Contents

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Christine Boyle.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Anne Kang: I rise today to welcome a group of guests who are joining us today for B.C. Book Day.

With us in the gallery, we have Laraine Coates, the chair of Books B.C. and assistant director of marketing and business development of UBC Press; as well as Michelle Simms, vice-chair of Books B.C. and director of digital initiatives, Orca Book Publishers; and Sarah Felkar, the executive director of Books B.C.

Books B.C. is an amazing advocate for our local publishers, and I’m very excited to see their display today at the reception during lunch hour at the Hall of Honour. Everyone is welcome.

Also with us today are Michele Austin, president of Motion Picture Association Canada, and Sydney Grieve, vice-president of public affairs at the Motion Picture Association Canada.

MPA-Canada is one of the leading advocates of the film, television and streaming industry around the world. They help Canada secure many big film projects — from Netflix to Disney, Amazon and Paramount studios — and we’re so excited to have them here with us.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Scott McInnis: I received a surprise text last night that I would have two constituents here in town from Kimberley. Erin and Jamie are here to take a little getaway to co-celebrate their 50th birthdays together here in Victoria.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome this morning.

Hon. Randene Neill: Further to B.C. Book Day, I want to welcome one of my constituents to the gallery today. It’s not often that happens.

Known by probably most of the people in this House, the mayor of Gibsons, Silas White, is here as part of B.C. Book Day. He grew up in publishing, with his mom and dad, in Harbour Publishing and now runs his own publishing company, Nightwood Editions. It is my sincere hope that he will one day publish the memoirs of a certain MLA for Vancouver-Renfrew.

Please give him a big, warm welcome.

Bryan Tepper: It’s a bit of an emotional day, up and down today, but on the positive side, this is the first time I get to wish somebody a happy birthday in my family. Emily Tepper, my tiny baby girl, is 23. She’s not very much bigger still at this point, but I want to let her know how much I love her, how Mom and Dad are always proud of her.

Since Emily actually is right now in Mexico at a wedding, if she can stop bouncing long enough to show the bride and groom, I would like to congratulate Tyra Biffart and Alexei Alcock on their wedding today.

Susie Chant: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Andrii Plakhotniuk, the Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, who is here on his first official visit to B.C. with members of his staff from the embassy.

[10:10 a.m.]

I am pleased to say that yesterday they took part in many meetings with government officials, including yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Lawrence Mok: Today I have the privilege to introduce my two good friends, John and Nancy. They are visiting the Legislative Assembly for the first time and also to watch our parliamentary democracy working at its finest during question period.

Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: It is a fairly rare occasion that I get constituents visiting me here. Today I have Kamil and Louise visiting from New Denver. We had a wonderful meeting yesterday, and I invited them to question period so they could watch democracy in action.

I just want to thank them for their advocacy and for all of the work that they do to support the community.

Can this House please make them feel very welcome.

Kristina Loewen: It’s a privilege for me to recognize a member of my family today. In speaking with the member for Surrey-Panorama, we discovered that we both had tiny baby girls on the exact same day 23 years ago — effectively, twins.

Mine wasn’t so tiny, though. She was nine pounds five ounces, and she’s been making a big splash ever since. It’s no secret to this House that she’s gone through a lot of struggles in the last couple years. I don’t know where those struggles are going to take her, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t unbelievably proud of her and all of the things that she has overcome.

She has been through two psychoses from PANDAS. She’s been through relationship partner violence struggles. She is just an incredible young woman healing. She’s going to be a strong advocate. She’s going to share her story one day, and I’m just so proud of her.

Would the House just join me in wishing my Gabriella Anne Brielle Loewen a really happy birthday.

Bruce Banman: This side of the House, too, would like to welcome the Ambassador from Ukraine. Andrii and I and a few of the others — we got to share that we’re actually, like him, probably banned for life from going to Russia.

There has always been a special place for Ukraine and Ukrainians in Canada’s hearts. We have a special bond. As I mentioned to him, my grandparents came from the area that is now Ukraine when they escaped here. Canada has always opened its arms to Ukrainians, and we will continue to do so.

We want to thank you for being here. We look forward to…. This is not your first but it certainly won’t be your last visit to British Columbia. Thank you for your presence.

George Anderson: Today I have the great privilege of welcoming Tyler Large to the Legislature. Yes, that’s large as in big, just so you all know. I was hoping you’d laugh, but anyway.

That being said, Tyler is a constituent, and he’s also a good friend of mine. He’s a co-owner of Country Grocer. That’s a chain across Vancouver Island. He’s also just a great human being. A fun fact is that when it comes to Strava points in Nanaimo-Lantzville, Tyler is one of the top people that you’re going to have to beat, with 5K done in 17 minutes and 29 seconds.

I hope the entire House would help me in welcoming Tyler to the Legislature.

Members’ Statements

Sicamous Ferry Society and Service

David Williams: I rise today to recognize the truly special community initiative in my constituency of Salmon Arm–Shuswap, the Sicamous Ferry Society and its free pedestrian ferry service across the Sicamous Narrows.

What makes this service so special is that it is about more than simply getting from one side to the other. It captures something of the country charm and welcoming spirit that make small communities like Sicamous so remarkable.

[10:15 a.m.]

For residents, it offers a practical and enjoyable way to access Sicamous Beach Park and the Shuswap North Okanagan Rail Trail. For visitors, it adds a unique adventure to their day, a scenic and distinct local experience on the water that reflects the beauty, warmth and character of the community.

There is something timeless and inviting about it. It is the kind of simple but meaningful experience that feels right at home in rural British Columbia. It brings people together, supports local businesses, encourages active transportation and gives both residents and tourists a chance to enjoy a relaxed, friendly atmosphere that makes Sicamous such a wonderful place to visit and live.

What stands out the most is how this came together. In the face of a disruption and change caused by the Trans-Canada Highway bridge replacement, the people of Sicamous did what small towns so often do best. They stepped up, worked together and created something special for the whole community. That speaks volumes about the generosity, ingenuity and pride of the people who call Sicamous home.

I want to thank the Sicamous Ferry Society, its volunteers, organizers and community parties for making this possible. This ferry is more than a service. It’s a reflection of the country charm, the community pride, neighbourly spirit that makes small towns so special.

For the people of Sicamous, you should be very proud.

Tourism Week

Garry Begg: I rise today in recognition of Tourism Week in British Columbia, April 20 to 24.

Tourism is a cornerstone of B.C.’s economy and a source of pride for communities throughout our province. This week we celebrate the people whose dedication, creativity and hospitality power one of the most dynamic and sustainable sectors, helping make B.C. a destination travellers aspire to visit, return to and recommend to the world.

With year-round resorts and lakeside campgrounds, outdoor adventures, vibrant urban centres and Indigenous cultural experiences, tourism offers visitors authentic, four-season and uniquely British Columbian experiences rooted in people, places and culture. Through locally owned restaurants, world-class food-and-beverage producers, attractions, museums and heritage sites, visitors connect with stories that can only be found here and with communities that proudly share them.

Together this industry delivers real economic and social benefits for people in every region of this province. Tourism generates $23 billion in annual revenue, contributes $8 billion to provincial GDP and supports more than 113,000 jobs across nearly 17,000 businesses, the vast majority of them being small businesses. Nearly 40 percent of this activity occurs outside the Lower Mainland, making tourism essential to rural and remote communities.

In March, this government launched the Look West tourism sector action plan with industry partners as we prepare to welcome the world for the FIFA World Cup. This plan is our roadmap to leverage global attention; showcase B.C. as a world-class destination; and ensure long-term, sustainable growth that benefits people throughout the province.

This Tourism Week we thank the workers, business owners and partners who make visitors feel welcome and strengthen our communities every day.

I ask members of this House to join me in celebrating their contributions.

Friends in Need Food Bank

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to say that three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit a facility of the Friends in Need Food Bank Society, which has served the communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows for more than 30 years.

Friends in Need has become one of the region’s most innovative community food recovery operations, turning what would otherwise be landfill food waste into nutritious meals for families, seniors and students. For example, each week Friends in Need supports nearly 1,000 households, including families with children and seniors living on fixed incomes.

[10:20 a.m.]

For many residents facing rising housing and grocery costs, this organization has become an essential lifeline. One of Friends in Need’s most impactful initiatives is the perishable food recovery program, operating 364 days a year. Through partnerships with local grocery stores, fresh food that would otherwise go to waste is recovered and redistributed to families in need. Since launching the program, more than three million kilograms of food has been diverted from landfill.

Friends in Need also plays an important role in supporting students across school district 42, helping provide food for more than 2,700 students each week through school meal and snack programs. Beyond supporting families and friends, Friends in Need also serves seniors and vulnerable students, including home delivery for those with mobility challenges.

What makes this work especially remarkable is that the organization operates without ongoing government funding, relying instead on the generosity of volunteers, donors, local businesses and community partners. Therefore, I would like to thank the staff, volunteers, donors and community partners who make this vital work possible.

B.C. Book Day

Stephanie Higginson: Colleagues, I rise today to recognize B.C. Book Day, celebrated on April 21, and to honour the people who bring British Columbia stories to life.

British Columbia is home to a vibrant, independent publishing community that includes both book and magazine publishers working across print and digital formats to inform, inspire and reflect life in our province. In B.C., we have 28 Canadian-owned publishers represented by Books B.C., which is supported by more than 270 publishing-related businesses, from editors and printers to distributors and booksellers, all working together to turn ideas into books.

Alongside book publishers, B.C.’s magazine publishers play an important role in our culture and creative economy — telling local stories, highlighting regional voices and nurturing emerging creative talent. This past year B.C. authors earned national recognition for outstanding work across fiction, non-fiction, poetry and children’s books, including powerful Indigenous stories. From award-winning poetry to children’s books read around the world, B.C. stories continue to make an impact.

We’re proud to support B.C.’s book publishing community by making the book publishing tax credit permanent and continuing strong programs through Creative B.C. and B.C. Arts Council. We are supporting publishers to grow, ensuring B.C. remains a great place to create and publish books.

On B.C. Book Day, one of the best ways to show support is simple. Buy a B.C.-published book — like the one I’m currently reading right now, Unceded, by a B.C. author, George Abbott, on a distinctly B.C. topic, published by a B.C. publisher; or the next one on my list, Rainbow Wisdom, recently published by one of my own kick-ass constituents, Mischa Oak.

I want to thank Creative B.C., Books B.C., Mags BC and everyone who supports B.C.’s publishing community. Please join me in celebrating B.C. Book Day and the stories that connect us all.

