Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Kiel Giddens: Joining us in the gallery today is a delegation from the great city of Prince George, the northern capital. We’ve got a number of councillors with us — Coun. Susan Scott, Couns. Garth Frizzell and Kyle Sampson — as well as the city manager, Walter Babicz, and the intergovernmental relations adviser, Annie Doran. They’re going to be meeting with members on both sides of the House.

I’d ask that the House give them a warm welcome today.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s my pleasure to welcome today, in the gallery, representatives from the Kidney Foundation of Canada, who many of us had the pleasure of joining earlier for breakfast.

Today we have Dr. John Gill, a transplant nephrologist at St. Paul’s Hospital. We have Deborah Tucker, Kate Chong, Stephanie Allan, Yash Kamboj, Melissa Lackie, Dominique Ahadi — all staff of the Kidney Foundation.

Not here with us today in the gallery, but who must be mentioned, are Rob and Alexis MacKay-Dunn. I want to say thank you so much to Alexis for sharing a very heartfelt story of how she has come to have four kidneys and a thriving life once again.

I really want to thank the Kidney Foundation for the work that you do advancing kidney health, promoting kidney health for British Columbians, working with researchers, working collaboratively with partners across the health system to improve the lives of British Columbians every single day. Thank you so much.

Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

Misty Van Popta: I would like to recognize two important groups in the chamber today, both equally important to building this province. No strangers here in this chamber are Chris Atchison and about 20 delegates from the B.C. Construction Association, all up there. A couple of Langley members, Will and Ashley, if they don’t want to rise.

April is Construction and Skilled Trades Month. To see these members in our gallery is a sign of the good and continuous work that they do to advocate on how we can work together to support a strong, stable construction sector that can continue delivering for our communities across this province.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

I have a second introduction. I would also like to make mention of another important organization in this chamber, and that is CLAC. Last Monday words were spoken in this chamber that I couldn’t say on a jobsite. Although I won’t apologize on behalf of members on that side, I would like to apologize that they witnessed such disrespect in this place of privilege.

I hope that your time here today, as representatives of the thousands of British Columbians who choose to be represented by you, is a positive experience.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m delighted to have a number of family members in the chambers today. My husband, Seth, is here. Seth does a wonderful job keeping our house running, alongside doing his own good and important work. He’s here with my son, Aaron, who is smart and kind and funny. I’m so proud to be his mom.

Also joining us — it’s a professional day in Vancouver today — is my older sister, Allie, who is a health care worker and one of my favourite people in the world, and her daughter Rosie, who is turning eight years old today.

Will the House join me in making sure that they feel extra welcome.

Reann Gasper: I am so privileged to introduce a distinguished guest who is seated with us on the floor today, Randy Hawes. Randy is no stranger to this House. He has served with great distinction, including being the mayor and MLA for Abbotsford-Mission. His dedication to public service and to the people of the Fraser Valley has left a lasting impact on communities, and I am proud to have him as a friend. His many stories and conversations just leave me in awe sometimes.

Would the House please make him feel very special today and welcome him here.

I do have a second introduction. I have two guests in the gallery, and it is not often that I do get to have people from my riding. It is a very special day because Doug and Donna are visiting. They are in my riding association. It’s Doug’s birthday today.

Would the House just make them feel really special.

Steve Morissette: I’m pleased to introduce my friend and retired MLA in Kootenay-Monashee, Katrine Conroy.

[1:40 p.m.]

Katrine and her family gave their life to British Columbia — starting with her late husband, Ed, for ten years. Katrine followed with 20 more and three ministries. When elected, I wondered if I should hyphenate my name with “Conroy” in order to represent.

Katrine, thank you for your support and your service.

Please join me in welcoming Kat to the House.

Rob Botterell: In the chamber today is my predecessor as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, Adam Olsen. As members will know, former MLA Olsen played a pivotal role in getting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act enshrined into legislation with unanimous support.

His seven years of work as an MLA and his time since as lead negotiator for the W̱JOȽEȽP Nation have been centred on ensuring the government lives up to the promises of partnership, of co-governance and of free, prior and informed consent. We are lucky to have Adam as a mentor and confidant in the Green caucus and thank him for his ongoing wisdom.

Will the House please make him very welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m still at that age where I enjoy birthdays. It won’t last forever.

There’s a very particular person in the House here who’s celebrating a birthday. He’s a young man in my eyes. Just the way that he responds in the House in question period, running around…. We often refer to him as our Energizer Bunny, on this side of the House.

Will you please join me in wishing the member for Vancouver-Renfrew, the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, a very happy birthday.

Some Hon. Members:

“Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday, dear member for Vancouver-Renfrew.

Happy birthday to you.”

Peter Milobar: As we all know, we all lead very busy lives in this career that we’ve chosen — or that the public has chosen for us, I guess. Some of us quite recently have been a little busier than others, for strange reasons, but it has come down to my wife, Lianne, deciding that spending some quality time with her husband will be coming to question period.

Will the House please make Lianne welcome.

Hon. David Eby: In the House today, the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, Mayor Darryl, is here. I don’t know if I can spot him. He’s somewhere on the precinct, I can advise the House.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby: Oh. Great. He’s with the Peace River regional district folks here to talk about local issues.

Obviously, the House is well aware of the mayor’s leadership in the period following the horrific events in Tumbler Ridge. He is a champion of the community and the region. He is the person that people look to in their moment of crisis. He was solid as a rock. He continues to be so, to advocate for the community and to encourage people to come up and visit Tumbler Ridge. They have an incredible tourist opportunity for British Columbians and all Canadians.

He’s an advocate in the best of times for Tumbler Ridge, and he was their rock in the most challenging of times. I want to thank him so much for his work, on behalf of the government caucus, and express huge appreciation for his efforts in his whole time in office, particularly through the challenges faced by the community of Tumbler Ridge and our province.

Anna Kindy: I’d like to welcome the folks from the Kidney Foundation who came to talk to us today about a program called B.C. Donate Now — I think it’s a very important program that will save not only lives but also health care dollars — and also Dr. John Gill from St. Paul’s Hospital.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it was very well received by us, and the message is taken very seriously.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I have two individuals to introduce.

Michelle Staples is the mayor of the city of Duncan and a long-time Cowichan Valley resident. First elected to Duncan council in 2011 and then chosen as the city’s first female mayor in 2018, she is known to bring people together and is focused on community, inclusion and collaboration across the valley.

The second individual is Audrey George, former Deputy Chief of Quw’utsun. She has been a visible voice for reconciliation and community healing. She has also helped lead every child matters march in Duncan, which has become an important annual event recognizing residential school survivors and children who never made it home.

Together these two leaders represent the strong relationship between the city of Duncan and Cowichan Tribes, especially around reconciliation, public dialogue and working together on community issues.

Please join me in welcoming them here today.

Bruce Banman: I’d like to join my colleague from Kamloops Centre.

My wife, also, Sharon, is here in the gallery with us. I’m not so sure that I would call QP quality time either. She’s given me instructions to be on my best behaviour, so nothing like setting me up for failure.

Would the House please welcome her.

Members’ Statements

Creative Industries Week

Janet Routledge: This is B.C. Creative Industries Week, and we are celebrating a sector that reflects who we are and showcases British Columbia to the world. From music and publishing to video games, film and television, B.C.’s creative industries enrich our lives every day. They are the stories we tell, the music we share and the experiences that connect us.

Together they provide work for more than 170,000 people, and they contributed $7.4 billion to our economy in 2024. They fuel local businesses, draw visitors to our communities and create opportunities for our people.

This past year B.C. talent earned national and international recognition. Cameron Whitcomb won a Juno. B.C.’s animation and visual effects artists contributed to the Oscar-winning films KPop Demon Hunters and Sinners.

This year B.C. talent will be featured at the FIFA fan fest, another moment for made-in-B.C. performances to connect with a global audience.

Our skilled crews, creators, strong infrastructure, innovation and tax incentives continue to attract film and television productions, like The Last of Us.

Interactive digital media experienced strong growth this past year.

Several titles by B.C. authors and publishers were featured on CBC’s “Best Canadian Books of 2025.”

None of this happens without strong partnerships. I want to thank Creative B.C. and their many partners — Screen B.C., Music B.C., Books B.C., Mags BC, DigiBC and many others — for championing this sector.

Please join me in celebrating Creative Industries Week. They have made British Columbia shine.

Support Services for Seniors
in Peachland and West Kelowna

Macklin McCall: I rise today to recognize two organizations doing important work supporting seniors of West Kelowna–Peachland: the Westside Health Network and the Peachland Wellness Centre.

In communities like West Kelowna and Peachland, one of the things we hear consistently from residents is how difficult it can be to access services, not just health care but the broader supports that people rely on every day. It’s not always one issue. It’s navigating a system that can feel disconnected, where people are trying to figure out where to go, who to call and how to get the help they need. That’s where these organizations step in, not as replacements for the system but as something just as important — connectors, supports and community anchors.

The Westside Health Network plays a key role in bringing people and organizations together. It’s about coordination, making sure services are aligned, that information is shared and that gaps are identified before people fall through them. That kind of work often happens behind the scenes, but it has a real impact. When organizations are connected, outcomes improve, people get help sooner, and they don’t get lost trying to navigate the system on their own.

[1:50 p.m.]

At the same time, the Peachland Wellness Centre is delivering something just as important — local, accessible support right in the community. It’s a place where people can go, a place where they can connect, a place where support isn’t abstract. It’s right there, right in front of them.

For many residents, especially seniors and those living alone or dealing with complex needs, that kind of local access makes all the difference. It’s not just about services. It’s about connection, prevention and making sure people don’t reach a crisis point before they get help.

That’s something we should all recognize, because strong communities aren’t built only through large systems. They’re built through local leadership, volunteerism and organizations that understand the people they serve. That’s exactly what we’re seeing here in West Kelowna and Peachland.

Today I want to recognize and thank everyone involved with both the Westside Health Network and the Peachland Wellness Centre — the staff, the volunteers and the partners who are doing this work every day.

You are strengthening our communities of West Kelowna and Peachland in a very real way, and I thank you for that.

National Volunteer Week

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize National Volunteer Week and to honour the remarkable individuals who give their time, energy and compassion to strengthen communities across British Columbia. Volunteers are the quiet backbone of our society. They show up in moments big and small, bringing care, connection and hope to those who need it most.

In my constituency office, I see this spirit every day. Dedicated volunteers support community outreach; help organize local events; and contribute to youth initiatives, cultural celebrations and food drives — ensuring that no one feels left behind.

I have also witnessed volunteers step forward in times of need — supporting newcomers as they build new lives, helping families navigate challenges and offering translation so that language is never a barrier to accessing support.

This month at the Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade, I saw hundreds of volunteers — including those from Khalsa Diwan Society, Ross Street Temple and many others — come together in a powerful expression of service. They prepared and shared meals with thousands of attendees, embodying the spirit of generosity and community. I was especially proud of the volunteers at my Vancouver-Langara constituency booth, whose warmth, patience and dedication made a lasting impression on everyone who visited.

To every volunteer in Vancouver-Langara and across British Columbia: thank you. Your generosity uplifts us all and reminds us of the strength we find in serving one another. This National Volunteer Week, let’s celebrate your invaluable contributions.

Community Service and Volunteerism
in Abbotsford-Mission Area

Reann Gasper: I want to reflect on something you feel right away in my riding, a community that steps up and looks after one another. This weekend we saw that on full display through the 2026 Community Service Awards.

I am proud of the spirit of this community. I am proud of the resilience in it. I am proud of the people who keep choosing to show up for each other. The spirit of a community is the heart of the volunteer, and in Abbotsford-Mission, that heart is strong.

You see it in Rotary members running fundraisers that keep local programs going. You see it at the food bank — people sorting, packing, making sure families don’t go without. You see it in the volunteers who set up community events before anyone arrives and are still there cleaning up when everyone is gone. You see it on the fields and in our rinks — coaches opening gyms early, lining fields, driving kids to tournaments, making sure every kid has a place to belong.

You see it in the search and rescue teams, in the volunteer firefighters, in the people who step in when things go wrong and don’t wait to be asked. You see it in business owners who sponsor teams, donate quietly and carry their community with them in how they operate every day. You see it in the neighbours checking in, dropping off meals, giving someone a ride — because small things matter.

That’s my riding, and that is the community I am honoured to represent here in this House. It is not built on one moment. It is built on consistency, on people who don’t need recognition to keep going but deserve it all the same.

[1:55 p.m.]

To those who might be watching, those who are a part of that effort, whether you call yourself a volunteer or not, you should know this. It’s seen, it matters, and it reflects something strong about where we live. Resilience does not just show up in hard moments. It shows up in the everyday choice to care, to give, to take responsibility for your community.

To every volunteer, to every organization, every business owner, every neighbour in Mission who keeps showing up: thank you. I am proud to represent you.

Vancouver Goldeneyes Hockey Team

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak, as a new hockey fan, about the Vancouver Goldeneyes.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm. I’m very grateful to work here.

I also live and work in North Vancouver–Seymour, home to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

The arrival of the Vancouver Goldeneyes marked an exciting and important moment for the city of Vancouver, the province and for the future of women’s sport in Canada. As Vancouver’s first team in the new Professional Women’s Hockey League, the Goldeneyes represent more than just a new franchise. They represent progress. For generations, women’s hockey has produced world-class athletes but too often without the professional opportunities, visibility and support they deserve. This is now changing.

The name “Goldeneyes,” inspired by the common goldeneye duck native to our coast, reflects the strength, speed and resilience that defines both the team and our region. It’s a uniquely Vancouver identity, one that connects sport with the natural beauty and character of our home.

The response has been incredible. Fans are filling arenas. Families are showing up. Young girls across British Columbia are seeing, for many, a clear pathway from grassroots hockey to the professional stage for the first time.

Just a few months ago my husband and I had great fun at the Pacific Coliseum, where the Goldeneyes beat the Toronto Sceptres 5-0, with Sarah Nurse scoring twice and Kristen Campbell earning the shutout.

But this momentum doesn’t sustain itself. Continued investment, media coverage and community support are essential to ensuring women’s hockey not only grows but thrives. When we support teams like the Goldeneyes, we’re doing more than cheering from the stands. We’re building a more inclusive, equitable future for sport, one where every athlete can succeed at the highest level.

B.C. Trappers Association

Sheldon Clare: On Friday, April 17, I spoke at the 81st B.C. Trappers Association annual general meeting in Quesnel. I had previously spoken at the 1995 AGM in Prince George to warn them about the new Firearms Act, so this was a terrific opportunity to reconnect with these friends who are venerable stewards of the land.

The British Columbia Trappers Association was formed in 1945 as an association of registered trappers, and it is the oldest trappers association in Canada. Their vision is that trapping is British Columbia’s renewable heritage, and their mission is that the B.C. Trappers Association is a dedicated, compassionate community of trappers. As stewards in British Columbia, they manage fur-bearers responsibly and sustainably through respect of our joint natural resources. Core values include dedication, compassion, respect, integrity and responsibility.

In 1926, British Columbia was divided into registered traplines with the intent of protecting species from overharvesting. Traplines are sold to a trapper so that he or she is the only person with the right to trap fur-bearing animals inside that area.

Trappers are well connected with the environment. Trapping built our country. Trappers are well aware of their responsibilities as conservationists and stewards of the land.

When wanting to know how many fishers, martens and wolverines there are in British Columbia, researchers would be well advised to include the steady wisdom, skills and expertise of B.C. trappers. As people in tune with the environment, trappers are well positioned to advise government and academics regarding fur-bearing animal populations and distribution.

Today the B.C. Trappers Association educates new trappers, encourages ethical trapping processes and keeps its members well informed about matters affecting them. Their quarterly magazine includes articles on improved humane traps and sets and information on different species as well as the best way to maintain a healthy breeding population.

Congratulations to the BCTA on 81 years.

[2:00 p.m.]

Question of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the member for Skeena earlier this month, which was taken under advisement.

On Wednesday, April 1, the member for Skeena reserved her right to raise a question of privilege following oral question period.

The member outlined her question of privilege on Thursday, April 2, arguing that the Minister of Health may have misled the House and that there were contradictions between information provided by the minister in the House and correspondence from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, which the member for Skeena tabled with her submission.

On Monday, April 13, the Minister of Health offered her submissions to the Chair in response to the question of privilege, which countered the submission made by the member for Skeena, and tabled supporting documents.

The core of the matter centres around data that, while subject to debate in the House, is not required to be placed before the House. The Chair thanks the member for Skeena and the Minister of Health for their thorough submissions, which assisted the Chair’s review of the matter.

First, the Chair will remind the House of the ruling of the Chair on April 7, 2022:

“Guidelines for raising a question of privilege are outlined in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, at pages 399 to 400. One of the essential elements required is a brief written statement of the matter which the member reads to the House. The brief statement is intended to inform the House of the facts on which the question of privilege is based, and the statement should primarily focus on any applicable parliamentary authorities which may be of assistance to the Chair, not arguments with respect to differences of opinion or fact amongst members.”

On the matter at hand, the member for Skeena submits that, at minimum, the Minister of Health made contradictory statements in the House that may amount to misleading the House. When assessing such a question of privilege, the precedents are clear that the Chair must examine any evidence that proves that the statement was misleading, that establishes that the member — in this case, the minister — making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect and that establishes that the member intended to mislead the House in making the statement.

Based on the submission made to the Chair, that threshold of irrefutable evidence has not been met. The member for Skeena and the Minister of Health offered different interpretations of information that ultimately amounts to disagreement of our debate and therefore not a matter for the Chair to adjudicate.

Having carefully reviewed the respective submissions, the Chair cannot conclude that there was an intentional or deliberate attempt on the part of the Minister of Health to mislead the House or offer erroneous information. It is therefore the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of privilege has not occurred.

The Chair urges members to consult the Chair or the Clerks-at-the-Table to ensure that members properly distinguish points of order and questions of privilege and to ensure that the proper procedures are followed when raising a question of privilege.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Trevor Halford: It’s been 136 days since this government, since this Premier, said that DRIPA must be amended. The Premier said back in December: “We will fix this.” The Premier said he would go to the wall. The Premier even said he will go as far as backstopping mortgages.

Three weeks ago, what did the Premier say? The Premier said: “We have to do it, and we will do it.” Another quote three weeks ago: “Yes, we are going to get these amendments through. We have to.” Here is another one, and this one, I think, is actually the most important thing that the Premier said over the last three weeks in his multiple statements: “Significant legal liabilities for the province.” Then he said: “More than 20 cases before the courts that could all have significant ramifications.”

[2:05 p.m.]

So here we are, and again the Premier has changed his position. Again he has added more chaos to an already chaotic situation. He was the architect of this chaos. Let’s be clear on that. But now he has put the province in a position of co-governance.

I want to know directly from the Premier. At what point in this process, in the chaos that he caused, did he decide that it was okay to abdicate the responsibility of the province and start in co-governance?

Hon. David Eby: The Court of Appeal for British Columbia rendered a decision in the Gitxaała case, interpreting the Declaration Act. The member is right. I am concerned about what I believe to be, the government believes to be, a significant legal liability for the province that we have to address. The path to address that is one that necessarily involves Indigenous People in this province because it involves the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I can share with the House, I can share with the member that we have reached an agreement with the First Nations Leadership Council. We’ve been engaging with Chiefs across the province. We are going to engage in a process together that will conclude before the fall legislative sitting to attempt to address together the concerns that government has.

The best path forward, in my opinion, for this province — for the success of our province; for the success of our resource sector; our economy; for projects like the Red Chris mine, the Eskay Creek mine, North Coast transmission line, LNG projects — requires cooperation between government and First Nations.

If there is any opportunity for us to reach a cooperative solution to the challenges we face as a result of that court decision; and, separately, the Quw’utsun court decision to provide clarity to British Columbians around private property, we will always take the collaborative route.

It took longer to get here than I had hoped for. I accept responsibility for that. It is possible to move off confidently in the wrong direction. But I am sure that the right path for our province is this path forward with First Nations to draft, to respond to, to find the path to address these liabilities that government sees; to do it in partnership; and to bring it back to this House.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Once again, it’s all in the words the Premier uses. I don’t see an agreement. I see, maybe, an agreed-upon statement that doesn’t foster an agreement, that doesn’t give certainty to British Columbians on the chaos that this Premier has inflicted. Not at all. It’s the Premier’s words himself. His words: “significant legal liabilities.” Those are the words of the Premier.

That is why he said numerous times about the urgency that, no matter what opposition there was, this legislation had to get done to legally protect British Columbians, and he has failed on that on all fronts because of his incompetence and his inability to actually lead this province. His failure has done a disservice to British Columbians, to First Nations. It’s been an absolute embarrassment.

My question is not to the Premier. It’s to the Attorney General. Does she agree with the Premier that there are significant legal liabilities facing British Columbians right now, and if so, why are we not taking those steps to protect British Columbians?

Hon. David Eby: There are two sets of liabilities facing the province. The one is the set of liabilities that comes from the Gitxaała decision around the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have shared with the member that we are sitting down with First Nations leaders across the province to co-develop a response to that to bring back to this House for the fall session.

[2:10 p.m.]

In my opinion, the time is worth it to bring that forward, because there is a second set of liabilities that the province faces, and it’s the one the member always ignores. It’s the one he always glosses over and all of his colleagues do, when they pretend that we don’t have to work with First Nations in this province; when they suggest that we stop conversations with First Nations; when they suggest that they will repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act without regard for the consequences to the jobs, to the major projects in this province.

We have to address that liability too. The only path forward to address that is in partnership with First Nations. Addressing the first set in partnership allows us to address the second set, grow the economy, create jobs, deliver for British Columbians.

They cannot provide an explanation of how they would do that, while at the same time fighting First Nations tooth and nail. You hear them advocating for a fight again today.

We are taking a step back to try to find a path forward in partnership with First Nations, and that is vitally important for the economic future of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford: I guess government is hard. For us on this side of the House, we have been very clear on where our stance is. The problem that we are in now is because…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Trevor Halford: …the Premier of the province has not been clear on any statements he’s been giving since December on where this province is on DRIPA. It has changed six times in a matter of weeks.

My question again is to the Attorney General. Does she agree with the Premier when he says that there are significant legal liabilities? And does she agree with the fact that if we do nothing right now, there is no chance that there will be a court decision that comes before we actually see some form of leadership from that side of the House and actually put forward legislation and stand by it and actually say what they mean?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the Premier and this side of the House have been clear about what we’re advocating for and what we…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …need to see with respect to protecting the province from liability. What’s different on this side of the House is the approach that we take to doing the work — very different than the other side. We are sitting down to form durable agreements that will last to protect British Columbia’s interests and to bring our partnership with First Nations stronger. That is the path forward, and we will make sure we deliver on that.

Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation
and Government Handling
of Land Title Issues

Scott McInnis: Clear as mud over here.

This government likes to go down memory lane, so I’m going to take them on a trip on one. From March 4, 2026, the Premier said: “I was not briefed on this. I was not aware of the content of the agreements.” From the same day, the Premier said: “It’s possible that somebody in the public service received a heads-up or knew about it.”

British Columbians have a right to know what their government is doing on decisions that affect their rights, their property and their way of life. But this Premier has decided they don’t. When caught in the trap of his own making, he claimed he attended the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm signing agreement as just the regular old local MLA.

But we now know, through freedom of information — thank goodness for that — that an invitation went directly to the Premier’s office. Not a junior staffer, not his constituency office — to the Premier’s office. We also know that this government sent a letter of support for this agreement a full year ago.

A very simple question: why is this Premier so determined on keeping British Columbians in the dark on decisions that affect them directly?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Unlike the other side, I think it’s important that we actually engage with Chiefs, with councils. We understand the section 35 rights of Indigenous People in this province — that we respect them.

I know the member opposite has suggested we should just flip a switch and extinguish the rights of Indigenous People and makes the argument we should do it in court all the time.

Interjection.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh, Member.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: “Why won’t you extinguish?” he says. “Why won’t you extinguish?” he says, as if Indigenous Peoples’ rights were like a cigarette. They’re not. We have to sit down in consultation and cooperation. That’s the court-ordered rights. That’s the responsible thing. That’s the economically responsible thing. That’s the morally responsible thing.

We will do it in such a way that we ensure that British Columbians know what we’re doing, that we work with them to ensure that they’re part of that. Indeed, we saw that example last week as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The nation, cities, businesses, non-profits, community leaders all came forward in support of treaty.

We’re going to continue to do that work. It’s hard work, and it’s made harder when people say things that aren’t true, like “They’re coming for your land,” like the opposite side seems to suggest treaties are out. They’re not coming after your homes, hon. Members. They’re working and seeking honourable discussions and agreements with us on a government-to-government basis.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Scott McInnis: Let’s be clear. British Columbians have no idea what this government is doing when it comes to reconciliation in British Columbia. It has become very evident, even to the Premier himself, that DRIPA has become a legal mess. This is devastating for investors, for business certainty throughout B.C. at a time when we cannot afford that sentiment. This legal chaos was predictable, but the NDP government chose to plow ahead anyway.

The Premier knows that the Gitxaała decision from December creates major litigation risks for this province. My question to the Premier. What changed in the last 24 hours that made him abandon any changes altogether?

Hon. David Eby: I know the member heard my answer to the first two questions. We have not abandoned the concern that we have about legal liability facing the province. What we’ve done is taken a step back to enable ourselves to sit down with First Nations leaders to co-develop a response to that to ensure that government’s concerns that we have are addressed and also, hopefully, to be able to address the concerns coming out of the Quw’utsun case British Columbians have about private property in a cooperative, collaborative way so we’re moving forward together as a province.

The reason we are doing this goes exactly to the member’s point. If we hope to continue to…. The Minister of Mines has announced four new mines or major expansions last four months — over $3 billion of investment, thousands of jobs. If we want to continue doing that work, we have to do it in partnership with First Nations. We cannot do it fighting in a courtroom. We cannot do it in conflict. That is why we’re taking the time to reach this collaborative solution to the problem that government is concerned about.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Jeremy Valeriote: Here I go, changing the subject again.

In many communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we have a large number of temporary foreign workers. This will be the last time I use the word “foreign” in this because it sounds pejorative to me. These workers help to keep local businesses running and play an active role in local communities in hospitality, agriculture, construction and food service.

We know the importance of this program as well as how much and how badly it needs to be reformed. Closed work permits that tie workers to one employer are, frankly, inhumane; open to abuse; and create real stress for people and families who are looking for a path to permanent residency and citizenship. I know this program is largely federal jurisdiction, but the province also has a duty to look after all workers in the province, even those who are here temporarily.

To the Premier: what tangible steps is the province taking to make sure that B.C. is a safe place for people on TFW visas, especially those on closed work permits who remain most vulnerable to exploitation?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you very much to the member for the question. I think we all understand that when people come from other places to do important work in our province, we want them to be treated appropriately, we want them to have access to the same rights that other workers in the province have and we want to ensure that there is enforcement of those rights.

That’s why our government brought in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, which requires that employers are certified before they apply for an LMIA with the federal government.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have provisions in the Employment Standards Act to ensure that temporary foreign workers who are here are protected.

We work very closely with groups like the Migrant Workers Centre and with other migrant worker organizations to ensure that we have appropriate outreach to a very important part of our labour force.

I will just say that it certainly is the view of this government when it comes to the rights of individuals that if folks are good enough to work here, they’re good enough to stay here. We strongly advocate with the federal government for pathways to citizenship for people who are here under temporary work permits.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just over an hour ago, the government announced that instead of adopting the proposed increase in the cap on temporary workers from 10 to 15 percent in rural and remote communities, a figure that many rural leaders have been calling for to fill critical labour gaps, the provincial government will simply allow rural employers to maintain current levels of temporary workers for only an additional year.

This “short-term solution” provided by the government will only create long-term instability and uncertainty for workers serving rural and remote communities, many of whom have established roots in our communities. Others, like the skilled chef I met, would be sent back to their country and persecuted if not able to stay.

To the Premier or to the government. Temporary workers are not numbers on a spreadsheet. They are integral members of our rural communities. What message does this short-term extension send to workers and businesses in my riding who are making essential contributions to our economy and our communities?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Thank you to the member opposite for his advocacy as well as to many members in this House on both sides that have advocated for their communities when it comes to making sure that we’re recognizing the worker shortage that we’re seeing across the province.

This specific program is one that was implemented by the federal government, so the one-year extension is from the federal government. There were two options in there: to allow individuals to maintain the 10 percent cap and then to increase it.

We went with the first option because we recognize the impact that businesses are feeling. We know that there’s a lot of work that they are doing, as well, on the advocacy front, and we appreciate their advocacy.

It’s very important, recognizing this is only a one-year extension, that this only prolongs the issues that we’re seeing, that the member has outlined here. The TFW program has serious problems. We know that there’s exploitation in the system when we look at closed work permits. Individuals aren’t able to move around. We know when we look at LMIA programs that individuals are being sold LMIAs for upwards of $100,000 just to be here and then having ongoing concerns.

These are individuals that are coming here to support our economy. We need to ensure we’re doing everything to support them. We do need to reform the program. We can’t just have one-off extensions. We need to reform the program, and that is why our government is advocating to the federal government regularly to say that we need to have greater control over the economic immigration that we have in our province.

We need to expand our PNP programs so that these individuals that are coming here, that we so desperately need, have those pathways to citizenship, have the rights that they were promised, are getting the treatment that they believed they were going to get when they came here and are not being exploited.

Action on Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Steve Kooner: We have heard about legal liabilities. We have heard about ongoing cases. British Columbians are facing these issues right now because of this government. This government introduced DRIPA. It was this Premier who introduced section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. It was this government that created this legal liability around DRIPA. This Premier is out of ideas and does not have a further plan.

Can this Premier guarantee legislation in the fall session about these DRIPA amendments, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we’ve already canvassed this a few times with some of the questions that we’ve faced about our plan — our plan about having these discussions concluded by next fall and our serious commitment….

Interjection.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The upcoming fall. Thank you.

Our serious commitment to work through these challenging times….

Our way is going to bring a durable solution to this problem. We’re not going to end up in court like they would on the other side, with intractable claims of not…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …sitting down to solve problems together. We’re not going to end up tearing up agreements and not being at the negotiation table with First Nations, ending major projects…

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …stopping billions of dollars from coming into this province.

They don’t have solutions over there. All they have is creating more and more problems, not to mention the mistruths…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …that they spread about what’s actually happening on the ground here. We’re going to get to that durable solution, and we’ll keep working.

Conditions at Hospitals

Gavin Dew: Hallway health care has become shockingly routine under this NDP government. Front-line staff are doing all they can in inadequate facilities, and they are absolutely devastated by what’s happening in our hospital hallways.

After I raised the issue last week, I was made aware by a whistleblower of a young woman who tragically died this month in the hallway of Kelowna General Hospital and another hallway patient who went into cardiac arrest and ended up in the ICU.

My question to the Minister of Health is simple. Exactly how many people have died in hospital hallways across this province on her watch?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and raising the critical importance of continuing to invest in health care in this province.

Whether it is investing in new infrastructure; new hospitals; renovated and new surgical suites; new cancer centres across this province; as well as investing in the staff, the physicians and the medical folks that we need to run them…. Nothing is more important to a person and to their family than being able to access health care in a timely way when they need it. That’s why our government continues to invest. That’s why our government continues to raise the budget of the health system to make sure that we continue to strengthen this system.

We are proud of our public universal health care system and, unlike members on the other side, have no intention to introduce two-tier-style, American-style health care into this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, wait for your question.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Every British Columbian deserves access to health care, and that’s why…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …we will continue to tackle the challenges that we face in health care, worker recruitment and retention by building a new medical school at SFU, recruiting U.S.-trained professionals — something we know members on the opposite side have been opposed to.

These are the steps that it takes. We’ll continue bringing those doctors here. We’ll continue investing in these hospitals to deliver the health care that British Columbians deserve.

Access to Acute Psychiatric
Care at Hospitals

Claire Rattée: In order for universal health care to work, people actually have to be able to access health care. Increasing the health care budget does very little for British Columbians if there are no meaningful results attached to it and things just continue to get worse.

Recently I raised the tragic death of a young man who slipped through the cracks after being left waiting without proper supervision or support in Vernon Jubilee Hospital’s psychiatric unit. He voluntarily admitted himself and was left for days in a hallway bed, despite being certified under the Mental Health Act. Since then, I have had numerous families reach out to me about loved ones that they have lost in that same psychiatric unit.

Now I have learned that same unit is on diversion for the foreseeable future, meaning that patients in crisis are being sent to the emergency department and left in hallways while staff have been instructed to briefly assess and move on.

To the minister: there are really only two options here. Does she admit that the current system cannot safely hold people in acute psychiatric crisis, or does she believe that the current system, where patients are left in hallways, is acceptable?

Hon. Josie Osborne: There are thousands of mental health and psychiatric beds in facilities across this province. It’s an important part of the health care system, and when a person is in crisis, it is a service that they need.

That is why we continue to invest, with $131 million in this year’s budget, into this system. That’s why we continue to expand the number of beds that are available across B.C. It’s also why we continue to expand across the entire continuum of mental health and substance use care so that people receive the prevention and early intervention that is needed before problems become worse. That’s why those beds are available, so that when a person is in crisis, they are able to access the care they need.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member understands that I cannot speak about individual cases, but that doesn’t remove the responsibility and the urgency to which this government is continuing to act to build out this system of care for people at a time when they need it most.

Primary Health Care Providers
and Attachment Numbers

Brennan Day: Let’s talk about results. This government loves misleading press releases and keeps announcing gross new primary care attachment numbers. But for British Columbians, the only thing that matters is whether they have ongoing access to a primary care provider or not. We know from the government’s own reports that they’re juicing the numbers to paper over their failure.

To the minister: what does the government count as a successful attachment on the health connect registry?

Hon. Josie Osborne: All right. Let’s talk about numbers. Let’s talk about success. So 600,000 British Columbians attached to a primary care provider since 2023. Over 1,000 new family doctors practising here in British Columbia — the highest number of physicians per capita in the entire country. Tripling the number of nurse practitioners working in primary care and serving British Columbians across the province.

Primary care is the backbone of our health care system. That’s why we have a primary care strategy. That’s why we continue to invest in team-based primary care. That’s why we’ve opened 48 urgent and primary care centres across British Columbia.

I’m proud of this government’s record, and we will continue to invest in primary care so that all British Columbians who want a primary care provider have one.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: Let’s get into the numbers. This government claims they’ve attached 600,000 people since 2023, but 25 percent of British Columbians, 1.3 million people, don’t have a primary care provider. That number has barely moved since the report last year. According to this government’s own numbers, that leaves 1.3 million British Columbians without a doctor. This government, by their own reporting, has made almost no progress.

To the minister, if she could please clear something up for us.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh, Member. Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Order, Members.

Brennan Day: Are you counting attempted attachments as successful attachments on the health care registry to try and juice the numbers, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We have exceeded the rate of population growth when it comes to attracting new physicians in this province and attaching people to a primary care provider.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: That’s not just for doctors. That goes for nurses as well.

That is the work of a government hard investing in the things that matter. That is new medical schools to train family doctors. That is attracting physicians from other jurisdictions. That is streamlining and speeding up the credentialing for those people. That is building out team-based primary care so that those physicians who are working have the most time possible to spend with their patients, because they’re working in a team of nurse practitioners, of dietitians, of physiotherapists, of clinical counsellors, of social workers — all the people it takes to provide that wraparound care for people.

There was an independent report that was recently released by OurCare, and it showed that B.C. had the highest jump in the number of people reporting that they’re attached to a primary care provider. In fact, 82.6 percent of survey respondents said they have a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, and that is up from 71 percent just a few years before.

This government believes in public universal health care. We are going to continue this work, and we’re not going to stop.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

[2:35 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Members, we will call the chamber back to order, where we are contemplating Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for allowing me to continue my comments on this Bill 16. I had closed the session last Thursday talking about the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the clauses that were shifting that into discussions that would allow disputes to go to the dispute resolution committee.

What I wanted to make clear on that is that also within Bill 11, recently adopted by this House, the supportive housing complaints and issues were chosen to go through a dispute resolution process. I think it’s going to be very, very important that we have a more fulsome discussion on the capacity of that dispute resolution team, because I’m hearing from many in my own riding that there are exaggerated timelines for hearing. Adding more to it, as we just recently have done, may trigger some lags in decisions.

But I’m going to move on now. While Housing is my file, I can’t ignore the rest of this omnibus bill.

Part 2 guts the NDP’s own Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, the very mandates they rammed through six years ago, doubled down on two years ago and called historic. Clauses 7 to 10 quietly slash the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent; eliminate the 2026 and 2030 targets from legislation altogether; and shove them into regulation, where cabinet can rewrite them behind closed doors.

This is the second major retreat in this file in under a year. First, they killed the provincial EV rebate. Now they are dismantling their own law and hiding it in a miscellaneous bill. In 2025, our Conservative caucus introduced legislation to repeal these unrealistic mandates. The NDP voted it down and mocked us. Today they are doing exactly what we proposed, only they lack the courage to admit it.

British Columbians deserve better than a government that sets flashy targets for press releases, attacks anyone who questions those targets and then quietly walks them back when reality bites.

Families in Surrey–Serpentine River told this government for years that EVs are still too expensive, charging infrastructure is inadequate and our electricity grid cannot handle this fantasy. The NDP cancelled the rebate, watched sales collapse and now acts shocked. You cannot kick away the ladder and blame people for not climbing.

[2:40 p.m.]

