Chapman: Very concise, thank you.

What metrics does the ministry use to evaluate the effectiveness of its support for the film and television sector?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: While detailed questions about tax credits should be directed to the Ministry of Finance, I can tell you that B.C.’s tax credits are labour-based, meaning the amount a company receives is contingent upon the amount that they pay to local B.C. workers. This ensures that we are supporting people in British Columbia.

Tax credits are a key tool in maintaining competitiveness in the global motion picture market. Major budget productions, like HBO’s The Last of Us, are filming in B.C., and they would not be here today without competitive tax credits.

B.C.’s tax credits are also supporting domestic productions and are a key component in advancing Canadian-owned projects and the growth of domestic industry in the province. When we look at metrics, we look at things such as industry spending. We look at the spinoffs of economic impacts, such as tourism, hospitality, carpentry and everything that goes into supporting this industry.

I would like to emphasize that my ministry does not do the cost-benefit analysis. It’s the Ministry of Finance that does that, so any tax policy questions should be directed to the Ministry of Finance.

Brent Chapman: The intention wasn’t a tax question. It was an overall metric. There must have been more than just the tax implications on that.

Can the minister provide the most recent total production spending in British Columbia’s film and television sector?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: This would be private taxpayers’ info, and it’s commercially sensitive info, so our ministry does not have this information.

Brent Chapman: Then how do we assess the success or the failure of this industry?

Hon. Anne Kang: Details of tax credit programs would be best addressed to the Ministry of Finance, but what I can tell you from my ministry and from interacting with our partners and stakeholders is that we assess the success of programs by the number of productions that are choosing to come to British Columbia, the amount of tax credits that are claimed, the number of British Columbians that are employed and working as a result of these tax credits. We look at historical trends of productions coming to B.C.

These are just some of the ways that we know the tax credit is really working in British Columbia.

Brent Chapman: Then how do we know how good these investments are in this industry if we can’t have an amount to compare to as to what the spending is in British Columbia?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The way we know that these are good investments is that we see an increase of GDP over this year. We also see an increase of job numbers that are created for British Columbians. We also see a positive economic impact in British Columbia because of this industry.

The fact that productions come back to continue to film subsequent seasons in British Columbia also tells a positive story of these positive tax credit impacts.

Brent Chapman: So no precise number that we can reconcile.

What proportion of production activity in British Columbia is driven by foreign productions?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: So 80 to 85 percent of our film productions are for foreign film productions outside of B.C., and 15 to 20 percent are domestic.

I’m just really proud to highlight some of the foreign productions that we have here in British Columbia that many of us may have watched. Shōgun won the best international series at the 2025 BAFTA TV awards. Dune: Part Two — DNEG Vancouver’s team won the Academy Award for the best visual effects for this work. Netflix’s KPop Demon Hunters, with animation led by Sony Pictures Imageworks studio in Vancouver and Montreal, became Netflix’s most watched film in the platform’s history.

So we are attracting a lot of foreign productions to be made in British Columbia, and this also, really, is a testament of our tax credits working.

Brent Chapman: I have one last question, as I understand that my colleagues are in place there.

I’ve always found it uncomfortable that we’ve become such a service-based location or destination for other jurisdictions, and I’m proud that 20 percent of films and productions are being made that are domestic.

But can the ministry tell me what steps they’re taking to strengthen domestic film and television production so we can bring the entire business home to Vancouver and to British Columbia and maybe have a little more control and a little more say in how we do things and also maybe profit a little more to the industry and to the province itself?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Our ministry is proud of the foreign productions that are choosing to come and produce in British Columbia, but we are also very proud of our domestic industry that we have here.

In 2023, we invested almost $16 million over three years into our domestic motion picture industry, and we continue to invest annually through Creative B.C.’s programs and services. In Budget 2025, we enhanced the film and television tax credits to ensure B.C. remains a destination of choice for productions. As a result, several major productions have chosen to be filmed in British Columbia.

As well, we do have our own B.C.-made network called the Knowledge Network, which provides free and commercial-free educational programs. They have a market share of 4.5 percent, and the Knowledge Network is in the top five most watched broadcasters among competitors in the market. It is also one of the largest investors in original, B.C.-owned documentary content in the province and plays an important role in programming quality educational Canadian children’s content for families.

We’re equally proud of all the work, whether they’re foreign productions or domestic productions.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Surrey North.

Brent Chapman: Can I just say thank you?

The Chair: Yes. There you go.

Please go ahead.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Thank you, Chair.

I want to focus on sports and families. I will start with some simple questions. How much total funding goes to sports?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much, hon. Member, for that question. I am very excited about sports, and I know that sport brings people together, keeps us all healthy and keeps us all very happy. We have seen so many different positive experiences that sports make in people’s lives. That’s why the provincial government invests approximately $50 million annually in sport, to help bring healthy living and community economic benefits to the entire province.

As outlined in my ministry’s service plan, our funding reflects government’s priorities related to affordability, participation, long-term athletic development and economic development that comes from hosting sports events.

Just to break it down a little bit, we support…. For the amateur sports sector in 2025-26, which includes $15.366 million to sport organizations to run programs across 70 sports in communities across our province…. We also have invested $2.152 million to the B.C. Games Society to fund operations and stage the B.C. Winter and Summer Games as well as $300,000 in one-time funding to further support the B.C. Games Society and to help subsidize amateur sport programs.