Youth Sports

Linda Hepner: I am the grandmother of five boys: one in rugby, one in basketball, two in lacrosse and one in hockey. My riding has sports fields, arenas, a pool. I speak today about something special, about the bond between young athletes and the people who stand behind them, usually on the sidelines, in the bleachers or in the car at 5 a.m. on the way to a practice.

When we talk about youth sports, we often focus on the scoreboard — the wins, the losses, the championships. But the real story is quieter and far more powerful. It’s a commitment that doesn’t always show up in the highlight reel.

For children, sport teaches discipline, resilience and teamwork. They learn how to handle pressure, how to bounce back from disappointment and how to work toward something bigger than themselves.

[10:25 a.m.]

None of that happens in isolation. Behind every young athlete is a parent, guardian or family member making sacrifices of their own. They are investing time, energy and often significant financial resources, not for recognition but for the opportunity to help their child grow. They show up — rain or shine, win or lose — offering encouragement, perspective and sometimes just a warm drink and a listening ear.

For the children, that commitment is felt. It becomes part of their own sense of responsibility to their team, to their goals and to the people who believe in them.

Today let’s recognize that youth sports are about much more than competition. They’re about character, they’re about community, and they are about shared commitment between parents and children. Because long after that final whistle blows, those are the lessons that truly last.

West Shore Chamber of Commerce

Darlene Rotchford: Today I rise to recognize an important milestone in my community, the 70th anniversary of our West Shore Chamber of Commerce. In my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood, I’m privileged to have three chambers, but this one is extra special this year, and I’m also a proud member of it.

For seven decades, the chamber has been a cornerstone of economic growth in our West Shore. It has brought together local business, supported entrepreneurs and helped shape a vibrant, resilient regional economy that reflects the energy and ambition of the people of our Western Communities and beyond. From small family-run shops to growing industries, the chamber has been a steady partner advocating, connecting and championing local business. That work matters more now than ever.

Our government works with strategies about building on that foundation. It recognizes that B.C.’s future depends on strong, connected regional economies, especially here on south Vancouver Island. By improving infrastructure, supporting trade, investing in workforce development and strengthening local supply chains, we are creating the condition for businesses to grow and communities to thrive.

We know that success doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens through partnership between government, business leaders and organizations like the West Shore Chamber of Commerce. Together, we are helping local businesses reach new markets, attract investment and good-paying jobs right here at home and right here in our Western Communities.

We’re ensuring that the West Shore continues to be not just a great place to live but a great place to build a business and a future.

On behalf of this House, I want to extend my sincerest congratulations to our West Shore Chamber of Commerce for 70 years of outstanding service. Here’s to the next 70 years of growth, collaboration and success. I look forward to next month celebrating it with you.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I didn’t realize before, but we also have the city of….

The Speaker: You’ll want to seek leave.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Oh, sorry. I went straight in there. May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Now you can do it.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I just want to welcome…. We have representatives from the city of Prince George here today. I’m going to be meeting with them later. I know many of my colleagues have meetings with them as well.

I just want everyone in the chamber to welcome them into our House.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, on Tuesday, April 14, following the oral question period, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order on decorum in the House, noting that some heckling in the House has transcended into yelling. The Chair took the matter under advisement and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

The Chair agrees with the Leader of the Third Party that as the House inches toward the end of the sessional period, the temperature in the House is likely to rise. As such, the Chair will take the opportunity to encourage members to be mindful of their conduct.

A passionate and lively debate is welcome in this hub of democracy, but the Chair expects members to balance that with a respectful, productive and professional level of decorum that befits the high office that members hold.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Á’a:líya Warbus: It is clear this government has no viable plan. This Premier has gone from stating that the amendments to DRIPA were “urgent, non-negotiable” and promised to bring them in “as quickly as possible.” At one point, he was willing to go to an election over these critical amendments.

Instead, he has kicked the can down the road, leaving British Columbia in limbo once again. Clearly, the Premier has lost the confidence of his own caucus and this House.

My question to the Premier is simple. Who is running this government?

Hon. David Eby: I am honoured to have the support of both my caucus and the House. If the member wishes to move a motion of confidence in the House, we can test her allegations.

But I’m a little bit…. Well, I guess I’m not surprised to hear Conservative voices stand and speak against government taking the opportunity….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: Yes, it is a multiple month delay but the opportunity to sit down…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: …with First Nations to come up with a durable and lasting solution to what the Court of Appeal decided in the Gitxaała decision.

It is literally called the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. So the opportunity to sit down with First Nations Leadership Council, Modern Treaty Nations and Chiefs to see if we can find a path forward is one this government will not pass up.

It is consistent with the pattern of this government of working with key stakeholders on hard issues. On health care, we sat down with family doctors. We addressed the concerns that they had, and we connected 600,000 people with a family doctor as a result.

We sat down with the development industry and, as a result, led Canada in the construction of rental housing, multi-unit housing in neighbourhoods across, bringing down rents faster than anywhere else in Canada.

Our work with the private sector and on permits reform has delivered $50 billion in major project investments that are reaching final investment decision this year. We will continue this work.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Á’a:líya Warbus: The offer to put a motion of confidence and the confidence of British Columbians in this government goes both ways. The Premier was quoted as saying, again, “It is, bluntly, unavoidable” regarding amendments to DRIPA. He also stated he’s “trying to find that path to respond to these court decisions.”

The confusion and the frustrations are mounting. They are not subsiding. The framework does not seem clear. This government’s approach changes day to day, and the Premier does not exclude the courts in this chaos, stating that the courts have “misunderstood the original intent of the legislation.”

My question is very simple. Do the changes to DRIPA fall under the Attorney General, and, if not, who exactly is responsible to bring this clarity to British Columbians?

Hon. David Eby: These are hard conversations. I’d say this is probably the most challenging issue that I have had to deal with as Premier.

It is incredibly difficult to do two things. One is to address the serious challenge these court decisions have presented and, at the same time, work in close partnership with First Nations to be able to do the work to deliver the promise of this incredible province we live in.

But I would take the hard conversations that we’re having with First Nations any day over the conversations the Conservatives are having right now about whether or not to let residential school deniers back into their caucus.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby: I am serious. Those are the conversations that the leadership candidates are having for the Conservative Party right now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: And if you want to find a path forward in this province…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: …one that denies the existence of residential schools and the horrors that they brought, that denies the rights of Indigenous People, it will only end up costing jobs, opportunity and prosperity for the entire province.

[10:35 a.m.]

Scott McInnis: My goodness, I thought two-minute statements were over.

After flip-flopping three times on Sunday over the Declaration Act and what to do, the Premier emerged yesterday and said he has plan No. 6 to fix the legal chaos that we’re in. He said: “We’ll be working with First Nations to find a solution by the fall.” Wow, so much detail to digest.

Could the Attorney General stand up, please, and give us a few more details about her new grand plan?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: I would say that this House, on serious issues, requires forthrightness and full disclosure.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members on the opposition side, we can continue with that if you want. This is your time.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Okay, let’s keep it, then, that way.

Hon. David Eby: The member in this House rose yesterday and said that I wrote a letter in support of an agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm First Nation that was recently announced. What he didn’t disclose was that, actually, there was a letter that expressed concern about how the federal government was approaching relations with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, excluding the province.

Not only that, the letter was about a different agreement entirely that was released in March of last year. In addition, as part of the FOI package that was received by the member, there was an email.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. David Eby: In the FOI package received by the member that he was citing, there was an email from the Deputy Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for the government of Canada, dated March 5, 2026 — the Deputy Minister of Indigenous Relations apologizing for failing to brief the government about the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement before it was announced.

Now, the fact that the member would rise repeatedly in the House, despite having this in his package, tells you everything you need to know about what he is saying about our government’s relations with Indigenous People.

The Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: It’s nice to finally get some answers on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement from this Premier.

In 2021, the Premier brought in amendments to the Interpretation Act after a whopping 14 minutes of debate on the particulars. The changes stated that B.C. laws must be in alignment with UNDRIP. That’s exactly what the courts determined in Gitxaała. Then the Attorney General blamed the courts.

Could the Attorney General please stand up and explain what exactly the courts got wrong?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve been nothing but clear about our interpretation and take on the Gitxaała decision. What we see is a…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …difference of opinion in what the court found and what our intent of the original legislation was. It’s in our court arguments before the court. It’s in everything that the Premier said.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked about it repeatedly. We are seeking leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada to get that clarity, and we’re working with First Nations to figure out how we can amend or work through DRIPA to make sure that we’re protected.

We’ve said this multiple times, and we’ll continue to say that.

The Speaker: I think I’m going to read my ruling again. I just read it before the question period. Be courteous. Be courteous, good listeners. That’ll help us all.

Funding for
Saanich Peninsula Hospital

Rob Botterell: We know the best health care is preventive care.

[10:40 a.m.]

We also know that in this year’s budget, there is still going to be 20 percent of British Columbians who will remain unattached to a primary care provider. That’s the tip of the iceberg.

Organizations like the Saanich Peninsula Hospital Foundation, in my riding, are cutting funding support and putting Saanich Peninsula Hospital at risk. It’s hard to keep a hospital open when you can’t pay the doctors.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the ministry or Island Health cover the $150,000 shortfall for this year if the Saanich Peninsula Hospital Foundation does not reverse its funding decision?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s been an extraordinary and somewhat unique relationship on the Saanich Peninsula between the health care foundation, primary care providers and the primary care network, working together to ensure that community physicians are able to fill shifts at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital, an important part of delivering care, particularly for those people who are not attached to a primary care provider but still need that care while in the hospital.

The Saanich Peninsula Hospital and Health Care Foundation have taken an independent decision to focus their efforts on recruitment and retention, which we all know is equally important. The society at Shoreline, where a number of these primary care providers have been providing this doctor-of-the-day service at San Pen Hospital, have been filling those positions.

Island Health is in direct contact with the society and monitoring this, really valuing the work that doctors continue to do to support the hospital. Of course, the ministry stands ready to support and serve, should we be called upon.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Access to Primary Care Services for
Saanich Peninsula Clinic Patients

Rob Botterell: On March 31 this year, the SPOT clinic closed in my riding, with over 500 patients, many of whom are in complex care. One month ago I asked the minister to ensure that all these patients, many of whom are Indigenous, continue to have timely access to individualized primary care, the type of care they require. The minister assured me that attaching these patients to appropriate care is a top priority.

We have reached out to the ministry on repeated occasions, and nobody can tell us exactly how many patients lost their physician when SPOT closed at the end of March or how many patients still remain unattached in mid-April. This is really unacceptable.

To the Minister of Health: what steps will you take to provide accurate information on unattached patients and ensure that they are all attached before the end of April?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for his advocacy and the ongoing conversations around the SPOT clinic, which was providing care for some of the more complex and vulnerable individuals in the Saanich Peninsula Hospital.