Even as they retreat, they have left the punitive credit-trading system in place, so manufacturers will still raise the price of gas vehicles or cut supply to B.C. dealerships. That means working families still pay for a policy the government no longer believes in. This is not leadership. It is ideological whiplash that drives up the cost of living.

The numbers expose the fantasy. In 2019, the NDP said EV demand was higher than expected. In 2023, EVs hit 25 percent of new vehicle sales, so the government got cocky and accelerated the targets. Then reality hit.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I just need to introduce another member here just for a quick moment. I’m sorry to interrupt.

Minister of Local Governments and Rural Communities.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I just want to recognize in the gallery that the Vancouver school board international education group is here with us today.

Hello, everyone. It’s wonderful that you are here. Right now you can hear that we’re discussing the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Right now we have a member from the opposition speaking, and soon we’ll have a member from our side, and that’s the work of the House today.

Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a wonderful time in Victoria, and thank you for learning more about our democracy here today.

Will the House make them feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Welcome to everyone in the gallery.

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner: By 2024, adoption had levelled off on our EV sales. By 2025, sales dropped sharply. Now the minister says adoption has been slower than expected. Slower than whose expectations? Not ours, not the dealers, not the families who have been telling this government for years that these vehicles are still too expensive and the infrastructure doesn’t exist.

The New Car Dealers Association has been clear. Manufacturers that cannot meet the 26 percent target face three choices: raise the price of gas vehicles, buy credits from competitors or cut supply to dealerships. That means fewer choices and higher prices at the worst possible time.

The NDP have now built a system that punishes working people for buying vehicles that they actually can’t afford. Even as they back away from the targets now, they are still leaving that punishment structure in place. Even if every British Columbian wanted an EV tomorrow, the province does not have the power supply or charging infrastructure to support that shift.

The Premier says B.C. needs to stand on its own feet and reduce dependence on the United States, but this policy pushes in the other direction — more dependence on imported power, more dependence on foreign supply chains, more dependence on decisions made outside of British Columbia.

For a government that talks a big game about self-reliance, this policy tells a very different story. These mandates may have looked good in a press release in Metro Vancouver, but they were never realistic in the North, the Interior or rural British Columbia — where distances are longer, winters are tougher and charging infrastructure is limited.

If an EV works for your family, buy one. My own family has three. My son has one. My stepson has one. And actually, my grandson has one — recently, his very first vehicle — although he really wants a muscle car, but that’s beside the point.

Families and businesses deserve a choice. The NDP took that choice away. This bill gives some of it back but only because reality has finally overruled ideology.

Moving on, talking about now part 1 that expands cabinet confidentiality and removes the time bar on judicial review.

[2:45 p.m.]

After years of this government’s secrecy, they now want to make it even harder for British Columbians to hold them accountable. We will be asking pointed questions about what prompted these changes. We must look at this with a jaundiced eye and examine it more closely if this bill gets to committee stage.

I’ll skip over the University Endowment Lands amendments. They are simply funnelling more funds into consolidated revenue funds. I don’t think I need to talk a lot about that.

Moving on to clause 28, which authorizes the proportionate use of force for mental health interventions in our prisons. The government’s broader failure on mental health and addictions has flooded our streets with chaos, and communities are bearing the costs of that failure every single day. This, I believe, is a first step to advancing involuntary care, where much more is needed.

Clauses 4 to 6, on the Fuel Price Transparency Act, simply authorize new fees and interest charges by regulation — again, another way the government reaches into the pockets of businesses without it coming to the House for proper debate. It’s becoming more and more clear that regulation is a preferred way of governing in this House.

I’m going to sum up. I think this bill perfectly captures the ominous signs of the government in terms of announcing bold targets on spending and quietly watering them down in an omnibus bill, which this one is doing. British Columbia’s housing crisis was created, in large part, by NDP policy that discouraged supply, overregulated development and failed to build themselves within budget.

As a former mayor who actually had to balance a budget and did get housing built, I do know what works. Lower unnecessary costs on developers. Respect municipal autonomy. Protect property rights. While this bill takes one step towards lowering DCCs, it undermines it with municipal uncertainty and no funding plan for those projects that have been determined worthy of the lower DCCs.

It is a half-measure, and we will be requiring answers, from the minister responsible, on exactly what projects would be exempted and under what provisions. How much DCC revenue would municipalities lose provincewide? What is the detailed plan to replace that funding to those local governments?

Some of the parts of the bill reflect what we have, in fact, been saying for years and been asking for, but we will oppose the parts of the bill that are cloaked in secrecy and any potential off-loading of costs in what appears to be a circuitous way to shave a budget mess.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Garry Begg: I, too, will address all sections of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, as did the member before me. I know it gets quite repetitive, but it’s important that we address the issues inherent in the act. As she did, I’m going to talk about the changes in the endowment lands, the development cost charges, Residential Tenancy Act, Correction Act, Judicial Review Procedure Act, Fuel Price Transparency Act and the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

This is legislation that is being passed now. For example, in endowment lands, if passed, the legislation enables the enforcement of UEL bylaws through ticketing, in accordance with the municipal ticketing framework established in the Community Charter. In other words, it will allow the UEL to set out ticketing offences and penalties of up to $3,000 in a bylaw.

It also establishes that fines collected via ticketing may offset some of the operational costs of enforcement through that ticketing. And it allows University Endowment Lands bylaw enforcement officers to prosecute tickets in provincial court. It speeds up the process for that purpose.

We’re making this change now because people expect and deserve good governance, no matter where they live in this province. It creates a mechanism of bylaw enforcement which was identified as a high priority for the community during public consultations of the UEL services structure and governance study.

The amendments to the act will enable the enforcement of UEL bylaws by ticketing, similar to what already goes on in other municipalities and local governments.

We have consulted with First Nations. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation was notified. We’ve consulted with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation staff to discuss the proposed amendments. Consultation also included the B.C. prosecution service and the judiciary of British Columbia.

Next on the list is development cost charges. Here, we are proposing legislative changes that give the province the authority to establish new categories of project types that qualify for reduced development cost charges and development levels. These new categories and project types will be created through future provincial regulations.

They’ll give local government and TransLink flexibility to choose to reduce or waive DCCs and DCLs for additional types of housing and infrastructure to allow under current provincial legislation. This is important now, at this time, to meet Canada’s proposed build communities strong fund, which is requiring provinces to reduce development charges on multi-unit housing and cost-match federal contributions, among other conditions, to access federal infrastructure dollars.

Making these changes at this time will put B.C. in a very strong position to engage Canada in its proposed programs and quickly implement any conditions required to enter a future agreement, once Ottawa finalizes the project details. This allows local governments access to funding that supports core public infrastructure that enables housing.

With these changes, the province will be able to expand the eligible categories of developments, so local governments and TransLink can lower upfront costs where it makes most sense for the communities. Lower upfront costs, of course, can make stalled or marginal projects viable and speed up construction timelines, helping get homes built for people in the time of financial insecurity. Homebuilders, local government and TransLink will want and will get harmonized, predictable rules that streamline the process and help reduce the barriers for getting homes built.

The outcome, we hope, is that the 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. Our new actions will help unlock more housing, while supporting the housing-enabling infrastructure that communities need through Canada’s new build communities strong fund.

B.C. will also bring new categories into force by regulation once federal program details are finalized, ensuring the province can align the changes with federal support and avoid leaving local governments at risk.

[2:55 p.m.]

Local governments and TransLink will continue to decide whether to waive or reduce DCCs and DCLs. The bill only creates authority to name additional eligible categories. If lost development cost charges revenue is not offset by federal-provincial grants, local governments or TransLink must then top the DCC-DCL reserve rules that are unchanged from our previous amendments.

With regard to tenancy statute amendments, the first amendment aligns the evidence rules for administrative penalty proceedings with the existing dispute resolution process. It provides clarity that those proceedings use evidence designed for administrative decision-making rather than the court rules of evidence. It makes the whole process more fair and efficient.

The second amendment corrects an error in both the acts, the RTA and the MHPTA, by clearly confirming the director’s authority to review decisions and orders from facilitated settlements. If approved, this amendment will apply retroactively to reflect how the RTB has been conducting these reviews since 2024, ensuring that people can have confidence in RTB decisions made during that time.

The rules of evidence are formal rules designed from case law governing the admissibility, weight and presentation of evidence. Under the common law, these rules are generally not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. They will be here. The act expressly disapplies the rules of evidence to residential tenancy branch dispute resolution proceedings but is silent with respect to compliance investigations. It clarifies explicitly in the act to ensure that the same rules of evidence apply in both processes.

The acts were amended in 2023 to allow the RTB to conduct facilitated settlements. This involves updating amendments originally passed in a 2015 bill that have never been brought into force. One provision was intended to give the RTB director authority to review facilitated settlement decisions or orders, but because of an oversight, that provision could not come into force. The amendment clarifies the RTB director’s authority and confirms the validity of reviews already carried out.

Moving on to the Correction Act, the proposed amendments there formally authorize correctional officers to assist health care providers when delivering involuntary psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act. At present, health providers must rely on non-correctional security officers because correctional staff lack the statutory authority to do so. The amendments close the legal gap and bring practice in line with operational needs.

Additionally, in the AG Ministry, their investigations and standards office, the ISO, proposes legislative changes that better reflect their authority to conduct inspections and investigations and review disciplinary hearing appeals. They also include the requirement to report inspection findings to the AG Ministry and the public as well as to refine the inmate complaint process to make it more accessible and to give the director broader discretion when complaints are investigated.

That’s an important change because it ensures timely and appropriate responses during mental health crises in correctional 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 ISO, the investigations and standards office, amendments better reflect the authority and the process taken when the ISO investigates and responds to complaints by individuals in custody, thereby increasing access and accountability.

[3:00 p.m.]

These 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. They reflect consistency in approach for individuals interacting with the investigations and standards office and introduce a requirement for inspection reports to be made public.

Correctional officers are highly trained to manage high-risk and complex situations, and they’re very well equipped to support individuals in crisis. The amendments ensure officers can assist health care providers as required, improve continuity and consistency of care and support coordinated responses during psychiatric emergencies. The amendments provide clear statutory authority only for the specific purpose of assisting health care providers during involuntary psychiatric treatment under the B.C. Mental Health Act.

Going on to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the amendments there modernize the procedure to keep judicial reviews fair, timely and affordable. The changes 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 also introduce a clear 60-day deadline to apply for judicial reviews in most cases, reducing delay, uncertainty and legal costs for individuals, tribunals and government.

It’s important that we make this change now because of a recent B.C. Court of Appeal decision regarding the mink breeders, confirming that courts can require the government to produce a list of cabinet documents during the judicial review even though cabinet discussions are confidential. Being forced to disclose lists of cabinet documents creates legal risk, undermines public interest and immunity and adds another cost as well as delay to court proceedings.

Other governments in this country — Canada and Alberta — already have stronger legal tools to protect cabinet confidentiality. B.C., by comparison, is exposed. The outcomes, we hope, of these amendments will lead to faster, more predictable judicial reviews; stronger protection of cabinet and Treasury Board confidentiality; and reduced costs and delays in the entire process.

In the fuel transparency act, the act, as set out in 2019, promotes transparency, competitiveness and public confidence in the transportation fuel market. The new amendments will enable an industry-funded model where the administrator, the British Columbia Utilities Commission, can recover the costs of administering the legislation from fuel producers and wholesale fuel importers.

It creates the authority for government to make regulation that authorizes the administrator to set fees payable by fuel producers and wholesale fuel importers during a fiscal year. It specifies that unpaid levies would 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 require the commission to hold a hearing before setting fees. That enables affected parties to have the opportunity to express their views on a fair fee allocation framework. Regulations will also set interest rates payable for unpaid fees.

Why are we doing this now? Since the transparency act came into force in 2019, costs have been paid by government. The shift to an industry-funded approach will alleviate that cost, ensuring that resources continue to be made available for other government priorities.

[3:05 p.m.]

This is similar to the long-standing practice of public utilities like B.C. Hydro and Fortis funding the BCUC for their oversight through an energy levy that is set each year. The BCUC, as you know, is an independent regulatory body responsible for regulating B.C.’s energy utilities, basic auto insurance rates and interprovincial pipeline rates. The commission has also been appointed by government as the administrator of the fuel transparency act.

Why the change? Currently the Fuel Price Transparency Act doesn’t allow government to recover admin costs from fuel suppliers. As a result, all administration costs are currently being funded by government. Amending the act allows costs to be recovered directly from industry.

The B.C. Utilities Commission, in its role, will design, set and collect the fee. The BCUC was appointed as administrator of the Fuel Price Transparency Act in 2019. The allocation methodology for collection will be determined by the BCUC in a public process.

With regard to zero-emission vehicles, the proposed amendments reduce the 2035 target from 100 percent ZEV sales to 75 percent ZEV sales. It removes the prohibition on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles from January 1, 2035. It shifts the 2026 and 2030 ZEV sales target to the ZEV regulation alone to allow greater flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions.

There are new regulations that implement the details of these legislative changes, which will be updated in due course. The updated regulations will retain the 26 percent ZEV sales target for 2026. They will also include the 2030 target, which will be determined following emission standards proposals by the federal government for 2030, which are expected to come later this year.

It’s important that we make the changes now. We’re making amendments to revise our sales target in response to evolving market conditions. We are aligning the ZEV mandates with the federal government’s goals, which provides certainty for automakers; reduces their regulatory burden; and supports them in addressing challenges, such as slowing consumer adoption driven by high purchase costs, supply chain disruptions and the U.S. tariffs.

How do they affect profitability and affordability? 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 engines in the province, which could increase the price of new and used vehicles.

Although ZEVs currently have higher upfront purchase costs, their maintenance and operation are significantly lower, often making total cost of ownership for ZEVs less than conventional internal combustion engines.

Gas is the major contributor to household fuels. Transforming to electrified transportation significantly reduces household fuel expenditures. 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.

This is sensible information. It is important that we address these issues as they emerge.

Gavin Dew: I rise to speak to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[3:10 p.m.]

There certainly is a lot in this act, some of which is certainly miscellaneous, some of which follows the time-honoured government technique of shoving things they don’t want to talk about into an omnibus bill so they can pretend that it’s not material. We then have to unpack it and point out what’s actually substantial in this bill and what’s actually embarrassing for government as they climb down on a number of areas, including on EVs.

I’ll just talk a little bit about the bill. I’ll talk a little bit about what’s in the bill and some of the kinds of considerations that we’ll be looking to get a better understanding of as we work our way through analyzing the bill further during committee stage.

The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act adjusts many pieces of legislation, some of which, again, are items that the B.C. Conservative caucus has been calling for, for some time. God forbid the government actually call them full bills. Then they would have to acknowledge their climb-down and surrender on those areas. Instead, they are, of course, buried in this miscellaneous statutes act in order to avoid the government having to talk about the ways in which they are climbing down, surrendering and otherwise backtracking on their agenda — which is a consistent theme this week.

We’ve, obviously, seen over the last number of weeks the Premier hold six different positions on DRIPA; surrender virtually the entirety of his own personal legacy; and generally render himself functionally toothless, as a Premier with little to no legacy to speak of in history.

It’s interesting to see the ways in which these items are being clawed back.

Deputy Speaker: Member, apology. I’ll interrupt.

I have to recognize one of our other members, our Minister of State for Local Governments.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Today in the gallery we have students from the Vancouver school board international education. I just want to thank them so much for coming here to Victoria and for coming to the Legislature.

Right now you are watching democracy in action. We are debating a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Right now you have a member of the opposition speaking. Next, we’ll have a member from our team, our government team, speaking. I hope that you are learning something today. I welcome you here.

I hope that everyone in the House will help welcome these students. Thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome to everyone in our chamber.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: I’ll pick up where I left off, which was the Minister of Jobs with the worst performance on private sector jobs in the country heckling me about his legacy. It’s interesting to hear the gentleman speak in that way.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Kelowna-Mission has the floor.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much.

As I was talking about, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act adjusts many pieces of legislation, including walking back significant commitments previously made by this government.

It reminds me of when they surrendered on the carbon tax. It reminds me of when they surrendered on mandatory care but slow-walked actually implementing it. It reminds me in particular of what’s happening as we speak, which is that the Premier is engaging in a slow-motion surrender on DRIPA and has fundamentally, frankly, undermined investment certainty in our province while setting reconciliation back by a decade.

It’s just interesting to watch that overall theme of government walking back previous commitments and flip-flopping wildly all over the place, which we see in this legislation. I know it makes some of the members opposite unhappy to hear that talked about, but the good news for the Minister of Jobs is that he can get his leadership campaign cranked up real good, real soon.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I could get you to focus, please, on Bill 16, I would appreciate that very much.

Gavin Dew: Well, thank you very much. I will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker.

It’s very good to see some of the changes that are in the miscellaneous statutes act. Obviously, in 2025 our caucus called for changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, and this government opposed those changes. Yet now we see that’s something that they’re actually moving toward.

We’ve also been calling for more mental health supports, especially in our prisons, and it’s interesting to see the government now authorizing the use of proportionate force to help those in prison receive mental health and medical support. That’s an area that I’m very passionate about seeing progress on.

I have recently introduced a private member’s bill to address the matter of brain injuries. That, obviously, fits into the overlapping conversation around how we make sure that individuals who have received brain injuries — whether those be through all matter of different ways they could have received those injuries including, tragically, through non-fatal overdoses…. That is a very serious issue that we’re dealing with in significant volume.

[3:15 p.m.]

It has been exacerbated by the reckless decriminalization experiment that this government rolled out, and now it’s very important that we get the right kinds of measures in place to make sure we’re able to address the challenges of individuals with brain injuries, individuals who are wrestling with addiction, individuals who need mental health supports. I certainly am pleased to see some progress being made toward enabling that in our prisons.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that we need to make sure that individuals who are in our prisons are able to get access to mental health. Also, the opportunity that we have, that has as yet been slow-rolled and not moved forward by this government, to repurpose the dramatically underutilized Oliver penitentiary — which sits at about 25 percent utilization, partially because we’ve seen a 42 percent decrease in the charge rate in the Kelowna area, which means that individuals who should be incarcerated are not incarcerated.

If they are incarcerated, we should be making sure that we are doing what we can, including through these kinds of measures, to enable access to mental health and medical support. In some instances, it may be that what’s necessary is mandatory care for individuals who are being involuntarily put into care but not charged criminally. That is an opportunity for us to repurpose a facility that the taxpayer has paid for that is sitting at least half, if not 75 percent, empty.

It’s a real opportunity — and I think, again, it overlaps with some of these changes happening around mental health supports — for us to make sure that we are taking care of individuals who are wrestling with addiction, who are stuck in that cycle where we’re seeing the overlap of homelessness, mental health, addiction, brain injuries and, in some instances, criminality on a recurring basis. It’s very important that we get the right balance, very important we move forward with those kinds of changes.

We do have concerns about some of the changes being brought in part 1 of the bill, including amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act that expands the authority to keep documents confidential. That does follow in a theme that we’ve seen from this, the most secretive government in Canada — a government that is tearing up the legacy of Mike Harcourt’s NDP government of the 1990s, who were leaders in freedom of information and who in, I believe, 1992 or 1993, brought forward legislation that really actively set the template around freedom of information.

Over the life of this, the most secretive government in the history of Canada, we’ve seen an absolute demolition of freedom of information. We’ve seen the addition of charges that targeted one specific journalist who the government found irritating.

We have seen now, most recently, with the amendments they’re bringing forward to FOI, the ability to scope or to have more ways to push back on FOI and to refuse disclosure. And we certainly have concerns around amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act that would expand the authority to keep documents confidential.

Particularly when we look at the cumulative effect of all of these different changes, it’s hard not to conclude that this is a government that is dedicated not to transparency but to secrecy, and it’s hard not to guess why they would want that, given that they’re failing on virtually every front.

Just minutes ago, I asked for answers around people who are dying in hallways in our hospitals. I got no answers. I’ve been asking for more than a year for answers around underutilized space at Kelowna General Hospital, including through the estimates process, including through question period. This government simply refuses to provide basic factual information, which is really, really unfortunate.

It’s to the point where MLAs can get more information from individual whistleblowers who email us frequently, providing us with information that government refuses to disclose. We actually know the information in many cases, but the government, who are terrified of transparency, continue to hide it, and they continue to enact, through this bill, changes that will make it easier to hide information. So that’s a really, really unfortunate dynamic that we’re seeing enacted further in this bill, and I doubt it’s something that anybody in this government is particularly proud of.

In regard to amendments to the Housing and Municipal Affairs elements of the bill, our Conservative caucus supports the reduction of development cost charges, which have, obviously, significantly increased the cost of new housing. Everyone has heard various different versions of statistics to the effect that government and tax costs comprise on the order of 25 or 30 percent of the cost of housing. Those are, obviously, very, very significant costs that are very challenging in terms of the upward pressure they place on housing prices.

We need to have an appropriate, structured approach to making sure that we’re able to try to reduce some of those government-imposed costs on housing. The reduction of development cost charges is certainly one way to begin accomplishing that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Obviously, there needs to be a full and balanced approach, and ideally, that needs to be done in consultation with municipalities, which is something we haven’t seen a lot of from this government.

Recently we saw a private member’s bill brought forward by this government around the Professional Reliance Act go down in flames after having 88 percent of the feedback that was submitted on it be totally negative — every single municipality totally negative. That bill ultimately died.

The reason I think there was so much negativity was the accumulation of ill will by municipalities who are tired of the heavy-handed imposition of policy by this government from on high without an appropriate level of consultation. We certainly have seen that in regard to short-term rental. We’ve seen that on all kinds of different fronts where, again….

This is a government that doesn’t have its own house in order but likes to reach into the pockets and reach into the freedoms and reach into the property rights and reach into the homes of individual British Columbians and reach into the mandate of municipal governments, completely ignoring subsidiarity, completely ignoring the idea that municipalities might actually have some idea of what they’re doing and imposing their vision from on high.

So it’s very important, as we try to move forward the kinds of policies that will help to enable more affordable housing, including policies around development cost charges, that there is a greater spirit of consultation and engagement with municipalities in order to ensure that there is not only policy that makes sense but also buy-in from those municipalities.

When I say “buy-in,” I don’t mean buy-in at the tip of the bayonet. I don’t mean the kind of buy-in that you get when municipalities know that if they don’t play ball and they don’t say the right things, they’re not going to get funding that they need for growth from this government, which unfortunately has been a consistent pattern. Municipalities know that if they stand up and if they push back, they will not receive funding. They will not receive positive decisions from this government.

That, in my opinion, is not a way to collaborate with levels of government, whether they be federal government, municipal government, regional government. You name it. Not a great way to do business, but unfortunately that is the reality of what we’ve been seeing, and it’s why the level of frustration has risen to a boiling point with this government, not only from the public but also from municipalities.

Let’s talk a little bit more about some of the other changes that are forthcoming through this bill. I previously mentioned the amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, which contains two clauses that would allow government to make more documents subject to cabinet confidentiality and enable a period of time to be an argument for preventing judicial review. Again, secrecy, more secrecy and more secrecy.

As we work our way through, we see in clauses 7, 8 and 9 amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which is probably one of the more significant climb-downs from this government. Much like the carbon tax, much like mandatory care, much like DRIPA, these were articles of faith for this government to which they were entirely committed until they weren’t. Really, there’s not much left that this government stands for other than the desperate attempts of the Premier to cling to power before triggering a leadership race or an election.

This is the NDP’s second major retreat on EV policy in less than a year. First, they killed the provincial EV rebate, and now they’re gutting their own EV mandates and hiding it in this miscellaneous statutes bill. That’s not the sort of thing you do if you’re a government that’s proud of what you’re doing. It’s the sort of thing that you do when you’re trying to do things quietly, which is exactly why we’re making noise about it.

We want folks to know exactly what this government is doing. They don’t. That’s why they continue to push against transparency, push for secrecy and live up to their reputation as Canada’s most secretive government.

I think it bears note that six years ago this government made B.C. the first place to legislate EV sales targets. Two years ago they doubled down with targets of 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035. They said it was extremely urgent. They said it was historic. They acted like anyone who questioned it was out of touch, including those that own and drive electric vehicles.

I personally have an electric vehicle, but I have one because I made a market decision to do so. It happened to work well for the purposes that myself and my family wanted to have it for, and therefore, I made a decision of my own volition to do so. Certainly, there are folks for whom that is the right decision to make. There are folks for whom that is the right vehicle.

The great news about living with freedom and democracy and capitalism is that people get to make choices and that products get to compete in order to provide solutions that are workable for what people need in their lives. Certainly, we’re all for that.

[3:25 p.m.]

What we’re not for are overstated mandates that supress people’s ability to make decisions in a market environment or that make assumptions that people living in Fort St. John are going to want to drive Teslas — when the reality is that’s not a functional product, not a functional use, not a functional environment where you particularly want to have an electric vehicle.

There might be individuals for whom it works, and in that case, I celebrate their freedom to make that decision. But from every conversation that I’ve had with individuals in communities like Prince George, what you really have is a combination of provincial and federal policies that have force-sold EVs to dealers and created situations in which it really just doesn’t make any sense; in which, frankly, the drivers of non-EVs are being forced to artificially subsidize EVs; in which dealerships are being forced to artificially subsidize EVs, mostly so that governments can feel good about themselves.

In some instances, you had dealerships in, say, Prince George that are, effectively, selling EVs at a colossal discount, because they’re not able to get the vehicles that the market actually wants there unless they also take EVs. So you have people literally buying EVs if they’re going to drive in Victoria or Vancouver and buying them from Prince George in order to arbitrage that price. That’s not how a market is supposed to work. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work.

Those are the kinds of skewed incentives and skewed outcomes that can only be created by governments that really don’t know what the heck they’re doing and don’t have an understanding of markets or of market behaviour or of consumer choice or respect for those things.

When our caucus brought forward legislation to repeal these unrealistic mandates and heavy-handed mandates, this government voted them down. They did not want to retreat under actual legislative democratic process with the opposition bringing forward a change, but now they’re doing exactly what we said they would have to do, which is retreating.

The only difference is they’re trying to do it quietly under the cover of this miscellaneous statutes bill, with the hope that nobody will notice. And, frankly, maybe nobody will notice because — you know what? — the entirety of the media and the entirety of the conversation is caught up in a number of higher-profile issues like DRIPA, where, of course, they’re also retreating and they can’t figure out where they stand.

The Premier has had six positions in the last week, and their caucus is clearly divided and falling apart and churning as a result of that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m going to ask you to focus on this bill, please.

Gavin Dew: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will.

I mention all those factors around the dissolution and disarray that are happening in the government only simply to point out that if that’s what it took in order for us to actually get this change made — which we’ve been calling for, for some time — then, I suppose, so be it.

What the bill actually does is it cuts the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent. It removes the ban on selling new gas-powered vehicles after 2035. It strips the 2026 and 2030 targets out of legislation and moves them into regulation, where cabinet can rewrite the rules behind closed doors, without a vote in this House. This is exactly how this government plans to avoid accountability when its grand promise falls apart again.

So that’s, really, what’s been happening here. The numbers that, actually, are there around what’s happened with EV sales expose a fantasy land that this government has been operating in and denying it.

In 2019, they said that EV demand was higher than expected. In 2023, EVs hit 25 percent of new vehicle sales, so the government got cocky; jammed the accelerator; and accelerated the targets about as fast as a Tesla accelerates, which is pretty darn fast. But then reality hit. By 2024, adoption levelled off, and by 2025, sales dropped sharply.

This is the reality of what happens in a marketplace. You have early adopters who are keen to take up the kinds of products that are there, and there are going to be folks that want to buy electric vehicles. Fantastic.

There are going to be people for whom incentives were the reason. There are going to be people for whom the life cycle, lifetime costs of the vehicles made sense. There are going to be individuals for whom it is possible for them to front-load a higher cost of purchase in exchange for a lower cost of long-term maintenance and fuel, electricity rather than gas, and that’s fine.

But the reality is that you hit a certain point at which that relatively easy, lower-hanging fruit of adoption is there, and then there’s a whole heck of a lot of people that don’t want to buy an EV. Whether the economics don’t work for them; whether the performance factors don’t work for them; whether they don’t work logically in their climate; whether, god forbid, they just have made a consumer choice that that’s not what they want to purchase, there is a certain resistance point that you hit in terms of adoption of any product in any market. The cost to families is very obvious.

The New Car Dealers Association has been very clear. Manufacturers that can’t meet the targets face three choices. They can raise the price of gas vehicles and — pop quiz — who pays for that? Consumers pay for that. You can’t tax a business. You can tax consumers through a business. You can tax consumers even harder with these kinds of targets that are overblown and out of touch and not predicated on any reality but just on the fantasy land this government lives in. So they can raise the price of gas vehicles.

[3:30 p.m.]

Again, what does that do to hard-working families that need to commute? It hits them harder at a time when they’re already struggling with an affordability crisis. They’re already struggling with a business confidence crisis. They’re already struggling with a weak job market. They’re already struggling with the horrendous conditions created by choices made by this government.

Then again, you raise the price of gas vehicles. Dealers could buy credits from competitors or they can cut supply. That means fewer choices and higher prices at the worst possible time. This government built a system that punished working people for buying the vehicles they can actually afford and the vehicles that they actually want — based on their own consumer preference, based on their own needs, based on their own financial circumstances, based on whatever they base it on — because that’s the amazing glory of consumer choice.

So unfortunately, families are still paying for a policy this government no longer even believes in. It’s ridiculous. That’s one of the things that is being rolled back under this legislation.

It’s, again, very clear that this government is trying absolutely desperately to avoid having a real and fulsome conversation about the policy change they’re making, the retreat that they’re making, and that’s why they’ve buried it in a miscellaneous statutes act, because they don’t want to talk about it. They’re clearly embarrassed by it, and they really hope that we all just kind of forget about it and that we’re all sufficiently distracted by the collapse of their government and by their ever-changing story on DRIPA that nobody even talks about this.

That’s why it’s so important that we do talk about it. It’s important that folks recognize that this is a pattern with this government — policies that are not predicated in any economic logic or understanding, policies that ignore consumer preference, policies that punish people for making their own decisions, policies that take away choice from hard-working families and that force car dealers to become the unwilling agents of ramming social engineering down the throats of British Columbians.

That’s really not a good way to do things. Again, I think, hopefully, this government has learned its lesson as it beats a retreat from that failed set of policies, but I am not totally convinced that they will actually ever learn their lesson.

Unfortunately, it will be the people of British Columbia that have to learn the lesson after nine long years of this government that hopefully do not stretch too much further. There will be an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to have common sense again, whether it be on zero-emission vehicles or any other topic at hand where common sense has been woefully absent.

Let’s talk about a few other changes that are made through the bill. We can look down to clause 17 where there are amendments to the University Endowment Land Act. I will look forward to hearing more during committee stage as to the underlying intent and purpose of these changes.

At a superficial level, it appears this is primarily focused on parking tickets. Parking tickets are important. Once upon a time, I used to go to UBC. Once upon a time, I used to work at UBC. Parking was always a complex matter there, including but not limited to the fact that…. I believe the issue they are attempting to address here is, really, around the enforceability of parking tickets, which is an interesting and nuanced issue.

I will be interested to hear what information is provided around the actual recovery rate or the actual rate of payment of parking tickets that has led to this amendment. That will be a very interesting conversation to have in order to understand exactly what’s happened there. I think, obviously, it speaks to some broader questions around governance and around the ways in which UBC is structured to act as a quasi-municipality in that area.

Having served at one time on the board of the University Neighbourhoods Association out at UBC some 20 years ago, there are, obviously, a variety of different governance complexities there, some of which have been very innovative and have led to tremendous success in terms of the growth of that community. There are also other challenges that I know remain frustrations for individuals living there, frustrations for the university itself.

So I hope that in due course, as we get through committee stage, we’ll hear a little bit more about the underlying rationale behind this change. Again, because numbers matter, it’ll be helpful for us to actually hear data around what’s happening and around exactly the size and magnitude of the problem that would be solved by this amendment.

As we work through some other changes…. Again, there are some very minor changes. Obviously, clause 24 eliminates the offence that removing any plant, flower, shrub or tree at the University Endowment Lands is an offence and to be forced to pay a fee up to $100. That, to me, is the kind of change that belongs in an omnibus bill. It’s a small, minor tweak. I’m sure there has been some complex conversation behind what has led to that change. That belongs in an omnibus bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

A climb-down on electric vehicle mandates probably belongs in some kind of actual legislation. Again, it’s the kind of thing that you would do if you were proud of the change you were making; the kind of thing that you would do if you were conceding that you had actually overshot the mark previously; the kind of thing you would do if you wanted to provide transparency to the vehicle-driving public, to car dealers, to policy analysts and so forth.

You’d think that would be a pretty big conversation you’d want to have. You’d think that this rollback would be accompanied by the same kind of fanfare and foofaraw that the legislation it is rolling back was accompanied by — the kind of conversations around leadership, the kind of conversations around policy.

Unfortunately, you won’t get that. You’ll get it buried in an omnibus bill. You’ll get it buried in a place where it is never to be found. You’ll get it buried somewhere that the government hopes no one will ever find it, so they can just quietly skulk back on it with their tails between their legs, having realized that they overshot the mark on that particular policy.

Similarly, again, I do think that the matter around cabinet confidences probably requires a little more scrutiny than you would see in an omnibus bill like this. Clearly, this is an attempt to just quietly slide it through without any attention being brought to it.

Again, I’m not surprised the government is doing that, given the intensity and vitriol with which their amendments to FOI were received by media; by advocates; and, most importantly, by disgruntled former, frustrated New Democrats, the kind of people that are saddened by watching the legacy of the NDP ripped up — by watching Mike Harcourt’s 1990s legacy around freedom of information be flushed down the drain, the final pieces ripped up, burnt, the ashes flushed down the toilet — because they’ve destroyed freedom of information in this province.

Again, they have earned that nickname, that reputation, as the least transparent and most secretive government in Canada. That is really, really unfortunate to see, particularly as we are grappling with major, major decisions where time and time again, day after day — heck, minute after minute and hour after hour this last weekend — we’ve seen government waltz with little accountability and little transparency through a completely….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please come back to Bill 16.

Gavin Dew: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I just get so passionate about this government’s lack of transparency that I can’t help myself but continue to return to that theme. It is a theme of considerable frustration that I think a lot of British Columbians have.

Again, we’ve seen a series of other changes be made through this act. I think I’ve touched on most of them. I mentioned, obviously, the changes around government authorizing the use of proportionate force to help those in prison receive mental health care and medical support. It’s a difficult piece of conversation that we need to have. I don’t think anybody takes those kinds of trade-offs, those kinds of conversations lightly. I think those are the exact kind of important conversations that we need to be able to engage with fulsomely.

We need to be able to find that difficult balance, because we are unfortunately and tragically dealing with an epidemic of mental health challenges. We’re dealing with individuals who have serious, serious brain injuries.

Again, I brought forward legislation in an effort to try to scope brain injuries more clearly into the Mental Health Act so that we can better enable both voluntary and involuntary care for those individuals who, tragically, have been through the cycle of non-fatal overdose and being revived — the loss of blood to the brain, the brain damage that subsequently occurs — and are, unfortunately, in many cases, not ever going to fully recover.

So we are going to need a system of care, a full-spectrum system of care, that takes into account the full range of individuals, the harms that have been done — tragically, the legacy of an overdose crisis that has been fueled by a reckless decriminalization experiment in this province.

I am, again, looking forward to further conversation around all these different amendments that are being brought forward at committee stage. I wish that some of them were being brought forward as bills in their own right with the kind of scrutiny and conversation that they fully deserve, but I have every confidence that, between myself and members of the Conservative caucus, we will engage in fulsome diligence on these matters as we move into committee stage. I am hopeful that we will see fulsome answers to the kinds of questions that are likely to be asked during committee stage.

I hope that we will see constructive engagement, particularly around those items in this bill that really should not be matters of partisan politicking but should be matters of dialing in really, really important, important policy.

Again, those pieces around making sure that we are enabling proportionate force to help with mental health supports are really tricky conversations. I hope that we will be able to have a mature further debate around that in committee stage.

Again, I look forward to seeing the bill continue to committee stage. I look forward to that discussion in full.

With that, thank you very much for the time today.

[3:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood.

Darlene Rotchford: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Always nice to see you in the chair making sure people stay in line. I know it’s hard in this place.

It’s an honour to rise in this House and speak to support Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act of 2026. I’d like to thank all of our ministers who brought forward parts of this act. I have complete faith in my ministers and my government, unlike some people in this House, apparently.

At a glance, this bill may not carry the same headline-grabbing weight as some of the more sweeping legislation we debate in this chamber. It does not propose a single, transformative policy shift. Nor does it focus on one issue alone. Instead, it does something equally important, something foundational to good governance. It ensures that the laws we’ve already passed are working in the way they are intended to work.

That matters very deeply, because government is not only about introducing new ideas. It’s about maintaining, refining and improving the system we already have in place so that we remain fair, efficient and responsible to the people we serve. I believe that is exactly what Bill 16 does.

I will speak a little bit about different parts of this bill and break down what some thoughts are around that.

A commitment to transparency and good governance. One of the core principles of responsible governance is transparency. British Columbians expect their laws to be clear, consistent and up to date.

Bill 16 reflects that expectation, bringing forward a series of targeted, practical amendments across several statutes. These are not sweeping ideological changes. They are careful, thought-out updates designed to clarify intent, correct inconsistencies and ensure that legislation is implemented as it was meant to be. This is a standard practice in any well-functioning legal system. More importantly, it is a commitment to openness, to accountability and to doing the work properly.