[4:15 p.m.]

As well, $1.8 million to programs for underrepresented populations, including our after-school sport and arts initiative, or ASSAI, and kids sports programs.

As well, $1.4 million to our Indigenous sport partner — Indigenous Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council, which we call ISPARC — to help boost participation of Indigenous athletes in sport.

One other program is for $1 million for hosting 126 events in 45 communities in B.C.

As well, $175,000 to the B.C. Seniors Games Society to stage the 55+ B.C. Seniors Games.

And $28.6 million to date from the community gaming grant program for youth and amateur sports programs that provide opportunities for all people to participate in organized competitive physical activities.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: How much of that goes directly to kids and families?

Hon. Anne Kang: There are over 718,000 members of amateur sport organizations in B.C. I imagine they’re all kids and they’re all families, so it goes directly to support amateur sports.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Let’s talk about participation. Are participation rates going up or down?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: In 2024-25, B.C. Athletics removed student data from their data collection methods. The methodology has changed, and that’s why we see a decrease in numbers. But I’m very confident that the participation of amateur athletes in British Columbia remains strong.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Can you provide the number, please?

Hon. Anne Kang: The number that we have this year is 718,000 members of amateur sport organizations.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Last year about 34,000 children were reached. This year the target is 32,000. Why is the target lower this year? What changed?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I believe the member is referring to the number of children from population groups typically underrepresented in sport. The previous service plan projected annual participation targets of 36,000. These targets have been adjusted to align with updated forecasts and operational realities.

Our funding program continues to be stable, but the cost of realities is that costs of programming have gone up. The number of children reached through a targeted sports program in ’24-25 was 33,787.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I wish to talk about cost. What are you doing to lower cost for families?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member across for this question. I could hear his passion in supporting children of all ages, of all regions to be able to access sports. So thank you so much for that question.

Every child deserves the chance to be active and to play sports, no matter their family’s financial situation. Our government knows that rising costs are making it harder for families to afford sports, and sport organizations are also under financial strain. That’s why our government provides more than $50 million annually to support the amateur sports sector and reduce barriers to participation for people across the province.

We have programs such as KidSport B.C., which supported 10,695 kids last year. Families facing financial barriers — they can access grants to cover registration fees. We also support free or low-cost opportunities through the B.C. sport participation program, the ASSAI and the ISPARC program, which collectively reach tens of thousands of children and youth each year.

The province also supports young people in and from government care through the RISE grants, which have delivered 4,233 individual grants since 2022 to help them participate in sport, physical activity and cultural programming.

So viaSport receives $15.4 million to strengthen provincial sport organizations and help stabilize the system so communities can keep fees affordable. And viaSport’s new Level the Field Foundation is attracting additional private donations to expand access for people facing the greatest barriers.

Our government will continue to work with local organizations and listen to parents, students and coaches to see how we can further support their access to sports.

The Chair: Thank you so much. Just hold on for one sec.

The Chair is going to call a five-minute recess. It is now 4:30. If everyone can return at 4:35, please.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:38 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I want to understand where the money is going. How much funding goes to Crown corporations?

Hon. Anne Kang: If I may ask for clarification of the question, is this Crown corporations for the sports sector or all Crown corporations in the Ministry of TACS?

[4:40 p.m.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Yeah, it’s only the sports sector.

Hon. Anne Kang: We have one Crown corporation in the sports sector. It’s the B.C. Games Society. In 2027, they’ll receive $2.242 million.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: How much goes to administration?

Hon. Anne Kang: With the B.C. Games Society, they oversee the B.C. Winter and B.C. Summer Games and Team B.C.’s participation in the Canada Summer and Winter Games.

The B.C. Games provide developmental opportunities for athletes, coaches and officials in preparation for higher levels of competition. The B.C. Games also provide important economic and tourism benefits, enabling host cities to profile their communities and benefit from an economic impact ranging from $1.6 million to $2 million.

The Trail-Rossland 2026 B.C. Winter Games just wrapped up on March 1. The next B.C. Games are in Kelowna, 2026 — the B.C. Summer Games, from July 22 to 26. The next Canada Games are in Quebec City, 2027, which will take place February 27 to March 14 of 2027.

Just reflecting on the scale of these games and the amount of volunteer parents and coaches that go into them, the administrative cost of them is very slim. It’s to the bare bones. So I want to show great appreciation for the B.C. Games Society, the board members, all the parents and coaches and all the volunteers that go into supporting the athletes that participate in these games.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Let’s talk about facilities. How much is being invested in new facilities?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: We know that B.C.’s art, creative, culture, heritage and sport sectors are facing growing challenges due to aging infrastructure and increasing demands from population growth.

As a result of this, supporting the development of infrastructure has been included in my mandate letter. Infrastructure requires a range from local community sports facilities to major public cultural venues. Addressing these needs is crucial for the well-being of people across the province. These sectors are not just critical and cultural cornerstones, but they are also significant economic drivers.