The Saanich Peninsula primary care network is working with First Nations, the FNHA and the Ministry of Health to continue to deliver primary care out on the Saanich Peninsula. There are 363 patients that were receiving services or being cared for by the two physicians at the SPOT clinic. Some of those patients already had access to another primary care provider, but, as the member said, it is a priority to make sure that those remaining patients are able to be connected.

The good news is that there is space in primary care providers to be able to attach these patients, and this process is ongoing. The work includes identifying those complex patients that need attachment with W̱SÁNEĆ primary care providers, with Island Health specialized services like mental health and substance use services.

The four W̱SÁNEĆ communities are leading primary care through new primary care resources through the primary care network and their First Nations primary care initiative. The South Island Division of Family Practice is also engaged in this work.

I’d be pleased to provide the member with a more detailed update. I know that Island Health has been in direct contact with the two physicians. As I receive updates, I’ll be very pleased to pass them along to the member.

[10:45 a.m.]

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Contract for Advisory Work
by Former Deputy Minister

Lorne Doerkson: We know that this government loves to give out lucrative contracts to their friends and insiders.

Doug Caul, a recently retired deputy minister, was hired by this government to give advice on amending DRIPA. Mr. Caul was the deputy minister when DRIPA was passed in 2019. His contract is worth $250,000, a quarter of a million dollars for amendments that are no longer going to come before this House. What a tangled web this really is.

Which is it: did the Premier reject the advice he paid $250,000 for, or did he cave to the pressure inside his own caucus?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we’ve got to be careful when attacking career-long public servants who’ve served under governments of all political stripes. They provide good advice. They’ve provided good counsel to governments — whether or not they were Liberal or, in other cases, Conservative or Social Credit or New Democrat.

It’s important that we value that experience without attacking them, because they’re working hard for the public.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: They are working as public servants to provide good advice on this and a number of other files.

I want to ensure that we provide the respect for people who work hard to benefit all British Columbians, and that is, indeed, what Mr. Caul has done. I believe that his valuable work is benefiting all of British Columbia.

Government Spending Priorities and
Car Allowances for Deputy Ministers

Bruce Banman: I think the minister confuses getting value for money over attacking a public servant. There’s a big difference.

British Columbia lost 40,000 jobs in the last two months. However, we have learned that the Minister of Jobs isn’t overly concerned about B.C.’s job losses. He’s more concerned about getting his deputy minister a $14,000 car allowance.

I would like an answer to my question. How can the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth oversee the losses of 40,000 jobs, along with a $13.3 billion deficit, and then personally sign off, in good conscience, on a $14,000 car allowance for his deputy minister?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member opposite makes reference to an article by the Canadian Taxpayers association that looks at a long-standing policy from 2013, where executives in the public service receive opportunity for a car allowance.

To be clear, this is a long-standing policy, and our government….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister answer, please.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Our government abides by these policies. However, it’s important to know that we are looking very broadly in our expenditure management review at all opportunities for us to pull back on spending.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Bruce Banman: I guess we can look on the bright side. At least it wasn’t a $6,000 limo bill.

So $345,000. That’s how much this government is spending on car allowances for just their deputy ministers. Meanwhile, British Columbians are being told that they need to tighten their belts. They need to pay more taxes. People have to choose between buying groceries or paying rent. That’s what they’re being asked to do.

To the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, at a time when British Columbia is experiencing record food bank usage and lineups, my question, does she think it is acceptable for her deputy minister and CEO of CLBC to be receiving a whopping $14,000 car allowance?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This car allowance policy is from 2013. It’s a long-standing policy, and it’s important to recognize….

[10:50 a.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, hold on to your opinions, please. Let the minister answer. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s important to recognize the incredible contribution that our deputy ministers make to this province, and I will not have them besmirched by this accusation of overpayment.

Our public service is an important contributor to how our province runs. We know that they make less than a comparable role in the private sector. We know that they make less than many public servants in their roles in other provinces. It’s very important that we can continue to attract strong people into these roles. This is part of that.

It is true that our government is looking very broadly at opportunities for expenditure management. But I do want to point out that the member speaks incorrectly to suggest that somehow we’re out of line in our taxes compared to other provinces. British Columbia remains extremely competitive. In fact, if you make $149,000 or less…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …you are paying the lowest amount of tax of any taxpayer in Canada at that amount.

We take the job of managing public finances very seriously, and that is why you see, in Budget 2026, the decision to make very difficult choices. We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people. We’re slowing capital builds and re-pacing capital, and we’re taking modest measures to increase the public purse.

In this day and age of these difficult times, it’s necessary, and this work needs to continue.

Reann Gasper: At a time when this government is cutting supports for children and families with autism, they have no problem giving their deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers car allowances for up to $1,200 a month, over $14,000 a year for deputy ministers to lease new vehicles. This government is paying for their deputy ministers to drive six-figure cars while families are losing funding needed to put their children through therapy.

How can this government justify giving deputy ministers $14,000 car allowances while ripping funding away from children with autism?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Conservative math.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In Budget 2026, we added $475 million to that file. This budget made very difficult decisions, but we stood up for children and families, and we are proud of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Let’s be clear. We are talking about a group of deputy ministers…. You know how many are affected by this? Thirty-six people. There are 36,000 public servants…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …and 0.1 percent have this benefit. The benefit was from 2013. It’s a long-standing benefit so that we can compete for the best people to be in these roles. These people are not the 1 percent. They make less in these jobs than they would in the private sector. They make less in these jobs than comparable provinces.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We are proud of the work that they do.

The Speaker: Members, when you have asked a question, have the courtesy to listen to the answer. It will take less time, and more questions can be asked. Okay?

FIFA World Cup Tickets for Elected
Officials and PavCo Directors

Kristina Loewen: This government is not done giving away cushy positions to friends and insiders. Recently they appointed Rob Fleming and Jane Shin, both former NDP MLAs, to the board of PavCo, conveniently right before FIFA.

Can the minister confirm that all tickets for elected officials and PavCo directors will be publicly disclosed prior to each game?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I could speak on behalf of government and MLAs that we will not be accepting any free tickets other than our protocols and the work that we need to do to be attracting businesses here, to be supporting our stakeholders.

There will be a ticketing policy that will be coming out very soon, so the member opposite will be able to get an update soon.

Work of Chief Scientific Adviser
and Government Action on Mental
Health and Substance Use Issues

Claire Rattée: Last week I asked the minister whether she agreed with her own handpicked chief scientific adviser, Dr. Daniel Vigo, after he said that safe supply is a disincentive for treatment and that harm reduction for those with severe mental illness amounts to harm enhancement. The minister refused to answer and instead doubled down on the very policies that he criticized.

At the same time, this government is paying up to $1 million a year, plus expenses and salary support, for his advice and receiving quarterly reports that the public and opposition still haven’t seen, despite FOI requests filed last June.

What concrete, measurable results has this million-dollar contract actually delivered for British Columbians?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. The advice and guidance that Dr. Vigo has been able to provide this government is unparalleled in terms of the ability that he has, the knowledge he has, the expertise he has in helping us understand better the needs, particularly of those British Columbians that are experiencing the concurrent disorders of severe mental illness, of brain injury and of addiction.

These are individuals for whom they are not able to provide and seek the help that they need, and Dr. Vigo has helped us to understand what the needs are for those people. That is why we are expanding involuntary care options. That’s why we’ve provided, through Dr. Vigo, increased guidance to those clinicians around interpretations of the Mental Health Act as they apply to children, as they apply to people who are experiencing these concurrent disorders.

We’re going to continue that work with Dr. Vigo. He is producing a report, and we will have more to say about that soon.

Claire Rattée: That response is exactly what I anticipated. If involuntary care is the only thing that this minister can point to for over $1 million worth of taxpayer-funded work, I hate to break it to the minister, but she just proved my point.

This government already publicly committed to expanding involuntary care months before Dr. Vigo was even appointed. As far as I can see, the only meaningful advice that Dr. Vigo has provided government on the public record was his recent indictments of safe supply and decriminalization.

So after nearly two years and millions of dollars in quarterly reports that the public still hasn’t seen, did this government pay for independent advice that it had no intention of following?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think the member missed part of the last answer that I provided — the service that Dr. Vigo is providing us in understanding more clearly that intersection of psychiatric disorders and severe mental illness together with addictions. This is an evolving area of science and medicine, and Dr. Vigo is on the very edge of that, helping us to provide better guidance to clinicians so they can best serve people who are experiencing those concurrent disorders.

That is invaluable work. It is work that has not been done before. It is work that is helping us every single day to identify those individuals who need that type of care at a time when we continue to build out the entire spectrum of mental health and substance use supports that British Columbians depend on — from early intervention, education and prevention; right through to different treatment options, bed-based and not; into recovery, helping people heal on that journey.

Providing that very specific knowledge that Dr. Vigo has, again, has been invaluable service here to British Columbia. I’ll defend that work every single day.

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues
and Role of Interpretation Act

Peter Milobar: It’s been interesting today that both the Premier, who’s a lawyer, and the Attorney General, who’s a lawyer, have been using very exacting language when they talk about the courts and the original intent around DRIPA.

But the questions have actually been about the 2021 14-minute amendment to the Interpretation Act that was brought in by the Premier when he was then the Attorney General and what exactly the courts got wrong with that ruling.

[11:00 a.m.]

Can we get very clearly on the record from the Attorney General, based on the Interpretation Act changes from 2021 that impacted how the courts and how ministers are to interpret DRIPA in relation to decision-making — very clearly one of the few answers that were provided in that 14 minutes by the then Attorney General, now Premier — what exactly the courts got wrong, based on those changes to the Interpretation Act — not the original intent of DRIPA but the Interpretation Act changes that this Premier brought in, in 2021?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Let me try this again. When we introduced the changes to the Interpretation Act, and the Premier did as AG, and DRIPA, we stated our original intent of what they were meant to do.

Our issue is with the Gitxaała Court of Appeal decision. We believe, and our arguments were very different than where the court landed, that they misinterpreted the original intent of those legislative instruments that we introduced in the House. So we are appealing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a normal course of things. When we have challenges with court decisions, we appeal and we try to get a higher court to look at our arguments and correct the law on that. We are seeking that process. Yes, that is part of the appeal that we’re seeking about the Interpretation Act and DRIPA.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re continuing second reading for Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Bryan Tepper: I will just pick up a little bit before I left off to keep continuity here and give it a third try at this.

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 or anyone claiming to speak for a member of the judiciary. And it is drafted as an absolute discretion of the head of the public body with no requirement to demonstrate harm, no balancing test and no obligation to disclose after any passage of time.