By bringing these amendments forward publicly rather than quietly allowing inconsistencies to persist, the government is demonstrating respect for both this House and the people of British Columbia.

Strengthening access to justice. Let me begin with the amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Access to justice is a cornerstone of our democracy. When individuals challenge decisions made by government or administrative bodies, they deserve a process that is fair, timely and affordable.

The amendments in this bill move us closer to that goal. They introduce a clear 60-day deadline for filing most judicial reviews. This reduces uncertainty and prevents prolonged legal disputes that can be costly for individuals and institutions alike. They also clarify how sensitive cabinet information is protected during current proceedings.

This is about balance. This is about ensuring accountability while also protecting the integrity of confidential decision-making processes that are essential to effective government. Without these protections, we risk turning judicial reviews into lengthy, trial-like proceedings, driving up costs; increasing delays; and, ultimately, making that system less accessible. With these changes, we are creating a process that is more predictable, more efficient and more accessible for everybody.

With some of the comments about transparency and concern about our government, I would like to remind the members of the House that I am not a minister. This wouldn’t apply to me directly, and I still support our ministers and our Premier with this change.

Deputy Speaker: Member, apologies to interrupt. We have someone seeking leave.

Claire Rattée: Could I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Claire Rattée: I have the honour to introduce, on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, a group of 23 grades 11 and 12 students from Earl Marriott Secondary as well as two adults that are with their group.

We’re just in the middle of a debate on a piece of legislation here, so I hope you enjoy your time here.

I would just ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome to everyone in our chamber. Thanks for joining us today.

Apologies for the interruption, Esquimalt-Colwood.

Debate Continued

Darlene Rotchford: Not a problem. I know they’re just so excited hearing about this miscellaneous bill.

Welcome to the House.

Fairness and efficiency in tenancy matter. Turning now to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, these amendments may be described as housekeeping, but their impact is anything but minor. For renters and landlords alike, clarity in the law is critical.

One amendment confirms the authority of the residential tenancy branch director to review decisions arising from facility settlements. This authority has already been exercised in practice, and this change ensures that those decisions remain valid and trusted.

[3:45 p.m.]

Another amendment aligns evidence rules for administrative penalty proceedings with those used in dispute resolution. What does that mean in practical terms? It means decisions can be made more fairly and efficiently without being bogged down by overrigid court-style rules that are not suited to administrative processes. For renters in Esquimalt-Colwood and across B.C., this translates into greater confidence in the system. It means disputes are resolved more quickly, more consistently and with greater clarity.

Supporting housing and community infrastructure. Housing can be one of the most pressing issues across our province. We’ve heard, on both sides of this House, talk about the importance of housing and people who are struggling looking for different types of housing. We just need to ensure that everyone has the tools in their toolbox to do what they can to do their part for housing in our province.

These amendments affect the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter and related statutes that are designed to help address the challenge in a practical and meaningful way. The changes give local governments new tools to reduce or waive development cost charges for a broader range of housing projects.

Why does this matter? It’s because upfront costs are one of the biggest barriers to getting housing projects off the ground. By providing flexibility to reduce costs, we can help make more projects viable, especially at a time when construction costs and interest rates remain high. These amendments also position B.C. to access significant federal funding for infrastructure through the proposed building communities strong fund.

Again, we all have our part to play in ensuring that we’re having housing built here in British Columbia. This is about more than just housing units. It’s about building complete communities — communities with the infrastructure needed to support growth, from transit to water systems to our public amenities.

For growing communities like those in my constituency, these tools are essential. They mean more homes can be built more quickly and in a way that aligns with the needs of the people who live there.

Modernizing enforcement of University Endowment Lands. Very exciting topic. The amendments to the University Endowment Lands act address a long-standing gap in enforcement. Residents in these communities have been very clear. They want effective, practical tools to ensure compliance with local bylaws. Currently enforcement relies on court proceedings that are time-consuming and very expensive.

This bill introduces a more modern approach — ticketing, similar to what is already done in municipalities across B.C. This is a commonsense solution. It improves compliance, reduces costs and brings governance in the area in line with the expectations of its residents.

Next, improving transparency in fuel pricing. Turning to the Fuel Price Transparency Act, transparency in fuel pricing is essential for consumer confidence. These amendments shift the cost of administering the act from the taxpayer to industry through an industrial-funded model managed by the B.C. Utilities Commission. This is a fair approach. It ensures that those who are part of the fuel market contribute to the oversight of the market rather than placing the burden on the public.

Importantly, the expected impact on fuel prices is negligible — less than 1 percent for a typical fill-up. At the same time, this change frees up government resources to be used in other key priority areas. It is a practical, balanced solution that supports both transparency and fiscal responsibility.

Next, a pragmatic approach to zero-emission vehicles. The amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act reflect a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to climate policy. B.C. has been a leader in the transition to cleaner transportation, but leadership also means adapting to changing circumstances. These amendments adjust the 2035 target for zero-emission vehicle sales from 100 percent to 75 percent and remove the prohibition on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles.

This is not a step backwards. This is a recalibration. It acknowledges that real-world changes such as supply chain disruptions and affordability concerns will continue to drive progress towards emission reduction. It also aligns targets with our federal policies, providing greater certainty for automakers and reducing regulation burdens. Most importantly, it preserves consumer choice.

For many British Columbians, particularly in rural and remote areas, flexibility matters. At the same time, the transition to zero-emission vehicles can deliver significant benefits — lower operating costs, improved air quality and better health outcomes for our community. That is what balanced, evidence-based policy looks like.

Next, strengthening corrections and oversight. The amendments to the Correction Act address critical issues in public safety and institutional oversight.

[3:50 p.m.]

Before I carry on, I would be amiss not to give a shout-out to our BCGEU component 1 members, for no one knows who some of those folks are. Those are our correction officers in the province, who keep our Corrections and all those involved safe. Over the years of my activism in GEU…. I cannot state enough the great work that those people do, enduring the job thanklessly and keeping us safe.

This provides clear authority for corrections officers to assist health care providers during mental health interventions. This closes a legal gap that has created inefficiencies and relies on external security services. It ensures that the right people can respond at the right time, improving safety for both inmates and the staff.

Additionally, the amendments strengthen the role of the investigation and standards office. By enhancing its authority and requiring public reporting, we are increasing transparency and accountability within our corrections system. These are meaningful improvements that contribute to safer, more effective institutions. It matters.

Taken individually, each of these amendments addresses a specific issue, but together they represent something larger. They represent a government that is paying attention to the details; a government that is committed to ensuring that laws are not only passed but when they’re passed, they are maintained and approved; a government that understands that fairness, efficiency and transparency are not abstract concepts, but hey are built through careful, ongoing work.

For the people of Esquimalt-Colwood, this matters. It means a justice system that works more efficiently. It means clear rules for renters and landlords. It means more tools to build the housing or communities they need. It means better oversight, stronger public service and more efficient government.

Bill 16 may be described as the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, but there is nothing miscellaneous about the impact it will have. It strengthens our legal framework. It improves efficiency across multiple systems. It enhances transparency and accountability, and it ensures that the law we rely on every day continues to serve the people of British Columbia as it is intended to.

This is the work of a responsible government. It is careful, it is deliberate, and it is essential. I am proud to support this bill, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ve had a few comments from current and former members about how much fun miscellaneous statutes bills are, and I didn’t believe it. I thought they were joking, but I’m looking forward to this one. I’ve been watching and listening with some amusement and some distress.

I’m going to start with the energy and climate solutions components of the bill because they’re close to my heart, starting with the provisions related to fuel price transparency and then the zero-emission vehicle targets. Then I’ll finish with PSSG.

This portion of the bill moves the cost of fuel transparency act through the B.C. Utilities Commission from being funded by government to being funded by industry — great.

Fuel price transparency is an issue I hear about regularly in my constituency. In the Sea to Sky corridor, residents and visitors consistently face unjustified higher gas prices than in other parts of the province. Prices can often be higher in my riding than in Vancouver, despite a transit tax of 18½ cents per litre in the Metro Vancouver area that we don’t have.

For my colleagues on this side of the House, this is the free market at work, folks. It’s entirely non-competitive gouging.

This is why independent analysis of fuel pricing in the province matters. It can help to expose areas of the province, like my own, where residents have been overcharged for fuel for years. This price differential has very real consequences for residents and visitors in the Sea to Sky.

We still lack regional transit, forcing more and more drivers onto a congested highway that can be very dangerous in winter weather. A fuel tax of only a few cents per litre could fully pay for regional transit in this region and probably not land in the pocketbooks of residents because we’re already being overcharged. The BCUC found that we act as a single market with the Lower Mainland, so that would allow us to have regional transit when we’ve been paying for regional transit. This would alleviate pressure on our highway system and lower costs for residents and visitors.

If we can get closer to solving the problem of unfair fuel pricing, the Sea to Sky could have both cheaper fuel and a funding source for regional transit. I can’t think of better people to pay for it than the industry themselves, that have been reaping the profits.

Unfortunately, the transparency act hasn’t solved the problem of unfair fuel pricing, but it gets us started and helps government and residents to better understand the problem.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’d like to see more action from this government on using that information to hold industry accountable on fuel pricing practices, but that’s not what this section of the bill in front of us is about.

Moving the costs of ensuring transparency about fuel pricing is fair. The cost of this on industry, I am told — or the cost of this to consumers, I guess, if it’s passed on — is about one cent in a 50-litre fill-up of fuel. Given that we don’t use pennies anymore, it’s basically not discernible.

So while I support this section of the bill, it is unfortunate that it’s being bundled together with so many other changes, some of which I have significant concerns about.

All right. The changing EV mandate in this legislation — I’ve heard members who have very strong opinions about this. I’ll declare a personal bias. I was driving an electric vehicle when I was in high school in the 1980s. My father was an electrochemist working for Cominco at the time, and they were researching lead-zinc batteries for use in electric vehicles.

That didn’t turn out to be the technology that was used, but he had a van full of batteries that I would drive around. I don’t know. I probably got 50 kilometres or something like that, but it’s close to my heart. And as electric vehicles have come online, I’ve kind of watched the whole thing, and I own one now. I’ll try to balance that bias, but listening to some of the arguments about this legislation in the House, I feel like we’ve been here before.

If you will, imagine someone standing in this chamber over a century ago saying:

“I like my horse and buggy. My horse pulls me in all the weather. I know exactly how far it can go. I don’t have to look for gas stations. I know where the hay is to feed the horse. The gas stations are inconvenient, and I don’t understand how these pumps work, and I get fuel all over myself.

“These new internal combustion engines are unreliable. They cost way more. I mean, for a working family…. They’re inconvenient. They smell. They don’t even have roofs on them, so you get rained on. I don’t see why I should be forced to change.”

You can imagine pointing to every early failure, every limitation, every inconvenience as proof that the transition would never work. We wouldn’t take that argument seriously today, and we should be careful about taking its modern equivalent too seriously now.

I hear the opposition doing a victory dance over lowering the mandates from 100 to 75 percent. What we’re hearing way too often is not a serious engagement with how to make this transition work. It’s a familiar pattern of overstating limitations and obstacles, understating process and using uncertainty as a reason to stand still.

It’s a veritable smorgasbord of menu items to complain about electric vehicles. “They don’t pay the fuel tax. They’re getting a free ride. There’s a generator in a resort community that’s fueling a charger. They’re hard to charge. You’ve got to plug them in.” I’ve experienced this myself. It’s not great, but any early industry is going to have some of these things.

What I hear often is decision-based evidence-making: “I think that electric vehicles are a sign of the woke culture, and I don’t want them.” That’s all fine and dandy, but it does remind me of a contortionist just trying to find any reason to avoid progress.

That brings me to the substance of this bill. I actually want to commend the government for maintaining a zero-emission vehicle mandate. I’m sure the pressure from the auto industry lobby was intense. No free market entity wants to be told what to do. Yet transportation remains one of the largest sources of emissions in the province. Without clear signals and expectations to the market on zero-emission vehicles, we will not move quickly enough.

I understand that people like to have choice. They like the free market. They disregard social engineering. We’re facing a climate crisis. Social engineering is needed to keep our society intact — a little bit of signal that can be adjusted as needed based on what the reality is on the ground. It takes time for people to become comfortable with the new technology, but without these clear signals, we will not move quickly enough.

[4:00 p.m.]

We hear repeatedly that electric vehicles simply won’t work in colder parts of our province, that winter conditions in places like Fort St. John make this transition unrealistic. If that were true, we wouldn’t be seeing what’s happening in Norway. Now, I know we look at Scandinavian countries and we wish we could have what they have, yet we throw up our hands and just say: “We’re not good enough or we’re not innovative enough or we don’t want…. We can’t follow them.”

Well, Norway is a country with long dark winters. Many parts of it experience average temperatures around minus 7 and regular drops below minus 30. Yet 96 percent of new passenger vehicles sold are zero-emission in Norway — not 20 percent, not 40 percent, but 96 percent of new vehicle registrations are electric. Norway is even a major petroleum producer. You might even go so far as to call it a petro-state. So they have every structural reason not to delay this transition, yet they took the bull by the horns and decided they could do this.

The evidence here is clear. Cold climates are not the barrier. Resource economies are not the barrier. The real variable is whether governments set clear, durable policy direction and stick to it. The mention of repealing the mandate entirely has come up. That was last year. This caucus was very proud to stand against repealing these mandates.

To be balanced, I do need to point out the challenges with this section of the bill. It removes all legislated interim targets, moving them into regulation instead, and keeps a single target of 75 percent by 2035. This is mildly concerning to me, because I’ve sat in a number of committee meetings where I’ve been told: “Oh, we’ll set it by regulation. Don’t worry. Trust us. It’ll be posted to that strange website where the regulations are posted, and you can keep an eye on that.”

Having interim targets that are set in advance is important to keep progress on track and to send a signal. It also provides clarity to industry and predictability to industry and consumers about where we’re headed. I think I’ll say it again. Given the climate scenario, this is where we’re headed.

Interim targets being moved into regulation mean that they’re easier to change, easier to delay and can be more susceptible to the whims of the government of the day. I’ve been assured that these interim targets will continue to be set high enough to push the zero-emission vehicle market forward, and I hope that’s true.

There is the risk, though, that we lose courage and these regulated targets begin to follow the market rather than shape it. The central purpose of the mandate is to provide industry certainty — something we’re hearing about from all sectors of the economy these days. If these targets are not set far enough in advance through regulation, that introduces uncertainty.

While I am in support of maintaining a zero-emission vehicle mandate, I am cautious about the extent to which this legislation may weaken the mandate. With so much of the near-term guidance being put into regulation, it makes it difficult to assess for myself and all British Columbians what this mandate will look like in the years ahead.

We stand committed to holding the government accountable on this. I urge the minister to stay the course on this file and maintain our province’s leadership on zero-emission vehicles. I’ll be watching carefully.

I’ll move on to the Public Safety Solicitor General sections, amendments in the British Columbia Correction Act within Bill 16 as proposed by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

First, I want to thank the ministry staff and partners who took the time to brief us on these amendments and offer some of the potential impacts they have on incarcerated people here in British Columbia.

Drawing your attention to clause 28, we can see that it gives authority to correctional staff to use force in “assisting” health care providers in providing treatment within designated mental health facilities. As we know, the two designated health authorities in B.C. include the B.C. Forensic Psychiatric Hospital and most recently the Surrey Pretrial Centre. Within the Surrey Pretrial Centre, the Public Health Services Authority currently contracts private security to act as enforcement for inmates who are receiving involuntary treatment.

For this reason, we understand that this specific piece of the legislation is attempting to ensure that this authority moves from those contracted privately to corrections staff. We relatedly understand this amendment as a method through which to have greater oversight over the conduct of those in this role.

[4:05 p.m.]

Obviously, the role itself is one that uses force against those receiving involuntary treatment as a reality today and carries an incredible amount of power. For this reason, it’s critical that those who fill it are properly trained and regulated. Yet it’s worth our time to name that the question of whether it’s corrections staff or private security, which is a question worth asking, is being asked within the specific context of involuntary treatment for incarcerated people.

For this reason, I want to highlight that involuntary treatment, particularly when it’s embedded in a correctional environment, carries profound and well-known risks of harm. At its core, involuntary treatment removes a person’s ability to consent to what happens to their own body. This is not a neutral intervention and has the potential to re-traumatize people, especially those with histories of state institutionalization and violence, and we know that’s disproportionately the case for those who are criminalized and incarcerated.

Specifically, the intersection of involuntary treatment within carceral institutions and the over-incarceration of Indigenous people cannot be overlooked or brushed aside. When “care” is experienced as coercion, it can undermine trust in both health care providers and the systems that they work within. The result is often the opposite of what’s intended. This includes disengagement, heightened distress and increased likelihood of future crises.

Even in my rural context, I hear stories of people whose first interaction with the system was negative, and that is the last time they go to seek help. So within the context that we’re talking about today, where people are already incarcerated and navigating complex and overlapping experiences of mental health, acquired brain injury and substance use, the risks are even higher.

The use of force, whether it’s carried out by private security or corrections staff, therefore runs the risk of situating treatment within a framework of control rather than care. It blurs the line between health care and punishment and places carceral logistics at the centre of clinical decision-making.

We must ask ourselves in this House what it means to deliver care in an environment where liberty has already been removed and where refusal is no longer a viable option. Shifting authority from one group to another does not resolve these underlying concerns.

I invite the members to consider. If our goal is to support healing and stability, then we must critically examine whether an emphasis on involuntary treatment within correctional centres can ever truly achieve that aim or whether it deepens the very harms it is presented to address.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you for the opportunity.

I rise today and thank the community of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, for many of whom the amendments in Bill 16 will be critical for delivering things across zero-emission vehicle mandates and housing and justice that are really important for everybody on the ground.

I will start by just saying a little bit about the bill. These changes in this miscellaneous act are critical for improving fairness, efficiency and making community stronger. These amendments introduce practical enforcement oversight and efficiency updates across multiple statutes. They support safer corrections, faster judicial reviews, fairer tenancy rules and transparent fuel pricing. It helps communities lower costs, access infrastructure funding and build more homes. So many parts of this act are really critical across the ground.

I’m going to start by speaking to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, something that is very close to my heart. The Conservatives have strongly opposed our actions to support the transition to zero-emission vehicles — not surprising, given their track record of deniers of climate science.

On our side of the House, we continue to make policy based on science. That’s how we continue to support zero-emission vehicles, because the science says it’s working. It’s working, because B.C. is a leader in electrical vehicle adoption across North America, with more than 229,000 electric vehicles on the road.

In 2025, according to published figures, 18.3 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales in B.C. were zero-emission vehicles. So 18.3 percent of all light-duty vehicles in B.C. are zero-emission vehicles, and 70 percent of people in the Lower Mainland would consider an EV as their next vehicle. That’s because of the action our government has taken to support the transition.

[4:10 p.m.]

The science says it’s working, not just for climate change, air quality and people’s health — with growing numbers of electric vehicles being adopted; it’s also working to reduce the cost for consumers. At a time when consumers are struggling, EVs help put money back into their pockets.

Compared to fossil fuel vehicles, 97 percent of people with EVs report lower maintenance costs. Compared to fossil fuel vehicles, 83 percent have said they have a charger at home and drive about 100 kilometres per day, far more than the 400-kilometre range. It’s putting money into the pockets of people in our communities while it’s ensuring we’re on the path to addressing climate change and air quality.

The success of the EV mandate is also tied to B.C. being a leader in charging networks that use clean, made-in-B.C. energy to power vehicles. B.C. is a leader in charging infrastructure deployment. B.C. has the largest, and growing, public charging infrastructure network in Canada. As of January 1, there are more than 8,800 public charging ports, 6,443 level 2 ports and 2,417 fast-charging ports in B.C. — an 86 percent increase from 2023.

Since its launch in September 2020, the CleanBC go electric public charger program has provided more than $60 million for 200 public charging projects throughout B.C. B.C. is also expanding investment by funding 75 new public EV charging projects in communities throughout the province through the CleanBC go electric public charger program.

This success builds on our regulation action in the past. In 2025, that included discounts, zero- or low-interest financing and charging infrastructure supports. Our government has consistently been supporting this program for zero-emission-fuel vehicle adoption.

The amendments that we are making in this bill revise the mandate to address challenges in the current economic climate for customers and industry. It addresses challenges around the fallout from the trade war and the impacts across our economy, but it does not stop the action we’re taking to continue to support ZEV adoption across our province. We’re continuing to commit to that charging infrastructure, expanding charging across our roads. B.C. is continuing to invest in the broader ecosystem readiness to support a growing number of ZEVs.

The CleanBC go electric public charging program will be continuing to have investment — $19.1 million to invest in those 75 new EV projects, which will include 277 direct current fast-charger ports and 51 level 2 charger ports. Forty-one communities throughout B.C., including high-traffic urban centres such as Vancouver and Richmond as well as communities along major transportation corridors such as Revelstoke and Kamloops, are benefiting from new charging stations.

We will continue to be driven by science, to take climate change seriously and work to support EV adoption to reduce emissions, clean up air quality, reduce vehicle costs and leverage B.C.’s clean power to fuel transportation and put money in people’s pockets.

I want to turn now to the next piece of the miscellaneous act. That is the fuel transparency act. In this moment, where the actions of the U.S. internationally and expansion of war have caused prices for fuel to skyrocket for households that were already struggling with their fuel costs, the fuel transparency act has been critical.

I’m so relieved that our government introduced this in 2019. When we introduced it in 2019, it was because we saw great disparities across the province and unjust costs for fuel for households that were struggling with costs.

[4:15 p.m.]

It was enacted in 2019 after the B.C. Utilities Commission investigation revealed a 13-cent-per-litre wholesale price gap between Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest, which amounts to a $490 million annual cost to B.C. consumers.

The purpose of this act was to promote transparency, competitiveness and public confidence in our fuel market. The administrator was the B.C. Utilities Commission, and this act required fuel market participants to submit detailed market data to the B.C. Utilities Commission so that consumers and the public would have transparency.

The bill provides ongoing oversight of gasoline and diesel markets, including investigations and regional analysis of impacts to British Columbians. This has included analysis and reporting on Sea to Sky gas prices; the removal of the carbon tax in B.C.; and the U.S., Israel and Iran conflict — continuing to ensure citizens know that they’re paying a fair price.

Public reporting provides clear, accessible explanations of fuel prices and movements through reports, newsletters and BCUC gas price websites — including analysis of impacts like global events, such as the Iran war, geopolitical conflicts that are affecting prices on the ground here in B.C. The bill also ensures data collection, so the secure operation of an industry portal where there is efficient fuel market data that is collected and shared.

This amendment ensures that the fuel sector is also part of paying for the transparency act administration so that we as citizens continue to have a sustainable process for fuel transparency. That’s something that the citizens of B.C. have asked our government to do — ensure that we’re managing the public dollars judiciously to deliver for British Columbians, delivering price transparency in times of geopolitical instability, ensuring price transparency and accountability at a time where citizens are struggling to pay their bills.

That’s what our government’s been delivering, and we’re doing it while being judicious with taxpayer dollars.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the privilege to speak today. I’ll be speaking to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I appreciate hearing from members so far on this.

I know government often uses these types of bills as a housekeeping mechanism to clean up or modernize statutes. As the name certainly suggests, this is a bill that touches a wide range of laws and policy areas.

As we look at it, it may look like technical or administrative updates, but I’m going to get a little bit into the details more closely. It becomes very clear that this bill does more than those administrative updates. There’s a lot in this bill. I’m going to touch on the more significant portions.

As it appears to me, the bill makes some pretty significant changes to how decisions are made. Like we see often, it shifts authority out of the Legislature and into regulation. In at least one key area, it does represent a significant reversal of direction of the government. We’ve been talking about that, and I’d like to share my own comments and thoughts.

Before I begin, I’ll walk through the major components of the bill, because I think that matters. Then I will spend much of my time on the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. That will be most of my time.

We heard from the Leader of the Third Party, who really compared B.C. to Norway. I don’t think that’s an exact comparison. B.C.’s distances between travel, the infrastructure that we have currently in place, certainly, where I represent in northern B.C.… We heard from the Minister of Citizens’ Services a lot of focus on the Lower Mainland and that infrastructure. We don’t have the diffuse infrastructure across the province, and the distances are great in northern B.C.

I do want to share the perspectives from my riding on this particular mandate program that has been in place, because I think there are still current flaws and the government should be going further on this.

Let me begin with part 1, the amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

[4:20 p.m.]

We’ve already heard more from the Attorney General critic earlier on in the debate on this. As it’s been stated by the critic, these changes expand government’s ability to designate materials as cabinet confidence and limit what can be disclosed during judicial review proceedings. At the same time, the bill removes a safeguard that prevented government from relying on the passage of time to block judicial review unless explicitly stated in legislation.

I don’t think these are necessarily small changes. They go directly to transparency, to accountability and to the ability of British Columbians to challenge decisions made by their government.

It seems to be a pattern with this government, unfortunately. In this legislative session, we’ve already seen this government, of course, bring in Bill 9, and we’ve heard from other members on that. That will make freedom of information more challenging. We’ve seen government move in the budget to remove the Office of the Merit Commissioner. Now we’re seeing the government try to bury more information under cabinet confidentiality. That’s something that many British Columbians will have concerns with.

When a government increases its ability to withhold information while limiting avenues for review, I think it’s reasonable to ask: what problem is this trying to solve? How will these powers be used? These are, I believe, entirely reasonable questions, and the public deserves to know. Why are all these changes happening at the same time — whether that’s FOI changes, merit-based hiring and dismissals or in the disclosure in judicial review proceedings? I think it’s incumbent upon the government to explain that in context.

In part 2, we see amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act. These changes allow government to impose fees and interest, with the details to be set out later through regulation. That was something I mentioned earlier. Again we see the pattern — decisions moved out of legislation and into regulation. It is more convenient for government — I’ll give them that — but it also means less debate and less scrutiny and less direct accountability to this chamber.

In part 3, there are amendments related to housing, local government and tenancy. There are elements here that I can likely support. I understand what the government is trying to do here. Reducing development cost pressures is certainly important because these costs are passed directly onto people trying to buy or rent a home. Anything that responsibly helps improve affordability is worth consideration and discussion.

There are also changes to tenancy processes, and those may provide some flexibility, but we need to ensure that fairness and consistency are not compromised. I think a number of questions that critics will raise in committee stage will be important for that portion of the bill.

I’ll continue moving forward here. In part 4, the bill amends the Correction Act. These provisions allow for the proportionate use of force to ensure individuals in custody receive necessary mental health care. I do want to acknowledge this. Mental health challenges in our correctional system are real.

We did hear from the member from Kelowna-Mission, talking about those affected by brain injury in a bill that he introduced in that regard. I think that’s worthy of consideration as well.

It is also important to hear from the front-line workers, who are dealing with increasingly complex situations. Individuals in custody deserve access to care. If implemented properly, I sincerely hope we can address any gaps, and that’s something that the government needs to explain as part of this.

Then the creation of an investigation and standards office is important, just to understand what that actually is going to mean in practice.

Overall, with all of these various parts — and we’ll get into the more consequential one that I’d like to talk to today — of course, this isn’t a simple bill. There are a number of bills that could have come forward in their own right, I think. This Bill 16 contains a mix of measures, some constructive but some concerning and some that deserve closer scrutiny, I’d say, than they’re currently getting.

Before turning to the specifics around the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, I think it’s important to step back and look at the broader context of that particular portion of this bill. It isn’t just about one policy. It’s about the direction of this government’s CleanBC framework as a whole.

[4:25 p.m.]

I know that when the Minister of Energy spoke earlier, talked about this at length and touting CleanBC…. But CleanBC has had a major problem as its policies impact affordability for families and, overall, also, B.C.’s economic competitiveness. Increasingly, we’ve been hearing these concerns not just from the opposition members but from business leaders, from economists and independent reviews, that the balance is not right and that government’s ambition has really outpaced the reality for everyday British Columbians.

The Business Council of B.C. has been clear in its assessment. They’ve warned that CleanBC policies, as they’ve been structured by the government, risk undermining economic competitiveness and adding cost pressures across the economy. At a time when families are already stretched, I think that really matters.

Climate policy does not exist in isolation. There are also the pressures on food security, housing, inflation and ballooning government deficits. It affects the cost of living, investment decisions and jobs, especially in regions like northern British Columbia, where resource and trade-exposed sectors are critical.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We need to look at emissions reductions, but we also need to look at how these policies work in the real world. We have also seen analysis suggesting that, over time, the cumulative impact of these policies could significantly reduce economic growth if we’re not looking at the balance in the long term.

That has real consequences. The cumulative impacts of these policies have real consequences for workers; for communities; and for government revenues that fund essential services, like health care and education. Even the government’s own CleanBC review acknowledges that affordability and competitiveness must be central considerations going forward.

That’s an important point, because we can focus on lowering emissions, but how we do it actually matters. The consequences could be difficult for families facing affordability challenges, families trying to pay their mortgages, families trying to afford their kids’ hockey or dance lessons.

It’s about making sure policies are grounded in reality and reflect the regional differences across this province, and people need to be brought along with the process rather than getting ahead of them.

I would suggest that what we have seen in Bill 16, particularly the changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, a clear example of when the balance is not struck…. What has happened with electric vehicle mandates has not been balanced for British Columbians. CleanBC has been too focused on mandates and forcing policy on the public rather than bringing people along.

What we’re seeing in this section of Bill 16 is a significant adjustment. It’s also a clear retreat from the government from their previous policy. Six years ago, the government made British Columbia the first place in North America to legislate EV sales targets. Two years ago, they doubled down — 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035.

This was completely devoid of the market reality and the ability of the industry to move at that speed, especially with B.C. being the size of jurisdiction it is. The government called it urgent. They called it historic, and they dismissed those who raised concerns.

Many people raised concerns. They said the targets were unrealistic, the infrastructure wasn’t ready and affordability would be a barrier. We said the policy risked getting ahead of consumer reality. That’s why the Conservatives brought forward legislation to repeal those mandates, and the government chose to vote against that.

Now, through Bill 16, the government is doing exactly what they said they would not do. They’re walking policy back. The 2035 target is reduced to 75 percent, and the ban on new gas-powered vehicles is removed. The 2026 and 2030 targets are taken out of the legislation and moved into regulation.

That means that those targets can now be changed without a vote in this House. That’s something that’s not necessarily transparent, and it’s something that I think is still concerning. It’s government avoiding accountability to have these conversations openly with the public to make sure there’s broad understanding.

[4:30 p.m.]

I think the government — I would hope — would answer for some of these intentions of what they are intending to bring forward through regulation, moving forward. These new regulations won’t be ready for some time, and future targets, really, are going to be looking at the federal direction, and it’s not finalized.

Government needs to explain what exactly the long-term plan is here but also to be realistic with where the public is actually at and I hope would listen to the public, moving forward, and the stakeholders and consumers across the province, not just in specific regions like the Lower Mainland.

Now we’re being told that this is about aligning with Ottawa, but even that doesn’t fully hold up. The federal government itself has moved towards a more flexible approach, focusing on emissions outcomes, incentives and phased targets that reflect real-world conditions. Is that something that the government is going to commit to?

I don’t see enough flexibility from what these changes have outlined, even when the government has recognized that rigid mandates cannot outpace affordability, infrastructure and consumer readiness. All these things are very critical for making sure that we’re not impacting the public negatively. I would ask why the government doesn’t drop the approach on mandates more fully because, ultimately, I don’t believe it’s fair policy for British Columbians.

What we’re hearing from the market also confirms that. The New Car Dealers Association has made it pretty clear that this is not a supply problem. This is actually a demand problem, and it does impact their ability to actually make these policies realistic in practice.

I would agree that consumers are not rejecting EVs outright. They’re making practical decisions that they want to make. They’re looking at cost, reliability and whether the infrastructure is there. I, obviously, support those who want to drive electric vehicles. I think that’s a fantastic choice for people to have, but it should be their choice and not government’s. I think, overall, when policy is mandated rather than market-based decision-making for all consumers, that’s where you get serious push-back. You get consumers that are upset that families are going to be impacted by higher costs.

When mandates push ahead of reality, the consequences are predictable. We’ve seen that here. And I think we’re going to continue to see more, going forward. The thing we’ll also see is that manufacturers end up raising prices, particularly on those ICE vehicles, as they are harder for dealerships to get. They’ll limit supply or they’ll absorb costs that, ultimately, get passed on to consumers. These costs land on families at a time when affordability is already one of the biggest concerns in this province.

At the same time these mandates remained in place, the government eliminated the EV rebate that was helping people to make the transition more in an incentive-based way. So all of this, the need for this change, was entirely predictable. The government removed the carrot and left the stick in place and then acts surprised when adoption starts to slow.

We are seeing this playing out on the ground. I want to explain in detail a very specific example of what’s been happening on the ground in my own riding. I met with a car dealership last year, actually just down the street from my office, and they explained a pretty alarming situation with this. The government’s mandates, of course, are on the manufacturers, but it’s the dealers who are local business owners dealing with the outcomes of that. Of course, the consumer is dealing with the mandates and increased costs as a result.

This particular dealership in Prince George actually won an award. They were the top EV dealer in the entire northern B.C. region. They were the top EV dealer in the region. Of their total sales, that was 8 percent. EVs were 8 percent of this particular dealership’s total sales, and that was the top in the entire north part of the province.

[4:35 p.m.]

Because the manufacturer was dealing with the mandates from this government, this dealership had to carry a massive inventory of zero-emission vehicles just to fulfil the other 92 percent of their ICE sales. So they had to have this massive inventory, carrying charges that come as part of that, which meant that, of course, there were real-world impacts to that.

Yes, there are consumers in Prince George who want zero-emission electric vehicles, and the market should give them that option. I fully support that, but this government has messed with the market so badly in this case that it is actually borderline ridiculous, I would say. The dealership was forced to carry all of these ZEVs — as I said, 8 percent of total sales — but here’s the kicker. Of that 8 percent, fully 75 percent of sales were to people from Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan.

So this northern B.C. dealership had to undercut prices. They had been the least expensive ZEV dealership in the province because they had to get rid of them somehow, off their lot. They were carrying all of these vehicles, the lot full of them, just so the manufacturer would give them more access to ICE inventory, which was what the market was demanding in northern B.C. So this is really a market problem, a mess.

Why would anyone want to run a business in this province with the type of logic that we’re seeing? Obviously, B.C. is a big place, but the fact that consumers from here in Victoria or in Vancouver are having to go to northern B.C. and then northern B.C. consumers are now paying more for these ICE vehicles is, I think, a major policy problem. I don’t think that’s fair to consumers in northern B.C. who, obviously, are trying to make their own choices for their families.

Why do members opposite think that EV adoption is lower in northern B.C.? Well, it’s because when it’s 30 below and you can’t get full forced-air heat…. Zero-emission electric vehicles are brutal in the winter in northern B.C. and in many parts of Canada that aren’t the southwest corner of the province in the Lower Mainland.

Of course, there’s a higher EV adoption there because they make the most sense in that climate and in urban environments without the same long distances we face as challenges in a place like Prince George or Mackenzie. Prince George itself is a nine-hour drive from Vancouver at the best of times, and we do not have enough charging stations along the way, obviously, to go to Vancouver, let alone drive down through Highway 16 and down into Alberta and elsewhere.

There’s also the issue of electricity overall in the province. That’s something that.… With CleanBC policies overall, I think a shift to only electrification is a serious risk to our grid. It puts it into question. Even if every British Columbian wanted to switch to EVs tomorrow, we do not have enough of the infrastructure for charging stations or the generation capacity to support it. That’s just the reality.

We need more clean energy projects, and we need more firm power in this province as well, not to mention the substations, the transmission and other needs that just aren’t available with the wide-scale adoption that the government is trying to achieve here.

Finally, I’ll make just another point about the issue of choice that I’ve been referring to. I think that if an EV works for a given family, that’s a fantastic thing, but people should not be forced into decisions that do not fit their circumstances, especially in rural and northern communities.

If you have to drive a pickup truck to get to work — if you work in forestry, you work in the mining sector, you work in construction — you really don’t have options. We even had, for example.… There aren’t many pickup trucks that are actually ZEVs left on the market. The Ford Lightning is actually being discontinued by the manufacturer, yet we still have mandates in place.

Consumers have to have choice before we can actually make that choice for them. Give consumers the choice. Big government doesn’t need to tell everyone what to do all the time. That’s a principle that, I think, on this side of the House we stick to. We want the market to make the choices. Consumers can choose for themselves. The government does not need to tell everyone what to do with their own lives.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think what we’re seeing overall here is a pattern. Of course, the ambitious targets were set for headlines. The government wanted flashy announcements, and they wanted, obviously, these CleanBC policies to make it sound like they were market-leading or world-leading or North America–leading, but it has actually put consumers behind.

These have been the losers of British Columbia — the families who are in the worst affordability crunch that they’ve seen in many, many years. That’s who have been, unfortunately, the biggest losers in this situation with these expensive policies. What we’re seeing is reality catching up and a quiet retreat, but I think there’s more to come on that with some of these policies that have been expensive.

We already saw a retreat with the carbon tax because it was expensive on consumers, especially in this inflationary environment that we’ve been in. That had made it worse. This is another example of inflationary policy that is actually driving up the cost of vehicles that people…. Quite frankly, I’d like to see more transit in communities across the province, but in a community like mine, we’re not going to be able to get such widespread transit adoption. It’s certainly not in rural communities like Mackenzie or Burns Lake or places like that. It’s just not realistic.