We are actively engaging across government and with other partners to better understand the specific infrastructural needs of our diverse communities. I am committed to collaborating with provincial and federal counterparts to identify and advocate for much-needed infrastructure funding.

In doing this, my ministry continues to advance this mandate commitment through the community gaming grant program, which provides $5 million annually for small-scale capital projects, including recreation, community, art and sport-related infrastructure.

In 2025-26, 39 projects were funded, representing all regions of B.C. in the sectors of arts, culture, sport, public safety, environment and human and social services.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: My last question. What is the total cost of FIFA?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Last spring we provided a planning range for the net cost to government of $85 million to $145 million, and we will have our next update in late spring.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Just a follow-up. What is the return?

Hon. Anne Kang: We’re very excited about hosting the FIFA World Cup here in Vancouver and in B.C. This will be the world’s largest single-sport event, and it is an unprecedented opportunity for British Columbia.

We know which teams are coming to Vancouver, and we are welcoming them and using this opportunity as an economic generator and an economic impact. The excitement is really building. There will be seven matches expected to attract more than 350,000 soccer fans to B.C. Place during the tournament.

Beyond the seven matches to be played in Vancouver, the tournament will leave lasting legacies. This is about supporting local businesses. It’s about creating good jobs, attracting new investments and strengthening B.C.’s place on the global stages for decades to come.

The tournament is expected to generate over $1 billion in visitor spending for B.C.’s economy from 2026 to 2031. Hosting the FIFA World Cup ’26 will help build B.C.’s and Canada’s economy into an economy that stands on its own two feet and works better for people. The event will also put a global spotlight on B.C. as a prime destination for tourism, trade and investment.

We’re also making strategic investments, harnessing the social and economic benefits of these matches and making sure people in all regions of B.C. share the benefits in hosting. We are committed to continuing to be transparent about hosting costs, and we’re just very excited that FIFA is coming in close to two months.

Scott McInnis: Thank you for the opportunity to ask a few questions today in my critic role with tourism and resort municipalities.

I just want to thank the minister and the staff for being very collaborative and open to discussions throughout the last number of months. When I’ve been in this role, it’s been very helpful, and I really, really appreciate them being so open to discuss various issues with me about this file. So thank you very much for all of that. I appreciate that very much.

I do apologize, however, to the staff. I only have an hour, and I have lots of jumping around to do. So if people have to go in and out, I do apologize in advance of that. But I do have to skip from topic to topic just based on…. I have a lot of material I want to cover but not a lot of time.

Without further ado, no more yapping, I’ll get to the questions here. I think I’d like to start with Indigenous tourism. I just find this to be a really interesting opportunity that we have in British Columbia.

[4:55 p.m.]

I know that close to where I live, ʔaq̓am was really doing some cool interactive experiences where they would have folks come and stay in an immersive environment, learn the local stories of the Ktunaxa People and participate in a really cool experience for a number of days. I just see this as a great opportunity for local nations to be able to tell their story as well as for visitors to really appreciate British Columbia from the perspective of our rich Indigenous history.

I just want to start off with: how much money is the ministry allocating toward Indigenous tourism initiatives and programs in this year’s budget?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the hon. member across for your passion on Indigenous tourism. I absolutely agree.

I have been in many conversations with ITBC, Indigenous Tourism B.C., about the work that they do. I also had the opportunity to sit around the table during our First Nations Leadership Council in talking to First Nation communities about how passionate they are in creating vibrant cultural communities for visitors all year round. We work through our Crown corporation, Destination B.C., which provides $1.5 million to ITBC this fiscal year. This goes to supporting Indigenous communities and Indigenous businesses.

Indigenous tourism is a key part of B.C.’s tourism economy. Since 2020, the province has provided more than $17 million to Indigenous Tourism B.C. to support Indigenous tourism across the province. This would include $3.7 million in capacity-building funding, $8 million in recovery funding for Indigenous tourism businesses and $6 million for the delivery of an Indigenous tourism training initiative.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I’m just wondering if the minister could expand a little bit through ITBC as to where some of the real growth opportunities are across the province, if they’re seeing it in local communities — for example, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in the northwest of B.C., in the Interior.

Through that information that she has through ITBC, where specifically, regionally…? Does the minister see that a lot of those funds annually — I see $1.5 million this year — are being used specifically in those regions and where those regions are?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: To the member across, I absolutely agree with you that there is so much potential for Indigenous tourism across British Columbia — in fact, everywhere in every region.

Last fall I was able to meet with 40 First Nation communities during the First Nations Leadership Gathering, and I’ve heard from them the potential and the creativity that they have, opening up their waterways, whether that is through storytelling or just being market-ready. There’s just so much potential out there.

Together with Destination B.C. and working with ITBC to support increased market readiness, to grow the number of visitors who have an Indigenous cultural tourism experience and are curious, especially choosing British Columbia to do that…. We are really leaders of supporting Indigenous tourism here. These are just among some of these goals.

These efforts support the development of more Indigenous tourism businesses to grow and to thrive and just to be, so much, growing the potential that we see that is available here. DBC is committed to creating positive impacts for Indigenous People through tourism. Indigenous cultures, stories and perspectives are an important part of the Invest in Iconics strategy.

