Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Kristina Loewen.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis: I’d like to wish a happy 27th birthday to my good buddy the member for Kootenay-Rockies, who has a birthday today. Unfortunately, he has been working really hard battling a difficult medical condition since the holidays. It’s his birthday today. I know he misses everybody in the Legislative Assembly and not being here.

Would the House please wish the member a happy birthday today.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’d like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a constituent from Vancouver–Little Mountain. I’m delighted to have David Decolongon here. David worked for several members of the House before joining the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, where he advocates for combatting hate and supporting diverse communities. He is here with a group supporting the Filipino community as they seek to build a cultural centre in Vancouver.

Please join me in welcoming David.

Tony Luck: Today I would like to introduce a couple of very, very good friends — we’ve been friends for decades — here in the House today, and they’re visiting. Sitting beside my lovely wife here are Len and Elaine Cervo. They are from the member for Abbotsford-Mission’s riding, and they’re really honoured to be here today and seeing the workings of the House and everything today.

I would like just to highlight that Len was a corrections supervisor with B.C. Corrections for 47 years. He tried retiring two or three times, but he got bored, so he had to go back to the service. At the end of his service, at the end of 47 years, he received the Corrections Exemplary Service Medal from the Governor General of Canada upon his final retirement.

If I could get help in welcoming them to the House, that would be really appreciated. For his service that he gave to the province….

Tributes

Steve Wright

Dana Lajeunesse: It’s with a heavy heart that I wish to acknowledge the untimely passing of an extraordinary member of my community. Steve Wright arrived in Sooke as RCMP detachment commander in 2009, where his exemplary leadership and his commitment to community quickly became apparent. Steve was a fierce advocate for Cops for Cancer, which compelled him to participate as a rider for Tour de Rock.

After his retirement in 2013, Steve and his incredible wife, Ailsa, chose to establish their home in Sooke, where they both became active participants in all things community. A well-respected member of the Sooke Lions Club, Steve was also a member of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 54.

In 2018, Steve played an instrumental role in bringing the RCMP Musical Ride to Sooke. Of course, never one to sit idly by, Steve also served as honorary aide-de-camp to British Columbia’s Lieutenant Governor. Most recently all of us in this House will remember him, adorned in his RCMP regalia, as he escorted Her Honour Wendy Cocchia up and down this very aisle.

Please join me as I offer my sincerest condolences to Ailsa, Steve’s family and all those whose lives he influenced in such a positive way. He will be greatly missed.

Introductions by Members

Ian Paton: If you’ll indulge me, I have three introductions this morning.

First, I have the honour of introducing a distinguished guest in the House today, Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is seated in the House today behind me. Some of you may recognize him from a few billboards put up several years ago with myself, Dr. Weaver and John Horgan duking it out about whether it should be a bridge or a tunnel to replace the George Massey Tunnel.

[10:10 a.m.]

Dr. Weaver is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria and previously served as the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis. He also served as a member of the Legislative Assembly here for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, having been elected in 2013 as a member of the B.C. Green Party and leader of the B.C. Green Party. Dr. Weaver is widely recognized for his significant contributions to climate science and for his public service to the people of British Columbia.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Andrew Weaver to the House today.

We have a celebrity in the House as well today from Tsawwassen, from my riding, Filipino-Canadian Warren Dean Flandez, who is also a good friend of our MLA for Vancouver-Kensington. Warren Dean Flandez is a multi-award-winning, two-time Juno-nominated recording artist, educator and cultural leader based in Tsawwassen, Delta. He teaches at Capilano University and serves as vice-chair of the Delta police board; president of the Tsawwassen business improvement association; and chair of the Filipino Legacy Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to building a Filipino cultural centre in Vancouver.

In June of last summer, Warren Dean Flandez put on the most magnificent concert, with 1,000 people attending in Tsawwassen, to bring hope and support the impact to all the people that were devastated by the Lapu-Lapu tragedy. The funds all went towards survivors of the Lapu-Lapu tragedy.

Please welcome Warren Dean Flandez this morning.

Finally, my third introduction. I have three gentlemen from Abbotsford that I’ve known for several years. One of them, for sure, is a retired dairy farmer — Ken Dahl, Al Unrau and Alfred Staetter.

Please welcome these three gentlemen from Abbotsford.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are many things that I don’t know, but there is one thing that I know for certain to be true, and that is that I married the right man. It’s Brian Wickens’s birthday. He’s turning 57. I am so grateful that I get to spend this life with him. He usually takes a break in the morning from working at the dairy to watch question period. That’s how much he loves me.

Happy birthday, my love. I will do whatever I can to celebrate you all weekend.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would like to introduce my two best friends, respected in my community: [name removed] and [name removed], who is very active on X.

Please welcome them.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two individuals to the House.

One is no stranger. She has been around these buildings and these chambers since she was a toddler because she is the daughter of former MLA Rob Fleming, and that is his daughter Rory Fleming. She’s a student at the University of Victoria, and she’s here today. She’s with a friend of hers who is a constituent of mine, and his name is Shea Hynes. He’s from Port Coquitlam and a graduate of Riverside high school, but he’s also attending the University of Victoria. They’re both here to see the proceedings today.

Would the House make them both very welcome.

Teresa Wat: I would also like to recognize the delegation of leaders and volunteers from the Filipino community. Over the past weekend, many of us attended ceremonies honouring the victims of last year’s Lapu-Lapu Day tragedy and raised funds to support their families. As this community continues to heal, it has also begun to advocate for important services and space to help the 170,000 people thrive.

The group with us today represents the Filipino Legacy Society, which is working to help the community realize its nearly four-decade dream of building a cultural centre in Vancouver.

Please welcome Warren Dean Flandez, Maj Yee, Christine de Castro, Lorentz Sy, Matthew Remedios, David Decolongon and Allan Jiang.

[10:15 a.m.]

Mable Elmore: Joining colleagues to welcome friends from the Filipino community.

We’ve got Maj Yee. Maj is the president and managing director of Goldilocks Bake Shop. If you don’t know Goldilocks Bake Shop or you haven’t had one of the delicacies, you have an opportunity because she has brought some snacks for everybody here — ensaymada and also polvoron, Filipino-style shortbread. That’s for everybody to share, and that’s really a cultural tradition of the Filipino community, to bring snacks. I appreciate her.

She’s a graduate of the University of British Columbia; graduate of the Sauder School of Business; member of Les Dames d’Escoffier; and has volunteered with the Alpha Delta Pi foundation, supporting women’s leadership and philanthropy. Very active in the community, participating in the city of Vancouver’s response to the April 26 tragedy, recognized among the 75 Faces of Migration commemorating 75 years of Canada-Philippines relations. She’s also the vice-chair of the Filipino Legacy Society.

We’re joined by Christine de Castro, an innovation and tech entrepreneur. She’s got a drone start-up, very accomplished. She led Canada’s payment modernization efforts for ISO 20022 compliance, which is pretty impressive — everything on the tech and innovation front. She volunteers profusely. She was former chair of Hope 604 Rotoract, Rotoractor of the Year 2024, vice president of Bridge of Hope–World internationally and also the secretary for the Filipino Legacy Society.

I ask you to please give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’m really excited to recognize some very special guests here that are here from Sikh Heritage B.C., and they’re here to recognize Sikh Heritage Month today. Please join me in welcoming Jasleen Kaur Sidhu, Mohnaam Kaur Shergill, Eimaan Singh Shergill, Kurbaan Singh Shergill, Harjit Singh Mander and Kiran Singh.

Sikh Heritage Month is something that has been celebrated here in B.C. since 2018, and Sikh Heritage B.C. was a big part of having that recognition in this House. We know that Sikhs have been in B.C. and across Canada for over 125 years, giving contributions in all different sectors of society.

We are really excited that this lunch-hour we will be celebrating Sikh Heritage Month in the Hall of Honour, and I encourage everyone that is able to please come join us. We look forward to that.

If everyone will please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to wish a very happy birthday to the love of my life, my husband, Romi. It is his birthday today as well. As members know, our partners sacrifice a lot for us to be able to do this job.

A member opposite was mentioning to me yesterday: was I squinting or winking at him? I said his wife might have something to say about that. He acknowledged that my husband would have something to say about it too, like the fact that I needed glasses if I was winking at him.

My husband is a handsome man, a loving man, a great advocate in his own right. I’m so honoured to know him.

Thanks to his parents, Rohini and Sashi, for bringing him into this world so that we all could benefit from his love.

Susie Chant: Joining us in the gallery this morning is His Excellency Stefan Tomasevic, the Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia to Canada, who is here on his first official visit to B.C. He is accompanied by Peter Vladikovic, the honorary consul.

They will have the pleasure of meeting with you, Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Mable Elmore: Just to recognize a few folks to fill out the delegation that we’ve got visiting us from the Filipino community.

Joined by Allan Jiang. He’s an article law student serving with Remedios and Co. He’s a member of the litigation team and covers everything to do with litigation. He’s helping and supporting efforts with the Filipino community. Much appreciated.

