Contents

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Isabel Hogg
and Susan “Beth” Bennett

Scott McInnis: It’s with sadness that I express the loss of two very important constituents in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

First of all, Mrs. Isabel Hogg passed away at the age of 94 just a few days ago. Isabel was a neighbour of mine, two doors up. She is survived by her husband, George, who is a famous painter of Indigenous artwork in the East Kootenay and western Alberta. In October, they’d celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary.

I’m just at a loss with Isabel. I’ve known her since I moved to Kimberley in 2010. It’s just very sad knowing that George survived Isabel. I know they’re very faithful and that she’s in a very happy place now.

I have to tell a quick story. During COVID, our street was helping the Hoggs get groceries so that they could stay comfortably at home. I received a beautiful handwritten grocery list one day. It was the cutest thing. There were two apples, six slices of bologna and some other items. But George and Isabel — I’ll never forget this — each had their own flavour of ice cream I had to get. George liked chocolate sauce, and Isabel liked butterscotch. So it was just a very cool memory that I’ll always have.

The second is the passing of Beth Bennett, a constituent of mine, on a beautiful Easter Sunday at the age of 69, surrounded by her friends and family. Beth was just a wonderful woman. Anybody who has had the opportunity to meet her knows just how wonderful and kind and loyal and loving she was.

Beth is survived by her husband, Bill, who is known very well in the House here. He served as the member for Kootenay East for 16 years, as well as a cabinet minister — Bill Bennett. It’s a very sad loss not only for the Bennett family but for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

My heart and prayers and thoughts are with both Isabel’s family as well as the Bennetts at this time.

Joel Connelly

Hon. Adrian Dix: In this moment of our tributes in our Legislature, I wanted to pay tribute to a significant figure who passed away this week in Washington state. The person’s name is Joel Connelly.

Mr. Connelly was a very significant journalist in Washington state. He wrote for the Seattle P-I for something like 50 years. He was the leading voice — he was the voice, really — of political analysis in Washington state. Many of us who follow both Washington state and U.S. politics and who are interested in Washington state and U.S. politics would have learned a lot of what we knew about Washington state and U.S. politics from Joel Connelly.

[1:05 p.m.]

Interestingly, Mr. Connelly had an extraordinary relationship with Canada. He started working at the Seattle P-I in early 1970, and one of his first stories — his mother was a journalist; it was in his blood — was to come to Victoria. One of his first major front-page stories involved former Premier Dave Barrett.

Mr. Connelly came here to British Columbia from Washington state, on behalf of the Seattle P-I, because Premier Barrett wanted to take action and was demanding that the National Energy Board take action on the price of the export of natural gas, which was then a Crown corporation in B.C. Mr. Barrett was using the 1974 energy crisis — these things repeat themselves — to pressure the National Energy Board to hike the price of natural gas south of the border.

British Columbia was a very important source of natural gas for Washington state, and the two very powerful U.S. senators from Washington state — Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Warren Magnuson at the time, Democrats from Washington state — demanded that the Canadian government intervene to stop the Premier of B.C. So Mr. Connelly came up as a young journalist and was invited into the Premier’s office to hear the Premier’s response in Victoria.

This is from Mr. Connelly’s words, in his obituary to Dave Barrett: “Over in Victoria, Barrett fumed to a visiting Yank reporter that any red-blooded American worker would want his Canadian counterpart to be paid the going rate for gas. The Premier got carried away and offered an on-the-record response to Maggie and Scoop. Dave Barrett delivered a Bronx cheer and raised the middle finger of both hands.”

Back at the newspaper — you can imagine a 23-year-old reporter coming home and getting this story to the newspaper, and they were obviously looking at his notes — Mr. Connelly explained what was happening, and the newspaper characterized Mr. Barrett’s statement as “a gesture of defiance.” In any event, Dave Barrett, who had, as a paper-boy, delivered the Seattle P-I — many know he went to Seattle University — had shared that in common with Mr. Connelly. Mr. Connelly wrote a beautiful obituary of Dave Barrett.

Often in our lives and Canadians’ lives, we think we don’t have the attention of the United States, and we pay a lot of attention to the United States. When I grew up, the majority of the channels on cable TV were American channels — ABC, KOMO news. We knew the American reporters on all the different local affiliates — KOMO, KING, KIRO and, of course, KCTS.

Joel Connelly paid attention to Canada. From his first articles, he wrote articles about Canada, and he informed Washington state residents about Canada. He loved Canada. He travelled in Canada. When the COVID-19 pandemic ended, he wrote a beautiful column about ten places to visit in B.C. and encouraged Americans, once the border was reopened, to come here. He really cared about this place.

He influenced it as well. He led an American campaign to get Victoria to treat its sewage, which was a controversial issue for a long time in this town and had a huge impact. People will remember Mr. Floatie, I think.

Joel Connelly had a lot of influence, but he was also an admirer and a lover of Canada. His last column was about the election of Avi Lewis as leader of the NDP. He wrote beautifully about it, covered B.C. politics, brought B.C. people, towns, communities and parks to Washington state people.

I think it’s important to remember, in a time when relationships between Canada and the United States are so difficult, that the ties binding those of us who live in British Columbia and those who live in Washington state are profound. They’re ties of people, not just fans of the Seahawks but people of communities.

Joel Connelly, who was born in Bellingham and wrote about British Columbia and, of course, Washington and United States politics for 50 years, had a profound influence. He was a great contributor to American democracy and, in his own way, a great contributor to our own.

I had the honour to know him and to admire his work, and I wish on behalf of the Legislature to pay our best to his family.

[1:10 p.m.]

Lynne Block: I would appreciate finishing my speech on forestry.

The Speaker: No, hold it. We’re not there yet.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I call second reading on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

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

In the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: All right, recognizing the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m always reminded to stand up. If nobody’s standing, stand up quickly. So I’m standing up again. But thank you for your leniency.

I just would like to finish up on speaking to Bill 14 — just a few little points.

First of all, we cannot talk seriously about this Bill 14 without confronting the reality of our wildfire crisis. In just eight years, British Columbia has experienced five catastrophic fire seasons. Experts featured in documentaries point out that decades of fire suppression without active fuel management have left our forests unnaturally dense and laden with combustible fuel. Fire suppression without prescribed burning or thinning has permitted surface fuels and ladder fuels to accumulate, setting the stage for unprecedented fire behaviour.

I was hoping that this Bill 14 would address this issue more emphatically, especially because it costs millions of dollars for these wildfires and impacts water, impacts communities. It’s unnecessary. So I was hoping that this current model that we have right now — which I believe is more reactive, where we wait for fires to start and then we throw every resource at fighting them — would have more of a proactive approach in this bill.

We know that fire science, prevention and preparedness through active fuel management, landscape-level thinning and strategic prescribed burns work. Hopefully, that will happen in the future.

But right now, Bill 14 places far more emphasis on administrative control rather than on embracing science-based, preventative measures being used in other jurisdictions, like California or any other place in North America, to build forest resiliency. I think this is really an important part of this bill. We want forest resiliency — also economic resiliency. So I believe that’s an important omission.

We cannot continue to behave as though wildfire risk is simply a natural disaster that we must endure. It is as much a policy outcome as a natural phenomenon. We have the tools to change it if we make the right choices. So I’m hoping that subsequent amendments for this bill will address this issue.

After pointing out some of the issues I find with this bill and explaining why they are perhaps detrimental, like always, I like to finish on a positive note. So I respectfully add that this government could have some inclusions or some recommendations for future amendments.

In order to rebuild this — what I call — renewable industry and protect our forests, this government could take a very different path, and it’s a path grounded in expertise, accountability and long-term vision; a path which would not only benefit this bill but, ultimately, the forestry sector.

One of the issues that I think is really important…. We need to streamline the permitting process and remove the “tougher than the law” discretionary mandates that encourage confusion rather than compliance. Now, this would help this government to provide a climate for the forestry industry where there are stable rules, not shifting regulatory goal posts.

[1:15 p.m.]

Another suggestion is: enhance this bill by ensuring that we address the systematic supply issues that are forcing mill closures, align permitting processes with allowable cut targets and ensure fibre flows predictably to the market.

Another suggestion. In this bill, shift policy emphasis from reactive suppression to proactive, science-based fuel management, including thinning; prescribed burns; and other strategies that reduce wildfire intensity and protect communities, watersheds and ecosystems.

This is an important part of this bill — embed financial transparency. Ensure that in this bill, every dollar spent by B.C. Timber Sales is fully accountable to taxpayers, subject to regular audits and performance evaluation.

Forestry is a renewable resource and should be a point of pride for B.C. It should be a source of stable employment for rural communities, global export strength and ecological resilience. It should be. But right now, Bill 14 treats our forests as if they were a sector to be micromanaged, regulated into compliance and administered from a distant office, rather than nurtured, understood and stewarded with both scientific integrity and economic realism.

The reality is that while this sector faces global challenges, the declines are happening under this government, and their specific policies have made them worse. This bill needs, because of that, specific amendments in committee stage.

We cannot afford more turnover, more uncertainty or more mill closures. We cannot afford to ignore expertise in favour of bureaucracy. It is time for this government to stop adding complexity and start working with the industry and committing to policies that recognize that a healthy, managed forest is our best defence against both economic decline and the threat of wildfire.

I am looking forward to the committee stage of this bill. That will ensure that critical amendments to this bill will be successful and thus, moving forward, the forestry sector will become more robust and more successful in itself.

Jordan Kealy: I rise today on behalf of the hard-working families, loggers, truckers and millworkers of Peace River North to speak on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

I’m not here to play political games or score points. I’m here because of my riding, Peace River North, that is being hit hard by years of NDP mismanagement of our resource sector. This bill is just one more of the same, tinkering around the edges while our communities bleed jobs and opportunities.

As a farmer and millwright, I live and breathe the realities of northern British Columbia every single day. I know what it means when the mills go quiet, when the logging contractors have to park their equipment and when families have to consider leaving because work is scarce.

I am one of the few MLAs that have worked in mills, and there is a good chance that I would have been one of the ones out of a job, too, if I was still working in that sector. In Fort Nelson, we lost mills. The pulp mill that I worked for in Taylor closed. The sawmill in Fort St. John just previously, last year, closed. Thousands of jobs lost.

Let’s be clear about what this bill actually does. The NDP government wants to expand the role of B.C. Timber Sales, their own government-run timber sales program. They’re creating new contract logging authorizations so that the province can directly hire contractors to cut down timber without giving anyone real tenure.

They’re letting the minister implement stricter-than-normal terms and conditions. They’re broadening the BCTS stewardship role and giving themselves more flexibility to spend money from the timber sales account. They’re calling it a win for fibre supply, wildfire risk reduction and First Nations partnerships.

[1:20 p.m.]

If this was the bold action our industry needed after 31 mills closed in the last five years, I’d be the first one cheering. But it isn’t. This is the classic NDP progression — more government control, more red tape, more uncertainty, dressed up as progress.

For the people I represent in the Peace, it falls horribly short. In Peace River North, our region depends on forestry as a foundational industry. The combined timber supply area for the Peace has an allowable annual cut of around 4.7 million cubic metres, but we’ve watched the Canfor sawmill in Fort St. John shut down, costing over 220 direct jobs and thousands more in the supply chains.

Truckers, fallers, equipment operators and small contractors in Taylor, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Hudson’s Hope and up the Alaska Highway are the backbone of our economy. When fibre doesn’t reach the mills, those families feel it first. Yet this bill does not fix the real problems choking our sector — chronically low harvest levels, endless permitting delays, old-growth deferrals that lock up viable timber and investment chill created by this government’s own policies.

Bill 14 entrenches more bureaucratic oversight through BCTS. Why should the government be getting bigger in the logging business when private operators and tenure holders are the ones who actually know how to run a sustainable, private, profitable operation?

Northern operators already face sky-high transportation costs, harsh winters and thin margins. Adding stricter terms and conditions that go beyond existing laws — whether it’s extra environmental standards, more consultation requirements or compliance with outside standard bodies — only drives up costs and drives away investment. That’s not helping wildfire risk reduction. That’s layering on more red tape that makes it harder to get work done.

Let’s talk about what this bill conveniently ignores. It says nothing about keeping logs in British Columbia for local processing. While our mills starve, raw logs still head offshore. It does nothing to meaningfully raise the provincial harvest target or slash the regulatory burden that has addled so much of our industry. Worst of all, it does nothing to address the elephant in the room, the uncertainty created by the NDP’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, also known as DRIPA.

I know this file well. Last year I stood in this House, and I introduced my own private member’s bill to repeal and reset DRIPA, because this government has turned what it was supposed to be — a path to unity — into a tool for division and delay.

In Treaty 8 territory, right in my riding, cumulative effects of rulings, overlapping consultations and unclear jurisdictions have created a veto-like chill on resource projects. Bill 14 talks about partnerships with First Nations, but without clear rules, faster timelines and respect for existing treaties, those partnerships become just more process, more lawyers and more uncertainties for contractors and workers on the ground.

The people of Peace River North want fair, transparent relationships built on respect, not endless red tape that shuts down various projects that create shared prosperity.

This bill also quietly expands ministerial powers over fees and spending from the BCTS account. British Columbians want accountability, not blank cheques for more government programs. Taxpayers and industries alike deserve to know exactly where the money is going and whether it is actually creating jobs or just growing the bureaucracy in Victoria.

The NDP love to talk about sustainable forestry and climate leadership, but the results in northern British Columbia tell me a different story. Investment and confidence is in the toilet. Mills are closing. Young people are leaving, and families who have worked in the bush for generations are wondering if there is a future here at all.

[1:25 p.m.]

I attended the COFI forestry conference recently. The room was packed with people desperate for solutions, real solutions, not more government-managed salvage programs while the core allowable cut stays suppressed and the rule book keeps growing.

What Peace River North needs, what all British Columbians need is a government that trusts the private sector, cuts the red tape, raises sustainable harvest levels where science supports it, prioritizes local processing and provides regulatory certainty instead of ideological experiments.

We need to repeal DRIPA and replace it with legislation that actually works for all British Columbians. We need faster approvals, not more ministerial discretion, and we need to stop treating our resource workers like they’re the problem and start treating them like the solution that they are.

Bill 14 is not the real answer. It is a modest administrative tweak that entrenches more government involvement without delivering the fibre, the jobs or the confidence of our industry that northern communities desperately need. The loggers, the truck drivers, the mill families in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and across the Peace deserve better than another half-measure from a government that has already decimated this sector.

Let’s stop tinkering, and let’s start the real work of restoring forestry as the economic backbone of this province and think about a future of forestry where instead of just looking at it as forestry management, we can actually look at it as farming our forests. It really is the only sustainable resource we have.

Farmers, on a regular basis, harvest crops annually in my region. We do it sustainably. We do it respectfully of the environment, and we do it very efficiently. We can do the same with our forests. It’s just a longer turnover for the crop.

I look forward to seeing what this bill brings in the committee stage. I want to thank the Forests Minister for coming up to my riding and being able to meet with me to discuss some of the concerns about this.

I went to school to become a millwright. I hear the government praise how they’re promoting apprenticeships. It took me a while to get my apprenticeship ticket to be able to work in these mills, and they’re disappearing. I took the time to get a second trades ticket to make myself more valuable, and it would make it even harder now to get into some of these mills, because so many tradespeople are having to go to other provinces to be able to find jobs.

Darlene Rotchford: Good afternoon. It’s a privilege to rise in this House in strong support of Bill 14, the B.C. Timber Sales legislative amendments.

I’d like to thank the minister for bringing this forward and being a champion for this sector.

For many of you who may not know, I’m actually not originally from British Columbia. I’ve said in this House that I’m from a very small town in Nova Scotia, which was a mill town. We’re an industry-based town. I’ve seen firsthand how a mill closing of 650 people overnight can actually affect your community, how an industry that dies can affect your community.

For those who don’t know, that’s also where the Westray mine disaster happened. So I take industry and all that comes with it very seriously when we’re talking about community, jobs and what we’re doing within them.

At its core, this legislation is about people. It is about men and women, people, working in the bush, often in challenging conditions, who rely on the steady opportunities to support their families. It is about the workers on mill floors who depend on a consistent, predictable supply of fibre. And it’s about the communities across British Columbia whose economies are built on forestry and whose futures depend on us getting it right.

For anyone who has ever taken a tour of the Legislature and you go up in the rotunda and you look, one of the key people standing there is in forestry, because we were built on the forestry industry here in British Columbia. Bill 14 recognizes that reality. It responds with practical, meaningful action.

[1:30 p.m.]

But one of the most important aspects of this legislation is that it expands timber sales options in a way that directly supports good-paying jobs, something I think we can all agree on in this House. By creating a wider range of contract opportunities through B.C. Timber Sales, we are opening the door for more contractors, including small and medium-sized operators, to participate in this sector.

These are not abstract policy changes. They are real opportunities for people to bid on work, to grow their business, to invest their equipment and to hire and train workers. For many contractors who do not hold long-term tenures and rely on access to fibre through the open market, these changes represent a significant and long-overdue improvement. They mean better access to market-priced fibre. They mean great participation in the forestry economy. They mean more stability in an industry that has experienced too much uncertainty over the years.

We’ve heard clearly from stakeholders across the sector that access to fibre is one of the most pressing challenges they face. Without reliable access, mills cannot operate at capacity. Without capacity, jobs are at risk. Without jobs, communities suffer.

Bill 14 addresses this challenging but improving fibre flow across the province. By expanding the types of timber sale licences available and increasing the flexibility of B.C. Timber Sales, we are ensuring that the right log gets the right mill at the right time.

This is particularly important for value-added manufacturers, who often depend on specific types of fibre and have historically faced barriers to accessing it. In fact, these changes are expected to significantly increase the amount of fibre available to the sector. This includes not only the overall increase in supply that has already been discussed but also targeted improvements that will help ensure that fibre is distributed more efficiently and equitably.

Another key component of this legislation is the focus on salvage logging and the recovery of damaged timber. In recent years, British Columbia has experienced devastating wildfires and other natural disasters that have left significant volumes of timber damaged but still usable.

Without timely action, that fibre is lost, representing both an economic loss and a missed opportunity to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health. Bill 14 addresses this by streamlining access to salvage opportunities, something people have been asking for.

These new approaches will allow for faster recovery of damaged timber, increasing the amount of usable fibre that can be brought forward to market. They will support mills, particularly in the pulp sector, that rely on that type of material. They will create additional work for contractors who are ready and able to take on these projects.

Importantly, this work also contributes to building a more wildfire-resilient landscape, something I think we can also all agree on. By removing damaged and high-risk material, we are taking proactive steps to reduce future fire risk and protect communities.

This legislation is also about strengthening long-term forest outcomes. For too long, aspects of our system have been focused primarily on short-term harvest cycles. While that approach has delivered benefits in the past, it is not sufficient to meet the challenges we face today. Bill 14 supports a shift toward full-rotation forest management. This means looking at the entire life cycle of a forest, from initial harvest through replanting and ongoing stewardship, all the way to future harvest.

By empowering B.C. Timber Sales to play a strong role across that full cycle, we are improving our ability to plan for the long term. We are shaping future forests for resilience, for health and for high-quality timber. We are providing greater certainty for workers, for communities and for investors who are dependent on a stable, predictable supply of fibre. This long-term approach also reinforces B.C.’s position as a global leader in sustainable forestry practices.

I also want to highlight the importance of partnership in this Legislature. We know that the future of forestry in B.C. must be built on collaboration. This includes collaboration with First Nations, with our local communities, with industry and with workers.

Bill 14 enables more flexible and meaningful partnerships by giving B.C. Timber Sales the tools it needs to work differently than in the past. It allows for approaches that are tailored to our local priorities and that support shared stewardship outcomes.

[1:35 p.m.]

We’ve already seen encouraging results in this direction. The comments before me about repealing UNDRIP and prioritizing different things…. I want to remember that it’s about partnerships with First Nations, having helped bring additional fibre to the market, while supporting capacity-building and economic participation. Because again, it’s about collaboration and working together. These are the kinds of outcomes we need to continue to build on.

The support for these changes extends across the forestry sector, industry associations, labour organizations. As someone who has represented many labour organizations in my time, including being the president of Victoria Labour Council and representing the Island and the Sunshine Coast in the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Pacific region for the Canadian Labour Congress, it’s an area I’m very familiar with.

Representatives of value-added manufacturers have all recognized the importance of improving fibre access and creating more flexible opportunities with B.C. Timber Sales. They’ve spoken about the need for stability so that contractors can invest in their workforce and modernize their equipment. They’ve emphasized the importance of ensuring that mills have access to cost-effective logs so they can continue to operate and support families, support jobs — good jobs, good jobs in our community, good jobs in the province. They’ve highlighted the role that increased fibre availability plays in strengthening the communities across our province.

This broad support reflects a shared understanding that we need to act. Bill 14 is a meaningful step in the right direction.

It’s also worth noting that the changes we are advancing today build on real, measurable progress. We’ve already seen an increase in timber sale volumes, improved access to fibre for value-added manufacturers and expanded stewardship activities here on the ground.

We’ve seen innovative approaches, including the use of new technologies to support forestry professionals and improve outcomes. These early results demonstrate that when we give B.C. Timber Sales the tools they need, they can deliver.

Bill 14 takes that momentum and builds on it. It strengthens B.C. Timber Sales as a more flexible and responsible supplier of fibre, including those without traditional tender, and it ensures that we continue to balance economic opportunities with strong environmental stewardship and public interest outcomes. Because again, we all need to work together as we work together to ensure that British Columbians have everything they’re going to need.

Forestry is not just an industry in B.C. It is a cornerstone of our economy and a foundation of many of our communities, especially in our rural areas. The decisions we make in this House have real consequences for people who depend on it.

We have heard of those communities who are struggling, mills closing across the province — in the North and here on the Island. Bill 14 is protecting those communities. It’s about supporting those workers. It’s about making sure that little kid has got what they need to play baseball, that that parent has enough money to afford groceries, that they can afford their mortgages and they can afford everything they’re going to need to live a good life in their community so they can stay here in British Columbia.

I don’t want to have to look at someone who did what I had to do and left their home province. I want to ensure whatever we do gets to keep those people here. It’s important.

We’re ensuring that our forests continue to provide economic, environmental and social benefits for many generations to come — for me, for my daughters, for their kids and for generations after. We’re building a forestry sector that is more resilient, more inclusive and more sustainable. We’re doing so in a way that reflects the values of British Columbians.

We cannot control global markets. We cannot control the policy of other countries or stupid people in different levels of government. But we can take action here at home to strengthen our own system, support our own workers, our own government and to make the most of the resources we do have.

Bill 14 does exactly that. It improves access to fibre, supporting good jobs. You will never not hear me stand up here in this House and talk about good-paying jobs for British Columbians, because it’s at the heart of who I am. It’s not just about my community. It’s about making sure that there are good-paying jobs, again, for generations and generations to come. It enhances stewardship. It sets the stage for a more stable, prosperous future for British Columbia — something, again, that I think all sides of the House can agree on.

[1:40 p.m.]

For all of those reasons, I am proud to stand here in support of this legislation.

I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about some of those unions who are also fighting the good fight, who unfortunately have lost their jobs. We need to get a path back for them — our Steelworkers, our Unifor members, people who’ve stood the test of time, long-standing union activists. I stand up here quite regularly and talk about those workers.

I was on a labour council that was established in 1887. Guess what one of the first unions was — forestry workers. It talks about them and the work they did. They helped build this province and, again, the very building we’re in. We could not do it without them today, then and in the future.

I encourage all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill 14 and supporting workers, communities, families, the forests themselves that it will benefit — not just today but for future generations, for those of my kids and for their little friends and perhaps whoever they marry, because hopefully, they will stay in B.C. Hopefully, you’re watching this one day, and you choose to stay here.

Again, I’d like to thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. I think this bill is helping us move in the right direction to continue all the things I have stated before.

John Rustad: Happy to get up and speak to Bill 14. I appreciate the applause, especially from my longtime friends from the other side of the House. It’s a pleasure to get up and share a few words.

Bill 14 is another version of forest legislation coming forward from this province with lots of promise, as the member previous just said. You know, it’s going to be sustainable forest management. It’s going to create jobs. It’s going to have fibre flow. It’s going to do all these wonderful things for our forest sector.

It has been a decade of hearing these from the NDP, and I just want to go a little bit down memory lane. Way back then, they used to talk about secondary manufacturing. Imagine that. How did those results turn out? Well, we’ve seen secondary manufacturing plummet after policy and policy came forward from this government.

Then they said: “Oh, it’s all about value-added. We’re going to make sure we add value to the logs.” Well, you’ve got to actually log to actually add value, and the logging is cut in half. There has been no value-added. All we’ve seen are jobs lost and mills closed.

They promised they were going to get rid of log exports. Well, how has that worked out? Yeah, they have stopped some log exports simply because they haven’t made any wood available, but it certainly hasn’t declined the amount of wood that’s actually being exported from this project.

Then there was the promise of more jobs per cubic metre. We’ve got to be getting our true value and generating all those jobs. Well, how did that turn out? Clearly, we’ve seen a massive loss of jobs in the forest sector.

We have seen policy after policy come forward from this government with no measurable results, only negative results, to the place today where our chief forester says we should be logging 62 million cubic metres. That’s what is sustainable in the forest today — 62 million cubic metres. Yet in this budget that this government has brought forward, they’re estimating that they’re going to cut 29 million.

I actually think they’re being optimistic. I don’t even think they’re going to get to that — less than half of what is allowed to be cut sustainably, properly, under world standards in this province — because of policies like this one that have been brought forward. Policy after policy has driven up prices and killed our forest sector in British Columbia.

We’ve seen….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a moment.

Misty Van Popta: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta: In the chamber today, or up in the gallery just seated now, are friends of mine from Langley Christian School. They’re one of three groups here that’s coming through. The first classes are from Ms. Hogg and Ms. Wessner, and they are here as grade 5. My kids were also members of Langley Christian School, a good school focused on quality education.

I wanted to also recognize all the parent chaperones up there as well — an old colleague of mine, Matthew Groot, and a really good friend of mine, Dorothy Boessenkool — also in the House today.

Will you please make them feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

John Rustad: Great to see students here learning about our democracy in British Columbia, how the process works.

I was talking about all the job losses and the structure that we’re seeing here in British Columbia. Imagine this. B.C. Timber Sales was set up to make available about 20 percent of the fibre in British Columbia so that we could have a proper market pricing system. It worked for a while, but over the last ten years, what has happened?

In my area of Nechako Lakes, which I’m honoured to have the chance to get up and speak on behalf of, there was a period of three years where there was zero volume put out by B.C. Timber Sales — zero. They’ve got more than 20 percent of the volume and it’s just gone, not even being put out for bid in the market.

B.C. Timber Sales has consistently undercut. They’ve consistently not met their targets of fibre that’s available for British Columbia. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even be surprised, and we’ll have to see in terms of the budgets when you really look at the numbers, if B.C. Timber Sales actually loses money in terms of their cost versus the revenue they generate on the fibre they put out on the market.

Such a great organization that is unable to put fibre out, that isn’t contributing financially in any significant way to our forest sector…. Our Ministry of Forests is costing more than the revenue that’s being generated today in the forest sector. And now we have a bill that is going to give them the ability to get into logging, to get into sorting and creating sort yards, and there’s merchanting and this whole side of things.

I was talking with people in the forest sector. They say: “Are these guys kidding? They haven’t got the expertise. They haven’t got anybody in the organization that knows how to do it.” As a matter of fact, there’s only a handful, maybe ten people in the entire province, that have some of the skills that these people say they’re going to be able to do in B.C. Timber Sales. How’s that going to work out?

Well, let’s look at the record. The record says it has been failure after failure, yet somehow, this is the solution for the forest sector. This will help us get the right log to the right mill.

I’m sorry, but evidence speaks far louder than spin coming from this government and that minister. And spin is what we’re seeing non-stop. If you listen to the speeches from them, you would think that they’ve got this great, wonderful forest sector that’s going. We just heard the member previous speak — not the reality of a forest sector in crisis, a forest sector on the verge of collapse, thousands of jobs being lost, mills being shut down all over the province.

The member previous said: “Yes, this bill will help us be able to access fire-damaged wood.” Well, excuse me? There has been permit after permit that have gone forward for fire-damaged wood, and they’ve been blocked by this government.