Over the last five years, in partnership with ITBC and the RDMOs and Destination B.C., they have engaged over 5,600 B.C. residents, industry members and Indigenous interest holders and partners in research and strategy planning sessions and interviews across the province. So we know the potential is there. We know creative ideas are out there, and we know that there is some really exciting integration and collaboration between the province, DBC and ITBC.

I’m really looking forward to visiting some of these Indigenous tourism destinations. I think it’ll be really exciting.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

This will be my last question about Indigenous Tourism B.C., and then I’ll be moving on to some gaming grant pieces, just for staff’s sake.

I’m wondering if the minister could just help us understand here, on the record, what is the…? Obviously, we have $1.5 million to support Indigenous Tourism B.C. What does that application process look like for the distribution of that money? Is it on a first-come, first-served basis, or how does that work?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member for that question. Our ministry provides funding to DBC, and DBC directly provides $1.5 million to ITBC. What ITBC does is work directly with Indigenous communities on capacity-building, on business modelling. They may send staff over to take a look at what they’re trying to achieve and provide best advice. They also have some programming that may have funding available.

But what we can do is follow up on this through ITBC so that they can provide you with how support is provided to Indigenous communities. What our ministry does is we work through DBC, and they provide $1.5 million to ITBC. So we’ll follow up with member across after estimates.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

I’m just curious. I’m just trying to wrap my head around how the money is distributed, whether it’s, again, on a first-come, first-served basis or a project or business viability basis. Just curious to dig into how that looks a little bit.

Again, moving into community gaming grants here for a second, I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm that community gaming grants funding is roughly $135 million to $140 million a year, which is roughly around the same numbers since 2010.

Can the minister confirm that those numbers are accurate?

Hon. Anne Kang: The community gaming grant budget for ’26-27 is $138.585 million. To the member’s question, yes, it has been relatively stable since 2010.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that exact figure.

Going back to 2010, given the inflation over that period, would the minister agree that the program deliveries would be significantly less in real terms today?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Yes, our funding has remained stable over the years. We understand that inflation may have an impact.

Scott McInnis: In this year’s budget, we have $138½ million for the community gaming grants. Could the minister confirm whether that’s more or less than the previous year?

Hon. Anne Kang: Reflecting on this year, it is a decrease of $1.415 million less than last year.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. So obviously, the demand is increasing for a lot of these organizations that are using that funding, but funding and the real value of that funding is going down for support for community organizations.

I’m just wondering. Could the minister provide some sort of justification for that decision to cut the funding to the community gaming grants?

Hon. Anne Kang: I understand the member across and the concerns in his question. This is a whole-of-government expenditure, part of the whole-of-government expenditure management and efficiency plan. The decrease of funding that we see is a 1 percent cut to our community gaming grant.

What I would like to emphasize is so important is that our ministry continues to work really closely with our partners, the not-for-profit organizations and people who in the past have received community gaming grants.

[5:15 p.m.]

To minimize the impacts, we have worked with them and communicated with them that such cuts will be coming, because we are in a very challenging fiscal environment — not just in British Columbia, not just in our province, not just in Canada, but around the world. This is something that I think is really important as my ministry continues to support our community members and our partners in making sure that the impacts are minimal.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate that answer from the minister.

I’m just wondering. In order to address this…. Obviously, the costs for the individual community organizations are rising, sometimes exponentially, with the cost of living. Would the minister commit to conducting some sort of formal review so that we can look at perhaps tying the increase of funds over time to an index with inflation, something like that?

Would the minister be open to looking at a review of the community gaming grants and perhaps a pathway forward to increasing those funds as costs do rise?

Hon. Anne Kang: We will look forward to opportunities to enhance this program and to support communities in a way that really supports them. We’re always open to new ideas. What I’m committed to is to continue to have these dialogues with communities to see how these programs are supporting them and provide the support that they need to continuing the programs.

Scott McInnis: I apologize. I forgot to say that was my last question. I will be transitioning to MRDT, RMI questions for a few moments here.

If I may, I would like to read something into the record from my friend Andy Brown, Tourism Golden, about a specific concern he had, and I’m hoping we can have a discussion about that. Speaking of the destination events program:

“It is funded through the MRDT program as a 3 percent collector. Speaking of Golden, we contribute 6.6 percent of our MRDT towards that fund, totalling over $140,000 in 2025. The B.C. destination events program effectively excludes many smaller rural communities. By requiring a minimum event budget of $150,000, the program is geared toward destinations that already have the infrastructure, staffing, sponsorship base and financial capacity to host larger-scale events. Smaller communities often rely on modest community-led events to build visitation gradually, but those events do not meet the threshold for support.

“As a result, the program favours larger or more established destinations and discourages smaller organizations from taking the risk to grow new events or from reaching out to the DMO and other local organizations for support.

“The province should create a separate funding stream for small and emerging events designed specifically for rural destinations and community organizations that are building capacity rather than already operating at scale. This should create a more equitable program and better support the development of pipeline of future tourism and events across B.C.”

Just on behalf of Andy, would this be something that the province would consider doing? That would be to look at a separate funding stream for smaller resort municipalities like Golden that don’t host these large events all the time, because I think there is a bit of a barrier as far as the funding is concerned.