Lorentz Sy is the lead CPA, comptroller and compliance officer at Remedios law firm and also responsible for oversight with Remedios law firm. And he’s the treasurer and director of the Filipino Legacy Society.

Matthew Remedios is a managing director and principal lawyer at Remedios and Co., and he handles all legal matters for the society with efforts to serve the Filipino community in the long-awaited effort to build a Filipino cultural centre.

[10:20 a.m.]

I please ask you to give them a warm welcome.

Jordan Kealy: I just want to say a happy birthday to my constituency assistant in Fort St. John. It’s her 30th birthday. As well, she’s a great friend of mine. She’s a neighbour that has a small farm, and even before she was a constituency assistant, she was one of the people that was able to help out my wife being able to run our farm while I’ve been able to do this job.

So thank you very much, Danielle, and I appreciate you.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M243 — Speculation and Vacancy
Tax Repeal Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Speculation and Vacancy Tax Repeal Act.

Tara Armstrong: I move that a bill intituled the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Repeal Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the speculation and vacancy tax. When this tax was introduced in 2018, the government’s theory was that it was needed to increase rental vacancy rates, which were then sitting at around 1 percent. It set out to do so by penalizing owners of more than one residence in the province. But today vacancy rates in major B.C. markets have risen to around 4 percent. Rental units are opening up, not because of this tax but primarily due to recent federal reductions in immigration, so this bill will remove a tax that is clearly not needed.

It will also put an end to an inefficient tax collection process that forces 1.7 million British Columbians, year after year, to prove their innocence to government. These mandatory filing declarations apply to fewer than 1 percent of the people required to fill out this paperwork. Public reporting shows that the administration of this tax is so time-consuming that there is now a five-year backlog in collections.

This bill will allow those government resources to be productively redeployed, and it will end what has functioned as a punitive tax on innocent British Columbians. It responds to the people in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream and communities across the province who are not speculative real estate investors. These are people who maintain a second residence for work, to care for loved ones or who are trying to maintain family cabins that were never meant to be market rentals.

The people who live, work and invest in B.C. should not be punished for their success. They should be appreciated for their contributions. They should be treated fairly. We can do this by repealing this unnecessary, inefficient and punitive tax.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Harrison Tulip Festival

Tony Luck: It is a privilege to rise today and highlight one of British Columbia’s most remarkable celebrations of spring, the Harrison Tulip Festival, nestled in the beautiful Fraser Valley near Harrison Hot Springs.

Each year, as winter finally releases its hold, something extraordinary happens in the valley. Fields that only weeks before lay quiet and dormant are transformed into a breathtaking sea of colour, row upon row of tulips. Millions of them burst into bloom, painting the landscape in vibrant shades of red, yellow, pink and purple. It is a powerful reminder that no matter how long the winter, renewal always comes.

This festival is more than a stunning display. It is the result of vision, hard work and a deep connection to agricultural heritage. The Harrison Tulip Festival is the work of the Onos family, who are the founders of the Chilliwack Tulip Festival. After relocating their farm to Agassiz, they brought with them their generations of Dutch farming tradition, rooted in dairy and agriculture and a passion for cultivating both the land and a shared experience for others.

[10:25 a.m.]

Today the Harrison Tulip Festival has grown into the largest tulip festival in Canada, featuring approximately 14 million tulips with more than 100 varieties. It has become a destination that draws people and visitors from across the province and beyond.

A few years ago this local success story gained global recognition at the World Tulip Summit in none less than the Netherlands, the very heart of tulip culture. The Harrison Tulip Festival was awarded the title of World’s Most Instagrammable Tulip Farm.

Think about that for a moment, folks — a festival here in British Columbia outshining the famous tulip fields in the Netherlands and on the world stage. Pretty impressive to say the least.

For 2026, the festival is now open and will run till roughly early May, shaped as usual and always by the rhythms of the season. That, too, is part of the charm. It reminds us that we are connected to the land, to the seasons and to the simple cycles that bring life back each year.

Financial Literacy Day

Amna Shah: I rise today to recognize Financial Literacy Day here in British Columbia. Financial literacy affects every stage of life. It shapes how young people manage their first paycheque, how families budget for housing and child care, how small businesses plan for growth and how seniors prepare for retirement. When people have the knowledge and the confidence to make informed financial decisions, they are better equipped to weather challenges and plan for their futures.

Rising costs of living, digital banking, online investing and the growing risk of scams mean that people are often asked to make high-stakes choices without having all the tools that they need. Financial literacy helps people recognize risks, ask the right questions and avoid decisions that could have lasting consequences.

Here in British Columbia, financial literacy and financial education are already part of the K-to-12 education system. These skills are embedded across learning areas such as mathematics, skills and technology and career education classes. Through these subjects, students are learning to plan, budget, analyze costs and make decisions connected to real-world situations.

I would like to recognize the many educators, community organizations, non-profits, credit unions and volunteers who work year-round to support financial education. Their efforts — whether through classroom teaching, community workshops or one-on-one support — help make financial information more accessible and understandable for people of all ages. Small steps like learning how interest works, setting a savings goal or planning ahead can add up to greater security and resilience over time.

On this Financial Literacy Day, I encourage all of us to reflect on our own financial knowledge and share what we know with others — whether with a student, a colleague, a family member or a neighbour. Even small conversations can make a meaningful difference.

Mal Wrestling Club in Surrey

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I rise today to recognize the Mal Wrestling Club in Surrey. Since 2019, this club has been helping athletes build discipline, respect and confidence. With around 100 athletes from age four and up, they are helping young people become the best version of themselves while keeping them away from drugs and negative paths. Most of their athletes are provincial champions and national medalists, and each year at least four represent Canada on the international stage.

Behind this success are, really, sacrifices by coaches Aman Dhillon, Jasvir Thandi and Shingara Dhefi, who give their time after long workdays to train and mentor these athletes; and by families who invest thousands of dollars each year, often around $10,000 for competition, with an additional $3,000 to $4,000 for international events.

As a lifelong sportsman, I understand how difficult this journey is. Clubs like Mal are doing important work in sports — not just building athletes but building discipline, confidence and strong community across British Columbia.

On behalf of Surrey North, I thank the coaches, athletes and families of Mal Wrestling Club for their dedication. Also, thanks to local businessman Param Singh Pannu, who recently donated uniforms to the Mal Wrestling Club. Your hard work is making our community stronger, and today this House recognizes you.

[10:30 a.m.]

Cueva Homes

George Anderson: I recently visited Cueva Homes in Lantzville, and I left with something that can feel rare in a housing conversation. I left with hope. In a moment when too many people are asking whether they will ever be able to afford a home or remain in the communities they love, it matters to see people who are creating solutions.

What I saw at Cueva Homes, alongside co-founder Ryan Stolz, was more than a business. I saw vision, craftsmanship and what becomes possible when innovation is guided by a very human purpose of helping build community. That is why prefabricated housing matters. Whether it is the adaptable Ember or Solace models, Cueva Homes showed the opportunity that exists with their modular designs with eight- to ten-foot ceilings. Even more impressive is the possibility of delivering these homes within three to six months.

This matters, because a young person should be able to see a future for themselves in a place that raised them. A family should be able to put down roots with confidence. A senior should be able to age in place in the community they helped build.

In a time when we are dealing with an epidemic of loneliness, prefabricated modular homes could be part of addressing this issue. Strong communities do not happen by accident. They are built thoughtfully, intentionally and with care. What impressed me about Cueva Homes is their understanding that homes are not just a product but, rather, a foundation for life — where a child grows up, where families gather after long days and where neighbours become friends.

When we talk about prefabricated homes, we should not see them as lesser but, rather, as smarter, faster and more responsive to the needs of our time. If we want a British Columbia where young people can stay and seniors can age in place, then we must never lose sight of this truth.

When we build homes, we do more than shape skylines, and that is the work that is being done by Cueva Homes in Lantzville. It is local, forward-looking and reminds us that the future of housing in British Columbia can still be hopeful and built around people.

FIFA World Cup in Vancouver

Rob Botterell: Why is soccer the most popular sport in the world? One reason is that it doesn’t cost very much to play. You can make a ball by wrapping plastic bags in twine, set up goalposts with a few well-placed stones. But if the sport of soccer is accessible and inclusive, the FIFA World Cup is the polar opposite. Vancouver’s seven matches are likely to cost taxpayers $624 million. FIFA is charging as much as $11,000 for tickets to the final. It’s $1,000 a night for a hotel room.

While soccer is a sport for everyone, the 2026 men’s World Cup is only for a select few. But Vancouverites are great hosts, and everyone is accommodating FIFA. Hospitals are calling in extra staff and may postpone elective surgeries. Health authorities are rolling out awareness campaigns about our toxic drugs.

The Vancouver law courts are shutting down. Residents of the Downtown Eastside will give up beds to host FIFA. The largest dragon boat festival in North America is cancelled. Businesses around B.C. Place will cover up signs and TVs.