We’ve had mills that have shut down and had to lay their people off because they can’t get the wood, and they’re in the heart of where there are millions of cubic metres of damaged wood that could be harvested — millions. And they’ve sent their workers home because they can’t get access to fibre. Wood that only lasts three to five years, and then it falls down and it’s no longer salvageable…. You go to Alberta and they can get those permits in three months, not three-plus years.

This is the forest sector that is the NDP’s version in British Columbia, and we have another bill coming in. Oh yes, BCTS is going to ride to the salvation of the forest sector. It’s going to make more fibre available. It’s going to get the right log to the right mill.

Well, I find that somewhat disingenuous, for this ministry and this government to actually believe that that is what they’re going to do. It’s just going to be yet another layer.

Now, if they really wanted to help our forest sector, if they really wanted to actually get more fibre, get more value from that fibre, create more jobs, get the mills open again in this province, you know the first thing they should do? A core review of their costs and slash all of the input costs that this government has created for our forest sector. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy and process, time and expense.

[1:50 p.m.]

You can’t compete when you are way, way out of whack in a cost structure. No one’s going to invest in this province when that is what is being created in British Columbia.

It’s not just the cost. We need major stumpage reform. Stumpage…. Quite frankly, I don’t even know why we still use this system. The market pricing system is clearly not working properly, because BCTS is not getting the volume out on the market, and they’re certainly not getting that percentage of our forest going.

Why are we so concerned about how the Americans will respond? Excuse me? Who cares about what they’re going to do? We need to get our forest sector working. We need to get the people back to work. They’re going to do what they’re going to do regardless of what we do, so let’s focus on making sure that British Columbia comes first. Let’s change our stumpage system. Let’s make things work.

Fibre availability. This is really simple. You’ve got a chief forester, independent, one of the most skilled people in the forest sector, with a whole division of people who are saying that you can cut 62 million cubic metres. Get the permits out the door. Allow that to happen. Don’t take three years to get permits; take three months to get permits.

It’s process upon process that’s being added that prevents that wood from actually flowing, to the place where companies like Canfor just throw up their hands and say: “There’s no point trying to do business in British Columbia. You can’t operate here.”

When I read through this bill and looked at it, I had to chuckle a little bit. Throughout this, in many, many sections, it says: “Terms and conditions included in a forest licence to cut may set requirements or restrictions that are more stringent than the requirements and restrictions that apply to the holder under this act.”

Think about that. We already have the most difficult jurisdiction in North America, and likely in the world, to actually do anything in forestry, and this act is talking about making things more stringent, more restrictive, more difficult. How exactly does that work and match with the rhetoric that has come from the minister and others that have spoken to this? I don’t get it. It doesn’t make any sense.

But then again, that is the definition of the NDP and this government. They don’t make any sense.

Interjection.

John Rustad: I am being nice. Believe me, I’d love to use better words.

Interjections.

John Rustad: It’s not even getting late in the afternoon, where the usual chirping starts up, Madam Speaker, but that’s okay. It’s always good to be able to heckle back and forth a little.

This bill also talks a little bit about wildfire and salvage logging. Certainly, we do need to do more. Quite frankly, we need to be doing more to access all the fibre. But when your sawmill is shut down, the pulp mills aren’t getting chips and the pellet plants aren’t getting residual fibre, there’s no incentive to invest in doing anything else with the fibre that is available. It’s great to talk about salvage of this fibre, but how does that work if there isn’t anybody to take it?

We used to have power plants, and we still do have power plants, but they were strangled by this government in terms of the pricing structure. Most of them are struggling just to keep open. I visited one just last summer down in the Falkland area, I believe it was, down in through that area. They were wondering if they could even stay open, because they couldn’t get a proper contract to cover the cost to be able to do their fibre recovery.

Now, think about this. If a pulp mill shuts down and you don’t have a pellet plant, how does the sawmill stay open? Where do you send your chips? You can’t operate. Chips are a major revenue stream for sawmills. But at the same time, if the sawmills are shutting down, how does the pulp mill stay open? They can’t just continually be grinding whole logs for chips. They need that residual to be able to be affordable and be competitive.

This is a huge problem that has happened in this. I actually got to a place where I asked the forest sector. I said: “How do you restart?” If we end up with these horrible policies, and both sides of our sector — the primary breakdown and the other components that are using it — shut down at the same time because they can’t operate in this province, how do you get them up and running again?

[1:55 p.m.]

Who comes first? How do you get a pulp mill without sawmills? How do you get sawmills without a pulp mill?

The damage that has been done to this forest sector is going to take decades to reverse, because you can’t just suddenly go and start up a new sawmill. You have to bring the whole industry up as you go. It just doesn’t work. This bill is not going to do anything to solve any of that side of things.

One of the big challenges, I think, in terms of this, is certainly just permitting in general. Where is it in this bill that actually says: “Permits will get done in three to six months. We’re going to strip out all the bureaucracy and process to get to that place”? It’s not in here. They talk about wanting to have fibre moving faster and that whole side of things.

I don’t want to go on too much. But I did want to say, because…. The reason I’m speaking particularly to this bill is that forestry is near and dear to my riding, where I have seen all of the major mills shut down in my riding, most of the major mills permanently. There are still a number of the sawmills that are up and running, and they are significant job creators in our communities. They’re an important fabric of my riding.

But Houston has lost both its sawmills. Fraser Lake has lost its sawmill. Vanderhoof has lost its major sawmill. These are foundational mills for the communities that are gone, and they’re not coming back — not coming back until we get a government that actually respects and champions the forest sector.

That’s what is needed from this government, an actual champion — not somebody who wants to go out and do a goodwill tour and go off and give some speeches but somebody who fundamentally believes in the forest sector and that these are the most renewable, the most environmentally friendly products that we could be producing for the world. Get out there, sell the products, fix the problems, drive down the costs, and actually have a healthy sector.

The member previous talked about members in the Steelworkers and the other unions in this province. I’ve talked to them too, and I’ll tell you what. They keep telling me the same thing. They are sick and tired of transition, of bridging to retirement or retraining.

They just want to work. They want to do their jobs. They want to provide for their families. They want to be able to carry on with the lives that they’ve had in the past. They want their mills open. They want fibre to flow and to have access. There’s so much that could be done to our forest sector to improve things.

Yes, we’ve got a problem with our neighbour south of the border. That’s a big issue. We’ve got to solve that, and we’ve got to find ways to put pressure on to solve that. But at the same time, there are things that we should be doing in British Columbia for our forest sector.

The best thing that the minister could do, quite frankly, is not just to go out on a tour and give some speeches but to actually put some action in place to what he hears. Come back into this Legislature with a list of the things that the industry is telling him — sector by sector of it, mill by mill, union and non-union, companies coming forward saying: “Please, just please give us a break. Give us an opportunity to actually be successful.” Come into the Legislature and read their list. Read their list and then commit to doing it.

This government in this past budget came out and said that they’ve got an aspirational target of 45 million cubic metres. My gosh. The industry is saying, “Hallelujah, we might actually get to 45 million cubic metres,” while the chief forester is saying we could be cutting 62 million. Strange — very, very strange — to think of what happened to our forest sector.

The sad part is that we’ve seen this before. This is what happened in the 1990s. I’ll never forget a cartoon I saw at the end of the 1990s where the forest industry came in to talk to the Premier of the day, begging and pleading for them to lift their boot just at least a little bit off of their chest so that maybe they could breathe, maybe they could operate a little bit.

The cartoon said…. The government of the day said: “No way. We are not doing anything until you create those 30,000 jobs I promised.” The caption underneath is: “When’s the next election?” And the response was: “Not soon enough.”

[2:00 p.m.]

We’re in that same boat today with our forest sector. We need significant changes. We need a government that’ll actually listen to them. We need a government that actually cares about the jobs and communities that our forest sector needs and that our forest sector supports.

Nechako Lakes has gone through some tough times when it comes to forestry. Nechako Lakes has come through some tough times, as well, even with wildfires. I look at Bill 14 and I think: “If this is the best the government can do, we have huge problems ahead.”

I just want to repeat something, as well, about the B.C. Timber Sales. They do not have the expertise to do what the minister is promising. So what will happen?

They’re going to have to hire a bunch of people. They’re going to have to set up all kinds of protocol and process. They’re going to add huge expense. They’re going to come out and celebrate that something gets up and running, but they’re not going to look at the bottom line — which is actual jobs, the costs and what it actually means for communities and operations that need fibre.

I can tell you something about sort yards and bringing in whole logs. I think it’s a great idea to do that. Let the private sector do it if the business model is there. Because what ends up happening is that the government is going to celebrate this, they’re going to bring in the fibre, and they’re going to cream off the best stuff. And yes, that’ll go off to be processed here and there.

But what happens to the rest of it? There’s no market for it. There’s no place to send it. So what happens? It piles up, and it piles up. Then they have to apply for permits just to burn it. Because there’s no access. There are no jobs. There is no secondary manufacturing. There’s no need or use for it. You’ve got to create the demand before you create that supply. And they’ve killed the demand.

What’s next? Are they going to actually start investing in that kind of operation so that they can use the fibre as well? Does government want to try to take over the whole operation of our forest sector?

Back in 1987, the Ministry of Forests thought it was a great idea…. Well, this is all the way leading up to 1987. That’s when the change was. But before then, the Ministry of Forests thought it was a great idea for governments to look after tree planting, because they would get it right. They would make sure the forests would be reforested. What were the stats? A 65 percent success rate and 20 to 25 years to get to free-to-grow.

After 1987, it moved to the private sector. The government of the day did the right thing. They said: “No, no. We don’t do this well. We’ll move it to the private sector.”

When it moved to the private sector, you know what the numbers became? A 98 percent success rate and 11 to 14 years to free-to-grow — remarkable change, remarkable improvements. We’re getting our trees planted, higher-quality trees being planted. They’re getting free-to-grow. They’re getting to a place, quite frankly, where they can be counted on for the next generation of harvesting, instead of wasted time going back and replanting, slow growth.

That’s what I’m afraid of, that we do what we used to do way back then by having government look after doing it. The private sector are the ones that can make it work, and if they can’t make it work, they won’t do it.

The government doesn’t have that mandate. If they can’t make it work, they’ll just throw more money at it. Well, we’re not making money in this province. We’re running a $13.3 billion deficit. We can’t throw more money at it. We need the private sector to make it work so that we can generate revenue to help pay down our deficit and get in a better place in this province.

The people in Nechako Lakes are proud of their forestry background and their forestry history. That combined with agriculture and the mining that’s going on, the bit of tourism and other manufacturing that goes on and the small businesses…. It’s a very proud riding. But they are very uncomfortable and upset about what has happened to our forest sector. They’re looking for hope.

Bill 14 is being billed like that, but I can’t see anything in here that I can go back to my riding with and say: “This will bring you hope.”

Lorne Doerkson: I have a few brief remarks, too, that I want to make regarding Bill 14 and the Forests Statutes Amendment Act. I certainly share a number of similar opinions with the members for Nechako Lakes and also Peace River North.

[2:05 p.m.]

I guess I’m always happy to hear that we’re in a position to speak about forestry in this chamber and bring comments from some of the rural ridings. But I think what often gets forgotten in this room is that this really has an incredibly serious effect on the entire province. You just have to fly into the Vancouver Airport one time and look below in the Fraser River and see how much of our forestry products are sitting in that river. This is so serious throughout the province.

While I appreciate the fact that we have a bill before the House that has a goal of solving some of the issues with respect to BCTS, B.C. Timber Sales, I really don’t see it as a fulsome solution to our challenges in the forest industry in general terms.

First off, BCTS is being asked to do more, certainly, at a time when they’re already struggling to deliver on their core mandate. They’re already facing challenges delivering existing volume. Planning, permitting, operational constraints remain unchanged. Adding new responsibilities like wildfire and thinning…. Those types of things, frankly, are outside of the scope of what BCTS should be doing.

Frankly, this really puts the government in the seat as a general contractor when we’re surrounded by extremely well-outfitted loggers and mill operators through the entire province.

Peace River North had pointed out earlier that there are 31 mills that have closed in this province. So when we talk about this bill having some sort of potential great impact on the province, I can’t wait to hear in committee — potentially, we’ll hear it in closing remarks today — what kind of volume is expected here.

The member for Nechako Lakes touched on what is the mandate of the Forests Ministry in this province — to generate 45 million cubic metres. I don’t want to throw out a whole bunch of numbers, but the budget shows 30 for the next couple of years. I’m very concerned about that, because that just doesn’t feel like a commitment to me.

More importantly, the chief forester has made a number of comments around that 60 million range, which should be sustainable from my understanding. I’m not a forester, but I have to believe the people that are in those places to certainly determine those numbers.

What I will say is this. Cariboo-Chilcotin is on pins and needles about bills like this one.

I have to paint a bit of a picture about my riding. The reality is that it stretches from the West Chilcotin all the way to Savona, Cherry Creek, almost to Kamloops town.

When you come to Williams Lake from Kamloops, you’ll encounter a mill in Savona. You’ll encounter a closed mill in Chasm. You’ll encounter a closed Norbord plant in 100 Mile House and now a closed West Fraser — which just closed, obviously, more recently, something that we’ve shared in this chamber before. When you come to Williams Lake, you will see seven milling operations within the boundaries of our city. We had eight, but we just lost a pellet plant.

So when you think about the thoughts that are on the minds of Cariboo-Chilcotin, what we are hoping for is improved processes.

I can appreciate what Bill 14 is trying to do with respect to gaining access to all of the fibre that it proposes to get at. But I guess what I’ll be asking of the minister and hoping to better understand is: how is this different than what we’re doing now?

If you come to Williams Lake and, certainly, tour any of our forests or some of the forests around, you will notice that Tsi Del Del, companies like that…. The minister has been there, and we’ve certainly shared a conversation about this. Some of the thinning that has been done is absolutely amazing. This bill talks about doing thinning work. That work is happening now, in my mind.

[2:10 p.m.]

But the challenge around that is, honestly, permits. Permits that are applied for in September are still not approved in April. The Forests Minister has done incredible work to help on that, but we had to bring it to the Forests Minister’s attention.

One of the members here mentioned the seasons and how things have changed. Roads get soft in the spring. You’ve all of a sudden lost a few weeks of productivity. We’re dealing with wildfire like we’ve never seen before in the province, but certainly, in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Again, you lose that time. You lose that opportunity to conduct some of this work.

The challenge is not necessarily accessing it through BCTS. We just have to be able to access it — period. The specific permit that I’m speaking about was in a place that was already…. It had been consumed by fire. We were trying to access that.

I just think that Bill 14, probably more than ever, really puts BCTS in a spot to be a general contractor. Trust me when I say this, and I’ll certainly look for clarification on that. But if the notion is that BCTS will hire someone like San Jose Logging or Hytest logging to do that work and then retain the logs, then it would strike me that there’s going to be another level of cost in there. Now maybe the permitting process doesn’t improve. Maybe the permit…. I don’t know. We’ll look for clarity on that, obviously, in committee stage.

But we have amazing contractors in our area: San Jose, I just mentioned; PHL; Hytest Timber; AI Logging; the McNeil family in the south. We have some incredible logging families that have been literally doing it for generations, and they’re good at it. I’ve been to second-generation growth areas that we can absolutely log again.

I’ve seen how modernized logging has become in some areas throughout our riding. The one that I’m just absolutely amazed by is one that the Williams Lake First Nation did through Borland Creek Logging, where they’ve contemplated everything. They’ve contemplated leaving blinds for the wildlife to be protected in hunting. They’ve contemplated berry picking on the side of the road so that it’s accessible to Elders that might not be able to get around that much.

I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that these logging companies have done such an amazing job, but where they’re finding a pinch point is getting through some of the paperwork.

I think the member from Vanderhoof mentioned the absolute costs that all of these companies are dealing with. It’s not just…. We talk about stumpage. Yes, stumpage is a challenge for sure. But it’s everything else. The cost of diesel, the cost of everything else has risen so much, and it is having a very serious effect.

There was never a time more important than right now for us collectively as a province that we have to be competitive. We have to engage that world market. We definitely have to get our costs down. I don’t see how this bill will actually do that. I’ll hope for some clarity on that.

I want to talk a little bit about wildfire as well. I know that there is some interest in getting to some of those blocks quicker. I can appreciate that very much. I think that it is a very important part of the process. It’s not just cleaning up what is out there in the hinterland, but it is also a matter of getting planting, getting on that.

I do know that in places like the Elephant Hill fire in Cache Creek…. That fire burned in 2017. We only got to it two years ago. That is a very serious concern.

When you think of that area, Madam Speaker…. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but if it pleases the House…. It would take you a couple of hours to drive across that area. It burned in 2017, and here we are cleaning it up two years ago.

Honestly, shame on us. We talk about this being sustainable. We talk about it all the time. And it is. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. But for us not to be motivated to get that done is shocking to me.

[2:15 p.m.]

There are so many other things happening on the landscape. It’s not just replanting the trees. We’re seeing weeds that we’ve never seen before. We’re seeing a landscape that, really, is in chaos itself. I just don’t know how this bill is going to help with that.

I speak often about permitting, and the reason I speak about it is because I know that it is a very serious challenge. I’ve spoken many times to you about Dan Perrin, but it really is valuable to make that comparison over and over.

Nothing happens without a permit. I’m talking about employment. I’m talking about revenue to the province. I’m talking about all of the things that come because that permit is approved. The second it’s approved, contractors start spending money. They start hiring people. They start buying equipment. All of that is revenue to this province. It’s all taxable. It’s income tax. It’s tax on equipment. It is all taxable. So we really need to move these permits through this House.

And I just….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute.

Misty Van Popta: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta: In the gallery up behind me here is the second group of grade 5 students from Langley Christian School, a great school in Langley that my kids were also a part of. We’ve got Ms. Barkowsky’s class and part of Ms. Wessner’s class, and they’re here today to witness democracy in action.

Now, I did tell them that they missed question period when we’d be banging on our desks, but they are here to witness debate on Bill 14, which is the forestry bill.

So if my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin wants to bang on some desks just to add some extra theatre to it, that would be fantastic.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Lorne Doerkson: I will get to the forestry conversation right now.

Welcome to all of our youth and everybody in the chamber.

I’m going to close with a couple of quick comments. First off, I can appreciate that this is a different ministry, but it makes my point with respect to permitting.

This is a letter received by someone who is a placer miner. It says: “It’s highly unlikely that your application will be reviewed and approved in time for this field season. We have been telling placer applicants to expect processing times of up to two years.”

Okay. That’s not something new. That is a recent letter, and we’ve been dealing with that for a while. It’s a challenge in every part of our industry right now, and it has to get cleaned up.

We have talked…. Many times, in this place, I’ve talked about things like making better use of the piles that we burn. And here we are. We have a bill here that will create access to do some of this work.

I sure hope that that is being contemplated as well, because I have shared photos of piles that we have burned that are shockingly huge, that could have been used for something. Frankly, it could have been used for firewood to heat people’s homes in some areas. But we can’t seem to move the needle on so much of that. I hope that this will help with some of that, but I just don’t see it. I don’t see it.

I appreciate the time today and look forward to hearing closing remarks from the Forests Minister and, certainly, committee stage of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll ask the Minister of Forests to close debate.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I know some of my colleagues are eager to get on to the next piece of legislation, which is very important, but I do want to provide an opportunity to be able to respond to all of the comments and discussion that has occurred on Bill 14.

[2:20 p.m.]

Forestry is so much about people and place. I know that you’ve got lots of beautiful trees in Langley. Langley is a very beautiful community, but British Columbia is a beautiful province. Ninety-five hectares covered in forests. It’s a province that has a sector, forestry, that built this province. Forestry paid for this building. Forestry paid for our communities. Forestry paid for the schools that we all call home in our communities.

I’m so very proud to be part of a government, led by our Premier, that is working hard every single day to restore confidence in this sector.

I want to thank all of my colleagues across the way, in particular the critic for forestry for his words and for his perspectives. It’s fair to say that we don’t agree on many things, but I will never question his passion for the file. I say that from all of the comments.

I had an opportunity to be able to either watch or read the transcripts of all of the remarks, including the remarks from some of my own colleagues. In particular, a shout-out to the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside, who has a deep, deep understanding of forestry as it relates to her community.

I think of the member for Juan de Fuca–Malahat, who talked about the blood, sweat and tears that he has shed working in the logging sector.

I think of my colleague for Cowichan Valley and the work that she has done in the last number of months to support her community through some really trying times.

Forestry, like I said, is about people and place.

But let me be very clear. I was enjoying the conversation and enjoying the dialogue. I will not be lectured by the member for Nechako Lakes. The member for Nechako Lakes, the former leader of the official opposition, knows nothing about forestry. We have to get the guy to show up in his community, to actually talk to forestry workers, to actually talk to mill operators. That community has been devastated by mill closures and curtailments.

Let’s remember that on the day that the Canfor mill in Vanderhoof closed, instead of reaching out to the local mayor and council, instead of reaching out to the forestry workers, what did the former leader of the opposition do?

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder. Keep remarks specific to the bill.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

What did that member do? Went and set up a podium and started giving speeches. Never once reached out to that mayor.

Bill 14 is a very important piece of legislation. By no means does Bill 14 fix all of the challenges that exist in the forest sector. We are talking about a sector that needs to change, desperately, to be able to meet the needs of British Columbians today. Bill 14 takes important steps down the road of ensuring that B.C. Timber Sales — an organization that we can all acknowledge has not been performing these last number of years — can perform.

I heard from my colleagues across the way that they are supportive of the desires of our government as it relates to full-rotation forest stewardship. They’re excited about the opportunity to see more access to fire-damaged timber. They’ve got some reservations about contract logging, and I think it’s completely fair for them to raise those concerns.

We have had pilots in the past — that was referenced in the members across the way’s remarks — in the late ’80s as well as the ’90s. But the forest sector looks entirely different today than it did in the ’90s and ’80s. For example, as we talked about in my remarks, First Nations, in 2003, had 3 percent access to the annual allowable cut. Today they have 22 percent access. They are going to be strong partners in this work.

When I think of the remarks from my colleague across the way from Cariboo-Chilcotin, who, I might add, has done an outstanding job advocating for his community…. It is always a delight to be able to work with him. He raises concerns. He brings forward issues.

I put that offer out to him, and I put that offer out to anyone across the way. If you have permits that are causing difficulties, bring them forward. It’s my job to ensure that my ministry is responding in an appropriate manner.

We’ve had those conversations, and I think, in many ways, we’ve been able to address those challenges because permitting is not an issue from a ministry perspective. It’s all the work that goes into developing a permit for consideration.

That’s the work that we’re doing right now, and Bill 14 is a part of that. Bill 14 is about speeding things up. Bill 14 is not about creating more jobs in the Ministry of Forests. Bill 14 is about taking advantage of the loggers and contractors throughout British Columbia and creating jobs and opportunities for them.

When you have a member across the way who is a former B.C. Liberal, part of a record that lost 100,000 jobs when they sat on this side of the House…. I am sorry, but I am not going to take any lectures from that member across the way.

[2:25 p.m.]

I am proud of a government that is seeing investments. Bill 14 sends investor confidence in our forest sector. It’s not just me. It’s not just my colleagues on this side of the House that have spoken to it. Let me read some quotes.

Todd Chamberlain, general manager of the Interior Logging Association, says: “The Interior Logging Association strongly supports the BCTS review and proposed legislative updates. These changes are critical to providing contractors with the stability they need to invest in their workforce, modernize equipment and sustain the communities that depend on forestry.”

Kim Haakstad, from the Council of Forest Industries, says: “This is a step forward that builds momentum to improve wood flow and support jobs. We remain committed to working with government on the next steps to ensure predictable and economic access to fibre and to move toward an annual 45 million cubic metre harvest.”

Geoff Dawe, the president of PPWC, a union that has faced big challenges….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister.

Point of Order

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the minister, I would like to raise a point of order that we are speaking to Bill 14, and I’m not hearing that in the conversation to the point where I think we should.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Minister, just a reminder to keep your remarks relevant to Bill 14.

Debate Continued

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll refer to the members opposite that there were some validator quotes provided in support of Bill 14. I’m happy to send the link over to the member across the way.

I’ll just continue with a couple more. I think it is important for the members opposite because they’re going to get an opportunity to vote, in a moment, on Bill 14 — whether to send it to the next stage, and that is committee.

I want the member across the way from Peace River South to know that Geoff Dawe, the president of the Private and Public Workers of Canada, said about Bill 14: “These changes to B.C. Timber Sales are a positive step forward for workers across the pulp and paper sector.”

I could go on. There are lots of quotes. Lenny Joe from the First Nations Forestry Council said: “The forestry council supports the current BCTS legislative amendments, as they align with First Nations’ long-term stewardship and ensure more flexibility with the program.”

Look, I know it’s difficult for members to come in here and debate legislation. There are lots of questions. That’s why we’ve got committee stage. I’m looking forward to the opportunity to participate in that committee stage.

Let me be very clear. We have a sector here that is struggling. We also have a sector filled with thousands of workers, over 100,000 workers, that are working hard every single day. On this side of the House, we lift those workers up. We do not talk down to those workers. We do not talk down to this sector. Canfor — an organization, a company here in British Columbia — shared at COFI that they have invested $900 million in British Columbia since 2019.

Bill 14 is not going to solve all the challenges, but it is one important step. It is one important tool, one important initiative that we are taking on in the Ministry of Forests and in the government of British Columbia, led by our Premier, to restore confidence in the sector and be damn sure that we’re going to fight like hell for every forestry worker in every forestry community.

I am proud to stand and close debate on Bill 14. I’m proud to be on the side of a government that is committed to forestry workers and committed to forestry communities.

With that, I encourage all members to support Bill 14. I look forward to the questions.

Introductions by Members

Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the vote, I just want to take a moment and recognize that we’ve got friends from the Filipino Legacy Society. I hope they all enjoyed the visit: Warren Flandez, the chair; Maj Yee, the vice-chair; Lorentz Sy, the treasurer; Christine de Castro, secretary; Matthew Remedios, legal counsel; Allan Jiang with the legal team; and David Decolongon, director.

Thank you for your service to the community.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I call second reading on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[2:30 p.m.]

This bill amends several statutes. I will begin with two amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

First, a new section is being added to respond to recent court decisions that risk intruding on cabinet confidentiality by requiring government to produce a list of cabinet materials in certain judicial review proceedings. This section is similar to legislation in other jurisdictions, including the Canada Evidence Act, but narrower in scope, as it only applies to judicial review proceedings, not to all litigation.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This section allows a designated person to certify that information is a confidence of the executive council or Treasury Board. Once this certification is made, no one can be compelled to disclose the information. This section ensures that cabinet can continue to maintain a sphere of confidentiality that the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized is essential to good government.

Second, section 11 of the JRPA is being repealed. This provision is being repealed to make it clear that the timeline for bringing a judicial review should be governed either by the common law or the governing statutory scheme. This change will bring predictability and certainty about the applicable timelines for bringing a judicial review.

Proposed amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act support the continued delivery of the act by enabling a shift to a sustainable, industry-funded model for administration. Since its enactment in 2019, the act has improved transparency, competitiveness and public confidence in British Columbia’s transportation fuel market by requiring fuel suppliers to report pricing data to the B.C. Utilities Commission, which publishes information to help the public understand fuel price movements.

The amendments do not change the act’s core purpose. They enable the recovery of administration costs from industry by authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations and the B.C. Utilities Commission to set and collect fees from fuel market participants, creating a sustainable funding model for the program.

Next, amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act increase the supply of ZEVs in British Columbia to reduce emissions and air pollution. It will also encourage automakers to offer more affordable and accessible ZEV options, supporting a clear transportation transition for all British Columbians.

The province recognizes the need to recalibrate targets, considering recent market changes. The proposed amendments lower the 2023 ZEV sales targets from 100 percent to 75 percent and remove the 2035 prohibition on the sale of non-ZEVs to give British Columbians more choice in finding a vehicle that best suits their needs.

The amendments also remove the 2026 and 2030 ZEV sales targets from the legislation, keeping these targets in regulation to allow for greater flexibility to respond to emerging federal policy and future market fluctuations.

Overall, the amendments ease short-term ZEV sales requirements while retaining a pragmatic, long-term target that aligns with the Canada automotive strategy — balancing pressures on automakers with the need to sustain progress towards a cleaner transportation future in British Columbia.