Is this something the ministry would consider for some of the smaller communities moving forward?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I do want to thank the member across the way for being a wonderful advocate for communities across British Columbia. I really do hear the passion in his voice, and I want to thank you for being an amazing critic.

We do recognize that the DEP program often is not accessible by smaller communities such as Golden, so thank you so much for raising this. That’s also why we recognize in our tourism sector action plan that event planning, in attracting people to different communities, is a very important part of economic generation and bringing vibrancy to communities.

That’s why my ministry is committed to working with Golden and with other smaller communities to find solutions on how we could provide a better source of programming and grant provision so that they are supported. So yes, we recognize the problem, and we want to find a solution for it.

Thank you so much for raising this.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister’s advocacy for looking at some of the smaller communities. I know that in my riding, it is a big destination area, having five resort municipalities, but they’re small communities. That’d be really helpful if we could look at some strategies, moving forward.

I know some of my colleagues here represent rural communities as well. It’d be extremely helpful for that. I think we want to attract people and support those communities that are outside of the Lower Mainland.

Would the minister be able to tell us for the record what the total MRDT revenue collected provincewide was in the last fiscal year, if possible broken down by region, and how that compares to the previous couple of years?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: Tax data is confidential and is also under the purview of the Ministry of Finance, but what we can tell you is that the number of communities that are participating in the MRDT has gone up and the number and the total of MRDT collected has also increased.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

I assume, following along the same lines, that maybe the minister won’t be able to answer this question. I’m hoping so, so I’m going to ask anyway.

Of the MRDT revenue, as a total percentage, how much is directed back into those communities versus into provincially administrated programs?

Hon. Anne Kang: Virtually all of the MRDT that’s collected goes back into communities.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that, Minister. “Virtually all.” Is there a percentage number that I could have to take on the record for that, whether it’s 85 percent, 90 percent, 99 percent?

Hon. Anne Kang: Everything but 0.2 percent is given back to the communities that collect MRDT.

Scott McInnis: Wonderful. Thank you to the minister for that answer. That’s exceptional that nearly 100 percent of that revenue goes back into the communities.

Along the same line, obviously MRDT revenue is somewhat heavily concentrated in some of the more major urban centres in British Columbia. What mechanisms does the ministry have in place to ensure that the smaller rural communities who also contribute overall receive fair access to that funding?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The MRDT that’s collected from the community goes back into the same community.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Maybe switching gears a little bit here to the resort municipality initiative, RMI, funding line of questioning, if I may. Is the minister able to share on the record what the total expenditure for the RMI was the past year?

Hon. Anne Kang: Approximately $13 million.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that. So $13 million, give or take — approximately $13 million. We’ll work with that number. Is the minister able to give a breakdown for each of the 14 resort municipalities as to the distribution of that funding?

Hon. Anne Kang: This is also part of the tax policy, and it’s confidential. We can follow up to see if we’re able to share, if that will help the work that you do, but we’ll need to follow up first.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for at least attempting to disclose that information. I know our local chambers and such would be interested in knowing that, if it’s available.

You know, along the same lines, I’m curious to understand the formula used to allocate the RMI funds. Is it based on a per-capita basis? Is there some sort of specific funding formula that’s used for all the communities? I’m just curious to dig into that a little bit.

Hon. Anne Kang: It is based on a formula on the amount of tourism that is in a community, based on the MRDT that’s collected, but with a minimum of $100,000 to smaller communities, understanding they are smaller and, as you have alluded to before, that they have challenges collecting MRDT.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister for that answer.

[5:35 p.m.]

Just curious. As far as moving forward…. We’re, obviously, seeing a lot of cost pressures. Infrastructure costs, obviously, are rising quickly. I’m just curious. Has the ministry conducted any sort of formal review of the RMI funding model to account for things like inflation, potentially increased visitation in communities? If so, is that available for the minister to share — not only to myself, but is that publicly available as well?

Hon. Anne Kang: We do recognize the cost pressures that RMI communities are facing, and we are actively working with them to identify their needs and to see how we can best support them. We’ll continue to work with them.

Scott McInnis: Sticking, I guess, with the same….

[The bells were rung.]

Okay. Back to the theme that we’re talking about here.

What accountability measures does the ministry have in place to ensure that those RMI funds are being used efficiently and delivering measurable improvements to things like infrastructure and visitor experience?

Hon. Anne Kang: Each community has a resource development strategy. It’s a three-year plan, and they report out on it annually.

Scott McInnis: Along the same lines, I’m just wondering if the minister could provide any examples of some measurable outcomes tied directly to RMI funding, things such as reduced service strain, improved infrastructure, increased visitor satisfaction — any of those measurables.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I could give two examples of accessibility improvements and accessibility to community.

For example, Rainbow Park in Whistler has recently undergone a major transformation with enhanced amenities, including a new swimming dock and accessibility improvements to create an all-season lakeside destination for both residents and visitors.

Another example is the newly completed 85th Street Plaza in downtown Osoyoos. It has created a shaded, accessible community gathering space, providing a welcoming hub for residents and visitors in the heart of this commercial district. I have been to Osoyoos and have seen firsthand how it has brought the community together to a space where people can eat together. They can go to a store and get ice cream or a sandwich and then come back out, but really enjoy the outdoors in central Osoyoos, downtown.

