Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 146

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Chris Bush

George Anderson

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Edward (Ted) Arkell

Ward Stamer

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Howard E. Grant

Á’a:líya Warbus

Introductions by Members

Statements

Passover

Hon. Nina Krieger

Wildfire Season and B.C. Wildfire Service

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma

Members’ Statements

Harold Johnson and Work in Vancouver Chinatown

George Chow

Role of Police Officers

Macklin McCall

Food Security and Work of Burnaby Organizations

Janet Routledge

Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Victoria Foundation

Dana Lajeunesse

Avery Hornosty and Canada Cord Award

Scott McInnis

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and Property Ownership Concerns of Richmond Residents

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Management of Climate Change Policies

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Ban on Glyphosate Spraying and Action on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Implementation of Health Professions Legislation

Anna Kindy

Hon. Josie Osborne

Brennan Day

Government Action on Homelessness and Safety Issues in Abbotsford Encampments

Bruce Banman

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Drug Decriminalization Program and Data Collection

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Claire Rattée

Tabling Documents

InBC Investment Corp., annual legislative report, 2024-25

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 14 — Change to Legislative

Schedule for April 2

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

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

Claire Rattée

Rob Botterell

Hon. Terry Yung

Steve Kooner

Linda Hepner

Tony Luck

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026

Second Reading of Bills

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

Tony Luck

George Anderson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026

Second Reading of Bills

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

George Anderson

Teresa Wat

Bryan Tepper

Reporting of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026 (continued)

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Macklin McCall

Hon. Nina Krieger

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Darlene Rotchford.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix : Earlier today I had the opportunity to present the official provincial proclamation

to declare that April 2026 shall be known as Safe Digging Month in the province of

B.C.

In the gallery today, we have 27 members of the Common Ground Alliance and B.C. One

Call. They include Tony Millikin, the chair of the B.C. Common Ground Alliance; M.J.

Whitemarsh, government and stakeholder relations for the BCCGA, who’s well known to

people in this Legislature; Donna Grant, the president of B.C. One Call; and Paul

Chernikhowsky from Fortis, the vice-chair of B.C. One Call.

Now, members on all sides of the House had the opportunity to meet over lunch with

the Common Ground Alliance, with B.C. One Call. We learned a great deal about what

they have to tell us about safe digging.

It is occasionally the case that what I say doesn’t unite all the members of the Legislature.

But let me say this. I think I can do this today. Let’s all remember to dig responsibly.

Call or click before you dig.

Scott McInnis : I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, when I first started hanging out with my wife, as a

lowly teacher, I felt like a bit of a loser.

I have three members of my wife’s family here today, and you’ll know why here in a

second.

First of all, my wife’s cousin Marlis Neumann is here. Marlis plays the harp in the

Munich Chamber Orchestra, a responsibility she’s had for over 30 years. She’s one

of the best harpists in the world.

Joining us here also is my wife’s sister Kelly Fowler. It’s amazing she balances being

a lawyer with raising their two beautiful children, Lyndon and Maeve.

Lastly, my brother-in-law Maj. Joseph Fowler, who flies the CF-18 Hornet with the

Canadian Air Force. Very proud to have Joe here today.

Funny enough, mentioning Mr. Hansen who’s on his way to circumnavigate the moon….

That was Joseph’s first commander in the air force. So a funny connection there.

Would the House please make them all welcome here today.

Hon. Nina Krieger : I’m so pleased to be able to introduce members of the B.C. Police Association visiting

us today. These are 15 members of the 3,673 BCPA members that represent 14 police

associations and unions across our province.

With us today are Jason Chan, BCPA president James Hubert, Bill Naledine, Brandon

Steele, Sean Shipper, Dan Young, Adam Sutherland, Sebastian Fazzino, Arthur Wlodyka,

Neal Schaffer, Kieran O’Reilly, Eddie Harper, Matt Sorensen, Adam Sutherland and Don

Cogel.

Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature and thanking them for their service

and the work they do every day to keep our communities safe.

Kristina Loewen : Today it’s a pleasure to welcome to the chamber my new friend. She is a human rights

activist and author. Her book Unveiled has been translated into 19 languages. She’s an incredible human being, a podcaster.

She has a charity called Free Hearts Free Minds, and she’s co-founder and co-director

of the CLARITy Coalition. Amongst raising her two daughters and just being an amazing

human and doing a million interviews, she’s just an all-around incredible human.

Please join me in welcoming Yasmine Mohammed to the chamber today.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s very rare that I get to talk about field hockey two days in a row.

One of my former teammates from the Sydney Olympics, Ian Bird, is in the House today.

He tried to sneak into the building quietly without me noticing, but I have sources

who informed me he was here.

[1:40 p.m.]

If you had a poster child for what leadership should look like, from sport to business

to not-for-profit work, Ian is that poster child. I was so fortunate to make the junior

national team as a young man and then have mentorship from Ian. Ian has mentored a

lot of people, whether he knows it or not. I’m so excited for him in his new role,

that he’s coming back.

I won’t steal the thunder from my colleague, who’s going to share it, but I want the

House to join me in welcoming Ian Bird to the building today.

Larry Neufeld : While my colleague from across the way did beat me to the punch, I feel remiss in

not acknowledging the presence of the British Columbia Common Ground Alliance. Well

done.

My 30-year career prior to taking on this honourable position has, in fact, shown

me how incredibly important it is — on a day-to-day basis, saving lives, literally,

of workers and saving lives of the public — to ensure that we call before we dig and

that we do follow all appropriate procedures.

Please help me join the minister in welcoming these individuals.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : It’s my pleasure today to introduce two members from the Canadian Institute of Steel

Construction who are joining us here in the gallery. As you know, steel is a major

component of construction projects here in British Columbia and indeed across our

entire country. I’m very pleased to welcome Rita Rahmati, the director of public affairs;

and Chris Weckesser, manager of business initiatives for western Canada.

Would the House please make them most welcome.

Sheldon Clare : I have two introductions to do today. First, I want to extend my congratulations,

and I hope the House will join me, in welcoming Adriana Ramirez and Alejandra Garcia,

who have just achieved their Canadian citizenship. They were with us in the Legislature

here today. I was glad to be able to drop in at their ceremony this morning, very

briefly. Some 3½ years ago, they arrived here from Colombia in July of 2022. Congratulations.

Would the House please join me in congratulating the new Canadians.

Secondly, I also want to acknowledge the presence in the precinct of the B.C. Youth

Council members Maslow Low, Antonio Iannidinardo, Colin Sparks, Leo Chen, Sarah Black,

Declan Williams and Madison Perrault. They are visiting the Legislature here today,

meeting with government and opposition members to advocate on behalf of youth.

I ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : I would like to introduce and welcome two of my constituents visiting the Legislature

today, my friend Raman Sharma and Urmila Sharma. Raman is the president and founder

of the Tradesman Association of B.C.

The Tradesman Association of B.C. is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting

and advancing the construction industry through collaboration, innovation and knowledge-sharing.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the ninth Construction Expo, organized by

Raman Sharma and his team — well done, very well organized and well attended.

I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Brennan Day : I’d like to take a moment to introduce Ben Colling, with Rhodes Wellness, and Jeremy

Sabell, with Stenberg College — fantastic post-secondary education in the health care

space. An interesting fact: Jeremy Sabell’s father, Bob — who has, unfortunately,

recently passed — was my first boss in a Christmas tree farm that my parents now proudly

run and carry on that tradition. Thank you very much.

Make them feel welcome.

Tributes

Chris Bush

George Anderson : I rise to recognize Chris Bush on his retirement and thank him for his years of service

to the Nanaimo News Bulletin . Local journalism matters. It tells the story of a community in real time. It helps

people stay informed. It preserves the moments that shape a city. And it strengthens

our democracy by asking questions and keeping us all accountable.

[1:45 p.m.]

Through his reporting and photography, Chris helped capture the life of Nanaimo —

its challenges and its triumphs. I want to thank him for his service and congratulate

him on his remarkable 28-year career.