The proposed amendments to the University Endowment Land Act will provide the University Endowment Lands with a modern bylaw enforcement tool, namely municipal ticketing, which is commonly used by local governments in British Columbia. Currently the UEL lacks effective tools for enforcing minor bylaw contraventions, such as parking violations or nuisances, which means that many of these offences that are routinely ticketed across local governments are not enforced under the UEL.

The proposed amendments will allow the UEL to set out ticketing offences and penalties up to $3,000 in a bylaw, in accordance with the municipal ticketing framework established in the Community Charter and regulation. Fines collected via ticketing may offset some of the operational costs of enforcement through ticketing in the UEL.

This legislation addresses a community request for improved bylaw enforcement in the UEL and will recognize better compliance with the UEL bylaws.

Amendments are being proposed to the Local Government Act, An Act to Incorporate the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Vancouver Charter and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

These amendments will give the province regulatory authority to designate any additional types of development for which local governments and TransLink could choose to waive or reduce development cost charges. These charges are one-time fees on new development that help pay for essential infrastructure, transportation, water, sewer and parks so that the costs of growth are shared fairly between new development and existing taxpayers.

[2:35 p.m.]

Advancing the amendments now ensures the province is ready to act quickly on the federal government’s provincial and territorial stream of the build communities strong fund, announced as part of Budget 2025, which commits funding across Canada for housing-enabling and post-secondary infrastructure.

The proposed federal requirements are that provinces and territories must match federal contributions, significantly reduce development charges and avoid new taxes or fees that could hinder housing supply. The goal is to accelerate stalled housing projects by lowering upfront costs for developers.

Currently British Columbia only allows development cost charge waivers for affordable rental housing and green building projects. The specific criteria for future provincial regulations under the new authority will be shaped through ongoing federal-provincial discussions.

The bill also includes two housekeeping amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act that clarify the admissibility of evidence in residential tenancy branch administrative penalty proceedings and replace inoperative amendments that affect the RTB’s authority to review decisions in orders rendered in a facilitated settlement process.

Finally, proposed amendments to the Correction Act will support the facilitation of involuntary care for those held in custody of B.C. Corrections. In some circumstances, clinical staff require assistance from security staff during the administration of involuntary treatment. The proposed amendments to the Correction Act will formally authorize corrections officers with the ability to assist health care providers when delivering involuntary psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act.

Proposed amendments to the Correction Act will also seek to better reflect the authority of the Attorney General’s investigations and standards office to conduct inspections and investigations and review disciplinary hearing appeals made by B.C. Corrections, reflect the ISO requirement to report to the Attorney General and to make reports public, refine the inmate complaint process to make it more accessible and give the director broader discretion about whether to investigate a complaint.

With that, those are my comments.

Steve Kooner: I rise as the official opposition critic for the Attorney General to speak to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

I’d just like to state from the outset that when we’re dealing with miscellaneous statutes amendments, they’re perceived as a good thing because what we are doing is dealing with housekeeping legislation. A lot of times, things get missed or new situations pop up and older legislation may not address those new situations. So a lot of times, we have these housekeeping bills coming through the Legislature where many different subject matters are taken into consideration and some loose ends are actually tied up.

To that extent, I think most people, most members of this House, would agree that housekeeping bills are a good thing and we should encourage more of them to come to this House. With better legislation…. When you’re involved in the court process and you’re involved with any sort of litigation, sometimes things come down to interpretation, and sometimes things come down to legislation that’s not that clear. A lot of time in the court gets wasted upon dealing with figuring out what the meaning of the law was and trying to interpret that law.

To the extent that we are bringing miscellaneous statutes housekeeping bills to this House to address clarification issues, to address new situations that were not contemplated when the original legislation was brought forward, it’s actually a good thing, because we do have a backlog in our court system. We do have a lot of inefficiencies within our court system. There are issues with resources as well. One thing we can do to support the court system is make sure that we are making the process with legislation the most efficient as possible.

[2:40 p.m.]

To that extent, whenever we see miscellaneous statutes amendment bills, it’s always a welcome thing to see. That’s what I want to state from the outset. Miscellaneous statutes amendment bills, when used properly, serve a legitimate purpose. They are meant to tidy up legislation. They action items such as housekeeping, technical fixes and minor updates that improve clarity and the administration. Like I said earlier, that is something all sides of this House can generally support.

But there is one aspect of this bill that was very concerning, that really caught my attention. It was part 1 of this bill. Now, part 1 of this bill deals with the Attorney General amendments. It specifically deals with the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

It’s clause 2 that actually is the meat and substance of this particular part. Clause 2 actually deals with this. It deals with disclosure of confidence of the executive council. There are definitions in here. It talks about the cabinet. It talks about ministers. It talks about cabinet secretaries. It talks about deputy cabinet secretaries. It also talks about secretaries to the Treasury Board.

Basically, what this clause does or is purporting to do is, essentially, any information that gets certified as confidence of the executive council that’s brought forward by, say, a minister or a cabinet secretary or a secretary to the Treasury Board…. That information can be certified as confidence.

What does that mean? That means if there is an application for judicial review in our court — say if there is a regulatory body and there’s a decision made by that regulatory body and one of the parties wants to make an application for judicial review because they do not agree with the decision of that regulatory body — they would now be dealing with this particular clause that is now being put forward.

It’s very important. When we’re dealing with regulatory bodies and we’re dealing with mechanisms of judicial review, it’s very important to understand the aspect of administrative law. The aspect of administrative law is a little bit different than…. Say you’re dealing with civil litigation matters that involve trial matters, where you have a trial and then you can appeal that trial decision to a Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal level, you will look at whether the decision was properly made, and you could even canvass and look at some of the evidence.

But when we’re dealing with applications for judicial review, we’re dealing with administrative law measures. When we’re dealing with regulatory bodies and having an appeal mechanism that is judicial review, the extent of appealing, the mechanism of appealing, becomes a little limited in terms of if you’re looking at it with a legal lens. So judicial review seems to be more of a limited amount of an appeal mechanism.

Now, if we’re looking at it from this lens, that now this clause is going to apply to applications for judicial review that already have a limited extent of an appeal mechanism, it’s a little bit concerning. Because what would happen in this case…. When somebody doesn’t agree with a regulatory body’s decision, they may want to rely on evidence that came out of a cabinet decision to support their application for judicial review.

Now, what this particular clause will do is that anyone — a minister, a cabinet minister, a secretary to the Treasury Board, a secretary to the cabinet — can just certify information as confidence.

[2:45 p.m.]

Certifying information as confidence will automatically limit disclosure in regards to what can be disclosed in an application for judicial review. When a particular party is looking to get at evidence that is in the realm of the cabinet, that is highly relevant. That is really concerning.

Just to go a little bit further into this clause, I’ve just kind of set the premise of this clause, but what this clause does is….

Deputy Speaker: Sorry to interrupt you, Member.

Point of Order

Misty Van Popta: I’m just rising on a point of order. I don’t think we have quorum here.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. You are correct.

[The bells were rung.]

Thank you very much, Member. You were quite right.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: As I was saying…. I was talking about clause 2 in Bill 16.

In practice, what this clause will do…. A person may not be compelled to disclose, in an application for judicial review, information certified as confidence. That’s information that a cabinet minister or a secretary to the cabinet or a secretary to the Treasury Board may have labelled or certified information as confidence. A person may not be able to use that or may not be compelled to produce that information in an application for judicial review.

An even more concerning aspect of this particular part of the bill is in clause 3. What clause 3 does is that it states that section 23, which clause 2 actually puts into the Judicial Review Procedure Act…. Clause 3 states that section 23 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act applies in relation to an application for judicial review commenced before, on or after that section comes into force.

This is a very troublesome part. A lot of times, there will be ongoing proceedings already that are in court. There are probably already applications for judicial review. Those proceedings are already happening, and now this law is going to get passed — if it gets passed by this House.

If that situation happens, the people that are currently in litigation — that knew nothing about this legislation, that are currently in litigation, that properly prepared their cases, went to court arguing their cases, now are in active litigation — are now going to have to deal with a new piece of legislation that is going to come their way that they did not contemplate, that they did not get to prepare with or prepare for. Now they’re going to get hit in the litigation process with a new piece of legislation that is being now entered in this House.

There’s an aspect of…. In law, we talk about procedural fairness. We talk about fairness in the justice system. We talk about natural justice in the legal realm. When you have a law that’s being proposed now, it’s not only going to apply to future events. It’s actually going to apply to events that already exist right now, that are ongoing, that were happening even prior to this legislation being introduced. That, in very essence, appears to be very problematic because it goes against the notion of natural justice, procedural fairness. That is very problematic. How do you do that?

Litigants have gone out of their way to properly prepare the cases based upon the existing law, and now a certain element of this legislation is going to apply to their situations. So we have to make sure….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m terribly sorry to interrupt you again.

[2:50 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Sorry to my colleague.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta: In the gallery is the third and final group from Langley Christian School, grade 5 students from the Langley area. It’s a fantastic school which my kids also went to. This is Mr. Toy’s class and Ms. Wessner’s.

I did tell them about the bell system, I believe, when I was meeting with them earlier, so I’m glad they got to hear one of the bells, although it’s not for a vote. It’s because we didn’t have enough people in here.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed, welcome to our youth and everybody in our gallery this afternoon.

We are debating Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act of 2026.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: As I was stating, clause 3 goes against a common principle in justice that we have in regards to natural justice — procedural fairness. There are litigants already doing litigation. Now they’re going to have to deal with a new piece of legislation. Usually what people have to deal with is the legislation that they relied upon when they’re going through the process. Those things are very important to point out.

In a general sense, why this particular part is really problematic to me is that we are seeing a common pattern with this government in terms of transparency issues, secrecy issues. What we are seeing with this clause is that certain evidence will not be allowed to be compelled. When certain evidence will not be allowed to be compelled, that goes to the very essence of transparency. When it goes to the very essence of transparency, when the public views that, they perceive it as an element of secrecy.

That is problematic, because what happens here or whatever happens with our justice system is supposed to be public. It’s supposed to be a public system. We are seeing a pattern of transparency issues with this government.

Just to kind of get into the issues, just to set a context of why I am very concerned about this particular clause, this particular government actually was awarded a Code of Silence Award for Outstanding Achievement in Government Secrecy in 2022, by the Canadian Association of Journalists — due to legislation that had hindered access to public records, including charging a $10 fee for requests and reducing transparency.

This is stuff that’s out there. These are concerns that are out there — concerns coming from journalists in terms of transparency issues with this government, secrecy issues. Now we have this piece of legislation coming. We’re dealing with courts of justice that are now going to be limited to what they can actually see. That is problematic when you already have a trend and now you’re kind of interfering with the court process by already deciding for the courts what evidence they can actually hear or not.

That mechanism of whether or what the courts can hear or not should be left to the courts. That has been the historical precedent in terms of our justice system. That’s why we have in-camera hearings in our justice system, where the courts decide whether it’s certain evidence that should be looked upon in the public domain or not or whether there should be some conditions put on that or whether there should be some publication bans put on that, if that information is in fact sensitive.

But we now have a government that is saying: “We are going to decide what information can be compellable in the justice system or not.”

[2:55 p.m.]

This is very concerning. It’s important to mention that this is a measure that is being brought forward by this government when it already has a track record, when journalists are complaining about this government’s transparency record.

There are other issues. This is just a general transparency issue. There’s a concern in regards to this government constantly picking a fight with our judicial system. That’s very concerning. Being a lawyer, being a legal professional, I get very concerned when there’s some sort of interference with the independence of our justice system here in this province.

This is another aspect of this government not liking what’s happening in the legal realm or in the justice realm and trying to legislate themselves out of that situation so they don’t have to deal with the courts.

There was a recent article in Business in Vancouver dated April 8, 2026. In that article, there’s a quote. I’ll just read it. “The B.C. government has quietly opened up another fight against what it believes is judicial overreach, attempting to snap back judges on the issue of cabinet confidentiality while at the same time battling the courts on the separate issue of Indigenous reconciliation.”

This article goes further. It says: “Legislation tabled last week would allow government to expand the types of records it exempts from disclosure during judicial reviews and protect officials from having to speak about the information if compelled by a judge.”

The article goes further: “It is the second bill of the spring session designed to correct what New Democrats believe is judicial intrusion on legislative authority.”

That’s from Business in Vancouver dated April 8, 2026. That is documented concern about what’s going on here. This pattern that we’re seeing from this government is highly problemsome. That’s just one example.

Going further with the transparency angle, what’s happening with this legislation is that certain information will not be compellable, so there won’t be transparency on that certain information. We are seeing a track record of avoiding transparency by this government.

We’ve also seen it through the budget that was brought forward to the Legislature this year, where the Office of the Merit Commissioner was, essentially, terminated.

I’d just like to state that part of the mandate of the Office of the Merit Commissioner was to see if there were any complaints within the public service, government employees and whether they were properly hired or whether they were properly fired and to make sure there was some fairness in the process. The Merit Commissioner looked at making sure there was fairness to employees — public service employees.

This government has now taken the Office of the Merit Commissioner away. The Office of the Merit Commissioner allowed transparency, allowed a look at government decisions. So that’s another aspect of what we’ve seen with this government, where transparency is being taken away, where accountability is being taken away.

This is the overall trend. This is why I see there is a problem with clause 2. I see this bigger trend. Now we see this clause 2 coming here, and it actually takes away an even bigger chunk of the transparency, because now we’re dealing with the court system, and we’re dealing with what evidence that court system can actually see or not.

[3:00 p.m.]

The other thing I’d like to touch upon is, in the overarching transparency issue, why clause 2 is problemsome for me. We’ve seen this government have an extensive track record of using NDAs, non-disclosure agreements. We’re seeing it. We’ve seen the public complain about it. We’ve seen the media complain about it. We’ve seen that the public is feeling that they’re left in the dark when the government is dealing with issues of reconciliation, when the government is dealing with issues of land use agreements. The public is feeling that they’re left in the dark because there are NDAs used on that process.

That’s just one area of what the government is dealing with. There have been NDAs used in health care. There have been NDAs used in housing. It’s a very extensive theme that’s being used by this particular government with using the NDAs. The discussion of those NDAs is often talked about in the public domain.

We have the extensive use of NDAs. We have the abolishing of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. We have general issues of transparency. All of these come into the realm.

Now we’re having to deal with clause 2 of Bill 16, which is going one step further. It’s challenging the justice system. It’s challenging the court system. It’s saying that…. Well, this government is saying, essentially, that it’s not trusting the courts to make the decision on what should be compellable or not. It’s not trusting the courts to have in-camera proceedings to see if there’s sensitive information or not.

It’s saying that the courts don’t deserve that. It wants to make the decisions for itself. This government wants to decide what information it feels is appropriate to provide to the justice system or the legal realm. This is highly problematic.

It’s even more problematic because we’re dealing with a miscellaneous amendments bill. When someone sees a miscellaneous amendment, they’ll go: “Oh, this is a good thing. We’re going to tie up a lot of loose ends. It’s a housekeeping bill.” But then we have, somewhere buried in this bill, mechanisms of limiting evidence. This is problematic. This is something that should be dealt with, with separate legislation or a separate debate.

Let me be clear about what this means in terms of clause 2 — the government having this mechanism of being able to certify information as confidence and, as a result of that, the courts not having access to that information now.

Judicial review is one of the most fundamental accountability mechanisms in our legal system. It allows British Columbians to challenge government decisions in court. It is how we ensure that government acts lawfully, fairly and within its authority. Yet this bill gives the government a new tool to withhold information from the courts themselves — not based on an independent determination, not based on a judge’s ruling.

I did mention that there is ability to have in-camera proceedings, but this government doesn’t trust that process of in-camera proceedings. It wants to decide which information, which evidence gets limited.

What we are seeing is unilateral certification by government officials to decide what information or what evidence will be available to the court system. This should concern every member of this House, because when the government can decide what evidence can and cannot be seen in a judicial review, it is not just managing information. It is shaping the outcome of accountability.

[3:05 p.m.]

As we go through the process of second reading and committee stage, I will be keeping a close eye on the debates that are being had and will be taking a big part in the committee stage debate, because these problematic sections, or a couple of these problematic clauses, really deserve proper scrutiny. I’m looking forward to actually being able to deal with this part of this bill in more detail moving forward.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I share the previous speaker’s enthusiasm for miscellaneous statute amendment acts. I think, in this case, what that reflects…. There are definitions as to how multiple different acts come into one bill that legislative counsel uses, and those have been applied in this case.

I think both at the second reading stage, where we’ll touch on some of these matters, and then at the extensive debates I’m sure that we’re going to hold in committee stage, I’m looking forward, in particular, to my discussions with the member for Peace River South in committee stage on this question. We’ll have an opportunity to dig into the details.

In the case of the two important amendments that are in the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, we’re talking about amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act — which, if you looked at them on the page, are about a third of the page or even less, a quarter of a page, but important — and then amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act, which are particularly, I think, apt for debate in a time when we’ve seen such spikes in gas prices. The member and I had an opportunity to discuss those in question period yesterday a little bit.

I’m going to begin with the changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, because they’re cars. And people in Canada, people in North America, people in British Columbia care about cars and are passionate about cars. In every region of the province, they have strong ideas about them. These sections have received some attention in recent weeks.

We’re amending the sales targets in B.C. for zero-emission vehicles, which we sometimes call ZEVs. These amendments reduce the 2035 target from 100 percent ZEV sales to 75 percent ZEV sales, remove the 2035 prohibition on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles — we’ll sometimes call them ICE cars — and shift the 2026 and 2030 sales targets to regulation.

I think it’s important in this time of change in the world of energy, in our world. When, in our world, the adoption of ZEV vehicles and also the adoption of hybrid vehicles everywhere, really, but in recent times in the United States…. It’s an extraordinary thing and an advantageous thing for British Columbians, and we’ll get into that.

Here in B.C., we lead Canada in ZEV sales, lead Canada in sales of hybrids. In the last quarter of 2025, that was 22.5 percent for ZEVs, approximately the same for hybrids.

Some people raise that and say: “Well, what about the competition between ZEVs and hybrids?” Well, it’s going down for ICE vehicles in our province, significantly, in fact. The rise of ZEVs, the rise of hybrids — which we think about on a year-to-year basis, but if you look at five or six years, it has been very significant — continues.

There are in B.C. 229,000 ZEV vehicles on the road, and they make up, as we know, a significant proportion of total vehicle sales. That’s 22.5 percent in the last quarter of 2025. People in B.C., obviously, continue to show strong interest in ZEVs, especially in recent weeks, given the impact the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran has had on gas prices.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know, hon. Speaker, you are filled with anticipation for the rest of this, but I am going to reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate while we receive a report from another House.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section C reports Bill 11 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, has now passed.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I call second reading on Bill 16.

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

We don’t have anything in the Birch Room.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix: I was talking about the growing interest in ZEVs in British Columbia — particularly now, when we’ve seen the impact on household incomes of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and other circumstances, but particularly of that — and the advantage of moving to electricity, which we produce in B.C. and which this year we’re in surplus on in B.C., as opposed to depending strictly on fossil fuels.

A recent AutoTrader survey found that 60 percent of British Columbians who don’t currently own a ZEV or an EV are considering one as their next purchase, an increase of 11 percent year over year. We’re seeing this in every jurisdiction in the world. The number, of course, is higher in different regions, and we understand that.

There are different needs of automobiles. There are some regions of the province where trucks are a larger share of the market and ZEVs play a less important role in the truck market, for example. We understand there’s diversity. Nonetheless, there is growing interest in ZEVs around B.C.

The same survey also found that ZEVs are becoming more affordable. The average price of a new ZEV has gone down by 6 percent year over year, a larger decrease than for gas-powered cars. This matches what we’re seeing globally in the vehicle market. In 2025, 25 percent of all cars sold globally were electric vehicles, with global sales up 25 percent from the year before — 21 million battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles worldwide, according to estimates.

The momentum and trend here are undeniable. People are increasingly drawn to ZEVs for their performance and their lower operating costs. Upfront costs are still high, and that’s a problem, but are trending downwards. Many parts of North America have been laggards with EV adoption, but we are not one of them here in B.C. We have been successful, in part due to our ZEV mandate and the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. The act has ensured that British Columbians have access to a stable supply of ZEVs.

We all know the recent times when it was impossible, or a long waiting list for ZEVs, in the marketplace. It’s one thing to have consumer interest, but you actually need to have a supply of ZEVs for them to purchase. The ZEV Act has done that. It’s no coincidence that the two jurisdictions leading Canada are B.C. and Quebec. The reason for that is that those are the two jurisdictions with serious policies to advance the sale of EVs to the benefit of our health, our economy and our climate.

I would say that you look at other jurisdictions — for example, the jurisdiction of Ontario, which, strangely enough, benefits most from restrictions on the import of ZEVs to Canada…. It has fallen behind both in its charging network, and I’ll come to that later, but also in the sale of ZEVs. In other words, B.C. is leading here. British Columbians want to buy ZEVs, and unlike in Ontario, they have the opportunity to do this because of the law.

[3:15 p.m.]

They also have the opportunity with one of the most effective charging networks in the country getting more effective and dealing with issues of range anxiety, which are significant problems for people in the purchase of it. It’s a testament to the work that we have done to make ZEVs available in this province.

Why is it important to do what this legislation, the ZEV Act, does to encourage ZEV sales? Well, there are a few reasons. The first is environmental and health benefits in having more ZEVs and fewer internal combustion engine vehicles on our roads. Transportation makes up the largest share of B.C.’s GHG emissions, roughly 41 percent of all emissions. Every time someone chooses a ZEV, they help bring that number down.

The over 229,000 ZEVs on B.C.’s roads have helped avert half a million tonnes of climate pollution each year, every year. This is good for climate action, but it’s also good for human health. It helps reduce air pollution and health care system costs linked to the negative health impacts of internal combustion engines.

Transportation is one of the leading sources of nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter in B.C.’s urban airsheds. These pollutants are linked to respiratory disease, cardiovascular illness, childhood asthma and premature death. Air pollution causes 1,900 premature deaths in B.C. each year and almost $14 billion in economic costs such as health care, lost productivity and more. These health burdens fall disproportionately on lower-income communities near major roads.

Areas with higher ZEV penetration have shown improvements in infant health outcomes and asthma rates in children near high-traffic corridors. It’s a reason, and a good reason — in addition to climate, in addition to affordability, in addition to our economy — why it’s a good thing that people have lower-emission vehicles, both ZEVs and hybrids, in our communities.

The revised mandate will continue to drive more ZEV models of various price ranges to the province, helping reduce air pollution and emissions from B.C.’s largest emitting sector while supporting health outcomes.

A second reason is cost. The upfront costs of ZEVs are coming down slightly, but there are real and tangible savings to be had when it comes to maintenance and operating costs when compared to ICE vehicles. Having an opportunity to buy them — which this legislation does, an opportunity to have ZEVs here in B.C. to be purchased — is important.

Their advantage in this department has been especially evident these past few weeks with the high cost of gas driven by world events. A recent report, from before the war, by Clean Energy Canada found a typical EV driver in B.C. would save approximately $3,000 a year or up to $34,000 over the course of a decade driving an EV, compared to an equivalent gas-powered vehicle.

As Joanna Kyriazis — director of policy and strategy of Clean Energy Canada, responsible for the report — has said, as gas prices climb past $2 a litre in many parts of B.C., the province’s zero-emission vehicle sales regulation is more important than ever. EVs already cost far less than gas cars, with a typical EV driver in B.C. saving as much as $33,000 per year compared to a similar gas car.

Encouraging greater ZEV uptake leads to lower and more predictable costs for people. Instead of being subjected to massive swings in the price of gas, dictated by world events, they’re able to power their vehicles with made-in-B.C. energy that is clean, stable and affordable — building British Columbia and its economy. Of course, we want people to use the products we make in B.C. more than the products they make elsewhere. It’s to our broader economic benefit.

B.C. is delivering one of the best electricity systems in the world, with the lowest electricity costs in the world. We don’t think of that when we pay our hydro bills, that we’re better than everybody else — us, Quebec and Manitoba, the three publicly owned hydro systems. Nonetheless, we do. B.C. Hydro rates since this government came to office, and this is incredible, even after recent increases are 12 percent below the rate of inflation.

Just by comparison, hydro rates under the previous government went up 54 percent above the rate of inflation.

Alas, our important legislation is not about that issue, so I will leave that point there, hon. Speaker, although I know you’re interested in further discussion of that.

We’ll have that during our estimates debate, no doubt. The member will hear those statistics again as early as next week.

[3:20 p.m.]

Switching to ZEVs will protect people from the volatility of gasoline prices that are dictated often by geopolitical events thousands of kilometres away. If we know that from any of our recent history, we know that that has occurred just in this decade — major spikes that were related to world events — most recently between the U.S., Israel and Iran; not that long ago, and continuing, between Russia and Ukraine; and, of course, dating back to the early 1970s and all the impacts that had for our economy and affordability at that time.

This is made in B.C. It benefits the people of B.C. It’s the value of B.C. Hydro and our clean energy system. Having a ZEV mandate supports that.

With that being said, we’re bringing in changes to better adjust to where we are today. We’re number one in Canada in hybrid sales and number one in Canada in ZEV sales. The good news about number one is you can’t be better than number one, but you can do better. You can be a better number one, and that’s what we have to collectively do.

I believe and the government believes that targets serve an important purpose. That is that with effort, you achieve them. They’re not theoretical notions. They shouldn’t be theoretical notions. With effort, you achieve them. This view was reflected in the outstanding work in our recent CleanBC review, which this legislation reflects in important ways and which I’ll get to.

We believe that achievable targets are important. We’re adjusting B.C.’s targets to align with federal targets and to be more flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances. We’ve listened extensively to industry and stakeholders and the independent CleanBC review. The revised mandate will drive more ZEV models at various prices to B.C., helping to reduce air pollution and emissions from B.C.’s largest emitting sector and to drive economic growth in our province — all good news.

I think that if you look, for example, at the words of Dan Woynillowicz, one of our reviewers from CleanBC, the independent reviewer, he says: “By broadly aligning with the federal government while preserving made-in-B.C. policy, the B.C. government is striking the right balance. Together, B.C. and federal policies and programs are addressing the affordability of EVs, ensuring choice and competition in the marketplace and making it easier to charge up at home and on the road.”

What we’ve done is put in place targets that will work for people — 75 percent by 2035 as an overall target and moving targets to regulation so they can adjust and reflect current situations as well. The intention is to move to a target by regulation of 26 percent, for example, in 2027, which is a target given.

The reinstatement of rebates at the federal level, the very significant investment in charging networks in B.C. and the arrival in Canada of new models of EV — including, as members will know, 45,000 in the coming year from China — will give people opportunity.

People in B.C. got the largest share of EV mandates in the last federal program, and because of this, we’re going to get the largest share in this program. Money from Ottawa coming to British Columbia to support economic and clean energy goals in British Columbia — that’s good news.

Of course, key to our strategy, as reflected by the legislation, is our charging network. As of January 1, 2026, there are more than 8,800 public charging ports in B.C. That’s an increase of 86 percent from 2023. These ports provide reliable EV charging for people in communities across B.C. and along travel corridors, with extra support in busy urban areas.

Since its launch in September 2020, the CleanBC go electric public charger program has provided more than $60 million for 200 public charger programs throughout B.C., and that continues right now. It’s a huge investment in our charging capabilities and demonstrates our commitment to meeting EV targets.

In other words, you bet. In our integrated resource plan, which we look forward to discussing with members of the opposition during our estimates debate, is the importance of Power Smart; the importance of the use of electricity; the importance of giving people options in their lives to make their lives less expensive and more affordable, particularly those who are struggling from the challenges brought upon us by U.S. tariffs and by international conditions. That’s critically important, and this legislation does just that.

[3:25 p.m.]

Sometimes people ask: “Well, do you have the electricity?” Let’s bring everyone an update because I think that’s an important thing in B.C. Often I’ve heard — even in question period, believe it or not — members of the opposition suggest that we were in deficit. So I want to share this information so that people understand where we are.

The result of our April water supply forecast for this year has increased the positive situation in our reservoirs from what had been previously, from 108.4 percent for Williston in the Peace region and 108.9 percent in the Columbia system in Kinbasket, to 111.6 percent and 119 percent, respectively. In other words, this is going to be a good year, and we are going to be significantly exporting electricity this year as a result.