This is a new exemption, carved out of whole cloth, and it should trouble anyone who believes the public has a right to understand how its laws and policies are shaped.

I also want to touch on clause 15, which is amending section 56. Currently there’s a hard limit on inquiries into review — 90 days. This bill allows the commissioner to specify a later date.

[11:05 a.m.]

So we have a system where the government delays the initial response. Then, if you are lucky enough to get a review, the commissioner can now delay the review indefinitely and specify a later date. What date — next year, next election cycle? Justice delayed is justice denied. Information delayed is democracy denied.

Why are they doing this? Why, in 2026, are we moving backward on transparency? It’s because this NDP government has realized that their policies cannot withstand scrutiny. They don’t want you to see the internal memos on why the decriminalization of hard drugs failed so spectacularly. They don’t want you to see the real data on their housing starts, which are plummeting, despite their announcements.

They don’t want you to see the correspondence regarding the cost overruns on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain or the North Shore wastewater treatment plant. They don’t want you to see the deals regarding Indigenous land claims that are being cut without public consultation.

If they were proud of their record, they would open the filing cabinets. They would say: “Look at what we did.” But they’re not proud; they’re afraid. They’re afraid of the voters.

When the Premier took office, he promised a different way of doing things, though the only thing that is different is the creativity they apply to censorship. It’s the same old NDP.

I want to return to that phrase in clause 13: “unreasonably interfere” with the operations of government. Let us be clear. The Freedom of Information Act is an interference. That’s its purpose. It was designed to interfere with the natural tendency of power to protect itself.

When the government spends $100 million on a computer system that doesn’t work, an FOI request interferes with their attempt to cover it up. When the Minister of Health fails to hire the doctors promised, an FOI interferes with the ability to spin the numbers. When the Minister of Reconciliation says he knew nothing of granting Indigenous title over most of the LMD, what is obvious to everyone is that this government knew exactly what was going on.

This bill allows them to hide the briefings that they received under the premise that it would interfere with this government’s secret negotiations. By making interference a grounds for rejection, the NDP is essentially saying: “You can only have the information if it doesn’t bother us. You can only have the information if it doesn’t make our jobs harder.”

That’s not how democracy works. The government works for the people. The records belong to the people. The people have a right to be a nuisance. The people have a right to be repetitious if they aren’t getting the truth.

I want to highlight the transition clauses again, specifically clause 26. It says that the new stricter detail requirements in clause 2, the reasonable-time excuse, do not apply to retroactive requests. However, clause 28 says that the “malicious” and “interference” excuses do apply retroactively.

Look at how carefully this is crafted. It cherry-picked which rules apply backward to maximize the ability to kill existing requests. This is weaponizing the transition. It’s clearing the decks. Furthermore, this deserves special attention. Clause 28 makes the expanded grounds for disregarding a request retroactive. The transitional provision states that section 43, as amended by this bill, “applies to requests received before, on or after the date this section comes into force” — retroactive.

Requests that have already been filed — requests from journalists, from opposition researchers, from concerned citizens — can now be subjected to these new, broader, undefined grounds for dismissal. The government can reach back in time and make inconvenient questions disappear.

[11:10 a.m.]

If that does not chill the blood of every person who values democracy and accountability, I do not know what will. This bill is an admission of failure. Only a government that has lost control of the narrative, only a government that has lost the trust of the people feels the need to hide to this extent.

The Conservative caucus believes in an open, transparent and accountable government. We believe that if you spend the public’s money, the public has a right to see the receipts. We believe that if you make decisions about public land, the public has a right to see the negotiations.

This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It takes the “free” out of freedom of information by adding fees. It takes the information out by creating broad, undefined categories for rejection. It empowers the government to label its critics as malicious. It empowers the bureaucracy to hide behind unreasonable interference.

When you step back and look at this bill as a whole, not clause by clause but as a complete picture, the pattern is unmistakable. This is not a transparency bill. This is a secrecy bill.

Clause 2 makes it easier to reject requests. Clause 3 weakens the duty to respond. Clause 7 creates new exemptions from disclosure. Clause 13 massively expands the grounds on which requests can be ignored entirely. Clause 21 introduces fees for proactive disclosures. And clause 28 makes the expanded grounds retroactive.

This is not a bill to modernize the FOI Act — that freedom of information. It is a bill to immunize the NDP from accountability. We’ve seen the scandals, we’ve seen the mismanagement, and now we see the cover-up.

I wanted to bring up — today, alone, we saw the power of a freedom-of-information request, when the Premier….

Actually, let me back up, because I was questioning how a freedom-of-information request came in so quickly around the issues of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm land deal yesterday. And today we find out it was from a previous issue.

I mean, I’m thankful that the NDP agrees that they did know about the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm land deal now through that Freedom of Information Act request. But again, if we had been relying on the later information request, we wouldn’t be expecting to see it for months from now. We are now just getting a freedom-of-information request from last year.

So I urge every member of this House who believes in the fundamental democratic principle of transparency to reject this bill. Do not give this secretive government more shadows to hide in. The people of British Columbia deserve the truth. Bill 9 is designed to ensure they never get it.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. I want to be clear from the outset. I’m deeply concerned about this legislation, not just because of what it does on its own but because of what it represents as a part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern we are seeing from this government, a pattern of less transparency, less accountability and more control over information.

[11:15 a.m.]

We have seen the use of NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, used extensively by this government and throughout different ministries. And we have seen in the public domain the complaints from the public and the media about the lack of transparency that is happening in government negotiations, in government deals. This is very concerning.

Just in the latest budget from this government, we saw an abolishing of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. The Office of the Merit Commissioner is supposed to bring transparency to decisions of hiring and firing, in terms of human resources. Yet that office is now being taken out. That’s another element of lack of transparency.

Now we are seeing this bill, which is attempting to restrict information that the public can receive in regards to government decisions. This is very, very concerning, because we are seeing a long-standing trend of lack of transparency and secrecy on the part of this government. So a troubling pattern is emerging.

Like I said, Bill 9 does not exist in isolation. It is a part of a pattern that we are seeing, a pattern where this government is steadily closing doors that should remain open.

I’ve mentioned three specific incidents about this pattern. One we see with this bill, Bill 9, that deals with the restrictions to freedom of information. Another, I’ve explained, is in regards to the removing of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. And thirdly, I’ve mentioned extensive use of non-disclosure agreements.

When you view the substance of this bill, Bill 9 will allow to charge a fee to access information. That will further create an impediment for accessing information. We have seen trends where there are less disclosure requests when there are fees involved. And that takes away from accountability.

This government has said that they’re bringing this bill forward for efficiency purposes. But in the language of this bill, there are aspects where you can extend the time period of when disclosure must be made. A significant factor is that there is vague language used throughout this bill on where the government can now decide if a request fits the bill of some of this vague language. Access can be impeded to information. That does not serve the public. That does not serve public transparency of the government.

Transparency is not optional in a democracy. It is essential. It is what allows the public to trust their government. It is what allows this Legislature to function properly. And it is what ensures that power is exercised responsibly. When transparency is reduced, accountability suffers. When accountability suffers, public trust erodes. This is why this bill and its contents matter so much to be debated.

[11:20 a.m.]

It is a core responsibility of the government to have transparency, to be accountable to the public. But when you put restrictions, through this legislation, on whether information can be accessed in the first place….

Secondly, a fee being payable creates a huge obstacle for accessing information to hold the government accountable. That’s a huge problem. At its core, Bill 9 limits British Columbians’ access to government information. It does so in a few ways.

It expands the government’s ability to ignore or dismiss FOI requests. This is troublesome. How can the government allow for behaviour that’s going to ignore or dismiss FOI requests from the public? That is deeply troubling and concerning.

Also, this bill introduces new fees for accessing information. This information, the government’s information, is the public’s information. The government governs for the public, so it doesn’t make any sense when the government is adding new fees to impede the public from viewing government actions and decisions being made. It doesn’t make any sense.

This legislation, Bill 9, weakens the standards and timelines for responses. The government has argued that this bill will create some efficiency for accessing information. But if you look at the essence of this bill and you look at the language of this bill, you will see there are also some discretionary measures where timelines can be extended. When timelines can be extended, it defeats the purpose or the intent that the government is saying that they’re bringing forward this legislation.

We know what will definitely happen. It won’t be efficiency in accessing information or processing freedom-of-information requests. What this bill will actually do, despite what the government is saying that this bill will do, is minimize scrutiny of the government. It will minimize accessing information or evidence to hold this government accountable.

Now, just in the public domain, there was a media report that this government spent $165,000 on coffee for an event in the U.S. That’s $165 per coffee cup. When that came out in the public, there was uproar. The public doesn’t agree with that. The public does not agree with that. The public agrees that there needs to be transparency. The public should have access to that information. That’s the point. Public should have access to that information.

What this legislation is going to do is make it tougher for accessing information such as that. The information that came about…. There were reports that this type of legislation is going to make it more difficult to get that type of information. That’s the point.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s the process. It’s the transparency. That’s what I’m getting at. Providing transparency is the utmost responsibility of the government. If you take that to the public, do you think the government should be less transparent or more transparent? I’m pretty sure the public is going to say the government should be more transparent. That’s the point that I’m trying to make here.

There are some real troubling issues with some of the language of this bill. Some of the impediments I spoke about earlier. I was speaking to vague, undefined terms that appear throughout this legislation, where information can be restricted.

For example, the bill talks about how information can be restricted where there are issues of abusiveness, malicious or repetitious or excessively broad requests and requests that may unreasonably interfere with operations of the government. When you look at these words where information requests can be restricted, they can be restricted where the government feels the requests are abusive, where the government feels the requests are malicious, where the government feels that the requests are repetitive, where the government feels the requests are excessively broad and where the government feels that the requests may lead to unreasonably interfering with operations of the government.

We’ve seen examples of legislation from this House that have resulted throughout the court process. We’ve seen court cases that are interpreting legislation passed from this House. We’ve seen the government state it wasn’t the intent of the government to have certain legislation interpreted how the courts are interpreting that legislation. Now, when you have overly broad terms used in this particular bill, where the government can prohibit access to information based upon certain categoric words that can be interpreted quite broadly, there can be a significant restriction on how much information the public gets access to.

This is a problem. This is a problem when you have vague wording that can allow for restricting of information. None of these terms that I just spoke about are well defined. They are left entirely open to interpretation. And who is actually doing the interpreting? Well, the interpreting is going to be done by the government, so there are these broad words used, which will allow for the restricting of information to the public.

These broad words that are used for restricting information access.... The interpretation of those words will be left to the government. That’s an issue because, on one hand, there are transparency issues. There is an overall pattern of a lack of transparency happening. On the other hand, there is more legislation such as Bill 9 that’s being brought forward, where there are restrictions put in place to future requests for information.