Air traffic controllers will be working overtime. Sex workers will navigate increased surveillance in unsafe workplaces. All this to celebrate an organization with a horrific record of fraud and human rights abuses — an organization, I may add, that recently gave a peace prize to a man who just started a war with Iran.

It’s so important that we make space to gather, that we pause to have fun, build connections, meet our neighbours. We should keep investing in community events where art, culture and sport bring people together. Soccer is one way to do that, but the FIFA World Cup is not.

Health Care Auxiliaries

Harwinder Sandhu: Today I am honoured to recognize the B.C. Association of Health Care Auxiliaries as they prepare to gather in Vernon for the 2026 provincial conference, celebrating an incredible 81 years of service to communities across our province.

[10:35 a.m.]

Since 1945, health care auxiliaries have been a quiet but powerful force in our health care system. Their impact is remarkable. At the end of 2025, there were 62 auxiliaries across our province made up of more than 5,000 adult volunteers and more than 400 student volunteers. Together they contributed over 1.1 million hours of service and raised more than $10.4 million to support the health care system across our province.

These numbers are extraordinary, but what they represent is more powerful. Their contributions fund essential equipment, improve patient comfort and strengthen community support outreach.

Because of you, hospitals are better equipped and patients and families feel supported during the most difficult times in their life.

As a long-time registered nurse, I have had the privilege of getting to know many of these wonderful people in our hospital auxiliary. I remember walking into the hospital to begin long shifts and being greeted by the auxiliary store workers with beautiful smiles, a welcome and their eagerness to help — no matter who came through the door. Those simple moments lifted my spirits and made my day before it had even begun, along with many other people.

In the Interior region and across our province, auxiliaries continue to play an important role in doing the work alongside care teams to enhance patient care in communities like Vernon and across the region.

To every health care auxiliary staff, thank you from the bottom of my heart for your dedication, generosity and your compassion. You are the heart of our hospitals, and our communities are stronger, beautiful and better just because of you.

Oral Questions

Extortion Crime and
Community Safety in Surrey

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Last year, in 2025’s first three months, Surrey had three extortion cases. This year, in 2026’s first three months, Surrey had 75 extortion cases.

This is sad and scary. This government has let down these families.

Will this government admit that they have lost control?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member for the question. Combatting extortion in Surrey is our top public safety priority. The province has stood up….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The B.C. extortion task force, representing an unprecedented, coordinated effort between law enforcement agencies municipally, provincially and federally…. Their work and the work of the Surrey police service has produced real results in communities. We’ve seen 19 arrests, 25 removals from the region, with 110 investigations currently underway by Canada Border Services Agency.

We will not stop and let our foot off the pedal. We will continue to provide police with the resources they need and victims with the supports that they need until our communities are safe and these extortion threats come to an end.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Families and children in Surrey don’t want lip service. They need action. Businesses and families are scared.

How many more extortion cases before this government protects them?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member. I’ve had the opportunity to interact with families and businesses affected by extortion threats and related acts of violence. We are singular in our focus to support those victims and protect our communities.

I noted the arrests and charges, the removals from Canada — the exceptional work that is taking place and being led by our law enforcement here, provincially, in cooperation with federal partners.

[10:40 a.m.]

B.C. led the charge advocating for the passage of Bill C-12 federally, which closes loopholes in our immigration policy so that people facing deportation cannot exploit our refugee system. These are tangible actions that are keeping our streets and our communities safer.

Jody Toor: Let’s look at the minister’s track record in Surrey a little more. Compared to last year between January and March, homicides are up 500 percent and shootings are up 300 percent. British Columbians were promised safer communities. This is the opposite of that. This is a public safety crisis.

How can a 500 percent increase in homicides be painted as anything except a complete failure of this government?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question, Member. Public safety and mitigating against firearms violence is a top priority for this government.

In our fight against extortion, we expanded the Provincial Firearms Forensics Lab to provide police with more tools to combat gun violence. In addition to the work that we’ve done on the B.C. extortion task force, we’re directing $100 million each year towards the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. This is the largest police organization that is integrated in the entire country and that has a focus on combatting organized crime, including guns and gang violence.

These are tangible investments that are creating results in our community, leading to arrests and charges. We will not let up. We will continue this work, working with all levels of law enforcement to ensure that our communities are safe.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jody Toor: The Minister of Public Safety promised action and said: “We are starting to see the results.” The lived reality? It is worse than ever — 75 extortion cases in Surrey since the start of the year. That’s just what’s reported, and 53 percent of people in B.C. fear for the safety of their families. That’s over half of the people in this province today that don’t feel safe.

Can the minister stand up today, speak to the families who are terrified and explain why anyone would feel safe under her watch?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think the member opposite knows that B.C. saw the largest drop in the crime severity index, of 11 percent, in the entire country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Nina Krieger: This does not mean our work is over. That is why we are leading the country in our coordinated efforts to go after extortionists that are causing such a devastating impact in our community. That’s why we are leading the country in our efforts to combat organized crime.

These are real results that are creating tangible impacts in community. We are listening.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The work of police that they do fighting crime in communities is so significant, but the work of police jurisdictions is complemented by the integrated work of specialized teams that this government has proudly stood up and provided funding for.

We will not stop this work ensuring that police have the tools and the resources that they need — whether it’s fighting repeat violent offenders, property crime or extortion. This is work that makes such a difference in our communities — to the families, the businesses and people that call B.C. home — and we will not stop.

Woodfibre LNG Project Expansion
Proposal and Local Taxation

Jeremy Valeriote: I have to say I really enjoyed the energy-themed question period yesterday, so I’m back for more. I’m told I got a thumbs-up from the member for Peace River South, and I particularly appreciated the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions talking about the unreliability of fossil fuels as a result of global conflicts like the one in Iran and that we should be doubling down on clean electricity for energy independence.

I agree and support, but I didn’t get an answer to my question about how long this government has known about Woodfibre LNG’s plans to balloon in size. I mentioned B.C. Hydro as supporting evidence, but they’re a minor player in this saga. Instead, I got a long answer about the B.C. Hydro community engagement process and a suggestion that I visit the Woodfibre site — which, the minister will know, I did last Friday.

[10:45 a.m.]

So I’ll try again. The federal minister spilled the beans three weeks ago. How long has the provincial Minister of Energy known about Woodfibre’s plans to double or triple in size?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ve spent a lot of time responding to questions about the pipeline proposal that the province of Alberta is working on, and I am spending time on Woodfibre today.

Woodfibre has a proposal. They’re going to be exporting LNG, I think, very shortly in the scheme of things. That proposal went through all the appropriate approvals, including those with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh First Nation. If they have more to propose, which they have not done so yet…. Snippets of a federal minister’s speech from Houston is not a proposal to expand Woodfibre LNG, which is not yet fully built. That’s the reality of the situation.

The member is free to disagree with Woodfibre LNG, to say that it should not go forward, but he will know, as I know, the significant work being done by Canadian workers on site right now and that Woodfibre LNG will be the lowest-emission LNG in the world.

Indeed, Woodfibre LNG has the opportunity to do things in the future, but they’re not doing them now. They’ll have all the applications and everything to go through should they wish to advance further proposals in the future, but those proposals aren’t before us now.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: I didn’t hear an answer again. I’ve heard some of the talking points about lowest emissions and the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation. I’ve heard it before, but judging by the body language of some of the members down at this end, across the way, they’ve heard it before, and they’re not buying it either.

Yesterday the minister talked about the government’s five conditions for LNG development, one of which is a focus on the needs of local communities. Our local community, the district of Squamish, set a major industry tax category for Woodfibre to take care of the needs of their community, like replacing aging infrastructure, as is their right under the Community Charter. Woodfibre turned around and is suing the district to try and duck its tax obligations.

To the Attorney General: will this government stop standing by as a patsy for the LNG sector and intervene in this dispute on the side of the local community’s needs?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The members of the Green Party often make the case for independence of process. Then, as they did yesterday, they make the case for intervention and imposition on those independent processes. You can have it your way. You can’t have it both ways.

We have outstanding, I think, regulation in this sector. Woodfibre LNG has done very significant work on environmental issues with the community. There is, of course, disagreement in the community about the project, and that’s normal and natural, I would say. Woodfibre continues to do the work with the application of provincial law and with the benefits that will also accrue from the project. As the member notes, they have done, I think, exceptional work, amongst others, with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh First Nation in that effort.

Government Position on Comments
by First Nations Chief

Tara Armstrong: Well, video footage just surfaced of a Chief from the Williams Lake area named Charlene Belleau saying the following about Professor Frances Widdowson: “I wish that our people could grab you, drag you over to the Kamloops residential school, put you into the basement, speak our language to you — nothing but Secwépemc — beat you, rape you, hurt you; and maybe, you’d understand.”