People rely on their vehicles in northern B.C. As I mentioned, that example of that dealership that I talked about, the vast, vast majority of consumers still need access to these ICE vehicles in my part of the province. That’s, I think, a problem overall. Those one-size-fits-all policies, tailor-fit for the southwest corner of the province and the Lower Mainland, get attached to northern British Columbia. That’s a common theme that we have, whether that’s in housing policy, whether that’s in tax policy.

We just saw the cancellation of the rural and northern homeowner grant, for example. Rural British Columbia, which contributes so much to the economic benefit to the province — to the GDP of the province, obviously — is paying these higher costs to have the zero-emission vehicle mandates that are in place. I ask…. If these targets were unrealistic, then I hope the government would say so. If the plan didn’t work, then let’s hope the government can own it. But I would say: don’t hide the reversal in a bill like a miscellaneous stats bill.

I think this is something that should have had a broader public policy debate. It should have come forward on its own. I would have liked to see less policy-making through the regulations in this. What are government’s intentions moving forward? Because people in northern B.C., I think, actually want to know about that. Don’t move decisions out of legislation just to avoid the debate and just to avoid answering these questions from people in the area of the province that I represent and many others represent in this side of the House as well.

Some of these concerns, as I’ve said, were raised right from the beginning. People at the time were told that they were wrong, that they were exaggerating, that none of this was going to happen, that it was no problem. It was going to be simple to move these mandates and think that they were going to go well.

Now through this bill, the government is obviously proving that those critics were not wrong. Let me tell you. I think there are more challenges that we’re going to see. We’re in a generational affordability crunch, and we still have mandates in place. I am still concerned about what harm that is going to have on B.C. families. I’d say that more can be done for government to let British Columbians decide for themselves. Government should provide flexibility and let consumers have choice, not one-size-fits-all provincewide mandates for all British Columbians.

I will conclude my remarks there. I know that there are some other areas of this bill I could touch on a little bit more, but I think I wanted to really focus on this particular part, on zero-emission vehicles, because it’s pertinent to my region. That’s what people have elected me to represent them in, to speak to their concerns, and this is a concern I’ve heard directly from my constituents.

I want to thank you for the time, and I look forward to hearing more from the committee stage of the debate. I’d like…. Hopefully, the government can answer some of their plans for the long term with this legislation, including zero-emission vehicles. Thank you very much for the time.

[4:45 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. As members know, miscellaneous statutes bills bring together amendments across several ministries and policy areas. Some of those changes are technical in nature. Others reflect adjustments to programs already underway. Occasionally they include more substantive policy shifts that deserve closer examination by this House. Sometimes they just tuck in a little something.

Bill 16, I think, contains elements of all three. There are provisions in this legislation that respond to practical operational needs, things that we need to do — housekeeping and things to modernize statutes. There are sections that reflect some changes in policy direction, which I’ll highlight. There are others where important details are being left to implementation, decisions that we want to better understand as the bill moves forward.

My remarks this afternoon will focus on several key areas within the bill where I think clarification would be helpful, where the intent appears constructive and where committee stage will provide the opportunity for members to examine how these amendments are expected to operate in practice across British Columbia.

I think you’ll hear me speak, similar to my colleague, a lot about rural B.C. and how the application of…. Some of these statutes don’t have the same application across the province. I look forward to highlighting some of those from my region.

I’ll start with part 1 of the bill, which is to amend the Judicial Review Procedure Act. At first glance, it looks like these provisions may appear mostly technical, but it does look like there are a few minor housekeeping amendments that will affect how decisions of government can be reviewed and challenged. I think that makes them important for this House to examine carefully.

I think judicial review is one of our core accountability tools available to British Columbians. It allows individuals and organizations, local governments and Indigenous communities to ask courts to examine whether a decision made by government was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. I think in many cases, particularly in rural B.C., judicial review is the only practical mechanism available when decisions are made far from the communities that are affected by them.

This bill makes two significant changes in that area.

First, it repeals a provision that previously ensured that passage of time alone could not be used as a barrier to judicial review unless another statute explicitly created that limit. I believe that protection mattered. It recognized that access to review should not depend simply on how quickly a person is able to navigate a complex legal process.

Removing that safeguard raises an important question for this House. What problem is this amendment intended to solve? I look forward to discussing that in committee and hopefully getting some clarification.

I also want some clarification on if there is a pattern of litigation that required this change. Why are we making these changes? Is there uncertainty in the courts about how the existing provision operated, or is this a preventative amendment in anticipation of future disputes? It feels a little bit like the government is trying to find a way to do things a little more secretive. So these are questions that deserve answers as this bill moves forward, and I look forward to the committee stage.

I think the second change also allows cabinet to designate additional information as cabinet confidence and prevents that information from being compelled for disclosure in the course of a judicial review.

Cabinet confidence already plays an important role in protecting collective decision-making at the executive level. I think that principle is well understood and long established. However, expanding that authority to designate materials as confidential within the context of judicial review shifts the balance between transparency and executive protection. I think it is reasonable for the members of this House to understand why that shift is being proposed now.

Judicial review does not exist to interfere with the role of cabinet. It exists to ensure that decisions made under statutory authority remain within the bounds set by this Legislature. So when legislation expands the scope of what may be withheld from review, it is appropriate to ask how that authority will be used, what limits will guide its application and what safeguards will ensure that it does not unintentionally restrict access to the accountability mechanisms that British Columbians rely on.

These amendments may ultimately prove to be reasonable and necessary, but they are not self-explanatory in the legislation or the changes that were highlighted with it. So I look forward to committee to dig into that.

In part 2, the Fuel Price Transparency Act…. I’d like to speak briefly to the amendments to this act.

[4:50 p.m.]

At one level, this appears to be administrative adjustment. I don’t think it’s unusual for legislation that creates a regulatory framework to include some mechanism for cost recovery. Many statutes operate this way, particularly where government is collecting and managing data from industry participants.

However, what stands out for me, in this case, is that the bill creates the authority to impose fees without specifying who will pay them, how they will be calculated or what limits may apply to them. I don’t think that those are minor details, and I look forward to committee, where we can get some background on that.

They also will determine whether a fee functions as a straightforward administrative charge or whether it has a broader implication for compliance costs, reporting requirements or participation in the program itself.

The Fuel Price Transparency Act plays an important role in improving public understanding of fuel pricing and market conditions in British Columbia. I think greater transparency can support better policy decisions and greater public confidence. But transparency mechanisms themselves also benefit from transparency in how they are administered.

As this bill proceeds, it would be helpful to understand whether these fees are intended strictly for cost recovery or whether they represent a new funding stream for program expansion and what consultation has taken place within the parties that may be affected by these changes. I think these are practical implementation questions. They are exactly the kinds of questions that can be explored further in the committee stage of the bill.

For section 3, and I think this one might take a little bit longer…. This is the amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. It represents one of the most substantive policy shifts contained in this legislation. These amendments remove the legislated targets that required 26 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales to be zero-emission by 2026 and 90 percent by 2030. They also reduce the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent.

These are not small adjustments. They are a significant change in direction and somewhat support what the Conservatives put forward, I believe last spring, around how these targets were unrealistic and that this should be repealed.

For several years, the government described these targets as central to its climate strategy and positioned British Columbia as the jurisdiction leading the transition to zero-emission transportation. Members of this House will recall that when concerns were raised about the feasibility of those timelines, they were just dismissed by this government.

So I think it is reasonable to now ask: what has changed? Here we are a year later, and here we are. If the earlier targets were actually achievable, why are we now removing them? If they are not achievable, which I believe they weren’t, why were they defended so strongly when those concerns were first raised?

This bill also shifts future target-setting out of legislation and into regulation. That worries me a little bit. That means those targets are no longer going to come to this Legislature for discussion and will be made unilaterally by cabinet. I think that may provide flexibility for government as technology evolves and markets change, but it also changes how those decisions are reviewed and debated. They will not be debated here. Targets that were previously set transparently in statute will now be adjustable without returning to this House in the same way.

I think that makes it even more important to understand what framework will replace that one that was being removed. At the moment, we are being asked to approve the elimination of near-term targets without seeing the replacement structure that will guide the transition over the coming decade.

To be clear. I support removal of these targets because I’ve heard from dealers across B.C. that this is unachievable. Similar to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, dealers were telling me that they were essentially selling these vehicles at a loss to try to meet the targets so that they could continue their business. They were moving vehicles between dealers. It was seriously impacting their business. It was a dealer in Cranbrook, when I was there last summer, that shared how much impact this particular piece of legislation was having on their business and the employees that they employ.

I think moving from statute to regulation does not create that certainty that these dealers and the public are looking for. It also doesn’t signal to manufacturers and infrastructure planners and local governments what to anticipate as we go forward. While I didn’t like the targets that we had, at least everybody knew what we were working towards.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now with the rollback and then moving to regulation, it creates a lot of uncertainty. I think almost every speech in this House that I give speaks about the uncertainty that this government is injecting into our economy and how we’re moving forward.

I think it’s important to recognize that the experience of this transition is not the same across the province. If I lived here in Victoria, I probably would have an electric car, because there are electric charging stations where you work. There are electric charging stations at your buildings and at many of the malls. As you move around the city, it’s very easy to charge your car.

When you go to rural B.C., that is not the experience that you have. This weekend I flew into Penticton, drove to Keremeos, turned around, drove to Grand Forks, attended an event and then drove back to Keremeos. With an electric car, I’m not sure that would have been doable with the timelines that I had. On top of that, in the summer and in the winter, the heating and the cooling of those cars is not practical for people to travel.

I also think of a family that I encountered in 100 Mile that were on their family holiday. They had an electric SUV, and they were pulling their travel trailer. My husband and I came upon them going slower and slower and slower. They were down to 20 kilometres an hour, and they were still about 40 kilometres from 100 Mile. That family’s whole holiday was put on hold while they waited for a tow truck to come tow their vehicle to the nearest charging station so that they could continue their family holiday.

I don’t think that translates well when you go into rural British Columbia. That was saying that 100 Mile had the charging station that they needed. I think they do in 100 Mile. It’s a larger centre. But they certainly didn’t in the rural communities between where they were and 100 Mile.

We need to think about what this looks like in rural B.C., what it looks like in cold climates. The charging and the batteries don’t keep the same. In hot climates, air conditioning is not just a nicety. It is actually a necessity in many areas. It gets to over 40 degrees in my community in the summer. Travelling long distances with the 280 air conditioning doesn’t work, necessarily, in that situation.

Families and businesses in my region often depend on vehicles that have to travel long distances. We have no taxis. We have no bus service. You’re not calling Uber.

If you needed to get to the hospital in Keremeos, you’d need to drive to Penticton — that is 45 minutes away — unless it’s Monday, Wednesday or Friday between eight and five, which is when my emergency room is open. But the rest of the time, you do have to drive to Penticton to get service, so you’d better make sure your car is charged and that you’re able to handle whatever family emergency you have with an electric car.

I believe that the amendment reflects the reality to some extent, but perhaps not enough. It’s talking about rolling back the mandate, but I still don’t know that they’ve actually looked at what it looks like in rural B.C. and how many cars we can actually convert to electric in rural B.C. in a viable way. We need to be able to charge them. We need to be able to provide electricity. The grid in many rural communities, especially, doesn’t have the capacity to add those second chargers into their households or into many people’s electric panels.

I know my friend’s strata is trying to figure out how to put a couple of chargers in their strata, and it’s a considerable investment for them to upgrade. They have told the members of their strata that, basically, they won’t be able to charge their cars at home unless the strata comes up with that money. Definitely concerning. Anyone who is moving to rural B.C. should do some investigating before they move.

I think removing the legislated targets without presenting a clear replacement plan leaves an important gap. Industry and consumers alike benefit from predictable policy direction, particularly where major purchases and infrastructure investment are involved.

Our towns are making these investments. Our government is investing in grants and bursaries to get these charging stations in. We see them expanding across the province, which is good news, but how are we going to continue to maintain that investment? What does that look like, going forward, when we are rolling it back a little bit and moving it into regulation, where it could be even further rolled back? It provides that uncertainty.

I definitely think that government needs to look for greater clarity on where this is going, what the targets are going to look like, what the regulation is going to look like and how this Legislature will be engaged as we move forward on these goals.

[5:00 p.m.]

I believe these are significant changes that were kind of buried in a miscellaneous statutes bill that probably should have had its own debate and committee stage for itself without being buried in a miscellaneous bill.

I’d also like to talk a little bit about the Housing and Municipal Affairs amendments. This bill includes amendments affecting several statutes related to housing and local government, including the Local Government Act, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Vancouver Charter and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. These amendments create authority for government to designate development projects by regulation for the purpose of reducing development cost charges.

Development cost charges, DCCs, are a significant factor in the cost of building housing across British Columbia. They are one of the tools that local governments rely on to fund the infrastructure that supports growth. Water systems, sewer systems, roads, drainage and other essential services are usually done under the DCCs. At the same time, they will also affect whether projects move forward at all. Too many DCCs cost too much to build, and the project becomes no longer financially viable.

I think that’s what this government is trying to create — a pathway to provide flexibility to reduce the DCCs on projects that they would like to accelerate. Of course, the barrier becomes: how do you get into that queue? How do you become one of the projects that you’re moving forward, that we’re accelerating? Are there going to be clear pathways so that the developers understand how they can get into this? How can we actually accelerate housing and not just give projects to preferred construction companies or preferred supporters into certain communities?

It also moves some things to regulation, but it does not describe how those projects will be selected through regulation either, so I’m hoping the minister will be able to provide some clarity on that during committee.

For me, in smaller communities, it’s particularly concerning, because we’re managing infrastructure deficits all the time. My own community of Keremeos…. I know I’ve shared in this House that we have been provided the mandate to densify our housing, to add carriage houses and in-law suites to our houses, but we don’t have any more water in Keremeos. We need a new well.

How do we fund that if a new project is provided some kind of pass on the DCCs, when there’s probably only one new major project in my community a year? How does that…? Is government going to cover the DCCs for the community so that they can get the well they need for these projects, or is it again going to fall down to the taxpayers?

In my community, we had a referendum, and we voted to take on more tax burden through our water rates to ensure that we could have that well to outfit the apartment building that government is building that didn’t have water secured for it.

In many rural municipalities, this is the only way. Communities like Keremeos, Greenwood, Hedley and Osoyoos are already facing significant infrastructure pressures related to water treatment, distribution systems and aging underground service. Greenwood is one of our oldest cities and still has many pipes within the municipality that need to be upgraded.

I learned an interesting fact about clay pipes the other day. I know that we have some in Greenwood for sure. I know the community is looking at ways to retrofit those clay pipes and extend their lifespan, but I don’t know what that looks like. Without any DCCs or major projects contributing to infrastructure, I don’t know what that looks like going forward.

If this new authority is intended to support housing delivery, it’s really important that we understand how government plans to balance that objective with the financial realities facing local governments. It’s also important to understand whether municipalities will be partners in identifying those eligible projects or whether designations will be made centrally — similar to how we saw the housing mandate, where we all had to add carriage houses to our communities when our water and our sewer pipes weren’t set up to have two houses on a lot.

So what does this look like? Is this something the government is going to send down centrally, or are the communities going to be active participants in this?

[5:05 p.m.]

I know that many of my municipalities are feeling a little dictated to by this government and are not feeling that real effort to be a partner. So I’m hoping with this legislation that is not the intent, that the communities will be included in the decisions around who these fast-tracked projects would be.

I think these amendments may provide a useful tool to support housing construction, but like several other sections of this bill, their effectiveness will depend heavily on how they are implemented on the ground. This is something I hope we’ll have the opportunity to explore as we move into committee stage.

There are also some changes to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act included in these bills. If it feels like I’m going all over the place, that’s because this is a miscellaneous statutes bill that goes all over the place. This is not the easiest speech to write, as we navigate many acts in a single speech.

These amendments expand the authority of the director to admit oral or written evidence during dispute resolution proceedings that might not otherwise be admissible under the traditional rules of evidence. At one level, this change reflects the practical reality that tenancy dispute resolution is designed to be more accessible and less formal than court proceedings, but many participants appear without legal representation, and the system is intended to allow people to present their concerns without needing to navigate complex evidentiary rules.

I think there is a clear rationale for providing flexibility in how information is considered during these hearings. At the same time, when legislation broadens discretion around what evidence may be admitted, it is important to ensure that the process remains fair and predictable for both tenants and landlords.

I think dispute resolution decisions can have very real consequences. They affect housing stability; financial obligations; and, in the case of manufactured home parks, sometimes the long-term security of people who own their homes but rent the land beneath them.

I know recently Okanagan Falls had an entire mobile home park that was evicted, and many of them were not even able to get their trailers out. There was nowhere to take their trailers to and those people, effectively, were made homeless by the eviction of their trailers from the trailer park. It’s significant in rural communities. Losing 20 houses in Okanagan Falls represents a significant portion of the housing availability in Okanagan Falls.

I think that, for the most part, manufactured home parks represent one of the most affordable and stable housing options available. A lot of first-time homebuyers are in this market and a lot of seniors — people that are downsizing and looking for the more tighter sense of community.

I think this could make it more accessible, but it would be important to understand what guidance will be provided to dispute resolution officers to ensure decisions remain consistent and transparent as we move forward. I think it will also be helpful to understand whether this change responds to a specific operational challenge within the branch or whether it is intended to support a broader shift in how dispute resolution hearings are conducted.

Are we hearing from the ground that what we’re doing is not working? Is this something that we’re doing pre-emptively, or is this something that tenants are asking for, perhaps? It’s not flagged in the press release or notes that accompanied the bill. I think these are practical implementation questions, and I hope we can explore them further as we move forward.

This bill also includes some changes to the University Endowment Land Act. These changes establish authority for bylaws to be created within the University Endowment Lands area and allow fines imposed under those bylaws to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund of the University Endowment Lands administration. Say that three times fast.

The amendments also clarify that these fines may be treated as debts, recoverable through the courts. In practical terms, these provisions appear intended to support local administration and enforcement within the endowment lands by providing clear authority around bylaw-making and fine collection. I believe that type of clarification can help ensure that rules adopted at the local level are enforceable and that the mechanisms operate consistently with other jurisdictions that rely on those bylaws.

At the same time, one provision specifically stands out for me, and that’s the search and seizure provision that would otherwise apply in relation to professional conduct. Oversight under the Legal Profession Act does not apply in this context. I think that raises a reasonable question about why that exclusion is necessary and what circumstances it is intended to address. I think whenever legislation creates enforcement authority while also carving out exceptions to oversight-related provisions, it is appropriate for this House to understand the policy and rationale behind that choice.

[5:10 p.m.]

I think overall these amendments appear administrative in nature, but they’re still a part of the broader pattern within this bill of updating statutory authorities in ways that rely heavily on how the resulting powers will be exercised in practice. I look forward to hearing from the minister on how those provisions will be implemented on the ground and how they will be resolved.

Finally, I’d like to turn to part 4 of the bill, which introduces amendments to the Correction Act. This section authorizes the proportionate use of force for the purpose of delivering mental health treatment within correctional facilities and establishes a new investigation and standards office responsible for reviewing complaints made under the act. I think these are significant changes, again, and they respond to a very real challenge within the corrections system.

I recently toured the new corrections centre in Oliver and had a great opportunity to tour the centre and meet the staff and hear some of the challenges they’re facing on the ground.

Individuals in custody do not lose their need for medical care simply because they’re incarcerated. In fact, correctional settings often include individuals with some of the most complex mental health needs in the province. Providing appropriate treatment in this environment is essential, not only for the well-being of the individuals involved but also for the safety of staff and the overall functioning of the correctional system. Authorizing proportionate intervention in order to deliver necessary care recognizes that there are situations in which treatment cannot occur without some level of structured support.

I think the creation of the investigation and standards office is an important companion measure within this section of the bill. Establishing a body responsible for reviewing complaints provides an oversight mechanism that helps ensure that decisions made under this authority remain accountable and transparent.

As this portion of the legislation moves forward, it’d be helpful to understand how this office will operate in practice, how it will interact with existing review structures and what reporting expectations will be in place to ensure that both the public and this House can understand how the framework is functioning over time.

Stepping back from the individual amendments contained in Bill 16, there is a broader pattern across several parts of this legislation that’s worth noting. In multiple sections of the bill, we see authority being created in statute, while the key details of how that authority will operate are deferred to regulation.

An example in the amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act — the bill establishes authority to charge fees but leaves that structure and amount of those fees to be determined later.

In the amendments of the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, near-term targets are removed from legislation, and future targets are expected to be set through regulation rather than this House.

In the housing-related provisions affecting development cost charges, the designation of eligible projects is left to regulation rather than being defined directly in the legislation itself.

These all may seem reasonable on their own. Regulation is an important tool. It allows government to respond to changing circumstances, to adjust technical requirements and to refine implementation over time. But it also has scope creep — where government knows best and is implementing from a very small lens, from a small group of people. I think legislation provides a framework that members debate publicly and vote on directly.

In closing, Bill 16 is a reminder of the unique role that miscellaneous statutes amendment acts play in our legislative process. They bring together a wide range of changes across multiple ministries. Some of those changes are technical, some reflect policy adjustments already underway, and some represent more substantive shifts that deserve careful attention of this House.

In this bill, we see examples of each. We see amendments responding to operational needs within correctional facilities and the delivery of mental health care. We see adjustments to the development cost charge authorities that may support housing construction in some communities but do require some review. And we see changes to vehicle electrification targets that reflect evolving realities across the province.

At the same time, we also see amendments affecting access to judicial review, the expansion of cabinet confidence protection and several areas where important implementation decisions are being left to regulation rather than defined directly in statute.

There are provisions in this bill that I think members will welcome. There are provisions that raise questions that deserve clarification. And there are provisions where the details of implementation will matter just as much as the wording that appears in the statute itself. For that reason, I look forward to the opportunity to examine these sections more closely as the bill proceeds to committee stage.

[5:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor: It’s always an honour to be able to get up and speak on different bills in this House. I am honoured to be able to speak on Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, not just in general terms but from the view of the people I represent in Langley-Willowbrook.

At first glance, this bill is presented as routine, as an administrative measure, as a collection of minor updates, as a standard exercise in legislative maintenance. It is framed as technical, procedural — even understanding. It is the kind of bill that might be easy to overlook, easy to pass quickly, easy to accept at face value, as these kinds of bills are often seen in the Legislative Assembly. But as is often the case with comprehensive legislation, the true impact lies not in how it is described but in how it operates.

When we take the time, as we should, to examine its provisions carefully, a consistent and concerning pattern emerges. This bill expands executive authority, reduces transparency, increases sensitivity behind closed doors and weakens important procedural safeguards that British Columbians rely on.

For communities like Langley-Willowbrook — where families are working hard to keep up with the rising costs, where small businesses are navigating uncertainty, where farmers are managing risk season by season and where commuters are already stretched thin — these changes are not abstract. They are real. They are immediate, and they are consequential. This is not a simple housekeeping bill. This is a shift in how power is exercised in this province.

Let us begin with part 1, amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act. This section introduces a new process allowing ministers, the cabinet secretary and other senior officials to certify information as a confidence of the executive council. Once that certification is made, that information can be compiled into a judicial review procedure. This may sound like a narrow legal change, but it goes to the very core of how accountability functions in a democratic system.

In Langley, government decisions are not distant abstractions. They shape the everyday lives of residents. They determine how land is used, whether farmland is protected or repurposed. They determine how infrastructure is built; whether roads, transit and services keep pace with the growth. They determine how businesses operate through regulations, permits and enforcement.

When those decisions are challenged — when people believe they are unfair, unreasonable or improperly made — judicial review is one of those few tools available to ensure accountability. Judicial review is not about politics. It is about the rule of law. It ensures that the government does not operate above scrutiny. It ensures that decisions are made within the legal boundaries. It ensures that individuals have a path to challenge decisions that affect their lives.

But this provision alters that balance. By allowing government to certify information as confidential and thereby shield it from disclosure, it limits what courts can see. And when courts cannot see the full picture, their ability to access decisions is constrained.

Let us consider what that means in practice. Imagine a Langley farmer facing a decision that affects their ability to use their land. Perhaps it is related to the environmental regulations, the water access or zoning restrictions. That farmer may seek judicial review, but if the key information, internal reasoning, policy decisions or decision-making context is withheld, how can the court fully access whether the decision was reasonable? How can justice be done if part of the story is hidden?

I’ll give you another example. Consider a small business owner in Langley dealing with regulatory decisions that impacted their operations. That business owner deserves a fair process. They deserve transparency. They deserve to know how decisions were made. This provision makes that more difficult.

[5:20 p.m.]

Now, to be fair, there is a place for cabinet confidentiality. Governments must be able to deliberate openly, to consider options, to engage in candid discussions, but that confidentiality must be balanced against accountability. It must be limited in scope, and it must not be used in a way that shields decisions from the proper scrutiny.

This bill expands that without clearly strengthening the safeguards that ensure it is used appropriately. That is a very big concern, because in Langley people expect transparency. They expect accountability. They expect when decisions affect their lives that those decisions can be examined fairly and openly. When this prediction is weakened, the trust is weakened.

I will be turning to part 2. We see amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act that allow the government to impose fees, charge interest and recover unpaid amounts as debt through the courts. Most notable, these fees can be applied retroactively within a fiscal year.

Langley is a community that runs on movement. It is a part of a major transportation corridor. It is a home to logistics operations, trucking routes and supply chains that connect the Lower Mainland to the rest of the province. We have Highway 1, Highway 10, Glover Road, Fraser Highway. It is also a home to a strong agricultural sector where fuel is essential for planting, harvesting and distribution.

It is a community where many residents commute long-distance to work. Yes, the SkyTrain will be coming to Langley soon, but we still can’t get to other parts of the Lower Mainland without having to travel long distances.

Fuel is not optional in Langley. It is fundamental. When governments introduce new costs in the fuel sector, those costs have a ripple outward effect. They affect farmers who rely on the diesel for their equipment, their farming, their transportation. They affect truckers who transport goods. They affect small businesses that depend on deliveries. They affect families who rely on vehicles to get to work, school and essential services.

Retroactive fees add another layer of concern. Business operators operate based on known rules. I’m going to give you another example. Just today I had placed an order for a delivery, and that delivery had a truck. It’s a small business that had delivery services. They told me that due to fuel costs, they had to increase their delivery charges. Or you can opt out to have their services that are available on select days.

That’s the ripple effect that happens when you operate small businesses. Businesses operate based on known rules. They plan. They budget. They make decisions based on the information available at the time. When those rules change after the fact, it creates uncertainty, and uncertainty has consequences. It discourages investment. It delays expansion.

I’m going to give you another example. In my riding of Langley-Willowbrook, we have a non-profit society, Langley Meals on Wheels. In Langley, they are feeling it. With fuel prices nearly up by 40 percent, our dedicated volunteers are feeling that impact as they work tirelessly to deliver meals to about 2,600 clients every week. Each of the 133 volunteers plays a vital role so that nobody goes hungry.

But with uncertainty, these consequences can be crucial, because most of these people that are receiving the meals have either disability or have been just discharged from the hospital. Moreover, these are usually volunteers that are checking in on these clients to make sure that they’re okay.

Based on that, we’re having a lot of problems with how much they can expand, how many more clients they can take on with the fuel prices.

It makes hiring decisions more difficult. For a small business in Langley, that could mean putting off growth. For a farmer, it could mean tighter margins.

[5:25 p.m.]

For families, it means higher costs because, ultimately, these costs are passed along. They show up in fuel prices, in grocery bills and in costs of goods and services. At a time when affordability is already a major concern, this is not the direction we should be taking. We should be reducing uncertainty, not increasing it. We should be supporting economic stability, not undermining it.

We also see, in this part, a major change to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, reducing the target from 100 percent to 75 percent. The people of Langley care about the environment. They want clear air. They want sustainable practices. And they want a future that protects natural resources. But they also live with practical realities.

Langley is not a dense urban centre. It is a region where distances are longer. Transit options are improving, but they are not always sufficient. Like I mentioned, the SkyTrain is coming, but it’s not there yet.

Many residents rely on personal vehicles. Electric vehicles are part of the future, but the transition must be realistic. One of my colleagues that spoke before me represents a rural area and spoke about how rural areas can’t even think about having second charging stations.

Stratas are having a hard time. Those are the real conversations that we must be having. We have rural areas in our province where the temperatures are different and the fuels are different. So stratas are having the real conversations. Infrastructure must be in place, like my colleague just mentioned. Charging stations must be accessible. So having that second chargeable in a strata, in a building, is important if that’s the route that we want to go.

Costs must be manageable. If the original 100 percent target was not achievable, then that should be acknowledged. If the revised 75 percent target is more realistic, then we should explain why.

Credibility matters. In Langley, people value honesty. They understand that plans can evolve, but they expect transparency when they do. Quietly lowering a target without explanation raises serious questions, and those questions matter.

Moving on to part 3, dealing with housing and municipal affairs, we see amendments that allow the province to define categories of development for reduced or waived development cost charges.

Housing is one of the most pressing issues in Langley. We are one of the fastest-growing communities. Growth is rapid. Demand is high. Families are struggling to find affordable options. We all agree that more housing is needed, but the way we achieve that also really matters.

These changes centralize decision-making here in Victoria. They reduce the role of local governments. They move decisions into regulation, away from legislative scrutiny.

In Langley, local governments understand their communities. They understand their needs. They understand the infrastructure needs. They understand how development fits into our long-term planning. Our community understands that. When decisions are made without their input, we risk misalignment, we risk insufficiency and we risk unintended consequences.

Housing requires collaboration. It requires partnership, and it requires transparency. Centralization without clarity does not deliver that.

Changes to tenancy legislation also raise concerns. Allowing broader evidence may improve flexibility, but without safeguards, it risks inconsistency. For renters in Langley, disputes can determine housing stability. For landlords, it can affect financial security. A fair, predictable system is essential. Flexibility must not come at the expense of fairness.

The University Endowment Lands provisions reflect a broader trend — more enforcement power, less appeal and greater action. These changes can improve regulation, but they risk reducing oversight.

In Langley, people expect fairness. They expect the ability to challenge decisions. They expect accountability. Those reasonings should not be compromised.

[5:30 p.m.]

In part 4, we see changes to corrections and oversight. Public reporting is a positive step, but expanded sensitivity to refuse investigations raises real concerns. Accountability must be real. It must be accessible, and it must be trusted.

When we step back and look at this bill as a whole, the pattern is very clear: more power concentrated at the centre, less transparency, greater care. It reduces safeguards for Langley. This matters, because people are already dealing with enough uncertainty. They’re dealing with rising costs. They’re dealing with housing challenges. They’re dealing with economic pressures. They need stability. They need clarity. They need trust in this government.

Let me be very clear. Not every provision in this bill is problematic, but the overall direction raises serious concerns. In Langley, people value common sense. They value fairness. They value accountability. They expect government to be transparent and to do the same. They expect decisions to be explained. They expect policies to reflect real life.

As the official opposition, we will continue to bring those voices forward. We will ask those hard questions in the committee stages. We will push for transparency. We will continue to advocate for affordability. We will continue to hold this government accountable.

In closing, this bill may be called miscellaneous, but for the people of Langley, its impacts are anything but minor. It affects fairness. It affects affordability. It affects trust. For that reason, it deserves careful scrutiny throughout debate, and meaningful improvement.

Heather Maahs: I rise today to speak to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

As is often the case with the omnibus-style legislation, this bill touches on a wide variety of policy areas — justice, energy, housing, municipal governance, tenancy law and public safety. That breadth alone demands careful scrutiny from this House, because when government packages contain so many changes in a single bill, it becomes more difficult for members to give each measure the attention it deserves and to ensure that British Columbians fully understand what is being done in their name.

Let me say this at the outset. This is not a bill without merit. There are provisions here that the opposition has long called for. There are elements that respond to real pressures facing British Columbians. Where the government has taken steps in the right direction, we will acknowledge that clearly and directly. But there is also a deeper story here.

Bill 16 is not simply a routine statutory update. It is a quiet course correction. It is a government adjusting policies that were overpromised, underplanned and disconnected from the realities faced by British Columbians. Nowhere is that more evident than in the changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

This bill spans multiple areas. Taken individually, some of these changes may appear technical or incremental, but taken together, they reveal a pattern — bold announcements followed by quiet retreats, ambitious targets followed by reduced expectations, and a government increasingly trying to manage the consequences of decisions that were not grounded in practical reality.

The provisions aimed at reducing development cost charges are a step in the right direction. These costs have significantly increased the price of new housing across British Columbia, making it harder for families to enter the market and driving up rents for those who have no choice but to remain in it. For years, we have said that government-imposed costs are a major driver of the housing crisis. Builders have said it. Municipalities have said it. Families trying to buy their first home have certainly felt it.

We welcome any move to reduce those burdens, but we must ask the obvious question: why now? Why did it take a housing crisis of this magnitude for the government to begin addressing cost drivers that were identified years ago? More importantly, will these changes go far enough, or will they be applied selectively, inconsistently and at the discretion of cabinet — through regulation rather than through transparent legislation debated in this House?

[5:35 p.m.]

British Columbians do not need partial fixes. They need meaningful, structural change that addresses the root causes of unaffordability, not just the symptoms.

Part 4 of the bill authorizes the use of proportionate force to ensure individuals in custody receive necessary mental health treatment. This is a difficult provision, but it reflects a difficult reality. Our correction system is increasingly dealing with individuals facing serious mental health challenges. In many cases, those individuals are unable to consent to treatment that is clearly in their best interest.

Without appropriate tools, correctional staff are placed in an impossible position — responsible for care but without the authority to ensure that that care is delivered. For that reason, we support this provision, provided it is implemented with clear safeguards, strong oversight and a focus on dignity and appropriate medical care.

We also note the creation of an investigation and standards office to oversee these complaints and ensure accountability. This is a positive step but, as always, oversight must be real, not just symbolic. The effectiveness of this office will depend entirely on how it is resourced and how independently it operates.

Let us turn to the provisions that raise significant concern. The amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act expand the government’s ability to designate documents as cabinet confidence and shield them from disclosure during judicial review. At the same time, they remove protections that previously ensured judicial review could not be denied solely due to the passage of time.

Taken together, these changes make it harder for British Columbians to challenge government decisions and harder for them to access the information necessary to do so. That should concern every member of this House.

Judicial review is one of the fundamental tools citizens have to hold government accountable. It is a safeguard against overreach. It is a check on executive power. Transparency is not an inconvenience for government. It is the cornerstone of democracy. We will be asking: why does this government feel the need to expand its ability to withhold information? What decisions is it anticipating that it may need to shield from scrutiny? When governments reduce transparency, public trust is inevitably eroded.

But the most revealing part of this bill, by far, is the government’s retreat on the electric vehicle mandates. This bill cuts the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent. It removes the 2026 and 2030 targets from legislation, and it moves those targets into regulation, where cabinet can change them without debate or a vote in the House. This is not a minor technical adjustment. This is a fundamental shift in policy.

Let’s be honest about what that means. This is the government stepping back from its own commitments quietly and without clearly acknowledging it. This is now the second major retreat on EV policy in less than a year. First, the government cancelled the EV rebate. Now it is dismantling its own mandates.

Six years ago this government made British Columbia the first jurisdiction to legislate EV sale targets. Two years ago they doubled down, setting aggressive benchmarks — 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035. They described these targets as urgent. They described them as historic.

When concerns were raised, when we said these targets were unrealistic and disconnected from infrastructure and affordability, our concerns were dismissed outright. When our caucus brought forward legislation to repeal these mandates, the government voted it down. Now they are doing exactly what we said they would eventually have to do. The only difference is they are trying to do it quietly, tucked away in a miscellaneous statutes bill, rather than standing in the House and admitting that the original plan didn’t work.

What is even more concerning is that there is no clear replacement plan. The new regulatory framework will not be ready until fall 2026. Targets for the coming years depend on federal policies that have not yet been finalized.

[5:40 p.m.]

The government is dismantling its own plan today without presenting a credible alternative. Then it asks British Columbians to trust them — trust the same government that set the targets, defended the targets, missed the targets and is now dismantling the targets. That’s not a plan. That’s a retreat.

This outcome was not unpredictable. Analysts warned that aggressive EV mandates would collide with hard realities — insufficient electricity supply, massive infrastructure requirements, declining fuel tax revenues and slower-than-expected consumer adoption.

Those warnings were dismissed at the time, but now reality has arrived. EV adoption rose quickly for a period, but then it plateaued. Sales declined. The government eliminated the rebate that had supported adoption and then expressed surprise when demand weakened. As has been said, you cannot kick away the ladder and then blame people for not climbing.

While this policy unravels, it is British Columbians who are paying the price. Manufacturers that could not meet the targets faced difficult choices: raise prices, buy credits or cut supply. That translates directly into higher costs and fewer options for consumers. Even now, as the government backs away from those targets, those structural pressures remain in place, so families continue to bear the cost of a policy that the government itself no longer appears confident in.

There is also a fundamental issue that cannot be ignored. Even if every British Columbian wanted an electric vehicle tomorrow, the province does not have the power supply or charging infrastructure to support that level of adoption. That is not a partisan claim. That is just simply practical reality.

Policies that assume that infrastructure will simply appear after the fact are not sustainable. Infrastructure must come first. These mandates were built on the assumption that supply, grid capacity and consumer readiness would all align on schedule. They have not. That is why we are seeing this retreat.