[11:30 a.m.]

The interpretation of those restrictive words is going to be left to the government to decide what those restrictive words mean and whether requests can be denied. At a time where we are seeing a pattern of lack of transparency, the government should be bringing bills to this House that provide more transparency, not less.

This bill is deeply troubling. There are huge risks involved in terms of the vague language in this bill, as I’ve mentioned. I’ve enumerated the different words that can be used to restrict access to information. I’ll just give a few examples of how the vague terms create a problem for accessing information in practice.

The use of these vague terms restricting information means that requests that are inconvenient to the government can be labelled in ways that justify ignoring them. It means that persistent applicants, people who are simply trying to get answers, can be dismissed as repetitious, can be dismissed for their persistence in trying to access information.

What these vague terms of restriction mean is that broad requests, often necessary to uncover systematic issues, can be dismissed as excessively broad. These vague terms of restriction also mean that any request that creates political discomfort could be framed as interfering with government operations. We’re dealing with a dangerous precedent here in terms of unjustly restricting information to the public with this bill.

As I mentioned, we’re dealing with a government that’s already struggling with transparency issues. This is where context matters, because this is not a government with a strong track record of transparency. This is a government that has already faced criticism for being overly secretive. When the same government brings forward legislation that expands its ability to ignore information requests, we have every reason to be concerned.

This legislation has a provision that allows the government to charge fees for records that currently don’t have an impediment of pricing involved or fees involved. This is problematic. Bringing in new fees is problematic. Putting new fees on information that is supposed to be information of public domain is problematic.

[11:35 a.m.]

This legislation also raises a simple but important question: should British Columbians have to pay to access information that already belongs to them? That is what this bill enables. This bill creates a system where transparency can be paywalled, and that’s not acceptable.

Again, this bill and what it brings in terms of lack of transparency fit into a broader pattern. The government has already introduced fees into the FOI system. This government was warned at that time that it would reduce access, and now instead of removing barriers, they are adding more. Step by step, access to information is becoming more difficult, more expensive and more restricted.

If the government were serious about improving the FOI system, which seems to be the intent being put forward by the government, they would address the issue that people care about the most — delays. We know that applicants have been waiting an average of 192 additional business days beyond standard timelines. That is unacceptable. What does this bill do? It weakens the requirement to respond “without delay” and replaces it with “without unreasonable delay.” This is not stronger accountability; this is weaker accountability.

Putting Bill 9 into the bigger picture, we are seeing a step back from transparency. The government is expanding its ability to refuse information requests. The government is introducing new costs for access. The government is weakening response timelines and operating within a broader pattern of secrecy, from NDAs to removing independent oversight to now limiting access to information. This is not a coincidence; this is a direction of this government.

Public trust is at stake. The real issue here is trust, public trust. Once people start to believe that a government is hiding information, once the public start to believe that access is being restricted and once the public start to feel that they are being shut out, that very public trust is very difficult to rebuild.

Freedom of information is not a technical issue. It is a democratic principle. It ensures that governments remain accountable to the people they serve, but Bill 9 moves us in the wrong direction. It limits access, it introduces costs, and it expands the government’s ability to avoid scrutiny. Perhaps most concerning of all, this bill fits into a broader and troubling pattern of reduced transparency from this government.

From NDAs to eliminating oversight to restricting access to information, British Columbians are seeing a government that is becoming less open, not more, and that should concern every member of this House.

[11:40 a.m.]

Kristina Loewen: There is something that sits at the very heart of a functioning democracy: transparency. Freedom-of-information laws exist for a simple but powerful reason. Government works for the people, not the other way around. When citizens elect representatives and fund programs through their taxes, they have the right to know how those decisions are being made, how their money is being spent and whether those in power are acting responsibly.

Freedom of information is one of the primary tools that allows that scrutiny to happen. It allows journalists to investigate stories that matter to the public. It allows citizens to understand decisions affecting their communities. And it allows members of this Legislature, both government and opposition, to ensure accountability.

In British Columbia, our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was designed to ensure that records held by public bodies can be accessed by the public, while still protecting privacy and security where necessary. It recognizes a simple principle, that information created by government ultimately belongs to the public.

History has shown that when access to information is strong, democracy itself is stronger. Across Canada and here in British Columbia, some of the most important public interest stories have come from freedom-of-information requests. Journalists use these requests to obtain briefing notes, internal emails and policy documents that reveal how decisions were made behind the scenes. Those records shine a light on government activity that might otherwise remain hidden. This is not something governments should fear; it’s something governments should welcome.

Transparency is not only about releasing documents. It’s also about allowing the public to understand the data behind government decisions. Too often British Columbians hear headline numbers — the cost of a program, the number of housing units built or the size of an investment — without seeing the records that explain how those numbers were calculated. British Columbians deserve to understand how those numbers are built.

Does a statistic include all the variables? Does it account for the full cost of taxes, fees, admin and long-term impacts? Without access to the underlying records, the public cannot properly evaluate whether a policy is working or whether the numbers being presented tell the full story.

Freedom of information is often the only tool available to uncover those details, and when that access becomes more difficult, the public’s ability to evaluate government decisions becomes weaker. When access to information becomes restricted, suspicion grows. People begin to wonder what information they are not seeing, and that is exactly why freedom-of-information laws must always lean towards openness. Transparency lends itself towards trust. It’s trust-building.

Freedom of information is not just used by journalists or political actors. Everyday British Columbians use it as well. In the Okanagan region, we are seeing increasing numbers of citizens turning to freedom-of-information requests to better understand decisions affecting their communities. The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen recently reported that freedom-of-information requests from the public have more than doubled in recent years, with dozens of requests submitted for records ranging from planning decisions to government communications.

Many of these requests are not coming from lawyers or large media organizations. They are coming from ordinary residents — people trying to understand why a decision was made; people seeking information that may affect their neighbourhood, their property or their livelihoods. That is transparency in action. It is citizens participating in their democracy. When those requests are answered openly, it builds confidence that public institutions are working in the public interest.

Transparency is not a partisan issue. It is not a Conservative or an NDP issue. It is democratic, a democratic principle. No matter who forms government, the public must have the ability to ask questions and receive answers. That is why legislation affecting freedom of information deserves careful scrutiny in this Legislature.

[11:45 a.m.]

When access to information becomes more difficult, when requests can be dismissed more easily or new barriers created, it does not simply affect journalists or political opponents. It affects every British Columbian who wants to understand how their government operates.

That’s why this debate around Bill 9 matters so much. The strength of our democracy depends not only on elections but on the ability of the public to see what their government is doing between those elections. Transparency is not a threat to good government; it’s what makes a good government possible.

Before we can properly debate Bill 9, it’s important that British Columbians understand what this legislation does. When we strip away the legislative language and technical wording, the reality is quite simple. Bill 9 makes it easier for a government to refuse freedom-of-information requests and harder for citizens to obtain records that belong to the public.

It does this in two key ways. First, it expands the grounds government can use to ask that requests be dismissed. Second, it introduces new fees related to records that are supposed to be proactively disclosed.

Let us begin with the first change. Under clause 13, Bill 9 expands the categories government bodies can use to ask the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to dismiss a request entirely. The bill introduces terms such as “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad” or requests that “unreasonably interfere” with operations of government.

At first glance, these phrases may sound reasonable. No one would argue that a truly abusive request should overwhelm public institutions. But the concern here is not the intention; it is the wording. These are broad and subjective terms. What is excessively broad to a ministry might simply be a citizen trying to understand a complicated issue. What is considered repetitious could be someone following up on incomplete or heavily redacted records. And what is deemed to interfere with operations could simply mean a request that asks difficult questions.

Public bodies already have the ability to apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard abusive requests. That authority already exists. Bill 9 expands those powers further, and that raises a reasonable question. If government already has tools to deal with abusive requests, why widen these powers?

This concern is not theoretical. We have already seen situations in British Columbia where public bodies have argued that requests interfered with their operations. For example, in the Okanagan, the district of Summerland applied to the Privacy Commissioner to limit a resident’s freedom-of-information request after dozens of submissions related to municipal decisions and bylaw matters. The commissioner ultimately allowed the municipality to disregard multiple requests because responding would generate tens of thousands of pages of records and require significant staff time.

That case demonstrates something important. The system already has mechanisms to deal with extreme circumstances. What Bill 9 risks doing is widening the definition of what counts as a problem request. Once that door opens, legitimate requests, including those from journalists and citizens asking difficult questions, could be dismissed more easily.

Freedom-of-information requests often begin broadly because the public simply does not know what records exist inside government. Citizens cannot request a document that they do not know exists. Instead, they request categories of records — emails, briefing notes, internal reports — that may shed light on how a decision was made. If government gains the ability to dismiss requests simply because they are considered too broad, the risk is that important records will never see the light. And that matters.

Many of the most important public interest stories in Canada have come from freedom-of-information requests — internal emails revealing policy decisions, reports identifying problems in public programs, records explaining how key decisions were made. Those revelations are not always comfortable for governments, but they are essential for democracy.

The second major change appears in clause 21. This provision would allow public bodies to charge fees for copies of records, even when those records are made available through proactive disclosure. The entire purpose of proactive disclosure is to make information available to the public without requiring formal requests. It’s meant to increase transparency.

Charging fees for those records undermines that principle. It creates a financial barrier to accessing information that should already be public.

[11:50 a.m.]

Students, researchers, journalists and community organizations often operate with limited resources. When fees become part of the system, some people simply stop asking for records. And when fewer people ask questions, fewer answers come to light.

In the Okanagan, we have seen how freedom of information can help residents understand decisions made by local governments. Across municipalities and regional districts, residents regularly use freedom-of-information requests to obtain records about development approvals, bylaw enforcement decisions, contracts and internal communications.

Local governments maintain extensive lists of documents that are only available through freedom of information, everything from contracts and development files to expense claims and internal reports. These records allow residents to understand decisions affecting their neighbourhoods and their communities. When residents question a development decision, when they want to know how tax dollars are being spent, when they want to see the background behind a policy decision, freedom of information provides that path to answers.

The challenge with Bill 9 is not that it introduces one dramatic change. It introduces a series of small barriers. Each one may appear minor on its own, but together, they move the system in a different direction, a direction where requests can be dismissed more easily, where fees discourage access and where citizens must work harder to obtain information that ultimately belongs to them. That is why this legislation deserves careful scrutiny.

At the heart of this debate is a very simple question. If the information created by government ultimately belongs to the public, why are we making it harder for the public to access it? If the records exist because taxpayers funded the work that produced them, why are taxpayers being asked to pay again to see them?