Does the Premier agree with this Chief that reconciliation should include Canadians getting beaten and raped, or will he unequivocally denounce the Chief’s vile and inexcusable threats?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I know what the member is trying to do here, and that’s to further divide us over an issue which is very emotional, which is very troubling and challenging for all involved.

[10:50 a.m.]

That’s the issue of residential schools, and that’s the issue of youth, of children who were taken away from their homes. They were not allowed to return. They were not allowed to speak their languages. They were not allowed to be who they were, and many of them never came home.

I’m not sure exactly what the member is referring to, but I do know what she has tried to do in the past, insisting that the bodies of children who died at residential schools should be dug up — something that you would never insist in any other place in the world where the Holocaust or genocides had occurred. That’s not how we do these things.

I’ll certainly look to see what the member is referring to. But I’d just say that we need to respect victims here and not revictimize people who’ve been in very difficult circumstances that I don’t think any one of us would stand if they were our children.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: Well, I’m speaking about one individual, not a group of people — Chief Charlene Belleau, who was openly bragging about uttering threats of sexual violence against a highly respected university professor. In fact, last year Chief Belleau received the British Columbia Reconciliation Award and King Charles III’s Coronation Medal. The latter was on the nomination of our very own Premier.

Will the Premier call today, right here and now in this House, for Belleau to be stripped of these awards, or does he endorse her reconciliation revenge fantasies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a continuation of, really, quite terrible questions from this member about denying residential school and the harms that that type of rhetoric has on people all across this province and this country. The way she has phrased the question and the way she has posed it are offensive in so many ways.

We cannot forget that the reason that those two members are in the House right now is because of the party opposite, because of those members that included that in their tent. We have to answer to this stuff over and over again, and it does harm to people. That’s all I have to say.

Penticton Murder Trial and
Handling of Cases by Justice System

Amelia Boultbee: On September 5, 2021, the body of a young man was found, badly beaten to death, at a high school in Penticton. His injuries were so severe it took two weeks to identify him as 22-year-old Taig Savage. Taig was a wonderful and positive young man, and he is especially missed by his mother, Tracey Savage.

It took two years to bring charges against the four accused, and now, nearly five years later and numerous delays, Taig’s mother has been told that the trial is being pushed off yet again, for another entire year. At best, Taig’s alleged killers won’t see trial until 2027.

My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier think it is acceptable for a grieving mother to have to wait almost six years to see justice for her murdered son?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the question from the member. The answer is no. Our system needs to work effectively and efficiently to respond to harms that are done in communities, and the justice system needs to respond.

I’ll take the particular case on notice, and I’m happy to connect with the member about it specifically after this. We’ll see what we can do.

The Speaker: Member has a different question?

Amelia Boultbee: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While Taig’s mother anxiously awaits justice for her murdered son, she struggles daily with grief and exhaustion as she watches the accused roam the community, openly breaching conditions of their bail, with one even going to jail on unrelated charges for yet another violent crime. The mother of a murdered son should not be worried when she goes to the grocery store that she may have to bump into the people accused of beating her son to death.

People have lost faith in the justice system in my community, believing the government is prioritizing the rights of criminals and the accused.

My question to Madam Attorney General is: when will this government prioritize justice for victims and their families, like Taig Savage?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We take this issue very seriously. It’s the reason that we led the charge on bail reform in the Criminal Code — to make sure that our Criminal Code keeps repeat violent offenders off the street, to make sure our Criminal Code respects the victims and to make sure that the courts take issues of repeat offending and repeat breaches of bail orders very seriously.

I’ll be going to the Senate soon to make sure that the Senate knows that we want the bill that’s before the Legislature, that has all of our suggestions in it, to be passed — to make sure that our Criminal Code is strong enough to protect the people of this province.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh, Member.

Call for Public Inquiry into
Metro Vancouver Governance and
Wastewater Treatment Project

Linda Hepner: Metro Vancouver has become an unaccountable, disorganized mess. This government promised it would step in two years ago — another broken promise. Now the mayor of Surrey is calling for a public inquiry.

Will the Minister of Housing do what this Premier won’t? Answer the call. Order a public inquiry into Metro Vancouver.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member likely knows, Metro Vancouver has a governance review underway. We share the concerns that the member is hearing and that we are hearing around Metro Vancouver. We are looking to the elected leaders at that governance table to implement solutions themselves. We are watching very closely.

We have appointed a provincial rep to that governance committee. It is my expectation that those leaders come forward with solutions and will implement solutions to improve accountability at that level. If they are unable to do so, we have been very clear that the province will look at options to step in, because residents across Metro Vancouver, understandably, expect accountability at every level of government.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Linda Hepner: The North Shore wastewater treatment plant is $3 billion over budget. That’s not the only project that Metro Vancouver has mismanaged. This is a pattern of mismanagement. The Premier has avoided dealing with Metro, while calling it “a mess.” Surrey wants a public inquiry, and now so does the mayor of the city of Vancouver.

Will the minister do the right thing and order a public inquiry today, yes or no?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I’ll reiterate that we are watching closely. We have heard in the public and in the media these requests for a public inquiry. It is one of the options we’re looking at as well, as I have said, watching closely what the governance review comes up with.

The Premier and I met with Mayors Buchanan and Little on the North Shore wastewater treatment plant. There’s a court case underway there, and again, we are watching very closely.

We understand there are processes underway, and we are looking at tools that we may be able to implement if needed. That will continue to be a priority for us.

Ferry System Management

Á’a:líya Warbus: An entire sailing trapped on board another ferry, now being called “the Queen of Sorry,” for hours. People are frustrated with little or no communication, leaving them stranded again. Repeated mechanical failures are happening under this government’s approved service contract.

How can the public trust a government that actually believes this contract is working?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I will make two points for the member.

One, as she is no doubt aware, B.C. Ferries operates as an independent company under the Coastal Ferry Act — a format that was set up by a previous government. It operates separately from the province.

[11:00 a.m.]

At the same time, B.C. Ferries, 99 percent of the time, works just fine. It has had some issues with ferries, which the ferry corporation is dealing with. They recognize some of the challenges that they have been facing. As well, the CEO of B.C. Ferries has made it clear that what has happened is unacceptable, and he is working to ensure that changes are in place that are going to address that 1 percent of the challenges.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I understand that the minister may not run the ships day to day, but let’s be clear. This government sets the contract, approves the capital plan, appoints the commissioner and funds the system.

The 99 percent of sailings that do go through still leave us with 84 percent that are not on time, and that 1 percent can make a difference when somebody is heading to a medical appointment, to a family emergency, when businesses need to operate in our province. The fleet renewal plan is not helping anybody stranded today or in the coming rush of holidays and travel.

If this contract is not holding the commission to basic standards, who is accountable for that?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for the question. I would once again remind the member that the members that she sits with, when some of them sat on this side of the House…. Nearly all of them voted for the government and the Premier of the day that set up the current ferry structure.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay, that’s not…. Shhh. That’s enough, Members. You’re wasting your time.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate it when the member down the way goes, “Nine long years,” because it gives me an opportunity to talk about all the things that have been happening in those nine long years.

For example, the eight new Island class ferries that are on their way. Some are already here. Some are going to be arriving in the next month. New ships — the four new ferries that are being built, the big ferries that are going to help to deal with that 1 percent. The changes being made, the investments that B.C. Ferries is making in the terminals to make better terminals to handle more people and more passengers.

B.C. Ferries is the largest ferry company in North America, one of the largest in the world — 25 different routes serving 47 communities across this province — an integral part of this province’s transportation system, and they are going to continue to do that work.

By the way, this side of the House is also going to stand up and ensure that we are treated fairly by the federal government, that this side of the coast gets the same financial treatment as the east side of the coast when it comes to ferry transportation in the province of British Columbia.

Crime in Communities
and Impact on Businesses

Gavin Dew: Crime and the cost of doing business are causing an entrepreneurial drought in B.C., with more business closures than openings in six straight quarters — six quarters. According to the CFIB, 63 percent of small business owners would not recommend starting a business in B.C. today.

The Solicitor General likes to quote the crime severity index, but the reality is that 83 percent of businesses say they won’t consistently report crime to the police because they don’t believe it will accomplish anything. In Kelowna, the officer in charge of the RCMP says they can’t out-police bad policy.

When will this government take some accountability, restore public safety and stop our small business economy from bleeding out?

Hon. Terry Yung: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ve been to your fair city on numerous occasions, and we are working closely with the officer in charge in question and also on other policies in place that would directly impact direct enforcement that is applicable to what you are facing out there on the front line.

Progress is being made. Obviously, a lot of work has to be done, but I think we have to be driven by evidence. I do agree that small businesses are facing challenges. There is a gap that we are hoping to address.

Thank you very much for your question.

[11:05 a.m.]

Bryan Tepper: The minister references the crime severity index, but we’ve already heard the numbers from Surrey exploding between murders and extortions. The rise in crime ripping into businesses across this province is nowhere more evident than in Surrey. Surrey businesses have experienced a 72 percent increase in break and enters since last year. Recently I attended an opening of a business, and the first thing they did was hire private security.