These are some measurable outcomes that we are very proud of, and we want to thank the RMI for making these thoughtful investments.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for providing a couple of examples.

I know we had a call some months ago. We canvassed this idea, and understandably, it was a time when the ministry was really focused on some specific FIFA initiatives, and it just wasn’t a great time to expand on this. I’m just wondering if the ministry has evaluated whether a portion of the MRDT revenues should be automatically directed into an RMI-style infrastructure support for some of those more higher-impact communities.

Hon. Anne Kang: This is a really good question, and thank you so much to the member across for just being really in tune with what’s really needed to support RMI communities.

We do have a formal structure called the resort municipality collaborative working group, where we have municipalities, representatives and our tax staff there to support this conversation and to really put our brains together on how we can better support MRDT to RMI and to support communities that need this funding infrastructure.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m just wondering if there has been any measurable progress made as to gaining some traction on some of the concerns by some of those individual communities that were raised in some of these conversations.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: The committee is very active, and we’re in constant communication and brainstorming together. We are taking their recommendations and comments very seriously. So I believe that we will be able to see measurable improvements in the near future.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I’m glad there’s some traction being made there. I know for the local communities, especially in Columbia River–Revelstoke…. They really appreciate the opportunity to work collaboratively and to be heard and to know that some of those specific concerns are being addressed by the ministry. I know it’s not an overnight solution, necessarily, but it seems like lots of steps are being made in the right direction here.

Just a handful of questions left, as I look at the time here, for me. Again, I appreciated the ministry taking some time to brief me on some of the new tourism initiatives set out by the ministry. I think that’s really exciting for our province. We have so much to offer here in, I think, what’s a changing tourism landscape.

I know in Columbia River–Revelstoke, we’ve seen a little bit of a demographic shift. A lot more visitors, it appears from talking to various individuals in the communities, are from the northwest U.S., which is good — generally speaking, Americans spend well when they come to the East Kootenay, which is great — in addition to the Saskatchewan and Alberta visitors that we get. It’s really, really helpful for our local economies.

I’m just wondering, on that note, if the minister could identify how much of the new tourism initiative funding has flowed to operators versus some of this, maybe, more reannounced or re-profiled funding from previous budgets.

Hon. Anne Kang: Our tourism sector action plan is a plan that has gone through extensive consultation and collaboration with our sector partners, and we all came to an understanding that during this difficult financial time, there won’t be any new dollars that will be invested in the tourism sector action plan.

[5:50 p.m.]

What will be happening is a very targeted approach to how we make our investments and our programs, such as Destination B.C. and our Iconics brand; on how we market British Columbia, to make sure that we are focused in specific places where we can find high visitor value and high visitor spending; as well as opportunities to attract overnight visitors; and increased flight operations so that we have direct flights; and getting people to and from major airports out to rural and remote communities.

We also talked today about making improvements to our RMI program; our destination event program; as well as working very closely with Indigenous Tourism B.C. on how to really enhance the beautiful stories, the places, the geographies where First Nations are able to really be proud of their land and their stories.

We will continue to work on all these fronts, because our tourism sector action plan really is about the story of all of us and how we’re working together to make a very positive impact.

As we look at major events, such as Expo 86 or the 2010 Olympics, the Invictus Games…. These major events have brought B.C. to a platform where the world is looking at us and wants to come here.

We know that B.C. has world-class hospitality. We thank our workers here for the work that they do.

When people are happy and satisfied and have a memorable experience in B.C., we know that they will come back three to four times and they will go home and they will tell their friends and families about visiting British Columbia.

All in all, it’s about collaboration, it’s about having strong focus, and it’s about understanding British Columbia and where our strengths are, and that’s where we’re putting our investments.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. The minister jogged my memory about something that I didn’t have written down, but I did want to ask.

I know an interesting initiative in some of the more rural communities to be involved — and I apologize to the minister; I’m jumping around a little bit here — was for some of the watch-party funding that was available to various communities for FIFA.

I know there was a little bit of — I don’t want to say frustration — miscommunication, maybe, somewhere along the line, where some of the local communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke didn’t necessarily know that it was happening or the avenue to pursue that — some things like that. I understand there’s a responsibility to maybe investigate that a little bit more locally as well.

I’m just wondering what the funding total for the watch parties was available from the ministry for FIFA.

Hon. Anne Kang: Our ministry made our best efforts to advertise through our member organizations, such as UBCM. I know we can always do better, and I’m really sorry that they didn’t receive the information there.

[5:55 p.m.]

The funding total is $1.7 million to 32 different communities. I’m really excited to attend some of these watch parties.

Scott McInnis: As am I looking forward to attending some of the watch parties for the games.

Just curious of the funding available for the watch parties. The minister mentioned $1.7 million spread across 32 communities. What was the total budgeted funding available for those watch parties? Was that all allocated, or is there still funding available, potentially, for communities that want to participate? Or is that closed?

I should know this, but I don’t. This is why I’m asking. I’m just wondering if the minister could fill me in a little bit more on that.

Hon. Anne Kang: The funding has been fully allocated.