[The Speaker in the chair.]

These are not partisan questions. They’re democratic ones, ones that I’m asking for all British Columbians today. The strength of our institutions does not come from controlling information. It comes from trusting the public with it. And the strength of our democracy is measured not by how easily government operates in private but how open it is to the people it serves.

One of the reasons Bill 9 raises such serious concerns is that it does not exist in isolation. If this legislation were the only proposal affecting transparency and oversight in British Columbia, perhaps, it could be viewed as a narrow administrative change. But when we step back and look at the broader landscape, it becomes clear that Bill 9 is part of a larger pattern, a pattern where transparency is being weakened and independent oversight is being reduced. That should concern every member of this Legislature, regardless of party, because transparency is not a partisan principle. It’s a democratic one.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place to continue at the next sitting and move adjournment of debate.

Kristina Loewen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: 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. Laanas / Tamara Davidson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

On clause 5 (continued).

Ward Stamer: On clause 5, we had a fairly lengthy discussion yesterday on the contract logging authorization portion of it. Just looking for a little bit more clarification from the minister on this.

When we talked about the minister’s remarks about stringent requirements and regulations, that also comes back to the operational plan that is mentioned throughout Bill 14. Does Bill 14 add additional standards and restrictions that are already currently in the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Act?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Happy to walk the member through this again.

As I noted several times yesterday in discussion on previous acts, everyone is to abide by the Forest Act and FRPA. The use of the word “stringent” is not something new that is just being added as it relates to this legislation. It was amended. The Forest Act and FRPA were amended in 2024, in relation to the use of cutting permits and road permits as well.

I would remind the member again that the intent of government, through these changes in relation to the word “stringent,” is to talk about the specifying of the work as it relates to contract logging, making sure that we’re not just aligning the work to the legislation but actually giving the specifics around how we do that.

Ward Stamer: To further that, as we were talking about those standards…. The reason why I’m also bringing it up is that with policy and regulation changes through FRPA, there have already been some significant changes in the authority when it comes to setting up, designing and developing blocks throughout the province of British Columbia. A lot of the work that was previously done by licensees has now been shifted over to government.

When we start looking through these lenses at operational plans and forest stewardship plans, we also look at…. When we talk about standard-making bodies, what other standard-making bodies are being involved in this process? When we talk about designing these blocks and designing where we’re logging and having changes to policy and regulation….

My question is: are there additional rules and regulations that are going to be superseding what’s already in the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Act inasmuch as…? Will there be more stringent environmental conditions that are higher than what is currently the standard in our statutory law?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m not entirely sure what the member refers to when he says that industry had a role to play in terms of designing and that now government has somehow taken that on. I’m just not aware of what exactly he’s referring to, so if he wants to go down that road in relation to clause 5, I’m happy to take questions.

I just want to remind the member again that the intent when we talk about stringent regulations is to ensure that we’re specifying the work and aligning it with FRPA and providing that discretion to timber sale managers. That is the intent of the legislation. That is the intent as we speak to the work that could happen with contract logging.

In relation to standard-making bodies, we touched on this yesterday. Third-party certification is the only intent there for the Ministry of Forests as it relates to that part of the legislation.

Ward Stamer: Maybe just for clarification, can the minister explain what the third-party accreditation or the third parties are in that process?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re really proud to have a partnership with SFI, the sustainable forestry initiative. B.C. Timber Sales utilizes that as their third-party certification.

Ward Stamer: When we talk about the contractor logging authorization…. I think we talked a little bit about it yesterday, and I’d like to be able to ask a couple more questions when it comes to that. If BCTS is going to be responsible for the work that’s going to be taken forth on the ground in a particular block, inasmuch as instead of…. In the past, the timber would be sold, and somebody would assume the licence and go and do the logging.

[11:15 a.m.]

Who, ultimately, is responsible if there’s any environmental damage that is created in that process by the contract logger?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It would be B.C. Timber Sales, unless the individual doing the work is in violation of the contract.

Ward Stamer: To expand a little bit more on that, does the minister have any examples of what the bidding process and deposits may look like with those risks?

Currently with the BCTS program, a contract logger that would turn around and purchase that licence, in all reality, assumes many of the risks that could happen on the ground, and that is their legal responsibility in that set-up.

So if the minister is going to be changing the parameters on how that work is going to be done, can the minister explain what the bidding process and, possibly, the deposits would look like on trying to form that risk package so that BCTS isn’t totally on the hook if there’s any damage done? Can he elaborate a little bit more on what BCTS is looking at doing?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I remind the member that, as we touched on yesterday, the intent is for us to ensure that the work that we’re doing aligns with the government procurement process set by the Minister of Finance.

As it relates to deposits, I would advise the member that we’re not at the stage yet where we have specifics. We would be working, past royal assent, with the Truck Loggers Association, Interior Logging Association, North West Loggers Association and the contracting community to be able to engage on the best approach forward.

I think it’s a reasonable question and something we’ll certainly be looking at once we get through royal assent.

Ward Stamer: To further that, what are the levels of qualifications that are also going to be used? I’m sure that those are going to be forthcoming as well. Can the minister give us a couple of examples of what types of levels of qualifications the ministry will be looking for in these contract logging authorizations?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: As we touched on yesterday, we will be working, once royal assent is received on Bill 14, with the contracting community on preset qualifications. We’re looking forward to doing that work with them.

I would note for the member…. Experience, their record, whether they are safety certified and whether they have suitable equipment are examples that the member is probably looking for, in terms of what we would be looking for.

Ward Stamer: As the minister just mentioned equipment, are there going to be very specific lists of equipment that these contractors are going to need in the performance of these duties, or will there still be the flexibility of the contractor base to determine how that work is actually going to be done on the ground?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It really depends on the contract and the type of work that is underway, but the intent of the Ministry of Forests and B.C. Timber Sales is to be able to work with the contracting community, because we want the contracting community to be able to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise.

[11:20 a.m.]

Ward Stamer: Is the minister aware of any contract thresholds that are going to be required for First Nations contractors?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: No.

Ward Stamer: On the contract authorization, when we talked about risk yesterday, we also talked a little bit about the opportunities with BCTS, where BCTS may put, through their program of bidding for licences, First Nation blocks. I’d like a little bit more information on this. Again, it goes back to the clause 5 with the contractor logging authorization and some of the risks that could be associated with the work and possible risks not only to the contractor but also to the government.

Can the minister expand a little bit more on the risk factors if BCTS assumes a block that has been developed by First Nations and bids it onto their website and, ultimately, takes chain of custody on that? Is that risk now assumed by the provincial government and the BCTS, or is that risk shared with First Nations?

Can the minister explain to me how that risk actually works out?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re in the early stages where we are developing more of these partnerships, so there’s obviously nothing yet in relation to contract logging because Bill 14 hasn’t passed yet.

I would advise the member…. As I touched on yesterday, there have been examples where First Nations…. I’m not aware of community forests. I’ll check in with my team in regards to that. But certainly, First Nations have used the BCTS auction system to use our bidding process, and, in that case, we would have an agreement in place with them. It would depend on the agreement, but, in many cases, that would be a shared responsibility and shared risk as well.

Ward Stamer: To further that from the minister, is that a statutory decision that’s going to have to be made, or is that a policy or regulation to be made on sharing that risk?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There’s nothing in Bill 14 that speaks to the statutory piece that the member is referring to. That would just sit in the agreements that we would have with nations. I have been advised by my team that we have had similar cases with community forests as well.

Ward Stamer: The reason I’m asking these lines of questions is because they refer directly back to clause 5 about the contractor obligations. Again, if BCTS ends up developing a block with their people and whether they put that block on the auction system the way we have now where a contractor ends up purchasing the fibre and being responsible for everything that occurs on that block or on that licence….

[11:25 a.m.]

Now, all of a sudden, we end up having a situation where BCTS could turn around and offer up the same type of process to a block where there’s a contract logging authorization. They’re basically going to pay for the logger to be on the block, and that block is not developed by BCTS. It could be developed by somebody else.

Is that going to be occurring, or is that something that BCTS is not going to be responsible for? On one hand, the minister talks about having other blocks that are part of the auctioning system. Is BCTS assuming any responsibility on those blocks that have not been developed by BCTS personnel?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to be very clear. There are many examples where B.C. Timber Sales goes out and purchases blocks from licensees. There are countless examples of that. The member is well aware of that. But they have to meet our standards. If it doesn’t meet our standards, we wouldn’t proceed.

Ward Stamer: Okay.

For clarification, then, if we’re going to be talking about accreditation and talking about licensees…. If a First Nation may not be a licensee but may be in an operational area, is it still going to be acceptable in BCTS’s eyes to be able to accept those permits from First Nations? Is there still going to have to be a licence designation from them to be able to offer that process? Because right now….

The minister is correct. BCTS is actively pursuing and trying and purchasing standing timber inventory from the licensees on blocks that have already been developed. My question is a little bit further down the line. Are we going to be accepting permits from First Nations on the same level as from licensees?

The Chair: Can I ask the member to advise me how this is tied in with clause 5, please.

Ward Stamer: I will, Madam Chair, because it comes back to risk. Who is assuming the risk on those blocks? Is it the government? Is it the licensees that put them up? Is it a partnership? If somebody makes a mistake on the layout of one of those blocks and there’s environmental damage, someone is going to have to pay for that damage. Unless we have control of, actually, who is developing those blocks, somebody has to assume that risk if something goes wrong.

No different than if I purchase a B.C. timber sale right now. I do something wrong and it’s proven that I did something wrong and I caused environmental damage, I’m responsible for that. So it’s no different than if BCTS is going to turn around and take responsibility on an existing block from either another licensee or being developed by somebody else.

I just want clarification that the BCTS is not assuming that risk from those other licensees or other bodies, because, ultimately, the logging contractor could be held responsible because of it.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In the member’s preamble to his question, he said: “First Nations who are not licensees.” I think he’s referring to the fact that First Nations, in many cases, are licensee holders, so I just want clarity around that. We would treat First Nations licensees the same as non–First Nations licensees, so I just want to clarify that point.

Then, on the second piece, I’m happy to clarify, once again, that the government takes risks as it relates to B.C. Timber Sales under the current process of putting out bids for timber sale licences. Ultimately, it’s Crown land. It’s our responsibility as a government, and it would be no different with contract logging as well.

Ward Stamer: We talked a little bit about this yesterday, and I just want a little bit more clarification.

If these contract logging agreements or obligations that are put together in a contract…. We’re saying that there could be changes in the process of marketing and trying to drive more value-added on the ground in that process. I think the minister agreed that it’s not always that easy. Sometimes things have to change in the flow of things, when you’re on a block and you’re recovering value. The parameters can change in how you’re actually deriving that value.