The government is bleeding businesses dry by expanding the PST and including private security.

Why is the government expanding the tax to security services that businesses have been forced to hire because of this government’s failures?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I won’t spend time refuting the facts that the member shared, but I can share with the member that I’ve had the opportunity and my colleagues have had the opportunity to meet with Surrey business leaders. We were recently hosting one of our caucus meetings. We had an opportunity to bring different organizations together.

What I heard from them, and what we heard from them, is not the pessimistic perception that the member shared. What we heard was hope and optimism. They believe that the future for Surrey is bright. You know why? Because they’re seeing the investments. They’re seeing the investments in transportation expanding to the region. They’re seeing investments in a brand-new hospital. They’re seeing the investments in AI and quantum that’s helping create new small businesses in the tech sector.

Surrey has a promising future, and we are doing whatever we can to make sure investments go there so that we can see the opportunities not only for the community of Surrey but for the province overall as well.

Rosalyn Bird: You’re correct. They are seeing investments — investments in window bars, investments in video cameras, investments in security.

Mary, a business owner in my riding, has faced repeated break and entries and property damage. On one occasion, she had an unhoused woman break into the back door of her business and stuff dresses into garbage bags while she had customers in the store. Protecting her customers, she wrestled the woman out until police arrived and detained her. The woman had been arrested 39 times prior to this incident.

The next day she found the same woman trying to break down the back door with a brick. Once again, the police were called. This is just one story, one story that this business owner has shared with me.

When are business owners, like Mary, going to stop suffering from this government’s failed policies?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s always unfortunate when this type of incident happens, and it can happen in any community. I’ve shared with members in the past…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: …the story that my family, too, ran a restaurant here in Victoria. In fact, one of our guests here today knows, because we share that history together. We had incidents like that happen, and it’s not a good experience for anyone. I certainly know it was a stressful position for my family.

But the story these members tell of Surrey is not the facts. The story of Surrey is of hope.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. That’s enough.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: He’s talking about my neighbourhood. I know the area. Thank you very much for all the members from all other communities that are speaking up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, be quiet, please.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Surrey has so much promise — young, dynamic population. We’re going to continue to make investments in that community. We’re going to continue to expand education opportunities. We’re going to….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, come to order.

Let’s conclude the question period.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Feisty bunch today.

We’re going to continue….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come on, guys. Please. Just stop it.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members, are you going to come to order or not?

Please be quiet for a few more seconds.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: It’s unbelievable.

Please conclude.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Surrey has so much promise. We’re proud, on this side of the House, of the promise of Surrey. We have a young, dynamic population. We have growing businesses in our region — manufacturing, agritechnology, quantum computing, AI computing.

That is the story that we need to continue to tell not only people in British Columbia but across the country. We’re going to continue to make investments in that community.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the B.C. Human Rights Commission’s report Inquiry Into Detentions Under the Adult Guardianship Act, Progress update on recommendations 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 8.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I have the honour to table today the annual report on British Columbia’s poverty reduction strategy. This report describes actions taken across government and provides a comprehensive list of programs and services that contributed to reducing poverty in the 2024 calendar year as required by legislation.

The 2024 poverty reduction strategy annual report shows overall poverty in British Columbia is down 30 percent and child poverty is down more than one-third since the 2016 benchmark.

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and
Private Members’ Bills Committee

Amna Shah: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills on Bill M216, intituled Professional Reliance Act.

The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly not proceed further with this bill.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act.

Then in Section C, the Birch Room, committee stage on Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order, where we are contemplating Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act of 2026.

Donegal Wilson: I look forward to continuing. It’s always interesting when your speech gets split halfway, so I’ll do a little bit of a recap.

I do appreciate the minister’s shout-out last night on his social media, but it was a little disappointing that he didn’t actually know my position on the bill. I’m guessing he wasn’t actually watching the debate, which is interesting. For his benefit today, I will briefly recap what I covered yesterday.

Bill 14 makes several structural changes to how B.C. Timber Sales operates, including the introduction of contract logging authorizations that allow contractors to harvest Crown timber without holding ownership of that timber.

It expands the authority of the timber sales managers and the minister to impose licence conditions that may go beyond what is set out in statute, and it raised important questions about predictability and consistency for operators across the province.

It also broadens what expenditures can be made from the B.C. Timber Sales account, shifting the spending authority beyond activities directly tied to generating timber revenue and toward a wider range of operational planning — road construction, forest protection, administration and silviculture activities.

[11:15 a.m.]

While I believe there are opportunities within these changes to support wildfire mitigation, salvage operations and additional forest management work, I did raise that stakeholders in my region have also raised some concerns about uncertainty; compliance costs; and the potential for conditional creep, over time, of policies. These are some significant shifts in this bill and how timber is managed, and they do deserve careful consideration as we continue examining the implications.

I’ll continue on my speech from where I left off yesterday now. I definitely want to talk about the expanded use of planning tools. I have some questions that we’ll cover in committee around forest operations plans and the forest stewardship plans that are now going to be through B.C. Timber Sales.

I do believe that planning tools support coordination across landscapes. I actually believe industry would like decisions to be made at those planning tools levels, rather than block by block. I’ve heard that across industry.

I do believe those plans support stewardship objectives and support our environmental values, which are very important to me and all British Columbians. I think that they will deliver fibre, but it could cause further delay.

Across the Interior, mills are already facing supply shortages, contractors are already facing uncertainty, and I think workers are already facing and feeling that instability in our markets. When we add additional planning layers and uncertainty into the process, we have to ask whether it’s reasonable to replace existing ways we’re doing business.

The question I guess we’ll bring into committee is whether the B.C. Timber Sales are creating these from scratch, whether that’s going to be a delay in how we do business going forward or whether these exist today. I’m not as in touch with the actual forest processes on the ground, so I look forward to digging into that with the minister in committee. I think the industry can’t experience any more delays or any more planning processes.

I also believe that the concerns that were raised to me by industry about expanding the discretionary authority for the timber sale managers to impose licence conditions beyond what we’ve included in statute…. From their perspective, this could introduce some significant uncertainty. What does that look like region to region? It creates the potential for inconsistent application between districts. It creates uncertainty around what further discretionary authority will be applied. And it may increase compliance costs in ways that are difficult to anticipate.

I think that these are real concerns, and we need to not introduce any more uncertainty. We need to figure out a way to level that playing field and make processes predictable. So if the minister is able to articulate how this bill supports that, I’m looking forward to it.

I also want to acknowledge that this bill reflects government’s effort to respond to our changing forest conditions across the province. You can’t live in B.C. and not see that on the ground today. Wildfire impacts are increasing. We had our very first wildfire in the Similkameen Valley this past weekend at the Chopaka reserve. We were fortunate no homes were lost, but it’s dry already this year.

Pest damage also continues to affect timber supply, and I believe that communities across British Columbia are asking for stronger fuel management work near infrastructure and population centres.

I think that legislation that will help remove those barriers can play a really constructive role, and I support this bill if that’s where we get to.

In communities like mine, people understand the connection between the act of forest management and wildfire risk reduction. They understand that removing merchantable fibre near infrastructure can improve our safety outcomes and save our communities. I have many historical communities in my riding where the houses are very close together, and wildfire incurring into town can have direct consequences.

I support anything that’s salvage harvesting after a wildfire as well, if we can use that timber. We’ve lost it to fire. We should be doing everything we can to get that to the mill as soon as we can. You can go up the Ashnola Valley right now, into the Cathedral Park — dead standing timber from fire all up the valley, that was unharvestable for a number of reasons. But to this day, it seems like there’s a lot of fibre there that we could have salvaged, and it’s too late now.

[11:20 a.m.]

Where this legislation supports that work, I think it deserves support of everyone in this House.

I also believe that flexibility must be matched with clarity, expanded authority must be matched with accountability, and structural changes must be matched with implementation capacity. Without that alignment, legislation risks creating expectations that cannot be delivered on the ground.

From a rural perspective, the most important question remains a simple one. Will this bill help get fibre to mills faster? Will it support our workers in rural B.C.? Will it strengthen our forestry-dependent communities? Or will it introduce uncertainty into a system that is already under strain?

Government has framed Bill 14 as a modernization bill. I want to take a moment to talk about what modernization actually means. Modernization is not just simply the introduction of new authority or new statutes. Modernization is the responsible management of change. We need to do this responsibly because over the last number of years…. I heard this clearly both at COFI and again from the Truck Loggers Association, that this sector has already absorbed more than 50 policy and regulatory changes affecting how forests are planned, accessed, harvested and managed in this province — fifty.

At some point, modernization requires us to pause and ask a simple question. Are these changes working? Is the forestry sector strengthening? I can tell you that every measurement that I see says that what we’re doing is not working. Industry is asking us to pause; to take a breath; let them catch up, figure out what’s happening on the ground. With 50 changes already, I’m concerned that these new changes could add more regulatory burden to an already struggling industry.

