Hansard — Monday, April 27, 2026 Morning, Issue No. 163

Susie Chant: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak about a commemorative service that I’ve been attending annually for many years on Battle of the Atlantic Sunday, which is the first Sunday in May.

As always, I acknowledge with gratitude that I am speaking on the ancestral lands of the Coast Salish People — here in Victoria, the Songhees and xʷsepsəm; and at home in North Vancouver, the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh. These peoples have also depended on the ocean for its bounty and as a transportation between communities and nations.

I attended my first Battle of the Atlantic service at St. Stephen’s Church in West Vancouver in 1981. It was there that I first began to understand the enormous impact that the Canadian navy had on the outcome of World War II. Transportation of food, goods, equipment, vehicles, armaments and personnel from Halifax to England was critical for the Allies. The merchant marine was vital as the carrier of these supplies, and our navy was there to escort them through the dangers of the sea and the violence of the enemy.

[10:05 a.m.]

The losses of ships, sailors, planes and airmen were horrific, and this battle was sustained throughout the war, 1939 through 1945. At the service, prayers were said, those of invocation, remembrance. And, of course, The Naval Prayer — Psalm 107, verses 23 through 31 are read. A litany of ships is recited, three at a time. Then the bell rings, and a clear voice responds: “Sir, they do not answer.” HMCS Margaree, Guysborough, Valleyfield, Bras D’Or, Shawinigan and Windflower are some of the names that are read, only to not answer.

This is an excerpt from the program.

“On the third of September, 1939, the Athenia was sunk off the coast of Northern Ireland, and one week later, Canada was officially at war. From that day until the last day of the German U-boats surrendering at VE day in May 1945, the Allied navies and air forces could not for a moment relax their vigilance.

“Battle of the Atlantic Sunday commemorates the sacrifices of the Canadian sailors, merchant seamen, air force and army personnel who gave their lives in the North Atlantic. The Royal Canadian Navy lost over 2,000 dead and 24 warships. More than 900 Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian Army personnel were killed during this battle.”

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

“The elements were often as vicious as the foe, with raging storms, pack ice, bitter cold, fog and the dense blackness of the North Atlantic nights. The RCN and the merchant navy made nearly 26,000 safe crossings, carrying over 181 million tonnes of supplies to Great Britain.

“With victory in the Atlantic secured, victory in Europe was assured. The freedom of all Canadians was then, is now and shall forever be the legacy of this courageous band of comrades.”

Those words give us a slight idea of what was endured and what was achieved during that time. When we gather at Sailors’ Point in North Van, the sight is wonderful. On parade — uniforms tidy, boots shining, caps straight — is the naval community in its many forms.

The Navy League, young kids, often bundled up in coats bigger than they are. Parents hovering around the perimeter.

Navy cadets, older cadets, older kids, some getting ready to graduate high school, who have learned seamanship, rifle drill, first aid, leadership and many other skills practised during summers away at cadet camp.

The naval reservists, people from all walks of life who come to the unit, evenings and weekends, learning trades and occupations, being posted to ships on the east or west coast to augment the regular naval force.

The regular force Navy who train and work, day in and day out, to maintain security on Canadian waters, coast to coast to coast, to help other nations in need or to promote international safety.

The veterans, now none from World War II but others who have served in war and in peacetime.

The merchant mariners, still those who ply their trade on the waters, moving goods locally or internationally.

It is a gathering of the maritime community to remember, to honour and to renew their commitment to peace and security. The Battle of the Atlantic was a continuous component of World War II, and although the losses were dreadful, the achievements were heroic and will always be remembered.

There will be a service at this cenotaph on the precinct grounds this coming Sunday, May 3, at 11 a.m., if you want to see for yourself.

Sikh Heritage Month

Jody Toor: As we celebrate Sikh Heritage Month in British Columbia, I am both honoured and proud to stand before you as the only elected Sikh woman within the Conservative Party, in our province and at the federal level. This moment is not just personal. It is a reflection of the journey our community has travelled and the remarkable strides we have made.

Sikh Heritage Month is a time for us to reflect on our rich history, our vibrant culture and the unwavering values that guide us. For generations, Sikhs have added to the social, economic and cultural fabric of Canada. Today we are witnessing a remarkable validation of this heritage. From the early days when our Sikhs helped build the railways to now being influential figures in various sectors, we are a testament to resilience, determination and the spirit of hard work.

[10:10 a.m.]

I had the immense honour of taking part in the Surrey Vaisakhi Nagar Kirtan, where over 500,000 people attended. This event marks the largest Nagar Kirtan outside of India in the world and showcases the strength and unity of our community. The spirit of Nagar Kirtan embodies the values of seva: selfless service, sharing, giving and community. It reminds us that our gathering is not just a celebration. It is an expression of our commitment to support one another and uplift those in need.

As we walked together in the spirit of love and unity, I was touched by the outpouring of kindness and generosity in the community — volunteers offering food, drinks and assistance to all who attended, regardless of background or belief. This selfless giving is the essence of our faith and service, as a reminder that true strength lies in our ability to extend a helping hand to others.

Reflecting on how far we have come fills me with immense pride. Just last week we celebrated our beloved Punjabi singer Diljit Dosanjh, who sold out B.C. Place not once but twice in the past two years. His success on stages like Coachella symbolizes the progress we have made as a community, showcasing the global acceptance and appreciation of our culture and talent.

This weekend Karan Aujla will be taking stage at Rogers Arena for two days, adding to the excitement in our vibrant community. Artists like Diljit and Karan are not just entertainers. They serve as ambassadors of our culture, inspiring countless individuals within our community with their achievements.

However, as we celebrate, it is vital to remember the struggles that have led us to this moment. Many years ago people who look like me were not only excluded from positions of power; they were not allowed to enter buildings like this one, buildings of governance and decision-making that define our society.

In those times, my presence here today would have been unimaginable. The very act of standing here speaking on Sikh Heritage Month symbolizes years of hard-fought battles against discrimination, exclusion and injustice.

As a Sikh woman in a political landscape that has historically been male-dominated, I understand the importance of breaking barriers. Every step I take in my political career is not just for me. It is for the countless women who have come before me and for those who will follow. The stories of women in our community who have fought for their rights, for their families and for their faith inspire me daily. It’s also about giving a voice to those who have often been silent.

Our faith teaches us the principles of equality, justice and service. These principles are the foundation of my work in public service. The values of Sikhism urge us to stand up for our beliefs and to advocate for those who may not have the same voice.

As we celebrate Sikh Heritage Month, let us recognize the offerings of everyone in our community. From farmers to teachers, artists to activists, each individual effort gives to this beautiful mosaic that is our heritage.

Let us celebrate our youth, who are the torchbearers of our future, who are making their own mark through various avenues — arts, science, technology and politics.

I am proud to be part of this history, and I am proud to be a Sikh woman leading in a space where our voices and stories matter. I am proud that we are continuing to build a future where our culture, history and achievements are celebrated, not just in our communities but across the nation and around the world.

As we look to the future, let us keep in mind that our true strength lies in our unity, our pride in our heritage and our dedication to uplifting one another. With May just around the corner, marking Asian Heritage Month, it is essential that we continue to share our stories, celebrate our achievements and support the generations to come.

Together, we can ensure that the legacy of our community is not just remembered but cherished for many years ahead.

Sikh Heritage Month and Ending
Caste-Based Discrimination

Rohini Arora: Last year during Sikh Heritage Month, I spoke about Vaisakhi and shared the story of the founding of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I spoke about what happened that day in Anandpur Sahib, in the year 1699, but not fully about who made it happen.

This year I aim to do just that, because to understand this story more deeply, we must first understand one word: “caste.” Caste is a system of social hierarchy rooted in birth — yes, birth, that which we cannot control. It assigns people a status they cannot change, historically shaping opportunity, dignity and belonging.

At the very bottom were people treated as “Untouchable,” now commonly known as “Dalits,” who were excluded and marginalized. Caste is an unequal system with clear benefactors, much like racism.

[10:15 a.m.]

It is against this backdrop that we return to the year 1699. When Guru Gobind Singh Ji stood before a crowd and asked people to literally give their heads for faith, five individuals stepped forward. But this year I want to return to who they were — the Panj Pyare, or the five beloved ones.