These policies also failed to reflect the diversity of British Columbia. They may have been designed with urban centres in mind, but they were never realistic in rural communities in the North or in the Interior — where distances are longer, conditions are more challenging, and infrastructure is limited. Families in those regions were left with fewer choices and higher costs. This bill restores some of that choice, but only because reality has forced the government to reconsider its approach.

This is the broader pattern. Set ambitious targets for headlines, dismiss concerns, and then quietly adjust when reality intervenes. We are seeing that pattern again in this bill. Reality means aligning policy with infrastructure capacity. It means ensuring affordability. It means respecting consumer choice. It means being honest with British Columbians about what is achievable and when.

In closing, Bill 16 reflects a government that is finally being forced to confront reality. There are elements we support. There are steps in the right direction. But there are also serious concerns about transparency, accountability and the approach this government has taken to major policy decisions. The changes to the EV mandate are not just technical adjustments. They are an admission that the original plan didn’t work. The question now is whether government will learn from this.

British Columbians deserve policies that are grounded in reality from the beginning, not policies that have to be scaled back after the fact. British Columbians deserve transparency, accountability and leadership that is willing to get the details right.

[5:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that Bill 16 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I call second reading of Bill 9.

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Bryan Tepper: I’m just checking my time there. I’m taking over. I’m just going to get started a little bit before I left off. I guess that was almost a month ago now.

The title of this bill contains a cruel irony. It contains the words “freedom of information.” Yet as I stand here and review the clauses, the subclauses and the bureaucratic language woven into this legislation, I see very little freedom, and I see very little information. What I see is a wall being built brick by brick, clause by clause, designed to separate the people of British Columbia from the truth about how their tax dollars are spent and how decisions are made in this chamber.

We’re debating this bill in the context of a government that has already earned a distinctive, if shameful, reputation. The NDP administration has been widely criticized by journalists, by watchdogs and by the public as the most secretive government in the history of this province. They have operated behind closed doors. They’ve centralized control in the Premier’s office to an unprecedented degree. Now, tired of the inconvenience of transparency, tired of the nuisance of accountability, they’ve brought forward Bill 9 to codify their secrecy into law.

Now, before I dissect the draconian measures hidden in this legislation, I want to be fair. I do acknowledge that there are elements here regarding connected services providers and modernizing data sharing between public bodies to improve efficiency. Clause 20 and the related amendments regarding connected services are, on the surface, administrative updates.

We in the Conservative caucus support efficiency. We support a government that works faster. But let us not be fooled. These few efficiency measures are the spoonful of sugar designed to make the medicine go down, and this medicine is poison to a healthy democracy.

Let’s look at the track record. This is the government that introduced the infamous $10 application fee for FOI requests — a literal tax on transparency. At the time, they told us it wouldn’t impede access. They told us it was just administrative. Yet we know that access has been stifled.

We look at the wait times. From 2022 to 2023, freedom-of-information applicants had to wait, on average, an additional 192 business days to receive a response. That is nearly a year of delay on top of the standard timelines. That is not a broken system. That is a system being broken on purpose. Delay is the deadliest form of denial.

Now we have Bill 9. This bill is the government saying: “We aren’t blocking information fast enough. We aren’t ignoring enough requests. We need new tools to silence our critics.”

I want to direct the House’s attention to clause 13. This is, without a doubt, the most dangerous section of the bill. Clause 13 amends section 43 of the act. It drastically expands the grounds upon which the commissioner can authorize a public body, meaning the government, to completely disregard a request for information. This new language allows the government to ignore a request if the behaviour of the applicant is deemed abusive or malicious. It allows them to ignore a request if it would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government, particularly if the request is excessively broad.

[5:50 p.m.]

Now, these words sound reasonable at a dinner party. No one likes malice. No one likes abuse. But in legislation, in the hands of a government desperate to hide its scandals, these undefined terms are weapons. What is the definition of “malicious” in this act? There isn’t one. It is left to the interpretation of the government.

Let me ask the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Is it malicious for an investigative journalist to ask why an emergency room was closed for the third weekend in a row? Is it malicious for a member of the opposition to file an FOI regarding the ballooning costs of a government infrastructure project? Is it malicious for a First Nation member to ask for details regarding a deal signed by the government that affects their territory?

Under this legislation, the government can claim that a request is malicious simply because it embarrasses them. They can claim a request is abusive simply because the applicant is persistent in demanding answers that the minister won’t give.

Let’s look at the term “unreasonably interfere with the operations of government.” Democracy is an interference. Accountability is an interference. When an FOI officer has to look for documents that prove the Minister of Health failed to deliver on a promise, that certainly interferes with the ministry’s desire to have a quiet afternoon, but that’s the job.

By expanding these categories, the NDP is creating a catch-all bucket to throw away any requests they find difficult. If you ask for too many emails about a scandal, they’ll call it excessively broad. If you file a follow-up request because they redacted the first one, they will call it repetitious. If you ask why they failed, they will call it malicious. This clause, effectively, allows the government to grade its own homework and then burn the test paper if they don’t like the score.

To me, it gets worse. Clause 28 is a transition provision for these new grounds for disregarding requests. It states that the amendments in clause 13 apply to requests received before, on or after the date the section comes into force. Think about the arrogance of that.

There are FOI requests sitting in the queue right now, requests that have been waiting for those extra 192 days I mentioned. This government has been sitting on them, delaying them. Now with clause 28, they’re giving themselves the power to look at those existing backlogged requests and say: “You know what? Under the new law we just passed, this old request is now considered malicious.”

Deleted. Ignored. They’re changing the rules in the middle of the game to wipe the slate clean of inquiries they don’t want to answer. It is a betrayal of trust to every British Columbian currently waiting for an answer.

Let’s move to clause 21. This section amends section 21 of the act regarding proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure is supposed to be the gold standard. It’s information given freely without someone having to fight for it. But the NDP looks at free information and sees a missed revenue stream. Clause 21(b) repeals subsection (2) and substitutes: “The head of a public body may require a person who asks for a copy of a record under subsection (1)(a) to pay a fee to the public body.”

Currently information accessible without an FOI is accessible without a fee. That makes sense. It’s public data. It belongs to the people. The NDP is introducing a fee for proactive disclosures. They’re putting a tollbooth on the information highway. Why? Why would you charge a citizen for a report that is already sitting on a shelf? There’s only one reason. It’s a deterrent. They want to deter the public from looking.

[5:55 p.m.]

They’re a nickel-and-diming democracy. They’re taking the “free” out of freedom of information. This is a government that taxes you when you earn, taxes you when you spend and now taxes you when you ask what they did with the money.

If we go back to clause 2, I have grave concerns regarding clause 2, which amends section 5. Previously, the opinion of the head of the public body was irrelevant regarding whether a request had enough detail. Now it explicitly states, “in the opinion of the head of the public body,” and it adds that the request must provide enough detail for the record to be found in a reasonable amount of time.

A reasonable amount of time is not defined. To a government drowning in its own incompetence, a reasonable amount of time to find a document might be five minutes. If it takes six minutes, they can now reject the request under clause 2. This gives the bureaucracy the power to say: “We have organized our filing systems so poorly and have deleted so many records that finding this document will take too long. Therefore, your request is invalid.” It rewards bad recordkeeping.

If the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation keeps messy files, it can now use the messiness as a legal excuse to deny an FOI request. “Sorry. Our office is a disaster, so it’s unreasonable for you to ask us to find anything.”

I want to specifically address how this culture of secrecy impacts our relationship with Indigenous Peoples and the management of land in British Columbia. This NDP government loves to talk about reconciliation. They love the photo ops.

Lord knows, they don’t ask why they are at the photo ops. Just around that, just this morning, a freedom-of-information request did reveal some very damning information.

But when it comes to the hard work of land negotiations, they’ve operated in the shadows. We have seen this repeatedly. Look at the way they handled the Land Act amendments. They tried to push through massive changes to how public land is managed in this province, changes that would have fundamentally altered tenure and access.

Did they hold open town halls? Did they proactively disclose their plans? No. They held closed-door meetings with select groups and tried to bypass the public entirely. It was only when the opposition and the public caught wind of it that they paused.

Look at the Haida title agreement. Regardless of where one stands on the outcome, the process was characterized by absolute secrecy. The negotiations happened in a black box. Nobody knew. Stakeholders — fishing lodges, tourism operators, local residents — were kept in the dark until the deal was effectively done.

Under Bill 9, this secrecy will get worse. Imagine a local resident hears a rumour about a new land transfer agreement being negotiated in secret. They file an FOI request to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation asking for correspondence regarding this potential deal.

Under clause 13, the ministry could look at that request and say: “This request is excessively broad, because you don’t know the specific name of the file.” Rejected. Or they could say: “Releasing this information would unreasonably interfere with the operations of government, because we are in the middle of secretive talks.” Rejected. Or if the resident files three requests because they are worried about their livelihood, the ministry could label them “repetitious” or even “malicious.” Rejected.

[6:00 p.m.]

This government treats the public land of British Columbia as if it’s the private property of the NDP cabinet. They believe they have the right to carve it up, rezone it or transfer it without showing their work to the people who actually live there.

Bill 9 is the shield they will use to hide the next Land Act debacle. It is the shield they’ll use to hide the next negotiation that excludes key stakeholders.

Let’s look at clause 7. This creates a new section, 16.1, allowing the refusal of information that would reveal the substance of a communication by a judicial officer about a proposed policy or enactment. Why is this necessary? If a judge or a justice of the peace has concerns about a law this government is proposing, perhaps concerns that it is unconstitutional or unworkable or dangerous, why should the public not know?

We’re seeing a pattern here. The government does not want debate. They do not want input, and they certainly do not want criticism from the judiciary entering the public sphere. They want to sanitize the record. They want to ensure that when they bring a flawed bill into this House, no one can point to a memo from a judicial officer warning them that it’s a disaster.

Now, I understand the importance of judicial independence. I understand the sensitivity of communications between the judiciary and the executive. But this provision is extraordinarily broad. It covers communications about proposed policies, proposed programs, proposed enactments. It covers communications made on behalf of a judicial officer, which could include staff, clerks, anyone claiming to speak for a member of the judiciary.

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

Bryan Tepper moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[The bells were rung.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[6:05 p.m. - 6:10 p.m.]

Bill M233 — Public Sector Construction
Projects Procurement Act
(continued)

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill M233, Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act.

[6:15 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	K. Neufeld	Rustad
Wilson	McInnis	Paton
Day	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Dhaliwal	McCall
Maahs	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Mok	Davis
Chan	Boultbee	Sturko
Brodie	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper
NAYS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Valeriote	Botterell

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 14 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:19 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just opening remarks, I presume, Chair?

The Chair: Minister, if you’d like to introduce your staff.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would be more than happy to, Madam Chair. Thanks very much.

My thanks to my colleague across the way for the opportunity. We’re going to spend the rest of today and, I expect, tomorrow diving through this very important piece of legislation.

I’m joined here by, to my left, Melissa Sanderson, the assistant deputy minister responsible for coastal operations; to my right, Jessica Coster, responsible for provincial operations; and Brian Sye, who’s our senior policy lead on legislation in the Ministry of Forests.

I look forward to the questions.

[2:45 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much for the minister’s response. I know we have a fair amount of time to go through this. As we talked about in the initial debate, Bill 14 should be pretty much a housekeeping bill, and really, on the face of it, it is.

There are still some legitimate concerns that we have on our side when we start looking at the unintended consequences of this bill, not only because it changes the direction and the statutory requirements of B.C. Timber Sales as a timber revenue organization. Those two specific words are now being struck from the legislation. So that, in itself, has meaning.

The second part is that as we go through the clauses, and we’re not trying to just stretch it out as far as we can, we have some specific concerns when it comes to what is actually being taken out of the Forest Act, what is being put into the Forest Act, whether we talk about definitions, whether they describe the actual work that’s going to be taking place, who’s going to actually have the authority to even procure that work or supervise that work or deliver that work.

It has some significant ramifications throughout the entire organization when you look at going from just strictly to develop an area to log and sell the timber to now having BCTS basically control the whole, entire process with initial development. Or whether it’s the cost of development on the ground with roads and bridges and infrastructure and those sides of things…. Then it’s going through the whole process of being able to not only harvest that fibre, those trees, but what you’re actually going to be doing with those trees. And at the end of the day, does it make business sense or a business case to be doing it in the first place?

There will be some pretty good questions, I think, as we get into the act. The minister will have the opportunity to describe exactly how BCTS is going to make this happen. It’s one thing to wish it’s going to happen. It’s another thing to hope that it’s going to happen. But without any real, clear plan or direction, our side believes it’s going to be very difficult for it to be able to happen.

If I may, on the first clause…. Clause 1 specifically talks about adding “contract logging authorization” to the definitions in the Forest Act, and it also has implications in the forest and range act. Some of the questions that come to mind…. The first one is: how come these definitions are not described in all the acts?

Whether it’s the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act, are there going to be changes in the legislation, or is it all retroactive to those three acts by putting in “contract logging authorization” as a new definition?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: On clause 1, I’m happy to advise the member that the definition he refers to, as it relates to the Forest and Range Practices Act, refers back to the Forest Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Will there be a system in place for contract loggers or holders of a timber sale licence to negotiate the terms and conditions before they accept them? Again, I know we’re talking about a specific clause as the contract logging authorization, but it also lends itself to the work that’s actually going to be prescribed.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: As the member will know, as it relates right now in B.C. Timber Sales operations, terms and conditions are set by BCTS, and individuals have the opportunity to bid. It would be no different under this contract logging piece.

I would note to the member that if we receive no bids, then it’s clear that the terms and conditions are not leading to opportunities for those two bids. Terms and conditions are set in the bid and would be provided as an opportunity for, in this case, contractors and loggers to be able to participate in that bidding process if that were to be set up.

Ward Stamer: To add to what the minister has mentioned on the terms…. Again, it gets…. As the minister offered, I’d like to be able to get more involved in that portion of it, because it does include not only the opportunity for B.C. Timber Sales to be able to actually pay for that contract obligation….

Again, we will have concerns as we go forward on whether it’s going to be just a definition in that process to identify what that contract logging authorization means. Does that mean that it’s just another addition to the work that’s already currently being done by those contractors in that bidding process that B.C. Timber Sales has been doing since day one?

Also, when you start talking about the scope of how future contracts may or may not be let in as much as whether they’re going to continually be bid upon…. Are there going to be direct awards? Is it going to be by the hour?

We’ll have those opportunities, I’m sure, as we go through the clauses, to be able to have these conversations. But, I guess, that also leads us to: will there be a system in place for those contractors to negotiate the terms and conditions before they’re accepted?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll just reiterate my answer again. This would be no different than a timber sale licence. Those terms and conditions are set. An individual would bid on it. They wouldn’t have that opportunity to negotiate their terms and conditions. It would be no different than how TSL works.

Ward Stamer: To add to that, from the minister’s perspective, does this allow BCTS to enter into contract logging authorization and not necessarily have the bidding process but to be able to have direct awards or work by the hour under the same parameters?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We would align ourselves with government’s procurement process. So direct awards are possible, but we would just ensure that we are following the government’s clearly outlined procurement process that I would imagine is governed by either the Minister of Citizens’ Services or the Minister of Finance.

[2:55 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: According to the Forest Act, the Forests Minister has the authority, at his discretion, to be able to offer up direct awards at any time. Have there been any set goals by BCTS in the initial rollout of this program where there will be a specific breakdown in the amount that will be up for bid, the amount that will be direct award? Has there been a plan going forward in how that breakout would look? Again, as I reiterate, the Forests Minister has the authority at any given time to be able to do direct awards.

I’m just curious to know what the plan is in the rolling out of this program, on what those numbers would be.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The quick and easy answer is no, but I would just remind the member that direct awards have to follow the very thorough process of our procurement laws. The member is right in his reference to the Forest Act, but the answer to his question is no.

Ward Stamer: To add more on to what we were talking about on the contractor log authorization, will there be any changes to the safety requirements in regards to prime contracting if BCTS ends up becoming responsible for the logging at a particular site in a particular area? Will BCTS automatically become prime, or what are going to be the parameters in determining who will be prime in that geographical location?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There would be no changes under the contract logging process that we’re discussing in this legislation.

Ward Stamer: When the minister, earlier, talked about the terms and conditions when we looked at the system in place for the contract loggers to be able to determine negotiations, can the minister elaborate a little bit more on what, if any, changes to those terms and conditions would occur? Again, when we’re talking about the changes in the parameter — where instead of a bidder going in and actually purchasing the timber, now we’re changing it so that the contractor is only cutting the timber down.

Then we’ll talk a little bit in subsequent questions on how that work is actually going to be prescribed and described. But are there going to be any changes to those conditions or those terms because of the type of work that is now going to occur?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes. It’s a different tool. So, absolutely, there would be a difference in terms of terms and conditions.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister elaborate and give us examples of how those terms and conditions would change? Again, it also rings back to another question that I’ll be bringing forth subsequently about the changes to those terms and conditions in the actual act and the rules.

But can the minister elaborate a little bit more on how those terms and conditions would change and the responsibilities of those contractors as well?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The intention of terms and conditions is to enable harvesting in additional circumstances where they would otherwise be ineffective or inappropriate and to provide a tool to the decision-maker to add enforceable requirements to the authority that they are granting. So that’s why we have terms and conditions, and I know the member will know that well, coming from the contracting community.

[3:00 p.m.]

In the case of terms and conditions and what would be anticipated, just in response to…. The member has asked for me to elaborate a bit more. B.C. Timber Sales would develop terms and conditions by policy, once enabled by legislation. The scope of these will be based on their need and discretion and will be vetted by the Ministry of Attorney General and solicitors.

It’s really important for me to note for the member opposite that the terms and conditions will provide a necessary tool to be able to address, meaningfully, First Nations interests and concerns raised during the consultation process. While BCTS can currently avoid areas identified by BCTS and removed from the timber sales licence, they cannot require a TSL holder to operate in a specific way and can only impose terms and conditions restricted to the forest legislation.

I’m happy to get into more detail if the member is interested.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers to those. On that note, is there going to be a significant change, or will there be a change in supervision when it comes to the contract logging authorization?

We will be able to have an opportunity to be able to ask the minister a little bit more about that, but the minister just alluded that there will be changes to the terms and conditions. Will there be changes to the supervision that is going to be provided, and who will be providing that supervision?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: As the member will know, with a timber sale licence, the individual who is the successful bidder is the supervisor. In the case of contract logging, the timber sales manager and/or designate from the timber sales office would be providing the supervision.

I would just note for the member that we will be discussing…. Following completion and adoption of this legislation, we’ll be working with the TLA, the ILA and the North West Loggers Association on developing policy that would set supervision criteria. It’s really important, in order for us to be able to get this work right, that we work with the contracting and logging community.

I’m really grateful for the support that the TLA, the ILA and the Northwest Loggers are providing as we go down this road.

Ward Stamer: When we talked about the terms and conditions in the documentation…. Will there be any opportunities where there will be changes through the scope of that work? Currently, when you have a timber sale licence now, there’s a set criteria. There are terms and conditions to that documentation.

Does the minister foresee any ongoing changes that will occur in the process of that work occurring, particularly when you change the rights and responsibilities from actually having a right to that tree or that fibre and now, all of a sudden, shifting that over to the ministry? Can the minister explain a little bit more on whether those terms and conditions can change during the time of that licence?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just want to make sure I’m clear in regards to the member’s question. I just want to confirm that you’re referring to when terms and conditions are set and an individual bids on it, whether terms and conditions change through that process. Just want to clarify that that’s your question.

Ward Stamer: Yes.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The answer to the member’s question is yes, through a contract amendment, and that has to be agreed upon by both parties.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister expand a little bit more on how that’s actually going to occur? The reason I’m asking these lines of questions is because, as we talked about in the debate process, many of us in the industry are having a difficult time determining exactly how the work is actually going to occur on these timber sales — if it is, in fact, an actual timber sale, because traditionally, when you purchase a timber sale, you are purchasing all the fibre that is going to be harvested.

Now, there can be terms and conditions on what actually gets harvested, what can actually have to remain — whether it’s wilderness tree patches, whether there are archaeological, culturally modified trees, riparians. There’s a whole list of criteria that determines what can actually be harvested off the block and what can’t be. That could also include leaf trees with deciduous, all those kinds of things.

The reason I’m asking these lines of questions is that I’m trying to understand how that’s all actually going to work, when you are now going to hire somebody to specifically go and harvest that tree. Then what exactly are you going to be doing in that scope of work? If there’s going to be change in conditions in how that work is going to occur, that can affect the bidding process in itself.

If you’re going to be asked to do additional work on the ground, what does that work actually look like? Are we talking about just cutting the tree down and bringing it to a processor and doing minimal merchandising — putting it on a truck in a long-log form and taking it to a sort yard and trying to get value-added or whatever the criteria is going to be in doing it that way? Or are you going to be changing the rules as you go through the process and realize that you’re asking the contractor to do more — you’re asking them to take more value out of the stand that originally wasn’t part of the scope in the first place?

I’m trying to understand how those terms and conditions will affect that licensing process in determining what work is actually going to occur, knowing that the more work that occurs, the more expensive it’s going to be. Then, obviously, it’s going to affect the bidding process in the first place. I’d like a little bit more understanding on….

Again, this is a significant shift in how BCTS has done work. I’d like a little bit more of an explanation of how that work is going to be described and if there are going to be changes to the work, how that’s going to be occurring. Is there an opportunity for the contractor to be able to say: “No, that doesn’t meet the terms and conditions” or “Yes, we can continue on, but you’re going to have to pay me more”?

I’m going to try to get into the weeds a little bit to try to determine exactly how that works.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m always happy to get into the weeds with the member opposite. I thought of maybe just providing an overview of contract logging, and then I’m happy to get into some of the specifics. I apologize if I missed any of that in terms of the member’s response.

Contract logging is a method for B.C. Timber Sales to log trees using a contract. B.C. Timber Sales will be enabled to direct logging operations of the contractor to meet specific outcomes. This differs from the existing tool, which is the timber sale licences, in which BCTS cannot direct logging operations to meet specific outcomes. Under the previous mandate, B.C. Timber Sales was limited to offering logging rights through timber sales licences, TSLs, which allow the successful bidder to log trees.

B.C. Timber Sales typically plans, develops and auctions timber sale licences, enabling a logger to log trees safely; legally; in alignment with non-statutory commitments, such as commitments made to First Nations and managing B.C. Timber Sales third-party certification. However, under a timber sale licence agreement, B.C. Timber Sales could not direct how the logging was carried out — the style, the pattern or manner in which logs are harvested — only offering the right to log, not manage the logging itself.

[3:10 p.m.]

The expanded mandate — which we are talking about in Bill 14, as it relates to clause 1, the definition — includes enabling B.C. Timber Sales to direct specific logging operations through a contract. B.C. Timber Sales would develop the harvesting plan, and rather than release harvesting rights to a timber sale holder, they would create a contract to carry out the specific work. This provides B.C. Timber Sales more control to achieve forest management outcomes on the land base, and the contractor would not have rights to the harvested logs.

The logs resulting from the contracted logging work will be sold as a timber sale licence, using the same competitive auction process, resulting in revenue deposited to the special account, which is a key part of this legislation.

As part of the 2026-2027 Ministry of Forests service plan priorities, contract logging is a means to achieve active forest management — which, I think, the member and I share the importance of, as we talk about the impacts of wildfires as well as pests in the past — and how we can be better stewards of our forests and also find opportunities to diversify opportunities of work for contractors and loggers.

A timber sale licence grants the right to harvest within a defined area, and while the TSL may provide harvesting instructions to achieve certain outcomes, the TSL holder can still choose to operate differently within the bounds of the terms and conditions of the licence — which, I think, was getting to the intent of the member’s question.

Because BCTS cannot currently direct how harvesting is conducted under a TSL, contract logging is needed when BCTS must ensure that logging is carried out in a specific manner to meet safety, stewardship or operational requirements. I just want to give the member, maybe, some options or some examples, rather, that might be helpful.

So as an example, logging in a burned forest. If B.C. Timber Sales wishes to harvest only specific burned trees and retain live trees, as TSLs don’t actually provide enough control currently, a contract logger would only be allowed to harvest what BCTS intends to harvest.

Another example. Logging in a contentious area, which the member will know well, is a challenge that B.C. Timber Sales deals with, just like any other licensee, I might add, deals with. If B.C. Timber Sales wishes to commit to specific harvest practices or keep a dynamic logging plan to account for First Nations and stakeholder wishes, a TSL does not provide flexibility as the rights have been sold. A contractor, contract logger, would follow B.C. Timber Sales’ direction.

Maybe a third example, which, I think, is one that’s very important to me and was key to my work in bringing this legislation forward, Bill 14. Logging to create custom sales. If B.C. Timber Sales wishes to sell specific species or sizes of trees to customers who need specific logs to produce value-added products at a specific mill, B.C. Timber Sales cannot control how volume from a TSL is processed or sold. The contract logger will sort the logs into categories that BCTS requires, enabling custom sales to the right customers, the right log to the right mill.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister very much for that because it brings up some additional questions from that, so thank you for that.

First of all, the minister was talking about BCTS on the wildfire salvage. Now, from my past experience, when it’s harvesting, salvaging on wildfires, BCTS and the Ministry of Forests can be very specific on leave-tree strategies. I would dispute the statement that there aren’t currently the terms and conditions that already control the ability for that to occur, because it does.

The second one is when it talks about the licence and not having a timber supply, having a licence and not being able to control exactly what is required on the land, and the block is being done. I disagree with that as well, because if you look at the documentation in the previous blocks that I’ve done, if there’s specific requirements for leave-trees or areas that are supposed to be untouched, that already exists in the existing legislation. Bill 14 has no changes whatsoever when it comes to that, unless we get into the more stringent part of the regulations that are being asked.

The third part, about the custom sales. The minister is correct that the control of the processing of the fibre is strictly the licensee’s responsibility after the bidding process. But there’s a reason for that, and it’s because of trying to drive the value out of those stands, because every stand has winners and losers. Most of the time, it’s in the ability of getting that extra value out of the stand that makes it worthwhile whether the stand either gets sold or gets purchased in the first place or gets logged.

[3:15 p.m.]

The reason why I was asking the minister for examples on the changes to work is that when you normally go into a block and you’ve already predetermined what you’re going to actually be manufacturing in that block — again, it’s a manufacturing facility without a roof, because that’s pretty much what it is — and it all of a sudden changed the parameters….

Now it’s almost like cutting a right-of-way, where you’re putting in a brand-new road and you’re removing the timber away from the road base so that you can build a road and then get somebody to come along and process it later. That is totally different than trying to optimize an entire block and maximizing the value on that block. It is a totally different scope of work. It’s not even comparable. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Even in the wildfire salvage, we’ve seen instances where those decks of wood that have been removed during the fire, whether it’s a firebreak or a fireguard, have been there for years and years and years. They’re still sitting there because no one’s been willing to go in there and authorize the processing of it. But that’s for another day. But that’s still occurring today.

My question to the minister is: again, can we get some specifics from them on the changes to terms and conditions? It’s going to be very important for the contracting base to know exactly what scope of work is going to be required when we go in to do this logging, because it may change the parameters and what equipment we’re actually using. It’s totally different than just cutting a tree down and skinning it someplace and taking the limbs off and trying to throw it onto a truck.

If, all of a sudden, the parameters start changing as you’re logging, is that going to be flexible with the opportunity for the contractor to negotiate? Or is it already going to be set in stone that these are going to be the terms, that these are going to be the conditions of the work and if it doesn’t work out, we’ll do that differently in the next block, but those terms and conditions will not change.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is entitled to his opinion and perspective, and I know that he comes with a lot of experience. I will continue to listen to the advice and guidance of the legal team that has a sound understanding of the Forest Act, so the member can dispute his perspectives all he wants. It’s a part of debate and discussion.

I would remind the member that a couple of answers ago, I did share that through a contract amendment, changes in terms and conditions could be made. And those would be agreed upon by both parties. It couldn’t be the government just changing those terms and conditions. The individual who is the successful bidder on the contract logging would need to agree to that.

I think the member asks important questions as it relates to the terms and conditions. I think it’s also important for the member to know that that would be policy created once the legislation has passed and received royal assent.

It would be the intent of the Ministry of Forests, through B.C. Timber Sales, to be able to work with the contracting community to ensure that as we look to roll out this opportunity the next fiscal year, we would do so in a way that meets the needs of contractors and loggers. It wouldn’t be the intent of government to do this work alone.

The Chair: We’ve had a repeat of some of the answers, so Member, I would request you to change the direction of your questions.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, talking about the terms and conditions. Again, I think we’ve covered that the minister has said that the terms and conditions, if they were going to change…. That is a policy directive that has nothing to do with any statutory changes.

But there was something else that hasn’t been included. If there are going to be changes in those conditions, is there going to be a grace period for those changes to be necessary? Again, will there be an opportunity for that contractor to be able to make any substantial changes in that grace period?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: As I noted before, through a contract amendment, both parties would have to agree. So to the member’s question around grace periods, it’s important to note that B.C. Timber Sales does have extensive contracting experience. So in the circumstances in the example that the member shares, we would have a discussion with that successful bidder, and all that would be a part of a negotiation between B.C. Timber Sales and that respective bidder.

[3:20 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: To add to that, if there was an opportunity where the timber sales holder or the contract logger was able to fail to comply with the terms and conditions, would there be monetary penalties? Would the contract be terminated? Would there be pay withheld? What types of penalties would be involved in making sure that the contractor was living up to their obligations?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite’s question around compliance with terms and conditions, the proposed amendments include a provision that the holder of the agreement or authorization to which the terms and conditions are attached must comply with the terms and conditions.

A proposed regulatory amendment to the Administrative Orders and Remedies Regulation would like the duty to comply with terms and conditions of the agreement or authorization to a penalty.

If the person does not comply with the terms or conditions, B.C. Timber Sales, yes, can apply a penalty. If a term or condition is not met, B.C. Timber Sales may choose to refer the issue to the natural resource officer service, which would conduct an investigation. If found in non-compliance, the person will be given an opportunity to be heard, and B.C. Timber Sales may levy a penalty as per the provision of the Administrative Orders and Remedies Regulation. The person may appeal the decision, and this would be ultimately referred to the Forest Appeals Commission.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for the answer to the questions.

Looking at the section 1(1), when we talk about adding the following definition, “contract logging authorization,” it’s a brand-new heading. I’m wondering if the minister and his ministry are looking at making changes also to some of the definitions on “licence to cut” and “major licence.” Is there an opportunity for amendment, or does the minister believe that the existing Forest Act covers the scope of the work, when it doesn’t say the contract logging authorization, specifically, set up the way we’re talking about now?

I know it’s similar to when…. Again, if somebody goes and cuts a right-of-way for a road and then leaves the wood on the side of the road, and then a subsequent bidder on that timber sale licence ends up becoming the owner of not only the wood that’s still standing but the right-of-way wood as well, that is standard procedure.

Is there an opportunity…? Is it important to be looking at the definitions and, whether we talk about licence to cut or major licensees, to be able to make that determination on the fact that that licence to cut is going to be modified in as much as that you aren’t having the authorization to do anything with the wood? Or is the ministry satisfied that the existing definition covers the scope of the work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, the ministry is satisfied with those definitions, and as the member will know, clause 1 just amends the ability to be able to add that new definition.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Ward Stamer: The amendment to section 22 allows the timber sales manager to include the “other terms and conditions” again. Again, it sounds like we’re rehashing it, but it’s a separate clause.

When the minister talks about the changes in terms and conditions and additional restrictions under that, can the minister explain a little bit more what some of those restrictions may entail?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The expanded ability to set terms and conditions, such as limiting when harvesting can occur or restricting certain types of machinery, allows government to reduce harvesting impacts on other important resource values, such as wildlife, old forest and cultural heritage resources.

I just want to provide the members some examples, which I think would be helpful to his question around the authority to include terms and conditions and what they may be used for.

We could establish a machine-free zone for retaining vegetation, reducing noise, disturbances to soil and disturbances to others to protect wildlife values. These include denning trees and berry patches, as an example.

We could specify harvesting time to protect wildlife at critical times of the year. Spawning fish, breeding, calving and hibernation are associated with specific locations or types of locations — as an example, streams and den sites, etc.

We could prevent soil compaction and damage to understorey vegetation, which can impact important food resources for wildlife, such as bears — well, berries is an example — and ungulates, so shrubs and den sites. We can prevent soil compaction and damage to understorey vegetation, which can often impact food resources for other types of wildlife as well.

We can mitigate noise impacts on wildlife species that communicate by sound.

We can address access roads and stream crossings in particular locations that can have negative long-term impacts on wildlife habitats, which I’ve noted before.

We could also require low-impact road construction to allow for easier road deactivation to address wildlife habitat outcomes.

I hope those examples are helpful to the member.

Ward Stamer: With all the additional requirements that the minister just mentioned, which of those that he just mentioned are not currently covered by the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Act?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: On the member opposite’s question as relates to timber sale licences, as we get into contract logging, the intent is for any one successful bidder to follow FRPA. These changes allow us to now get into how we exercise that and really get into the specifics.

[3:30 p.m.]

I would just note to the member opposite, as we had begun the process of reviewing B.C. Timber Sales, we had lots of discussions with First Nations, in particular, who wanted to be able to partner with B.C. Timber Sales and for BCTS to be a better and more powerful partner as it relates to the work that nations are trying to do to be able to manage — not just for timber values but for other values as well.

We feel that the changes that we’re putting forward, as it relates to terms and conditions, allow us to be able to better partner with nations, which, on the long road, is going to allow us to be able to move more fibre and move more fibre in a way that also meets societal and environmental objectives.

I also want to note for the member, as we get into more of the discussions around contracting logging, that the intent of government is not to replace the old timber sale licence process with contract logging elsewhere. The intent is for this to be provided as a tool where, as I’ve noted in my previous answers, it may be challenging for government to put out a timber sale licence where we are having challenges with gaining First Nations consent. The intent is for this to be used as a tool to be able to develop powerful partnerships that allow us, in the intent, to be able to move more fibre.

I think, based off of the fact that we have received strong support from the Truck Loggers Association and the Interior loggers association, they see how this will allow us to be able to move more fibre.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for that. The reason I asked that question is because currently under the Forest Practices Act, most of the requirements that the minister was mentioning that Bill 14 would enable BCTS to do already exist.

The minister may disagree with that, but many of the specific points that the minister made, whether it was soil disturbance, riparian lines or access across fish-bearing streams — all those things, bear dens…. They already are in the existing legislation. So unless we’re doing things in Bill 14 other than housecleaning, there’s going to be a shift away from statutory responsibilities when it comes to the actual work on the ground.

That’s why I’m trying to get the minister to be able to explain to me why we’re coming up with a brand-new law when, really, just about everything that the minister’s already explained that he would like to see going forward on the land base is already in the existing laws. There are already the mechanisms and the tools for voluntary and punitive penalties if those requirements are not met.

So I’m having a little bit of a hard time trying to understand. The minister is saying that there are all these additional requirements that are going to be necessary on the land base to achieve these results when we have most, if not all, of the tools already in the toolbox for that to occur, through the existing legislation in the Forest Act.

Again, the minister talked about partnerships with First Nations. We all know how important that is — going forward with those relationships. But I specifically asked a question in clause 1 about who is going to be doing the supervision on the ground. The minister basically said the timber manager or one of the BCTS crews. So I’m going to ask the minister: are we also including First Nations in that supervisory role?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just to reiterate, to the last question. Maybe I wasn’t as clear for the member. As it relates to timber sale licences, those are currently required to follow FRPA.

[3:35 p.m.]

The terms and conditions in contract logging allow the province to specify how they meet FRPA. So that’s the change between the two. This allows us to manage for more specific values important to local communities and First Nations as well as environmental organizations while also allowing us to be able to meet our third-party certification as well.

To the member’s direct question around First Nations and their roles, I just want to reiterate that supervision will be conducted in a formal role by the timber sale manager and/or designate in the TSL office, in the BCTS office, as the member has noted. That doesn’t stop First Nations from observing and being there and being partners like they are in different parts of the land base across British Columbia. But just to reiterate. The formal supervision role rests with the BCTS sales manager.

Ward Stamer: Again, when we were talking about section 22, it talks about more stringent requirements and restrictions. I think the minister gave us a little bit of an indication on some of the terms and conditions that could be occurring.

Again, can the minister describe the purpose of having more stringent regulations that are already current in the Forest Act? Can the minister give us examples of why he believes it’s necessary for us to have more rules and regulations in place?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The intention of terms and conditions is to enable harvesting in additional circumstances where they would otherwise be ineffective or inappropriate and to provide a tool to the decision-maker to add enforceable requirements to the authority they are granting.

A timber sale licence grants the right to harvest within the area auction. Adding terms and conditions can allow B.C. Timber Sales to require the prospective bidder to consider, prior to bid, a specific way in which the operations of the TSL can be conducted. This will be reflected in the bid price and be an enforceable requirement of logging as well.

Terms and conditions provide a necessary tool to be able to address, meaningfully, First Nations’ interests and concerns raised during the consultation process, the review process, we conducted that led to this legislation being brought forward.

While BCTS can currently avoid areas identified by BCTS and removal from the timber sale licence, they cannot currently require a TSL holder to operate in a specific way, which is what I shared before and is really the reason, what differs….

Again, I would just reiterate that TSLs are required to follow FRPA, but this allows the terms and conditions for us to be able to get into specific compliance with FRPA and provide specific mention of how we expect loggers and contractors to be able to meet FRPA, so getting into the details more.