I hope that the entire House will join me in congratulating Chris and wishing him

every happiness in retirement.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Grace Lore : I have a few introductions, for the second time this week. So thank you for your

patience.

First, I am beyond thrilled to welcome some of the incredible team from the Victoria

Foundation who are joining us today, celebrating the foundation’s 90th anniversary.

You will have a chance to hear more about the foundation from my colleague from Juan

de Fuca–Malahat, but let me say that this organization is the second-oldest in Canada.

It started with $20 during the Great Depression, it has changed and transformed lives

and communities, and it has connected people across generations to causes that the

community cares about.

Will the House please help me welcome Rob Gareau, who is the foundation’s board chair.

He’s been with the foundation for 13 years. I had a chance to hear about what keeps

him, over lunch.

Sandra Richardson, the CEO of 25 years — a quarter of a century of lifting Victoria

up.

He’s already been introduced by the Minister of Jobs, but Ian Bird is the Victoria

Foundation’s incoming CEO. What a vote of confidence from my colleague.

I’m grateful to have you joining us.

We have 90th anniversary committee volunteer co-chairs Bruce Williams and Lori Elder.

We have Jonathon Dyck, Victoria Foundation senior director of marketing, communications

and facilities; and Brin Morgan, who is senior director of governance and executive

operations.

I’m grateful to have them here and for all their work.

Will the House please help me make them very welcome.

Tributes

Edward (Ted) Arkell

Ward Stamer : With regret, I want to announce the passing of Ted Arkell, from Campbell River.

Ted spent over 50 years in the forest industry, working with the B.C. forest service,

Evans Products and Ainsworth Lumber in Lillooet, B.C., before purchasing Dyer Logging

Ltd. in Campbell River in 1989.

Ted served on many forest industry boards, including the Truck Loggers Association,

later serving as president, working tirelessly for the betterment of the forest industry.

Ted was an avid boater who enjoyed fishing with his family and his friends.

We extend our regrets on Ted’s passing to his wife and his family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today I would like to wish my very favourite high school teacher, Mrs. Day, a happy

80th birthday. She was my teacher, but now she is a dear friend.

When I sang her happy birthday this morning…. She always reminds me that I am allowed

to call her Regina, but she will always be Mrs. Day to me. She has been an incredible

mentor. I love going over and visiting with her and hearing her stories. I look forward

to having dinner with her this weekend.

Happy 80th birthday, Mrs. Day.

Macklin McCall : I want to recognize a delegation here today from the B.C. Police Association. This

organization represents front-line municipal police officers serving across British

Columbia, including in Vancouver, Victoria, Saanich, Abbotsford, New Westminster,

Delta, Port Moody, West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Oak Bay and Nelson.

They’re here today meeting with the B.C. Conservative caucus to discuss issues impacting

their members and the state of public safety across British Columbia. These are important

conversations as we on this side of the House look forward to engaging with them.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

Hon. Lana Popham : Mr. Speaker, you have a very special person who works in your office, by the name

of Tabitha Bernard. Tabitha is also a constituent of mine.

[1:50 p.m.]

Her parents are visiting here today, in the gallery, from Ottawa, and I would like

to introduce the House to Sandy and Ken Bernard. Sandy is a retired early child educator,

and Ken is also retired, but he has taken on a second career as a volunteer firefighter

and has community boards coming out his ears.

Would the House please welcome them to British Columbia.

Tributes

Howard E. Grant

Á’a :líya Warbus: I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge a great person and the celebration and the

send-off I was very honoured to attend today, Uncle Howard Edward Grant, qiyəplenəxʷ VII.

There are no words for the incredible send-off. Over 600 people in attendance, leaders

from across B.C., Canada, to share with his children and his legacy — Trent, Larissa,

Wade, Gordon, Keegan and Logan. I just want to take a moment to really honour him

and his memory. There were definitely more people that could not attend and that watched

and joined and prayed with the family on Zoom.

To all of you, what an amazing, incredible send-off for our uncle, our leader. We

lost somebody very incredible in the world, and he’ll be greatly missed. I just wanted

to share my condolences and strength, love, prayers with the family.

[Halq’eméylem was spoken.]

Introductions by Members

Rohini Arora : I’d like to take a moment to introduce the Afghan community society of Nanaimo.

Please stand up so everybody can see you.

These are amazing advocates that support newcomers from Afghanistan with a special

focus on women, ensuring to build leadership capacity so that they can support all

the other members of their community. They came from across B.C. They’re supporting

people in Burnaby, Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo.

We’re so thankful you were able to make it today.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Larry Neufeld : I believe that I may have beat the minister to this one. I would like to make known

the presence of Doug Slater and the Fortis group.

I’d like to have everyone help me welcome them to the precinct.

Hon. Grace Lore : I have not yet mastered the art of honouring with enthusiasm my guests without moving

quickly enough on to my other guests, so I appreciate the second opportunity. I have

two other introductions.

On behalf of my colleagues, I also want to recognize Adriana and Alejandra. I’m grateful

for the kindness and warmth.

I know folks see you in the hall, but that opportunity to connect — I know we’re all

grateful for it. Congratulations on your Canadian citizenship.

They both became citizens last week, and we’re better for it.

We’re better for you here in our Legislature, in our community and in our province.

I don’t know about other members of this House, but your new citizenship makes me

think about what being Canadian means and what being Canadian means in this place

of democracy. So thank you so much. I’ve got a few things for you, so I will find

you around later today.

Lastly, I have a constituent, Felix, who’s in the House, a constituency member and

volunteer. I’m grateful for him. He is heading off to McGill — or Concordia; I might

have that wrong — to start political science. It’s his first time watching question

period.

Please, everybody, one more time for Alejandra and Adriana, and welcome my constituent

Felix.

Amna Shah : I’m so pleased to welcome in the gallery here today Jeremy Sabell from Stenberg College

in Surrey as well as Ben Colling from Rhodes Wellness College.

[1:55 p.m.]

Stenberg College’s presence in Surrey has helped establish Surrey as a regional education

and workforce hub, with the college contributing directly to local talent development

and economic activity. I am so pleased to be able to meet with these gentlemen later

on today to see how they’re are going to be contributing to my community and also

the accessible education pathways at Stenberg for students who go on to work as psychotherapists

and other jobs in this caring profession.

Will the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Statements

Passover

Hon. Nina Krieger : I’d like to acknowledge that today at sundown, Jewish British Columbians will observe

the first night of Passover. Families will gather around the Seder table, retelling

the story of Exodus and reflecting on the enduring theme of freedom. This is a beloved

holiday for so many.

I invite members to join me in wishing our Jewish neighbours a very happy Passover.

Chag sameach Pesach.

Wildfire Season and

B.C. Wildfire Service

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s April 1. It’s a day of jokes and laughter. But it’s also a very important day

in British Columbia. April 1 marks the beginning of the wildfire season in British

Columbia.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in Kamloops at the B.C. wildfire service headquarters,

where I was pleased to be able to share that, two years in a row, we broke a record.

Over 2,400 British Columbians have put their names forward, wanting to participate

as wildland firefighters, from every corner of this province.

With the start of the wildfire season, I know that this brings a lot of feelings for

British Columbians. We’ve gone through very difficult wildfire seasons over the past

number of years, but we also come together. We support one another.

I want to take this opportunity as we begin this wildfire season. We don’t know what

the wildfire season is going to bring, but we do know we’re going to prepare for the

worst and hope for the best.

The reason we can do that is because of the outstanding members of the B.C. wildfire

service — hundreds, if not thousands, of people that put their names up here in British

Columbia, all throughout Canada and around the world. When we’re running away from

fires, they are running into fires — to put them out, to protect people, to protect

communities.

I hope all members of the House will join me in a thunderous round of applause for

the hard-working men and women of the B.C. wildfire service, for all that they do

to help keep communities safe all year round.

Introductions by Members

Gavin Dew : I know she has already been acknowledged in a different capacity twice, but I would

just like to take a moment to acknowledge my friend M.J. Whitemarsh and to acknowledge

her long service on the Small Business Roundtable, her many years of contribution

in that regard and those of her fellow former members of that group.