What made this moment revolutionary was not only their courage. It was that they came forward in spite of who the world said they should be. They came from different regions, professions and places within that very caste system, some from so-called higher castes, others from communities forced into the margins. They entered the tent with the guru as five individuals, five faithful individuals emerging from a fearful crowd, yet when they came out dressed in royal saffron robes, something had fundamentally shifted.

Their decision to stand together as equals paints an image so vivid that if you looked up the word “unity” in the dictionary, their image would suffice. Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave them one surname, Singh, meaning lion; one identity; one responsibility — to protect the vulnerable, to stand against injustice, to see all humanity as equal. This was not just the birth of the Khalsa. It was a direct rejection of caste.

And that is where Sikh Heritage Month and Dalit History Month meet — at the intersection of faith and humanity, of courage and equality, of bravely standing up for what is right.

However, my friends, history does not stay in the past. It is relived when the lessons are not embodied. That same struggle lived on through leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Jyotirao Phule, who refused to accept inequality as destiny and instead demanded justice through action.

Today we are reminded that this issue has not disappeared. In June 2020, a landmark case was filed against Cisco Systems by the California Civil Rights Department. At the centre was a Dalit engineer in Silicon Valley who alleged discrimination, harassment and retaliation by higher caste managers. He reported that he was outed without consent, leading to isolation, lost opportunities and barriers to advancement.

The response? That caste was not a protected category.

But injustice does not disappear simply because it is unrecognized in the law. The case continues to unfold, and the impact is clear. It forced a conversation. Companies like Apple moved to explicitly ban caste discrimination. IBM updated its policies. At Google, employees organized and pushed for change. And in 2023, Seattle became the first city in the U.S. to ban caste-based discrimination.

The question for me becomes: what about us? Here in British Columbia, we pride ourselves on leadership in human rights. But leadership is not what we say. It is what we choose to do. We have the opportunity to be ahead of the curve, to recognize caste-based discrimination, to ensure that equality is not conditional but universal.

The message of those two months is not separate. It’s shared. It is the courage of the Panj Pyare. It is the fight for dignity. It is the refusal to accept injustice anywhere.

The question is not whether this fight exists. The question is whether we are willing to stand in it.

Agriculture Industry
and Support for Local Farmers

Ian Paton: At a time of global inability, securing our province’s food supply must be a priority for the B.C. government. After decades of stability, we can no longer count on fair and free trade with our closest neighbour. War in the Ukraine and the Middle East further threatens trade stability. As global tensions rise, countries are turning inward, with tariffs on goods becoming the new normal.

British Columbia cannot afford to fall behind. This is a matter of preserving our food sovereignty. British Columbia cannot be reliant on foreign powers like the United States for something as fundamental as our ability to feed our citizens. The ability to feed ourselves must be a core priority of any government that takes resiliency seriously.

Yet at the very moment we should be redoubling our efforts to strengthen local agriculture and protect our food systems, this government has gone backwards.

[10:20 a.m.]

B.C.’s agriculture and food sector is massive. It spans more than 200 commodities and supports over 230,000 jobs across our province. But behind those numbers are real people — farmers and ranchers who are under increasing pressure and receiving less support when they need it most.

Let’s start with the Agricultural Land Commission. The ALC is responsible for protecting 4.6 million hectares of land in the agricultural land reserve, the foundation of our food system. Yet staffing cuts and a lack of meaningful investment have led to serious delays in decisions that farmers depend on to keep their operations running.

The agricultural land reserve was the golden child of the NDP. They actually brought it in, in 1973. Yet lack of staff, lack of bylaw enforcement and lack of funding are making the ALC a shadow of what it once was. At a time when we should be strengthening the ALC, this government is weakening it.

Farmers are also facing rising costs across the board: fuel, feed and fertilizer. Fertilizer prices have surged due to global instability, including the war in Ukraine and conflict in Iran, as well as supply chain disruptions and rising natural gas costs. Feed prices continue to climb due to drought conditions in the Prairies and the lasting impacts of extreme weather here in British Columbia. Fuel costs, particularly diesel, are putting enormous strain on farmers who rely on heavy equipment to produce and transport food.

The cost of diesel is outrageous, the cost of fertilizer is outrageous, and the cost of equipment and parts is outrageous. These are not small increases. These are structural cost pressures that threaten the viability of farming in our province.

At the same time, farmers are being hit with reduced access to insurance and risk management programs. After years of climate-related disasters — from wildfires to floods, that devastated communities like Sumas Prairie, Merritt and Princeton — producers are being asked to shoulder more risk with less support. This is not a recipe for food sovereignty; it’s a recipe for decline.

We are also hearing directly from farmers about the challenges they face accessing water for irrigation and livestock, delays in approvals for basic operational needs and barriers to expanding or adapting their farms to meet modern demands.

If we are serious about protecting B.C.’s food sovereignty, then we must support the people who produce our food. That means restoring funding and capacity at the Agricultural Land Commission; ensuring that farmers have access to affordable insurance; addressing rising input costs where possible; and making it easier, not harder, to farm in this province. The stakes could not be higher.

B.C.’s prime agricultural lands are a treasure. As responsible citizens, we must continue to steward them as such. In doing so, we cannot forget about the rights of a farmer. Farmers are the best stewards for these lands because they interact with them every day. In order to perform their duty to protect the land, farmers must be able to make a decent living, accommodate secondary housing for family, receive real and adequate protection from trespassers and be given reasonable access to local processing and water.

In my critic role, I will continue reminding the NDP government that it’s not farmland without the farmer. Farming and preserving farmland has a long history in my family, and I will persevere on behalf of my B.C. Conservative Party to ensure that farmers, ranchers and their future generations have the opportunity to prosper and continue working this noble profession.

Community Futures
and Support for Local Business

Steve Morissette: I rise today to recognize and highlight an organization that quietly, consistently and effectively strengthens the backbone of our province in rural British Columbia. I am speaking about Community Futures British Columbia. Across our province — from coastal communities to the Interior, from the North to the Kootenays — Community Futures offices are embedded directly in the communities they serve.

There are 34 of these offices across British Columbia, each one locally run, each one deeply connected to the people and businesses in their region. That local connection matters, because, in rural British Columbia, economic development is not theoretical; it is personal. It is about whether a family can open a business on main street. It is about whether a young person can stay in their community and build a career. It is about whether a town can adapt when a major employer changes or a resource sector fluctuates.

[10:25 a.m.]

Community Futures exists to meet those challenges head-on. They are often the only organization in a rural community whose sole focus is small business development and local economic growth. They’re the ones sitting across the table from entrepreneurs with an idea, helping turn that idea into a business plan and that business plan into reality.

They provide practical, hands-on support, helping with business planning, market research, mentorship and training. For someone starting out, that guidance can be the difference between success and failure.

Just as importantly, they provide access to capital. In many rural communities, traditional financing can be difficult to obtain. Community Futures steps into that gap. They offer flexible lending, focused not just on collateral but on people, on potential and on the strength of an idea. That means more businesses get off the ground, more businesses grow and more jobs are created locally.

That is real economic impact. It means more storefronts open on our main streets. It means more services are available close to home. It means stronger, more resilient local economies that are less dependent on a single industry and better able to weather change. When challenges do arise, as they inevitably do, Community Futures is there as a steady, reliable partner. Whether it is economic downturns, natural disasters or shifts in global markets, they help businesses adapt, recover and move forward.

The leadership behind Community Futures is awesome. Each Community Futures office is guided by a local board of directors. These are volunteers. They are business leaders, community members and individuals who care deeply about the future of their region. They understand the unique opportunities and challenges of their area in a way that no centralized system ever could, and because of that, the decisions they make are grounded in local knowledge, local priorities and local values.

Today I want to express my sincere appreciation, not only for the staff who work tirelessly to support entrepreneurs but especially for those volunteer board members across British Columbia.

Your contributions matter, your leadership matters, and the impact you are making in your communities is significant.

When we talk about building a strong economy in British Columbia, we must remember that strength does not come only from our largest cities. It comes from every small town, every rural community and every entrepreneur willing to take a risk and build something new. Organizations like Community Futures British Columbia ensure that those entrepreneurs are not alone. They are helping create jobs. They are supporting innovation. They are strengthening communities, and, ultimately, they are helping ensure that rural British Columbia not only survives but thrives.