Scott McInnis: Well, that’s good to hear. It sounds like communities have really taken that up, and that’s good to hear that everybody is participating. I’m sure there’ll be some really fun community events with lots of cheering and fun going on during FIFA.

This is going to be my last question here before I pass it off to my good friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Bit of a preamble to it, however.

I met, and I’ve been meeting quite frequently, with local chambers of commerce in Columbia River–Revelstoke and municipal governments, and there’s a serious concern around employment for the service industries that support tourism. It’s a major concern.

I know there’s a broader topic of discussion here around some of the shifting environments around temporary foreign workers, and there are arguments to be made, I think, on all angles of that. I understand that doesn’t fall specifically within this ministry, but we’re having some serious pressures in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Whether it’s looking at some of the guide services for things like heli-skiing to the cooks in the lodges, hotels, restaurants, things like that, we’re facing some serious, serious pressures. I know it’s a cyclical issue. It has to do a lot with availability; housing; obviously, affordability. But businesses are…. I’m seeing an increasing trend of pressure on a lot of business owners. They just do not have the staff available to support their businesses. I’m seeing an increased concern as we head towards the high summer season.

I’ve spoken to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills about this. We’re getting close to, I think, a very serious tipping point in my riding. I’ve advocated strongly both to the Premier’s office and to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills about a regional employment strategy — especially focused on the East Kootenay — because the problem is getting worse, and it doesn’t seem like there’s a sense of urgency.

I know the minister knows that if we’re starting to run hotels at two or three days a week because they don’t have staff or some of the more bigger-ticket tourism industries are having to cut back because they don’t have those ticketed professionals to support their industry work, we’re going to be in a pretty serious crisis.

I’m wondering if the minister is aware of how serious this is. Part of that is on me. I haven’t brought it to the Tourism Minister because I think it’s focused elsewhere. But I’m hoping that (1) the minister is aware of some of these serious pressures and (2) there’s been an effort to have some collaborative, cross-ministry strategy discussions about how to address this. Again, we’re facing a pretty serious issue here, and so far, my calls to support this have fallen on deaf ears. I have to advocate strongly for my communities who rely on tourism dollars, and there is extreme pressure.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’m hoping that the minister can fill me in a little bit on her role within those discussions, if she’s having any. I don’t hold any ill will towards the minister if she hasn’t, because I know that if we’re looking at a Venn diagram, it’s probably more into jobs, housing, etc. But there is an advocacy piece here, I think, for tourism to be involved in.

I’m just hoping that the minister could fill me in a little bit if there have been those discussions so far and where we are on the progress of those if they have taken place.

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member for bringing up this very, very important issue. In fact, I could assure the member across that I’m very in tune with rural and remote communities.

Three years ago I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the first thing that I did was to attempt 100 community visits in 100 days. It did not happen that way, but I was able to make connections virtually to some of the communities and really saw firsthand how vibrant they are when their communities and businesses are working well with the workers that they needed.

Two years ago I was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills and worked as minister responsible for immigration since 2020. I’ve had so many conversations with our federal counterparts about the importance of continuing PNP programs, continuing the LMIA program, to have temporary workers and experience especially focused on rural and remote communities. These are really important. Also international students. They all have a role to play in our ecosystem. They are all valued parts of our community and our business community as well, so I am very much in tune and have been a very strong advocate as I have conversations with my provincial counterparts.

Now moving on to my current role as Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. My previous experience really brings it into this conversation, and cross-ministry work continues very strong. Not only is it minister to minister, but also deputy minister committees continue to have these strong collaborations and communication. I am very committed to having these conversations, because we know that for communities to be strong and independent, they need workers.

To have beautiful hotels and restaurants not able to open the hours of work that they intended to because of labour shortage and the lack of talent is very unfortunate. I’m committed to continuing that work with the member across the way — and of course, with members of the cabinet — to make sure that we have the workers that we need and to be supporting the tourism sector here.

[6:05 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that from the minister.

When I brought this up to the Premier’s office, I did offer my support in a very non-partisan fashion in some sort of round table for regional employment strategy, so I’d like to offer that to you as well, Minister, if it’s needed or wanted.

I just want to thank all the staff for your support today for all the questions.

I will pass it off to my good pal here from West Van–Sea to Sky.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, my colleague, for taking some of the questions off my list.

I don’t know that I’ve had the opportunity, so I just wanted to offer my congratulations to the minister on her appointment back in July.

I really appreciated the Rainbow Park example from Whistler, my hometown. I know the outside view of Whistler is sometimes a little bit as a very wealthy enclave, but I can assure the committee that it is very much a working-class town. Especially with the amount of visitation we have, places like Rainbow Park and the amazing upgrade that’s been done to it go a long way to quality of life.

With that, we’ll get started here, and we’ll have to continue tomorrow, but…. As the minister will know, reports have shown that domestic tourism reached record-breaking levels in the Sea to Sky corridor in 2025. As I’m sure has been speculated, many Canadians are deciding to stay home domestically amid the tariff threats. Despite the economic and employment gains that have occurred as a result of that, many smaller rural and remote communities are struggling to balance this new influx of tourists with the current capacity of facilities, infrastructure and staff.