The Speaker : I think we have recognized everybody sitting upstairs today. If not….

Member for Cowichan Valley.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will try to make this quick.

I’d like to introduce Declan Williams, Leo Chen, co-chairs of the B.C. Youth Council;

as well as Antonio Iannidinardo, director of youth engagement initiatives; and his

team: Maslow Low, Madison Perrault, Sarah Black and Colin Sparks.

The B.C. Youth Council is an organization dedicated to increasing youth engagement

and participation in politics through regional youth councils and initiatives like

today’s session on youth homelessness. They work to help Members of the Legislative

Assembly connect directly with young people in their communities.

Please join me in welcoming all of them here to the House today.

Janet Routledge : Joining us today in the gallery from the Lower Mainland is the public policy sector

of FortisBC.

Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I am pleased to introduce Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

This bill amends the following statutes: Judicial Review Procedure Act, Fuel Price

Transparency Act, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Act, Local Government Act, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, Residential

Tenancy Act, University Endowment Land Act, Vancouver Charter, Correction Act.

[2:00 p.m.]

This bill also makes consequential amendments to other statutes.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Harold Johnson and Work

in Vancouver Chinatown

George Chow : Last week the Vancouver Chinatown community came together to celebrate the life of

Harold Johnson, who worked in Chinatown as a security guard for two decades, helping

to keep the neighbourhood safe. This gathering meant a great deal to Harold’s wife,

Brandy, and to the Chinatown community to see so many people gathered to celebrate

his life.

Harold was more than a security guard. His connection to the community went far beyond

his job. He was a constant presence, a familiar face and a source of comfort for many

people in Chinatown. Day after day, year after year, he walked the streets of Chinatown,

not just doing his job but truly caring for the people and businesses that make up

this community.

Harold would stop in to visit the merchant shops. He never rushed those moments. He

would check in to ask how they were doing and genuinely listen. It wasn’t just about

safety. It was about connection. It was about making sure people felt seen and supported.

But what truly set Harold apart was how he treated people. Part of his job often meant

asking people sleeping in doorways or storefronts to move along so businesses could

open. That could easily have been confrontational, but Harold never treated people

like they were a problem. He treated them like human beings — with patience, with

respect and with dignity. Even in difficult situations, Harold understood that the

people he encountered were still part of the same community. That compassion is something

many people remember.

Four years ago Harold was brutally attacked while patrolling in Chinatown. He suffered

a broken nose, a broken cheekbone, a black eye and head trauma. Despite this attack,

Harold returned to work, serving the community he loved until his retirement.

The merchants and residents of Chinatown are deeply thankful for Harold’s years of

service but even more for his kindness, his presence and his unwavering care for the

community.

Harold, you will be missed but never forgotten.

Let’s give a big clap to Harold for his community service.

Role of Police Officers

Macklin McCall : I want to take a moment to speak about policing in British Columbia, because for

most people, policing is something they only think about when something goes wrong,

when they need help, when they need someone to show up, when something has already

happened. But for police officers, that’s every day. Every shift starts with the unknown.

They don’t know what the next call will be, only that they will be expected to respond,

to take control of the situation and make decisions that matter.

They deal with the violence. They deal with people in crisis. They deal with addiction,

mental health and disorder — often all at once. They do it in real time. There’s no

reset. There’s no second chance to get it right. Every decision carries weight. And

those decisions are made in environments that are unpredictable and often dangerous.

But what stands out is not one moment. It’s the consistency — showing up, taking responsibility,

doing the job regardless of the conditions. Much of that work is never seen. It doesn’t

make headlines. It doesn’t get attention. But it matters to the people they help,

to the communities they serve and to the stability of the province. Public safety

doesn’t exist on its own. It exists because there are people willing to step into

difficult situations and deal with them.

Every day across British Columbia, police officers stand between order and chaos,

and they do it without hesitation. For that, they deserve more than acknowledgement.

They deserve our respect. They deserve our support.

Today I want to say clearly: thank you. Thank you for the bravery, the dedication

and the professionalism shown by our police officers across this province, including

those represented by the B.C. Police Association, because every single day in communities

across British Columbia, they are out there doing the work that keeps people safe.

And that matters.

[2:05 p.m.]

Food Security and Work

of Burnaby Organizations

Janet Routledge : Since COVID, people around the world have been facing growing food security crises,

even here in British Columbia. Food Banks B.C. recently reported a 32 percent increase

in the number of people accessing food banks compared to 2019 and an 81 percent increase

in households doing so.

I’d like to recognize the people in Burnaby, where I live, who are organizing to ensure

that our neighbours do not have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

For example, Refood rescues surplus food and redistributes it to families in need.

The Burnaby Neighbourhood Pantry provides a safe, non-judgmental space where people

can access essential groceries.

Ryan’s Rainbow Emergency Food Outreach offers weekly food distribution and basic supplies

to those facing difficult times.

The Long Table Society — guided by the belief that if you are more fortunate than

others, it is better to build a longer table than a higher fence, among other initiatives

— brings people together for culturally appropriate community dinners. They run a

network of community gardens.

Burnaby Neighbourhood House provides low-barrier access to groceries and meals through

their community food hubs while also creating welcoming spaces where neighbours are

greeted with dignity and connected to other supports.

It may come as a surprise to many of us that there is a food bank on campus at Simon

Fraser University. It’s run by the student union for their fellow students. They also

offer a free breakfast and grocery voucher program.

It shouldn’t be seen as normal for students to have to choose between their education,

their rent or their next meal. Knowing that students are volunteering to support their

peers, often at the expense of the precious time they themselves could be studying

or working, helped convince me that our future is in good hands.

Sikh Heritage Month

and Vaisakhi

Mandeep Dhaliwal : Today I’m honoured to speak about Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi.

In British Columbia, the month of April is known as Sikh Heritage Month. It is a time

to learn about and celebrate the history, culture and contribution of the Sikh community.

The Sikh community is based on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. He taught values

like equality, honesty, kindness and helping others.

Sikhs also remember an important event in history when the Khalsa was created in 1699

by Guru Gobind Singh. This teaches us to be brave, to stand for justice. During this

time, the Sikh community goes to gurdwara to pray and serve langar, which is a free

meal for everyone. This shows equality and unity, because everyone sits together and

eats together, no matter who they are.

Across British Columbia, communities also hold Nagar Kirtan parades that bring people

together in celebration. In Vancouver, the Nagar Kirtan parade will be held on April

11. In Surrey, which has one of the largest parades in the world, it will take place

on April 18. It will be celebrated across the globe in the month of April.

Sikh Heritage Month gives all of us a chance to think about values like equality,

respect and community, which help build a strong and welcoming society.

Waheguruji Ka Khalsa Waheguruji Ki Fateh.

[Punjabi text provided by Mandeep Dhaliwal.]

Victoria Foundation

Dana Lajeunesse : I rise today to recognize an extraordinary milestone for one of our province’s most

enduring and impactful community institutions, the Victoria Foundation, which this

year celebrates 90 years of service, partnership and philanthropy in our region.

Although it’s going to be difficult to cover 90 years’ worth of service in just two

minutes, I’ll give it my best.

Founded in 1936, in the midst of the Great Depression, by Burges Gadsden, the Victoria

Foundation began its life in the Rainbow Soup Kitchen on Pandora Avenue in Victoria.

Its establishment was formalized on April 1, 1936, through

an act of this Legislature,

making it the second-oldest community foundation in Canada.

[2:10 p.m.]

The foundation’s very first gift, a modest $20 donation from Fanny Gadsden in 1937,

set in motion nine decades of generosity that have shaped the capital region. Since

that time, the foundation has granted more than $406 million to support local organizations,

including over $31 million in 2025 alone.

From its early grants in 1969, when it administered $22,000 in assets to its leadership

in programs such as vital youth, the Gadsden initiative and Victoria circle, the foundation

has worked tirelessly to foster engagement and philanthropy across generations.