May Events and Local Economies

Ward Stamer: As we turn the page to May here in British Columbia, we step into a season that reflects the very best of our province — hard work, community spirit and a deep connection to the land we call home. From the coastal communities of Vancouver Island to the fertile orchards of the Okanagan Valley, from the busy streets of Vancouver to the resource towns across the North, May is the time when British Columbians come together and get back to what matters most — community, opportunity and the great outdoors.

As the days grow longer and the weather warms, people across the province head outside. Parks and trails come alive again. Families are hiking, biking, camping and enjoying everything this province has to offer. Whether it’s exploring Garibaldi Provincial Park, cycling along the Galloping Goose Trail in Victoria or spending a quiet moment on one of our many lakes, May reminds us why British Columbia is truly one of the most beautiful places in the world.

May also marks the beginning of a busy and important season for all our local economies. Tourism operators, small businesses and hospitality workers begin to see an increase in activities as visitors return and British Columbians travel within our own province. This is a critical time, especially for small, family-run businesses that rely on the spring and summer months just to stay afloat.

[10:30 a.m.]

The May long weekend in Canada, known as Victoria Day, is the unofficial start of summer. Campgrounds fill up, highways are busier than normal, and communities host events that bring people together — markets, parades and local festivals that showcase the unique character of each region.

Agriculture is also front and centre during the month of May. Farmers across the province are in the fields planting crops that will sustain our communities and support our economy. In regions across B.C., this is a critical time of year, one that underscores the importance of protecting farmland and supporting those who feed our province.

We also observe Emergency Preparedness Week, an important reminder for all British Columbians that our province has faced significant challenges in recent years, from wildfires to floods, and preparation is not optional. It is essential. This week encourages families, businesses and communities to take practical steps to be ready for whatever comes our way.

May is also a time when community pride is on full display. Volunteers step forward to organize events, clean up neighbourhoods, coach youth sports and support local initiatives. During National Volunteer Week, we recognize those individuals who quietly and consistently make our communities stronger.

Across British Columbia, arts and culture begin to flourish again in the spring. Local markets, performances and festivals return, showcasing the talent, creativity and entrepreneurial spirit that exists in every corner of the province.

What makes May so meaningful in British Columbia is not just the activities but what those activities represent. They represent hope after a long winter. They represent pride in all our communities across the province. We all know what to do as British Columbians to support our local businesses as they enter their busiest season; to ensure our communities are prepared for emergencies; to protect the natural beauty that draws people here from around the world; and to continue building a strong, resilient economy that works for everyone.

So I encourage all British Columbians to take part in what this month has to offer. Visit a local market. Support our local businesses. Get outside and explore. Volunteer in your community. And take pride in the place that we are fortunate to call home. In British Columbia, May is more than just a month. It’s a fresh start for all of us.

To all British Columbians out there, let’s get out there. Enjoy the warmer weather. Let’s enjoy the excitement of the kids and the grandkids. Let’s enjoy the simpler things — a walk, a coffee with friends, helping a neighbour — because, honestly, we are truly blessed to call B.C. home. Let’s do everything we can to make it better.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, the House will continue second reading of Bill M237, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M237 — Insurance (Vehicle)
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Amna Shah: Great. I’m pleased to come back to debating at second reading for Bill M237.

Just to recap my brief comments from last week and just to reiterate our support for Ms. Chantal Sutton and her journey and the things that she is advocating for…. Also, again, a thanks to the member for Prince George–North Cariboo for bringing forth this bill.

I left off last week talking about the old car insurance system that we used to have in British Columbia, where people felt quite abandoned when they suffered an accident. The way that the system was structured led to some costly legal battles, and quite often, some of the outcomes left people unsupported over the long term, especially pertaining to treatments or health benefits. In place of that would often be a lump sum award from the courts.

What we know is that when someone gets into an accident, they need support. They want immediate access to care.

[10:35 a.m.]

This care has to provide them the support that they need, when they need it — and that’s not just for maybe six months or a year but could be for two years, three years, even longer — so that they can focus on the recovery. They can focus on healing and not on navigating court processes and then waiting to hear, after those lengthy court battles are over, what their fate is and what dollar amount is tied to their injuries.

That’s why, in 2021, our government introduced the enhanced-care model here in British Columbia. Really, at its core, enhanced care aimed to address what was missing, and that is a system that puts people and their health first, ensuring that benefits go directly to people who are injured rather than being tied up in the courts. It’s a system that is designed to provide timely care so that people don’t have to fight to try and prove that they’re hurting. They don’t have to prove that they’re injured. They get that support — practical assistance when people need it most.

Really, the results speak for themselves. I mean, since 2021, more than $1.5 billion has been paid out in benefits, and these benefits go directly to things like medical treatments; rehabilitation; income replacement; home and vehicle adaptations for people who need it, moving forward, support for daily living. These are real supports that actually make the difference in people’s lives.

At the same time, with all of this, we’ve actually made auto insurance more affordable in British Columbia. People are paying low rates. These rates are some of the lowest in Canada, and drivers actually receive savings through multiple rebate programs.

This is a significant turnaround compared to what we had before, which were the highest rates in the country. We had ICBC that was facing significant financial challenges. I think we remember the dumpster fire. Through thoughtful changes, we’ve stabilized the system and we’ve moved from that deficit to stability in the system, while, at the same time, improving service and savings to drivers.

Now, I want to make it very clear that the system has to evolve. Even if there are things that are working, there may be things that may not be working. We need to figure out what those are. We have to make sure that a system that is of this scale can be constantly improved on. So while ICBC takes feedback from customers, from clients seriously, we also have to make sure, as legislators, that we can continue to meet the needs of British Columbians.

That’s why, when the model was introduced, legislation actually included a requirement for an independent review within five years. That review is currently underway. The Legislature appointed a Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, a multiparty committee that is tasked with figuring out whether enhanced care is working and what are improvements. That is where this bill belongs. It belongs in that committee.

This committee…. Not only are they hearing from experts, but they’re also listening to stakeholders. They’re considering ideas for improvement, including the types of proposals that are actually reflected in this bill.

That brings me to, then, what we do with this piece of legislation here today. I want to be very clear. I do think that the ideas in this bill are important. They certainly are. I think many of us actually agree with them, but we must ensure that we use the right process to address them. We have to make sure that we do it in the right way so that something holistically good can come out of this for all British Columbians.

So rather than moving ahead in isolation of that discussion and that process, we have the opportunity to consider these ideas in a more thorough, more coordinated way — again, in a more holistic way. That committee is the appropriate forum to do that work carefully.

[10:40 a.m.]

Our commitment is quite clear. We want an insurance model that puts people at the centre of the care that they receive. I do believe that this bill is best addressed at that committee.

Janet Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge: Thank you, everyone. It’s my pleasure to introduce the first group of students and their teacher and other adults who are accompanying them from École Alpha Secondary in Burnaby North.

Please give them a warm welcome and make this a really good experience for them.

Debate Continued

Sheldon Clare: I rise to close debate on Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026. This bill would change the definition of a “catastrophic injury” from loss of two or more limbs to one or more. It also retroactively extends the timeline during which affected individuals are able to apply for benefits.

I have taken a long, hard look at why the NDP wants Bill M237 sent to the special committee, and let’s not dress this up. This is not about process, and it is certainly not about helping people. It is about ideology and political theatre. Everything this government does seems to be filtered through those two lenses.

Several months ago, when it became obvious that people were being shortchanged by their insurance and when what I believe to be a fixable oversight could have been addressed with genuine cross-party cooperation, I spoke directly with senior officials at ICBC. What they told me should concern every member of this House. They admitted that no-fault insurance is not really as much about stopping fraud as it is about limiting claims and keeping insurance rates artificially low.

That’s just plain wrong. The priority is not making injured people whole. The priority is optics, keeping rates low enough to score political points.

I said then to those officials, and I will say again now, that insurance rates should reflect reality. They should reflect the real cost of properly compensating people for their injuries. If the system is not doing that, then it is not insurance; it is a facade.

The response I received was as blunt as it was troubling. If ICBC actually paid what people deserved, it would make less money, and rates would go up. That was the concern, not fairness, not justice, not people. That tells you everything you need to know.