Ward Stamer: Will this apply to all timber sales and the bidding processes and the timber sale licences, going forward?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: No, the intent would be for this to only be used for contract logging.

Ward Stamer: Does the minister have any data in regards to what the additional costs are going to be associated with and the difference between what is currently being asked for under the rules and regulations on the existing timber sales?

Now, if we switch over to a contract that’s going to be basically bid for and just doing the logging, do we have any indication of what those additional costs will mean and if there are going to be additional rules and regulations that are going to have to take place in those specific blocks or those specific areas?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to go back to the previous question for the member. The legislation in this particular amendment provides more flexibility for FLTCs and TSLs, but the intent of the legislation, really, and the work of B.C. Timber Sales is to focus on contract logging.

The member will know well, having worked with B.C. Timber Sales in a prior life, that the bidding process will help us capture the costs. We would be starting out slowly. Again, the intent is for us not to replace timber sale licences with contract logging elsewhere, so we would be working with the contracting community to assess costs.

I would advise the member that the intent of B.C. Timber Sales is to be able to make money and not cost government money, and that’s required as per the direction received by the Minister of Finance and how BCTS has operated.

There was some debate and discussion around BCTS losing money. BCTS doesn’t lose money. BCTS receives a budget and has a very stringent process in place, working with the Ministry of Finance, in regard to how it operates. The intent of B.C. Timber Sales is always to be able to return a dividend back to the province.

Ward Stamer: On that note from the minister, then, why is the ministry deleting those two words from the statutory law that say “timber revenue”? Why are we striking those two words from the statute when it is in regards to BCTS?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Section 109 of the legislation was amended. I’ll just note for the member — it’s a really good question — the intent is contract logging is an expense, so it isn’t tied to revenue. Contract logging would occur, which would be an expense, and then government would make the money based off of the logs that contract logging…. Government would institute contract logging, and that would lead to those logs being sold, which would then, in return, lead to government making money off those logs.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for that.

Again, those are assumptions that the minister is making, because, looking at the previous estimates from the last two years, BCTS did not make money. BCTS cost more than what the revenue came in as, from what I can see in the numbers. It was a net loss.

Overall, the Ministry of Forests is negative, approximately $400 million, as an entity. So the Ministry of Forests does not make money. The Ministry of Forests loses money now. I just wanted to make that clear.

The minister also mentioned about…. The assumption would be the reason why BCTS is doing this is to make money, and it isn’t to get away from the fact that BCTS was originally set up to actually bring positive revenue to the province by selling timber and deriving income from that process. But I’m just curious. Instead of coming up with significant changes to the law, knowing that….

As the minister said, and he’s right, we have to change the laws in what BCTS is allowed to spend money on. If we’re going to be spending money on something other than road-building and road rights-of-way where contract logging was occurring and now we’re increasing the scope where, basically, the contract logger is not responsible for the tree or the log or the fibre, it’s going to be BCTS’s responsibility to market that log and all the additional costs that go along with that, at the end of the day, hoping that they realize a profit.

My question to the minister is: why wouldn’t this operation look at asking treasury for, say, an amount of $20 million or $25 million and trying to roll this out with baby steps instead of changing the law and then, basically, learning as you go?

Can the minister answer why we would go and change the law for something like this when there are still the tools necessary — where he could have gotten an exemption from the Ministry of Finance, from the Treasury Board to be able to use existing funds from the B.C. Timber Sales account to be able to specifically do this and then to be able to determine whether this is actually going to be cost-effective or not?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just a note for the member opposite that B.C. Timber Sales has not gone in the red. Certainly, during the time that my party has been in government, there’s only been a period of time that, I understand from the team, B.C. Timber Sales has gone into the red in terms of losing money. That was in ’08-09 during the recession, for obvious reasons, when we saw the complete collapse of the U.S. housing market — kind of similar, to an extent, to what we’re seeing right now.

But I certainly commend the decisions at that time to keep people employed, because B.C. Timber Sales played a key role in that.

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

I’ll just remind the member that we are using funds from the special account. The special account is quite healthy, but the intent is for us to pay for that in our existing budget. The intent is for us to not ask for additional dollars.

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, the reason why we are bringing this legislation forward is for us to be able to use the special account, section 109, to be able to use the dollars in a different way. That speaks to the contract logging piece, which I’ve touched on in my answers.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister explain to me…? On 2(b), it says: “may do any of the following.” I brought this up in the debate as well.

Explain to me what the definition is when it says: “Specify standards and programs established by one or more standard-making bodies.” Can the minister or his ministry explain what a standard-making body is? I can’t find the definition in the Forest Act. I would appreciate if I could get clarification on what a standard-making body is.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Well, Madam Chair, welcome to the chair. Welcome to the fun debate and discussion on Bill 14.

To the member’s question around standard-making body, the intent is for this to reference third-party certification.

Ward Stamer: The minister talked about some of the changes in the parameters of the work that’s going to be taking place in these new timber sale licences, and it refers back to section 2 on the terms and conditions.

We talked about supervision, but what additional work is going to have to be required by his ministry to be able to have this work take place? And can the minister give us a bit of an idea of how that will change in his ministry — to be able to achieve not only the ability to do this work but also to be able to get that maximum value out of the trees and do a better job than what the private sector is currently doing?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I don’t want to get into this too much, back and forth with the member, but the intent of contract logging by no means is to compete with the private sector. This legislation enables us to be able to work in a better way with the private sector.

To the member’s question, we are set up well to do this. We are not going to be doing this everywhere. Like I’ve reiterated in past answers, this is a tool to increase performance for B.C. Timber Sales. That’s got to be the priority. That was what I took from the direction that I received in my mandate letter from the Premier.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

This tool is something that, I might add, we heard loud and clear would be helpful in increasing our performance, from communities but also from B.C. Timber Sales staff as well.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers.

To add to that, when we talk about ministry staff and some of the additional duties that they’re going to be performing, can the minister elaborate a little bit more on how that’s going to change even on the marketing side of things? The minister’s last statement says that they’re fully equipped and ready to go to be able to implement this plan.

[3:55 p.m.]

Can the minister explain a little bit more on how, especially on the marketing and merchandising side of things, the ministry is set up to be able to do this type of work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: B.C. Timber Sales has 23 years of experience selling logs and working with the forest sector in every corner of this province, and I know that they will be doing an outstanding job with this change that we are discussing in Bill 14.

The selling of the logs is going to be conducted through the same process that would occur if we were putting up a bid for a timber sale licence. Really, the only difference here is the actual contracting of the logging.

I would just note that the ministry has advised me — and I am well aware, having served as Minister of Forests for the last year — that B.C. Timber Sales is well in touch and has the knowledge base to be able to conduct this, based off of the extensive experience that they have.

I’m not entirely sure…. Maybe the member might want to try again with the question around the merchantable and all of those sorts of pieces. We have experience selling logs, selling fibre, and we’re well experienced and ready to do so.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for the line of questioning and answering. The reason I’m asking that question, and I’ve used this example before, is that there’s a big difference between selling a block that has standing trees and determining what approximate value is there…. It’s another thing to be cutting that tree down and then doing something with it.

When you look at examples around the province…. I was just on Vancouver Island three weeks ago, on one of the Mosaic blocks, one of the blocks that they were currently commercial thinning. There were 24 separate companies that were purchasing those logs. Whether it was species, a grade, length — those were all done by the contract logger on the site before they were shipped to their intended locations.

So to ask BCTS now to be trying to get a logging contractor to do that similar work…. Is BCTS able to do it in the same fashion? Are they going to be able to have the same marketing group? Are they going to have the same contacts? Are they going to be able to do the same amount of work? Are we going to be doing sort yards?

We know that every time we touch a log, it’s going to be so much more expensive than trying to finish up the product in one shot.

The minister has already led us down this a little bit, so I’d like a little bit more of an explanation when he says that his operation and his people have got 23 years of experience. I would offer that they don’t, necessarily, have the same experience of marketing that log or that product. To get to value-added, many times it isn’t a log. It’s something that has been made out of that log, and then it gets to the value-added sector.

That’s where the primary manufacturers come into place. There are many value-added members of our sector that are not able to do anything with a log. They end up having to use something that’s canted or on a specific dimension, and then they make something from that.

So can the minister explain a little bit more how he’s able to be confident enough with the existing staff that he has to be able to provide those duties, or is he going to have to be looking at other ministries to be able to fill those positions as well?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would just reiterate for the member. I am fully confident that B.C. Timber Sales and Ministry of Forests are well set up to be able to help take advantage of this opportunity. We are already in discussion with existing log sorts.

The intent for us is to be able to partner, not create new log sorts. We want to work with log brokers. We are in conversations with them. The intent is for us, again, to partner, not to replace jobs or create new jobs. Partnership is the key word that I would use to describe Bill 14.

Again, the intent is for us to do this on a small scale. I would just reiterate. We’re not trying to replace timber sale licences, the current process, with contract logging everywhere. We’re just adding this as an additional tool to be able to move more volume. That’s the goal of the B.C. Timber Sales review. It’s for us to be able to meet our rationalized apportionment, which is the direction that I’ve received from the Premier.

The member notes the importance of getting the right log to the right mill and the important role that the value-added secondary reman facility plays. The member will know that it was this government that created the value-added program within B.C. Timber Sales. It was my honour as one of my first acts as Minister of Forests to be able to grow category 4 from 10 to 20 percent, which is a goal that we hit within a year.

We’ve got deep contacts, deep relationships in the value-added program that we probably didn’t have ten years ago, that we definitely have now. I think it’s important for me to be able to reiterate at this time that the Value-Added Wood Coalition strongly supports this. This is something they strongly advocated for in the B.C. Timber Sales review, and we’re happy to act on this because we know that it’s critically important for us to ensure that we get the right log to the right mill.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that this is on clause 2.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When we talk about and we’re looking at the changes on the standards in the programs, the minister just threw that out there, and I’d like an opportunity to be able to ask a question. Is it clear, then, that the ministry and BCTS are not planning on opening up any of their own sort yards?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Happy to answer that and then get back to the legislation.

The intent is not for us to do that, but I wouldn’t, necessarily, rule it out. The intent is for us to be able to work with those log sort yards that currently exist.

Ward Stamer: The minister also said, and he has paraphrased this a couple of times, that the whole purpose of Bill 14 is to be able to offer more opportunities to BCTS in their operation plans and also more opportunities to bring fibre to the marketplace. Can the minister…? He just mentioned that he’s not looking at making any wholesale changes and adversely, negatively affecting the existing contractor base that has currently been looking at purchasing B.C. timber sales.

Do we have a timeline and a percentage of what the minister is looking at in the next six months to the year? Also, to piggyback up on that…. The minister throws out these numbers, like 800,000 cubic metres of additional fibre that’s going to be created. How are these numbers being driven? Is it within the next six months? Is it within the next three years?

Where is the minister getting these numbers to be able to put them out on behalf of the ministry, not so much as fact but as an assumption? Where are these numbers coming from?

The Chair: Member, can you help me understand how this relates to clause 2?

[4:05 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: If I may, Madam Chair, the minister says that the intent of Bill 14 is to be able to enhance BCTS operating. I’m specifically saying that the tools are already in the legislation and we don’t need this, but that’s what I’m trying to get clarification on. What was the intent in the first place?

If the minister doesn’t want to answer the question, that’s fine. I can move on.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The work that the B.C. Timber Sales team has done that the member references in, probably, my comments during second reading debate…. Again, we’re bringing these tools forward to really unstick opportunities where we haven’t had success in moving fibre. We believe that the tools that we have through this legislation will allow us to be able to move that fibre, which is based off of the number that the member refers to.

He’s absolutely right. It is an assumption. It is not a fact per se, but it is something that we hope that we’ll be able to take advantage of if we’re successful in getting this legislation through.

The Chair: Member, I’ve provided a fair degree of latitude, but I would ask you to please focus your questions on the clause under consideration, clause 2.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair. We certainly will be able to do that.

If the minister, when we talked earlier about stringent requirements and restrictions…. The minister was fairly straightforward when he talked about some of the issues where it looked like we were going to be making changes to the environmental impacts to the land.

Can the minister give us any more, any other examples of where there would be changes in the regulations and the requirements that would be necessary for them to be more stringent? Again, stringent…. It doesn’t specify exactly where these changes are going to be made.

So are we allowing the minister to have a fair amount of flexibility in that, or can we have a little bit more of an explanation on examples of where he believes it’s necessary to have more stringent regulations and requirements under this legislation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: As the terms and conditions are dealing with site-specific issues, it’s important that they can be more stringent than those enabled elsewhere in the forestry legislative framework. The Forest and Range Practices Act regime specifies objectives that must be achieved over the forest landscape available to the agreement holder. This means that valuable forest resources in specific locations cannot necessarily be protected in an effective or meaningful manner.

[4:10 p.m.]

This new authority will provide government with a powerful stewardship tool that can balance timber harvesting needs with other values and interests. As an example, if a natural resource district is significantly impacted by wildfires and, as a result, there are very few remaining old forest stands, it may be important to protect those stands from immediate harvesting under a TSL or other authority.

Ward Stamer: Again, when we talk about the stringent part of it and the objectives, is any of this going to be transferable over to the regular timber sale licences? Is this something that’s going to be rolled out as we move along and the rules and the regulations are going to change, or is this only, specifically, for the contract logging authorization portion that is going to be paid for by BCTS?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just a little self-conscious about my handwriting, so apologies for the delay there for the member.

Also, I feel like I have to say this, because it’s 4:15. Go, Raptors, go! I am excited to be here, but part of me wishes I was watching the Raptors game right now. No one in this room is going to leak any of the scores. Otherwise, I’ll be very upset.

Now to the intent of the member’s question, clause 2 includes amendments that impact TSLs, FLTCs as well as contract logging. I would note for the member that we would apply this as needed, under unique circumstances, at the discretion of the BCTS timber sales manager, who acts as a statutory decision–maker.

Again, the intent is for us to be able to partner and meet public expectations. This is something we heard loud and clear in the B.C. Timber Sales review and is the reason for us making these amendments in clause 2.

Ward Stamer: Again, going back to the legislation in 2, looking at the word “stringent,” a couple of things come to mind — whether it’s firm, authoritarian, non-flexible.

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, to the minister: many of these changes that the minister is talking about rely back to policy and regulation. To me, it’s almost like a warning that there’s a need for more stringent regulations than we currently have.

Maybe the minister can explain a little bit more what changes in public expectations have a direct correlation to the existing rules and regulations in the Forest Act that would make it more important to put a word such as “stringent” into the law.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The word “stringent,” for the member opposite’s benefit, actually aligns with changes that were made to the Forest Act in FRPA in 2024, and that language was used in reference to cutting permits and road permits. So those were amendments made in 2024, prior to my time. I would just note that the intent is to be able to provide discretionary tools for timber sale managers, but they have to be consistent with the legislation.

I would just note for the member, and I’m sure he’s aware of this in his respective timber sales business area, that across the province are examples where we have not had success in getting public agreement, First Nations agreement for timber sale licences. Again, no different than the work that other entities, organizations, do in terms of their engagement around harvesting.

We believe that this tool allows us to build and move more fibre, because it is a new tool that allows us to be able to be specific in terms of how it relates back to FRPA.

Just to answer the specific question again, one more time, the word “stringent” does align with cutting permits and road permits, as noted below.

The Chair: Members, we will take a break, a brief recess. We’ll return at 4:33 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:18 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

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

The Chair: I call the committee on Bill 14 back to order. We are on clause 2.

Ward Stamer: I know we’re still on 2. Just a couple more questions to the minister.

When he talked about more stringent requirements or restrictions, one thing that we didn’t talk about was waste assessments. Can the minister talk a little bit more about when we’re going to have more stringent rules and regulations? Will there be any other additional penalties when it comes to waste assessments and waste that’s left?

Are there going to be still changes to policy and regulations as we go through this, because they’re not necessarily specified in the act? Can the minister give any more examples of where it will be more stringent in the requirements and regulations?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member for the question.

There’s no intent for us to change the waste assessment policy as it sits right now.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister explain why, in the amendment to section 47.7 of the Forest Act, that the minister as well as the timber sales manager can have the ability to add terms and conditions to the content of a forest licence to cut? Why have we added both the minister and the timber sales manager into that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A really good question from the member. The Forest Act is to align this with cutting permits and other types of FLTCs.

Simple ways of answering the question. Timber sale licences are the statutory decision of the timber sales manager. Everything else is the minister, and as the member knows, in many of those cases, I delegate those down to district managers.

Ward Stamer: Just for clarification, because we are going clause by clause. When it says that this is going to allow terms and conditions included in a forest licence to cut, is this only, specifically, on the contract logging authorization, where the harvesting contractor does not have authorization to do anything other than cut the log? They do not have authority to do anything, like to sell the log? Or is this the opportunity where those stringent regulations will be able to be put in across the board on anything that BCTS does?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This question from the member does not relate to contract logging. FLTCs speak to different harvesting authorities — just kind of similar to the first question since we got back from the break — the ability to be able to ensure that we’re managing for those different types of cutting authorities.

Rob Botterell: Thank you to the minister and your staff. I really appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions around this important piece of legislation.

[4:40 p.m.]

We’re on clause 3, and I know this was somewhat addressed in clause 2, but will there be an opportunity, say on an annual basis or something, to see how the provision relating to “more stringent” is being used and its impact?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member. I appreciate his interest in the discussion on Bill 14. The real impact will come from the use of these tools. We, as a ministry and B.C. Timber Sales, will be monitoring that impact, and really, two key thresholds we’ll be using are the partnerships that we develop on the ground with communities and First Nations and, of course, the ability to be able to move more fibre.

As the member will know, B.C. Timber Sales does report out with its annual plan and does that on the ground in partnership with the local partners that make up the forestry sector.

Ward Stamer: Can I get clarification from the minister? At the top of the heading where it talks about renumbering the section — it’s section 47.7(1) — and by adding “and” at the end of the paragraph…. Can they explain to me why we’re adding “and” on the paragraph? Are we including the (g.1) portion? Can they explain to me why you’re adding “and”?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m advised by the team that this is a writing mechanism that was used during drafting. The member will note, when he was referencing (g) and then (h), “and” is to ensure it all applies — except where it says “may.”

[4:45 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Can I have an explanation of why we’re repealing that section? Is it for consistency of the more stringent regulation portion of it, or is there something else that needed to be removed from the existing legislation? Just need a little bit more clarification on why we repealed those sections and (h) as noted in the Forest Act.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: So (g.1), the member notes, moves to (2)(b), and then (h) was replaced with a new (h) and is linked to the terms and conditions noted below that, under (2) as well.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister explain what type of situation would require the minister to add terms and conditions instead of a timber sales manager?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s when the FLTC is under the authority of the minister, not the timber sales manager.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Ward Stamer: A contract logging authorization can be issued by a timber sales manager so that a person can be contracted by BCTS to harvest Crown timber. Can the minister explain how a timber sales manager will choose who gets a contract logging authorization?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We would follow the competitive procurement policies that are in place for the government. To answer the member’s question directly, we would do so by ensuring that we’re choosing the most competitive bidder that meets all the requirements to perform the work.

Ward Stamer: My second question on this would be very similar about the selection criteria. Are there going to be any additional qualifications, any additional training that is going to be necessary before anyone is able to bid on these sales?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We are working in partnership with the Truck Loggers Association, Interior Logging Association and the North West Loggers Association on the process for outlining prequalified bids and, as part of that, ensuring that we have a criteria in place that allows contractors and loggers to be able to participate in this process.

Ward Stamer: If we’re going to be talking about contract logging operation, are we also going to be talking about contract logging operation in thinning projects, or is that going to be something that’s going to be in the future, and we’re going to continue to just have the process that has been established by this ministry late last year and early this year, a strict bidding process on those commercial thinning projects?

If I may, are you going to continue to be offering it just as a bidding process under the same existing standards, or are we going to be looking at something new on the contractor qualifications?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Apologies to the member. I just wanted to make sure I got his question. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The member notes that currently with the success that we’ve had in getting some commercial thin sales out…. That is being done under the process that currently exists within the Forest Act and FRPA with timber sale licences. The intent would be for us to be able to use this tool, contract logging, to do commercial thinning as well, so we would have both options.

Ward Stamer: Then, to be clear, are we talking about changing the parameters in that situation with commercial thinning, where the licensee is not going to own the fibre — that that will be owned by BCTS?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: For contract logging, yes.

Ward Stamer: Will there be any ties when we get to the contract awarding? Will there be any requirements for either unionized employees, any community benefits agreements? Will there be anything tied to that, or is it going to be more on the first-come, first-served or the qualifications? What will be some of the criteria that the ministry will be looking forward to when it’s looking for those contractors to do that work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We are working, as I noted in my previous answers, with the Truck Loggers Association, TLA, ILA and the Northwest Loggers on what those prequalifications would be.

I would note for the member that it is the intent of government to ensure that we are using these tools to develop partnerships, to ensure that it’s accessible and to ensure that many contractors and loggers can take advantage of these opportunities.

[4:55 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Are there going to be any quotas for how many contract logging authorizations can be awarded in a year? Are we going to have similar to what we have right now with the BCTS system, where you can only have a certain amount of licences occurring at the same time?

Can I have an understanding? Will there be any quotas on what those authorizations will look like in a calendar year?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to make sure I get some clarity from the member. Is the member referring to the current quota that exists around three contracts or someone only having access to three TSLs at a time? I just want clarity around that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Member, wait to be recognized first before jumping in. Thank you.

Go ahead. Continue.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are two points.

One, will there be any changes to the existing structure of B.C. Timber Sales in the requirements that are currently…? Again, the reason I’m asking these questions is there are going to be members of the contractor base that are going to be looking at other opportunities. They may not have full-time employment. They’re using BCTS as a way to continue their workforce, and there may be opportunities with the existing base, as the minister has alluded to — more opportunities for those existing contractors as well as new contractors to enter the field.

My question is: are there going to be any changes to the requirements of BCTS with the maximum three in that period? Are there going to be any extensions in that period? Will it go from two years to three years?

The second part of the question is: will there be any quotas tied to this new regime, and what are the timelines going to be in that process? Is there going to be an expectation that if you bid on something, that work has to be done by a certain time? Can you have a concurrent licence that you’ve purchased that can follow right after that?

I just need a little bit of an understanding of what the rules are going to be like.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Kind of three parts to the member’s question. Maybe to the first part, we’re not contemplating any changes on the three TSL quota.

To the member’s question around contract logging, we’ll be exploring that through policy development. If there is a need for quota…. The member will know that, based off of some of the work and discussions that are occurring, these contract logging opportunities are quite small, so there may not need to be the same level of quotas as exists with the three TSL piece that’s in place right now.

In regards to timelines and deliverability that the member notes, all of that would be in contract between the government as well as the individual that is successful in getting the opportunity to contract. All of that will be developed in policy in due course.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for that.

When we look at some of the policy development, are we going to be looking at not only the qualifications on the contractors that are bidding on these jobs…? Are they all going to be bidding on these jobs, or what kind of criteria are we going to be using in this process? Again, there were concerns that were raised before, even in the debate side of things.

[5:00 p.m.]

As the minister has already mentioned today, BCTS is trying to be as cost-effective as they can to be able to realize a profit in being able to switch over to having this opportunity to contract out the actual logging and not have the person that’s doing the logging actually own the wood and then trying to either sell it through major licensees or market it themselves.

I just need a little bit more clarification on where in the policy and regulation changes there will be the qualifications in this process. We’ve talked about bidding. Are we going to solely be using that at the beginning of this? Are we going to be just doing a direct award? Will there be parameters on exactly how much work is going to be done, costing — all those kinds of things?

Just trying to get understanding. If we’re going to be including contract loggers that are already doing the work, that are bidding on sales, are they going to be still given the opportunity to do the same work that’s being asked for by the ministry, or is this going to be strictly up to the minister or the timber sale manager to be able to direct-award it to any other qualified person that would be willing to do the work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll just note, going back to a few questions ago in another clause, that contract-awarding practices will be developed based on provincial procurement policies, though I would note for the member that while direct award is a tool available, it has to be aligned with provincial procurement policy.

We are anticipating competitive bidding, and I would note for the member that the bidding process will be open, will be transparent, and we will be using B.C. Bid, similar to the format that exists for timber sale licences.

To the other part of the member’s question, yes, a contractor and logger can bid for contract logging and bid for timber sale licences as well.

Ward Stamer: On the contract logging side of things, does the minister envision BCTS getting back to doing more development work before this? Are they looking at other opportunities?

Again, under the existing legislation, BCTS has the ability to be able to develop other blocks for sale, and that could include roadbuilding, whether it’s permanent or semi-permanent. There could be infrastructure that is added to those improvements that BCTS currently has the authority to do under their existing budgets and under the existing law.

Does the minister see opportunities, going forward, where BCTS will expand that process and have it separate from these contract logging operations; where he can see BCTS actually spending a more proactive role in developing blocks, like they used to in the past, and then having it separate from the actual logging of particular blocks? Or is that something that would be all-encompassing with the contract logging obligations, where the contractor would be not only putting in the infrastructure but also doing the logging, but not owning the timber that is being logged?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to note for the member that there is no intention to change practices, so I’d be interested in better understanding where the member is going with this line of questioning. B.C. Timber Sales develops blocks currently, and we intend to continue to do so with timber sale licences but also in relation to contract logging as well.

Ward Stamer: Well, again, it comes back to the logging contract authorization. As we’ve known in the past, BCTS was very proactive in doing full development of their blocks, and then over time, it was not as cost-effective as allowing the private sector to be able to do that beforehand.

So, yes, BCTS was doing the initial development, possibly, on the blocks, but a lot of that other work that was being done on the permanent roadbuilding and those kinds of things was switched over to the responsibility of the licensee that ended up being the person that was responsible for the timber sales.

But on that note, when we talk about an operational plan, can the minister give us a little bit more in depth of any changes that are going to be coming to those operational plans, specifically on the authorization? The reason I’m asking that question is it seems like both the minister and the timber sales manager have the opportunity to work on those plans.

Can I get a little bit more information from the minister on any changes to those operational plans that are going to occur as a direct result of Bill 14?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A timber sales manager is currently, in legislation, required to have an operational plan prior to selling a timber sale licence. The intent is for us to align the same with contract logging.

To be very clear. A timber sales manager must have an operational plan before they proceed with contract logging.

Ward Stamer: Since a contract logging harvester is not going to have the authority to possess the timber, who ultimately has the authority? Is it BCTS that’s going to actually own the timber?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is correct. BCTS would be the owner of the timber.

Ward Stamer: If timber is going to be harvested through a contract logging authorization on a First Nation land, will the nation be entitled to a portion of the Crown land harvested, and if so, what percentage of that timber will they be entitled to?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Could the member maybe help me understand what he means when he refers to using the language “First Nations land”?

[5:10 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: I think what it was, was one of the questions that was raised by one of my colleagues. I know First Nations have woodlots. Is there going to be any shift in BCTS where there’s going to be contract logging that’s going to be done by BCTS and then possibly with First Nation woodlots, or is this totally separate and, really, it’s not a question that’s even part of Bill 14?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think I understand the member’s colleague’s question. I would say, at a high level, that we heard loud and clear during the B.C. Timber Sales review process, and I’ve noted this in my responses previously, the need for BCTS to be a partner of choice.

I’d note for the member that there are examples. It was noted in one of the 54 recommendations that B.C. Timber Sales could auction off tenure from First Nations tenure. It doesn’t have to necessarily be FNWLs, but it also could be a community forest, as an example, as well. We get the opportunity to be able to help them get the best price and also apply that data to our auction system, which helps with their market pricing as well.

In regards to partnership, I just want to be very clear that we do see opportunities, and we are exploring in different parts of the province to ensure that, from an economies-of-scale perspective, BCTS can partner with First Nations who may hold tenure in different forms, whether it is FNWLs or TFLs or other types of tenures, to be able to — again, from an economies-of-scale perspective — try to move fibre.

I would say it’s the early days of exploring those opportunities, in particular on the coast, where we face some challenges as they relate to the transportation of logs — so open to those.

Hopefully that addresses the member’s colleague’s question.

Ward Stamer: To add to that from the minister, then, if BCTS ends up doing that bidding process, does BCTS ultimately have authority on the process from start to finish, or is that in collaboration with First Nations as well?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member’s question, if it were a community forest or a First Nation that wanted to use the B.C. Timber Sales auction process, then they would essentially be using our legislation and our process. There are examples where that is occurring.

We are having further conversations around how nations can take advantage of that, but just to be very clear, if they are going to participate, it would be a requirement for us, obviously, to follow the Forest Act and FRPA.

Ward Stamer: Then to further that, if that’s the case, does that mean that the provincial government would take full responsibility on the work that is being done on that?

[5:15 p.m.]

If there were any environmental concerns or anything subsequent for that, would it ultimately be the provincial government that would be responsible, or would that responsibility be shared?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I know I’m sparking the interest of the member opposite, even though this doesn’t really have anything to do with the clause.

Under our contracts, it is our responsibility.

Ward Stamer: When we talked about operational plans, we also talked about capacity and the minister’s desire to be able to grow the amount of fibre that is going to be offered through the BCTS program.

Again, those numbers are assumptions, so we won’t really get into the numbers. But does the minister have any idea how many more operational plans will be created in this fiscal year? As an example, can he give us an indication that he has enough boots on the ground? What would be a normal amount of operational plans that a timber sales manager would have at any given time?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to note for the member that this legislation and this particular clause do not require more operational plans. There’s just a requirement for the timber sales manager to have an operational plan before they proceed with contract logging or, as it relates right now, the timber sale licences.

On the contract logging, I just want to note for the member that this will be implemented incrementally, using existing plans where possible and proceeding only where staff capacity can be met.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister.

Then for clarification, if these operational plans are going to be similar to what is already occurring in the B.C. Timber Sales program, are we still having the timber sales manager authorize those operational plans, or is that going to the minister in this situation with the contract logging?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Essentially how it works is the timber sales manager is responsible for developing the operational plan, and the minister approves. But in this case, the member will know that that is a statutory decision that I defer down to the district manager.

Ward Stamer: Then, just for clarification, there won’t be any changes to the cutting permit approvals currently, the way they are, because again, even though the licensee will not actually own the timber, the timber will actually be cut down, and it will still be transported. So there will still be a requirement for a cutting permit.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I may just be looking for a bit more clarity from the member opposite. There are no cutting permits. The contract logging — there would be a process in place. As relates right now, there are TSLs.

So maybe just looking for a little bit more clarity from the member.

Ward Stamer: Well, even on a B.C. Timber Sales licence, there still is technically a cutting permit to that licence. There’s still a timber mark to that licence. Are we going to continue to have the same process and the authorization statutorily, or is there going to be a change?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just to clarify, and maybe it’s just a use of language that I could help the member out with, we don’t use the terminology “cutting permits” when it relates to B.C. Timber Sales. Just help me understand what exactly you’re asking, because cutting permits are related to the cutting permit process outside of B.C. Timber Sales.

Ward Stamer: The minister is correct. I was just making sure that nothing was changing in the parameters on the authorization to cut, because when you look at B.C. Timber Sales, you still have an authorization to cut the tree down.

Are there going to be any changes to the way that is being…? Not necessarily developed…. But also in the process of legally being able to transport that — whether it’s a BCTS licence or whether it’s a cutting permit through an existing other licensee — is that process going to stay the same?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just to clarify, there would be no change in the process.

Ward Stamer: Just one other question I had. Again, it goes back to the operational plan, because it’s back to the contract logging authorization. Does the minister see any additional changes in how those operational plans are going to be formulated?

[5:25 p.m.]

I know we talked about partnerships with First Nations, but is there going to be more emphasis on, as the minister alluded to, with more stringent regulations…? Is there going to be that much more time necessary to develop these operational plans, or does the minister believe that with the improvements made through the organization, it should act rather seamlessly?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The legislation in this particular clause doesn’t talk about what is in the operational plan. It’s just a requirement for TSM to have an operational plan.

Rob Botterell: One of the questions that I just want to raise, really, is probably more for the benefit of folks that are reviewing this part of Hansard at some future stage and just in the interests of public awareness.

This type of question is probably something many of us can answer, but just so it’s on the record…. I know that there will be a great deal of interest in the use of these new provisions.

I had a question. What mechanisms exist to ensure maybe existing or maybe new public transparency in how contract logging authorizations are issued, and what recourse do community members or community groups or other stakeholders have if they, in good faith, believe that a contract logging authorization is being issued in a way that is not intended or for a purpose that is not intended in the legislation — in the interest of just trying to keep this a bit light-hearted — without recourse to lawyers?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the opportunity to answer this question.

I’m very proud of the very public and transparent process that currently exists in regards to our forest operational plans being a public document. On top of that, the member opposite may be aware that our sales schedules are public, through B.C. Bid, and there are opportunities for members of the public to be able to comment on that.

To the second part of the member’s question around recourse, I would note a couple of things. The members of the public are able to and often do reach out to their local forest district office to be able to raise concerns, and they also do have the opportunity to contact the natural resource office service if they don’t believe an individual is complying with terms and conditions set in a timber sale licence.

Rob Botterell: As a somewhat related…. I know that the minister and I worked together on having PFAC prepare a report on the future of forestry in this province in the long term, and we’ve had various discussions around this over the last few months.

It would be helpful to hear from the minister if these changes are in any way inconsistent or preclude implementation of the PFAC recommendations. Do they work in harmony?

[5:30 p.m.]

I know the minister and the government are considering how to proceed with the PFAC report recommendations, but I’m just interested if these changes preclude some of the recommendations from being implemented.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There are a couple of things I would note for the member opposite.

The member may be aware that we conducted a full and comprehensive review of B.C. Timber Sales, led by Lenny Joe from the First Nations Forestry Council; Brian Frenkel, the former president of UBCM; a Vanderhoof city councillor; as well as former minister of the Crown, George Abbott, who has a sound understanding of forest policy as well. The recommendations — 54 that came from that — are really what helped drive the changes and the amendments that I’m bringing forward to the Forest Act and FRPA.

To the member’s direct questions around how this ties or may impact in a negative way the recommendations brought forward by the Provincial Forest Advisory Council, I don’t think it does in any way. Though I would argue that, based off of my review of the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council report, having more decisions on the ground, local and meeting the needs of local communities is something that I think aligns very well with this legislation.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Of course, I would just, in the interest of equal air time, want to acknowledge that Jeff Bromley, Jason Fisher, Al Gorely, Shannon Janzen, Laurie Kremsater, Garry Merkel, Harry Nelson, Hugh Scorah and special adviser ex officio Nora White will be thrilled with that answer.

Ward Stamer: I know that one of the other topics that we haven’t discussed, when it comes to contract logging authorization…. It goes back to the intent of Bill 14. The minister talked about opportunities with wildfire fuel reduction and wildfire mitigation.

Can the minister explain how that relates to Bill 14? If it’s going to be the contract authorization…. So far we’ve talked about opportunities with bidding on projects, whether it’s going to be existing TSL blocks that are now going to be changed and contract loggers will be actually doing the work and then the ministry will be merchandising the timber, or whether it’s commercial thinning projects, or whether they’re going to be bid or possibly BCTS may be using those opportunities with some qualified contractors to either direct the work or pay by the hour or whatever they can do.

Again, it’s totally up to the minister’s discretion with policy and regulation on how they do that, but can the minister explain to me how this ties in with wildfire fuel reduction and wildfire mitigation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the opportunity. The member and I share a passion for ensuring that we are taking advantage of every opportunity to utilize the resources of the forest sector to help protect communities from wildfires.

To be very specific in answering the member’s question, it would just fall within the contract, the terms and conditions that B.C. Timber Sales would lay out to be able to take advantage of the opportunity, where possible, for B.C. Timber Sales to be able to help with wildfire mitigation work as it relates to contract logging.

Ward Stamer: If we may expand on that, the minister is talking about being cost-effective. We know that, in many cases, even through some of the programs like with FESBC, there’s a significant amount of dollars that are being spent on wildfire fuel reduction, anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 a hectare. We also know that on the existing FireSmarting program we have in this province, the minister is going through a review in that process.

[5:35 p.m.]

There are some challenges with possibly having overcapacity in some municipalities and the ability to continue to provide funding for that. There are also many communities in British Columbia that do not have the capacity for wildfire mitigation. There are opportunities possibly through the government to be able to help them through that process, similar to what they’ve done in the past. However, in most cases, you are not driving income from wildfire fuel reduction.

Can the minister, at least, give me an idea of how this is going to work into the plan? Because, again, we’re trying to be cost-effective in this process. Is the minister saying that B.C. Timber Sales is going to end up taking over a portion of the B.C. FireSmarting program that is in existence today, or is that something that we’re going to be working towards in the future?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Interesting line of questioning from the member opposite. I’ll just stick with what’s in the legislation and not try to go back to our experience on estimates. I would note, for the member, we’ve only got six hours. You should ask your House Leader for more time next go around.

I would say that the work that we’re trying to do with contract logging on developed sales that speaks to Bill 14 is one more tool in our desires to be able to ensure that we are meeting the needs of this entire landscape. Wildfire mitigation is a key part of that.

Ward Stamer: To be able to get the minister to answer, then, if we’re going to be looking at some of this work that is going to be direct award, that could also be opportunities for by the hour, or is this going to end up having caps to certain of this work?