A cornerstone of its community leadership has been Victoria’s Vital Signs report, an annual evidence-based snapshot of well-being in our region, now entering

a new

chapter after its 20th anniversary last year. This work has inspired significant

initiatives, including the Civil Society report of 2018 and the recent Architects of Belonging report, which highlighted that registered charities now contribute $5.4 billion directly

into our local economy, a remarkable increase of $1.4 billion since the first report.

Today is the foundation’s official anniversary with the government of British Columbia,

and we look forward to community celebrations throughout 2026, culminating in its

major 90th anniversary event at the Victoria Conference Centre on September 26.

For 90 years, the Victoria Foundation has helped build a region where everyone can

belong. Today we acknowledge their legacy, their leadership and their countless community

members who have contributed to this remarkable journey.

Thanks to the organization’s incredible leadership, we look forward with gratitude

and optimism to the next 90 years of impact.

Avery Hornosty and

Canada Cord Award

Scott McInnis : It’s a true honour to celebrate something extraordinary today, Revelstoke youth Avery

Hornosty earning her Canada Cord.

This award is not simply a badge or a milestone. It represents one of the highest

achievements a Girl Guides Pathfinder can attain in Canada. Only a small number of

Pathfinders across the entire country earn the Canada Cord each year. Here in Revelstoke,

it has been more than a decade since anyone has reached this level. That alone speaks

to how rare, rigorous and meaningful this accomplishment is.

The Canada Cord is awarded to those who demonstrate outstanding dedication in their

community, leadership, personal development and project work.

Avery, you have met and exceeded every one of these requirements with grace, creativity

and determination. Stories show your leadership in action: your composure during the

Europe trip, your creativity in crafting a packageable board game for a snowy adventure

in Mount Revelstoke National Park and your deep commitment to environmental stewardship

through your painted turtle conservation project.

These are not just activities. They are examples of how you elevate the people around

you, how you think ahead and how you care for your community.

What stands out even more is your humility. When speaking at an event about her achievement,

Avery said: “All of this wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for all of you.” In a

moment where many would focus on their own efforts, you chose to highlight your community,

your family and your girl guiding roots. This humility is the mark of a true leader.

This Canada Cord is not an ending. It is a stepping stone, one of many more to come.

With your talent, drive and compassion, there is no telling how far you will go. And

who knows? One day you may find yourself standing in our provincial Legislature, continuing

to serve in new and inspiring ways.

Avery, congratulations on this remarkable and very rare achievement. Revelstoke and

all of British Columbia are incredibly proud of you. We cannot wait to see where your

leadership takes you next.

[2:15 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and

Property Ownership Concerns

of Richmond Residents

Steve Kooner : Yesterday my colleague from Richmond-Bridgeport and myself received a letter from

the city of Richmond.

It showed that Richmond residents and the city remain deeply concerned about the implications

on private property around the Quw’utsun decision. Despite assurances from this government

and the Quw’utsun in a joint statement, uncertainty persists.

Will the Attorney General commit to Richmond city council to elevate the joint statement

to a legally binding agreement that protects private property owners, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is a very complicated and very serious issue, one that this government is putting

a lot of effort behind clarifying — protecting and bringing the certainty to property

rights and sitting down with the Quw’utsun to sort out that decision and appealing

it to the court.

We also received a letter from the city of Richmond that noted: “We have appreciated

the supportive position taken by the provincial government in the Quw’utsun case.

We were pleased to receive a recent statement by the Quw’utsun Nation’s Chief and

the province of British Columbia containing a quote that addressed the approaches

to privately held fee simple titles.”

This is how we are going to get through this issue: working together to solve these

very complicated issues. It’s not the approach from the other side, which is to demonize

First Nations People, spread fear and misinformation for political points and not

arrive at any concrete examples of how to solve the issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh. Members, that’s enough.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, wait. Wait. Members, order.

Please conclude.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We are going to work through this issue not only with the city of Richmond, in the

courts; with the Quw’utsun; and on behalf of protecting private property rights here

in British Columbia. We’ll keep doing that work.

The Speaker : Richmond-Queensborough, supplemental.

Steve Kooner : The Attorney General should read the rest of the letter from the city of Richmond

for the record.

“Richmond residents affected by the Quw’utsun case are concerned that without a successful

court appeal, an Aboriginal title declaration could continue to mark their private

property, affecting market value.”

This isn’t fearmongering. This isn’t a fearmongering concern coming from Richmond

residents. These are real concerns, and those concerns are documented in that letter

from the city of Richmond.

Will the Attorney General amend the court appeal to call for the extinguishment of

Aboriginal title on private property in Richmond, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have read the entire letter, and we have been working with the city of Richmond.

In fact, they’ve noted that directly: “We are appreciative of the provincial government

and their supportive position in the Quw’utsun case.”

We are working through not only complicated issues but we are driving for certainty

when it comes to private property. That is our work every single day. That means appealing

the court case. That means sitting down with the Quw’utsun. That means making sure

that private property interests are protected in any way that we can. We will continue

to work with the city of Richmond to do that.

What it does not involve are the ideas coming from the other side: “Stop talking to

First Nations. Rip up our agreements. Don’t sit down. Don’t do the work that we know

needs to happen to get to the certainty that we need.” Those are the ideas coming

from the other side. They’re divisive, they’re unhelpful, and they’re not going to

get us to certainty.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA

and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford : Let me just read into the record some of this correspondence that my colleagues received

from the mayor of Richmond and council. “For months, residents and business owners

in Richmond have expressed concern over the uncertainty about private property title

as a result of the Supreme Court of B.C. decision pronounced in August 2025.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Here’s part of the problem. When legitimate questions are raised in this House, outside

of this House — and unfortunately, this government, this Premier, this minister, multiple

ministers don’t have answers — their only answer is fearmongering. That is what they

fall back on, because they’ve got nothing else to say. That should scare every British

Columbian, and we are seeing that today.

We are talking about uncertainty for property right owners, and that’s just not my

opinion, because depending on what day the Premier wakes up, it might be his. He will

say: “We will go to the wall for property right owners. We will actually go as far….

We will backstop mortgages.” That’s what the Premier of this province is prepared

to do.

But then it changes. “Private property rights are never in question” is what he’ll

say in one room.

It is April 1. The public is waiting. The province is waiting. This Legislature is

waiting. First Nations are waiting.

Where, oh where are these amendments, and when will this Premier and when will this

government get on with it and actually do what the public is expecting them to do?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We have been very clear since day one. The decision came down, and we were the first

out of the gate…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …to ask for an appeal. We were the first out of the gate to try to figure out how

we sort through the legal uncertainty that’s created.

We are in court with our lawyers fighting and appealing this case. We’re sitting down

with the Quw’utsun, and we’re trying to figure out our path forward on behalf of the

private property owners there. That includes the joint statement that we released

with the Quw’utsun that makes it clear that the province and the Quw’utsun are not

seeking to go after the private property rights.

We will continue to make that progress.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : But can I just tell you the political opportunism that’s coming from that side? The

day after the Quw’utsun decision came down, they issued a fundraising email to try

to make money off what was happening in this matter.

This is the type of rhetoric that’s coming up from that side that is not helpful.

It’s not going to get us certainty for those private land owners. It’s not going to

get us anywhere except for dividing this province up.

We are going to continue to do the work, and we’re going to get that certainty.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental?

Trevor Halford : Yeah, I do.

Here’s part of the issue. We do have to get to work. We do have to do the work of

the people. We can’t do it when this government continues to overpromise and underdeliver

on something as important as the legislation that they committed to do in this House.

It is April 1, and there is nothing other than incompetence. The fact is that we are

starting to believe that the government doesn’t even have a plan to introduce this

legislation this spring or get it complete. The fact of the matter is this government

is not doing the work and actually having the debates in this House. So if they want

them to stop happening outside of this House, table that legislation today, put it

forward, be transparent, stand behind it and have those debates in this House.

Will you table that legislation today, yes or no?

The Speaker : Member, all questions through the Chair.

When the question was asked, the courtesy was provided to listen, and I hope the same

courtesy we’ll get when the answer is given.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve been very open with the public about the need that we see…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …to look at DRIPA and move forward with addressing the Gitxaała decision. The Premier

has been in the media. I’ve been in the media. We talked about it with the public.