Now we arrive here, where members opposite will likely stand and vote for this bill at second reading. And why? Because they know exactly what comes next. They will know it will be sent to their special committee where it can be buried, delayed and ultimately killed, out of sight and out of mind. That’s just like what happened with the special committee on freedom of information in British Columbia in 2021 and subsequently, five long years later, introducing that insult of a bill — Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

This is not leadership. This is not compassion. This is political cover. It is virtue-signalling at its most cynical. Support the bill when it costs nothing, then quietly destroy it when no one is watching. So yes, go ahead. Vote for it today. Put on the appearance of concern. Say the right words. But do not come into this House and pretend that you are standing up for people with catastrophic injuries when you are actively ensuring that they will never see the help they deserve.

On this side, we see this for what it is. It was never about process. It was never about people. It has always been about virtue-signalling and protecting ICBC profits over the needs of people. If people are going to lose an arm or a leg, then their insurance should reflect the reality of that as a catastrophic injury.

My challenge to this House and to the government is to prove me wrong. Let’s see this bill come back from the ICBC committee. Let’s see it put into effect so that it can actually help people who have had a catastrophic injury to become, as possibly as they can be, whole again.

[10:45 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M237, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order of the House adopted on April 22, the bill is committed to the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member next on the list of precedence to move their item of business.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation
Course for MLAs

Gavin Dew: I move Motion 205, standing in my name on the order paper.

[That the House ensures elected representatives are accountable and supported to possess a basic understanding of economics, public finance and numeracy as they make decisions on taxes, spending, debt and regulation, and therefore requests that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee institute a mandatory course in these subjects for all newly-elected Members of the Legislative Assembly as part of Member orientation.]

This motion is simple, reasonable and constructive. It begins with a proposition that should not be controversial in any serious legislature. If elected representatives are asking to make decisions on taxes, spending, debt and regulation, they should possess a basic understanding of economics, public finance and numeracy — not expertise, not a graduate degree and not ideological conformity.

This motion is not about imposing ideology. It is not about turning member orientation into a tug-of-war between the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It is about equipping members to make evidence-based decisions. It is offered without judgment and in a practical spirit as a tool to help MLAs better understand taxes, spending, debt, regulation, incentives and long-term fiscal choices. Even John Kenneth Galbraith put it well: “I’m in favour of whatever works in the particular case.”

These decisions affect families, businesses, jobs, taxes, debt and opportunity. Too often in politics, numbers are presented without context. Too often the distinction between a gross number and a net result is blurred. Too often inflation and population growth are ignored when governments present their plans and their records.

Governments boast about spending the most ever without asking what that means after inflation and population growth. Gross numbers are used where net outcomes are what actually matter. Announcements sound impressive until someone asks the next question. Compared to what? At what cost? Over what time frame, and with what result? A headline is not a result.

A legislature should expect its members to understand the difference between a nominal increase and a real improvement, between a gross number and a net result, between a one-time announcement and a structural obligation and between spending more money and actually solving a problem.

A basic course in economics, public finance and numeracy would help members think more clearly about incentives, the time value of money, the cost of delay, the consequences of debt and the impact of regulation and rising payroll costs on hiring and growth. As Thomas Sowell put it: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”

That is exactly why economic literacy matters in this place. If members are going to vote on taxes, spending, debt and regulation, they should understand the trade-offs their decisions create today and tomorrow.

Too often governments present numbers as though the number itself ends the argument. It does not. A large spending figure is not, by itself, proof of success. A recruitment number is not, by itself, proof of improved service. A new program is not, by itself, proof of good policy. What matters is the context, the costs, the incentives and the net effect on the people we serve. Public finance is not theatre, and taxpayers are not props. A deficit is just a tax increase with a time delay.

[10:50 a.m.]

That is why economic literacy matters in this place. If members are going to vote on borrowing, they should understand the burden that places on future taxpayers. If members are going to vote on labour costs and workplace rules, they should understand what that does to employers, hiring, expansion and opportunities for those very workers. If members are going to vote on regulation, they should understand how incentives shape behaviour and outcomes in marketplaces.

This motion should not be partisan. It is a modest institutional reform. It says that this House should expect a baseline of competence in the subjects that most directly affect the prosperity of this great province and the stewardship of the public purse. That is not too much to ask. In fact, it is the least we should ask.

I earnestly hope that members from all sides of this House will support the motion, and I look forward to the debate.

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Motion 205: “that the House ensures elected representatives are accountable and supported to possess a basic understanding of economics, public finance and numeracy as they make decisions on taxes, spending, debt and regulation, and therefore request that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee institute a mandatory course in these subjects for all newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly as part of member orientation.”

Before continuing, I would like to acknowledge that I’m speaking today on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, particularly the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm.

When I am at home in North Van–Seymour, I’m very fortunate to live, learn and work on the lands of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations.

I consider myself so fortunate to live in a province with such diversity and strength of First Nations groups, where reconciliation is a recognized pathway that we can all walk together.

Well, I must say that when I was first elected as an MLA, I was amazed at the length and depth of orientation that we received and the accompanying textbook, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, which was edited by our own Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, ably assisted by other legislative Clerks and staff. Protocols and procedures were reviewed and discussed, including such things as dress and decorum. Perhaps decorum could have had a little more emphasis. The opportunity was there to ask questions and also learn about the roles of all the folks that are in and around the chamber.

Since that time, we’ve had a variety of in-services on such things as respectful workplace; public communication; Indigenous history and relationships, including information about treaty processes and the role of the First Nations directorate. I have found these and other presentations to be both germane and helpful.

I, too, suspect that some MLAs would benefit from exposure to financial literacy education, particularly when I hear things from across the aisle about the need to reduce the deficit, but not by raising taxes and certainly not by cutting services.

The opposition also speaks about bloated public services. Those are services that keep our province going, things such as education and health care, parks, environment and climate support, wildfire fighting and flood mitigation, among many other things. I see these as important and necessary services, yet the opposition seems to think that a balanced budget is more critical than ensuring core services are maintained. I do applaud the member’s advocacy in wanting to remediate his team’s needs in the areas of fiscal education.

Our team takes management of debt and deficit very seriously, recognizing that if services are cut now, all it does is multiply population needs in the future. A steady focus on determining cost savings in government and realizing them through methodical change allows for steady reduction in the deficit.

Additionally, working across Canada and, indeed, around the world to promote trade and investment in British Columbia helps to stabilize revenue streams, which also leads to deficit reduction. This is putting the concepts of economics, good public finance and basic numeracy into effective action.

During the 2024 election, the B.C. Conservatives did not even release a platform with a budget until the last few days before voting day. At that time, their projected deficit was about $11 billion, much higher than the NDP’s $9.6 billion, which was similar to the Green forecast. Certainly, in the debates in my riding, where the Conservative candidate actually showed up, he had solutions to all problems and would have had that budget balanced as well. He never actually indicated about where the money was going to come from to do that.

However, here I am to talk about these issues. In fact, the opposition still seems to be unclear about where the money will come from for their solutions.

[10:55 a.m.]

Perhaps the motion will have some good effects if it helps the opposition recognize the basic math involved in having a provincial government that believes everyone should have access to education and health care, a roof over their head, a reasonable job and a safe, secure community to call home. That is what the current B.C. government continues to believe and work towards.

Peter Milobar: So much to unpack in that last speech. It’s interesting. I don’t want to dwell on it, but I would point out that the NDP is running a record deficit, and they actually have walked away from all of their campaign promises at the same time.

If we want to talk about the campaign promises like, I don’t know, a teacher assistant in every K-to-grade-3 classroom that is non-existent, a $1,000 grocery rebate…. The list goes on and on of unfulfilled, unfunded and unaffordable campaign promises that the government made as a sitting government. They would have had access to all of the financial data and information when they were making those promises to the public yet were more than willing to flat out say whatever it took to get themselves elected, with no intention of actually following through.

If they did have that intention, then they really do need basic numeracy courses, because they ought to have known what they were promising was an impossibility, given the short time frame that they then walked away from those promises.

The member opposite is blaming us for talking about a bloated public service. I would point out, again, in the spirit of the motion around reading budgets, to perhaps read their own budget, where their own Premier is talking about cutting 15,000 public service employees that have bloated under their watch — not under our watch.