Of the last 16 years, nine of them we’ve been in surplus and seven in deficit, showing the flexibility and ability of our hydro system to build up, to hold water and hold our energy till the moment when it is the most valuable — such that even when we were in deficit last year, the energy that we sold was more valuable by $600 million than the energy we purchased, principally from the United States and from Alberta. In short, we’re forecasting to be exporting 5,000 gigawatt hours in fiscal 2027, so we’re forecasting a surplus.

In short, what this does…. Having the opportunity to purchase ZEVs; the opportunity to continue to build on being number one in Canada; the opportunities for human health and for our economy; the opportunities to continue to lead, in concert with the federal government and the industry and the new car dealers, who have been essential to the success here in British Columbia, with non-governmental organizations and with communities that want to expand charging networks; and the actions of B.C. Hydro mean that we are in a position to continue to lead, to not just meet realistic targets that we’re setting but to continue to receive the benefits of meeting those targets for human beings, for their health, for their economic value and for their affordability.

We will be with the world. While some people, including the President of the United States, are doubling down on a notion that this isn’t the future, everywhere else in the world, you see this growth. We have to be — our Prime Minister stated this very eloquently at Davos — engaged in that moment.

We’re doing that with our plans of expanding energy and electricity. We’re doing that in lots of ways. But this is an opportunity for individuals to benefit and become involved. We’ve got to seize this moment together. As lower-cost EVs are coming to B.C., we’ve got to ensure they’re here for people here to benefit from, even if they don’t own them themselves.

So I commend this miscellaneous statutes bill to the House. I realize that it deals with a broad range of issues. I look forward to debating with my friends in the opposition, both my friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and my friend from Peace River South, through committee stage.

Larry Neufeld: I’m here to speak to Bill 16 and, in particular, the components that are related to the EV mandate and the Fuel Price Transparency Act of 2019.

Many of the comments that the minister made I would tend to agree with. Where we fundamentally differ, quite honestly, is forcing, through legislation, the purchase, or forcing the acceptance, of ZEV vehicles. I have no issue with ZEVs. I don’t. What I have an issue with is the lack of choice and your lack of option.

Where I live, it gets to be minus 40. It gets to be minus 25 consistently. I can tell you, and I have said it in this House before, that oftentimes, with the great distances that we travel, vehicles are life and death.

[3:30 p.m.]

Range anxiety. The minister spoke of range anxiety. It’s more than anxiety where I live. It is, again, life and death. If you choose, if I chose — perhaps someday I will. Not at this point because the technology has not advanced far enough for me to consider them to be reliable in my situation, where I live. But should a person choose to own a ZEV, absolutely, I would support that choice 100 percent. I don’t feel that as a legislator I have the right to force that on people.

The minister did bring some good points to the table around health effects. Health effects would be something that I think, on the whole, we would have to take a look at. When we look at how the minerals for the batteries are mined, how they’re transported, I think that’s something we’ll have to delve into in much greater detail.

Around the economic component, it’s very difficult to deny the cost of the fuel savings, without question. In fact, I’m sure many people are looking right now at the potential of a ZEV vehicle.

Where I would suggest that we are not looking far enough ahead when it comes to the economic equation of zero-emission vehicles is that our current transportation system is built on the premise of fuel taxes paying for roads, paying for bridges, paying for infrastructure. Currently zero-emission vehicles are not contributing to that. As the proportion of zero-emission vehicles goes up, we’re going to lose that fuel tax and we’re going to lose that traditional 70-year, whatever it is, 50-year tendency or trend of using fuel to pay for the infrastructure that it uses.

I would also suggest that not only are zero-emission vehicles not paying a component or a proportion of the infrastructure costs. I would further suggest that because they are significantly heavier than an ICE-powered vehicle, they would actually contribute to increased wear on the roads, bridges and infrastructure that are typically, again, paid for or in theory should be paid for….

I remember following this throughout my adult life and through childhood, that that was always a rationale used to increase fuel taxes. Unfortunately, I was also aware enough to understand that those taxes went into general revenue instead of into a fund specific for infrastructure. That, to me, is quite unfortunate, but I guess, decisions are made.

Going off that original premise of fuel taxes paying for the infrastructure, once again, zero-emission vehicles have not contributed. At one point, when the proportion of those vehicles becomes high enough, there is going to have to be some type of surcharge. There has to be. We can’t just stop collecting money in order to replace bridges and replace road structures and that type of thing.

The other thing that I wanted to discuss around…. Again, different points of view between myself and the minister, but one of the other things that I wanted to talk about is that he’d mentioned the extensive charging structure in this province. Again, I live in the North. I live in a remote area relative to, certainly, what we see on the Island and what we see in the Lower Mainland.

Yes, the government has spent a significant amount of money installing chargers. I used to have the incredibly fortunate opportunity to spend quite a bit of time at a place called Powder King, a resort community. I think many people here and many people listening would be surprised to find out that the charging station that was installed at the Azouzetta store is actually powered by hydrocarbon. It is not connected to the electrical grid.

It would beg me to question why the fuel tank was pushed back into the bush and painted in, essentially, camouflage colours to keep it from being viewed by motorists. I would further suggest that a very similar thing was done with a generator. I am to understand that there are six similar units, probably three of them in my riding and perhaps neighbouring ridings.

I can understand from a range-anxiety perspective, but I think, again, we need to look at a more fulsome picture from the economic component here as to whether…. In that case, it’s hydrocarbon that’s charging the electric car. If we’re going to be honest, we’re going to be truthful and we’re going to be forthright, I think that’s something…. I would question, again, why they’re painted to blend into the area and to be hidden behind trees.

[3:35 p.m.]

The other thing…. This is something that the minister and I will absolutely get into in estimates, not only on this bill but on others, going forward. I believe he did reference the North Coast transmission line and the ability for it to deliver hydropower. I know that I have spoken to that on numerous occasions in committee on Bill 31.

I would like to make a suggestion that there’s a very real potential that the perception is the North Coast transmission line is being used as an intertie to the Alberta grid, which I’m not opposed to by any means whatsoever. However, when we think of it in terms of why we would do that, well, clearly, we’re exploring other options. We’re diversifying.

The reality is though…. When you look at our need for electricity, are we simply exporting emissions along with exporting the opportunity for investment, exporting the opportunity for long-term maintenance jobs and attracting investment into this province? Those would be my concerns, and that’s something that I’m not satisfied that I understand at this point.

I would leave it at that and go on to say that many people would see this bill as being presented as an administrative bill. I think that a closer look would show that there are major policy changes that are included here. These policy changes affect affordability, energy policy and accountability in the province.

I would suggest further that this legislation does two significant things.

First, and I’ll call it for what it is, this is a rollback of the government’s electric vehicle mandate. On its face, I’m certainly not opposed to that because it does bring us in step with the federal government.

What I’ve heard from many, many car dealers is the extreme difficulty that this bill, had it stayed intact, would’ve created for the automobile industry in this province. In my area, I had heard things as extreme as: “You’ll never see another new vehicle in B.C. in this area again. We would have to buy older vehicles from Alberta and bring them in.”

This, I think, is very much a step in the right direction. Again, I am of the opinion that should you choose to own a zero-emission vehicle, I would absolutely, 100 percent, support that. However, I don’t feel that you should be forced to do so.

The second thing that I would like to identify is that this bill certainly can be perceived as expanding government authority over the Fuel Price Transparency Act, 2019. Yes, that act will be imposing fees, and it will be collecting those costs through regulation.

I think that’s another thing that many people listening, or who may tune in if they really don’t have anything better to do, would be surprised…. The informal poll that I did — there’s no science behind it whatsoever, me asking a number of folks, a fair number of folks, if they’d ever heard of this act and the webpage that’s associated with it. I did not have a single yes. In fact, I’ll be very honest. I didn’t know about it until this came up in the bill.

For those that are interested, the fuel transparency act does assign the B.C. Utilities Commission the ability to monitor gas prices and ensure that fairness is in place. Last year the ministry was charged $940,000 for that service, so nearly $1 million. I did go on the webpage, and I think that’s up to the citizens of this province to investigate that information for themselves and truly, thoroughly decide if it’s worth $1 million of taxpayers’ money to have that information available.

I would further go on to say that Bill 16 is transferring the cost from the ministry to industry, so that extra $1 million is going to be charged at the wholesale level of the fuel distribution system. I am a business person. That cost will be passed on through gas prices and diesel prices.

The minister spoke of the intense pressure from overseas, and yes, without question, the intense pressure is real — adding additional costs, increasing those pressure point costs even higher.

[3:40 p.m.]

When you look at the information that is provided, nearly 50 percent of the price that you pay for a litre of fuel right now is for taxes. Again, that 50 percent tax rate is going into roads, infrastructure and bridges. The ZEVs are not paying that 50 percent. That’s going to be an incredible deficit at some point, and it will have to be rectified.

I would suggest many people are seeing the retreat on the zero-emission vehicle mandate as, I guess, depending on…. Perhaps my colleague who’s speaking after me may not agree with my perception of this. I suggest he might see this as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing. Again, I support choice.

The thing, though, that I would feel is important to point out here is that this is an example where the government is walking back on one of its flagship policies. Everyone, once new information comes in…. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing. I’m questioning why a major walk-back on a major policy is being done quietly, inside a miscellaneous statutes bill.

Why was this not done separately as part of a much larger…? To get the information available to more people, why wasn’t it done as a stand-alone or as a larger press-conference-type scenario? That would make me question the rationale for including it in a very simple miscellaneous bill.

I do agree with the bill removing the targets for ’26 and ’30. While it removes those targets from the legislation, it doesn’t necessarily remove them from regulation. We haven’t seen the regulation yet. So while I said earlier that I appreciate and support the pulling back of these mandates, we don’t know for certain how far they’ve been pulled back, because we haven’t seen the regulation yet. This is a situation, in my mind, that many could question. Is this a “Trust me. It’ll all be okay” scenario further down the line?

I do agree with the reduction of the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent. I did speak earlier about the extreme concern that had been expressed to me and others from the automobile dealers group and individual dealers.

I’ll give a very bland example, without identifying any specific individual or dealer. I had the opportunity to drive through a larger centre in northern British Columbia. As I was driving through, I was looking for a building of some sort on my GPS. I went down the back road behind a vehicle dealership. I have never in my life seen that many F-150 Lightnings. They were lined up.

I started inquiring. They can’t sell them. It’s in the North, and there are range difficulties during the cold weather, but they were obligated to take so many of those vehicles in order to get the ICE engine. They couldn’t sell the ZEV vehicles. It created a significant problem for them financially because they had to finance that inventory. To me, that’s, again, choice. If you choose….

I hope to own one someday. I actually do. I’m a car guy. I love speed. Yes, I do. I’ll admit I’m a middle-aged man. I own a motorcycle that goes zero to 60 in 2.5 seconds. There is an electric vehicle that does it in 1.9 seconds. I want to own one of those — of course I do — but it would be a toy. It’s not something…. Where I live, in minus 40, it would not be a daily driver. It would not be…. Perhaps if I was commuting.

But the range anxiety and the — I’m not kidding — minus 40, life and death…. The ability for your vehicle to provide a sanctuary from that cold…. For those that haven’t experienced minus 40, that’s a real thing. You have minutes. That’s not something where you can crawl into a culvert and start a fire or something of that nature. You need shelter, especially if it’s windy. That’s a concern for me, a deadly concern.

[3:45 p.m.]

One of the other concerns I would have that I would like to highlight is that future targets…. Well, I already did talk about that, that the future targets are moved into regulation. For those that may not understand the difference between legislation and regulation — I hope all of us in this room do, but those that are watching — the legislation is something that appears in this House. That’s what we’re discussing right now.

Regulation is, in fact, something that’s completed by cabinet behind closed doors. Then we the legislators receive that regulation or have access to it with very little advance notice as compared to the public. So we have no opportunity to have input or to debate it, to show potential flaws in the information that’s being presented in regulation. And that could be a concern.

The other thing is, around what I just said with moving it to regulation, I would be concerned around the transparency component and being able to explain that to certain individuals. I would question whether this is, in fact, avoiding accountability for promises made in the past. I would suggest that we should take a look at the history.

The government introduced aggressive mandates, dismissed the concerns that were presented and rejected the alternatives that were presented. Thankfully, they are revising course and bringing us back more into line with the rest of the country, but they’re not acknowledging it openly, and I would question as to why.

I’ve already spoken partially to this, but perhaps I’ll give it a little more weight in that my concern — and, I’m sure, the concern of many others — is that the government is removing the targets today, but they will be potentially replaced in regulation. We don’t know what that is. British Columbians are being asked to trust a plan that has not yet been written. I would suggest that that this has very real consequences for families.

Electric vehicles, at this point, do remain expensive, and charging infrastructure — while it is, I will agree with the minister, increasing — is still limited. The fact is that my wife and I did rent an electric vehicle, and the range anxiety had me stressed for the two days that I had it, to say the least. That was on Vancouver Island, so it wasn’t in a cold area. But it did get down to plus 7 overnight, and the vehicle did not have enough charge to get back to….

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Well, there are benefits. Yes, there are benefits, without question — and the torque. Absolutely, there are benefits, without question.

But I will tell you that on the second day when I got up, got into the vehicle and I didn’t have enough charge…. I was on one of the islands. There’s no charging infrastructure, and I was sweating on how to get back to the rental place to return the vehicle. Luckily, as it warmed up, the range came back.

We got to a Canadian Tire parking lot. My wife paid the fee. We plugged it in — 9.5 hours to achieve an 80 percent charge on that vehicle. Obviously, it wasn’t a fast charger. We had to be at the airport in an hour and a half — not going to work. We did find a fast-charging station with a cord on it that I needed both hands for. Mind you, once it went in, it had a very satisfying, massive, industrial thud.

It still took 45 minutes to charge that vehicle, and we stood there and watched all the ICE vehicles in and out, in and out. Yes, then we were stressed for time. Again, that’s something we weren’t used to and we weren’t expecting. The range anxiety and the charging time were significant for us.

I did talk already about the charging infrastructure where I live. Admittedly, that has improved significantly. We rarely, if ever, see vehicles at them. I know of two electric vehicles in the city that I live adjacent to. They’re a challenge for us in the North. They’re not very popular.

My concern is over forcing my constituents to own something that they don’t want. If they do, I will absolutely support that.

[3:50 p.m.]

I would also like to go on to speak about the Fuel Price Transparency Act. I’m not going to ask for a show of hands, but I already questioned how many people were actually aware of this act and what it did. It does give the government the authority to charge fees, as I’ve already attested. It also applies interest to those fees, and it gives it the ability to recover costs through the courts.

The legislation does not define the fees at this point. I was given a number during the briefing, and if the staff that gave the briefing to me is watching, I very much appreciate it. Excellent job. Well done. I do know what the fees are, but I don’t know how they’re calculated, and I don’t know how they would be moved on or how they would be assessed in the future.

Again, therein lies the near $1 million that’s going to be recovered each year for this program. I think, again, citizens have to make a decision as to whether that’s worth $1 million for them or not. Any new costs that come along in the program will be passed on through the system. As a business person, I know that that’s going to end up coming out of consumers’ pockets.

That is part of what all of us here are concerned about — the incredible affordability concerns that we’re already facing, us downloading costs onto consumers. Sure, it’s not a big number, but it’s cumulative. People are already struggling. Putting more weight on their backs is something that I think we need to be incredibly cognizant of.

There’s also a concern that this bill could be perceived as representing a significant expansion of regulatory power. I think that I wouldn’t state that with great passion. I think there’s a perception there. I don’t know that it’s necessarily accurate, but it’s something that does need to be looked into. Again, the cabinet sets the fees, determines the responsibility and enforces collection, and there is some significant ability for them to collect fees around this.

It is another burden. It’s another administrative burden to the businesses that deal with petroleum products. I own businesses, and what we’re being obligated by every level of government to provide, as far as data collection is concerned…. This is another layer of administration and another layer of data collection.

I would share the concern that, taken together, these two components that I’ve discussed in this Bill 16 would represent a pattern or, perhaps, reflect a pattern. That pattern might be seen as setting ambitious targets, ignoring the warnings and then quietly reversing course while expanding government control at the same time.

One might wonder whether this is appropriate governance, and I would suggest that it’s not transparency. I would go further to suggest that my perception of what British Columbians would expect from those of us that stand in this place of honour would be something different.

If the policy does need to be changed, which it does, it should be debated openly as opposed to being done behind closed doors in regulation, and it should not be hidden in a miscellaneous bill. I am very firm that British Columbians do deserve clarity. They deserve accountability. They deserve policies grounded in reality, not ideology.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Before turning to the specific provisions that relate to the Correction Act before us within Bill 16, I’d like to take just a moment to situate this legislation within the broader work that our government is doing to build a correction system that is both safe and humane — to build a correction system that upholds the dignity of the people in our custody while ensuring that the women and the men who work in our correction centres in B.C. every day can do their jobs effectively and safely.

British Columbia has been on a deliberate path, a purposeful path of corrections reform. In recent years, we have invested more than $30 million to expand programming, socialization and recreation space in our correctional centres.

As part of this work, we have improved classification tools, strengthened community transition supports and expanded culturally safe programming for Indigenous people who are in custody.

At the same time, we have been accelerating our work on involuntary mental health care for people in the correctional system. Approximately 69 percent of individuals in provincial custody have a mental health or substance use disorder. This is a significant number, and far too many are cycling through the justice system without ever accessing the treatment that they need.

That is exactly why our government and Premier Eby announced new involuntary care facilities in Surrey and in Prince George. That is why we established the dual-designation model at Surrey Pretrial Services Centre. That is why we are discussing the amendments to the Correction Act that we bring to this bill today, because the law has not kept pace with the care model that we are building here in B.C., and this bill corrects just that.

To support the delivery of involuntary care for those held in custody of B.C. Corrections, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General proposes amendments to the Correction Act being put forward as part of Bill 16.

Currently involuntary care is taking place at Surrey Pretrial Services Centre via a model wherein a living unit is duly designated as both a correction centre and a provincial mental health facility under the Mental Health Act. In some cases, health care staff require help to support de-escalation or to assist with restraining a patient during the administration of medication to ensure the safe provision of treatment using non-harmful control techniques.

B.C. Corrections staff are currently limited by the use-of-force authority that is prescribed within the Correction Act. Because of this, correctional staff are currently unable to assist the health care providers in delivering involuntary care under the Mental Health Act in correctional facilities. Support for involuntary care within B.C. correctional centres is currently provided by contracted non-Corrections security personnel.

The proposed legislation expands the purposes for which a correctional staff member may use force and/or restraining devices to include assisting health care providers in delivering involuntary treatment in correctional centres in our province.

Authorizing correctional staff to assist with involuntary care in B.C. correctional centres removes the need for non-Corrections security personnel on the living unit at the Surrey Pretrial Centre on which involuntary care is currently provided and within any future living units where a similar model is established.

[4:00 p.m.]

The proposed change to the Correction Act does not change how involuntary care is administered in our province’s B.C. correctional centres by health care providers in accordance with the Mental Health Act. Rather, the proposed changes only affect who is authorized to use force to assist health care providers with the delivery of treatment.

Separate from the use-of-force changes, the Ministry of Attorney General’s investigation and standards office, which is known as the ISO, has proposed changes that will do a few things.

They will better reflect their authority to conduct inspections, investigations and review disciplinary hearing appeals made by B.C. Corrections. They reflect the ISO requirement to report to the Attorney General. They reflect the ISO requirement to make reports public. Finally, they refine the inmate complaint process to make it more accessible and to give the director broader discretion about whether to investigate a complaint.

The changes proposed by the investigation and standards office mirror wording that is in other investigatory legislation and regulations, such as those which guide the Office of the Ombudsperson.

The people in our correctional centres are some of the most vulnerable in our province. Many are living with serious mental illness, addiction, trauma and conditions that the justice system alone cannot address.

Here in B.C., we are building a corrections model that takes these realities seriously. We’re building a system that can deliver dignified, effective care alongside the security and accountability that the public rightfully expects. This bill takes us one concrete step further along that path.

Rob Botterell: I would like to speak to the parts of this bill related to Attorney General information and amendments.

As someone who has practised law in this province for over 25 years, I understand and fully appreciate the importance of judicial review in our system of government. Judicial review is a core way that courts ensure that decisions made by government — and others, of course — are lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, basically ensuring that the government is following the law.

For this to work properly, the court needs access to information to understand how and why decisions were made. The court relies on the parties to a particular piece of litigation or judicial review to ensure that’s the case. The way in which the parties do that is to seek production of documents.

This bill proposes to allow a minister, the cabinet secretary or the deputy cabinet secretary to certify in writing that information is part of a cabinet confidence and then, through that measure, be able to withhold that information from judicial review. The bill also extends similar treatment to information related to certain Treasury Board functions.

The protection of cabinet confidences itself is not new, and it has been applied to both cabinet and Treasury Board to allow open deliberations on core government decisions.

[4:05 p.m.]

Ministers need space for frank, candid deliberations. But that principle has always had to exist alongside meaningful judicial oversight when government decisions are challenged in court, because in the court hearing involving a judicial review, it’s essential that the relevant documents, to the extent possible, are available to inform that determination.

In my view, legislation such as this should be drafted in the narrowest possible way to accomplish this intent, and in this case, I don’t believe that that has happened.

This legislation states that a minister, the cabinet secretary or the deputy cabinet secretary may certify in writing that information is a confidence of the executive council or any of its committees. There is no apparent limitation on this clause governing what types of information may be certified as being part of confidence and, therefore, not subject to judicial review.

This is very broad and can open up all sorts of information to being removed from judicial review with very little oversight. I draw your attention to the fact that this power is being exercised by a minister, the cabinet secretary or the deputy cabinet secretary. Those positions within the ambit of the provincial government are potentially, directly or indirectly, part of the parties that are defending a judicial review.

For the record, I’m not suggesting in any way, shape or form any lack of good faith on the part of those certifying the documents. But in our time and age, where openness and transparency is the cure for growing distrust in government, we must take steps to craft any exceptions or approaches like this as narrowly as possible.

My concern is not with legitimate cabinet confidentiality, but this bill shifts powers away from the courts and the important role of our judiciary in making decisions around disclosure of documents and towards the executive, by allowing the executive itself to certify what will be withheld from judicial review.

Further, this part of the bill will also introduce a 60-day deadline to apply for judicial review in most cases. This is being done in the name of reducing delay and uncertainty, but I would argue that one person’s red tape is another’s cherished right. I don’t believe that this legislation appropriately balances the need for cabinet confidentiality with that public interest.

We are being asked to accept this as a narrow technical fix stemming from a specific court case — a court case, I may add, that was the subject of affirmation by the Court of Appeal in this province and where the Supreme Court of Canada, as I understand it, refused leave to appeal.

So we have a decision of the Court of Appeal on the appropriate balance to be struck between the disclosure of cabinet confidences and the protection of the important deliberations that executive council undertakes.

[4:10 p.m.]

That is now going to be — potentially, if this legislation proceeds — overridden through a statutory amendment, effectively taking the courts once again out of the role that they play in our democracy and in the application of the rule of law.

When you look at the language of this bill, it’s not narrow. It creates a broad, ongoing power for the executive to shape what courts can see when government decisions are challenged. I reflect on the lengthy deliberations that resulted in the provision of section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which struck a careful balance for access to cabinet documents outside of the court process.

Frankly, I don’t see that level of care taken here, and this is, really, a fundamental part of making sure that our judicial system can appropriately and fairly deliberate and rule on judicial reviews. For those reasons I’ve stated, I cannot support this part of the bill as it is currently drafted.

Tony Luck: Once again, it is a pleasure to stand before the House and debate Bill 16 here. So I rise today to speak to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 — a bill, like many of the bills we’ve seen in this House before, that on its surface appears to be a routine legislative housekeeping exercise but that upon closer examination reveals a familiar and increasingly concerning pattern in how this government approaches law-making.

Let me begin by acknowledging an important truth. There are elements within this legislation that are necessary, overdue and, in some cases, aligned with recommendations that we on this side of the House have made numerous times and have been advancing for some time. But as has become all too common with this government, what is presented as incremental improvements is paired quietly, almost subtly, with provisions that shift authority away from this House, away from this Legislature and into the hands of cabinet — once again, a troubling, continued trend.

That is where concern lies, because legislation is not just about outcomes. It’s about process. It’s about accountability. It’s about the optics. It’s about who decides, how they decide and whether those decisions are subject to the scrutiny that is necessary on making legislation. Increasingly, the answer in this government is: “Not here in this chamber.”

We’ll go through some parts here, and we’ll try to clarify that a little bit more as we go through this bill, bit by bit, here.

Bill 16 spans multiple ministries and statutory frameworks. I’ll hit lightly on some and a little bit heavier on others. This one here is statutory frameworks; Attorney General amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act; Energy and Climate adjustments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act and the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act; a wide range of Housing and Municipal Affairs changes; and Public Safety amendments under the Correction Act. We just heard from a colleague across the floor here making some arguments for some of the necessary changes in Corrections.

Each part contains provisions that, taken individually, may appear just technical. But taken together, they reveal something far more significant — a continued reliance on regulation-making authority, a continued preference for flexibility over transparency and a continued erosion of the role of this Legislature.

[4:15 p.m.]

Part 1, judicial review, expanding the shield of cabinet confidentiality. Let us begin with part 1 and have a quick look at that. This section continues two deeply consequential changes to the Judicial Review Procedure Act. It removes a safeguard that prevents judicial review from being denied simply because time has passed, and it expands cabinet’s ability to designate documents as confidential, shielding them from full disclosure.

Let’s be clear here. Cabinet confidentiality has a legitimate purpose. There’s no question about that. Government must be able to deliberate candidly. But what this bill does is not merely preserve confidentiality. It expands it and broadens it greatly. It allows cabinet to designate information as confidential in a manner that may shield decisions from judiciary scrutiny.

When combined with limits on judicial review timelines, the result is clear — less transparency, less accountability and less ability for citizens to challenge government decisions. That should concern every member of this House. We’ve talked about that before, and it looks like this is going to be an ongoing pattern with these bills. Judicial review is not a procedural inconvenience. It is a cornerstone of democratic accountability, and it’s what the people of this province expect of us.

Let me go on to the EV mandate for a little bit and talk about that. We’ve had a little bit of talk about that from one of my colleagues and the Energy Minister across the floor here. There was some interesting debate and chat about that.

The EV mandate. We could position it and title it in different ways, but I think it’s a quiet admission of failure on the government side. We have talked about this numerous times on this side of the House — how this act needed to be changed, moved along, modernized and brought up to date — with so many of the challenges.

Just to be clear, as my colleague mentioned as well, I have nothing against EVs. We finally leased a hybrid ourselves. We enjoy it. We like it. We get great mileage. And I think, like many in this House, we have a love-hate relationship with the oil companies.

I think, for years, I’ve always wanted to find a way to get off the addiction to oil, but it’s a necessary evil that we have in our society. It runs society. It makes us richer and all kinds of things. But moving to the hybrid that we did, we’ve really enjoyed it. I get to watch how much good mileage I can get from it if I back the pedal off a little bit and kick that EV in. I really enjoy my EV. It does well for us, and we hope to continue with that for some time here in the future.

The most striking element of this bill is the changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which have brought some radical changes in here. What we are witnessing here is not a simple policy adjustment. It looks like a full reversal of where we’re going. Once again, we’ve asked for this many times, sitting in the House here. Some of the things had to stop — some of the changes. The EV mandates went against the convention of regular markets, and forcing a square peg into a round hole was very, very difficult.

I agree with the Minister of Energy, who said that we do have the highest rate of EV adoption anywhere in Canada because of low electricity rates. He likes to tout that whenever he can. I agree with him. We have some very good, low electricity rates.

The other thing he likes to tout and talk about is the North Coast transmission line and what a wonderful thing that would be. One of the things we’re a little puzzled about on this side…. We’re importing 20 percent of our electricity already.

I’m going to back up a little bit. We’re going to build a transmission line that, in the beginning, was going to cost $3 billion. Now we’re at $6 billion. It looks like the final figure is going to be in around the $9 billion mark.