[11:30 a.m.]

Again, you could be in a stand that originally was mostly sawlog and sawlog grade, and then through the process of initial cutting and harvesting, there is all of a sudden a discovery that there’s a value that wasn’t originally identified, a higher value, where you can get more value from the fibre that is there.

I think the minister would agree that we would want to have flexibility, no different than a contractor today trying to get as much value as he can out of the stand for that flexibility. But can the minister try to explain to me how we’re going to be able to control our costs if we start changing the parameters on what we’re asking those contractors to do?

The minister says we want to be cost-effective, and there are different steps that are going to be added to this process. What checks and balances will we have to maintain the integrity of that costing model and make sure that we don’t spiral out of control by trying to spend too much time over here trying to get a value-added product, when we’re taking our eye off the ball and the majority of the value of the fibre that was left?

Can the minister give me a little bit more of an idea, knowing that there are going to be changes to policy and regulations as we unroll this? What are the safeguards in the process to make sure that we don’t just keep making this up as we go along and we’ve actually got a clear directive of how we’re going to be doing this plan?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: B.C. Timber Sales, as the member knows, is one of the largest licensee holders in the entire province. We have strong foundational relationships with the logging and contracting community, no different than Tolko, West Fraser and Western Forest Products here on the Island, and Canfor and Interfor when I think of some of the larger operators here in the province of British Columbia.

It is really important for major licensees to have strong foundational relationships with the logging community, and in the case of contract logging and the discussion we’re having as it relates to clause 5, we would be starting off slow.

The intent of B.C. Timber Sales is to make money, to return a dividend to the province. Our intent would be to do this in an appropriate way. The intent is not going to be for us to put out a bunch of contract logging sales. We’d be working with the contracting community, past royal assent, to be able to ensure that we get this right. We would also start off slow as we start to pilot this out in different areas.

But let me be very clear. The intent is for us to make money. The intent for us is to move in a manner that allows us to be able to work out any kinks as we take advantage of the opportunity to use this tool, in addition to all the other tools that BCTS has.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his explanation.

To add to that, the minister mentioned that there were opportunities within his organization to be able to not only absorb but to be able to enhance some of the marketing challenges that we have in our province. The reason why I’m asking these questions is that we’ve already got razor-thin margins in this industry.

When we start talking about costing of these blocks — whether they’re going to be sold continually as they are today through just a straight bidding process and the contractor owns the fibre, which then ends up selling it to other licensees or other manufacturers…. Now fundamentally changing that by BCTS having custody of the fibre and marketing it is significantly different than what occurs in the private sector. The reason why I’m asking the questions, when it comes to the contractor logging obligations, is because the parameters change in the process of the work.

So I’m asking how…. The minister is saying where they’re going to take small steps, going forward, and I appreciate that. But what other steps are going to be involved to make sure that if all of a sudden this is not working out, the minister and the ministry are going to be able to pivot into something else other than continue to just keep trying it over and over again? Can I get just a little bit more clarification on how this is actually going to work through the process?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We actually go through this process right now in B.C. Timber Sales. I would remind the member that in 2008 and 2009, it was the period of time in which B.C. Timber Sales was in the red and losing money. The government at the time — I don’t give that government much credit for anything, but I will give them credit for this — made a very strategic decision to continue investing in B.C. Timber Sales at a time when we saw the complete collapse of the U.S. housing market and a global recession.

Since then, B.C. Timber Sales has continued to make money. I hope, with the increase in sales that we’re going to see, year over year, with a 30 percent from Q3 last year to Q3 this year, that we’ll get back to the point where we are returning a healthier dividend to government to be able to help pay for services and infrastructure here.

The reason I mention that is that under the current process with timber sale licences, our teams are looking at the projected log value in determining the appropriate bid, and it would be no different with contract logging. The intent is to ensure that the cost of contract logging is paid for by the selling of those logs through a diversity of means.

I would remind the member that with some licensee holders, First Nations that have log sort yards.… I think of an example in the Nicola Valley area, Shackan Indian Band and partners, who operate Stuwix Resources. I think the member opposite has had an opportunity to chat with Chief Lindsay Tighe in the past number of weeks. They operate their log sort yard. I believe it’s still operating, if I’m not mistaken. The intent that they undertake is to get the right log to the right mill for the right price, and it would be no different for BCTS.

Ward Stamer: The minister also mentioned that there were other opportunities, even with the contract logging authorization. It’s kind of a standard statement inasmuch as it says “logging,” but there can also be other works that can be involved, I would believe, in this change to the statutory law.

Can the minister explain what contract work could be done — other than logging, in this clause — that would be part of the same statute? Inasmuch as that it’s not just logging, what other jobs would be falling under this clause so that the BCTS would have the ability to spend money on that work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We touched on this yesterday — thinning, selective logging, partial harvesting, light-touch forestry.

Many operators are buying machinery because of the grants that are available, through Budget 2026, in the recapitalization of our wildfire risk equipment trust program. Wildfire risk mitigation would be one of those tools that, one could argue, is a cost on government. But the member and I both know that the bigger cost is that when you don’t do the work, you lose that timber value and you lose communities as well.

Ward Stamer: If the work is going to be done, will there also be the opportunity for the follow-up work on the logging side of things, on the post-harvesting?

We all talked yesterday about having separate contracts for roadbuilding and that. Will this change in clause 5 allow the ministry, with that flexibility, to have separate contracts for separate work, or is it still the intent to be able to have a complete stump-to-dump scenario in that process?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s always fun debating with the member opposite, a former logger, when he gets to use terminology and watch some of my colleagues hear the term “stump-to-dump.” If you’re interested in learning more about that, the member opposite will be in the hallways and happy to advise you in regards to that. Thankfully, I first heard about that in estimates a few weeks ago, so I’m fully up to speed on that. My forestry lingo is improving every time I get a question from the member.

The intent of contract logging is for the stump-to-dump to include that one contractor. But obviously, the member knows it depends on the contracts. There could be multiple contracts.

I wasn’t entirely sure if the member was getting to this point, so I’ll just provide the answer. The kind of free-growing obligations replanting would typically be a new contract, and B.C. Timber Sales already provides that work in relation to the work that it does on timber sale licences currently.

Ward Stamer: I just appreciate the minister.

Stump-to-dump basically means when you go in there and cut the tree and do everything you’re going to do with the tree and then ship the tree, whether it’s in full long-log length or short-log length manufactured. It’s basically the entire package. It may include building roads. It may include a bunch of other work, but it’s basically everything that’s involved in the process.

Again, I just wanted to….

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: That’s right.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Ward Stamer: Through the Chair to the minister, thank you for the opportunity.

Does that mean that we’re still going to allow BCTS, or you will allow BCTS, the opportunity to have multiphases in that process? Part of the information that has been received is that there will be opportunities where some of that wood from a particular sale possibly could be roadsided, and there could be additional works done at that roadside.

What I’m getting to is that there will be flexibility in BCTS’s plan, where it may not require a stump-to-dump bid. It may be broken up for multiple reasons. Maybe the minister can elaborate a little bit more on why you would even want to split that work up in the first place.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member referred to, as an example, roadside decking. Absolutely. Without a doubt, BCTS can have the flexibility to have multiple contracts and has a record of managing those in the past and certainly in the future as well.

This was something we heard loud and clear during the B.C. Timber Sales review — the need for the organization to have the tools to be more flexible and nimble on the ground. So the member’s examples and what he’s touching on, absolutely.

Ward Stamer: I know the minister touched briefly yesterday on sort yards. The minister said there wasn’t the intention of BCTS to specifically have a sort yard, per se, but does this legislation allow the ministry to be able to take that step if they find or feel that it’s necessary?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The legislation doesn’t speak to that, but it wouldn’t stop the ministry from doing a business-to-business agreement with a log sort yard.

I would remind the member that there are some conversations that we have had in the past and we will certainly have in the future.

[11:45 a.m.]

Ward Stamer: It speaks to clause 5, but I just need a little bit more clarification on that if we can.

What is the minister’s intent if and when this bill receives royal assent in this session? What is the plan in Q3 and Q4, going forward?

Again, the minister had mentioned about some of the lofty fibre goals that were advertised — 800,000 cubic metres in the sawlogs portion of it, the green timber and possibly the wildfire salvage as well. Can the minister explain what the expectation would be to the contractor base in Q3 and Q4 in this new program?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is absolutely right. This is a lot of work. It’s a lot of undertaking.

I would also remind the member that the number one job, in addition to actioning the work that comes after royal assent from Bill 14, is also moving sales right now. Our team in B.C. Timber Sales is doing outstanding work every single day in developing those blocks and getting those bids out, and that work is going to continue. Again, we’ve seen an increase and improvement in regards to that.

I’m sure we’ll be able to get into more details as it relates to clause 5 when we get back after lunch, but I would also just remind the member that during Q3 and Q4, we’ll be doing the appropriate level of engagement in terms of developing policies and regulations to be able to enact these changes, with the goal of implementing many of them in the next fiscal. That development work, as the member knows, doesn’t just happen overnight. It takes weeks to be able to do that engaging with the sector.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency
Management and Climate Readiness
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $74,403,000 (continued).

Hon. Kelly Greene: I wanted to read into the record some additional information regarding some questions that were canvassed yesterday on training and exercises.

[11:10 a.m.]

My ministry can also get additional detailed information if you’re still interested, but I’m hoping that the examples that we’re including today about the kind of support provided to communities….

Interestingly, our training and exercises team is actually out in the field in the southern Interior this week conducting training and exercises. I did want to point out, also, that EMCR does publish both an exercise calendar and a training calendar on the EMCR public-facing website, for those who are interested. The published exercise calendar covers the period of September 2025 to April 2026, and it’s going to be refreshed shortly as the team finalizes the exercises calendar for the upcoming fiscal year.

I also wanted to give you a better sense as to the different types of exercises that we lead and conduct. The exercise team plans a minimum of two regional exercises per year; a provincial-level exercise every two years; and a large-scale, catastrophic, all-hazard emergency exercise every five years. We also assist the rest of government for the ministry operations centre exercises.

A few examples of some of the different kinds of exercises that are undertaken. There are tabletop exercises. For example, the assistant deputy minister emergency council, in March, conducted a tabletop exercise with the assistant deputy ministers that make up the assistant deputy ministers emergency council that is activated in the event of a significant event.

We also have provincial-scale tsunami exercises. That’s every two years that EMCR leads a provincial-scale exercise. In this case, it’s the tsunami exercise, and it would trigger the activation of a provincial emergency coordination centre. That next provincial-scale exercise will be Exercise LUTA, which will simulate a tsunami that is from the result of a large-magnitude earthquake.