We weren’t the ones with the keys to the Indeed account posting job listings for the public service. This was the government that was, in fact, posting these extra 15,000 jobs, despite years of the opposition pointing out that the public service was getting too large and that it was simply unsustainable. That is the key piece to all of this.

Again, we heard of the training modules that we’ve had as MLAs in this place, procedural training but not training around what this motion is talking about — understanding the core fundamentals of the interplay of the budget, the real-world consequences that has and what questions should rightfully be asked.

I don’t expect the government members to be standing up in this place and challenging the Finance Minister. Maybe they could actually get an answer. I never seem to get one. Maybe they could get an answer if they did. But I don’t expect them to be challenging the Finance Minister openly and in public. That we realize would not happen.

One would hope with the motion in front of us that that extra level of training would create that confidence that, in those caucus meetings, those challenges could happen, those discussions could happen so that we don’t see ever-increasing deficits.

Again, the member opposite was talking in good faith about how they are taking the deficit seriously. The deficit has grown every single year that this Premier has been the Premier. They’re taking it seriously, but they’re taking it seriously in the wrong direction. Unfulfilled promises and ever-growing deficit — that is the core fundamental piece that we are talking about with this motion in front of us today and why it’s important that there’s an understanding of that. We do not have the financial flexibility as a province any longer to continue down the paths we are on.

There is nothing more important in this place than all of us as a collective having a shared understanding of just what those consequences are to the decisions being made, to the answers being provided or not provided; why those are important; and why, when constituents are coming to your offices asking these very important questions, outside of the lights of this place, you can actually provide a more in-depth and thoughtful answer back rather than parroting talking points provided by the Premier’s office or the Finance Minister’s office.

That’s why it’s critically important, because these are the types of conversations we should all be having with our constituents in a non-partisan way in our constituency offices when they come forward. The constituents deserve to know that MLAs have at least had some level of training, especially when you consider the list that was just read off by the member opposite of the other subject areas we’ve been trained in or at least provided some guidance in. I don’t understand why it would be a problem for the government to want to agree to add one more piece of training for us as MLAs.

[11:00 a.m.]

I do hope they actually take this in the non-partisan spirit it has been presented. I do hope they take it in the serious way it has been presented. I don’t understand how more education would be a bad thing for MLAs instead of how the government members currently have been advocating, which would be less education for members.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise to speak to Motion M205, which proposes “that the House ensures elected representatives are accountable and supported to possess a basic understanding of economics, public finance and numeracy, as they make decisions on taxes, spending, debt and regulation.” To that end, the motion requests “that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee institute a mandatory course in these subjects for all newly” — that’s an important word — “elected MLAs.”

At the outset, I just would like to understand how the member defines the terms “basic” and “numeracy,” because the motion itself offers no clarity on these things. In fact, it lacks so much specificity that you could probably drive a truck through it.

What does the member mean by “basic”? Is there a grade level attached? How would that level be determined? Would members have to take a test, like a math test, in order to determine that they have said “basic understanding”?

What does the member mean by “numeracy”? In the B.C. K-to-12 system, numeracy is defined as the ability to interpret, apply and communicate mathematical understanding to solve problems in diverse, real-world contexts.

It’s a foundational, cross-curricular — which, I know, is a real struggle for some members across the way — skill distinct from but inclusive of mathematics content required for graduation or for daily life. Numeracy focuses on processes such as interpreting, applying, analyzing, solving and communicating.

By that very definition, numeracy already encompasses much of what the member is calling for in this motion when he refers to a basic understanding of economics, public finance, taxes, spending, debt and regulation. As numeracy is used in this motion, it is largely redundant.

After the members opposite dug their heels in so deeply last week in favour of a motion to run two parallel processes examining the exact same issue — including forcing this chamber through a motion, debating that motion and then calling division on it — I suppose we should not be surprised to find such redundancy here as well.

I want to be clear. I’m not opposed to the intent of the motion. However, I am perplexed why it actually needed to come before this House at all. Any member can ask their caucus to bring forward an item to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. So it raises the question of whether we should also be requesting a basic understanding of how LAMC itself functions so as not to waste the collective time of members in this chamber.

That said, I do agree that some education in the basic principles of public accounting itself could benefit members of this House, particularly the members opposite. During question period, we frequently hear outrage about the province’s deficit while often, in the same breath, demands to increase spending. Strange.

We also hear calls for expanding the public service while followed almost immediately by calls to cut the public service. These positions are not easily reconciled without at least a foundational understanding of public finance.

I also agree that members opposite could benefit from a stronger grounding in economics and public finance, given their election platform. That platform — released just four days before the election, which is notable, given how often we hear complaints from members opposite about feeling rushed — projected a larger deficit than ours and was based on an assumed annual GDP growth rate of 5.4 percent. That rate was nowhere near what any major financial institution or think tank was forecasting at the time.

By comparison, the Conference Board of Canada was projecting a growth of approximately 2.1 percent. Their platform also recommended more than $2 billion in additional spending compared to the B.C. NDP platform, along with close to $4 billion in unaccounted-for tax cuts. In that brief four-day period between the platform’s release and election day, multiple media outlets analyzed those numbers and found that the actual spending commitments in that platform were nearly $4 billion higher than the party itself had projected.

Finally, at the time, the leader then, the member for Nechako Lakes, directed criticism at our platform’s contingency allocation. He claimed: “They’ve got $4 billion just in contingencies. They can’t even explain where that money goes.”

According to Webster’s, a contingency is a future event, circumstance or emergency that is possible but not certain. It often refers to backup plans or unexpected expenses. In other words, by definition, contingencies are for what is possible but not known, or unexpected.

[11:05 a.m.]

So while I remain puzzled as to why this motion was brought to the floor when an established process already exists through LAMC, and while I find the wording of the motion both vague and redundant for the reasons I’ve outlined, I’m not opposed to the idea of the motion itself, also for the reasons I’ve outlined, because it does feel that some members opposite will benefit from a better education in the principles of public finance.

Maybe once they’ve taken this course, they can finally explain the magic behind their plan to simultaneously expand services while also cutting spending and the public service that offers those services.

Scott McInnis: It’s an honour and a pleasure to speak to my friend from Kelowna-Mission’s motion this morning, M205. The intent of this motion, I think, is pretty straightforward. Those making multi-billion-dollar decisions should have a basic understanding of arithmetic and finances. I’m not sure, hearing some of the comments from the other side, why that’s so contentious.

In the Legislature, we’re tasked with voting on taxes, spending, debt, regulation, labour costs. Those decisions affect everybody in this province — families, businesses, public services — in real ways. It’s a modest ask that there is something brought before legislators in this building that just gives us a basic understanding of some of those principles. I welcome this. I’m not a financial guru, and I’ll be first to put my hand up to admit that. I would welcome more training and more expertise in this field.

Now, members opposite for some reason in this motion are talking about the election platform and also speaking about how we’re outraged over the deficit. You’re darn right we’re outraged over the deficit. I’ve referenced this several times in this House. Mounting deficit, mounting debt will result in $1 million an hour in debt servicing payments in the coming couple of years — $1 million an hour that’s not going to seniors housing, children with autism, education, transportation.

We’re going to be flushing that money down the toilet because these members don’t have a basic understanding of finances. I can’t believe they’re talking about their election platform promises on a deficit number, and then they’re blowing it out of the water here in reality. I’m gobsmacked by that. Economic misunderstanding is not theoretical. It becomes public policy in this building.

It goes deeper than that. I’m glad the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside mentioned some of the vague outlines in some of our school curriculum related to numeracy. After being a teacher and principal for 15 years, there is one topic which students who graduated said to me they had wished they learned more about in our school system. That is entrepreneurship and finances.

Students are starving to learn more about personal money management, and we’re not giving it to them at the very basic level. We have much more work to do in our education system to prepare everybody, including those who will eventually be Members of the Legislative Assembly — a basic understanding of financial literacy.

This is an extremely important motion. A little bit of extra financial literacy for members who are making extremely consequential decisions about the public purse surely cannot be a bad thing.

I want to thank my friend from Kelowna-Mission for bringing this forward. It’s not supposed to be a contentious motion. I think we should all be embracing it. It’s not asking for perfection. It’s asking for something reasonable — just a basic understanding of costs, incentives and consequences of the decisions made in this House. If we want these better decisions, we should expect a basic level of this understanding. This is a very modest, practical step toward more competent government, one that all members should be fully in support of.