That, added to the financial debt of B.C. Hydro, which is sitting at about $33 billion right now, is going to put Hydro debt at over $40 billion. When you understand economies and everything like that, what the Minister of Energy likes to talk about, his cheap electricity…. B.C. Hydro just recently got put on credit watch. That doesn’t mean their credit is going up or anything, but they are on credit watch.

If you add $9 billion more to the debt that Hydro is servicing, the regular taxpayers don’t service that debt; the Hydro ratepayers service that debt. There is tremendous upward pressure on the rates for B.C. Hydro. They’re going to have to pay for that $9 billion transmission line. I’ll use that number because, until we’re corrected, that’s what it looks like it’s going to be.

[4:20 p.m.]

I don’t know how much longer the Minister of Energy is going to be able to tout the low rates of electricity in here with that kind of pressure on there. The transmission line has gone up three times since it was first proposed.

The other thing about that is: where are they going to get the electricity to put into that line? As far as we understand on this side of the House, it’s at capacity — Site C dam. So we’re a little bit befuddled on this side, and hopefully tomorrow or next week he’ll be able to straighten us out on that. Heaven forbid we know where it’s coming from.

There is upward pressure on that, so maybe that’s part of why these EV mandates are going to change. We’re going to put a tremendous amount of pressure on the grid to be able to supply the electricity we need there, and rates are going to go up. Rates go up. People aren’t going to be so willing to buy the electric vehicles that have done well here.

And it’s good. I’m glad that in British Columbia, the people have enjoyed the EVs. Like I say, we’ve got a hybrid now. We have electric bikes. We enjoy them immensely, but I just hope the rates can stay down.

The EV sales. They were demanding that EV sales by 2026, this year, had to be 20 percent of sales for a car and in 2030, four years from now, 60 percent of sales. By 2035, 100 percent of car sales were to be EV. It seems like a little bit…. They’re very, very ambitious goals, and obviously, the auto industry had a hard time. But we’re not the only nation that’s turning its back — not necessarily turning its back but, certainly, ramping down the demand that we put on the need to buy electric vehicles, moving forward here.

They’ve become a bit of a challenge here, especially in the Interior. We’ve talked about that. My colleagues talked about that, how an EV just doesn’t work in the North. Diesel pickups are used for doing farm work and vacationing and all those kinds of things. It’s hard to get people that can fill up their truck with diesel and drive for 700, 800, 900 kilometres…. You can’t do that in an EV, especially in a truck that’s pulling a trailer. But things are changing, and that’s good.

These are sweeping, transformational mandates that fundamentally reshaped the automotive market, especially here in B.C. As we talked about, 229,000 EVs at last count, I guess it is, and that’s great. But today those targets are being scaled back, and the final targets are being reduced. I think there’s some common sense being brought in that picture. On this side of the House, of course, we always let the market decide what people want in there, and if we can keep the electricity rates, they’re going to decide to go to EV, and that’s good.

So it’s happening because jurisdictions around the world and here at home have begun to recognize the same reality. The mandates were ahead of the infrastructure, ahead of consumer demand and ahead of economic feasibility.

In fact, we do not need to look far for evidence. The federal government itself recently, under new policy direction, has already taken decisive action to pull back its demand on the electric vehicles. Canada has now replaced its national EV sales mandate, replacing it with the more flexible emission standards. So they’re going to have to bridge the gap until we’re able to have this greater uptake of electric vehicle gain.

Even the automakers have realized that this was a bit of a dead end here. The costs were too high. Range anxiety and batteries and things like that were just out of reach for some people. So these targets have proved unrealistic here. The government has come around and seen that, and now they’re going to be tweaking the numbers a little bit.

Other jurisdictions are doing the same, and this is not unique in Canada. The United States has moved to roll back aggressive EV mandates. The United Kingdom has already softened its ZEV mandate, introducing flexibility in credit systems. Even Europe’s stricter emission standards have also looked at that. So the pattern is clear. Governments are recognizing that mandates without infrastructure, without affordability and without consumer readiness do not succeed.

It’s good that we’re able to see that sentiment shift here. To some degree, it is sad. We would like to move away from our addiction. I know the members of the Third Party would certainly like to see that. They talk about that numerous times. It would be nice to let go of our oil dependence, but we just don’t see that. Realistically, we don’t see that happening any time in the near future. But we need to be flexible.

Having said that, let’s move on to the next piece of information here.

[4:25 p.m.]

The heart of this bill and the area that demands the most scrutiny is part 3. This is where we see amendments to the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act and the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Act.

At first glance, again, the intent appears reasonable, and some of it is reasonable, to allow certain development progress to be designated by regulation for the purpose of reducing development cost charges. Now, as a former city councillor and that, looking at what DCCs do for a community, I’m a little concerned about what that may look like.

We support efforts to reduce development costs. We support efforts any way we can to reduce costs of housing. We’re all in the housing kick. We need more housing and everything. But as we know, the cost of housing is usually three components. About a third of it is land. A third of it is the construction costs. And a third of it is government fees, red tape, regulations and that kind of thing. So anything we can do to reduce any of those costs, not just building and everything, would be really, really good. We support any of those efforts to be able to do that.

We have consistently raised concerns about the impact of DCCs on housing affordability. But the question is not whether DCCs should be addressed. The question is: who decides, and how will those questions be addressed?

Under these amendments, cabinet is given the authority to designate specific projects by regulation that may be exempt from or subject to reduced development cost charges. That to me is red lights, red herrings — whatever you want to call it. That’s a great concern.

What are these projects? Are they government-built housing, government-built courthouses, government-built whatever, especially around the housing? Are they going to go to the cities and say: “Hey, we’re reducing DCCs. As a matter of fact, we’re going to eliminate them on any building the government comes in here to build — social housing or anything.” That’s a huge concern.

Let me just take…. Let’s go step back a little bit and look at the tremendous pressure that municipalities and cities are under. You all know the numbers, but for the sake of Hansard and the sake of the people watching here, once again I’ll reiterate. Municipalities are responsible for 60 percent of the infrastructure funding in Canada and in the province, yet they receive less than ten cents of every tax dollar that’s collected in here. So they have ten cents to do 60 percent of the work that needs to be done in the province.

Now you get a government that comes along and says: “Guess what. We’re going to reduce that even more, and we’re going to say that on this project of social housing, you’re not going to be collecting DCCs from us.” They’re going to sell the fact that if we can lower the price of this social housing for people, we can lower the cost.

We keep hearing about those $1.8 million doors for long-term care and that, and they want to reduce DCCs, and maybe…. I’m not suggesting that’s where they’re going, but it sure looks like that. There’s a red herring here. We have to look at that, reduce that.

Local governments, municipalities, cities are already strapped to the hilt, trying to find money to look after the infrastructure, policing, roads, sewer, water and that. I’ve just given you the formula there. This could be another blow to the cities, another downloading blow to the cities that we have in the province.

Once again, the larger cities might be able to take some of the impact here, but the smaller rural communities cannot. They struggle every day to find the money they need to keep the infrastructure, the police and the fire going in their communities.

So this is a scary proposition. It’ll be good to get into committee and second reading here and be able to discuss this, ask those tough questions. What is the real intent of reducing these? Is this a broad reduction for everybody, or is it just government-specific? So there’ll be some good questions we may want to ask around them.

Decisions that were traditionally made at the local level — decisions that reflected local infrastructure capacity, local priorities and local accountability — are now being centralized. Once again, here’s another piece of centralization where the government is going to come in: “We will set your DCC rates. We’ll decide which ones we can exempt, which ones we’ll keep going and that.”

It’s not through legislation. If the bill passes, it won’t be in this House. They’ll make that in the Premier’s office, not through debate in the House but through regulation, once again.

Just a little bit of history here for those that want to understand. DCCs, development cost charges, are not arbitrary. They exist for a very important reason. They ensure that growth pays for growth, infrastructure keeps pace with development and existing taxpayers are not forced to subsidize new construction. They fund water systems and sewer, new bridges — if they need — in the town or whatever kind of infrastructure there.

[4:30 p.m.]

It’s going to be really important to make sure that we don’t eliminate development cost charges for the municipalities, because where else would they get the funding? We can talk about that later. Funding is a real challenge for municipalities in how they get their funding to do the things they do.

Because municipalities are not administrative arms of the province — they are democratically elected governments — they are responsible for all the infrastructure planning; all the water and sewer, as I mentioned; roads and transportation. The development cost charges are not arbitrary fees. They are critical tools to ensure that growth pays for growth.

Let’s compare this to other jurisdictions and have a look.

In Ontario, when the province introduced changes to development charges under Bill 23, it was paired, albeit imperfectly, with discussions around infrastructure funding and municipal compensation. When the DCCs…. They changed the way it was done there. The city — get this — and the province would actually sit down, collaborate and talk about different ways of funding the needs within the community. They just weren’t cut out. They were reduced, but they weren’t left holding the bag.

In Quebec, infrastructure planning is closely tied to provincial funding agreements, ensuring that municipalities are not left carrying the burden alone. I think I just mentioned that.

In Saskatchewan, municipalities retain stronger control over local fee structures, with provincial involvement focused on partnerships rather than override.

In each of these cases, there is a recognition of basic principles. If the province changes the rules, it must also share the responsibility. That principle is pretty much present here in any of the legislation we’ve seen through this parliament with anything around housing and that. I think it’s really important. We’ve talked about that before. We need to really have that collaboration so that the cities are not left holding the bag, as we’ve seen.

Moving on, Bill 16 connects to a broader trend we have seen from this government. We’ve mentioned that before because this is not the first time we have seen authority shifted to cabinet through regulation. We’ve seen it in Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization Act; Bill 14, renewable energy act; and Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act.

When I read here, we’re not just coming from a blank or an empty bucket. We like to remind everybody, to validate the opinion that this has been going on for some time and that there’s a trend in the structure here.

Now we see it again in Bill 16, a constant pattern which identifies a legitimate policy issue, introduces a broad legislative framework, delegates key decisions to cabinet through regulation and limits the role of legislative oversight. This is not accidental. It is a governing philosophy that seems to be entrenched within this parliament.

Municipal implications and some real-world consequences that are happening because of this…. Let us bring this down from theory to reality. In communities across British Columbia, especially in rural and smaller municipalities, the impact of these changes will be felt immediately.

Take a community like my own, Merritt. Infrastructure capacity is not theoretical. It is finite. Water system, sewer system, roadworks — these are not easily expanded. If the province designates a project and reduces DCCs, the municipality still has to serve. The money is still needed to do that.

If this government is determined to proceed with this approach, then at a minimum we must ask: where are the safeguards? Where are the guardrails, and where is the requirement for municipal consultation within this bill, for infrastructure capacity assessments, for official funding and for transparency? None of these are clearly embedded in this legislation. Instead, we are told: “Trust the regulation-making process.” With respect, that is not good enough.

Let’s move on to the tenancy amendments, flexibility versus fairness. Bill 16 also introduces change to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act, allowing directors to admit evidence that would not otherwise meet legal standards of thresholds.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, there is a rationale here to some degree. Tribunals are meant to be accessible. They are not courts. Flexibility can help ensure that individuals are not excluded on technical grounds. But again, we must ask: where are the limits? Where are the guardrails? Where are the protections to ensure that decisions remain fair, evidence remains reliable and outcomes remain consistent?

Flexibility without safeguards can lead to unpredictability, and unpredictability undermines confidence in the system. We’ve seen that lots here, and one thing us politicians don’t need is more lack of confidence from the general public out there. They need to make sure that we’re confident. Optics are huge. The public has to be confident in the things that we do.

Correction Act. The minister across the way there spoke quite eloquently to some of the things that need to be changed, that this is going to help with the Correction Act, including authorization of proportionate force for mental health interventions. That’s a good thing. Everybody realizes that’s one of the big challenges in society right now, mental health, so those are some good changes there.

Establish an investigations and standards office. Here’s the reason for cautious support, though, on some of these things. Some of the things are looking good, but like I say, we’ll drill down to the nuts and bolts here when we get into committee on this.

For too long, we have lacked adequate mechanisms to address mental health challenges in this province within correctional facilities. The creation of an independent investigative function is a step in the right direction. But even here questions remain. We must ask the right questions. How independent is this office in practice? What oversight mechanism will exist? What reporting requirements will ensure transparency? Independence must be more than structural. It must be operational.

With these provisions taken individually, many may appear modest. But taken together, they tell a story — a story of a government that increasingly prefers regulation over legislation, flexibility over accountability and centralization over partnerships. That is a great concern.

If we go back and ask the question, “Who did you speak to? Who did you collaborate with?” we kind of know what the answer on that already is. That is a great concern to us on this side of the House, because democracy is not eroded by a single, sweeping act. It is eroded incrementally, piece by piece, and I think I’ve spoken to that before.

A better path forward. This does not have to be the path, of course, and we would agree with that on there. I think many bills…. We’ve sat down and talked. We offer amendments, and we would hope the government would be looking at doing that as we offer amendments to try to make…. We’re not trying to undermine these bills. We’re trying to help make them better so we’re not back here having an omnibus bill like this again and making all these little tweaks along.

If we could work together in this House, and I think I’ve asked for that before, if we could just sit down together and work with these, we could have some really solid bills that would come out of this House and our committees. We need to be able to do that. We need to set aside some things and just get to work. There’s always a better way of doing things, and we can find that way.

If this government truly wants to address housing affordability, municipality capacity and infrastructure delivery, then work with municipalities, not around them. Pair policy changes with funding commitments. Embed transparency in legislation, not regulation. Preserve the role of this Legislature in scrutinizing decisions, and work with this Legislature. Good governance is not about speed alone. It’s all about trust, and we know that that’s what we need here.

We will not oppose progress where it is warranted and it’s in good order, and we will support measures that improve affordability, strengthen systems and address real challenges. But we will also do our duty. That duty is to scrutinize the legislation, offer changes and amendments and offer to work with this government so that we can have the best policy going forward, the best legislation moving forward for the people.

So I leave this chamber with a simple question. If decisions are increasingly made by cabinet behind closed doors through orders in council, then what is the role of this Legislature? I think I’ve asked that question before, maybe just a little bit different here or there, but the same thing. What’s the point of this Legislature if we’re not being able to be part of this Legislature and doing the work with you?

This is the people’s House, and the people’s business is the people’s business — not quietly moved into regulation, not shielded from review but brought into the light. That is our responsibility as a Legislature. That’s what we’ve been hired for by the public.

Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about Bill 16.

[4:40 p.m.]

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I rise to speak to the second reading on Bill 16.

These amendments clarify and update legislation to ensure that we are being…. Implemented or intended…. Amending legislation on an ongoing basis is standard procedure, and government is publishing these updates as part of our commitment to transparency. This procedural bill brings forward amendments that will help to bring clarity and consistency to these statutes and how they are interpreted and applied.

The proposed amendments will modernize the Judicial Review Procedure Act to keep judicial reviews fair, timely and affordable. The changes will clarify how sensitive cabinet information is protected during court challenges while ensuring judicial reviews remain streamlined and focused on accountability rather than becoming expensive, trial-like proceedings.

The amendments will also introduce a clear 60-day deadline to apply for the judicial review in most cases, reducing delay, uncertainty and legal costs for individual tribunals and government.

A recent court case appeal decision, Mink Breeders, confirmed that the courts can require the government to produce a list of cabinet documents during judicial reviews even though cabinet discussions are confidential. Being forced to disclose a list of cabinet documents creates legal risk, undermines public interest immunity and adds costs and delays to court proceedings.

Other governments, Canada and Alberta, already have strong legal tools to protect cabinet confidentiality, and B.C. is exposed to compromise. The amendments will lead to faster, more predictable judicial reviews, stronger protections of cabinet and Treasury Board confidentiality and reduced court costs and delays.

On the Fuel Price Transparency Act. In 2019, the Fuel Price Transparency Act promoted transparency, competitiveness and public confidence in the transportation fuel market. The amendments will enable an industry-funded model where the administrator — the British Columbia Utilities Commission, BCUC — can cover the costs of administrating and legislating fuel producers and wholesale fuel importers.

The proposed Fuel Price Transparency Act amendment will create an authority for government to make regulations that authorize the administrator, BCUC, to set fees payable for fuel producers and wholesale fuel importers for a fiscal year. Specifically, the unpaid levies will be recoverable as a debt owing to the government and would accrue interest on the amount outstanding.

The legislation further creates authority for government to make regulations that would require the B.C. Utilities Commission to hold a hearing before setting these fees. This will ensure that affected parties have the opportunity to express their views on a fair fee allocation framework. Regulations will also set interest rates payable for unpaid fees.

Since the Fuel Price Transparency Act came into force in 2019, costs have been paid by government. The shift to the industry-funded approach will alleviate this cost, ensuring that resources continue to be available for other government priorities. This is similar to the long-standing practice of public utilities like B.C. Hydro and FortisBC funding the BCUC for their regulatory oversight through the energy levy that is set every year.

[4:45 p.m.]

The BCUC is an independent regulatory body responsible for regulating B.C.’s energy utilities, basic automobile insurance rates and interprovincial pipeline rates.

The commissioner has also been appointed by the government as an administrator of the Fuel Price Transparency Act. Currently the fuel transparency act does not allow government or BCUC to recover the administration costs from the fuel suppliers. As a result, all administrative costs are currently being funded by the government. Amending the act will allow costs to be recovered from the industry. The British Columbia Utilities Commission, in its role as the administrator, will design, set and collect the fee.

The BCUC was appointed as administrator of the Fuel Price Transparency Act in 2019. The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent, arm’s-length body. It has decades of regulatory expertise and experience, including setting and collecting levies from public utilities in its role under the Utilities Commission Act. It also has experience conducting public proceedings and handling confidential fuel market data, making it well positioned to design and collect a fee from the fuel industry.

The fee methodology will be determined through the public B.C. Utilities Commission’s proceedings, providing fuel suppliers and other stakeholders an opportunity to provide meaningful input; ensuring the process is transparent, fair and evidence-based. First Nations will also have the opportunity to provide input to the B.C. Utilities Commission to influence the design of the fee.

FPTA administrator costs are expected to be about $940,000 per year, increasing gradually over time with inflation. Statistics Canada reports that there are approximately 4.6 billion litres of gasoline and 1.7 billion litres of diesel per year in B.C. The impact of recovering the cost under the levy will be very small relative to the broader cost factors for the industry — less than one cent to fill a 50-litre tank.

The specific amendments that are being made to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act are reducing the 2035 target from 100 percent ZEV sales to 75 percent ZEV sales. Shifting the 2026-to-2030 ZEV sales targets the ZEV regulations alone to allow greater flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions. Regulatory amendments later this year are expected to retain the 26 percent ZEV sales compliance requirement, 2026 to 2027. Compliance requirements for 2028 to 2030 will be informed by federal plans on their fleet emission standards, expected in summer 2026.

The province is making amendments to the ZEV Act to revise its ZEV sales targets — responding to evolving market conditions, such as slower than expected consumer adoption driven by supply chain disruptions and the U.S. tariffs.

The broader alignment of B.C.’s targets with the ZEV sales goals that the federal government expects to achieve through its new fleet emission standards that were introduced in February 2026…. Aligning the province’s ZEV mandate with the federal government’s ZEV goals will provide certainty for automakers and reduce their regulatory burden.

[4:50 p.m.]

The revised 2023 target of 75 percent balances emission reduction ambition and the long-term affordability for consumers in B.C., against preserving consumer choice and increasing the flexibility for automakers needed to address changing economic conditions — removing the prohibition on the sale of internal combustion vehicles and preserving consumer choices for those cases where an internal combustion engine vehicle may be necessary or preferred.

Increasing the number of ZEVs on the road supports human health outcomes. Transportation is a major contributor to air pollution, which causes 1,900 premature deaths in B.C. each year and almost $14 billion in economic costs. These health burdens fall disproportionately on low-income communities near major roads. Areas with high ZEV penetration have shown improvements in infant health outcomes and asthma rates in children near high-traffic corridors.

The proposed changes address affordability of vehicles by ensuring that the targets are achievable, avoiding the potential of automakers artificially reducing the supply of internal combustion engine vehicles in the province, which could increase the price of all new and used vehicles.

Although ZEVs currently have higher upfront purchase costs, these maintenance and operation costs are significantly low, often making total cost of ownership of ZEVs less than controversial internal combustion engines. Gas is a major contributor to the household fuel costs. Transitioning to electrified transportation significantly reduces household fuel expenditure. A typical EV driver in B.C. saves $2,600 to $3,400 per year compared to a driver of an equivalent gas vehicle, or up to $34,000 over a decade.

These legislation changes will provide authority to establish new categories to eligible project types that may qualify for reducing development cost charges, DCCs; and development cost levies, DCLs. These new categories of eligible project types will be created through future provincial regulations. These changes will give local governments and TransLink flexibility to choose to reduce or waive DCCs and DCLs for additional types of housing and infrastructure projects than allowed under current provincial legislation.

Canada proposes a build communities strong fund, requiring provinces to reduce development charges on a multi-unit and cost-match federal contributions, among other conditions, to access federal infrastructure dollars.

Making these changes will put B.C. in a stronger position to engage Canada on its proposed program and quickly implement any conditions required to enter the future bilateral agreement once Ottawa finalizes program details. This will help local governments access funding that supports core public infrastructure that enables housing. With the proposed changes, the province will be able to expand the eligibility categories of development so that the local government and TransLink can lower upfront costs where it makes most sense for communities.

Lower upfront costs can make stalled or marginalized projects viable and speed up construction timelines, helping get more homes built for people in a time of financial uncertainty. Homebuilders, local governments and TransLink want harmonized, predictable rules that streamline processes, help reduce barriers and get homes built.

[4:55 p.m.]

This legislation will position B.C. to remove barriers so more homes can be built in challenging times while helping communities fund the infrastructure people rely on. Lowering the carrying cost of homebuilders makes it easier for them to start and complete housing projects and invest in new projects sooner, at a time when construction costs and interest rates are high.

I did hear about this while I was sitting as a municipal councillor, about the construction cost, and these amendments are reflected in those concerns. I see them, and I’m excited to see these roll out in my area. Our new actions will help unlock more housing while supporting the housing-enabling infrastructure that communities need through Canada’s proposed building communities strong fund.

The two proposed amendments will make fixes to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act to ensure both acts operate as they were intended. These changes are housekeeping in nature.

The first amendment will correct an error in both the acts by clearly confirming the residential tenancy branch director’s authority to review decisions and orders from facilities settlements. If approved, the amendments will apply retroactively to reflect how the RTB has been conducting the reviews since 2024, ensuring people have confidence in the RTB decisions made during that time.

The second amendment aligns with the evidence rules of administrative penalty proceedings, with the existing disruption of resolution process. It will provide clarity that these proceedings use evidence rules designed for administrative decision-making rather than the court rules of evidence, supporting fair and effective decisions.

The act expresses applying the rules of evidence of RTB disputes, resolution and procedures but is silent with respect to the compliance investigations. Clarifying explicitly in the act ensures that the same rules of evidence apply in both processes. The amendments clarify the RTB director’s authority and confirm and validate that reviews are already being carried out.

I’m going to move on to the next section, because I think I’m going to run out of time.

The proposed amendments on the University Endowment Land Act will enable the enforcement of University Endowment Land bylaws using tickets, similar to what is already being used by local governments. Currently these bylaws can only be enforced through the Offence Act; prosecution; or civil proceedings, which are time-consuming and expensive.

Residents living on the University Endowment Land adjacent to Vancouver have asked to improve the enforcement tool to ensure compliance with UEL bylaws. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation was notified of the proposed changes to the UEL Act in December 2025. HMA staff met with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm staff in February 2026 to discuss the proposed amendments. No significant concerns were raised at that meeting. Consultation also includes the B.C. prosecution service and judiciary chief justices.

On the correction action…. Sorry. I’m getting pretty tired here today. The Correction Act. I just came from chairing a meeting, and there were a lot of amendments that came forward. Here we are talking about more amendments.

[5:00 p.m.]

The Correction Act. The amendments formally authorize a correction officer to assist health care providers when delivering involuntary psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act. Additionally, the amendments will also seek to better reflect the authority of the Attorney General’s investigations and standards office to conduct inspections, investigation and review disciplinary hearing appeals.

The changes will require the ISO to report inspection findings to the Ministry of Attorney General and the public as well as to refine the inmate complaint process to make it more accessible, to give the ISO director broader discretion regarding complaint investigations.

The changes ensure timely and appropriate responses during mental crises in corrections centres by allowing trained correctional officers to support health care providers directly. It also improves the effective use of public resources by reducing dependence on non-correctional security officers.

The investigations and standards office amendment will better reflect the authority and processes taken when the ISO investigates and responds to complaints by individuals in custody, improving access and accountability.

The amendments support a more consistent and coordinated approach to involuntary psychiatric care and custody and prepare the system for the potential expansion of involuntary treatment spaces in other correctional centres. The amendment reflects consistency in approach for individual interaction with the investigations and standards office and introduces a requirement for inspections reports to be made public.

Corrections officers are highly trained to manage high-risk and complex situations and are well equipped to support individuals in crisis. The amendments ensure officers can assist health care providers as required, improving continuity and consistency of care and supporting coordinated responses during psychiatric emergencies.

The amendments provide clear statutory authorities only for the specific purpose of assisting health care providers during involuntary psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to the second reading of Bill 16.

Linda Hepner: I rise today as the member for Surrey–Serpentine River, the official opposition critic for Housing, to speak on Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Let me start off by saying that this is not a housekeeping bill. This is the NDP burying substantive, far-reaching changes in a miscellaneous bill because they lack the courage to defend them in the full light of day.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

As a woman who has run a city; had to balance a billion-dollar budget, as local governments must; and actually build housing for families, I see exactly what this government is doing. It’s kicking the can down the road while pretending it is solving issues that have been created through spending, overregulation and ideological stubbornness.

I’m going to start off my comments with the housing, since that is my area of critic role. It is not a surprise to me that development cost charges have exploded as municipalities all over this province try to build and grow under the legislated mandates. It is not irony that those same charges are now one of the biggest barriers to new housing supply.

[5:05 p.m.]

Clauses, in this bill, 11, 12, 25 and the related amendments to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power, by regulation, to now designate projects and waive or reduce those DCC charges.

On that narrow point, I say it is certainly advantageous to the province’s budget to not have to contribute any DCC moneys for needed infrastructure, particularly if it’s a hospital, a school, a bridge or other major provincial project. Of that, there is no doubt.

However, once again, the ones left holding that bag to make it happen with very little resources are municipalities. The formula for how local governments get funding has got to change before you can put in legislation that, again, hinders them.

Development cost charges are not some optional luxury. They are one of only two realistic revenue tools local governments have. Property taxes and DCCs pay for the roads, the water, sewer, fire halls and the new housing demands. No one wants to see high DCCs, and I support lowering those, but I cannot support it in the absence of understanding what that funding formula would now look like for local governments.

The people who actually risked their own capital to build the ownership homes in British Columbia, that British Columbians need, have been crushed by ever-increasing policies. Reducing both policy demands and development cost charges is the only sure way to get those shovels in the ground faster and to bring more supply online. I am sympathetic to those that have been trying resolutely over the years to tilt that scale to understand that some of those policies are, really, adding to the dilemma we find ourselves in today.

Here is where I think the sleight of hand becomes egregious however. The bill doesn’t identify which projects will receive relief. It simply hands the Lieutenant Governor, effectively cabinet, the power to pick and choose. That leaves us in an untenable position. Hopefully, before the bill is either in committee or regulations, we would know what exactly is available to the Lieutenant Governor to make those decisions.

When the province waives those charges away from perhaps its favourite projects — hospitals, wastewater plants, schools or politically convenient developments in Metro Vancouver — what happens to that infrastructure bill? Municipalities can’t wave a magic wand. They cannot go into debt. They cannot. It is not allowed. So the only avenue they have is to raise property taxes on existing homeowners or beg the province for infrastructure funding. We all know how reliable this has been at delivering timeful infrastructure funding. It has not.

As a former mayor of Surrey, I lived this reality every single budget cycle. Building a mile of arterial road and accompanying sewers in a growing city like Surrey costs tens of millions of dollars. The NDP is trying to claim credit for reducing housing costs while quietly now off-loading that infrastructure burden onto cities and then, ultimately, onto ratepayers.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I reiterate that, honestly, this legislation requires an understanding of where that infrastructure funding would come from. They must table, in writing, exactly how they intend to backfill the lost revenue for municipalities. Otherwise, this is nothing more than a promise that sounds good on paper but leaves local governments holding the bag.