Government has also framed this bill as a step toward better alignment of fibre, the right log to the right mill. I agree with that objective. It’s something that all the companies in my riding already do. They work together to make sure that PWP is getting our posts and rails and that the right size is going over to Kelowna, to Gorman. Now Gorman also owns in Princeton. That work happens on the ground today. Industry is doing it themselves.

It is an important objective. We don’t want to be taking house logs and turning them into chips. But right now that risk sits primarily with industry, the person who has put the bid in for the B.C. Timber Sales. That risk lies with them. If they’ve made the wrong bid or made the wrong choice or don’t have the places to sell them, that risk lies with them.

I believe this bill is looking for the province to step in and take some of that risk. It seems like they’re shifting towards log sort yards, that they’re going to take this timber and put it into log sort yards that are perhaps managed by the province.

Markets are volatile. I used to work at the local lumber yard in Keremeos, and my job was to update the plywood, OSB and lumber inventory as it came in every day. The market is so volatile that the business could lose significant money if you did not reflect the new cost of the new wood that hit the yard immediately when it hit the yard.

We know this is volatile, and the government is now going to step into that process. I’m not really understanding why, and I hope the minister is able to explain that in committee about why we feel that government retaining the timber and going into these log sort yards is going to help get the right log to the right mill.

My understanding from industry is that it’s been tried before, and it has failed. We have not been successfully able to run these sort yards. These logs end up rotting because they aren’t moving fast enough or they are not at a cost that actually benefits the small industry, which I think is what we’re trying to cater to in this particular bill.

I definitely support small industry and small bills. I support getting the right log to the right mill, but I think the industry does it better. I don’t know that we should be getting into that, and I’ll hear the reasons from the minister in committee.

I do know that if we keep going down this route of modernization without the checks…. When we’re not going back and looking at the checks and balances to see if the work we’re doing is achieving the objectives we’re trying to create, if we look at those 50 changes over a period of, I think, it’s five years…. I’m sure somebody will correct me on social media if I’m wrong, but I think it was five years.

[11:25 a.m.]

In that period, we’ve also seen that the actual cut that we’re doing is going down significantly. We’re definitely going in the wrong direction. And industry has indicated, in every way possible, to both this government and the opposition that they need help and they need it now. This is a time of crisis for them, and I am very concerned about the communities in my riding if we don’t get this right.

We need to make sure that if we expand again and do another modernization, there are some checks and balances to make sure these changes had the intended outcomes that we were trying to create. In communities like the ones I represent, we don’t need any more experiments. We want things that work, and we want to make sure if it’s not working that we correct course quickly.

They need fibre certainty. They need predictability. They need government to get out of the way. In some cases, there are so many different regulations that some of my mills have only weeks to get all the wood into the yard — due to hauling restrictions, road restrictions and cutting time restrictions. There are so many layers that are falling into the mill. The planning process alone has tripled in costs for these companies, just to get to the point where they can actually start logging.

I hope this legislation will make a practical difference.

I’m hoping, at committee stage, that we can get into exploring these changes in more detail. In particular, I believe it would be really important to clarify the intended role of expanded contract logging and what those authorities look like, the implications of removing revenue linkage expectations within B.C. Timber Sales and whether new planning requirements could affect fibre delivery times.

Will this make it so that we’re not making it actually slower for our mills? How will these changes be supported through operational resourcing? Can B.C. Timber Sales today actually do what is in this bill? What resourcing are we adding to make sure that this doesn’t become another good idea that we don’t actually have the people to put into place or the money to get done?

The success of legislation like this is not measured by how it reads on paper or how we talk about it in this chamber. It is measured by whether it works in practice, whether the bush in British Columbia…. Those forestry workers deserve that clarity from this House. Communities deserve that clarity from this House. And this House deserves the clarity as we consider these amendments going forward.

I look forward to committee stage.

I thank you for the time to speak today.

Lynne Block: This was a very interesting speech, because I did not know so much about the forestry sector. I’ve learned a great deal from doing all the research. I’m indebted to two people who are experts in this area. One was my colleague the Forestry critic, who spent his whole life in the forestry sector and knows it inside out.

The other person is a lovely gentleman named George in my constituency. He is in his 90s. I asked him because he has spent his whole life in the forestry sector, ground up — one of the heads of one of the forestry companies for years. He now lives in my riding. I’m indebted to his valuable advice. He read my speech. He read the bill. He gave me some sage advice, so I’ve included that, along with my fellow MLA the critic for Forestry as well. So I learned as much.

I’m hoping that the new Minister of Forestry does listen to some of the speeches in this debate, because I think that they would be helpful, moving forward. Everybody wants to be successful in their role.

I do rise today to speak on Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, legislation that claims to modernize forestry governance but, in truth, does not. It doubles down on bureaucracy and uncertainty at a time when our forestry sector desperately needs clarity, stewardship and long-term vision.

I want to come back to that theme — long-term vision.

[11:30 a.m.]

For generations, forestry was the undisputed engine of British Columbia’s economy. At its peak, in the early 2000s, forestry accounted for nearly 25 percent of the provincial GDP — boy, do we need that now — and sustained tens of thousands of jobs in every region of the province.

It was not simply an industry; it was part of our identity, our heritage and the backbone of rural communities in B.C.

Today forestry does remain vital, accounting for roughly 24 percent of B.C.’s exports and supporting approximately 40,000 direct jobs and hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs, yet it is also a sector in managed decline. Its relative contribution to our economy has diminished, consistent with decades of underinvestment, policy uncertainty and shifting mandates that have suppressed, rather than supported, stability and growth.

Now, to fully understand where we are today in this sector, we must look honestly to how we got there. Over the past two decades, British Columbia’s forestry sector has been shaped by two distinct policy eras, each with different intentions but neither of them delivering long-term stability.

Under the B.C. Liberals from 2001 to 2017, the focus was on maximizing output. High allowable annual cuts, aggressive mountain-pine-beetle salvage logging and a market-driven approach produced record harvest levels, strong rural employment and significant export revenues in the short term.

However, those gains came at a cost. Overharvesting in some regions and reliance on beetle-killed timber created a fibre supply cliff once that resource was exhausted. The result was a less resilient forest base and communities that became dependent on volumes that could not be sustained. In effect, policy expanded the peak but deepened the eventual decline.

Since 2017, the B.C. NDP has shifted direction toward conservation; reconciliation; and a transition to a higher-value, lower-volume forestry model. While these goals are important, they have been implemented during an already declining timber supply.

Old-growth deferrals, reduced harvest levels and expanded land protections have accelerated mill closures, reduced harvest output and introduced significant uncertainty for investment. While this government did not create the downturn, its policies have made this downturn and contraction more immediate and more visible, particularly in rural communities.

The reality is that neither approach established a stable, long-term framework for this sector. One prioritized short-term expansion without sufficient sustainability. The other, the NDP approach, is managing the decline with added constraints but without a clear transition plan.

Compounding this is a fundamental structural issue — the absence of long-range planning and the persistence of bureaucratic and administrative barriers that slow decision-making and undermine confidence. Why is that? Forestry operates on timelines measured in decades, yet policy continues to shift in very short cycles, creating instability across the entire value chain.

We must also recognize a critical operation reality. Every time a sawmill is shut down, we do not just lose lumber protection. We lose residual fibre, particularly wood chips, which are the primary feedstock for pulp mills. This creates a cascading effect across the sector, tightening fibre supply even further and placing additional pressure on pulp and paper operations that depend on that material.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, unbeknownst to me, I learned something on a wonderful field trip with Screen B.C., where they film one of When Calls the Heart. I haven’t watched that series, but I plan on doing so over the summer. What was very interesting was that on part of their acreage, they had planted acres of cottonwood to sell for toilet paper. Did I know that? No, I didn’t. However, they’ve had to pivot because that’s no longer viable.

The decline in the forestry sector has been significantly accelerated by recent policy shifts — specifically, old-growth deferrals, reduced harvest levels and expanded protected areas. Now, these changes have caused an immediate reduction in available timber, creating a structural supply shock layered on top of existing shortages. While some level of fibre shortage was inevitable due to historical over-harvesting and pine beetle damage, the NDP’s policies were introduced faster than this industry could adapt and without a transition plan to replace the lost fibre.

Bill 14, as currently written, does not reverse this trend. It further entrenches uncertainty and adds more layers of rigid new control, rather than addressing the root causes that have weakened our forests and the communities that depend on them. The NDP has introduced real constraints regarding land and regulation without ensuring that this sector can still function economically.

One of the most profound challenges facing our forests today is leadership, instability within the Ministry of Forests. In just under a decade, British Columbia has had at least three different Ministers of Forests, overseeing a sector where policy impacts unfold over decades, not fiscal quarters. Such frequent turnover disrupts continuity, weakens institutional memory and undermines the long-range planning essential for sustainable forest and resource management.