When legislation comes forward, everybody knows in this House it’s publicly debated.

We go through three stages of public debate where they get to give their opinion…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …and we get to give our thoughts. That’s the process, and that’ll be, obviously,

the process we follow when it comes to these amendments.

I’m not going to pretend to talk about what they believe on that side, because they

believe a lot of things that are not factual and are not based on the reality that

British Columbians are facing right now. We’re going to continue to focus on solving

those issues that are important to British Columbians and real solutions to those

problems.

[2:25 p.m.]

Government Management of

Climate Change Policies

Jeremy Valeriote : It is April Fools’ Day, and exactly a year after dismantling the carbon tax to appease

Pierre Poilievre, this government’s climate policy has turned into a fool’s errand.

It all started so promisingly with transformational programs like the climate action

secretariat, also courtesy of the late B.C. Liberal government; and the CleanBC plan,

thanks to the NDP’s 2017 agreement with the B.C. Greens. We also had a thorough review

of CleanBC last year that seems to be gathering dust on the minister’s bookshelf.

We hear all the right things about the environment and climate action, but when the

polling landscape shifts, it looks like this government is only motivated to act when

a couple of Greens raise a ruckus. So here is your ruckus.

My question for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions: now that the climate

action secretariat has been disbanded, how will this government provide the leadership

and cross-ministry coordination needed to meet our existential climate commitments?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member’s statement is simply untrue. There were two divisions of the Ministry

of Energy and Climate Solutions: the climate action secretariat and the energy decarbonization

division — two smaller divisions. They’ve been made into one division, working together

— people working on decarbonization across government, across the Ministry of Energy

and Climate Solutions and leading on these questions.

Our CleanBC plan is leading Canada. The impacts of the low-carbon fuel standard on

reducing emissions and creating jobs, our actions to support EVs in B.C. and heat

pumps in B.C., working with industry to lower emissions standards with the output-based

pricing system — this is why we’re leading B.C.

Bringing together two divisions of the same ministry is not disbanding them. It is

181 public servants working hard to ensure that the implementation of CleanBC happens

for the benefit of everybody in British Columbia.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Ban on Glyphosate Spraying

and Action on Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Health Framework

Jeremy Valeriote : That’s not what we’re hearing. We’re hearing staff who have dedicated their lives

to climate action being forced to work in the oil and gas industry, which is a symbolic

slap in the face.

Moving along, all three parties in this House had the same 2024 election promise:

to ban aerial spraying of glyphosate. Glyphosate, as we know, is a toxic chemical

linked to cancer, kidney disease and brain damage — not to mention biodiversity loss.

But this government is still letting Roundup cloud our forests and nearby communities.

On the important topic of biodiversity, B.C. has more species at risk than anywhere

else in Canada. We’re one of the only provinces without stand-alone species-at-risk

legislation. Three years ago, this government announced a draft framework. We’re still

waiting for a final and a law to back it up.

I know the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship will say that she cares

about this work, and I truly believe that. But if raising a ruckus is the only way

for these initiatives to make headway in the Premier’s office, I’ll do my bit.

When will this government ban glyphosate, release the biodiversity and ecosystem health

framework and back up its promises with legislation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : On this side of the House, we pride ourselves on the ability to be able to work with

all parties on the steps forward that we need to take to be able to tackle the big

challenges before our time.

On glyphosate, we’re proud on this side of the House that there has been a significant

reduction in glyphosate use in the province of British Columbia, in our forests.

But I have to take the opportunity to remind that member that we had an opportunity

to be able to work together in our CARGA agreement. But because a new leader decided

actually changing lives here in British Columbia, those two members turned their backs

on workers and on people in their communities.

On this side of the House, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; the

Minister of Environment; the Minister of Forests; all members of our cabinet; and

all members of our government are continuously focused on building our economy and

doing it in a way that looks after our environment and looks after ensuring that we’re

building a more sustainable economy, delivering for British Columbians.

Implementation of

Health Professions Legislation

Anna Kindy : I’ve heard from hundreds of health professionals concerning the Health Profession

and Occupations Act.

They’re telling me that they’re planning to take early retirement or leave B.C. rather

than deal with NDP-appointed health colleges and government-appointed disciplinary

panels. I know the minister has received the same letters.

So can the minister tell us how many health care professionals they expect to leave

B.C. or retire because of the HPOA?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : First of all, any claim that the Health Professions and Occupations Act is going

to make health professionals leave the province is unfounded. It is simply untrue.

The Health Professions and Occupations Act is about strengthening and protecting patient

safety and the public interest. We put our confidence and trust in health care professionals,

and we need to ensure that the transparency and accountability is there in regulating

health professionals that deliver these critical care services to us.

Regulatory bodies are there to protect the public, not to protect the profession.

That is why, for the first time in 30 years — after years of work, after reviews that

showed that the regulatory framework needed to be strengthened — we have taken the

steps to modernize this framework.

Today is the first day that this new framework comes into force. The new health regulatory

colleges are stood up. Their board members are appointed through a merit-based process.

They are ready to take the work forward, to ensure that that transparency and accountability

is there for the trust in their health professions.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Anna Kindy : What you’re saying is very insulting to the front lines.

The Speaker : Through the Chair, Member.

Anna Kindy : Through the Chair, what the minister is saying is very insulting to the front lines.

The Doctors of B.C. have been pushing against the HPOA for years. It was drafted with

little or no consultation with the front lines.

What the Doctors of B.C. is saying is that the HPOA politicizes health care. It doesn’t

increase the safety of patients when you politicize health care. This HPOA increases

censorship, and what does that do? It decreases safety of patients.

All positions on college boards are now appointed by the Minister of Health, and every

four years, the Minister of Health changes. How is her knowledge? What’s her base

of knowledge, to be able to do those appointments?

All positions in the disciplinary tribunals are appointed by government. There are

no external appeal processes. This is the definition of political interference.

The question to the Health Minister. Make sure that the answer does not insult the

front lines here. Why does the minister refuse to let health professionals elect their

own representative to be part of the college board?

Hon. Josie Osborne : First, it is just so unfortunate to see this member spreading misinformation about

the act and the role that it plays in regulating health professionals here in the

province.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I would expect the member to understand that the purpose of the regulatory framework

is to protect patients. It is to protect the public interest. The legislation is about

keeping people safe from harm and discrimination. It has always been the role of regulatory

colleges, and that isn’t changing.

But let’s talk about the board appointments. We saw in the Cayton report, in a review

of health college regulation and the way that this was undertaken through an elected

process, that that invited the opportunity for board members to put the interests

of the profession before the interests of the public.

But we know that we must make sure the public interest comes first. The member knows

but she hasn’t talked about the fact that the independent superintendent’s office

is using a merit-based process…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …with policies that are published on its website and open and transparent for anyone

to see how that works.

Eighty percent of the former college board members have been appointed to the new

boards, together with members of the public, to hold that balance there of professional

service, professional expertise, together with the interests of the public — to ensure

that our health professionals are delivering health care with competency, with ethics

and with the right qualifications.

Brennan Day : The HPOA act removes elected merit positions from health care colleges and moves

boards to fully appointed by government.

[2:35 p.m.]

Cindy Oliver was just appointed as chair of Fraser Health. Oliver is a longtime donor

to the B.C. NDP and was chair of the post-election review committee to analyze why

the NDP lost the 2013 election — something you may need her for again.

These are the types of people this government is appointing to run our health care

authorities.

Does anybody in British Columbia and does this minister or this government truly think

anyone believes professional college appointments are going to be any different?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The member may have missed the answer that I just provided around an independent

superintendent and their office in undertaking a merit-based process…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Have the courage to listen now, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …looking at the skills and competencies of professionals and using that process to

come forward with recommendations to the minister.

If the member reads the legislation, he will also see that the minister cannot reject

those recommendations without specific reasons that must be made public, that the

superintendent would then need to go back and redo the appointment process.

Eighty percent of the existing college board members have transferred. They’ve been

appointed to the new boards of the regulatory colleges.