[5:10 p.m.]

Shifting now to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act, that allows a director to now admit oral or written testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible under the laws of evidence.

This is a procedural improvement that does provide consistency within the act in relation to evidence, providing both tenants and landlords with the latitude to have their cases well delivered and deliberated. When the end result is not acceptable to either the tenant or the landlord or the manufactured home, the matter can be referred to the dispute resolution proceeding.

Noting the hour, I suggest we adjourn, and I hold my position for the next sitting. I reserve my space.

Linda Hepner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment
Amendment Act, 2026

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section A reports Bill 15 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Nina Krieger: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment
Amendment Act, 2026

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, has been read a third time and passed.

Hon. Members, the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[5:15 p.m.]

Her Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Seunghee Suzie Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel):

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026

Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026

Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026

Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act

Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026

Firefighters’ Health Act

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Her Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock, April 20.

The House adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I will call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, to order. We are on clause 4.

On clause 4 (continued).

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 15 and clause 4 in this place, on the Environmental Assessment Act, 2026, and to place on the record a number of serious constitutional, legal and procedural concerns that arise from the structure of this legislation — particularly from clause 4 forward, where the bill fundamentally reshapes how disputes involving Indigenous nations are managed within the environmental assessment framework in British Columbia.

At the outset, I want to be clear. No one in this House disputes the importance of meaningful consultation or the need to improve relationships between the Crown and Indigenous nations. That is not the issue before us. The issue before us is whether this bill, as drafted, actually advances these goals in a manner consistent with the constitution, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada and the rule of law or whether it creates new layers of uncertainty, procedural capacity and legal vulnerability.

This bill introduces a system of issue resolution protocols, technical tables, leadership tables and formalized dispute resolution processes that operate alongside, but not entirely within, the established legal framework governing the duty to consult and accommodate under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, schedule B. That is where the first major concern arises.

In the Supreme Court of Canada, in Haida Nation v. British Columbia….

The Chair: Sorry, does this have to do…?

Sheldon Clare: This is my question. I have 15 minutes on a question, Madam Chair.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), made it clear that the duty to consult is grounded in the honour of the Crown and cannot be delegated away in a manner that diminishes its constitutional character. While procedural aspects can be shared, ultimate responsibility rests with the Crown.

I ask the question: by creating parallel, quasi-contractual protocols and dispute resolution mechanisms, is the province at risk of blurring the line between constitutional obligations and negotiated administrative processes?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The intent of these tools is to support consensus-seeking requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act, which supports meeting the section 35 duty to consult.

Sheldon Clare: The concern, I think, that I’m trying to articulate — I hope I’m doing it well, so it’s understood clearly — is that if we have protocols beginning to function as substitutes rather than supplements for consultation, then perhaps we are entering dangerous territory regarding the constitution. And the concern, I believe, deepens when we examine section 18.1, which establishes the framework for issue resolution protocols.

These protocols are triggered by notice and may or may not be entered into depending on timing and discretion. If notice is given on the same day as section 14 notice, the chief executive assessment officer must enter discussions or not. And if not, the officer may choose whether to engage.

Now, this raises the question: how does the province justify a system where the availability of structured engagement depends on timing rather than the substance or seriousness of the issues raised? Further to that, why is there a distinction between same-day notice and latter-day notice?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The protocols are supplements, not substitutes, within this process. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Many times this is just one of the tools that we can use towards consensus-seeking.

The date is really to help reduce confusion. At the same time as they choose to participate, they can also have available the standard protocol. This really sets everyone up for success to do early issues resolution.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. Well, I thank you for the response.

Is there not any concern that this aspect of consensus-seeking and protocol involves any sort of discretionary gatekeeping and, perhaps, creates inequities and unequal treatment between Indigenous nations based on procedural technicalities rather than constitutional entitlement?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In terms of the timing…. The timing is really the issue so that it’s not ineffective by being into the process too late.

These tools, as I’ve said, again, are always available, and nothing about this changes our constitutional obligations. Currently we are in consultation and cooperation with First Nations on the policy development to guide the implementation.

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

In Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada, in the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that consultation must be meaningful and responsive to context — not rigid, not arbitrary and not procedurally exclusionary.

[1:30 p.m.]

Yet in this legislation — the appearance, at least — it seems to be that we are embedding a system where access to enhanced engagement tools depends upon when a notice is filed.

Moving further into section 18.1, we see that protocols must include technical tables and leadership tables, with escalation mechanisms between them.

On its face, that may sound collaborative, but the legislation itself is silent on key structural safeguards. For example, there are no requirements regarding how representatives are selected, how disagreements are recorded, whether proceedings are transparent or how power imbalances are addressed.

So I raise the question: what legal status do these tables actually have? We’ve talked about them being advisory. But are they, in fact, decision-influencing mechanisms, and are they part of the evidentiary record?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: What criteria guide the CEAO’s discretion under subsection (4)?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The only criterion that applies for this clause is timing.

Sheldon Clare: As I understand it, this timing is the minister’s response.

I’m wondering about discretion under administrative law, because discretion has a wide body of legal aspects to it. If one is to exercise discretion, there are usually terms of reference or guidelines. It seems strange to me that there would only be a discretionary aspect of timing related to the exercise of discretion.

There’s a lot of jurisprudence about discretion. I think the noted legal jurist S.A. de Smith wrote about this extensively in his work on administrative law. There is, certainly, a need to demonstrate some criteria around discretion. So I’m finding the answer that I’ve gotten from the minister about timing to be an incomplete one.

[1:35 p.m.]

I would ask again about what sort of jurisprudence, practice or other means or methods actually plays upon the exercise of discretion in this particular aspect of the CEAO. Discretion itself is not merely something that is subject to timing. I think the jurisprudence is clear on that. There is, certainly, a need to demonstrate that discretion is exercised in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. I would refer the minister to S.A. de Smith’s excellent work on the topic.

I think timing, to me, sounds like an incredibly incomplete answer.

The Chair: Member, sorry. Was there a question there, other than an opinion on the minister’s answer?

Sheldon Clare: No, there was a question there, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Can you clarify the question?

Sheldon Clare: The question was: could the minister further expand upon how discretion is exercised and on any specific criteria, beyond timing, that may influence the exercise of discretion?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In regard to the question under subsection (4), the only criterion is timing. Timing will be scoped out in the policy development during the consultation and cooperation, and that will guide the application.

[1:40 p.m.]

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

In subsection (8), the chief executive officer…. If that person decides not to enter into discussions under subsection (4), the chief executive assessment officer must provide written reasons to the Indigenous nation.

If the chief executive administrative officer does decide to enter discussions, do they also have to provide reasons for doing that? And if so, what would those reasons look like, and where would they be published?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The answer is no. The chief executive assessment officer would not provide written reasons when undergoing these discussions.

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

My next question is: what minimum standards apply to issue resolution protocols?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I refer the member to section 5. “Subject to subsection (6), an issue resolution protocol must, at a minimum, include terms respecting: (a) the establishment of a technical table, (b) the establishment of a leadership table and (c) a process for escalating matters of concern from the technical table to the leadership table.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the reference.

My question is then: why are sections 17, 24 and 29 excluded in this particular aspect of the resolution protocol?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I would like to once again state that the process for the issues resolution protocol is one tool that we have that leads to consensus-seeking throughout the process and then ends with a recommendation to the statutory decision–maker.

The provisions that the member was asking about are minister decisions, and that does not apply here.

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

Okay. I think I understand the practical effect of these sections being excluded, from the minister’s answer, but it raises another question in my mind. What is the legal status of these protocols? Would they be enforceable in court were they to be challenged, questioned or otherwise argued against?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The issues resolution protocol is a useful tool for seeking consensus, and the CEAO would, of course, follow its terms.

I cannot speculate on the potential for any future litigation.

Sheldon Clare: The minister has stated that she can’t identify any potential for future litigation, but I would postulate that, perhaps, if the protocol broke down for some reason, if there was a sudden disagreement through the process regarding the protocol, there must be something that would happen as a result of that breaking down, in general terms.

I don’t want to make up a specific hypothetical here, but in general terms, if a protocol broke down, what happens then? Is there a renegotiation process? If the protocol is broken so severely, do the talks break down completely? What happens next?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As I said many times yesterday, the issues resolution protocol is just one of many tools that support the consensus-seeking under the act.

Sheldon Clare: Is it possible that multiple protocols could exist for the same project? Is one protocol going to fit all for a single project, or could there be multiple protocols affecting discussions on a single project?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The issues resolution protocol exists between the participating Indigenous nation and the CEAO. If there were multiple participating Indigenous nations, there could be multiple protocols.

Sheldon Clare: To the minister, thank you for the response. I appreciate the directness.

I will have some additional questions on this clause. However, at this time, I’m going to invite the Leader of the Third Party, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, to ask…. I think he has four questions to ask.

I’m going to have him jump into the middle of things, and then I’ll return to you.

Is that up to your approval, Madam?

The Chair: Yeah, who gets to ask questions is at my discretion. So if the Leader of the Third Party would like to ask some questions, he’s welcome to.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for the introduction.

Good afternoon, Minister and staff.

I’m really just dropping in to communicate some appreciation. I have to say that when we saw the Environmental Assessment Act come up, there was some trepidation as the Third Party. But we had a good briefing, and I just want to commend the minister and staff on the broad consultation on this, including the discussion paper in October 2025, with context and intended outcomes; and then the intentions paper in January 2026, with consultation in cooperation with 46 First Nations, modern treaty nations and Indigenous governing bodies. So thank you.

With that, just a couple of questions on clause 4. Keeping with section 18.1(2)(a), an issue resolution protocol, under that section, cannot be invoked for an assessment related to an amendment of an EAC, of a certificate, for an existing project. Can the minister clarify why that’s written into legislation in that way?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There are many different types of amendments. Some are small. As this is structured in the act, there was no ability to use this only for amendments that would benefit. This in no way changes our duty to consult.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister also please clarify why, to be guaranteed access under clause 18.1(3), nations are required to provide notice of their interest in entering into an issue resolution protocol on the same day they provide notice under 14(1)? Why is there not a longer window for this notice?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for this question.

Clarity on the timing and the expectations…. We see these as complementary activities, as notice as a participating Indigenous nation really indicates a desire to collaborate on the project, and this is designed to facilitate early resolution and early identification of issues.

[2:05 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister. I may be repeating myself. It’s a slightly different phrasing of the question, but it might shake loose a bit more information.

The news release for this legislation notes the intent is for the issues resolution protocol to be available throughout the process, including at the end when dispute resolution is no longer available. Why is access to this process not guaranteed outside of the first day under 18.1(3)?

Perhaps…. I’m not entirely sure if the minister answered in her first answer, so I’ll try again.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Let’s try this again, shall we? So the standard protocol…. This is really about establishing the unique protocol. If a unique protocol isn’t established, then the standard protocol would still be available.

In addition, the CEAO could agree to establish a unique protocol during the process. But because this objective is early issues resolution, it would be most effective at the beginning of the process.

[2:10 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ve got one more. Skipping forward to 18.4(4)(c), can the minister please explain…. I’ll ask all three questions at once. I think they probably roll into one another.

Can the minister explain how this clause is governed? This says: “The process of dispute resolution may not be initiated if (c)….” How is it determined if the substance of the dispute was brought forward during consensus-seeking activities with the nation, and what happens with issues that may arise later in the process?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We talked a lot about this yesterday, and I appreciate that you weren’t in the room. These are, really, tools to enable the consensus-seeking, and the dispute resolution is there should consensus-seeking not succeed.

[2:15 p.m.]

Therefore, it makes sense for it to not be available for issues that consensus has not been sought.

There’s an issues tracking that’s maintained throughout the process. And the issues resolution protocol is available throughout the process. Again, this in no way talks about not doing the duty to consult.

Sheldon Clare: One of the sections under 18 is a non-derogation clause. Usually if you’ve got something like that, there’s some sort of a flag that’s been raised or a concern that’s out there.

My question to the minister is: what concerns were present so that it was seen as necessary to include a non-derogation clause in this section?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This part of the clause that you are speaking about, 18.2, is part of the current act, and it was simply carried forward.

Sheldon Clare: Thanks to the minister for her clarification.

Why was it necessary to include the clause that remedies are not limited? Why was that necessary? I’m seeing it there as regarding remedies from court and not to be taken as limiting rights, but I’m just wondering why it was necessary to clarify that.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This, too, was also a carryover from the current act, and it was carried forward into here.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to know if we could take a quick break.

The Chair: Sure, we will take a five-minute bio break. People can return at 2:27.

The committee recessed from 2:21 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, everyone. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, back to order. We’re still on clause 4.

Sheldon Clare: My next question is about procedural fairness. In that regard, I refer to the administrative law principles established in Baker v. Canada, which is the ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. In that case, it made it clear that where decisions affect rights, privileges or interests, there must be fairness in the process.

When I’m looking through the clauses before us, clause 4 in particular, I’m not really seeing any expression of minimum standards of procedural fairness. I’m wondering why that is the case. If they’re not in the statute, does this mean they’re being left to policy? Or even worse, could they be left undefined entirely?

To the minister, I would ask that question. Where are the minimum standards of procedural fairness in this clause?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: It is common for statutes not to spell out procedural fairness in detail, leaving it to the common law.

Sheldon Clare: It always warms my heart to hear solid references to the common law, as sometimes statute construction seems to take away from the common law and bring lots of prescription to it.

Turning to section 18.4 and the dispute resolution framework, we see a highly structured system in place for the initiation of disputes, defining parties and limiting when disputes may proceed. There are multiple restrictions there. Disputes, for example, cannot proceed if previously addressed or if not raised earlier. They cannot proceed if there are certain decision contexts and may be, effectively, blocked based on procedural history.

It raises the question in my mind: is this framework designed to resolve disputes, or is it, rather, intended to limit access to dispute resolution? In looking at this, the number of procedural barriers suggest it could be the latter.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This part of the amendment is making dispute resolution more effective, based on our experience under the act to date and our deep consultation and cooperation with both First Nations and industry.

As a result of that, we are establishing these parameters for when dispute resolution would unlikely be successful.

Sheldon Clare: The Supreme Court, in Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., emphasized that consultation must not be reduced to a mere box-ticking exercise. I wonder, when I’m considering this clause, if we are seeing a system where the failure to raise an issue at the right time could, advertently or inadvertently, permanently bar its consideration.

I think it’s important to understand that real-world consultation is not always linear. Issues evolve. Information changes. Circumstances change.

[2:40 p.m.]

Does this approach risk undermining the very purpose of consultation, which has allowed concerns to be meaningfully heard and addressed?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Rather than saying, “Asked and answered,” I will provide a bit of an answer just to again remind the member that we talked about this at length yesterday. We talked about this being a tool of many tools that are available that will lead through the consensus-seeking process, and this in no way absolves us of our duty to consult.

The Chair: Recognizing the member.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair. I greatly appreciate your guidance in this session.

To the minister: who is permitted to initiate dispute resolution under the section?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The participating Indigenous nation and the chief environmental assessment officer.

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

In the clause, why are certain matters eligible and others excluded from consideration?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Based on the environmental assessment office experience and the consultation cooperation that we’ve been completing, these are the matters most likely to be effective in dispute resolution. Again, the issues resolution protocol and other tools for consensus-seeking are still available as well.

Sheldon Clare: Sometimes when you have a dispute, that dispute comes up again and again. I think anyone who’s a parent has encountered children having disputes that come up again, and when you seem to have to deal with them, you try to be consistent in the application of the solution.

I look in the clause, and it says in the clauses….

[The bells were rung.]

I mean, this is a classic example of what I’m talking about. There could be something that could happen that might lead to a possible dispute.

If a dispute comes up again and again, what rationale is there for limiting consideration of repeat disputes? Is it not possible that the solution to a dispute earlier considered is imperfect and that there are aspects that were not considered? Maybe that would be a new dispute. But if a dispute is not fully resolved, such that it comes up again and again, why is it not eligible to be reconsidered?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: To this point, this is why we initiated the issues resolution protocol so that we could have early identification and resolution of issues. Ideally, the leadership table is in place to help resolve such issues. We know that if the matter goes through dispute resolution and fails to find a satisfactory solution, then going through dispute resolution again is unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Just as a reminder, it’s one of many consensus-seeking tools that is available throughout the process.

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

I recall when I was doing negotiations processes for a while — I was a labour union contract negotiator for a number of years — one of the things that I found was that in trying to come to resolution of a dispute, the parties present themselves and the personalities present actually played more of a role in whether or not a dispute was going to be resolved than anything else. I think that when we’re looking at disputes, it’s important that it’s decided early on who’s going to be there to do it.

Also, another key thing is the substance of the issue. So is there a definition for “substance of the dispute?”

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: With this new amendment, we are introducing a new requirement that parties identify and agree to the substance of the dispute prior to proceeding.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response. I appreciate the minister’s comments about that, but it raises another question.

If the parties are required to agree to the terms, and this could even include the identity of the dispute resolution facilitator, then they have to agree to all of this. If they don’t agree, there’s no process. So how is it the case that a dispute resolution system can function if either of the parties or any of the parties to it could, effectively, veto its existence right from the get-go? Is this entirely dependent on a consensual process that may never occur?

It’s not really a neutral adjudicative process. So how can we do this? What happens if the parties disagree on whether a dispute is valid or not?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: A key feature of the practice of alternative dispute resolution is that the parties must agree to the issues before entering. The CEAO must consider applicable policies developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations and the views of the participating Indigenous nation interested in initiating dispute resolution before deciding to discontinue attempts to agree on terms of a dispute resolution.

Sheldon Clare: The Supreme Court, in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, underscored that meaningful processes must exist to resolve disputes where rights are at stake.

[3:00 p.m.]

This raises the question: does a system that allows disputes to simply collapse due to lack of agreement meet that standard, or does it merely risk leaving unresolved constitutional issues in limbo?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is — as we talked at length yesterday about and, as well, today — one of many tools that the participating Indigenous nation would have during the consensus-seeking process.

Nothing about this changes our constitutional obligations.

Sheldon Clare: As we’ve discussed — and further to, I think, section 18.5 — the chief executive assessment officer is given the authority to discontinue attempts to reach agreement, provided that reasons are given. I wonder about that, because I’ve talked about discretion a bit already, and I think there’s more to discuss about that.

What standard governs that discretion? Is it reasonableness? Is it good faith? Is it subject to review? Without clear statutory criteria, this becomes a broad discretionary power exercised within a constitutional context. The courts have, time and time again, repeatedly cautioned against broad discretion without clear limits.

I’m wondering if this is a consideration that the ministry and the minister has looked at when looking at this aspect about discontinuing attempts to reach agreement, when the standard regarding discretion….

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The CEAO must always act reasonably in relation to the duty to consult. Also, as we’ve stated before, we are currently doing cooperation and consultation with First Nations and industry, which will establish the clear limits in policy.

Sheldon Clare: Why are there restrictions tied to section 16 decisions? I wonder if this has any effect upon limiting the accountability of the CEAO.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Perhaps the member could please restate his question and let us know which part of clause 4 he is referring to.

Sheldon Clare: I think in 18.4(5), if you look at subsections (a) and (b), it refers to “take the action in section 16(2)(a).” I trust that that’s helpful to the minister.

The Chair: I’m sure they’ll indicate if it’s not.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for clarifying the question.

For this one, it is requiring further information from the proponent and therefore not an issue for dispute resolution.

Sheldon Clare: I want to have a look at section 18.6, under which the dispute resolution facilitator produces a report. Now, in this legislation, it explicitly states that this report is not binding and does not guide decision-makers beyond the specific case.

I’ve been involved in dispute resolution processes for a very long time. I’ve seen decisions handed down. I’ve seen facilitators, mediators, arbitrators produce reports, and I’ve also seen these reports used as precedent in other matters. They come back. They take the report. They look at the report. They say: “Well, this was treated this way in the past, and thus, we will treat this next case in a similar fashion.” This is kind of like the common law. This is how it works — the rule of precedent.

I wonder about these reports. What is the legal weight of these reports, and are they merely advisory? Do they have any way of serving as precedent in order to resolve these disputes?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is a transparency mechanism which allows other interested parties insight into the process and the outcomes. Nothing in the report is legally binding on the statutory decision–maker.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. As I understand the answer, there’s no value of precedent or precedence associated with this particular decision.

There’s a great deal of effort to bring parties together, to have discussion about specific disputes and come to consensus and to seek resolution of the problem. So we have a situation where either party can leave at any time. They can, effectively, shut down the whole process.

My question to the minister is this. What incentive exists for the parties to invest time and resources into a process whose outcomes may ultimately be disregarded, in which there are no consequences and which appears to be more performative rather than substantive in getting resolution, particularly when decisions and dispute resolutions made before cannot be referred to or are not referred to in solving subsequent disputes?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Consensus-seeking is embedded throughout the entire environmental assessment process. All parties are incented to resolve, as they result in more durable decisions and better outcomes. For clarity, while the report is not binding, it must be considered by the statutory decision–maker.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question. I think that sounded a little bit like precedent — some aspects of precedent anyway, perhaps.

I’m still curious about this precedent thing. Why are reports explicitly not precedent-setting, even though they must be considered by the statutory decision–maker? Why was it necessary to prevent them from being precedent?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The report is entirely specific to that project and to that specific dispute.

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

In section 18.7, we see confidentiality considerations introduced, and Indigenous nations are given an opportunity to identify confidential information before publication. Now, sometimes there may be a variety of interests in ensuring that information is public or that all parties are given access to information, for a variety of reasons.

It could be for academic purposes, for example. It could be for matters related to land ownership or title. It could have to do with environmental considerations — water, fish, anything. There could be all kinds of reasons for that, and they may be in the public interest as well as the interests of the parties.

[3:25 p.m.]

So when we’re considering confidentiality and we’re considering the importance of transparency, how is the need for both transparency and confidentiality properly balanced when we are looking at these confidentiality considerations that are brought forward in section 18.7?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Under the existing Environmental Assessment Act, guidance is provided in section 75.

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

When I’m looking at this notice about confidential information…. As a person who’s had a long academic career teaching local history, B.C. history and so on, I’m often interested in finding out the facts — the truth, if you would — what actually happened.

So when information is deemed to be confidential, who makes the final determination on what is withheld, under what criteria it is withheld and who has access to that particular confidential information? Is there a list, or is there any sort of criteria that identifies who has access to that information?

In terms of environmental assessment, transparency is simply not something that should be considered optional. It is, in fact, foundational. Yet confidentiality is also essential in certain contexts, and balancing the two requires clear rules and not broad discretion.

I look forward to the minister’s answer to the question.

[3:30 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This clause only deals with the opportunity for the participating Indigenous nation to advise the chief environmental assessment officer under the criteria that is set out in section 75 of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Sheldon Clare: In terms of the publishing of the reports, after they’re determined to be okey-dokey in terms of confidentiality and in support of the transparency process, why is it the case that these must be published online, and are they published anywhere else?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We have a public website that provides all the information to ensure that they are widely accessible to the public. However, if a party was not able to access it digitally, we would be happy to provide them with other means.

Sheldon Clare: Now, in 18.7 it talks about matters being confidential, and then the reports being published and all of this is in 18.9.

When the report is published, is it possible, or is it likely, that there would be redactions? How would these redactions be selected, and who would be responsible for deciding what’s redacted and how?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As we talked about earlier under section 18.7, this clause is simply about the participating Indigenous nation having a reasonable opportunity to inform the CEAO of any information in the report that the participating Indigenous nation considers to be confidential.

We’re not dealing here with redactions or anything else, and it would just follow the government policies of the day.

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

I’m not sure what the effect is of the participating Indigenous nation advising the chief executive assessment officer that they regard some material to be confidential if there is not some sort of a result tied to that.

Does the CEAO just say: “Well, okay. Thank you for bringing that up.” Do they have any duty of response to say: “Okay. Well, then we won’t include it”? Or does it matter? Is this just left in limbo or at the discretion…? And whose discretion is it left at to determine whether or not anything confidential is included or not?

It isn’t clear to me, based on this clause, if the informing of the CEAO that there is something that the nation considers to be confidential is sufficient for removing it from the report. It may…. It looks like it could be left in the report. It looks like it might not be. It isn’t clear. It isn’t stated there. I just want to have a little bit of clarity around this particular clause.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: In terms of timelines for publication, when I’m looking at section 18.9, I don’t see a timeline specified. Now, in the very little experience I have with statutes and statutory law and administrative law, I believe it’s fairly standard practice that when something is required to be done, then there usually is a timeline associated with it to make it clear as to when that must be done.

It seems to me to be an omission in this particular section about timelines. I’m wondering: is there a timeline that applies? Has this been inadvertently omitted? Has it been omitted on purpose? Why is there no timeline about when the information gets published?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Timelines are addressed in our policy.

Sheldon Clare: Would the minister be willing to expand upon that policy or tell us what that policy is so it can be on the record — so that the people who are paying attention to this at home or watching this record can understand exactly what that policy is — or provide a source where that policy might be given access to?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I would just like to say that I think we want to be talking about clause 4 and what’s within clause 4.

Sheldon Clare: I believe that we are talking about clause 4, because clause 4 naturally would include an aspect of timelines for publication and sources for publication. This is the section “Publication of Information Respecting Dispute Resolution.” The question is directly about the publication, and the minister did respond that this is a matter of policy.

Since that door has been opened, I think it’s a reasonable thing to ask about that policy and where it might be viewed by others.

The Chair: Would the minister like to respond?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Again, asked and answered.

The Chair: Would the member like to embark upon a new adventure?

Sheldon Clare: This member is always interested in new adventures, within reason, of course.

All right. So regarding the publication question in this particular clause, under what circumstances does the minister envision that publication of this report could be delayed, paused or potentially not even occur?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We have an obligation in statute to post these. All of the matters are dealt with, regarding the timelines, in policy.

Sheldon Clare: This reference to policy has come up again, and a policy that’s out there is that…. Is this policy transparent so that the affected parties and the public at large, who are paying for this process, have the ability to examine this policy and understand why, what, where, when and how this is being enacted?

I ask the minister: what accountability exists if there is no ability for the general public or the parties involved to examine this policy, especially if it’s been referred to in this response about the matter of publication?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Under the existing legislation, the environmental assessment office has a statutory obligation to facilitate public access to information. For all matters under the Environmental Assessment Act, the CEAO must act with reasonableness.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response. I’m always encouraged by statements of reasonableness, a word which has got all sorts of legal problems over the last, I think, 45 years when one tries to determine what is reasonable and what is not and who determines such.

When we’re talking about reasonableness and we’re talking about policy, I think a question I have regarding this clause is…. I don’t see policy referred to in the clause, and I want to know if policy trumps statute.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Legislation does not get into this granular level of detail, which is why policies are established.

[3:50 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the minister articulating that policy is established because statute doesn’t get into granular detail.

But when we’re considering this clause — and we’re considering access to information, considering confidentiality and transparency — and we’re confronted with the p word, “policy,” and the policy does not appear to be something that is accessible, how are people to understand how the statute is applied when they do not have access to policy?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As I have said many times before, these matters are addressed in the existing legislation.

I’d really like us to stay focused on this specific clause for this specific piece of amendment.

Sheldon Clare: To the minister, thank you. I believe I am on this particular clause and this particular aspect of this clause. I am concerned that there seems to be an appearance that the government thinks the public should trust regulators over legislators. I want to make sure that I’m flagging that, because when we see matters that are left unclear in a statute and told that it’s going to be the whim of policy, I think that’s a problem with the statute.

I don’t believe the public at large deserves to be told that we can’t tell you or we’re not going to reveal the policy that might affect something as significant as to publication of a report that the public has paid for with their tax dollars. So when there is a report and it’s going to be out there and the whims of policy decided in dark corridors or back rooms trump the legislation, I think that’s a concern.

[3:55 p.m.]

I would ask that there be serious consideration. Will there be serious consideration of the effect of policy upon this particular clause?

The Chair: Sorry. I think the minister has made it clear that she feels the question has been asked and answered on this particular line of questioning.

I would be very excited to hear a new line of questioning.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Sheldon Clare: How does replacing section 5 references affect existing processes?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is purely consequential to the repeal of section 5.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her explanation. Why was section 5 repealed?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I believe that we dealt with this at length yesterday, but for clarity, section 5 is being repealed and replaced by part 4.2 in the bill.