[11:10 a.m.]

In closing, I’m going to put my hand up and say I would welcome additional financial literacy training. Again, it’s something that I am not an expert on. As my wife and I have deep Scottish roots, we’re very careful with our money. Some might even call it cheap. And I think, at times, we need to understand that how we’re making these decisions about finances affects everybody in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Colwood.

Darlene Rotchford: Good morning, Madam Speaker and everyone in this House. It’s a lovely Monday. God, I hate Mondays. I know, right?

I rise to speak in support of your motion, but I want to begin by generally commending the member opposite for bringing it forward because it takes a certain level of self-awareness, actually, to recognize when there may be gaps in understanding, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as economics, public finance and numeracy.

I want to acknowledge that this motion is a constructive step, because when we are entrusted with making decisions about taxes, spending, debt regulation, we actually owe it to British Columbians to understand the numbers behind those decisions. That’s not optional. It’s actually foundational.

Unfortunately, time and again, we’ve seen the opposition make those suggestions, in fact, that some work needs to be done in that area. So yes, I support that motion. I support it enthusiastically, actually, because it may address some of the inconsistency we’ve been hearing from opposite members in this House.

For example, we regularly hear calls to significantly reduce government spending at a time when we also hear them advocate for increased investment in certain priorities. Let’s pick on health care for an example. That doesn’t add up. It’s not a matter of political perspective. It is just basic math. If you’re going to cut spending dramatically while maintaining or increasing services, those numbers have to be balanced. An exact comment was made. Everything is a trade-off. What was said is a trade-off. So either you reduce services, or you increase costs or both.

There’s no version of public finance where the equation resolves itself without consequences. There is no magic accounting that just makes it work. Yet members opposite continue to suggest otherwise. They criticize our government about spending. They don’t explain how their own plans would even pay for it. I can tell you as a health care worker exactly how they would pay for it: on the backs of those workers.

Which is why I say again that this motion is a good idea, because maybe after taking a course in public finance, we’ll finally hear an answer on how they plan to support the health care system that they plan on cutting in half, which a member from their own side of the House made as comments to our government. The member for Fraser-Nicola said it clearly. If health care and education are the largest areas of spending, then they’re the ones that would have to take the brunt of cuts. Well, I would like to hear his plan.

As a health care worker, I can tell you how it worked out. It wasn’t great. It’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now. I worked under two Liberal governments, and it was shameful how our health care system…. And it would roll back.

It highlights exactly why financial literacy matters, because once you understand the basics, it becomes clear that choices have consequences, and that’s something that British Columbians deserve to hear plainly.

On this side of the House, we understand that. We know that managing the deficit is important. That’s why we take responsible steps to do that over time but also by protecting the services we rely on. I don’t get up here lightly and say that. I say that as a mother of two who wants to look at what I’m going to be leaving my children long after I’m gone and my grandchildren and, hopefully, great-grandchildren down the road.

The Conservatives have it very clear. They want to cut deeper, and they want to cut faster. That would come at a cost. That is not speculation. Again, that is just math. We don’t have to take a look far to see what that would mean in practice. Because many of the individuals shaping the current B.C. Conservative approach are the same as some of those former B.C. Liberals and staffers and people who were in government when I worked in health care.

Again, I think it’s important. If we’re talking about financial literacy, we need to learn from experience. They’re going to show exactly how those numbers are balanced. They would double our MSP premiums, costing families $1,800 a year. They would cut hundreds of millions in health care again by contracting out, and god knows what else they’d come up with. They took $1.2 billion from ICBC while rates were increased for drivers. They would put the tolls back on the major bridges, costing a family up to $1,500 annually just to get to work.

They sold off land intended for a second Surrey hospital, and they chose not to build critical infrastructure like a medical school. Shocker — short doctors. That is why our government built one. We’re going to bring more doctors, and that’s what we’re doing.

These are the outcomes of their budgeting approach, and they understand why understanding public finance isn’t just theoretical. It really impacts the lives of British Columbians. I could go on.

We are investing in health care, connecting more people with family doctors. We are hiring teachers, supporting students in classrooms. We are building infrastructure and strengthening communities, and we are doing so while managing our finances responsibly. Yes, there is an deficit. We are managing it, and we are looking forward.

Finance and literacy is not just about numbers. It is about honesty, so being upfront with people about what your plan is. We have a plan, and we have been honest with what that looks like. We are ensuring those decisions are grounded in reality, not just wishful thinking.

[11:15 a.m.]

Again, I commend the member opposite for bringing this motion forward. It is a step in the right direction. I could also add a whole list of other courses we should be recommending, especially if people have opinions about health care and how they’re going to manage it. Happy to chat with them in the House while we can look at that.

I sincerely hope that all members of this House, especially those who have demonstrated the greatest need, take full advantage of the opportunity it presents, because, again, if we’re going to support British Columbians, we need to do it in a way that we all financially understand how that works.

But again, I could add other courses: HR; ethics, for one; truth and reconciliation, what that looks like. My list could go on, because, again, we all should be informed when we come in this House.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Motion M205. What we’re hearing is a lot of defensive comments from the members opposite, but what this topic really comes down to is simply common sense.

It’s important for all of us as MLAs to understand the consequences of our decisions on the economy and the financial position of the province. In the course of our work as legislators, we’re asked to make decisions on taxes, spending and debt that affect every household in this province, so it’s not unreasonable to expect that we understand the basics before we vote.

Last year, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I asked the Auditor General a simple question. I asked if we have ever seen debt in British Columbia rising this fast compared to our economy or our revenue, and the answer was no. There is no historical comparison.

And that was last year. This year we’re on track for the same thing. We’ve seen multiple credit rating downgrades. S&P said B.C.’s fiscal trajectory means “the province’s debt burden is also rising at a fast pace, placing it on a per operating revenue basis at 255 percent. This is among the highest for Canadian provinces by fiscal 2029.” They went on to say that budgetary imbalances are expected to remain among the highest of all rated non-U.S., local and regional governments beyond the outlook horizon.

We are in new territory, and that makes it even more important that we get the fundamentals right. The basics of financial literacy are important, because the basic principle here is something that every family household deals with — managing their own finances. If your debt grows faster than your income, eventually something has to give.

A deficit is, put simply, a bill. It just hasn’t come due yet. Put another way, a deficit is just a tax increase with a delay. And who pays for that delay? It will be our kids trying to buy their first home. It will be our grandkids dealing with higher taxes or fewer public services. It will be the next generation inheriting less room to build, less room to invest and fewer choices.

MLAs don’t need to be economists, but we should have a basic understanding of how debt works, how costs add up and what our decisions mean over time. We should understand how businesses need to make payroll, and when payroll taxes increase, or when the regulatory burden increases, it has an impact on a small business’s ability to hire or increase wages. We’re seeing that with higher youth unemployment now, and we need an understanding of how that has been the case.

We’ve had the lowest private sector job creation in the country over the last number of years, and we can’t have that to grow our economy, to pay for the public services that the public depends on. When government gets the economics wrong, there are consequences for British Columbia’s families — working families.

This motion to give MLAs a better understanding of financial and economic literacy is a modest, practical and commonsense step to make this place work better. If we’re making decisions that our kids and our grandkids will pay for, the least we can do is understand what we are doing.

Thank you for the time to speak. I want to thank the member for Kelowna-Mission for bringing this motion forward and look forward to hearing more of the debate.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I have been considering this motion for a while and its effort to help increase the broad base of knowledge for members of this House, and I agree.

I would like to move an amendment to the motion. Do I directly read the text to the motion?

Deputy Speaker: You read your amendment and speak to your amendment, and we’ll get copies to circulate.

[11:20 a.m.]

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your guidance.

I move:

[That Motion M 205 be amended by adding the underlined text as shown:

That the House ensures elected representatives are accountable and supported to possess a basic understanding of public policy implications, including evidence-based science, truth and reconciliation, and human rights, as they impact economics, public finance and numeracy as they make decisions on taxes, spending, debt and regulation, and therefore requests that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee institute a mandatory course in these subjects for all newly-elected Members of the Legislative Assembly as part of Member orientation.]

On the amendment.