We rely on professionals for their expertise and for their knowledge. And we entrust

the boards of these colleges to protect the integrity of the profession; and first

and foremost, to protect patient safety; to ensure that our regulatory system is transparent;

that it is accountable; and that people can have the faith, the trust, the confidence

that they need to do when they receive treatment or care from health professions and

health occupations.

The Speaker : The Member has a supplemental.

Brennan Day : The only thing this legislation does…. It’s designed just to protect from this government’s

incompetency.

Wait-lists are growing in British Columbia, 1.3 million British Columbians don’t have

a doctor, and this government is dismissing real concerns from care providers across

this province. Check your email boxes. Mine is full.

Regarding HPOA…. Don’t take it from me. The Doctors of B.C. president and family physician,

Adam Thompson…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Brennan Day : …said: “The key thing at the moment is that we want to recruit and retain doctors

in British Columbia, and we need to realize that this will reduce the physician’s

desire to live and provide care in B.C.” That’s the Doctors of B.C.

I’ve got dozens of emails in my office, so why does this minister keep dismissing

the real concerns of care providers across this province?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Well, we know that if they were on this side of the House, health care and education

would bear the brunt of budget cuts that they would bring forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : So maybe one of the things they would do is cut regulatory colleges.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Just hold it, Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne : On this side of the House, we are so focused on attracting new family physicians,

specialists, nurses, nurse practitioners, allied health care workers to come be a

part of B.C.’s public health care system. A strong regulatory framework is part of

that.

As part of this new legislation, colleges are directed to reduce the burdens and make

it easier for the doctors and nurses coming to British Columbia to be credentialed.

This is the work of a government that is wholly focused on strengthening health care,

bringing in new health care workers — like today, today’s announcement of over 500

U.S.-trained nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners.

We know the opposition was opposed to that recruitment campaign. I guess they’re opposed

to us bringing new doctors here. They were opposed to a new medical school coming

in at SFU. But on this side, we are going to keep attracting more professionals. We’re

going to strengthen our health care system, not cut it.

Government Action on Homelessness

and Safety Issues in

Abbotsford Encampments

Bruce Banman : You know, no matter how hard this government tries to hide their housing failures,

encampments growing across the province and in my community of Abbotsford prove in

real time how incompetent they really are.

There are encampments on Cole Road rest stop, Whatcom Road park-and-ride, McCallum

park-and-ride and the Peardonville underpass. And what do they all have in common?

They’re all on Ministry of Transportation land.

[2:40 p.m.]

They’re posted with “No trespassing,” “No camping over 24 hours,” yet local police

and the RCMP have been told they are not allowed to enforce the area unless it’s a

911 call.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain to the police officers in the gallery why

he is prohibiting law enforcement from policing these encampments to make the public

safe?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the member asking the question, particularly this member asking a question

on homelessness and encampments, given his record on the issue.

I’d like to make it clear. Police are not prohibited from protecting public safety

and homeless encampments. What is happening is that we are working very closely with

the Ministry of Housing to find appropriate housing and services for these particular

individuals.

We are working very closely with the city of Abbotsford, which has been appreciative

of our efforts, and in particular, around one camp that the member referenced in his

comments around Whatcom, where I have instructed my staff to come up with short-term

solutions in terms of increasing the security in that area as well as to look at what

other steps need to be taken over the long term.

We are working collaboratively with the city of Abbotsford and their policing agencies

and Housing to find appropriate accommodation for these particular individuals in

a way that is humane, addresses their needs and ensures the public safety of the residents

of Abbotsford, which is something that never seemed to happen when that member was

the mayor of Abbotsford.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Bruce Banman : I’ve been warning this government that there are dangerous issues with homeless encampments

across Abbotsford for years. Last Monday there was a fatal shooting at the Whatcom

Road park-and-ride encampment and a huge fire. This was preventable.

I want to remind this government, this minister, about Brianna, the 13-year-old girl

who died of an overdose just over a year ago in the Lonzo Road encampment. I shudder

to think about what her last few weeks were like.

My question to this NDP government: how many more people have to die in encampments

before you let police do their job?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Police are always able to do their job.

What I find fascinating, every time I hear this member and other members on that side

of the House stand up and talk about encampments, the problems with encampments and,

“Why are there not services in place…?” When we go and try and put services into communities,

they stand up and say: “We don’t want them in our communities.” They stand up and

demand public safety. They stand up and demand services. Yet they vote against every

single initiative to provide those services, every single time.

I’ll also say this. When it comes to giving police the tools to do their job, no government

has done more than this government has in the last five years — the largest investment

in policing in the history of this province, with 250 RCMP officers; the first witness

protection program in this province, done by this side of the House; the first forensic

firearms lab in this province, done by this side of the House.

They had an opportunity when they sat here, and they failed every single time.

Drug Decriminalization Program

and Data Collection

Claire Rattée : It’s really rich to hear the Minister of Transportation talking about how this side

of the House is against solutions for homeless encampments, when I’ve been trying

for almost a year to get a permanent shelter in my community and I’ve been turned

down every single time. Not to mention the three months it took me to get a response

from that minister’s office when I’m just asking for a bit of clarity around what’s

going on, on my highways.

[2:45 p.m.]

Since the minister refused to answer my question yesterday, I’m going to try again

in light of the letter that she received this morning from Dr. Julian Somers. Dr.

Somers spent over two decades building one of the most comprehensive databases in

the world on addiction, homelessness and public safety in British Columbia, tracking

real outcomes for more than 300,000 people.

In his letter, he confirmed that just as the province was preparing to move ahead

with major policy changes, including decriminalization, his team was ordered to destroy

that data — data that he says would have allowed independent evaluation and could

have pointed this government in a very different direction.

I’ll ask again: why did this government order the destruction of critical addiction

and public safety data right before launching its decriminalization experiment, and

will she release all underlying data for independent review today? Or is this government

still choosing to control the evidence, instead of being honest with British Columbians?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Let me be perfectly clear. This is false and absolutely misleading, what the member

is saying.

The data that Dr. Somers collected was not destroyed. He had been contracted by government

some years ago to undertake research, and in 2021, he was asked to transition his

data to a new government database. The data still exists. That database allows for

increased data collection and provides broader availability to researchers and academics.

The data was moved to this new database. It is being used to this day by researchers.

It’s no surprise that the Conservatives would try to spread misinformation on Dr.

Somers’ behalf. This is a person who thinks that the COVID vaccine kills people and

that Dr. Bonnie Henry has blood on her hands. He also said the Premier is forcing

vulnerable kids to get opioids implanted. That’s what’s shameful. This is completely

false. It is harmful.

On this side of the House, we are going to keep working to correct misinformation

and to improve care for all British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Claire Rattée : I’d like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege.

Rohini Arora : May I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Rohini Arora : I just wanted to give a shout-out to a home school group that is visiting from my

riding. I wanted to shout out Tiffany Blaskovich and students from kindergarten to

grade 11.

Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Point of Order

John Rustad : I rise on a point of order.

Language that was used by the Attorney General in her first response today I found

to be offensive, insulting and unbecoming of a minister of the Crown, and unacceptable

language to be used in this Legislature.

I ask that you request her to withdraw and apologize for the use of that language

in this Legislature.

The Speaker : Members, the Attorney General made her answer. It was part of the debate, what she

said, but I’ll still ask the Attorney General if she has anything to clarify.

The Chair will also review Hansard , and we’ll check it out.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I have the honour to present the InBC Investment Corp. annual legislative report

for the year 2024-2025.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 14 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 14 — Change to Legislative

Schedule for April 2

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 14, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

adjusts the sitting hours for tomorrow, April 2, to accommodate the memorial service

for His Honour the late Ashley Chester.

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1),

a. the adjournment time of the sitting of the House commencing at 10 a.m. on Thursday,

April 2, 2026, be modified to immediately following the conclusion of Oral Question

Period; and,

b. the start of the afternoon sitting on Thursday, April 2, 2026, be modified to 2

p.m.]

The Speaker : Members, the question is the adoption of Motion 14.

Motion approved.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Budget

Measures Implementation Act.