Sheldon Clare: Why is 4.2 being added to section 71.2?

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: We’re going to pass clause 5, and then we’ll come back to that question because that question relates to clause 6.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

The Chair: Moving on to the question of clause 6, Member, we can take your question as asked, and then the minister can just move on.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: It’s purely consequential to this clause.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

The Chair: On the question of clause 7, recognizing the member.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair. We do have a lot of fun here, don’t we?

The Chair: Every day.

Sheldon Clare: What is the purpose of changing terminology in section 75?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is correcting a drafting error from the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

The Chair: On the question of clause 8, recognizing the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair. It does my heart good to hear that riding mentioned in this House.

In moving to clause 8, which expands regulation-making powers, we see authority granted to prescribed entities as United States tribes and to define powers and duties of dispute resolution facilitators. This raises the question: why are such fundamental aspects of the regime being left to regulation rather than statute?

Regulations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as legislation, and when key elements are deferred, it becomes difficult for this House to fully assess the effect of the bill.

[4:05 p.m.]

This raises a broader constitutional concern. The Supreme Court has emphasized, in cases such as reference to pan-Canadian securities regulation, that legislative clarity and accountability are essential when designing complex regulatory regimes.

The big question here is: is the province asking this House to approve a framework whose most critical elements and details are yet to be defined?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The amendment to add 77(2)(a.1) provides flexibility to prescribe additional entities as United States tribes by regulation, ensuring that entities not listed in the United States list within the United States Federal Register but that may have a credible assertion to section 35 rights in British Columbia can still be captured by this definition. This closes potential legislative gaps by ensuring the province can respond appropriately and consistent with provincial policy to future assertions and participating Indigenous nation requests from U.S. entities that have not been listed by the U.S. federal government.

The amendment to add 77(2)(a.2) continues the LGIC authority currently given under the section 5(4) to make regulations respecting the powers and duties of dispute resolution facilitators.

Sheldon Clare: Will such regulations in that regard, regarding U.S. tribes, be subject to consultation processes and due scrutiny?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Yes, we have an obligation consult. When we develop a regulation, we have an obligation to consult and to also engage with any other potentially impacted party.

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

What is the status of the development of these regulations? When will the consultation process take place, and when is it expected that these regulations will be introduced?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As we stated earlier, 77(2)(a.1) is to provide flexibility and will only be developed if it’s required. As for 77(2)(a.2), we have an existing regulation. If this bill is passed, the work would begin on the regulation consultation in May, and the completion of that process depends on the consultations.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question. I’m always pleased to see a robust consultation process in place with regards to statute law.

If this is passed through the House….

Well, that’s a quite a conditional question, I suppose. Perhaps I’ll sit down for now, and we can consider this clause.

Clause 8 approved.

[4:15 p.m.]

The Chair: On the question of clause 9. Shall clause…?

Oh, so exciting. I thought we were going to get two in a row.

All right. Recognizing the member.

On clause 9.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am so pleased to be able to add to your excitement of what many must think is a drab and otherwise dull process. I assure you it is far from that for me.

Anyway, on clause 9, why was a transitional heading necessary in this case?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: It’s typical to have transitional provisions when there are processes underway.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

On my copy of the statute, where it has the heading “Transitional Provisions,” I note that that there is a space and then a period. I wonder why that space is there and, conversely, why that period might be there.

When I look at the rest of the headings, and having been a technical writing instructor with many years of experience, I wonder why there would be a period included after a space on a heading when probably no such period would be required. It’s not the end of a sentence. It’s not any kind of thing that seems to have a purpose or place there.

I’m wondering if the government sees that as a necessary addition to this heading and critical to this particular statute.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: It is how we signify the end of the clause, where there are no other punctuation marks. It is called an amending period. It is not going to be part of the consolidated enactment.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Sheldon Clare: How are existing disputes handled under section 78.1?

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. There is no 78.1 currently. The 78.1 is the amendment that is going to be the clause that will exist once the amendment is put into place. But at this point there is no 78.1.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you.

I’m going to rephrase that question.

The Chair: I would be delighted to hear that. Please continue, Member.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.1(1), which preserves the former act for matters already referred to a dispute resolution facilitator, raises the question: how will decision-makers clearly distinguish when to apply the former statutory regime versus the new framework in ongoing proceedings?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This will be determined by the date of royal assent, and any act of dispute resolution will be governed by the existing statute.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.1(1), I have the question: what risks has the province identified regarding inconsistent outcomes where similar disputes are governed by different legislative regimes and based solely on the timing of the dispute?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Just a reminder that the outcomes of dispute resolution are not legally binding on the statutory decision–maker, and there have been no identified risks.

Sheldon Clare: Once again, thank you to the minister for her response.

With respect to clause 10, section 78.1(2), which continues the application of prior regulations, it raises to me the question: how will the province address situations where those regulations are no longer aligned with the intent or the structure of the amended act?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There is one regulation that requires minor updates, and as I spoke about previously, depending on if this bill passes and receives royal assent, then that work should begin in May.

Sheldon Clare: I believe I may have got a partial answer to my next question in the minister’s response, but I’ll run it up the flagpole and see who salutes in that regard.

With respect to clause 10, section 78.1(2), has any audit been conducted to identify legacy regulations that may cause confusion or conflict when applied along the new provisions?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Yes, I can confirm a review was completed by the EAO team and the Ministry of Attorney General.

Sheldon Clare: What regulations were identified as potentially causing conflict or confusion when applied alongside the new provisions?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.1(3), which renders referrals by United States tribes of no force or effect, I have this question: what legal rationale supports retroactively invalidating processes that were lawfully initiated under the previous regime? How are these to be dealt with, even with the transitional provisions?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There is no prohibition on legislation operating retroactively.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.1(3), that raises the question: how does the province mitigate the risk of procedural fairness challenges from parties whose dispute processes are terminated midstream?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We have engaged with potentially affected parties to ensure that they are made aware and to address any concerns.

Sheldon Clare: Thanks for the diligence on this matter. I’m sure it’s of great importance to those affected.

My next question is related, I believe, to this particular issue. With respect to clause 10, section 78.2(1), which nullifies notices previously given by United States tribes, I’m wondering what assessment has been made of potential legal liability arising from extinguishing previously recognized participation rights.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This goes back to the same point, that we still have a duty to consult with U.S. tribes.

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the response, and I fully expected it would be a similar answer as that to the previous question.

However, with respect to clause 10, section 78.2(1), I wonder: does this retroactive nullification in any way undermine confidence in the stability and predictability of the environmental assessment regime?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As we discussed before, I think this does the opposite, because this gives clarity to all parties and gives more predictability to the whole process.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response. I’m not really sure that I would suggest that everyone would agree with the minister in that regard. However, I’ll move on to my next question.

With respect to clause 10, section 78.2(2), clarifying that the United States tribes are not participating Indigenous nations, I wonder: how does this exclusion align with broader reconciliation principles where Indigenous territories and interests cross international borders?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I believe we covered this yesterday, but I will repeat it, for the member’s sake, for today.

The amendments will support reconciliation with First Nations by maintaining the distinction between B.C. First Nations’ and U.S. tribes’ participation in provincial EAs.

Some B.C. First Nations have expressed significant concerns with extending PIN procedural rights to U.S. tribes, including that it could affect their governance roles and treaty rights. The amendments support the notion that the province’s commitments to reconciliation are with B.C. First Nations.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the clear response. I appreciate that, and I know the people who are watching this today are very interested in fulsome responses.

With respect to clause 10, section 78.2(2), I wonder: has the province considered whether this categorical exclusion could lead to gaps in consultation on transboundary environmental impacts?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.3(1), defining “standard protocol,” I’d have the question: what legal status will these protocols carry in relation to the statutory obligations under the act?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The standard protocol — the outcome of that is to provide the recommendation to the statutory decision–maker.

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

With respect to clause 10, section 78.3(1), what accountability mechanisms will govern how these protocols are developed, amended and applied over time?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: A draft version of the protocol was provided in January of 2026 and is currently publicly available on the website as appendix A of the intentions paper.

As we’ve mentioned numerous times, we are currently cooperating and consulting with First Nations and industry to develop the protocol. As is the practice with the EAO, any changes in policy will require consultation and cooperation.

Also, once the final standard protocol is completed, it will be publicly available on the EAO website.

Sheldon Clare: To the minister, thank you for your response.

With respect to clause 10, section 78.3(2), which applies that standard protocol to pre-existing projects, I have a question. Does this have the effect of creating a two-tiered system, where procedural rights differ depending on when a project entered the assessment process?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is not a two-tier process. This approach will provide predictability and consistency for those who have entered the process.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

However, with regards to clause 10, section 78.3(2), I’m wondering if it’s not a two-tiered system or if there could be a perception of that. How will fairness be maintained between proponents and Indigenous nations who are operating under different procedural frameworks?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I believe I’ve already answered this, but just, again, to reiterate for the record. For any place that this might apply, we have done consultation and cooperation to mitigate any concerns.

Sheldon Clare: With regards to clause 10, section 78.3(2)(a), excluding 4.1 from certain projects, I wonder what justification exists for denying those projects access to the new issue resolution mechanism.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As I’ve stated before, this is only one of many tools that we can use during the consensus-seeking process, and there’s nothing preventing any First Nation from being able to use any of these tools that are in the process.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.3(2)(a), I wonder: could this exclusion result in less effective dispute resolution for projects that are already in the system?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I think that we’ve already answered this. Just to go back again to say this is just one of many tools that can be used during the consensus-seeking process within the Environmental Assessment Act.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10, section 78.3(2)(b), this raises the question in my mind: does reliance on non-statutory protocols increase the risk of discretionary or uneven application across projects? How will consistency be ensured when these protocols are policy-based rather than legislatively prescribed?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Each project is unique, and nothing in this absolves us of our obligation to consult.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to clause 10 overall, I wonder: what steps will the province be taking to ensure that all parties clearly understand which procedural regime applies to their specific project during the transitional period, should this bill pass?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Upon royal assent, we would then communicate this out to all parties.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

Again, with respect to the clause overall, clause 10, what steps will the province be taking to minimize administrative complexity arising from the coexistence of multiple procedural frameworks?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: Has the province evaluated whether these transitional provisions could lead to delays or inefficiencies in project assessments?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: When there is a new process, a new statute, a new bill, it’s pretty usual to conduct an evaluation process to ensure that the bill, the transitional provisions and everything, is operating as intended.

I’m wondering: what are the plans of the government and the province to ensure that the transitional provisions are operating as intended?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Ongoing communication with the project teams, participating Indigenous nations and proponents will continue.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

The Chair: Recognizing the member.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see by the disappointment on your face you were expecting a twofer. I’m sorry to disappoint you in that regard, but it is important to conduct due diligence in such matters, and here I am.

With respect to clause 11, bringing the act into force on royal assent, which the minister already referred to, I’m wondering why the province has chosen immediate commencement rather than a phased implementation approach for this bill.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: It is to provide more clarity and predictability for all parties involved.

Sheldon Clare: My next question is: what readiness measures have been put into place by the province to ensure that all stakeholders are able to comply with the new regime upon royal assent?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: Does immediate implementation risk creating uncertainty or disruption for projects currently underway under the previous framework?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered.

Sheldon Clare: As I conclude my examination of this bill, I want to just point out a number of interconnected concerns. There are a number that I think bear consideration, which I think you’ve understood through my questioning: the blending of constitutional duties with administrative processes, the expansion of discretion without clear limits, the creation of processes that may lack enforceability and the deferral of key details to regulation and policy.

For me, it raises an overarching question. Does this bill strengthen the environmental assessment process in a way that is legally durable and constitutionally sound, or does it create a system that is more complex, more discretionary and thus potentially more vulnerable to challenge?

If the goal of this bill is certainty for Indigenous nations, for proponents and for the public, then we have a duty to ensure that the framework we build is not only well-intentioned but legally robust. At this stage, I think there are many questions that bear consideration to ensure that we have reached that conclusion with confidence.

I believe the government has the opportunity to take a further examination of this bill in light of the issues that we’ve raised today, and in light of all the impending matters surrounding reconciliation in this province, that extra caution is most instructive.

I would like to say…. I would like to thank the staff for their efforts in assisting the minister in response to the questions that I’ve posed.

I appreciate your efforts in ensuring that I have good, clear answers to my questions.

[5:05 p.m.]

I would particularly like to thank the minister for her diligence and responses to the questions, even if I thought some of them were a little incomplete from time to time.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your efforts — and all of the Chairs who have served before you through the process that we’re going through — and, as well, my own staff for assisting me in analyzing this bill in a fulsome and thoughtful way to ensure that as the opposition, we’re doing the very best job that we can to make sure that our diligence is fully met.

Interjection.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for pointing that out. I’m sure that will be on No Context, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Would the minister like to make some closing remarks?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I really want to say thank you to the committee members for their questions.

I would also like to thank the staff that have worked so hard in bringing forward these amendments — Alex, Julie and Tara here with me — and all of the staff that worked behind the scenes to do this. I am very, very proud of this process that we did to get to this place today.

I feel very good about the engagement that we’ve done with B.C. First Nations, with proponents, with industry, and I’m very excited about putting forward this bill. This is what people told us isn’t working, and this is what we’re doing to try to fix it. This isn’t government going out and telling people what to do. This is Indigenous people coming forward and having the trust in us to tell us what was working and what was not working.

These are participating Indigenous nations that have very sophisticated projects. They’ve been through the process. They know what the process is. They have high capacity in their communities to bring forward what they know are their concerns, and we listened to them. We developed that with them in mind. We took it back to the proponents that have projects here, as well as industry.

I am very proud of the work that’s been put into here. There is no question that this is going to help us when we are looking at environmental assessments and how we can do them in a better way.

I want to say thank you to everyone who has put input into this, and I look forward to this going to the vote today.

Clause 11 approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Now looking to the minister to move the vote.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:08 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:10 p.m.

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

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, to order. We are on clause 7.

On clause 7 (continued).

Claire Rattée: Just before the break there, we were discussing section 4.6 of clause 7, around the process for temporary restrictions to units and things like that.

I already have a feeling that I know how this is going to go, but I’m going to try anyways with an amendment.

I would move that:

[Clause 7 is amended by adding the following subsection

4.6 (5) A landlord must not restrict a tenant’s access to a rental unit unless

(a) the restriction is necessary to prevent an immediate risk to the safety of persons, and

(b) reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the tenant has access to appropriate support or alternative accommodation.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: Speaking to the amendment, the reason that I’m bringing this forward is because, while I recognize that there are some things that need to be put in regulation so that they have some flexibility, I personally believe that this is not necessarily one of them.

I may be missing something, and I recognize that. This is not the work I do every day; it’s the work the minister does every day. But I feel as though having something clear around the reasons for which somebody is able to actually temporarily restrict access is important and should be in the Residential Tenancy Act.

I also have some concerns around ensuring that reasonable steps have been taken. I recognize that in regulation, this likely exists already to some extent, but I would like to see it within the legislation, personally. So that’s why I will be moving this amendment.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for this. I certainly share the desire for this to be clear and recognize, along with the member opposite, the importance of this conversation. I will just say, logistically, I also appreciate the amendments being shared ahead of time so we can move quickly today.

The amendment is more appropriately included in regulation rather than the act itself for the reasons we spoke to before lunch, and the amendments in Bill 11 allow government to address this issue through regulation. That’s the appropriate place.

Again, I recognize the concern and intent behind this and want to affirm that it is very much the intention that it be outlined clearly in reg.

The Chair: Any further questions on the amendment?

The question is to the amendment to clause 7.

Amendment negatived.

Claire Rattée: I’m going to move forward onto section 4.7.

As I understand it, this amendment is effectively changing some of the rules from the Residential Tenancy Act for supportive housing units when a tenant is leaving a unit. The way I’m interpreting this is that there is the ability to not require that a tenant has to leave their unit reasonably clean and undamaged, except for reasonable wear and tear.

I don’t understand (1) what the purpose of that would be but (2) why this is being introduced. Is there a specific piece of supplemental information that the minister could provide to me? Just generally, I have some concerns around what the purpose of this is, so I would like some clarification on why that was introduced here and what the intended use of it is, please.

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Totally appreciate the question. This section establishes regulation-making authorities to prescribe exceptions to section 37(2)(a) of the RTA. Section 37(2)(a) of the RTA requires a tenant to leave the rental unit reasonably clean when vacating their rental unit.

Exceptions to this may be needed in circumstances we spoke about yesterday — in particular, when a tenant has been under a temporary restriction and that temporary restriction leads to an eviction, so they don’t have an opportunity to return to their unit before vacating. It simply is an exception that would be written into the regulation, understanding that they couldn’t be expected to leave the unit reasonably clean, if that has been the path that they were following.

Claire Rattée: If the minister could clarify then. This is specifically…. This section will only be applicable — the only time that that exemption will be given is — in the case of a temporary eviction.

Could the minister, also, please expand upon why, then, “undamaged except for reasonable wear and tear” is included in there? Is the assumption that when a tenant is leaving a unit, for example, they would be expected in a normal situation to fix a hole in the drywall that was caused by hanging up a picture or a television set, and now they’re not going to be able to? In my mind, that’s reasonable wear and tear.

I’m trying to understand the purpose of having that section in there. I would think that situations that wouldn’t be reasonable wear and tear would be quite substantial, and they shouldn’t be doing those to their unit anyhow, regardless of the circumstance of a temporary eviction that may lead to a permanent one.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The language around “reasonably clean and undamaged except for reasonable wear and tear” is the language currently in the RTA, and the amendment would create exemptions.

Yes, as you say, the intention is the exemptions are just for that exact situation where a temporary restriction leads to a permanent eviction.

Claire Rattée: Just for clarity, because it’s not clear within the legislation, if the minister could please explain whether or not that will be made explicit through the regulation — that that is the only time under which this exemption would apply?

Secondly, my concern over 4.7(b) here with the “undamaged except for reasonable wear and tear….” I recognize that that’s the language that already exists within the section. I get that. But I feel like it would make more sense to actually remove that section because all that tells me, then, is that…. Let’s say, for example, someone punched a hole in their wall. Now they’ve been evicted. I understand why they may not be able to have left it reasonably clean if they’re not allowed back on the premises to be able to clean it.

Who, then, is responsible for the cost to repair that wall? That was something they shouldn’t have done during the term of their tenancy regardless. Or any other number of things. They could have trashed the bathroom, trashed the kitchen — whatever it might be. Who now is responsible for that? Because this is, effectively, letting that person off the hook.

Regardless of it being supportive housing or any other type of housing, people should be responsible for their tenancies and for making sure that they’re taking good care of their unit. Just because somebody has been evicted, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held liable for damage that they have done to the unit.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, it will be clearly outlined in regulation, to the first half of the question.

To the second half, I think we can both understand that many tenants or former tenants in this situation would not have the means to address damage. Those are the realities of supportive housing providers often, and part of why we’re in this exact conversation. Though I will add that there are avenues under the RTA for a housing provider to seek to address damage caused to a unit, including that not all but many supportive housing providers collect a damage deposit and one avenue is to make a claim against that damage deposit.

Claire Rattée: To be clear, then, this is almost somewhat unnecessary and redundant because this is already happening, effectively, in practice. Supportive housing providers are not necessarily going after tenants after their tenancy has ended. If there is substantial damage, they will then look at whether or not there was a damage deposit or whether or not to cut their losses. That was the understanding I just received there.

If I’m wrong, I hope the minister will correct me. But then my question still stands: who, then, is on the hook to pay for those, and how is that determined — whether or not there will be any actions taken to try and recover any of those costs from a tenant?

I’ll explain my reasoning for asking it. I see a situation where, potentially, some people in supportive housing could be unfairly treated compared to others, in that if a landlord assumes there is a higher likelihood they’ll be able to get money from that person — that they’re more likely to have the money to pay for it, or they’re more likely to show up if there’s a hearing, or whatever the case may be — than somebody that they think is unlikely to, they may pick and choose when they’re actually going to go after someone for repairs and for damages. I don’t think that that’s fair or justified.

I think that even though supportive housing is very different from traditional tenancies, and I understand that, we also have canvassed greatly over the last week about just how diverse the communities are that make up tenants of supportive housing.

I’m fearful that there could be situations in which someone may be seen as a write-off of, “Oh, well I’m never going to get the money so there’s no point in trying to go after them,” but then a different person may be treated differently, and they’re both within the same building. I can see how that could potentially — because we haven’t addressed the issues of cohabitation between various groups that don’t make sense to house together — be unfairly applied.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Even in traditional tenancies right now, the landlord makes a determination on and has a choice on how to manage turnover and recover costs. Landlords are making those choices all of the time.

It would be, in supportive housing, a case-by-case situation. Often providers know tenants and would have a sense of how best to respond and what avenues, whether through the RTB or damage deposits or nothing at all, if they know that there’s no avenue or means to address the situation. Housing providers will have that information.

[1:25 p.m.]

I’ll just go back to your earlier question about if this is even needed. It’s really about getting at the situation where a tenant is not able to go back into the unit because their temporary restriction has led to a long-term eviction and there are safety concerns with them returning to the unit and outlining specifically here an exception where they wouldn’t be coming back to the unit so as to not bring about a situation that raises those concerns.

Claire Rattée: In a situation where a tenant is temporarily evicted and it leads to a permanent eviction and the determination is made that their returning even to gather personal belongings.… I’m assuming it has been decided that that is going to pose an immediate risk to safety. In that instance, is it then the housing provider’s responsibility to clean out their unit, provide their belongings back to them and then deal with cleaning up the unit and getting it back into good shape before a new tenant comes in?

On the other side of that, in a situation where it does lead to a permanent eviction but it’s determined that maybe there isn’t necessarily an immediate risk, is there a mechanism by which we would expect, in those situations, that tenant to come back in, collect their belongings, then clean the unit and make sure that it is prepared? I’m just trying to better understand what those guidelines are going to look like for supportive housing providers, please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, that is the current process as well. There are, I’ll add, sometimes cases involving a court order, where a bailiff would be involved, but in other circumstances the housing provider. Speaking to the requirement, in situations where a tenant could come back and gather their own belongings, the expectation around cleaning would be on a case-by-case basis, really dependent on the capacity of that tenant to do that work.

More broadly, I’ll just say, the inclusion of this particular section is really a fairness issue. We can’t require, in all cases, the tenant to uphold the same level of cleanliness that’s expected in the RTA of all other tenants, if they’re not allowed back into the unit.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister. That clarifies it for me. Okay, I’m going to move on to section 4.8. I still feel like I have a couple of questions about that one. I might have to come back to it.

So 4.8 is, of course, dealing with the weapons issue, which I believe is, in my understanding, a pretty central focus of this legislation — something that I understand, from previous comments that the minister has made, was a request that came from providers. That came as a result of this round table that was organized last year.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some clarity, from the discussions that were had at that round table, when the conversation came up about weapons and why this needed to be included in the legislation.

[1:30 p.m.]

If the minister could please clarify whether or not this was the only thing that came up from providers or if this was just the one that we were able to find common ground on — in speaking also with tenant advocates and current supportive housing users, whether or not that was the case — or if there were other things that were looked at as potentially needing to be banned, we’ll say, just for ease of how we’re speaking about it.

Effectively, that’s really what I interpret this as — a ban on weapons. I’m just wondering how that conversation really unfolded, primarily because, as I mentioned previously during estimates, we didn’t have clarity on how frequently this is an issue, whether or not this is one of the bigger, more overwhelming issues that are occurring right now within supportive housing.

I would like some discussion around that and some clarity, please, if the minister could.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. I’ll just take us back a little bit to where these conversations began, which was…. I’m losing all grip on time these days here.

Last spring supportive housing providers raised concerns, as I’m sure the member opposite remembers, about rare but serious incidents in supportive housing, including incidents that involved weapons, and their articulation that the RTA was a barrier to addressing these issues. That was the beginning of the working group that the ministry engaged and the result in Bill 11, including, particularly related to weapons possession, section 4.8.

It is currently the case that supportive housing providers can have in place a weapons ban, but there weren’t tools to clearly enforce it. This section gives them the ability to enforce it.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that. The main thing that I’m trying to ascertain here, though, from those conversations with the working group is: was there a scope that was discussed beyond just the weapons piece?

[1:35 p.m.]

I agree. I remember we heard a lot of really horrifying stories over the last year about things that have happened in supportive housing, and I’m thinking specifically of situations like that of Diane Chandler.

I understand that some of those issues can’t be addressed through the Residential Tenancy Act, but I put forward amendments previously that I think could address some of those issues around the use of drugs within supportive housing and, more so, the normalization of that and how that has potentially contributed to a number of the deaths that we have seen.

That’s where I’m just curious. When it comes to this section around the weapons, were there conversations with providers or others around potentially banning other items in conjunction with that or trying to just address some of those behaviours?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There was a significant focus on issues related to staff safety and the need to be able to immediately address significant safety risks in the work with the working group. That’s why the bill is focused on weapons as well as temporary restrictions to address that immediate safety risk. We feel the bill addresses the most urgent concerns raised by providers, as evidenced by the broad array of support that the bill has received from supportive housing providers.

Claire Rattée: I do recognize that. I think that supportive housing providers, I’m sure, are very happy to see these changes because they are ones that are needed. My concern is not about whether or not these are needed. It’s about whether or not it goes far enough.

I’m wondering if the minister would indulge me in letting me know whether or not issues around staff safety, when it comes to secondhand smoke and those issues, were something that were raised with this working group.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, those concerns were raised, and improving health and safety for people who live and work in supportive housing remains a priority in all of these cases.

B.C. Housing continues to support operators by helping them put immediate safety measures in place and by monitoring site-specific risks around air quality as the work continues.

A technical working group is right now developing new provincial guidance to help supportive housing providers reduce exposure to unregulated airborne substances. The working group includes the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, WorkSafeBC, B.C. Housing and housing and health partners.

Supporting materials, such as an FAQ that the member has seen — and if not, if you’re having any trouble finding it, I’m sure we can help — have already been released to the sector. The updated exposure reduction guidance will be released in 2026 and will give providers clear tools to recognize and assess risks and take steps to improve air quality and reduce exposure to airborne substances.

I’ll say, as well, that there are already many supportive housing providers who have non-smoking policies in place in their buildings. It’s an operational piece that many are already putting in place.

Claire Rattée: Just one more really quick question on that, because I do understand we had talked about that previously — how specific operators can decide if they want to make sure that they include that within their tenancy agreements around non-smoking policies.

Part of my concern, though, is that we’ve also canvassed the fact that we’re not currently making an effort — or, at least, not a very strong effort — to ensure that we’re housing similar types of tenants within specific buildings.

My understanding of how this process works right now is that there are long wait-lists. We don’t have enough units. People on a wait-list, if they’re offered a unit — and this is just speaking from some of the casework that I’ve had to do on this — frequently will be told: “This is the unit that’s available to you.”

If that building doesn’t have a specific no-smoking policy, then somebody that doesn’t want to be exposed to drug smoke or dangerous items now doesn’t really have a choice. It’s either be unhoused or go into this building where you feel unsafe or your health is at risk, which is why I’ve been pushing for trying to find a path so that we can make sure this is blanketed throughout supportive housing, as I think it should be throughout any housing, at least where there are multiple people living within the same unit.

The concern that I have about the current approach is that if we’re leaving it up to each individual building, but there isn’t a set standard between them, then we’re expecting the potential tenants to just kind of go: “Okay, well, you’ve just got to be happy with whatever unit we can get you into.”

I understand. I recognize that this is a bit outside of the scope of this legislation, but I would just ask if the minister could comment on whether or not that’s at least something that’s being addressed or that the ministry is looking into.

Hon. Christine Boyle: There is a pretty extensive coordinated access system that works in communities to match people with the appropriate building and level or need of support wherever possible.

[1:45 p.m.]

That is, of course, dependent on availability, and that is why we as a government have made significant historic investments in building more supportive housing options in communities all over the province.

We know that those investments allow for more type and choice to meet people where they’re at as well as to get at a flow of people, to meet them where they’re at and provide options along their journey.