Will there actually be hard caps similar to like what FESBC does, where they specify work and there’s a certain amount of money that can be spent in that area? Is that something that the minister is envisioning with fiscal responsibility, or is this just something that we’re going to see how it rolls out through policy and regulation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: When the member refers to direct awards, I just want to remind the member that I am bound and required, as is every other minister, to ensure that we’re following provincial procurement policy, so we would ensure that, in any processes, we’re aligned with provincial procurement policy.

Ward Stamer: Back to the contract logging authorizations. Is there a specific timeline that the minister is looking at for completion of these projects? Is there going to be…? What steps will be necessary, in his mind, with policy and regulation in regards to making sure that work is being done? What penalties will be planned for going forward to make sure that work is completed?

My question was: is there a timeline in the contract authorization to do the work? Is it two years, three years? Is there a specific time to do the work? The second part of it is: what penalties will be assessed? What is contemplated to make sure that the work gets done? In other words, if a contractor gets halfway through the job and decides not to finish it, what are the ramifications, similar to what we have in the BCTS program today?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A couple of pieces to the member’s question. In regards to years, the member will know in the legislation that the legislation doesn’t reference two, three or four years. That would be set out in the contract between B.C. Timber Sales and whoever is the successful bidder or on the pre-qualified list.

Then, in regards to penalties, following passage of this legislation, we would make a proposed regulatory amendment through OIC to the Administrative Orders and Remedies Regulation, which would ensure that the duty to comply with terms and conditions would be authorized and an authorization to a penalty if a person does not comply with the terms and conditions. So BCTS, essentially, can apply a penalty if someone, as the member notes, doesn’t comply with the terms and conditions.

Ward Stamer: So with this contract logging authorization and the operational plan…. Does that offer up the opportunities for the timber sales manager or his staff to be able to change the parameters on the work that’s going to occur on that operational plan and if it is agreed to by the contractor? My example is: if there’s additional work required, is that also going to drive the cost up — whether it’s more merchandising at the stump, more supervision cost to make sure that merchandising is occurring in the bush before it gets to a sort yard?

Again, I don’t really want to get into the weeds, but I just want to make sure that in these authorization plans…. Is the ministry looking at all opportunities? If there’s going to be flexibility in the plan…. If I’m bidding on a sale and somebody comes along and says, “Well, you know what? If we’re going to be able to show you how to get more merchandising out of it, even though you don’t own the log….” Is there going to be flexibility available? Then will that person bidding on that be able to agree to it or not?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m just going to help the member out here. When we’re talking about plans, operational plans…. Those are separate. As I’ve noted before, it’s the expectation in law for a timber sales manager to have an operational plan before they proceed with contract logging, just like they are required to do so if they proceed with TSLs.

I think what the member is referring to is the terms and conditions in a contract — so contract plan. In the case of a contract, and using the member’s example, it would be — like I answered in one of my first questions — an amendment to the contract where both parties would have to agree.

Ward Stamer: Basically, what we’re talking about is changes through either regulation or policy that can be done. It’s not a law change. It’s basically a determination. If there’s an expectation from the timber sales manager to do specific work on the site — and again, I’m using the example with a log — and, all of a sudden, the parameters change and there are opportunities to do other things with that log than was originally agreed upon…. Let’s just say….

I’m trying to boil it down really simple for the people back home without trying to get too convoluted. All of a sudden, there may be…. As you’re logging, you may find a better value, say, off the butt of a tree. Let’s say that BCTS determines that is a premium log at 20 feet and BCTS can immediately market that piece without having to take the whole log to a sort yard.

Now that merchandising is going to be occurring at the stump. And it’s agreed upon by the contractor that if there is going to be extra merchandising being done, the contractor will be paid for it, right? Because that’s flexibility in a plan. Again, we’re talking about things that’re going to happen as this rolls out, but it does pertain to the law.

Then if there are other costs attached to it other than the actual work — let’s say, waste assessments and things like that — is all of that going to be assumed by the government? Because the licensee has no legal right to the wood, any of the other consequences that occur from that work are not going to be borne by the contractor?

In other words, if you end up having to cut more off the fibre and end up having more waste to be able to get that product that is being asked for by the timber sales manager and it’s agreed upon in the contract, then there’s no obligation to the contractor because of the waste assessment or the other things. He’s assuming that extra work that’s going to be done, because that’s the flexibility that’s in the contract.

My question is: is that what the expectation is — to be able to have a flexible plan as they move forward, not only in merchandising at the stump but also in the opportunities all the way through the supply chain?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I would describe this…. The intent here is to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales has a strong, positive working relationship with the contractor and logger. Again, I just want to be very careful about the choice of words. We’re talking about contracts as they relate to terms and conditions, not plans.

The member opposite raises the example that he does…. We would make an amendment to the contract, and it would need to be agreed upon by both parties, which is the fair process to follow. But I think what the member is getting at is — and the member will know this well, coming from the contracting community — that there’s work that happens in offices to develop cutblocks and develop the work, but boots on the ground actually leads to what you find out.

I would argue that because of the strong relationships that B.C. Timber Sales already has with the contracting logging community and the opportunities we hope to provide with this additional tool, it would be no different than a current licensee holder’s relationship with their contractors and loggers.

The intent is for us to be flexible. The intent is for us to grow alongside this process and for us to ensure that we have those strong partnerships.

Ward Stamer: I believe that we’ll be talking about that coming forward when we get to the waste section. I’m just wanting to try to flag that now because, again, the reason…. I’m going to be asking the question, and if I can get an answer now, and then if we get to the next clause and it’s brought up again….

I know we’re almost out of time. If, in the regulation, it says that the licensee holder — so basically the contractor that’s doing the logging — has no legal right to the timber…. I believe that’s the change in the statutory law, right? That’s one of the reasons why Bill 14 is here, so that as the contractor goes in there, he has no legal right to the timber that is being cut.

Is there going to be, in this language…? Is there going to be something subsequent, or may there be a possibility for amendment that there will be a waive of all waste and responsibilities on that cutblock with that contractor?

In other words, technically, right now if you end up purchasing a timber sale licence, you are responsible for all the waste, because that is your fibre, and you have a choice. You have to make sure that you utilize the fibre.

You have a choice between making it into, say, a sawlog or a peeler. But you can’t just hack off two feet off every butt because you just don’t like the look or the feel of the tree and it’s got a bit of a crook to it and it still meets the specifications but you’re just lazy and you just want to cut two feet off because it’s quicker for you to do that.

Is that going to be something that we should be looking at, on making sure that that’s crystal clear that the contractor is not responsible for waste surveys, or is that something that can be determined with policy and regulation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: As it relates to this legislation and these amendments, all of those authorities — including waste, as the member notes — would be carried out by B.C. Timber Sales.

Ward Stamer: Then, further, on the contract logging authorization, will there be opportunities for any companies, like companies within a company, to be able to shift, as long as the responsibility stays with that company?

[5:50 p.m.]

Whether it’s boots on the ground or additional people that are going to be coming in and out, as long as that entity stays the same, the contract would stay the same. In other words, you can have an umbrella company that is going to be overly responsible for the work as long as those employees are part of that operation, and the operation will continue.

Does that make sense? Is that something that’s going to be the same?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member’s question, yes, it would be whatever company is listed under contract.

Ward Stamer: There was just one other question I was following up on, and I think it comes back to the utilization portion of it.

To the minister…. When he mentioned earlier that he’s quite confident that the B.C. Timber Sales organization will have the experience to be able to merchandise these products, what is the expectation on some of the sub-products in this process? Does he feel that there’s going to be an obligation by the primaries to continue to be looking at some of the lesser-value fibre in this process?

Does the minister believe that there are other markets, other users out there that are typically not purchasing these products that are not value-added?

Is there any other information the minister can share about what BCTS is looking for in their marketing plan?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The intent here is to ensure that we can get fibre for all the different user types. The pulp sector played a very key role during the review process of B.C. Timber Sales, of outlining what they’re looking for, just as the value-added sector has, as I noted in a previous answer.

I think there are huge opportunities here, like I’ve noted before in my second reading remarks and earlier today about the importance of getting the right log to the right mill, and that includes residuals as well and helping to support the entire forest ecosystem.

Ward Stamer: I know the minister brought this up because we’re talking about two different distinctive areas when we come and looking at the contract logging authorization, where it directly relates to trees and fibre.

Can the minister explain if there are going to be any differences in the authorization and the operational plans when it comes between timber that has been damaged by wildfire and timber that hasn’t been damaged by wildfire? Will there be different obligations to that contractor in that process?

Can the minister give us a couple of examples of how they would be different between the existing timber licences that we have currently and what would be different, going forward, with a contractor that is just doing the work on the ground and not merchandising or owning the fibre in that process?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We touched on this a bit earlier today. I’ll just use the two examples. With the timber sale licence, it’s an area that could, essentially, include green timber as well as burnt and damaged timber.

The key piece around contract logging is specifying that, so in the case of contract logging, we would specify that burnt, damaged, pest-infested timber would be the primary obligation and expectation that a contractor logger would remove.

Ward Stamer: Then to further that, the minister talked about opportunities in Bill 14 for undeveloped wildfire permits. Can the minister elaborate on how Bill 14 is going to be incentivizing not only the contractor base but also the opportunity to bring more fibre to the marketplace and better recovery after wildfires in this?

Again, it comes back to the contract logging authorization. Where do the changes occur between what’s in Bill 14 and what we already have now?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: An undeveloped timber sale licence is a timber sale licence under the Forest Act, section 12, that is auctioned without the operational development completed by BCTS. No new Forest Act section 12 agreement is proposed for underdeveloped timber sale licences.

Typical timber sale licences involve complex, multi-year cutblock planning and development processes. B.C. Timber Sales begins the cutblocks to ensure that harvest within the authorized timber sale licence boundary will comply with the standards of the approved operational plan held by the timber sales manager and that consultation with First Nations has been completed.

Where the goal is to remove damaged timber before it degrades, the process is more streamlined if the timber sale licence holder can develop the harvest area for B.C. Timber Sales.

Essentially, the question I think the member is getting at is: how does it work? While BCTS policy will guide how an underdeveloped timber sale licence, or TSL, is brought to auction, including specifics and processes, a conceptual process would include BCTS completing the planning of an area of forest that will be harvested, including ensuring that the area is planned, that the area planned is available for harvest and is free from constraint.

Examples include avoidance of areas that are not available for harvest, such as old-growth management areas, wildlife habitat areas, private property or other tenures.

Secondly, BCTS would complete required engagement with First Nations for the area, ensuring that requests for accommodation are reflected in the planned area. Examples of that would include removal of areas from the plans and modifications of operations in those areas.

The area is auctioned as a timber sale licence, with terms and conditions that outline how the successful bidder will need to be developed and operate within the area. This might include terms such as allowing only the removal of burnt or dead trees; a requirement to follow standards for safety certification; or stewardship rights to the trees that are harvested, as per the terms and conditions within the area being granted to the winner of the auction timber sale licence. So the winner is the highest bidder.

As much as I would love to continue, I think we should probably call it a day.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:58 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency
Management and Climate Readiness

The Chair: Thank you so much, everyone. Good afternoon. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $74,403,000.

The Chair: Would the minister like to delight us with some opening remarks?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I would love to delight you. Unfortunately, all I have are opening remarks.

I just wanted to thank everybody for being here today.

I want to start by acknowledging that we’re on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known today as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

I’m joined here by many devoted staff from the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, and I just want to acknowledge what an incredibly hard-working team they are. I am so grateful for their dedication to this important work of keeping people safe and the professional expertise that they deliver on behalf of the people of this province every single day of the year.

With me here, I have Deputy Minister Teresa Dobmeier; assistant deputy minister, corporate services and accountability division, Stephen Ward; assistant deputy minister, disaster resilience division, Tomas Ernst; assistant deputy minister, reconciliation, strategic partnerships, policy and legislation, Monica Cox; assistant deputy minister, readiness, response and recovery operations division, Rachael Pollard; executive director and chief financial officer, Kelsie Hawkins; executive director of policy, appeals and legislation, Keith Preston; and director of community recovery, David Rice.

Their expertise, knowledge and dedication serve British Columbians well, and I owe them a world of thanks.

Our focus is, and always will be, keeping people and communities safe during emergencies. That focus is accomplished through work to mitigate, prepare, respond and recover. We can’t stop natural disasters from happening, but we can take important actions to mitigate their impact on people and our communities. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

As the lead ministry on cross-government coordination to enhance B.C.’s resilience, we know that every dollar that we spend on mitigation today is far more that is saved on disaster response and recovery tomorrow. That’s why, in 2024, we launched the disaster resilience and innovation fund to partner with communities in undertaking structural mitigation projects to reduce disaster risks. So far, we’ve partnered with communities with $26.83 million towards DRIF projects.

[2:45 p.m.]

DRIF funds important mitigation projects like slope stabilization projects, relating to debris flow risk reduction; new or modified public cooling infrastructure; construction, replacement or upgrading of infrastructure such as dikes, dams, flood walls, retention ponds and pump stations; and the installation of structural flood protection works, or upgrades or retrofits to modernize existing structural flood protection works.

I’ll be announcing the next ten successful DRIF projects shortly. They’re fantastic projects in every corner of our province, projects that make a real difference in keeping communities safe.

Climate change is the defining challenge of our time. We know that there are going to be more climate emergencies. We know that they’re going to be more severe and more frequent. In my ministry, we’re continuing to use a whole-of-society approach to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

That is why, since 2017, our government has provided over $369 million through the community emergency preparedness fund. That’s for things like purchasing emergency support service equipment, training exercises for emergency operations centres, construction of structural flood mitigation projects and over $217 million for 363 climate-risk-reduction projects.

Our emergency preparedness brand, PreparedBC, provides information and tools for educators to use in the classroom and for the public on how to prepare themselves and their families for emergencies related to many hazards, like extreme heat, earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires.

Tsunami Preparedness Week just wrapped up on Saturday. I’m happy to report PreparedBC was able to support a record-setting 28 communities hosting a high ground hike, which drew more than 740 participants. Over the year, they also distributed over 182,000 PreparedBC education guides to local governments, First Nations and the public.

These are just two examples of how my ministry’s work is facilitating preparedness through a whole-of-society approach.

In October, we launched the provincial-scale disaster and climate risk resilience assessment, or DCRRA, to help the province, First Nations, local governments, infrastructure owners and others develop emergency management plans and invest in projects that reduce risk. The DCRRA includes comprehensive information on riverine flood, coastal flood, extreme heat, wildfire, drought and water scarcity, earthquakes and multi-hazard events, because we know that sometimes emergencies don’t wait for each other.

More than 200 subject-matter experts and organizations collaborated with us, because we know that emergency management work takes a team approach. I’m happy to report that, so far, the DCRRA has been accessed well over 20,000 times.

We also launched the hazard insights tool, or HIT, which makes hazard and risk information easily accessible to those who need it. B.C. is facing increased disaster and climate risks, and understanding these risks is critical to support strategic investments in disaster risk management. So far, HIT has been accessed over 13,000 times.

As the lead coordinating agency for provincial emergencies and critical incidents, our ministry operates on a 24-7 basis and is always ready to respond. Our role is to coordinate all ministries, agencies and partners under a unified, one-government structure that ensures B.C.’s emergency response is not siloed. Our approach means that during disasters, the province acts as one coherent system, supporting communities when they need it the most.

Since the devastating 2021 atmospheric river event, our government has been taking action to not only ensure recovery but improve resiliency through an investment of $222 million to support flood recovery and resilience. This work has meant upgrades to the Barrowtown pump station, dike reinforcements, a new well and water treatment system and improved coordination and information-sharing with the United States.

Through this work, we’ve also been taking action to secure a more appropriate level of participation and support from the federal government, and we’re seeing results with our efforts.

I’m very happy to report that I was in Abbotsford again this last Friday to join our Sumas River watershed flood mitigation leadership table. It’s a leadership table that now includes representation from the federal government — representation that was secured after a trip to Ottawa by myself, Chief Silver of the Semá:th First Nation and the mayor of Abbotsford.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’ve made significant progress to keep people and communities safe from emergencies. Since 2023, based on recommendations from the Premier’s Task Force on Emergencies, our ministry has achieved improvements to emergency support services, or ESS, including things like development of a self-serve pathway, launching the B.C. evacuee help line, introducing a shelter allowance and providing new training programs for ESS teams. I’m proud of this progress but also recognize that there is a lot more to do because we continue to face more frequent, more complex and severe natural disasters.

Last year our team supported communities in responding to a multitude of emergencies that resulted in 36 states of local emergency, 53 evacuation orders that affected over 3,000 properties and over 5,300 people, 109 evacuation alerts that impacted over 10,000 properties and over 18,000 people. There were 12 broadcast intrusive alerts throughout the province and two test alerts.

By providing emergency support services for 55 community-level evacuations and 145 single-unit or apartment fires, a total of 4,468 people were supported through a very challenging moment in their life.

B.C. is also home to the best search and rescue, or GSAR, groups anywhere in Canada. I want to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for the incredible work that they do. These are volunteers who work to bring loved ones home to their families. In the last fiscal year, B.C.’s 78 ground search and rescue groups responded to 2,142 calls from EMCR.

Over the past year, we’ve been focused on strengthening the GSAR program so that the over 3,000 volunteers are better supported, safer and able to respond where and when they are needed most. This work included things like completing the first provincewide independent needs and gap analysis for GSAR, in partnership with the B.C. Search and Rescue Association and requesting agencies; and establishing an advisory committee in April 2025, with representation from all requesting agencies, all six EMCR regions, and volunteer representation from B.C. Search and Rescue Association.

Our government recognizes the importance of our public safety lifeline volunteers. Budget 2026 recognizes the contribution of search and rescue volunteers and volunteer firefighters by doubling the provincial volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000. We also increased mileage rates for our public lifeline volunteers, like GSAR and ESS, to bring them into alignment with government mileage rates.

Over the last year, our ministry has supported local government and First Nations in responding to emergencies, including processing 738 response claims. We’ve funded over $21 million in eligible response costs. Some examples of that include from the December 2025 atmospheric river. Throughout that event, EMCR provided coordination, situational awareness and logistical support to 39 impacted communities. Activities focused on enabling timely response actions, deploying resources and flood control assets, protecting critical infrastructure and supporting community emergency operations.

During the unspeakably tragic Tumbler Ridge event, EMCR led the coordination of the provincial response and ensured a clear, coordinated response in support of the city of Tumbler Ridge.

In the 2025 wildfire season, EMCR worked in partnership with the B.C. wildfire service to support communities and people impacted by wildfires. Throughout that season, EMCR provided coordination and situational awareness; support to communities impacted by evacuation orders and alerts; provision of emergency support services to people evacuated; and directly deployed EMCR staff into affected community emergency operations centres, including with the regional district of Nanaimo for the Mount Underwood wildfire.

Over the past two years, our ministry has provided $36 million in direct capacity funding to local governments and First Nations communities to advance implementation of the Emergency and Disaster Management Act and to strengthen critical emergency management partnerships.

Our provincial regional emergency operations centres are regional hubs that provide 24-7 direct support, 365 days of the year, to local government and First Nations emergency response, and they are very busy. Our PREOCs operate, on average, at an elevated response level on 100 days of the year in support of local government and First Nations emergency support.

[2:55 p.m.]

Our emergency coordination centre, or ECC, continues to receive a high and sustained intake of emergency calls, standing ready to support people on their worst days. They manage approximately 100,000 calls annually from communities, partners and the public. This is 24-7 and across multiple service lines.

We also provide six seasonal hazard preparedness workshops in every region of the province to ensure communities and our emergency management partners are prepared for the season everywhere in B.C.

I’m looking forward to engaging in productive dialogue on the estimates for debate for the Ministry of EMCR. Thank you in advance to my critic and to other members for their interest and for their questions. Emergency management is one of those rare areas where both sides of the House can come together, finding ways to support our communities. It’s so important.

I can’t imagine a better team at EMCR than the staff that I have here in the room and across B.C. helping people every single day.

The Chair: Thank you to the minister for rising to the challenge.

Recognizing the member for Prince George–North Cariboo. Would you prefer delightful or erudite?

Sheldon Clare: Would I prefer what?

The Chair: Delightful or well-spoken, which one would you prefer?

Sheldon Clare: I think both appellations would be functional.

The Chair: I look forward to you choosing both. Member, please proceed.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister for her remarks and to the staff for being here to respond to the questions.

I do quite agree that emergency preparedness is something where there is a fair bit of need to come together to solve problems. I think this was no better exemplified than the efforts around the Tumbler Ridge tragedy. I think there was a lot of cross-partisan work. Partisan politics stayed right out of it, and I think that all should be commended for that circumstance. The concentration was on the people. I just wanted to preface my questions with that particular remark.

I also want to highlight the points made — that a lot of emergency preparedness in this province rests on the backs of volunteers. We have the ground search and rescue teams that the minister referred to.

We have the amateur radio service, of course, which gets fairly little credit but is certainly an important part of emergency preparedness in the event that systems go down and you have people that can build a radio from a pile of copper wire and….

Hon. Kelly Greene: And coconuts.

Sheldon Clare: And coconuts, yes, and do amazing work with that. It’s something that can open communications networks where there are none available.

I don’t want to spend a lot of time on preliminary remarks because I want to get to the questions part of this. With that, I’ll start into my questions, if the Chair prefers.

My first question. The ministry financial summary in the 2026 service plan indicates a decline in total ministry spending compared to 2025. In that regard, which core emergency management functions have been reduced as a result of that decline in total ministry spending?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you for the question.

I think it’s important to note, right off the top, that there is no reduction in core services, that the activities that we are doing that keep people safe and make communities more resilient are not affected.

The reduction that was noted is $14.304 million, and $9.7 million of that is for shared services like IT as part of government overall becoming more efficient.

The remainder of the change is for the efficiency review. All of government is looking at ways of delivering services more efficiently and effectively for communities — in this case, things like external contracts and reducing our overhead, looking at leases where we can reduce our overhead costs. I think it’s really important that we’re being as efficient as possible in government and making sure, at the same time, that we don’t see any impacts to community safety.

It’s incredibly important that people know that government is ready and able to respond at all times. We have a separate vote, vote 22, that is for that kind of response cost. So should the unthinkable happen — one of these disasters that we talk about, these climate impacts that are escalating — we have the resources available and will respond to keep people and communities safe, no matter where they are in the province.

Sheldon Clare: Well, that’s a pretty significant reduction. It’s interesting that there were no core emergency management functions being reduced. So what is being reduced? Are there specific program areas that are being hit over this reduction? What is being reduced as part of that budget cut?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to make sure that it’s clear that the majority of these decreases are for shared services moving out of the ministry. That is $9.7 million. Those services are still being provided, but they are being provided more efficiently and effectively through government support external to the ministry.

The remainder, which is the $4.644 million, is really reducing things like contracts, decreasing your office and business costs, decrease in travel, decrease in building occupancy, reducing the utilities. Those services that are shared are moving to Citizens’ Services and the PSA.

All in all, it’s important to recognize that the support that communities and people can expect and count on…. Those services will continue, and our ministry will continue to be there for communities and for people.

[3:05 p.m.]

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

I still am a little confused about this. Are there any FTEs that have been lost to the ministry as a result of this particular reduction, and are any of those FTEs front-line emergency response roles? If so, where have they gone to, or where have they been shifted to, in order to do this adjustment for efficiency?

Hon. Kelly Greene: We have a decrease of 75 FTEs, and 22 of those were transferred to Citizens’ Services for centralized delivery of government functions, like IT, as we discussed before. The remainder are consolidation within the ministry to make sure that we’re more efficient. So that means consolidating, within the business, of the different things that we do to support communities and people, making sure that they’re being more efficient in their delivery.

We also have some really interesting training that you might be interested in. It’s called CORE, and that’s the coordinated operations and response in emergency. That means that public servants from across government that are interested in emergency support are cross-trained in other ministries. There are staff throughout government that are trained as CORE employees. So during an emergency, we not only can rely on our ministry staff, but we also can call up CORE employees.

We also have really great relationships with local governments, First Nations and regional districts, and it all works together in an emergency. We absolutely will have no impact to service. I hear you on your concern, but it is our top priority that people are kept safe in an emergency, and making sure that we are well positioned to deliver that service effectively and efficiently is important.

[3:10 p.m.]

But the most important thing, at the end of the day, is that communities and people are safe and resilient. Should the unthinkable happen, we’re there for them — and then getting them to a place where they can have recovery, where they can get back to that place where their community is resilient. They can go home and get back to their new normal. The system works together — and absolutely no impact to the service that communities and people experience.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for that interesting explanation.

I wonder. This CORE training program…. How many cross-ministry people in different ministries are trained in this particular fashion in order to support emergency management? What is the cost of that, and whose budget is it reflected in?

Hon. Kelly Greene: We have more than 300 staff trained on CORE, interestingly, and there was a training session just last week and again this week. The budget for CORE training is included in the EMCR’s budget, and our staff provide the teaching to the other staff in other ministries.

This is an important part of our preparedness and planning. It’s a commitment that we have across government to be ready for emergencies. I personally appreciate the information that I often receive from other ministries in relation to emergency events, like the information that I can get from WLRS or other ministries. I think being able to, if we need, call up people from other ministries puts us in a really strong position. Not only are they trained and ready to go in case there’s a large emergency, but they also bring a wealth of knowledge from the positions that they currently have.

I would be remiss to not point out that in a large emergency, we spend what we need to spend, right? We don’t stop to count dollars when the floodwaters are rising. We respond to events. We respond to keep people safe. We respond to keep communities safe. We respond to keep businesses and farms safe. It’s a job that we take very seriously, and I know that folks in EMCR and other ministries across the province are committed to that as well.

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

In the minister’s response, when you said that we spend what we need to spend in an event, that’s a fairly reactive approach to emergency management rather than a proactive one. I’m wondering about reaction rather than preparedness in that sense.

With that in mind, when I’m looking at the financial summary table in the 2026 service plan, I see a decrease in emergency and disaster management operations. I’m wondering. What does this reflect? Is this a scaling back of services? Which services are those? What’s happening with that? And does that represent a proactive approach to emergency management?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think the question relates to a previous answer, where we are seeing a decrease, but $9.652 million of that is going towards centralized services within government. That amount has been moved out of our budget in light of the need and want to deliver effective and cost-effective services.

That remainder, that $4.644 million decrease, is related to other things like contracts, office and businesses expenses, decrease in travel, building occupancy, the associated utilities. There are lots of ways that we can look at being more efficient and make sure that we are delivering strong services that people can count on.

I think it’s important to realize, too, that there are four pillars to emergency preparedness. We follow the Sendai framework with preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. Our ministry, when we’re not in response mode, which…. Response mode is the “spend what we spend,” right? The floodwaters are rising. The wildfires have come. The earthquake has happened. That’s vote 22.

Today we’re looking at our vote 21. A lot of that preparedness, mitigation and recovery is part of the day-to-day work of making sure that communities are resilient and ready for what may come their way. Resilience is really important, because it means that not only are folks ready to respond should an emergency come, but they’re doing things to prevent that emergency from coming or prevent it from being worse. Sometimes the option that you have is not to stop Mother Nature but to divert her, to the best of your ability.

It’s also about recovery. It’s about being able to return home sooner. It’s about being able to get your farm back up to speed. These are all really important parts, and they’re all included in EMCR. I think that they’re all very important and they all reflect and depend on each other.

I look forward to more questions.

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

When we’re considering these changes about moving to different ministries for efficiencies, how does that affect communications and coordination? What effect does that change in communication and coordination have upon response times during emergencies? Is this going to make response times faster? Is it going to require additional communications that may slow things down? Are there silos in place that prevent good cross-ministry communications? I’m just wondering how that is going to affect our response to emergencies.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: The changes that we’re seeing in the ministry have no effect on our communications and our support of communities. These services that are moving are internal services. There are things like HR, IT, and these are shared services that don’t affect operations. Moving services to a shared model means that we are maximizing resources for those cross-government services that we all share.

It’s an efficient and effective way of delivering services. You see it in many types of organizations, and I think it’s a really important way for us to maximize the resources that we have — to deliver those shared resources that are important for ministries but, in our case, don’t impact at all the delivery or the communications to our community partners.

EMCR is a lead coordinating agency. That means that we’re available for communities 24-7, 365 days a year. We are that single point of contact so that when people are in crisis, a community is in crisis, they don’t have to run around to all the different ministries. They don’t have to contact the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Health and EMCR.

The list can get quite gnarly, depending on what it is that’s happening. So having that single point of contact, having that coverage 24-7, 365 days a year, I think, is really important. People can depend on that service, because we know that it’s critical for people’s safety, for community safety. I would just underscore again there is no impact to service for communities that depend on it.

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

Now, you mentioned that there were 75 FTE reductions, 22 going to Citizens’ Services, which means that there are 53 remaining which are also reduced. I wasn’t quite clear as to what the disposition was of those 53 FTEs. Are any of them completely eliminated as either persons or positions? Where have they gone to?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Of the 53 FTEs, most of them were temporary and auxiliary positions. There have been no layoffs. Everybody who has moved along has headed out on a natural business cycle.

We will be and are staffed to continue to deliver on my mandate. It’s important to note, also, that my ministry is relatively new. When it was stood up, it was stood up with extra staff. It was stood up in a transition from a response model to the four-phases model.

Now, from that initial standup, we’ve really had a stabilization of our workflows. We have excellent attention to the four phases of emergency management, which is so important, because as I noted in my opening remarks, making sure that we’re doing our part with preparation and with mitigation really saves us so much. It saves us so much money, but it saves communities. It saves the heartbreak of people having to deal with a climate-fuelled natural disaster.

These phases are incredibly important. I’d also just like to say thank you to all my staff who work in the different phases.

You think about emergency management, and you think about response. You think about the people deploying the tiger dams. You think about the people helping with ESS. But it’s also all those staff who are working so hard on helping communities to get their risk assessments completed to make sure that their community is thinking about how they build and where they build and to also work with communities on the projects that matter to them, to make sure that we’re reducing risk in really important ways. And we do that through our DRIF funding.

We have lots of different tools that we can use for helping communities, and I just really want to thank everybody involved in that work.

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

In the ministry financial summary, it’s indicated that disaster financial assistance remains unchanged, year over year. I wonder what assumptions support that static allocation.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: DFA. That amount is an amount that speaks as a placeholder because you really can’t budget for disasters. It’s impossible to know year to year exactly how the year will unfold. For example, it was a slightly quieter year last year, but there are certainly years where we find ourselves bearing the brunt of climate-fuelled disaster.

I think that it’s important to note that while the amount may be static, we’re always improving processes. We’re improving these processes for communities and for individuals. We’ve developed an electronic portal where you can submit your application for DFA. Also, for communities, there are templates for damage assessments. It’s really important to know that we are not standing still. We are always looking for ways to better deliver for British Columbians.

For amounts that are in excess of the amount noted here, those amounts for DFA go into my Vote 22, which is our statutory appropriation for response costs.

We are always looking for ways to be more efficient. I think our work in DFA is a really good example of that.

Sheldon Clare: What were the actual DFA expenditures in 2025 compared to this fixed amount?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: DFA is interesting because we are working with municipalities often in getting projects forward in the event that they needed to make a DFA claim. As they do approve projects — and part of the approval process is that there needs to be documentation, often engineering assessments, those kinds of things — that approval process has some time taken in with it.

Then as the municipalities do the projects, the costs come in over time. Municipalities don’t necessarily do the projects immediately. They may be waiting for a window to do construction that avoids…. Like a fish window, for example. You need to be able to take into consideration some of those impacts.

We also offer extensions to local governments. Sometimes they ask for extensions. We want to be good partners in delivering good work, so we grant those extensions. So these amounts may come in over time.

This year we dispersed $16.74 million to local governments and First Nations and $1.2 million to homeowners. But I know that there’s more to come, because we had an event in December — the December storm. The application window only just recently closed for those applications. Again, they take time to be assessed. There’s work involved in that.

Again, to my first point, those costs kind of trickle in over time. But we make sure that municipalities, First Nations, are supported in this work, and we are happy to help them in whatever way we can.

Sheldon Clare: Do you expect that these actual costs will exceed the allocation granted in 2025? If so, why was the budget not adjusted accordingly, either up or down, to meet with the previous year’s actuals?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: On the DFA, we wouldn’t be moving that number up and down. We don’t need to move it up because any excess DFA claims would be going through to our Vote 22. That’s the statutory appropriation for emergency costs, so they would be covered.

Should our numbers be lower, well, we know that there are more costs coming, right? We know that we had an event in December, and we know that there are additional costs coming. So to move that number around isn’t a really productive exercise.

The most important thing that we can do is focus on delivering support for people who need it, for communities who need it, for First Nations who need it. In the aftermath of emergency, supporting those communities in their recovery efforts is absolutely our number one priority.

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

When these applications for DFA funding come in, what percentage of them comes from municipalities? What comes from regional districts? What comes from individuals? What comes from First Nations? Is there a pattern that you have charted or graphed with respect to how these applications come in or the damages?

I recognize, to be fair, that different emergencies require different allocations, and you can’t predict, necessarily, something that’s going to happen.

I mean, I recall predicting a fire that happened in Jasper a few years ago when I was chair of the Alpine Club of Canada’s Prince George section. I said: “You’ve got an awful lot of stuff in the woods here that’s very dry, and there’s going to be a big fire here one day.” I think I told them that 27 years ago, and I’ve seen the fruits of that.

I just wonder. What percentages of allocation do you typically see?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think it’s…. Just an important notation before I go forward with the answer. The number of local authorities that receive support for DFA doesn’t necessarily equal the number of projects. A community may have more than one project. In the past year, DFA supported 26 local authorities with 120 public infrastructure recovery projects. That’s not including the 2025 December storm event because applications were being accepted up until April 13, so that’s just very recently.

Then as part of that, some disbursals have happened. That $16.74 million to local governments and First Nations for recovery projects includes $5.1 million to the city of Chilliwack for a number of different projects.

[3:45 p.m.]

They include significant road and culvert repairs at Bowman Road, Camp River Road, Thornton Road, Hope River Road, Atchelitz Road. My apologies to anybody in the city of Chilliwack if I pronounced that wrong. I am a Richmond resident, so I, unfortunately, may not be familiar with that one, but I’m glad that we were able to support them. And Karson Road, Majuba Hill Road.

There was $3.1 million to Grand Forks for the North Ruckle dike, $946,000 to the town of Princeton for a water main, $945,000 to the Cowichan Valley regional district for culvert and trail repair, $672,000 to the city of Merritt for a water main. We’re doing really good work in partnership with communities.

That’s the public stream. There’s also a private stream of DFA, and that’s to support homeowners, tenants, farms, businesses and charitable organizations.

Then from the 2024 October storm event that impacted many people in the Lower Mainland, there’s $1.2 million disbursed for that particular event.

I think it’s important to know that we’ve improved the DFA program. We launched online portals, as I mentioned, for both public and private so that those application processes can be streamlined.

I think that when people interact with government, they don’t expect a paper form, and it’s not a particularly efficient way for us using staff resources, so having that online portal has been really effective. We’ve had really good feedback from First Nations, from local governments, as well as private sector applicants. Not only is it less of a headache; people’s applications are being processed faster.

We’re really happy to continue this work. We’re always looking for ways to support communities, and this is just one of the ways we do it.

Sheldon Clare: Do you find with the online portals that you have any push-back from seniors or other users when engaging in the use of technology that they may not be familiar with? And have you found that any are choosing not to apply for assistance because they find the technological aspects of the application process to be onerous?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Having online portals is, I think, expected in the age we’re in, where technology is ubiquitous. People want apps. They don’t want to talk to people.

[3:50 p.m.]

But it’s also so important to be able to have other options for people who may be seniors uncomfortable with or intimidated by the technology, or other people who are facing other barriers. There could be financial barriers. They don’t have access to the internet. There is a whole multitude of reasons why people may not be comfortable accessing online resources.

We know that everybody deserves support in an emergency, whether you can access technology or not. For our DFA system, there’s the opportunity, if people need it, to mail in an application.

We also have a phone number people can call, 1-888-257-4777. Somebody can walk you through the online application form, or you can talk to them about your concerns, and we can get support for you there.

In the most recent DFA application opening, we actually had two paper applications, and they were from people who…. Paper was their preferred method of connecting with government services, and we absolutely support that.

We also know that this online portal, when we’re accessing services for emergencies, like emergency support services, is really important. So our emergency support services have been modernized. You can access them online. But we know that in an emergency, the barriers that people have to accessing technology and accessing support can become even more pronounced. If you’re a senior who’s low income, if you have a disability, if you are…. There are many characteristics that could prevent you from accessing the fulsome support of government, and we don’t want that. We don’t want that.

Our ESS portal also has a phone number. That phone number is 1-800-387-4258. People can phone for those services.

We know that in person is important as well. That’s why we continue to make sure that reception centres are open and that reception centres and trained staff are there to support people in their moment of need.

Being evacuated and needing ESS support are some of the most traumatic times in a person’s life. Nobody’s first choice is to be suddenly needing to leave their home for an emergency, whether that emergency is a fire or flood or other emergency. It’s incredibly traumatic. We have many ways of supporting people, and people can choose the option that best meets their needs. I’m happy that we have so many ways of meeting people where they’re at.

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

With regards to those who can access DFA funds, is it the case that individuals are able to apply for a task number to get these funds, and under what circumstances has that happened?