Jennifer Blatherwick: In moving this amendment, I am really hoping we can speak to the basis of this bill. I support members broadening their understanding of the essentials of good governance, and economics is one of those puzzle pieces. I also support members being able to calculate the cost of ignorance of laws of British Columbia.

It is the responsibility of members in this House to uphold the laws of B.C., and those include laws that protect every member of their community from discrimination. Every one of us should be able to understand the human cost of giving inflammatory speeches that attack tiny segments of the population while being in positions of enormous responsibility and influence. If compassion and justice are not enough of a motive, then every member of this House must be educated to understand the enormous legal, fiduciary and financial cost of choosing to be ignorant.

People in our communities have the right, according to the law, that they will be treated fairly and with respect, that the government that holds so much power over their lives understands the basic elements of their protection, like the human rights code.

If governments, right from school trustees to municipal councillors and mayors to Members of this Legislative Assembly, do not understand the law that they are sworn to uphold, then they risk damage to their constituents, to the ones they are supposed to represent; and also to all British Columbians. We risk injury to the dignity and the safety of those who are most vulnerable among us, yes, and that should be our preeminent concern.

However, germane to the member opposite’s motion, when we don’t understand the human rights code, the basis of understanding how we treat each other with dignity and equality in the public space, we also risk an enormous fiscal and financial cost to all British Columbians. Every person has the right to pursue remedy under the law when their rights are violated or when they are maligned in the public space.

That means that when members do not understand the human rights code but confidently speak to their misunderstandings — in public, online, in the media — they fail to grasp how it applies to our shared public space. It means they could be implicating all of British Columbia in the legal cost of their ignorance. Each person in this space should understand the rights of their constituents and their obligation to uphold them.

We all undertook an oath or a solemn declaration to serve in this House and uphold the laws of British Columbia, and we should all understand the math of ignorance.

Just last week in this House, I quoted Hank Green, and I said: “Bad news happens all at once, but good news happens slowly.” This quote is about the rise of evidence-based health care and one of the most effective medical interventions of all time: vaccinations.

This is a miracle that has saved more children, more elderly, more vulnerable people than any other medical invention ever in history. Making funding decisions about public health is about understanding and applying evidence- and science-based decision-making. The math of public health funding means investing in proven, tested, scientifically valid methods of prevention and treatment.

Members should all understand the incredible value of vaccines, like the ones developed to help combat childhood infectious diseases like chicken pox, measles, mumps and rubella. We vaccinate children to help prevent the spread and fight the damage of those diseases.

We need members to be educated in science-based decision-making so they will fight for medical interventions that have come under attack in the last decades. We need every member of this House to understand that ensuring we have a scientifically determined rationale for vaccines…. That advice means saving lives and saving costs to the medical system.

There are people out there who cannot take vaccines. They are immunocompromised. They have other medical concerns. They need all of us to fight desperately, to take vaccines ourselves and to make sure that as many of our constituents who can do it.

Members need to act like they understand this. Nothing in this world would convince most of us to put a child in a car without a car seat, without a seatbelt. We need to have that same level of understanding right in our bones for medical intervention and science-based decision-making.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the amendment is in order.

We’ll take a two-minute recess to allow members to take a look at the text of the amendment, and then we’ll be continuing with debate on the amendment. Two minutes.

The House recessed from 11:25 a.m. to 11:26 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Okay, Members. We’ll call the chamber back to order and debate on the amendment.

Gavin Dew: It strikes me as being deeply ironic that on a motion about literacy, it’s actually misspelled in the amendment. So we’re going to have to work on spelling.

That gets us to what this amendment is. This amendment is scope creep. This amendment, respectfully, is the member opposite, the members opposite, being unwilling to engage in a good-faith conversation about the crucial necessity of financial literacy.

What we just heard from a bunch of these members was what I actually thought was a very constructive conversation about economic literacy. I think that we have much to gain as a House….

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. I am recognizing the member for Burnaby North.

Janet Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge: I am thrilled to introduce the second group of students and their teacher and chaperones from École Alpha Secondary.

We had a great conversation, and I’m so glad that they have an opportunity to be here and see the House in action.

Please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: I was genuinely heartened by the early minutes of this debate, because what I heard put forth by members on both sides of the House, with a little bit of partisan spice, was an earnest desire that we should be more economically informed. We should be more economically literate. Notwithstanding the pedantic recitations of dictionary definitions of the word “numerate,” I think there is a broad consensus in this House that there is value in us genuinely and earnestly seeking to make ourselves more informed as we strive to make decisions.

The specific intent of this motion was to focus on economic literacy. The specific intention was to make sure that we are affording members an opportunity to get bedrock education, which I think many members have indicated that they would genuinely and earnestly welcome. The intent as set out in the motion is very, very intentionally non-normative. The intent is not for everyone to receive a lecture in why they should believe in one form of economics or another.

Certainly, what I saw coming out of the early minutes of this debate was members standing up and articulating strong views around economic literacy, strong views around what they deem to be important aspects of economic literacy.

[11:30 a.m.]

I believe that this motion that was brought forward in constructive good faith would actually enable that. It would create opportunities for us all to have a stronger bedrock knowledge and understanding of economic literacy, enable us to make those arguments strongly, enable us to engage with each other substantively on really important issues with just a little bit more information.

I think that, regrettably, the amendment that has been brought forward is not in good faith. What this amendment does is attempt to inject an ideological torque into a motion that is earnestly intended to be about information. What the members are attempting to do, very, very clearly, is add more wedge politics.

This could be such an easy motion. This could be a motion where all the government had to do was just vote for it. What they would be doing is embracing the opportunity for everyone on every side of the House to become more economically literate.

If the member opposite truly wanted to bring forward alternative or additional materials to be afforded to members, to provide the opportunity for further education, then there are ways to do that. But what this member is attempting to do is turn this into another NDP wedge motion designed to try to inject the culture war into a basic conversation about economics. That is extraordinarily regrettable.

These members opposite have chosen to politicize words like “science.” They have chosen to politicize words like “truth.” They have chosen to politicize human rights. They have chosen to make it all about wedge politics, because the reality is — I will now be partisan, because I’ve been forced to — these members, this government is desperate to detract from its own extraordinarily failed and flawed legacy.

The reality is that we lost 40,000 jobs in the last couple of months. We have seen six straight quarters with more businesses exiting this economy than entering. We have a massive deficit. We’re in a very, very bad place economically. Some of why we are there is a failure to have informed and economically literate conversations. It is the fact that in a committee last year, I actually had to explain what a holding company was to the Attorney General of British Columbia. That is startling.

It is crucially important that across all parties, across every member in this House, we rise to a higher level of discourse, we rise to a point where we’re actually talking about fundamentals, and we don’t do what this member has unfortunately chosen to do, which is try to turn an earnest effort to create more informed discourse into yet another culture-war wedge motion, which is the last darn thing this House needs.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll speak very briefly to the amendment, and I hope I will still have the opportunity to speak to the motion.

I, too, love Monday mornings because these are the two hours in our schedule that are supposed to be private members’ time — not partisan. Yet this is exactly what I feared this motion would bring about, which is a partisan bun fight about which members can count better.

I honestly appreciate the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville’s creativity in bringing this forward, and I appreciate the member for Kelowna-Mission introducing this piece of art that is meant to elicit a response, but I suggest it’s a complete misuse of this private members’ time.

We’ve had some difficulty on the Private Members’ Bills Committee in keeping the partisanship out and focusing on what we are meant to do as private members, which is move forward the public interest of British Columbia. Yet we keep slipping back into this partisanship. This is a perfect example.

So I won’t be supporting the main motion, but unfortunately, I also can’t support the amendment because it just looks to me like, as I said, more partisanship that has no place in these two hours.

Rohini Arora: I think that is the beauty, to my friendly colleague, of each and every individual MLA in this House, that we have the right to bring forward and speak in the manner that we feel best suits the seriousness of the issue at hand.

I do support this motion, not only because the wording of it references “evidence-based science” — so not opinions, not ideologies; I think that’s very important for us to think about — “truth and reconciliation” and “human rights,” which are protected under the B.C. human rights code.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, let’s talk about that, because the math has got to math. If you have several Indigenous people coming forward in a report called In Plain Sight, where 84 percent of Indigenous people are having lower health outcomes because of systemic racism, that is an impact on the Health budget, the last I checked.