What compounds this problem is that none of these ministers brought deep, boots-on-the-ground forestry expertise to the job. We have seen ministers with backgrounds in power engineering, labour relations and political advising — all talented public servants, but none who are career foresters, silviculture specialists or forestry managers with lifelong experience in the technical and ecological realities of forest management.

The current minister may have the best of intentions, but he is essentially learning the ropes as he’s going and governing on one of the most complex economic portfolios in B.C. While his political and government operational experience is strong, he possesses no experience in the forestry industry or in actual logging and mill operations right now.

Furthermore, no matter how well-intentioned, no provincial policy can control the external global forces that dominate this sector, such as U.S. housing demand or global lumber prices. The minister may have the best of intentions, but he can’t control outside, external forces, and those impact us. This is not a trivial point — the difference between theoretical policy knowledge and practical, lived forestry experience.

Knowing how harvesting blocks are chosen, how regeneration cycles work, how markets respond to fibre supply, how wildfire behaviour interacts with forest age and fuel loads — lived forest experience is the difference between stability and dysfunction.

Unfortunately, the current leadership in B.C. timber supply and MDF, too often, feels disconnected from the very operational realities it claims to govern. That disconnect shows up in every single mill closure, every delayed timber supply permit and every rural community left behind.

[11:40 a.m.]

The impacts of this leadership vacuum and regulatory uncertainty are not abstract. They are felt deeply in the valleys and towns across British Columbia. In 100 Mile House, the permanent closure of the local mill resulted in the loss of 165 direct jobs and over 1,000 indirect jobs.

In Crofton, the closure of the pulp mill eliminated roughly 350 positions, stripping away not just paycheques but decades of local heritage, intergenerational careers and community resilience. I want to come back to that. This permanent closure resulted in $1 billion lost to the Vancouver Island economy.

These are not isolated statistics. They are facts. They are statistics. These are real families, empty streets, businesses closed and young people forced to leave their hometowns for a possible future elsewhere.

This NDP government did not cause the global market downturn. They didn’t, but their policies have undeniably deepened the short-term impact and reduced industry flexibility.

Permitting timelines, once a predictable rhythm of long-term planning, have become a bottleneck and a barrier. Industry now describes the permitting and regulatory process as a “slow, complex and costly ordeal,” where added layers of environmental review and consultation requirements prevent timber from being harvested in time. Planning costs, as an example, have tripled in the last five years — tripled in the last five years.

Permit submissions have declined dramatically, as industry participants struggle with a system that frequently fails to align annual allowable cut targets with actual timber supply. The result is a chronic fibre shortage that makes it economically impossible for mills to operate profitably or even to plan years in advance with confidence. Yet instead of addressing these core, structural issues in Bill 14, government has chosen, once again, to layer on complexity that only deepens the perception of unpredictability.

Furthermore, the movement towards shared decision-making and co-management under DRIPA has introduced uncertainty over final authority and project timelines. When investors face unclear rules and constant strategy shifts, they delay or cancel projects — as uncertainty alone can kill investment, even before regulations do.

What are the specific flaws of Bill 14? At the heart of Bill 14 is a fundamental problem. It adds new authorities and discretionary powers that go beyond what existing forest legislation already allows. Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 10 grant the minister and timber sales managers the authority to impose terms and conditions that are “tougher than the law” — standards that exceed provisions in existing acts, such as the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act.

This sounds technical, but its impact is clear. It gives bureaucrats unbounded regulatory discretion that, again, can shift from year to year, from region to region, with little transparency and no guarantee that stakeholders will know what rules they must meet until after the fact. For contractors and forestry operators trying to plan multi-year investments, this is the very definition of uncertainty.

The bill also introduces “contract logging authorizations,” a new mechanism that allows government to contract harvesting activity without allowing the harvester to own the timber. The sale and disposition of the timber will be handled by B.C. Timber Sales, a government-run entity — and this mystifies me — that is not required to operate for profit anymore.

[11:45 a.m.]

This shifts forestry away from market-driven efficiency and private capital investment and places more control in a publicly managed entity with vastly expanded discretion. I don’t understand that one at all.

Clause 8 of Bill 14 is perhaps the most concerning for taxpayers and industry alike. It expands the B.C. Timber Sales account to cover a wide range of costs from road construction and bridge maintenance to silviculture — well beyond the minimum requirements.

More concerning still, the bill includes a subsection that overrides the Financial Administration Act, effectively giving BCTS the authority to spend without the same financial safeguards that apply to other government agencies. No regular audits, no clear accountability and no benchmarked performance outcomes. Even me, who is very new to understanding this forestry sector, looks at that and is quite concerned about the costs.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I need to just interrupt you for a moment to hear from Surrey North.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would like to seek leave, Speaker.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would like to introduce a school from my riding named Khalsa Elementary School with a teacher named Nidhi Vats, 30 students and five adults.

Can I ask the House to please join me to welcome them.

Deputy Speaker: It is a large crowd of our youth up there.

Thank you for coming today.

Debate Continued

Lynne Block: Talking about money, we are in a huge deficit. We are in huge debt, yet there’s no accountability for this new group and no oversight.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

If they’re not going to have any profits, how are we going to pay for any of the bridges or the roads that they’re going to be building? I don’t understand that. That’s incomprehensible to me.

For me, every dollar spent must be subject to oversight. It must be. Every investment must demonstrate value, not simply be rubber-stamped because the ministry has the authority to spend it.

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

Lynne Block: I’m nearly finished. I’ve only got 1,400 more pages. No, just kidding.

The Speaker: Yeah. Noting the hour, you will continue the debate later.

Lynne Block: Pardon me?

The Speaker: You will continue the debate later. Just hold it.

Lynne Block: Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue at another time.

Lynne Block moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 15 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Steve Morissette: Section C reports progress on Bill 11 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, to order. We are on clause 3.

On clause 3 (continued).

Sheldon Clare: Good morning.

I do have a few more questions about clause 3 before we go on to other things. Does clause 3 rely on future regulations to establish how flexibility authorities are exercised?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We do have regulation-making powers, but they are not needed at this time.

[11:25 a.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Under what circumstances do you envision that they may be used at some future time?

If there are regulations, abilities there, there must be some vision that they could be required. Under what circumstances do you see them as possibly being required?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member. I believe that we are going to get into this under clause 8.

Sheldon Clare: Can the minister please clarify what additional flexibility authorities are actually being introduced in clause 3?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This clause doesn’t establish any new flexibility authorities, and it also doesn’t really relate to this clause. So again, we’re going to be talking about it in future, in clause 8.

Sheldon Clare: Any of these regulations that were mentioned that you’re not necessarily going to be using — will there be defined limits on the authorities in them?

The Chair: You’re going to need to rephrase your question. Again, that is….

Interjection.

The Chair: I’m the Chair, so I can tell you you’re going to need to rephrase your question.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the minister, will regulation define the criteria of which the reporting requirements will be exercised?

The Chair: No.

Sheldon Clare: Will future regulations define whether or not written reasons are required?

[11:30 a.m.]

The Chair: Thank you for your question, Member for Prince George–North Cariboo. However, the minister has been clear that issues with respect to regulation will be dealt with in clause 8, and your question needs to relate specifically to the clause that we’re on, which is clause 3. So if you don’t have any questions, I will ask committee to move forward on clause 3.

Please, go ahead.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What transitional risks does the minister envision during the development of the changes around clause 3?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I believe that this question will be better asked under clause 10.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response.

When we’re considering clause 3 and we’re thinking about flexibility authorities and projects around them, projects arising from them…. I’d like to postulate an example and get the minister’s take on this. How would the flexibility authorities introduced in clause 3 apply to a forestry access corridor project supporting fibre supply to regional mills?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: It wouldn’t have any impact on the example that you provided.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

I wonder. Could process expectations change after assessment has already started?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Again, I think that this question would be better suited under clause 10.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response.

While it’s useful to refer to subsequent sections with regards to the matters at hand on clause 3, I do think it’s important to be able to refer to the changes in clause 3 that would result in clause 10 or clause 8 or whichever other clauses being enacted at all. So I don’t think it’s a problem to refer to these parts or aspects of clause 3 with regards to getting a better understanding of clause 3 and why it’s necessary.

I have another question which I have a chance to get to as I’m talking about all of this. With regards to criteria being established around this clause, how would forestry operations be able to evaluate timeline certainty?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There are no criteria that are established under this clause.

The Chair: We’re on clause 3.

Recognizing the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ability to manage this session so thoroughly and effectively.

To the minister, has government assessed whether flexibility authorities could affect investment decisions tied to fibre access?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As stated previously, there are no flexibility authorities established under this clause.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Sheldon Clare: Why is participation in issue resolution protocols optional?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As we talked a lot about yesterday as well in this committee, this is just one of many tools that is used for consensus-seeking, and it’s up to the participating Indigenous nation if they choose to use it.