I’ve been under the impression that only municipalities and regional districts could apply for such a task number. But if there is someone who’s got their own emergency, are they able to have access to that as well, and how does that work? Maybe the minister could walk us through that.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think it’s a really interesting question. The DFA application process doesn’t have task numbers. After a designated event happens, people have 90 days to submit their application from the date of the declaration. That’s always more than 90 days past the event date, if that makes sense, because we declare the event an eligible event at some point subsequent to the event happening. So more than 90 days from the event, people can submit their application to the DFA program.

Eligible claims would be reimbursed up to program limits, and we will process those private DFA applications in 90 days. It’s important to note that it’s 90 days for the applicant and then 90 days for us to process that claim.

In terms of public DFA, we work with local governments and First Nations. We’re supportive of their work so that when an event is a declared event, they’ve already started work on some of the supportive documents that they need. We’re very supportive of them being able to get their applications and — whether it’s some of the examples that I said before, like a culvert — information to us.

Task numbers are issued to local governments, First Nations. They’re really in relation to ensuring that costs that are response costs are attributed to the correct emergency. As you can imagine, there could be multiple emergencies happening simultaneously in the province. It’s important for us to make sure that we’re keeping our numbers straight.

Those task numbers go to EOCs. They go to search and rescue and, therefore, local governments, First Nations, SAR groups, to be reimbursed for emergency response costs.

[4:00 p.m.]

In an emergency, as the member said, sometimes people need help. That’s where ESS steps in. That’s the emergency support services. ESS helps people with a number of different things. I would say that we ensure that people have the essentials — that they have their shelter, they have clothing, they have food — their essential items. That’s part of the ESS program.

I don’t want to say that people have to use ESS in an emergency. Many people also have coverage through their insurance on their home. Many home insurance policies include amounts for shelter and other incidental costs related to an evacuation, so I do recommend that people take a look at their insurance policy for their home, work with their insurance broker, make sure that they’re getting the coverages that they need, because they can also access different supports through insurance than from ESS.

This is important as well. ESS staff are going to be on site. Let’s say it’s an apartment fire. ESS staff are going to be there. Those ESS staff are deployed from the local government or First Nation, and we reimburse the local government or First Nation for the services provided in an emergency.

If people are wondering — maybe they can see smoke; maybe they’re worried about flooding events happening nearby or where their family is — they can always go to emergencyinfobc.ca. Emergencyinfobc.ca has…. It’s updated 365 days a year. During an event, it’s being updated all the time, during the day and night, whenever there’s an update in information. The Emergency Info B.C. helps describe where an emergency is happening, recommended actions to take and any other relevant information.

Let’s say it’s a wildfire. It’ll have an indication of where it is, who’s on evacuation order, who’s on evacuation alert, as well as recommended actions — so getting your grab-and-go bag ready, checking your medications, all of those things. That’s a one-stop shop.

I really recommend it. It’s a verified source of information, and we know that in emergencies, things change quickly. The website is updated quickly too, so that people can get that verified information and share it with their loved ones.

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

I believe the minister said that eligible claims are processed up to program limits. I’m wondering what happens if those limits are exceeded when there are eligible claims. There was some indication that if it needs fixing, we’ll spend the money. I’m just wondering. If people have claims and they exceed program limits, does the tap get turned off?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: With the DFA public stream, there’s no limit to eligible cost, and these costs are often cost-shared with the federal government in the event that it’s a declared event over a certain size. We do see that. We see that with our major flooding events. We see that with many wildfire events. Those costs are shared with the federal government.

The private DFA supports people to a maximum of $400,000. The program is really meant to support people and their essential needs. If you have luxury items, they obviously wouldn’t be included in a private DFA.

The best way to ensure that your household is as resilient as possible is to look at your insurance coverages, work on those with an insurance broker and make sure that you’re insured for the hazards that you might find in your area. Not every area in B.C. finds themselves under the same hazard conditions, which is unsurprising, I think, to many people.

In the event that we’re in an emergency itself, that response cost…. That’s where we spend what it takes to keep people safe. That means we are spending money on tiger dams, gabion baskets, helicopters, wildfire service. In the moment of the emergency happening, we’re doing everything we can to make sure that people are being kept safe. We’re trying our best to avoid the worst consequences.

Some of these climate emergencies…. I’ve got to tell you that these impacts are escalating. We are seeing year after year escalating impacts. They’re happening more frequently. They’re happening more intensely. We know that from the data from our wildfire service.

Our most recent seasonal outlook, I think, really clearly demonstrated how our wildfire impacts have been increasing over time, and we’re seeing that with other hazards. We’re seeing that with flood hazard, and sometimes they’re interlinked. When the wildfires burn so hotly that they burn into the soils, the soils can no longer hold water when we have precipitation, which can lead to flooding events.

These climate impacts are, in places, a feedback loop, but we know that in an emergency, we have to respond, we have to keep people safe, we have to move them out of harm’s way, and we will do that. Then, when we’re getting to the recovery point, we’re supporting communities and we’re supporting people in the event that it was an uninsurable event.

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

I’m trying to work this out in my head about some examples of recent emergencies and disasters that have happened in British Columbia.

[4:10 p.m.]

One of them that comes to mind is the community of Lillooet. That community still does not seem to be made whole or have recovered. I’m just wondering what role emergency support services and the ministry have in getting that together.

I know the minister did mention something like to make sure your insurance is paid up, because insurance claims are certainly part of these issues as well.

What’s happening with Lillooet? What’s happening with that particular circumstance and situation?

The Chair: Did you want to add clarification to your question?

Sheldon Clare: Lytton. I said Lillooet, but I meant Lytton. Pardon me.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Member.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to take a moment to recognize how deeply devastating it was for Lytton and the surrounding communities and First Nations to have the fire tear through their community.

I visited Lytton in August of 2025. It was my privilege to meet with Mayor O’Connor, her council — all very strong leaders and women — and talk to them about the recovery and about the emergency. It was very impactful to hear from them about what their community was before the fire, the challenges that they’d faced in rebuilding and what their hopes were for the future.

It’s been a long road, and I acknowledge that. The wildfire destroyed about 90 percent of the community’s residential, commercial and municipal infrastructure. It seriously affected the neighbouring Lytton First Nation and Nlaka’pamux communities. It’s a hub for that region. It wasn’t just the village of Lytton that was impacted; it was everybody who depended on those services.

Our role is really focusing on enabling recovery by funding that essential infrastructure and the essential services that are necessary for rebuilding Lytton. That includes the water and sewer systems, municipal operations, debris removal, soil remediation, site readiness activities.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’m really happy to say that throughout 2024 and 2025, we’re in that rebuild phase. Building permits have been issued, and there’s construction underway. I personally saw new homes that had been recently completed. Businesses and key community services are underway.

I was there for the opening of a new public works building. Anybody who’s been in local government knows how important it is to have that important service. Public works makes a town go. It’s just…. Anyway, I know that people know.

But we’ve also had progress on other important capital projects. There’s the community hub, the fire hall, the village office and water and sewer upgrades. We have services that are operating locally that are important for people to be able to rely on. The RCMP is operating locally as well as banking and primary care services.

We know that Lytton is a very important hub, but we also know that they faced challenges that we hadn’t seen before in the province. We’re really seeing that happen as a result of climate change. We’re seeing weather patterns and weather events that are like nothing we’ve seen before.

The village of Lytton, 90 percent of it burning down…. It wasn’t just that it burnt down. It’s that it had widespread contamination — widespread contamination that was incredibly challenging to manage. It lost all of its municipal records. No bylaws, no building codes, no nothing. It was all gone.

I just really want to acknowledge the work of Mayor O’Connor and her council in supporting their community, giving that leadership, that support, that confidence — that by working with the province, we can recover the village of Lytton and make sure that the services are there for the people that depend on them, not just in the community of Lytton but in neighbouring communities, First Nations.

It’s an incredibly important hub. I’m so grateful for my time there and look forward to working with them in the time ahead.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the update on Lytton, not Lillooet.

I have some other questions to ask about spending and capital issues. The 2026 service plan financial summary shows minimal capital investment, and I wonder what new emergency infrastructure is being funded and planned for. Given the risks to the infrastructure, I’m wondering if this is something that is getting enough attention.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: In terms of capital that EMCR would have responsibility for, we don’t own any buildings. We’re paying rent. We would have things like vehicles and laptops, but those costs aren’t very high and that’s, I think, why you’re seeing a low capital amount. Some of the equipment that we might use for communications would be owned by and have the responsibility of Citizens’ Services.

Local governments and First Nations really hold the plans for what infrastructure, what kind of capital investments they need to make in their community. We work with local governments in finding funding streams that are appropriate for the kinds of investments that they would like to make, depending on what kind of investment it is, in their community assets and infrastructure. But in terms of what we have in-house, it’s a very small amount, and I think that’s accurately reflected there.

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

Does the ministry maintain stocks of emergency supplies in depots or sites in order to look after emergencies should they come up and need things like tents or means of disposing of any casualties or looking after medical issues or anything like that? Does the ministry have any of that sort of stuff?

I remember the old provincial emergency program in civil defence, which my dad was a part of many, many years ago. They had little depots around the province with supplies and things like duck-and-cover books and so on. I just wondered if there were any depots, supplies, central stores or anything like that that the ministry maintains, looks after and has access to in the event of trouble. If not, where are such things kept and maintained?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you to the member for the interesting question. There are, I think, a couple parts in this one. One is that we hold the role as a coordinating agency across government. We don’t hold all the expertise and materials in-house; we efficiently use the power of all the other ministries in the event of an emergency.

For example, a mass casualty event, medical supplies — those would be with the Ministry of Health. But of course, as a lead coordinating agency, we’re coordinating that response in the event that it’s needed. We often rely on our other ministry partners during an emergency, because that expertise lies within government and it doesn’t have to be duplicated in our ministry to be effective. We are very effective coordinators. We are very effective at making sure that our response meets the moment.

With respect, though, to flood control assets, we do have three warehouses located throughout British Columbia so that we can deploy directly from a warehouse. In those warehouses, there are tiger dams, gabion baskets, sandbags, sandbag machines. I had the pleasure of visiting one of these warehouses. It was, quite frankly, an incredible experience to see four million sandbags ready to go — which is why you probably need the sandbag machine. You don’t want to do that by hand.

It’s not just having warehouses full of materials that are needed in case of a flood. We also have a logistics team 24-7, 365 days a year, to help deploy those assets quickly. I spoke to one of the fellows who does this kind of deployment, and the response times that he was quoting were exceptional. I kind of joked with him, like: “Do you sleep at the warehouse?”

But they’re ready to go, and they’re always watching to see the conditions. Flood, you get a bit of a heads-up. It’s not like an earthquake; you don’t get a lot of heads-up. But in case of flood, they’re watching those forecasts come in. They’re calling our PREOCs. They’re saying: “What’s it looking like out there?”

They’re getting ready to go in case they get called, because they take their role so seriously. They rightly see themselves as a critical component of diverting the worst of a flood disaster from people’s homes, their businesses, their farms.

It’s a very honourable way to serve the province in a way that you might not think of. You might not think of that as a critical part of response, but having that logistics team so dedicated to the role means that you never have to worry if the things are going to get there in time, if your sandbags are going to get there in time, if your tiger dams are going to get there in time. It’s just so incredibly important.

We also maintain agreements with suppliers to obtain supplies, depending on what kind of emergency it is. We do have agreements with those external organizations; we don’t necessarily have to hold those supplies ourselves, which is very efficient. It’s an efficient way of making sure we’re maximizing our resources and not unnecessarily holding things in-house. And we know that we can depend on them in an emergency.

Finally, I’d just like to say that we really depend, also, on the partnerships with local governments and non-governmental organizations. They’re all part of the ecosystem of responding to emergency events. It’s incredibly important that we all pull together, because when you have that tight coordination, your response is just so much stronger.

Thank you for the excellent question. I look forward to the next one.

The Chair: The Chair is calling a five-minute recess. We will see you back here at 4:35.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister.

I’d like to read out a bit of a statement. Last December an atmospheric river settled on the Fraser Valley, unleashing a flood that caused at least $74 million in insured losses and likely three times that in uninsured costs. This was the Lower Mainland’s third major flood disaster in five years. Two months later the province tabled a budget with zero new dollars for flood prevention.

That disconnect should alarm British Columbians. For the families who evacuated, the farmers whose fields were flooded and the business owners watching inventory get destroyed, this is not an abstract policy failure. It is a recurring crisis made worse by a government that continues to choose reaction over prevention.

The B.C. flood strategy is two years old and needed now more than ever. It represents years of collaborative planning and technical work. It is ready to be funded, yet this budget is left with zero dollars for implementation.

The Finance Minister acknowledged in her budget speech that escalating threats from floods, wildfires and landslides pose serious risks to B.C.’s economic outlook. Acknowledging the risk while refusing to fund its mitigation is not a strategy. It’s a gamble with public money, public safety and the livelihoods of communities that have already endured so much.

My question. What concrete remedies have been planned with Washington state regarding the Nooksack River and continued flooding of the Nooksack into Abbotsford and Sumas Prairie?

Secondly, when will the flood strategy actually be funded?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you to the member for a very big, long question all in one. I think that when we’re thinking about the December 2021 flooding, we’re really thinking about flood resilience and about the Sumas Prairie. We know that it’s an incredibly important area for B.C. and for Canada, not just with food security, which is so important, particularly as we face agricultural shocks around the world due to climate change, but also for the infrastructure that crosses the prairie.

We’ve got transmission infrastructure. We’ve got fibre optic cables. We’ve got tons of infrastructure that…. We really need to make sure, when we’re thinking about diversifying our trade with our partners from the west coast to Asia-Pacific, that we’re maintaining that connection through to the rest of Canada. Part of how we do that is making sure that the Sumas area is flood-resilient.

There are a few things that I’d like to touch on. One is that we have a transboundary flood initiative, and that was signed in October 2023. It’s a formal governance and coordination between Canada and the U.S., because we know that the Nooksack River and the Sumas River are all part of the same watershed. We know that what happens in the States affects us and that we need to do a better job with our cross-boundary communication and data sharing.

To that end, we really have had great collaboration across the border, despite the current tensions that are revealing themselves at other levels of government.

[4:45 p.m.]

We have excellent cross-border communication at the staff level. It really helped during the December 2025 flood event. That data sharing really helped us in our response. It’s the first of its kind of data sharing between Canada and the U.S. on flood modelling and forecasting. But we know that it doesn’t end there.

That flood modelling and forecasting is absolutely important and informs what we need to do to make sure that we’re avoiding the worst of flood risk. It also means that our Washington state friends have identified that they need to widen the Nooksack and remove material. Both of those things will help with the overflow from the Nooksack, which often can be devastating on both sides of the border.

I just want to take a moment to recognize how devastating the floods from the Nooksack were in Canada and also in the U.S. and also in an agricultural area. We remember that our friends are in this with us. While I can’t speak to any timelines on the Washington state side, I do know that they are looking at ways to reduce some of the risk from the Nooksack.

Through that TFI, that transboundary flood initiative, we have done work — at the most recent meeting, the March 2026 meeting — on aligning flood mitigation strategies; improving technical data and modelling; sharing that information; supporting Indigenous leadership and participation.

Some of the areas that were really concerned about flooding in the U.S. as a result of changes to the Nooksack are for the Lummi First Nation, downstream from the impacted or the difficult area on the Nooksack. So we want to make sure that we’re having all of our partners at the table.

Then we’re facilitating the discussion of funding and implementation and sequencing for projects that have cross-border implications, understanding what we’re doing on both sides of the border so that we don’t have any unintended consequences.

This table has been very effective. I know that EMCR and WLRS are currently working with Public Safety Canada to strengthen the federal participation. It’s too soon to know whether they would have a formal signatory to the transboundary flood initiative, but we know that they remain actively engaged and with staff support.

That work continues and is an important part of helping to inform the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation and planning initiative, with the very awkward initials of SRWFMP. Just to be clear. The partners represented at the TFI are British Columbia, Washington state, First Nations and tribal governments, and local authorities. We’re definitely looking at a watershed-level approach that addresses our shared flood risk and opportunities for ecosystem restoration, which often has co-benefits of flood reduction.

In terms of the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation plan — and again, I apologize for the initials, SRWFMP — that work is in partnership between EMCR; Máthexwi, Semá:th and Leq’á:mel; and the cities of Abbotsford and Chilliwack. We also have quite a lot of engagement from other provincial ministries, as you can imagine. WLRS has much of the technical expertise for flood mitigation and flood analysis within their ministry.

This table has been really effective. We funded the table to continue the work — $3.3 million towards the initiative to make sure that we can do the underlying studies that underpin the decisions of what gets built where and what risk-benefit we will see from that work, what ecosystem benefit we will see from that work.

[4:50 p.m.]

Just this last Friday I was in Abbotsford for a leadership table meeting, and that was with Mayor Siemens from Abbotsford, Chief Dalton Silver, Semá:th Councillor Troy Ganzeveld, the Máthexwi Chief McKay, Leq’á:mel Councillor Sherwood. We had, federally, the parliamentary secretary Anthony Housefather, and he is in the Emergency Management Ministry. I really appreciated his engagement there. We also had Minister Neill from WLRS and Minister Popham from Agriculture and Food.

It was a really productive meeting, and we continue to make progress on flood mitigation in the Sumas area. With our federal partners, we have the opportunity to do so much more.

In February, I went to Ottawa with Mayor Siemens and Chief Silver. This was, I’d like to say, a very momentous and important meeting. The federal government, as I understand, rarely sees collaboration across that many parties. We had First Nations, we had local government and we had the province all together speaking to the federal government about the necessity of flood protection in the Sumas area. It was a really productive meeting.

I thank Minister Olszewski from Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister Robertson from Housing and Infrastructure federally for meeting with us and discussing the real issues that we are having here. We did issue on February 5 a joint statement confirming the federal government’s commitment to partnering on this flood mitigation work, noting our advocacy efforts.

Subsequent to that, we had a visit in person in the Sumas area to a farm. Minister Olszewski joined us there so that she could see firsthand and hear from farmers firsthand the impacts that they are facing and understand what this means in context for B.C. and for Canada.

Having that commitment from the federal government to be partners with us at the table and look for ways, as we develop projects that will reduce flood risk…. It’s that they’re willing partners with us with both their expertise of staff…. They’ve been very supportive since our visit to Ottawa, with substantially more involvement federally with staff, with elected representatives — as I said, PS Housefather — and I’m very hopeful.

We are making really good progress with our flood mitigation plans and with the federal government. I’m hopeful that we will have significant improvement in being able to deliver the size and scale of mitigation work that needs to happen in the Sumas area. As I said, it’s a critical area for Canada. It’s highways, railroads, pipelines, transmission infrastructure and the most productive agricultural land in all of Canada.

In these very uncertain times, we need to make sure that we have resilience in these things that we absolutely depend on in our communities.

I’ll leave it there, but we do have…. I think there was a bit of a question about funding for flood mitigation works. We have DRIF funding available, the disaster resilience and innovation fund. That is open for risk reduction works across British Columbia, including flood risk. We work with communities to make sure that they have the opportunity to work with us for getting these projects delivered for communities.

[4:55 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: To the minister, I appreciate the detailed answer on this question.

There was a good bit of mention of Washington state and flood cooperation and collaboration. I wonder what other arrangements with collaboration and disaster management and emergency preparedness exist with the states of Alaska, Idaho and Montana as well as the province of Alberta. You already indicated some pretty strong collaboration with the federal part but also the federal government.

Hon. Kelly Greene: We certainly know that emergencies don’t respect borders. They are imaginary lines drawn on a map, but they are important. It is important to recognize that not only can an emergency spill over a border, but it could affect a neighbouring jurisdiction in a way that it would be important for us to support them or vice versa.

At a federal level, there is a Canada-U.S. agreement on emergency management cooperation, and that’s a bilateral agreement for cross-border emergency assistance between Canada and the United States.

But I think, more specifically, you were speaking about coordination with states — so directly with Alaska, Idaho, Montana — that you mentioned. We have what’s called the Pacific Northwest emergency management arrangement. It’s an interjurisdictional agreement. It’s between the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Yukon territory and British Columbia. That arrangement allows for resources to be shared between states and provinces on request, including for the provision of evacuation supports.

This agreement supports sharing personnel, equipment and resources across borders, as well as evacuation coordination, including the facilitation of movement of evacuees and responders. It could include the temporary recognition of licences, certifications and permits. It’s a legal framework that helps us have an understanding of what liability, reimbursement and resource movements are possible.

[5:00 p.m.]

We also know that that intersects, as you probably caught, with evacuation plans. We’ve seen that before. We saw that in the flood of 2021, where evacuation plans can include, certainly, a cross-border solution.

These cross-border evacuation routes are considered to be alternative or contingency plans. They’re not a default route. You would want to have the movement of evacuees preferentially within your own jurisdiction, but should it be required, these plans are available for implementation.

I think the most recent example of a cross-border evacuation was actually the 2024 Jasper wildfire, where B.C. supported evacuees coming from Alberta and supported them in their movement back into Alberta in their evacuation response. The welcome centres and traffic management plans supported that movement, and our long-standing mutual aid agreements really helped us to be able to implement that quite quickly.

I would say, to your question about the federal government, that we have excellent operational staff coordination and good relationships there. I’ve communicated a number of times with the federal minister for emergency management and certainly have appreciated her interest in working collaboratively to keep people safe during an emergency but also to be working to build more resilient communities.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her detailed answer. I appreciate that, and it’s good to know Oregon is also included in that particular discussion.

In the ministry financial summary, which indicates several funding changes, I wondered how emergency preparedness programs are affected. In particular, how would Indigenous community programs be affected, as well as municipal or regional district programming?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Emergency preparedness is really dear to my heart. I think that being prepared makes us more resilient, and that’s true whether you are a government or a business or a community organization, an individual, a family. Preparedness is time well spent. We have, certainly, a number of different activities that we undertake to get communities ready and prepared for different kinds of hazards.

One of the things that I think has been particularly effective is the Indigenous engagement requirements funding. That was $36 million over two years, and that really helps preparedness in communities. The relationships that you build in a region and the trust that you build really lead to being prepared at a regional level. Including First Nations funding means that those conversations can happen before an emergency, and before an emergency is where I think our best work happens in reducing the impacts of a potential emergency.

Folks can also apply for emergency preparedness, depending on what their project is — CEPF or DRIF funding. There are no financial reductions in preparedness programming.

We do have staff and local governments, First Nations. We have a seasonal hazard preparation call that happens to make sure that communities are understanding what potential risks are coming, and those happen periodically.

Staff also undertake one-on-one staff meetings with communities that may have a hazard profile or may have a question about something that staff can help them with. They also undertake exercises with local governments, First Nations and others to understand what everybody’s role is, where your weaknesses are, where your strengths are, so that you can always have that continuous improvement to make sure that you’re prepared as best as you can for the unexpected.

Finally, I just want to point out PreparedBC. It’s a really fantastic guide. It has information for a variety of audiences, but it’s across many different hazards. If people are interested in reducing the risk for their household or for their business, for example, they can go to PreparedBC and look up one of the preparedness guides. They’re separated by hazard, because different hazards look like different preparations that you can take.

But I think one of the things that is very useful across hazards is a grab-and-go bag. Having to leave your home unexpectedly and suddenly can mean that you may not be thinking of everything that you need. Having that grab-and-go bag means that your household is more resilient in a time of crisis, so I really recommend people put that together.

It includes food and water, medications, so you should check it periodically to replenish or refresh it; pet food, if you have a pet, because we know that we care for all of the creatures in our family; and importantly, copies of important documents, documents like your insurance documents, copies of those, copies of maybe your passport or other identification. Because the last thing you want to do in an emergency is be going through your emails or rummaging around and realizing you left something behind.

A grab-and-go bag for household preparedness is a really great thing to do, but we certainly work with communities and First Nations on emergency preparedness.

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

Will there be any reduction in funding for communities, Indigenous or otherwise, as a result of these program changes?

Now, I think you had indicated that there was no reduction in any of this program funding. If that’s the case, then I’ll pivot to a different aspect, which is: what efforts are being made in reconciliation commitments with regards to emergency management?

[5:10 p.m.]

I understand that you’re probably taking time to have multiple face-to-face meetings to build relationships. This is an experience I’ve seen is fairly effective. Given the variety and numbers of different Indigenous groups in the province, I can see that must be a rather daunting task, especially with the wildfire situation, the potential for other disasters. I’m just wondering how that’s working out.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think this is a really important question, and it’s reflected in our service plan goal 2. Indigenous People are true partners and leaders in emergency and disaster risk management. I think that’s reflected in both the Sendai framework that our ministry uses for emergency management, in all four phases of emergency management, but it’s also embedded in our legislation, including available agreements for First Nations to enter into.

It’s important for us that we’re supporting First Nations. We’re supporting Indigenous Peoples the same way as all British Columbians can expect. When a community is evacuated, everybody gets the same ESS supports. But we also know that emergencies aren’t just when emergencies are happening. It’s also in the work that happens before and after an emergency that the cooperation and consultation of First Nations are critical to community safety and resilience. To that effect, we did, as I mentioned before, fund the Indigenous engagement requirement, supporting that connection in the response and recovery phases.

There are also agreements available for Indigenous governing bodies to have that shared decision-making for emergency management decisions and nation-based agreements. I think part of the way that we support cultural safety and ESS that I mentioned before is through CEPF funding. There’s a stream of funding available for Indigenous cultural safety and cultural humility so that when people are showing up on one of the worst days of their life, when they’ve been evacuated and they don’t know whether they’ll come back to their home or not, they will be treated with respect and kindness and understanding in a complicated and difficult moment.

A really good example of a multi-jurisdictional emergency management organization, or an MJEMO, is in the Comox area. This is a community-led MJEMO, and it spells out shared emergency management responsibilities. It includes the First Nation, the regional district, the city, and I think it’s a really good example of how, when we work together, we can get much better results for every member of every community — that everybody’s role and response in emergencies is understood and that we all work together for both a safer future and in the event of an emergency, getting back to the new normal as soon as possible.

We do support this work significantly. We have an agreement with ISC, Indigenous Services Canada, of approximately $3 million annually for our EMCR services for First Nations. We have an agreement with FNHA, First Nations Health Authority. This is making sure that there are culturally safe emergency management supports for folks. There’s, certainly, an understandable reluctance sometimes to access supports through a mainstream channel, so ensuring that FNHA is there to support people in their time of need is really important, and they’re a valuable partner for EMCR.

We have an agreement with FNESS, First Nations Emergency Services Society. That’s a grant of $10 million from 2022, and they work with communities to bolster their emergency response capabilities and to support them in an emergency.

[5:20 p.m.]

We also have CEPF funding, which I had mentioned before. Since 2024 to 2026, $24.8 million has been approved through CEPF for First Nations projects. Then in DRIF, which was launched in 2024…. Since then, we’ve approved more than $7 million of projects for B.C. First Nations.

It’s important to note that all of our programs are available for every community in B.C. We don’t restrict them, because we know that every British Columbian deserves to be safe and that when we work together, we are all better off.

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

Now the next question I want to ask is about training, staffing and capacity. With the financial summary showing some reduced resources, and I’ve heard some explanations about some reasons for that, I’m wondering what effect that reduction will have on training and emergency exercises.

For example, how many exercises were conducted in 2025 versus those planned for 2026, and is any of this affected by the adjustments to the staffing that have been described by the minister already?

[5:25 p.m.]

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: We undertake exercises on a regular basis. Very recently we undertook a FIFA exercise with all of our partners to understand our emergency response during FIFA. We also are going to be undertaking a tsunami exercise in November of this year. In 2028 there is going to be a large-scale coastal exercise to understand what a response would look like in a major earthquake. We also have training and exercises available with JIBC. We fund them $1.55 million a year.

Those training exercises are for people in emergency operation centres, search and rescue, emergency services and supports and are an important component of preparedness. Preparedness can’t just live with one organization. It needs to live across many organizations, many communities, so those courses are incredibly important.

We also will attend a local government or First Nation that is having an exercise that requests our attendance. Also, if it’s requested, we will facilitate an exercise with a local government. We think it’s really important for preparedness and for us to build that relationship with our partners and have the preparation that we need in case there is a real event.

I would point out that we also incorporate learnings from real emergencies. Exercises are one thing; emergencies are another, so always having the idea of continuous improvement and how do we better respond next time. An example of that that I think is really quite interesting is the July 2025 tsunami worry. We were at an elevated level of concern for some time until we understood more accurately the tsunami modelling.

Honestly, it was really great, because it wasn’t just us activating our emergency plans. It was also local governments and First Nations activating their tsunami plans, because we are exposed in B.C. to quite a lot of tsunami risk. Many communities have got plans but don’t often have time or opportunity to test them.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

This was an opportunity for communities to activate their plans. It was a very stressful moment. I certainly was on the edge of my seat. But we were fortunate in how it ended. It ended with a colloquial nothingburger, but it did give us the chance to understand our strengths and weaknesses in activating in a real emergency for a tsunami.

I would offer that those are ways that we train and do exercises for preparedness, and there is no impact to those activities in our budget.

[5:30 p.m.]

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

I didn’t hear the answer to my question about how many exercises were conducted in 2025 versus how many are planned in 2026. Is there a response on that?

Hon. Kelly Greene: It’s difficult to say that the number of training exercises from year to year is comparable. Many of them are on request from First Nations or local governments, so it really depends on how the asks come in from folks. For example, we recently completed a shelter-in-place exercise with a First Nation. We wouldn’t have, otherwise, had that in our work plan other than it was under request.

It also depends on any events that are happening. For example, with FIFA coming, we have a number of exercises that are related to ensuring that we’re ready for FIFA to come. It’s more dependent on requests and events as they’re coming up rather than year to year. You say there’s a set number of events every year. It doesn’t really lend itself very well to comparison.

If the member is interested in the exact number, please indicate. We’ll get that information, but I would just offer that comparing the number year to year isn’t really a valuable metric.

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

With regards to exercises and training, I do think that there is some interest on my part in knowing the scale of exercises, what size they are, what type of exercise they are, whether they’re sand table exercises, whether they’re exercises that are training without people.

We used to do a lot of exercises in the military. I’m familiar with various types of them. I do think it is important to see how many there are and what types of exercises there are. I would be very interested in that response. I understand you may not have that right at your fingertips at this moment.

Have the changes in staffing levels affected any ability to conduct large-scale exercises or conduct exercises at all? Has there been any effect upon exercises because of the changes in adjustments to staff?

Hon. Kelly Greene: No.

Sheldon Clare: That was a good clear answer, and I thank the minister for that. I love those nice clear ones. I’ll try to make sure I don’t ask too many yes-no questions.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’m wondering if there are any effects upon reduced funding in terms of emergency communication systems, and if these are held by the ministry or by other ministries or if we are relying extensively upon volunteer networks for communication — such as the amateur radio service, for example.

I have a little bit of background in that kind of thing myself, being an amateur, and I wonder if there are any aspects of the funding model that are affecting emergency communications systems, and if so, what those would be and if there are any changes that were planned for upgrades that are not going forward in 2026.

Hon. Kelly Greene: In terms of communications technology, we rely on Citizens’ Services Connected Services for our communications technology.

We have no changes for amateur radio. Certainly appreciate the skills that they bring. I’ve had an opportunity to meet a number of them, including in my home community. Really wonderful people who volunteer their time in the event that the technology that we rely on, on a day-to-day basis doesn’t work.

I know that they also, in my community, do help the local government during events that bring large crowds, because our cellular towers become overwhelmed with the number of cell phones, making it quite impossible to rely on it for phone calls or even text messages, just due to the number of people on a particular tower. So certainly appreciate the skills that they bring to the table.

We are, I just want to point out, the lead coordinating agency. Often we don’t have the resources or technical capacity in our ministry, because it doesn’t make sense to duplicate the efforts of other ministries. Other ministries have technical experts. They have equipment. They have all kinds of things, and I think it would be a disservice to British Columbians to do it twice. So we do rely on other ministries.

In fact, Citizens’ Services has a really critical role to play. They have mobile vans that connect to Starlink so that we can have communications capacity anywhere in the province with very short notice to ensure that we can connect people to the services that they need, that we can have an emergency response that is strong and robust.

[5:40 p.m.]

The communications vans were most recently deployed to Tumbler Ridge in the emergency response there so that we could support the community in the best way that we could. Having strong communications is part of that, so I thank the Ministry of Citizens’ Services for their swift deployment of their Starlink vans, both in the emergency in Tumbler Ridge, which was unspeakably tragic — it’s quite mind-boggling — but also for other emergencies throughout the province.

It’s really great to have capabilities throughout government, to be able to rely on them, and the strong communication and coordination in my ministry is really foundational to making that effective and strong response.

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

I’m wondering. After an incident, after an event, there is a need to conduct after-action analysis of what has happened. Does any of the funding reduction in this budget have an effect upon after-action reviews of events and how they’ve happened? Are there a lot of reviews that were conducted in 2025? What do you anticipate dealing with in the future?

I mean, you have to wait till an emergency happens before you can count it, for sure, but public transparency is very important. It’s important to know, for people, what happened and how it happened and lessons learned. Are those going to still be an important aspect of the changes and growth around the ministry?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Reviewing events to look for places we were excellent, places that we were all right and places that needed a little improvement is just…. It’s really a fundamental part of emergency management to conduct reviews of what happened during the emergency and immediately after, ensuring that we’re always doing the best that we can.

Part of the funding that we provide to communities after an event is for an after-action review, and most reviews take place at the community level. They’re an integrated part of the response, and the province plays a supportive role for communities, for First Nations in responding to an emergency. That’s why most reviews are happening there, but we are providing funding for them for that so that that burden isn’t unduly placed on them.

When we get those after-action reviews returned to the provincial government, we incorporate any applicable learnings into our processes. Our ministry is very strongly committed to continuous improvement — I think I mentioned that before — ensuring that we’re always doing the best that we can for people and for communities. That continuous improvement is also included in the exercises that we undertake, which was one of your previous questions. That continuous improvement process is just really fundamental and baked into everything that we do.

We do also have, in EMCR, a strategic review team. It’s small but mighty, and staffing there is unchanged. The work that they do is part of our internal improvement process. I just want to give a good thanks to everyone who’s part of the reviews after an emergency happens, because learning from our experiences is a fundamental part to doing better next time.

For example, as I said, the tsunami concern that happened last year was one of our opportunities to learn from that experience and make sure that every time we face an emergency, we’re doing a little better than last time.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response. I have some questions on another topic that I thought you might be interested in.

In the financial summary, the service plan indicates that there will be climate readiness spending. I’m wondering if there is any analysis of economic return from these expenditures in terms of private sector investment or any avoided regulatory costs.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Climate readiness is incredibly important and is at the heart of what we do. It’s, really, a focus on risk reduction because that risk reduction is money saved. Every disaster averted or even partly mitigated is money saved.

When we’re facing these escalating climate impacts, when we’re facing wildfires and floods and those climate-fuelled disasters that are coming more frequently and more severely, climate readiness is so important for reducing the amount of money that we need to spend in response and also recovery. So that focus on risk reduction is so critical.

We’ve also completed the DCRRA that I had mentioned before. That can be used not just by practitioners in local governments but also by industry. Some industries are quite large and share quite a geographic area. So that DCRRA becomes helpful for them in understanding their climate risk and being able to take action to mitigate that, which is obviously important for the economy if they’re a provider that people depend on — like Fortis, for example, or other industry folks.

I would say that us being effective in our climate readiness really builds confidence in communities and in businesses. They can make the investments in their community. They can make the investments in their businesses and understand that that community or area has undertaken risk mitigation projects that keep them safe.

I would say that is critical for growing the economy and that when we’re thinking about climate resilience, it really is economic development. Climate resilience means that communities have climate-resilient infrastructure, water services and road services that businesses can depend on so that they can make the economy grow. It really underpins everything, and it’s incredibly important work. The financial amount and effort that we put into this remains unchanged.

Sheldon Clare: How much of this particular spending on climate readiness directly increases compliance costs for resource sector operators in 2026?

Hon. Kelly Greene: None of our programs would increase costs for businesses or industry. I would probably recommend that the member direct their question to the ministry that has the responsibility for the industries he’s contemplating.

Sheldon Clare: In the ministry’s financial summary, it indicates climate readiness allocations. I’m wondering if there has been an analysis done to quantify the cumulative regulatory burden that may exist, or exists, that’s imposed upon industry as a result of those programs, if there is one. What is the nature of it?

Hon. Kelly Greene: There is no regulatory burden.

[5:55 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: How does the ministry ensure that climate readiness initiatives are not duplicating existing federal or other provincial regulatory requirements?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Can I ask a clarifying question to the member? Is he referring to regulations that are for communities or regulations for industry?

Sheldon Clare: I’m asking for both, actually. I’m asking about industry and community. I’m sorry I didn’t state that clearly.

Hon. Kelly Greene: For clarity, we’re not regulating, but we do support communities in doing the emergency management planning that’s required under EDMA. Communities can undertake risk assessments. We have funding streams available through both DRIF and CEPF that help support communities in doing that really important work, noting that many communities know that emergency management is a critical function of local government. It’s not a luxury item, but it is absolutely necessary.

We also coordinate internally with the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions with ClimateReadyBC, so some of that information that maybe you’re looking for is available on that portal.

We also very much coordinate closely with the feds. We, obviously, as you noted, don’t want to duplicate any efforts, and that’s why that close coordination is so important. They’ve been good partners with us in ensuring that we have support for communities, particularly in larger events. They are partners with us in that work.

With respect to specific industries, I would have to refer you to whichever ministry is responsible for the industry that you’re interested in. We don’t regulate industries. We support local governments. We support First Nations in being climate resilient.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:00 p.m.