In

Section C, in the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Civil Forfeiture

Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We are going to call this chamber back to order, where we are….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members, could I ask you to take your conversations into the hallway, please, so

that we can carry on with the business of the day.

We are going to continue our debate this afternoon on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2026.

Claire Rattée : I’m happy to continue talking about Bill 11 and about, honestly, the horrors that

are going on right now in supportive housing units.

Yesterday when I began my speech, I was talking about some very personal stories of

things that have happened to people in supportive housing units. Now I’m going to

speak about some really tragic events. This is going to be talking about a few of

the deaths that have happened in recent years in supportive housing units.

The importance of this is in looking at why this piece of legislation did not address

this. These are things that the minister is aware of. These are stories the minister

is aware of, that the ministry is aware of, that B.C. Housing is aware of, yet there

is still nothing to address what’s happened to these people that passed away in supportive

housing units.

One of the most disturbing realities that we’re confronting in this debate is what

happens when people are placed in housing without the supports that they need and

then, effectively, ignored.

One of the most disturbing cases I have ever encountered, which cannot be ignored,

is that of Diane Chandler, a 60-year-old woman who died of an overdose inside a supportive

housing unit at the Foxglove facility in Surrey. Her body was not discovered for 11

days.

This was a woman living in a provincially funded supportive housing unit — a building

that is supposed to provide oversight, safety and support. Yet she died alone, unnoticed

for nearly two weeks. I had the opportunity to sit down with her son and hear firsthand

what this has meant for him and what this has meant for his whole family — the grief,

the confusion, the anger, not just at losing his mother but at how she was lost.

This was not an unavoidable tragedy. This was a failure of every safeguard that was

supposed to be in place. When I had the opportunity to speak with her son about this,

what really struck me was that he felt very confident that while Diane had had some

struggles with substance use in the past, before moving into Foxglove she wasn’t using

her drugs. This was not somebody that was at risk of overdosing and dying.

In the short amount of time that she lived there, her life went completely downhill.

She developed a very severe addiction because she was surrounded by it. She was surrounded

by open drug use. It was likely encouraged, as it is in many of these facilities,

to just continue down that path. We know that there are a lot of very dangerous individuals

living in these facilities and preying on vulnerable people. I believe Diane was one

of them.

What makes Diane Chandler’s death even more devastating is what we learned about the

circumstances surrounding it. During a wellness check, staff reportedly mistook another

resident for Diane, meaning that they believed that she was alive and accounted for

when she was not. Think about what that means. Not only was there a lack of proper

follow-up, but the systems that are supposed to ensure that people are safe were fundamentally

flawed.

[2:55 p.m.]

Even more troubling than that, the same resident who was mistaken for Diane also passed

away shortly after. The really troubling

part is the person that was mistaken for

Diane — where did they think that she was during this time?

This is not a one-off mistake. This is a systemic failure. It raises serious questions

about how wellness checks are conducted, how residents are identified and whether

there is any meaningful accountability when those systems break down.

This bill does nothing to address that reality. Diane Chandler’s story brings us back

to the central issue that we are debating today: supportive housing. That is what

it’s called. But where was the support? Where was the oversight? Where was the care?

Her death — like the deaths of Travis, Shawn and Lindsey, who I will speak about next

— exposes the reality that in too many cases, supportive housing is not functioning

as a system of care. It is functioning as a place where people are left — often with

significant needs, often without adequate supports — and expected to manage on their

own.

When something goes wrong, when someone dies, we are left asking how it could have

happened. The truth is that it is happening because the system is not designed to

prevent it, and nothing in Bill 11 addresses that fundamental failure.

In another case brought forward through reporting and freedom-of-information requests,

Travis Fox died of an overdose inside supportive housing, and his body was also not

discovered for days. This was not someone disconnected from the system. This was someone

living in government-funded housing, in a building that is supposed to provide support,

supervision and safety. Yet no one checked on him. No one intervened. No one noticed.

That is not just a tragic outcome. It is a complete breakdown of the very purpose

of supportive housing. When we talk about safety in this House, we cannot ignore the

reality that people like Travis Fox are dying alone, unnoticed in buildings that are

supposed to keep them safe.

What makes Travis Fox’s death even more troubling is what we learned afterwards. Through

freedom-of-information documents, it became clear that concerns had already been raised

about the conditions in these buildings. Risks were known, issues had been flagged,

yet meaningful changes were not implemented. That tells us something critical. This

is not a problem of awareness. It is a problem of action. It is a problem of accountability.

Bill 11 does nothing to address that. It does not establish minimum standards for

wellness checks. It does not address staffing levels. It does not create any mechanism

to ensure that people are being monitored and supported in a meaningful way. Instead,

it focuses on enforcement and on what happens after something goes wrong, rather than

preventing tragedies like Travis Fox’s death in the first place.

There is also the case of Shawn Richards, a man living in supportive housing that

was operated by RainCity Housing, who died after experiencing significant distress

and repeatedly seeking help. His story is deeply troubling because it highlights a

failure to respond to clear warning signs.

Reports describe a situation where Shawn Richards was deteriorating, where there were

visible indicators that he was in crisis, where intervention could have made a difference,

yet the response was inadequate.

This is what happens when housing is used as a substitute for care and when individuals

with complex needs are placed in buildings without proper clinical oversight, without

timely access to medical or mental health intervention and without the level of support

that their condition requires. This is warehousing addiction, warehousing people that

are suffering, warehousing people with mental health or mental illness issues, warehousing

poverty and expecting this to somehow be enough.

What is most concerning about Shawn Richards’s case is that it is not unique. It reflects

a broader pattern, a system where people in supportive housing are clearly struggling,

clearly deteriorating yet are not receiving the level of care that would be expected

in any other setting. If someone were in a hospital, if someone were in a treatment

facility, if someone were in a properly resourced care environment, those warning

signs would trigger immediate intervention. But in supportive housing, too often,

they do not.

This bill does nothing to change that. It does not increase clinical supports. It

does not mandate intervention. It does not create pathways to treatment. It simply

assumes that housing alone is enough. Clearly, based on cases like Shawn Richards’s,

it is not.

Another heartbreaking case is that of Lindsey, whose story was brought forward by

legal advocates. Lindsey is someone who was, effectively, left to die in supportive

housing. They were vulnerable. They were struggling. And they did not receive the

intervention they needed.

[3:00 p.m.]

Their story is incredibly difficult to read, but it is important that we acknowledge

it because it exposes a fundamental truth about the system. Supportive housing, as

it currently exists in many cases, is not a system of care. It is a system of placement.

It puts people somewhere, but it does not ensure that they are safe, that they are

supported or that they have access to recovery. And when something goes wrong, the

response is often too late.

We need to be honest about what that means. When we place people like Lindsey — people

with severe addiction, people with complex trauma, people who are deeply vulnerable

— into buildings without adequate supports, without clinical supervision, without

meaningful pathways to recovery, we are not helping them. We are warehousing them.

We are placing them in environments where harm continues, where risks escalate and

where outcomes are often tragic.

Then we bring forward legislation like Bill 11, which focuses on managing a very narrow

scope of behaviour within those environments, rather than addressing the fact that

those environments are fundamentally not equipped to meet the needs of the people

living in them.

This is something that, again, I know that the minister and the cabinet are very aware

of, particularly given the fact that we just saw yesterday Larry Campbell give a press

release. He did a press conference on the work that he’s doing on the Downtown Eastside,

at the direction of the Minister of Housing, to be able to determine what’s going

wrong on the Downtown Eastside. I think that is an area that we are all aware is the

hardest hit throughout the province by these issues.

One of the things he said was that SROs are not working. We know they’re not working.

We know that this system doesn’t work. He’s gone in there and seen it firsthand. I’m

sure — I hope — that many members of government have also done that. I know I have.

We’ve seen these things firsthand. We know that this system isn’t working and that

something has to change. But again, this legislation does not address that.

We are also seeing growing concern around environmental exposure inside of these buildings,

particularly when it comes to airborne drug contamination. Reports have documented

that residents and workers in supportive housing are being exposed to substances like

fentanyl through secondhand smoke and airborne particles. People are being exposed

to highly toxic substances simply by living in their own homes or going to work.