If there are communities of colour, Indigenous, racialized in any part of this province, and they are being overpoliced simply for the fact that they look a certain way — we know that there’s tons of research on people being carded, on Indigenous people, in every part of this country, not just in the province — does it not have an impact on the budget?

What about infrastructure? Until we tackle the issue of rape culture in a systemic manner, we’re going to have to keep building shelters and supports for women. Does that not have an impact on the budget?

I actually like the member’s motion. I’m not against it, and I think a lot of my colleagues have the same thing to say. I think the member was right in saying: “Hey, this is where we stand.” However, as I mentioned earlier, the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville has something to add to it.

By the way, this is the process. There’s no new process or partisan process being used. This is a process that exists. If you don’t like a motion but you want to add to it or you even support the motion, and it’s “yes, and,” well, I think the Coquitlam-Maillardville MLA did exactly that, using a process that exists — “yes, and.”

Let me tell you why this matters. The fact that the motion was brought forward is that there is an understanding that on our side, from what I’m gathering, we don’t understand numbers, numeracy, public finance.

Fine. If that’s what you think, Member, you are entitled to that opinion. However, I find it extremely rich when we have anti-science Conservatives.

Let me tell you. They all ran for a party with a leader who tells people that COVID vaccines are not safe and effective: “Government told people that vaccines were 100 percent safe and effective. The reality has turned out to be very different.” That was January 6, 2024, on X.

COVID-19 vaccines went through all the regulatory steps, like any other vaccines, and the technology used, called messenger RNA, mRNA, has been studied since the early ’90s. This is listed in Boston University.

He says he regrets getting what he called the so-called vaccine, and he accused Dr. Bonnie Henry of using vaccine requirements for shaping opinion and control on the population. Is that science-based, evidence-based? That is an opinion; that is not evidence-based.

So if we’re going to talk about numeracy over on this side, I don’t necessarily agree that our side doesn’t understand public finance or debt or spending or whether something is a holding company or a shell company. I mean, you can go on as long as you want. Something’s incorporated or not incorporated if it’s a sole proprietorship. If we’re going to go back and forth and throw business doublespeak terms at each other, we can go all day. Don’t let the United Steelworkers 2009 fool you.

On climate, also very interesting, again, why there is a need for education on both sides — numeracy on ours, climate on the other. These members ran with a leader who, again, before the last election had made it very clear that he didn’t believe in climate science.

The member for Nechako Lakes said: “The masses have bought into a lie on climate change. The CO2 theory does not hold water. All of their projections and predictions have been wrong. Yet the masses have bought into a lie, and as the saying goes, it is far easier to convince someone of a lie than it is to….”

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Rohini Arora: Am I done? Oh.

[11:40 a.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I’m pleased to speak to the amendment.

I think one of the things that we’re seeing here is actually a change in the intent of the original motion, which is about the financial situation of the province, financial literacy of us as legislators to impact the debt of British Columbians, the taxes of British Columbians, the business and economic landscape of British Columbia.

What the current amendment does…. It strays into areas that could be another motion in itself. I’d invite the member to bring forward something similar in another capacity. In fact, we have talked about some of these topics already. But it changes the intent to the point where it’s no longer about the financial literacy. It’s about all of these other topics being raised.

When we talk about evidence-based health care, we need to understand that B.C. actually has the lowest prescription drug coverage, virtually, in the country. That’s because of our cost and our ability to pay for that. That’s what we need to get to so that we can get to that evidence-based decision-making.

As legislators, in our training that we had as new MLAs…. We already talked about respectful workplace training, and we just talked about human rights in that. That’s already included. We also already talked about the things that the member has in this amendment. So that’s why I think we need to make sure that we are keeping the original intent on the financial and economic focus of this.

With that, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment:

[That Motion M 205 be subamended by deleting the text shown as struck out:

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Continue speaking, and we’ll make copies and distribute.

On the subamendment.

Kiel Giddens: I understand what the member was bringing in the amendment, but this subamendment is to keep the original intent of this motion. That is what we need in a time when we have record debt and deficits in this province. We have the highest structural deficits that this province has ever had. We need to understand what that means to ordinary British Columbians. We need to understand what that means for the economy of this province.

When investors see record debt and interest payments, they see higher taxes down the road. What does that mean? It means it’s not a good investment climate for British Columbians. That’s what we need to keep the focus on. That’s the intent of this subamendment — to make sure that that intent stays in place.

We’ve kept the public policy focus that the member opposite had put in that original amendment, but I think this version of the amendment is really what will keep us….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just give me a minute.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I want to make a point of order. I believe this subamendment negates the original amendment. If the member does not like the amendment that we proposed, they should vote against it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. The Chair has determined the subamendment is in order as it changes only some words of the initial amendment. Copies are being made and will be circulated. We’ll have an opportunity for everyone to take a look at it.

Continue.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for that, Madam Speaker.

I think what this amendment will do is keep the intent. It’s so important that we strengthen the ability for things like economic reconciliation in this province with economic opportunity, to make sure that First Nations, that all British Columbians have the courage and the ability to invest in a province that they see a financial future in; that they have protected human rights because we have good protections for people, because they have good, strong job opportunities and ability to look after themselves and their families, to help the social conditions of this province.

That’s going to make things better, and that’s what the intent of this is really about in the original motion. I think we’re taking some of what we had from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville’s motion and keeping that public policy focus while also keeping the original intent of the motion.

[11:45 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a couple of minutes and circulate the subamendment, to give folks an opportunity to take a look at it.

[11:50 a.m.]

Okay, we’ll call the session back into order.

On the subamendment, Member for Vancouver-Langara. You’ve got three minutes.

Sunita Dhir: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Motion 205 in support of the amendment made by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re now speaking to the subamendment by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Sunita Dhir: I do not support. I’m speaking against the subamendment made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

I do understand that Motion M205 is something that we all agree on. We make sure that members of this House have knowledge so we can make thoughtful, responsible decisions. But not just literacy…. We all support that understanding economics, public finance and numeracy matters, but the decisions we make here on taxes, spending, services affect people’s everyday lives.

Before entering public service, before getting elected, I was working with newcomers through a non-profit organization where I taught immigrants and refugees about life in Canada. I taught them about finances in B.C., that finances were important. I taught them about the health system in B.C. — because some of them come from alternate health systems, not using the same medical system here — and also about human rights that are available in B.C., the values that we have in B.C., as well as truth and reconciliation.

Many of my students arrived without much knowledge of Indigenous history, so I would try to explain it in very simple ways to them. I would ask them to imagine…. And I see that. I witness that here in this House. Yes, this motion talks about literacy, but what about other things? What about human rights? What about truth and reconciliation and evidence-based science? That is also basic knowledge.

Many of my students arrived without much knowledge of Indigenous history, and I would tell them a story. I would ask them to imagine living in a beautiful home. One day guests arrive in your home. At first, they seem grateful, and everybody’s happy, but, over time, they begin to change things without asking. They expect them to follow the rules, speak the guests’ language and live by their ways. They start making decisions for them. They take their children and raise them differently.

The people who were living here lost their home, their children, their language, their culture, their identity, and slowly the home that was once theirs no longer felt like it belonged to them. That example stayed….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

We’re now at our time limits, so we are allowing the member who moved the subamendment.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie, you have up to five minutes to close the debate on the subamendment if you wish.

Kiel Giddens: Really, what we’re trying to do with this subamendment, as I’ve said, is to keep the original intent of the member for Kelowna-Mission’s motion while taking the public policy language from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. I think it is important that we keep that intent. Us as MLAs need to have that economic, financial and numeracy literacy so that we can make the public policy decisions of this province in a way that is going to protect many of the things that the members opposite have talked about.

We’ve talked about, I’ve heard, the need to protect vulnerable women. I absolutely believe in that — vulnerable families, all of that. That is what we need to do. And to do that, you need strong public finances, strong public policy backed up by a budget situation that can pay for the public services the public depends on.

[11:55 a.m.]

This subamendment keeps that intent so all of us as MLAs really have that opportunity to learn more about what the consequences of our decisions are in public policy.

I thank you for your time.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, Members, the question is the subamendment to the motion moved by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, division of the subamendment is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This chamber is adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Contents