Sheldon Clare: There are many parties involved in this process, potentially. What happens if the chief executive assessment officer refuses to engage? Is there some sort of a means of dealing with that circumstance, should it arise?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There are no implications if the chief environmental assessment officer decides not to enter into this, as it’s just one tool that we use to seek consensus.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

On clause 7 (continued).

Claire Rattée: When we left off yesterday, we were talking about the process around the temporary evictions and restrictions. I’m just trying to still get a clear understanding on that process. With the immediate temporary evictions…. I know that that word has been used several times — “immediate.” I just really want to clarify and understand. Is it truly immediate? Is there any process that the landlord or the building manager has to actually go through to remove the tenant from the property, or is that truly immediate?

Again, similar to the questions that I was asking yesterday, what does that process look like? Is that a case-by-case basis of whether or not police may be called in; private security, if they have security at the building? I’m just wanting to understand that a little bit more clearly, please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. It will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the situations may vary widely. The process itself will be spelled out in regulation, and we will give operational guidance to providers on how to implement. We also continue to engage with the sector to hear their advice and to understand the best ways to operationalize.

Claire Rattée: What is the process during those temporary restrictions or evictions to be able to find alternative accommodations? Whose responsibility is that? Is there a responsibility to do that? Is this as simple as somebody can just be kicked back out onto the street, or is there a requirement for the operator to ensure that another location is organized?

I know there have been comments made about how it could be as simple as moving somebody from one unit into a different unit within the same building. But I think, realistically, that is highly unlikely, because if we had a whole bunch of supportive housing units available, we probably wouldn’t have as many people sleeping unhoused on the street.

I’m just trying to understand what that process is going to look like. Is that looking at a shelter? Is it just: “You’re on your own”? Is it organizing with a family member? I just want some clarity around that, please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Requirements related to providing alternative accommodation will be specified in regulation.

[11:25 a.m.]

The regulations may include an expectation that, in cases where a tenancy can be preserved, providers will be expected to make reasonable efforts to find alternative accommodations for a tenant who’s temporarily losing access to their unit. Many supportive housing providers already have processes for relocating tenants with their consent — sometimes to a shelter or to another supportive housing unit nearby.

There may be situations where the tenant creates a safety risk that is unmanageable for the supportive housing provider and it’s not possible or reasonable for the provider to relocate the tenant to another unit. In these situations, the tenant would be expected to find their own housing during the temporary restriction.

Claire Rattée: A lot of this is being left up to regulation. I’m new here, and I understand that, but it seems like a lot of stuff is being left up to regulation. That seems to be a consistent theme that I’ve noticed throughout the last year and a half of being here. Much of the legislation that’s brought forward…. A lot of the meat of it is left to be done in regulation.

I’m not necessarily saying that that’s…. I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s appropriate or not. But what I do know is it makes me uncomfortable when we’re discussing legislation and it’s all of our jobs here around this table to ensure that we’re doing the best job we can to make sure that it is good legislation that’s being passed. Things like this concern me — that there is not going to be any legislative oversight on how that’s implemented.

When the regulations are being formed for this specific piece of legislation, what I’d really like to understand is, is there going to be further consultation that’s done? Again, I really have concerns around the fact that law enforcement wasn’t consulted on this, fire departments weren’t consulted on this, front-line workers weren’t consulted.

I just want to understand more clearly this process of regulation. When do we anticipate these regulations to be ready, and how is this going to be rolled out to supportive housing providers? What does that process look like?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the question. It is not unusual, as we’re doing now, that legislation sets out the broad policy intent and then regulation specifies details.

Supportive housing is a rapidly evolving model of housing with diverse tenant populations in many cases. Supportive housing providers are serving clients with more complex needs and greater vulnerability than ever before.

Putting detailed provisions in the RTA would limit government’s ability to respond alongside providers to the changing needs and emerging risks, and that’s why the legislation sets out the broad policy intent.

[11:30 a.m.]

The regulation is where we specify details to be able to be flexible and responsive alongside the sector. Regulations can be amended more quickly than legislation. Regulation-making authority allows for more flexibility and responsiveness to changing needs, and it allows government to adapt to new challenges and tailor approaches based on ongoing engagement and operational realities.

We continue, as I said, to engage with the sector, with supportive housing providers, with front-line workers as well as with the law enforcement working group.

Claire Rattée: One of the things that the minister said was that this is supposed to provide the broad policy intent. I think that’s where I’m getting concerned. I feel like the intent hasn’t been as clear as I would like it to be in some of this legislation. I think that’s evidenced by the fact that we have spent so much time on this one clause, because I think there are a lot of things that aren’t clear here and don’t provide that intent.

What concerns me about this is that when we don’t have some of these things clearly laid out here in the legislation…. This is a housing model that’s rapidly evolving, but there are a lot of issues with it as well. It’s fraught with issues right now, and we know that. So I would prefer to have things be as focused and clear as possible. But I would like some clarification from the minister just on the comments around a working group with law enforcement.

My question, specifically, is: will they be consulted in regards to these regulations being drafted, and again, when do we anticipate that the regulations will be drafted and ready? What does that process look like for rolling it out to the supportive housing providers? How does the ministry ensure that they’re all brought up to date and that they clearly understand the new regulations?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I will respond first by saying I think the policy intent is clear in the legislation. The changes provided will focus 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 forced to remain in unsafe situations with an elevated risk of injury, incident or harm. These tools also include providing a clear pathway to eviction when a tenant possesses a weapon as well as allowing for evictions when a tenant disrupts or harms workers or guests.

[11:35 a.m.]

These new tools aim to support housing providers to balance protecting staff and resident safety with preventing evictions where appropriate. That is the clear policy intent in the legislation. The details of how will be in regulation.

To get to the second question in that question, the law enforcement working group will be consulted on the regulations. In the public announcement of this bill, the Victoria police department chief constable, Fiona Wilson, spoke publicly in support in the release, saying that clearer tools for housing operators can help address risks earlier and de-escalate situations before police intervention is required.

Then to the third part of the question, on timeline, it’s intended that the amendments to the existing eviction provisions to protect workers and guests and to clarify the jurisdiction of the RTA to assisted living will come into force upon royal assent. The other provisions require regulations to operationalize the changes, so those provisions — beginning with regulations related to weapons and temporary restriction of tenant access, policy development and stakeholder engagement for regulatory amendments — are underway.

If these amendments pass and the regulations are approved, the ministry will continue to engage the supportive housing working group and other partners on finalizing the implementation timeline.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for that. I think my concern — when I say that I don’t understand the broad policy intent here, though — is there is the component around weapons, which we haven’t even gotten into yet. I understand that there’s that component, but then there seems to be this kind of separate not-component about de-escalating an unsafe situation.

What I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around is whether or not there is some other purpose or application of this that I’m not clearly understanding. In my mind, it shouldn’t matter if it’s supportive housing, normal housing, any situation. If somebody has a weapon, if somebody is behaving in an unsafe manner, if somebody is threatening somebody, there should already be the ability to de-escalate that situation. There should already be the ability to remove somebody from the property.

As far as the temporary eviction process goes of just telling them they’re not allowed in here, in my mind, that’s something that should already exist and, I believe, does. Now, I understand that this is coming forward as a result of consultation with the supportive housing providers. I’m not saying that I think that it’s invalid that they are concerned about this. I just feel as though…. Was this really the right route to get us there, in the sense that there should already be the ability to achieve that?

Is this more so an issue of law enforcement not having the capacity? I’m trying to really understand that better, because it just isn’t quite making sense to me. If somebody is behaving in a way that poses an immediate threat to health or safety, shouldn’t that already exist — a mechanism by which somebody can be removed?

What I’ve understood over the last couple days of going through this legislation is that this is an immediate ability to remove someone from a situation and de-escalate it. But if you want to evict them, you still have to make an application to the RTB. There is still a process involved. None of that is immediate. To me, this feels like it’s exactly how it already stands.

Whether or not that’s just making sure it’s been crystallized in here because…. Maybe the minister can provide more clarity to me on this. Maybe tenants have taken this to the RTB in the past when they’ve been temporarily evicted and won, and we’re trying to clarify that. If that’s the case, then great. I understand that. I just don’t understand why it would be that somebody couldn’t be removed from a situation if they’re posing an immediate threat or risk to health or safety.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The only mechanism right now for immediate removal is engaging with law enforcement and arrest. There isn’t currently another process. A significant concern that we heard from providers in engagement in the early steps on this was that the individual remained on site.

Currently under the RTA, a landlord can end a tenancy if a tenant or a person permitted on the property by a tenant has significantly interfered with or unreasonably disrupted or seriously jeopardized the health or safety of the landlord or another occupant of the property.

In most cases, a landlord will need to give a one-month notice to end a tenancy. An application to end a tenancy early through an expedited hearing is available only for the most urgent situations, with likely significant consequences to health, safety or property if the issue is not resolved as quickly as possible.

The changes being proposed are targeted toward supportive housing in recognition that it is both a home and also a workplace, and we have a responsibility on both of those fronts.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.