Claire Rattée: So 4.8(1) says, “in this section ‘weapon’ has the prescribed meaning.” I know what that means. That means it’s going to be figured out in regulation, but I would hope that the minister could potentially provide me with that definition. I would think at this point in time we should know what that definition is, of “weapon,” so I’m hoping that could be provided. Or at least, what will be the recommendation of the ministry when those regulations are being put together?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. That work is underway to…. The definition will be prescribed by regulation, and again, as we’ve spoken to, the intent of prescribing it in regulation is to allow some flexibility. This is a changing field. We want to be able to work alongside providers and be responsive.

The policy intention is to align with definitions established in the Criminal Code of Canada and is intended to include weapons that are illegal to possess as well as, and including, legal firearms. This recognizes the significant risk that firearms and illegal weapons pose in supportive housing.

It is, of course, a complicated area, and I know the member understands that nuance. Many household items can be used as weapons, but we have to be cognizant that these are people’s homes, and it’s not feasible to ban all kitchen knives and sporting goods. Additionally, we wouldn’t want to create barriers for people who are retraining to try to gain access to employment and better their lives by banning items that they would need for those purposes, like tools — like a hammer, for example.

Existing RTA provisions provide pathways for eviction related to other types of items that are being used in a way that threatens the health and safety of others. As I said, the policy intention of the definition of weapons as prescribed in regulations is — I won’t go over it — as described.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with some data. In the last year, how many times in a supportive housing unit has a firearm been involved in a complaint, whether that’s a threat, or how many times has a firearm actually been discharged within a supportive housing unit?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The concern we heard most from the working group wasn’t about frequency but about severity.

The member opposite asked a good question in estimates about the data around serious incidents, which includes incidents that involved firearms. Work is underway to gather that, still, in response to that estimates question, and we will be able to get that information for the member. I don’t have it yet right now.

I’m sure we can agree that even one incident is too many, and that’s why this section of the bill exists.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that from the minister. The reason I ask that question is because I personally haven’t heard of a situation recently in a supportive housing unit that involved a firearm. I’ve heard plenty that have involved knives, but the definition that was just provided to us wouldn’t include knives, because that’s a household item.

So that’s where my concern is. Is this section about the physical presence of an item, or is it about intent? That is not clear to me in this section at all. It appears to be about the presence of a physical item.

If the definition of that physical item is primarily a firearm and anything else that would be considered an illegal weapon…. I don’t know. Are those nunchuks and throwing stars? I’m not sure. Again, I’m sure there have been situations where that’s happened, but I don’t think it’s frequent.

I think what I hear, for the most part, is that people are getting physically assaulted. I hear lots of times that people have been punched and things like that, in which case this would do very little to prevent that. I hear situations where people get stabbed. I hear situations where people are threatened with knives, but again, we can’t prohibit knives if we’re classifying that as a household item.

I understand that this is very difficult. I sympathize with the ministry, because this is not an easy thing to figure out. But I think that we have to get it right, or at least as much as we can. So I’m really trying to understand.

Has there even been, in the last year, a single incident? I really appreciate trying to get the data for me. Has there been a single incident that has involved a firearm? Or did I misunderstand, potentially, that proposed definition? To me, it really did sound like it was basically firearms.

Again, is this supposed to be about the intent of assaulting somebody, of threatening someone, more so than the physical item itself? Is this applicable to a kitchen knife, if the kitchen knife is being used in a way that is dangerous? That’s what I’m trying to better understand.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the question in drilling down on this. So I want to speak to the portion of the question around intent, to say, as I said earlier, existing RTA provisions provide pathways for eviction related to any other type of item or assault without an item, in particular in instances that threaten the health and safety of others.

This bill, as we spoke to in previous sections, adds a temporary restriction pathway to be able to address those incidents of violence. Whether there is a defined weapon or another tool or not, that really is about pathways to address intent and incidents of health and safety.

The types of weapons that may be covered by the proposed amendment, as I spoke to, include firearms — but also the intention, and this will be further defined in regulation — also replica firearms; energy-conducted weapons, like Tasers; automatic opening knives, like spring-assisted blades; brass knuckles; etc.

It is really about the weapons portion, and the definition of weapons is really about severity. The intent piece is covered in existing pathways and the new pathway being added around a temporary restriction.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the minister can, then, in light of that, explain how this section is going to be enforced in the sense that… Is it enough that it just — this item that has had no intent behind its use — exists within a unit, and it is seen by another tenant or the housing provider? Do they have to physically be undertaking an act with that weapon for this to apply?

I would just like some clarity around in what circumstance this would trigger the eviction.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The proposed amendments take new action to keep weapons out of supportive housing by creating a new reason to end a tenancy when a tenant or their guest possesses a weapon on the supportive housing property or the landlord or housing provider sees a weapon in a tenant’s rental unit. Under this provision, the housing provider would be able to apply to the residential tenancy branch to end a tenancy when a tenant or their guest possesses a weapon or the landlord observes a weapon in a tenant’s rental unit.

The housing provider would bear the onus to prove that the tenant or their guest possessed a weapon on the supportive housing property or that they saw a weapon in the tenant’s rental unit.

As I spoke to, what constitutes a weapon will be set out in regulation and informed by stakeholder engagement. As we talked about yesterday or maybe the day before, eviction is a last-case scenario in many of these cases. It really comes back to a question of severity and risk.

Providers were very clear in asking for tools where serious risks exist — including in the presence of a firearm or, as we spoke about, other highly dangerous tools that have no other function except violence and aggression — so that is the work we’re getting at here.

[2:00 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if any thought was given to the potentially unintended consequences of adding this into the act because, while they may not be frequent or common, I think there are scenarios in which this could actually end up harming somebody.

I’m thinking specifically of young, vulnerable women. Either through the fact that they feel unsafe in their supportive housing or just in their day-to-day life, they might be somebody that’s struggling with substance use. They might be somebody that’s living in an SRO, the Downtown Eastside. As somebody that has done that, I know how terrifying it could be. I’ll be completely frank. I carried weapons on me, not to use against anyone but to defend myself. I have concerns that this could potentially have an impact.

We also know that there are a lot of people that engage in sex work and that live in these buildings. Again, they probably carry weapons on them for personal protection. So I have concerns that this could negatively impact them as well.

I understand that we don’t want anybody carrying a weapon that’s an illegal weapon. I get that. But the reality, as I think the minister also knows very well, is that when people are living in these situations — again, it in no way applies to most people that live in supportive housing, but some, enough that we need to worry about it — their day-to-day lives are very different than ours, sitting around this table here. That’s just the reality.

I do have concerns that this could be — pardon the pun — weaponized against them. I don’t think that that’s right. I think that there should be, certainly, in those situations, an attempt to work with that person to try and.… Again, I don’t want them to be in possession of an illegal weapon, but I also don’t want them to be evicted, to further that issue when they feel unsafe already and are vulnerable already.

The other piece I would just say is that again, younger, vulnerable people may be in situations where they may be in a casual relationship with somebody who’s abusive, who scares them. They may be struggling with substance use and not necessarily very coherent or cognizant of what’s going on in their surroundings, having people coming into their unit that could have a weapon on them. Now, potentially, because that guest has come in with a weapon, they may be evicted.

I’m just hoping that the minister can clarify whether or not consideration was given to these aspects and how we plan to mitigate that possible outcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, very conscious of these dynamics all at play. Government is aware that tenants may possess weapons for a variety of reasons, including as the member outlined. This will be considered in the process of developing regulations and in consultation with partners. Generally, we expect that the ban on weapons will be focused on addressing all firearms and prohibited weapons as defined under the Criminal Code of Canada, and several safeguards will apply.

One is the residential tenancy branch oversight. Decisions related to long-term and permanent eviction for possession of weapons are made by the residential tenancy branch and not by operators. There will be regulatory precision, so the definition of weapons will be set out in regulation and, as I spoke to, is intended to focus on items that present serious risk, not ordinary household items.

The objective is to address clear and serious danger, not to criminalize daily life in supportive housing. Operators, in our consultation with them, were and are very focused on preserving tenancies wherever possible.

Claire Rattée: I am going to move an amendment. I’m going to move:

[Clause 7 is amended by striking 4.8 (1) and substituting the following:

4.8 (1) For the purposes of this section, “weapon” means an item used or intended to be used to cause serious bodily harm and does not include items reasonably possessed for lawful or personal use unless used in a manner that creates a safety risk.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: The reason I’m moving this amendment. I think we’ve covered this pretty extensively, but I do have concerns about the definition being left up to regulation, simply because I can see both sides of this argument where I have concerns. I have concerns that people may be wrongly vilified for having something for personal safety use. I think that’s why it’s important to make sure that that is excluded.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m feeling fairly confident that firearms are not a common problem within supportive housing, based on us not having any clarity around whether or not there’s even been a situation like that in recent years.

I think that this definition will much more clearly define that it could be anything that someone is…. It could be their fists that they are using, but the intention is to cause harm to another person. I think that the intent piece is an important one. I don’t think that the presence of a physical item qualifies as intent in any way. I think that a person’s intentions are what they should be judged on and how things should proceed.

An item that’s sitting there and not doing anything is not going to hurt anybody. It’s the person’s intention behind it. I think that needs to be made extremely clear in the legislation.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate this conversation and the recognition that this is a tricky area.

In speaking to the amendment, I will just say I understand the intent here. We’ve canvassed the topic. Intent to cause harm is already covered in the act, and there are already pathways in the act, with the addition of temporary restrictions that cover intent.

This portion of the bill goes a step further to reduce weapons in supportive housing, as requested by providers. So it’s important to stay that way, with the details outlined in regulation.

Amendment negatived.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the minister could please walk me through what the process would be when a weapon is identified either on a tenant or their guest in a unit, whatever that case may be.

What will the process be? I’m sure this is, again, going to be left to regulation, but what will that process ideally look like? I’m trying to understand. Is the weapon seized? Is law enforcement called?

The definition I was given previously on “weapon” would lead me to believe that law enforcement should be called, but there’s nothing that makes that clear within the legislation right now, so I’m hoping for some clarity on that process, please.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. This is the work that we are already engaged in with the law enforcement working group on defining the process. Obviously, in the case where an illegal weapon is identified, law enforcement would be called. Through that collaborative work with the law enforcement working group, we will further define the process, which will be outlined both in regulation and in operational guidance to providers.

Claire Rattée: I’m just going to get this out of the way now because I know I’m not getting any amendments passed.

I move my last amendment for this.

[Clause 7 is amending by adding the following subsection

4.8 (5) If a tenant is believed to be in possession of a weapon that poses a risk to safety, the landlord must notify appropriate law enforcement and must not require staff or agents to intervene in a manner that would place the party at risk.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: I’ll speak to the amendment. The reason I’m moving that is, I think, fairly obvious and simple: I have a lot of concerns over what this will actually do in practice.

If we don’t have clarity around that, I think that we could, potentially, actually see further risk to staff in these units. So I would prefer that law enforcement was called in any case where there is a dangerous weapon, like a firearm, being used or being found.

I think that it would always be appropriate to call law enforcement, and that’s why I think that this is certainly not outside the realm of something that should be within the legislation rather than regulation.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I appreciate the conversation with the member on this. This is an operational matter, and I certainly understand the concern. We are and will continue to engage with law enforcement as well as providers, front-line workers and unions representing workers to define that process. Then, as I said, the process will be outlined in both regulation and through operational guidance. That’s the appropriate place for it.

Amendment negatived.

Claire Rattée: Moving on to section 4.9. This is dealing with minimum compensation if a landlord does not abide by other sections. I’m assuming this is just in relation here to clause 7, but I could be wrong about that. I’m wondering if the minister can just clarify why this section is necessary.

I would assume that there are other areas of the Residential Tenancy Act that already deal with compensation from a landlord if they contravene something. Is that simply because we’re adding in new provisions that aren’t covered under those other sections and this is now necessary to make sure that those other sections have been covered?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Claire Rattée: This might be a bit in the weeds, but I’m just curious, then, why we didn’t just make sure that we updated the other section of the Residential Tenancy Act that deals with these compensation things and make sure that it included those. Is that only because we’re trying to basically parse out a separate section that deals with supportive housing and it just felt cleaner to keep all of that encapsulated in the same area?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Also, yes.

Claire Rattée: So with the minimum compensation, I understand that this is something that’s also going to be done through regulation. Again, my assumption is that there will be consultation that’s done in determining that.

I think I’ve mentioned it quite a few times this week that there are certain things that give me pause within this legislation. I’m sure that the ministry has considered this, as well, because I fully recognize that this is not black and white, but I can see a number of situations in which a tenant could abuse this, a landlord could abuse this. I’d love to believe that everybody is good and fair and they’re not going to do anything wrong, but let’s be realistic. I don’t think that that is the case. So what basis are we really framing the decisions around compensation on?

We talked at length about…. What if somebody’s claiming that there was something in their unit when they were temporarily evicted that now is no longer there? What if that turns into a permanent eviction and it’s the landlord’s responsibility to box up all of their belongings and give it to them? Again, they could say that there’s something that’s missing there.

Is this going to be a whole new area that we have nothing to base these compensation levels off of? Is there any other jurisdiction that has brought in rules like this or changed their residential tenancy acts like this that we are going to use to kind of try and understand what the best practice would be? I’m just hoping that the minister can clarify that for me.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The compensation scheme already exists within the RTB.

This section is specific to landlord misuse of the temporary restriction tool that was added, or is proposed to be added, in Bill 11. This section establishes the regulation-making authority to prescribe a minimum compensation amount that a landlord must pay to the tenant if the landlord doesn’t comply with a specific term of the tenancy agreement or provision of the RTA. Again, it’s really looking at that new temporary restriction tool in being considered in the context of temporary restrictions on tenants’ access.

Given the immediate nature of those restrictions, a tenant doesn’t have the opportunity to dispute the restriction before it happens, so the only recourse available to a tenant is by applying for compensation for damages or loss if the landlord restricted the tenant’s access illegally.

As we covered yesterday or the day before, this doesn’t apply…. This isn’t looking at possessions. This is about fairness of how the temporary restriction is applied. Prescribing a minimum compensation amount can function as a deterrent for a landlord from contravening the RTA and provide consistency for arbitrators and tenants related to compensation amounts.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, we’re not done yet.

We’re on to clause 8 now. There are quite a few clauses left, but these will be fairly quick. A few of them, even though that would be kind of jumping, just for the sake of time, I am assuming are administrative, so I just want it on the record that they are.

In clause 8, there’s a new heading that’s being added.

There’s clause 9. There’s a heading to division 2 that’s being repealed. Just for clarification for myself, please, if the minister could just state whether or not these are purely administrative because of other changes throughout the act.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, housekeeping — both clause 8 and 9.

Clauses 8 and 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Claire Rattée: For clause 10, why is the wording in section 12 being changed from “every tenancy agreement” to “a tenancy agreement,” and does this change narrow the scope of the provision?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is a minor amendment. Government has the regulation-making authority to prescribe exceptions when a specific type of tenancy agreement — for example, a supportive housing tenancy agreement — is not required to include specific standard terms.

[2:25 p.m.]

Currently tenancy agreements in supportive housing are not required to include the standard terms related to guests and landlord entry into the rental unit, and the current wording of section 12 says: “The standard terms are terms of every tenancy agreement.” However, if government prescribes situations where a standard term doesn’t need to be included, then those standard terms are, obviously, not included in every tenancy, and this minor amendment simply reflects that change.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Claire Rattée: In clause 11, the obligations in section 23 are being made subject to regulations. I’m wondering if the minister can let me know if this gives cabinet additional authority to modify existing tenant and landlord responsibilities.

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause is consequential to clause 18, which we’ll get to. There are already regulation-making authorities, and the drafters suggested a reference to them clearly here, for clarity.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Claire Rattée: Why is the responsibility for repairs being expanded to include occupants of a tenant’s rental unit?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause is consequential to clauses 15 and 16. It’s needed to ensure that those sections also apply to the actions or neglect by an occupant of a tenant’s rental unit. Currently an occupant is considered to be captured by “a person permitted on the property by the tenant.” However, the new definition of “authorized person” specifically distinguishes between a tenant, an occupant and a person permitted on the property by the tenant.

Legal counsel and the legislative drafters suggested that it would be beneficial to specifically reference “occupant” in these sections, to ensure clarity that a tenant is liable for damage caused by the actions or neglect by an occupant of their rental unit — a dependent, a roommate, etc. This isn’t a policy change. It’s, again, an administrative and housekeeping cleanup.

Claire Rattée: Just for my clarity, that means that a tenant could be held responsible for damage caused by any other individual that they had in their unit. Whether they are a permanent tenant, as well, themselves or not, there’s one person who’s on that tenancy agreement that is liable for that.

[2:30 p.m.]

Using the term “roommate,” wouldn’t the roommate, then, be responsible if they’re a roommate and they are also a tenant? I’m just trying to get some clarity around that, please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, if the tenant permits the person into their unit, they are responsible.

I think it’s really important to note — and people, broadly, may not know this — that isn’t a change. That’s already the case. In the situation of a roommate, they may have their own tenancy agreement. If they don’t, then damage caused is the responsibility of the tenant who has that tenancy agreement. Again, this is not a policy change in this section.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate the clarification on that from the minister.

What I’m a bit confused about is that I’m interpreting this, and I could be wrong, as that a tenant could have a roommate that isn’t part of their tenancy agreement in a supportive housing unit, which is effectively them deciding that they can sublet or whatever the case may be. I don’t know if sublet is the right word for it, because it would still be a roommate. But in theory, they could be collecting rent from somebody living in that unit, in a supportive housing unit, that the supportive housing unit provider wasn’t aware of.

Are rents for supportive housing units not based off of income? Are they not income-geared?

I’m just trying to understand. I didn’t think that that was a situation that was allowed to happen in supportive housing.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the chance to clarify.

First of all, on the roommate question, it’s not really allowed in supportive housing. We know it occasionally happens.

This section is about the whole RTA and not just the supportive housing section of it.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Claire Rattée: The changes in clause 13, obligations in section 35 also being made subject to regulations…. Does this represent a broader shift toward governing tenancy rules through regulation rather than through legislation?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: No. This is the same thing we discussed in clause 11, where the regulation authority already existed and the drafters simply recommended that it be referenced in the text itself here.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Claire Rattée: Just to clarify with clause 14, this change, definition of “occupant,” is simply because we have now redefined occupant in a previous clause, correct?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Rob Botterell: In clause 15, the addition of “occupant” seems to be a catch-all for anyone located within the unit, regardless of the relationship to the tenant.

This may have come up earlier, but this is a concern in regard to who and what the tenant is apparently responsible for. Within supportive housing, there have been incidents of tenants being harassed by abusive ex-partners or persons known to the tenant or even unknown to the tenant.

My question is: how is the government ensuring that the actions of unwanted or harmful guests are not used as justification for eviction or removal of the tenant from the residence?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is clarifying the current state. Currently a landlord can give one-month notice to end tenancy if a tenant or a person permitted on the property by the tenant negatively affects an authorized person.

These amendments also clarify that a landlord, a housing provider, could give a one-month notice to end tenancy if a person permitted on the property by an occupant of the tenant’s rental unit negatively affects an authorized person. It ensures, as the member spoke to, that a tenant is liable for any actions arising from a person that they invited onto….

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister.

I remind the members to keep their conversations down. It’s kind of distracting. Thank you.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Okay. It’s arising from the actions of a person they invited and permitted onto the property or that an occupant of their rental unit permitted onto the property.

I also think, to the member’s concerns, it’s important to reiterate that it still goes through an arbitration process. That process would weigh factors such as those that the member spoke to in a situation of coercion or pressure. The point of remaining in the RTA and having fair process is that those factors would be able to be taken into consideration.

Rob Botterell: The second question I have in relation to clause 15 is that clause 15 also proposes to amend section 47(1) of the RTA by allowing for a tenant to be evicted if the tenant or an occupant of their unit has engaged in illegal activity that has adversely affected or is likely to adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of another tenant or occupant of the residential property.

Tenants in supportive housing are exempt from section 28 of the RTA, meaning they do not possess the right to quiet enjoyment under the RTA nor do they have recourse through the residential tenancy branch, as I understand it, when quiet enjoyment has been interrupted.

So my question is: how can a tenant be evicted for interrupting the quiet enjoyment of another tenant when supportive housing tenants as a whole do not enjoy the benefit of quiet enjoyment under section 28 in the first place?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This section applies to the whole RTA, not just supportive housing.

The intended change here is to expand those protections to workers in not just supportive housing; any workers in buildings as well as guests and others permitted on the property. That’s the intent of the change here.

[2:45 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: My interpretation on 15, 16 and 17 are that these are all housekeeping. I would just like it if the minister can clarify for me if I’m correct on that.

The Chair: Member for Skeena, if you’d like to clarify.

Claire Rattée: Chair, just to clarify, when I said “housekeeping,” I mean I’m reading all three of those clauses as housekeeping in relation to previous clauses that we’ve dealt with. It’s just clarifying language, based off of other changes that are made in previous clauses. I just wanted to make sure that’s correct. I didn’t mean to.…

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, in that case, these are amendments related to other clauses we have discussed.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Rob Botterell: In clause 16, substituting “an authorized person” within this clause would empower landlords to evict tenants for significantly interfering or unreasonably disturbing not only residents and the landlord but also anyone permitted on the property by a tenant or other occupant or a person who has lawful authority to be on the property.

Can the minister provide concrete examples of who would qualify as an authorized person under this provision? Why does this bill extend protections to these individuals without corresponding safeguards for tenants facing the loss of housing?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I direct the member back to clause 2, where “authorized person” is outlined with a broad definition, including the landlord; another tenant or occupant of the residential property; an individual permitted on the property by the landlord, another tenant or occupant of the property; or another person who is on the residential property for a lawful purpose.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

[2:50 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I reflect on the fact that when I first became an MLA and joined the House, I was really confused about when I had to leap up to have the opportunity to speak. I actually missed a question period once on that account, so I appreciate the hints that I’m getting today, because I’m still in learning mode.

On clause 18. Clause 18 adds a (2.1) to section 97, which gives the ministry, as we’ve heard and discussed to some extent, a significant amount of regulatory power over the entire RTA in regard to supportive housing. We’ve canvassed, over the course of these committee deliberations, that there are significant decisions left to regulation on account of the need for flexibility and so on. But the fact remains that cabinet processes are less open and less transparent than placing more guidelines for the exercise of that regulatory power in the legislation to provide for some accountability.

The two questions I have. One is…. We’re seeing this play out with bills from last year, but I’d appreciate some further illumination from the minister on the process that is envisioned for First Nations’ review of regulations under this act, given the significant impact this act could potentially have on Indigenous people.

Secondly, what other oversight mechanisms are there, or what oversight mechanisms are there that will ensure these regulatory powers are not used to significantly alter tenant protections without adequate transparency and accountability?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question.

The ministry notified all Modern Treaty Nations of the proposed legislative amendments, consistent with our obligations under the final agreement for treaty First Nations. The ministry met with Modern Treaty Nations that requested further discussion and committed to continuing to engage with them through the development of further regulations.

The ministry also notified Sḵwx̱wú7mesh First Nation in accordance with the tripartite agreement between Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, the federal government and the province of B.C. We’ll follow up, as well, with Sḵwx̱wú7mesh on the development of the regulations.

[2:55 p.m.]

Ministry staff also consulted with the Métis Nation B.C.

Lastly, ministry shared a consultation draft of the proposed legislation with Modern Treaty Nations via the Alliance of Modern Treaty Nations for review and feedback. Modern Treaty Nations didn’t share any feedback to be incorporated in the legislation, and Indigenous housing organizations were represented in the ministry’s supportive housing working group in the development of the legislation. As well, it is an obligation and standard practice to consult on regulatory development with nations.

Chair, I wonder if we can request a five-minute recess. I know other members have had some turnover, but some of us have been here for a couple hours now. So request a five-minute recess?

Interjection.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Okay. We can keep going, then. Just wanted to check. Okay, thanks.

The Chair: Okay, we will keep going.

Claire Rattée: I’m assuming, again, that clauses 18, 19 and 20 are also, effectively, housekeeping for the purposes of previous clauses — that these changes were just necessary from a housekeeping perspective.

In the minister’s response, if she could just confirm that that is accurate. I just broke them up because my colleague had questions on certain clauses. I would just like a response on that.

Then I would just like to say, in closing, because I think that pretty much concludes my questions on this, that I think this is an issue that is a really important issue. I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the minister’s work on this. I appreciate the staff’s work on this. I know that this is not an easy issue, and I think that it’s something that we’re going to have to continue to work on.

I want to put a few things on the record. I do still have a significant amount of concern about how much of this is being left to regulation. I think that, to be honest, my feelings are that if the roles were reversed, members on the government side would feel the same if we were in government, because it does remove any amount of oversight for opposition to be able to review these things.

I understand that government can still review them and have a role in them, but it is important that we have both sides present when those things are taking place. It does seem to me that a lot of legislation that has come through in the past year and a half has been very heavily reliant on regulation, and that concerns me.

I would also just like to state that, again, I do really appreciate the minister’s willingness to work on this and to meet with housing providers and to try and address some of these issues. I really do wish that this had gone further, though.

I think that there is a much more significant and pressing concern when it comes to the way in which we are housing tenants in specific building types; the lack of care that’s being provided; the lack of requirement for units to be safe and comfortable, dealing with issues around pests, dealing with issues around old buildings, water leaks, mould — all of those kinds of things that I wish we could have seen addressed here.

Specifically, when it comes to the use of drugs in units — I’ve said this publicly before, and I’ll say it again, as much as it pains me — I am not the kind of person that thinks that we have to have an all-or-nothing approach to things.

I understand that everybody deserves to have a roof over their head, but I do think that it really is important that we start to move in the direction that many of the housing providers have told us and that many of the people who this legislation is supposed to serve, who are currently on the street and want to have a roof over their head, have told us. They would like options where drug use is nonexistent, and we know municipalities want that as well.

I think that everybody that does this work has the intention of really desperately wanting to make sure that we get this right and that people have a roof over their heads, specifically for the really vulnerable populations that are struggling, whether that’s with their mental health; mental illness; substance use; or a combination of the three; brain injury, whatever that might be; or even just poverty. I don’t say “just poverty” to say it so blasé. There are also people that are struggling with that in supportive housing.

One of the biggest challenges that we face right now is the inability to move projects forward. I think that addressing some of those issues is the only way that we are going to address that.

I, like the minister, want to see more supportive housing built. I want to get to that place where we have most people feeling comfortable with it and recognizing the importance of that, particularly when it comes to issues around substance use.

[3:00 p.m.]

The most important factor in someone’s life that’s struggling with substance use, that manages to…. Whether it’s going to treatment or however they navigate that path towards sobriety, the most important factor in them not relapsing is gainful employment. The reality is that gainful employment is almost impossible to come by if you don’t have stable housing.

I know that from experience, as somebody that’s lived it, as somebody that has tried to gain employment when I was unhoused. And I don’t blame people for not wanting to hire me when I was in that position.

This is part of that problem that we have to address if we want to get a handle on this crisis, so I really would have liked to see that being addressed here. I recognize that some of that work is still ongoing, but we’re ten years into a very serious crisis. I do think this is a huge component in how we approach that and address it and make sure that it’s not a problem, moving forward.

I would just end with saying I really do hope that very soon we’re going to see some solutions for that coming forward and, as I’ve stated before, I am always happy to work with the minister on that and try and provide some insight or some help, if I can, on how we can address that.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I just also want to say thank you to the to the members opposite, and thank you to my critic on this file for the depth of understanding that she brings to these issues and the really valuable and constructive conversation that we’ve been able to have on this work. I welcome continued conversation on it.

I also want to say thank you, and to appreciate the member opposite recognizing this, to the staff who have done such thoughtful and compassionate work on this file and the working group and so many others who have been involved in the development of this work. It’s challenging. It’s personal. It’s complex, and it will continue beyond this.

We only get to this point with, really, a huge amount of dedication from a lot of folks who bring their own personal lived experience in and a shared commitment to trying to navigate all those nuances in the spirit of creating more safety and stability for folks who are struggling and are really trying to get back on their feet.

My deep gratitude to everyone who has been and continues to be involved in this very important work.

Rob Botterell: I just want to take this opportunity, before we complete the review of this bill, to also thank the minister and her staff for the incredible amount of hard work that’s gone into this bill and the opportunity to really have questions addressed. This is all about how democracy works, so thank you.

Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:04 p.m.