Other examples of different kinds of exercises. There was Exercise Coastal Response, which this time was a catastrophic earthquake exercise. It’s the largest-scale exercise, that is run on a five-year cycle. That one was in 2023. The next one is planned for 2028.

These ones are very significant exercises with multiple organizations and partners over a number of days, even bringing in actors to simulate injured persons. They can sometimes garner some media attention, which is good because it’s another cue for the public to think about being prepared — preparedbc.ca.

We also recently had a FIFA World Cup readiness exercise. We have participated in both a tabletop exercise there as well as a full-scale exercise led by the city of Vancouver, with many different agencies.

We have people heading up to Atlin to host a public meeting presenting the draft Atlin evacuation plan, with support from B.C. wildfire service. It includes a facilitated discussion-based evacuation scenario exercise.

Lillooet had been mentioned yesterday. On May 25, we had staff visit the Lillooet area and participate in a Lillooet Tribal Council tabletop exercise for wildfire preparedness. We’ll be going again at the end of the month for a follow-up exercise to ensure that everything is as planned. So lots of different, interesting ways of being prepared within EMC, across ministries and with our partners.

As always, emergency preparedness is a team exercise. Nobody can do it alone. We always do that in partnership. The province is prepared, our partners are prepared, and the general public can also become prepared by heading to preparedbc.ca.

The Chair: Now I recognize the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair. How nice to see you again.

To the minister: thank you for the detailed response to my question yesterday. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the diligence of your team in going and assisting in getting that information.

I do want to get back to the climate readiness aspect of things, but I have a question I want to ask before that about reception centres.

[11:15 a.m.]

What steps has the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness taken to ensure that reception centres are accessible, and what involvement have they got with local governments and First Nations to identify potential sites for reception centres?

What steps have been taken to improve and ensure that there is accessibility with regards to the standards? Are there accessibility audits that have been conducted, and is there any funding that has been made available to ensure that any deficiencies in these have been dealt with?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Reception centres are an important part of supporting people in the event that they are evacuated.

I had the opportunity to visit a reception centre, talk to some of the ESS volunteers. They are extraordinary people who volunteer their time to help people in need, sometimes from neighbouring communities, sometimes from their own communities. So I just wanted to make sure that I recognize the incredible contributions of those volunteers.

The services for reception centres are delivered by local governments and First Nations, but ESS volunteers are, I think, the real front-line heroes of making sure that people are supported in their time of need.

Local governments and First Nations identify the sites that could be used for reception centres. These centres would have to meet current standards for health, safety and accessibility. Our ministry provides funding so that local governments and First Nations, when they find that suitable site…. Should it need to be stood up, we would cover the cost of doing so.

[11:20 a.m.]

We do also support ESS equipment and training through CEPF funding streams. We have supported 600 projects that are equipment and training for ESS, to $19.36 million. That really helps build that local capacity for emergency support services, both with the training aspect for volunteers as well as the purchase of equipment that’s supportive to assisting evacuees.

When a reception centre is stood up, those incremental costs that could be incurred by the First Nation or local government are covered by EMCR. We work very closely with communities that are hosting evacuees as well as with the impacted community.

There’s also the opportunity for First Nations, if they request, for us to place a cultural navigator in a reception centre to ensure that there is someone in the reception centre with that understanding of culture and connectedness that is so important for First Nations who are being evacuated. Having those cultural navigators in reception centres really helps people who are experiencing a very difficult time, being evacuated from their home community.

We also have modernized how to access ESS supports. Those ESS supports, as I noted yesterday, can be accessed online or by telephone. Having that option is really helpful for two reasons.

One, a person who has, maybe, mobility challenges but can otherwise access technology doesn’t have to go to a reception centre. They can access their supports from where they are most comfortable. Having different options is important.

It also takes the pressure off of reception centres. Many people opt to get their emergency supports online, and that means that they’re not going to a reception centre, so those reception centre staff have more capacity to support those who need it the most. Those people who have more complicated support needs, who may have complicated family situations, all of those more complex cases have…. There’s more capacity to serve them in a reception centre.

In conjunction, all of these different things support accessibility of emergency services. It’s very important that we support everybody in a community when they’re being evacuated, recognizing that being able to access supports is not universally felt and being able to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of people of all different capabilities.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the answer, although I’m not clear that the ministry is providing any funding or conducting any accessibility audits on potential sites, based on your answer. I didn’t hear that part of my question responded to in the answer.

Would the minister care to elaborate on that aspect a little more, please.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Reception centre locations are chosen by the local authority, and local authorities have the jurisdiction for being responsible for the built environment.

Examples of local regulations. We’d have building inspectors that are from local governments, health inspectors from health authorities. As I noted before, buildings are required to meet health, safety and accessibility standards. So those kinds of inspectors would be able to do their due diligence as part of their work in the jurisdiction that they’re attached to.

That being said, if we are alerted to any particular problem with a reception centre, we would work, of course, with communities to resolve that problem, but really noting that the jurisdiction for occupancy of buildings is with local authority.

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

Does the ministry not keep track of where these potential centres are? Do they not have a list that is selected by the local authorities, and local authorities say: “Well, here is what our reception centre is”? Or is there some sort of provincial funding made to the local authorities for those reception centres? Is there not something done with that?

I mean, I’m aware of several reception centres that I know of because I saw them being used. I’m just wondering…. There has to be some sort of a list. There must be some sort of ability for the ministry to know where these centres are, the status of them and whether or not they’re suitable for the purpose.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to thank all the local authorities and First Nations for being such good partners. Our legislation, EDMA, really enables an all-of-society approach. Our role is coordinating across provincial government and also supporting local government so that they’re able to have the response that is needed to support folks in their communities.

There are some host communities that stand up a reception centre every year, so the location is known — for example, Prince George. They’re a host community. There have been a number of wildfires up in the North, and they stand by. They’re ready to go. In the last few years, they’ve been used as a host community.

There have been a number of fires that have really impacted communities and been quite devastating. Prince George, as a host community, is just really appreciated. We do know where the reception centres will be stood up because they do so year after year.

I would just also note that the appropriate location for a reception centre really varies by the type of emergency and the location of the emergency. So it’s very difficult to know in advance where the right location for that would be known.

Local governments do have emergency plans for reception centres. They will understand where and when they need to step in with that reception centre plan as part of their emergency program. We don’t maintain that inventory for them. They maintain that themselves internally because that is a local authority jurisdiction.

Sometimes reception centres have to even move because a wildfire is moving to shut off a highway or come closer to a community. So that reception centre may move over the course of an emergency. Sometimes it’s even a bus. Sometimes a reception centre is a bus, depending on what the emergency is. Whether it’s an apartment fire or other tragedies, the reception centre could be a bus or a community centre.

All of these are options that we support local authorities with, covering their costs and ensuring that we’re there every step of the way. As soon as an emergency happens, we’re all hands on deck, making sure that local governments and people are supported in their time of crisis.

Sheldon Clare: To the minister: thank you for the response.

What options are there for people, when they’re working with local authorities or First Nations, to obtain options for accessing emergency support services? I think there was a voucher system.

If you’re looking for services that don’t rely on a voucher system, what sorts of options have you determined are available, especially when things like electronic transfer, internet and that sort of thing are down and not accessible? What sorts of options do people have to receive emergency support services?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think that there are different needs for different people, and different communities understand their population and concerns most closely because it’s their local community. We want to ensure that there are many different pathways to be able to access support because in an emergency with an evacuation order, we don’t want to miss anybody. We want to make sure everybody gets the support that they need when they need it, and our emergency support services, our volunteers and staff, do a really good job of that.

From the Ombudsman report and the Premier’s task force, we really took their recommendations and worked on them to make sure that we are enabling different pathways for people to be able to access supports. We work very closely with local authorities and First Nations to ensure those supports are available.

As the member noted, there’s a voucher and referral system that can be used, but we also have the option of that self-service online.

[11:40 a.m.]

That self-service allows people to be able to register without having to show up at a reception centre so that they can immediately access the supports they need in the way that works best for them and their family.

For those self-serve options online, that would be an e-transfer. There would be no impediment to receiving that e-transfer if they’ve done the online self-serve portal because that e-transfer originates from the provincial government. It’s not originating from an ESS centre that may have spotty reception, those kinds of concerns. If they’ve registered online, that e-transfer can go through on our side.

There’s also the evacuee help line. People can phone in to get assistance accessing those emergency supports. Those ones are also an e-transfer. That e-transfer is coming from our internal system, so no impediment again to being able to receive those supports for the evacuees who are affected. Sometimes we work with communities to have prepaid groceries and prepaid hotel cards so that people can go and access their supports directly.

We do work with community to understand whether vouchers make more sense, encouraging online or phone line use. We work community by community, but we also work across government, because, as I noted, there can be barriers to people being able to access those emergency supports. We know that there’s a lot of intersectionality. We see the difficulties increase.

We do work with our friends at SDPR and MCFD to make sure that vulnerable people are getting the supports that they need. Sometimes the traditional pathways of accessing supports in an emergency don’t work particularly well for some people. To ensure that we’re supporting everybody in an evacuation, we do work with colleagues across government.

I think that ensuring that there are many different pathways and that they all work well helps us to meet people where they’re at and ensures that people are getting the support they need in their evacuation.

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

A lot of the services that emergency management and the ministry provide are based online. What sort of a backup system exists in the event of a localized or large-scale electromagnetic pulse generation issue if that is there to shut down that sort of access, either on a broad scale or on a narrowly focused scale? What do you do if there’s no access to these online services — full stop?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think that the question really speaks to being prepared. We certainly take that very seriously, obviously, in the ministry, but being prepared is something that everybody can do, and I would always encourage them to do that.

I think contemplating an EM pulse is a bit Bond villain, but there are many examples of having connectivity problems in B.C. It is something that we do deal with fairly regularly. Our province is very large. There are areas that are very remote. There are sometimes impacts to our cellular connections, our landline connections, due to the nature of the emergency. So this is not outside the wheelhouse. This is something that we do prepare for and are prepared for at all times.

We can return to paper vouchers and referrals and paper forms wherever needed. We also have communication redundancies — for example, our good friends who are radio operator volunteers. Many communities also have satellite phones, so we have additional redundancy there.

I also want to mention, too, our Starlink vans. I had touched on that yesterday. I think this is a really amazing resource for areas where we suddenly need that additional communication support. Those vans are a very important resource to be able to access. Those vans are operated and owned by SDPR and Citizens’ Services, and we can call them up at any time. They are deployed throughout the province, so we’d be able to get them on site in a relatively short time.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.