Every community wants to leave a positive impression on new visitors. Although many communities recognize and seek to gain from the immense value that tourism can bring for their local businesses and community members, available accommodations, parking lots and public facilities may find themselves constrained by this unprecedented influx, and natural areas from trails to parks may be affected by the increased foot and road traffic.

To echo the sentiments put out in a recent report by Tourism Squamish, given the recent rise in tourism, it remains ever important to align investments in tourism with other more localized efforts such as long-term infrastructure planning and visitor education and stewardship initiatives to ensure that visitors are acting respectfully in parks and protected areas. I’m sure the minister will have seen the Sea to Sky’s Don’t Love it to Death tourism campaign.

With all this in mind, how will rural and remote communities be supported in their efforts to manage the rise in domestic and intraprovincial tourism under Budget 2026 and Look West action plan? Can the minister comment on whether or not these efforts will be sustained in the medium- and long term to ensure the sustainability of the tourism sector?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: We understand that rural and remote communities have so much potential to them. When I have opportunities to visit them, I see how warm and welcoming they are. It has a real beautiful, rural feel to it. Visiting restaurants or stores, it just seems like you’re going to visit a family who you haven’t seen for a very long time. That’s the warmth that I remember from visiting. So I recognize and agree with the importance of having to support rural and remote communities and having a sustainable future forward.

One of the things that I have talked about previously to other members but would like to emphasize again through this question is the resort municipality initiative, which provides $13 million annually to 14 rural resort communities to support visitor-related infrastructure and services that help communities manage visitation and enhance the visitor experience.

We also have the MRDT program, which continues to be one of the most important tools for rural tourism. More than half of MRDT revenues are returned to rural communities, with over $47 million in 2024 directed outside the Lower Mainland, Victoria and Whistler to support local marketing, visitor services and destination management.

As well, we do work cross-ministry and collaboratively across government. In collaboration with the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth’s rural economic diversification and infrastructure program, this has funded 115 tourism and hospitality projects over its first three intakes, representing nearly $49 million in support for rural economic development.

As we did our consultation for the Look West: Tourism Sector Action Plan strategy, part of it is to collaborate and hear very closely from our rural and remote community leaders and our local marketing operators in what they need as a tool and how we can work in a collaborative direction to support each other.

Guided by that, Destination B.C. has the Invest in Iconics strategy, which really focuses on how beautiful our rural and remote communities are. We are strongly marketing this to international grounds, especially using FIFA World Cup as a springboard to attract more visitors from outside the province, around the globe to come and visit British Columbia, especially in the rural and remote communities.

Jeremy Valeriote: Would you like me to note the hour, Madam Chair, or shall I do one more?

The Chair: Minister?

Okay. We can do one more.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll try and keep the preamble to a minimum.

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, as we all know, one of the main attractors is outdoor sports. One upcoming example is the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup. I had to look it up. UCI is Union Cycliste Internationale. The Mountain Bike World Cup will be hosted in Whistler in September, attracting a significant number of tourists to the region who are likely to use the mountain biking trails and, of course, contribute to the local economy.

We’ve had good discussions with the Minister of Environment and Parks about this influx and the local opportunities for camping. It is a bit of a good thing that it’s towards the end of the summer — well, beyond the summer season — and during an off-peak season, also sometimes referred to as dead season in Whistler.

But it was the Squamish Off-Road Cycling Association who came to us saying that this is going to bring a huge number of people, and they are a volunteer-run group that has to essentially maintain.

[6:15 p.m.]

On the flip side, they’ve also said that estimated visitor spending, in relation to mountain biking, is $26 million to the local economy in Squamish, as well as the climbing community. A recent report commissioned by the Squamish Access Society found visiting climbers contributed $21 million to the local economy.

However, many of these trails and climbing areas throughout the Sea to Sky are built and maintained by volunteer-run and donation-based non-profits. With anticipated further increases in domestic tourism, it’s likely that demand for their services will exceed their capacity. So they came to us saying: “Is there any way that we can go beyond just having to ask volunteers? Is there any way that we can monetize either parking or trailhead?” Of course, that’s really difficult on public lands, but we won’t delve into that right now.

The question is that the ministry, through initiatives like Destination B.C., advertises B.C. as a favourable place to visit, but the community-based organizations that make up these communities often don’t stand to benefit directly and, in fact, can even suffer from significant increases in tourism.

Given this, how will the ministry ensure that the recreational areas that tourists want to access for sport are going to be maintained and sustained in both the immediate and long term?

I’ll add one more. Sorry to do two in a row. Does the ministry aim to offer any direct financial support to the non-profits that continue to do the work that’s required to keep B.C.’s parks and trails safe, clean and operational over this next fiscal year? And is the ministry aiming to work with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment and Parks, on these efforts?

Hon. Anne Kang: Thank you so much to the member across for recognizing the need for balance between locals and tourism as we look at our beautiful trails and recreation places that are in use.

Our ministry does work very closely with the Ministry of Environment and Parks. Within that ministry, there is a branch called the recreation sites and trails branch, which works very closely with communities on such issues the member across has described.

We do recognize the importance of tourism and local recreation use, and we try to find a good balance for that and that the accessibility to land benefits both locals and tourism. So we will continue to work with my colleague in Environment and Parks.

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

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.