This is not theoretical. It is being reported by tenants, by workers and by health

professionals. It raises serious questions about safety, about basic living conditions

and about what standards we are willing to accept in publicly funded housing.

Once again, Bill 11 does not address this in any way. It does not establish standards

for air quality. It does not address ventilation. It does not create protections for

workers or residents who are being exposed. It does not even acknowledge the issue.

The minister and the cabinet know about these concerns. This has been well documented.

I’ve already spoken about some cases throughout my speech of where tenants are being

impacted by this.

At what point do we not determine that the majority of people living in supportive

housing don’t want to be exposed to secondhand drug smoke? Why are we allowing this

to continue? Why are we risking the majority’s health and safety? Not to mention the

risk that it actually places on the people that are using the drugs by not helping

them with pathways to get into recovery. This is not acceptable behaviour in a housing

unit. It shouldn’t be happening.

When we step back and look at these cases together, whether it’s Travis Fox dying

alone and unnoticed; Shawn Richards not receiving intervention in the moment of crisis;

Diane Chandler — her body was left for 11 days; Lindsey being left without the care

that they needed….

What’s happening to Erin with her unit becoming uninhabitable for her and her children,

despite reporting the issues for three years? Three years and nothing changing.

Diana’s story about the fear and anxiety that she experiences daily, the lack of sleep

and exposure to secondhand drug smoke coming from right outside her bedroom window.

The threats, the intimidation, the fact that she’s been punched in the head and that

there have never been any consequences. She’s repeatedly reported this, and there

are no consequences.

Or Dayna, unable to find parking or do laundry due to overcrowding in her unit.

Residents and workers that are exposed to airborne fentanyl.

We are forced to confront a very difficult truth. The problem is not that we lack

enforcement tools. The problem is that the system itself is not designed to deliver

safety, care or recovery. Until we address that, fundamentally, no amount of legislative

enforcement will fix what is broken.

[3:05 p.m.]

Temporary access restrictions are another aspect that’s been addressed in this bill,

which is effectively locking people out of their homes. These are individuals in crisis.

Where do they go? Again, this legislation provides no answers. This is unlikely to

de-escalate many of the situations that arise. It may de-escalate it within the building

temporarily, but it will probably just make it someone else’s problem rather than

addressing the issue.

Again, we see much of this legislation will be determined by regulation — critical

details deferred. We are being asked to pass a framework without knowing how it works.

This is not clarity.

I want to talk more about fire risk. There are lithium batteries, thermal runaway,

explosive ignition, buildings that are not designed for it. We know that risk. We

have identified the buildings, yet there is no action in this bill.

I also happen to know, or I’m fairly confident from what I’ve heard, that there are

a few buildings in the Downtown Eastside where known arsonists are being housed together

in the same units. This bill is not doing anything to look at how we determine who

we’re housing in which units. For the life of me, I’m not really clear on why or how

that decision was made. But that is a fundamental issue that we are seeing in supportive

housing, and there’s nothing being done to address it in this piece of legislation.

Increasingly, tenants are also bringing e-bikes in off the street into their units

and then jerry-rigging a charging system that is unsafe and causes a fire. The staff

knows that this happens, but they are helpless to stop it. The other tenants know

that it happens, and again, they are helpless to stop it. They have no legal authority

to confiscate items that they know will likely cause a fire. These are often mentally

ill individuals, whether drug induced or not. They often cannot recognize the inherent

danger that items like these e-bikes or locking torches pose.

This is a basic safety issue, but this government has not provided any solution to

it. The reality is that in many of these facilities, you have people that are struggling

with severe mental illness because they have nowhere else to go. There is no psychiatric

hospital. There is no secure care for them. So they’re getting housed in SROs and

supportive housing.

They cannot recognize how dangerous these items are. They don’t recognize the threat

to their personal safety or the safety of those around them, and that is evidenced

by the fact that many of them are repeatedly overdosing, sometimes multiple times

in a day. They aren’t able to recognize the danger that they’re posing to themselves

and to others.

There has to be a different way to approach supportive housing that allows the operators

to recognize when somebody has brought in something like a modified e-bike and to

remove it from the premises for the safety of everyone else involved, including that

tenant. That should be a bare minimum. But again, this legislation does not address

it.

The misuse of the SRO model is also not addressed in this legislation. Buildings that

were designed as hotels are now used as care environments, without redesign and without

infrastructure, a glaring gap between needs and capacity.

Worker safety has in no way been addressed. These workers are not trained for enforcement,

and now they are expected to manage dangerous situations.

Again, there is no clarity in this piece of legislation about who is supposed to intervene

when a weapon is found. Who is supposed to confiscate it? Is it confiscated? Are police

or RCMP supposed to be called? There has been no clarity provided in this legislation.

What about the potential liability implications, the WCB claims that could come forward

from workers, retention of staff? This is not sustainable.

I don’t know if no thought was given to it or if this is just something that’s going

to come forward later by regulation, but personally, I am uncomfortable with passing

legislation that I don’t understand, that that clarity hasn’t been provided to me

on. We don’t understand what that system is or what that process is going to look

like. We need to have clarity around that. Tenants require that clarity. The providers

require that clarity.

This is not a housing issue alone. This is a failure of system design. This bill does

not address that. It doesn’t address drug use in buildings, secondhand smoke, fire

risk, building design, worker safety, tenant placement, treatment capacity. It doesn’t

answer: who enforces? What is a weapon? What happens next?

[3:10 p.m.]

It does not reflect consultation with law enforcement, fire services, municipalities.

It does not explain why the working group’s findings were never released. It does

not confront that supportive housing is being used as a substitute for care. In many

cases, it’s warehousing addiction — placing people in buildings without support, without

pathways to recovery — and calling that compassion. It is not.

True compassion is care, treatment, support, stability. Erin deserved a safe home.

Diana deserves to sleep. Dayna deserves stability. And all of the people I spoke about,

that lost their lives, deserved to live.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than this bill. We cannot evict our

way to safety. We cannot enforce our way out of failure. We cannot ignore the conditions

and expect change. This bill is not enough, and until we address the root causes,

we will continue to fail.

I really hope that, in good faith, the minister is willing to work with me on some

amendments once we get into committee stage, because I have a number of ideas on how

we could really significantly improve this piece of legislation. I think that there’s

an opportunity here, and I’m happy to do that work and try and find ways to approach

this so that we can actually improve supportive housing for everyone in this province

that needs to rely on it.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Claire Rattée : I was supposed to be the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker : Oh, thank you for letting us know that.

Claire Rattée : I’m not going to be too much longer. Don’t worry. Thank you.

But I think that that’s incredibly important, and I do think that it’s incumbent upon

us to be able to work together, both parties, because I think that we both come at

it with different ideas, different perspectives, but we want the same things.

I think that everybody in this House wants supportive housing to work for the people

that it’s supposed to support and represent. I think that we’re all aware that it

would be great if we weren’t fielding any more concerns and complaints from people,

because we’d feel like we’re actually doing our jobs properly and we’re providing

British Columbians with the supports that they need.

As somebody that has lived in supportive housing, somebody that has spent a lot of

time touring through supportive housing, somebody that has spent the time with vulnerable

populations and speaking to them — people with lived experience, firefighters, RCMP

and police — trying to better understand these issues and how we can actually improve

this, I do feel like I have valuable insight. I do feel like I have some ideas that

could really improve this legislation. So I am very hopeful that the minister will

be willing to work with me on that on some amendments.

There are so many aspects of what’s wrong right now in supportive housing that I just

really feel weren’t addressed in this piece of legislation. I would love to think

that, okay, we’re going to bring forward another piece of legislation, maybe in the

fall, that’ll address some more of those issues. But I don’t really think we can wait

any longer.

This is a situation that’s getting worse by the day, so until we’re willing to really

take some bold action and figure out what the problems are, this is not going to go

away on its own. There’s, really, nothing that’s been given thought in this on how

we’re going to address the issues that we’re seeing right now.

We’ve got a concurrent, really significant issue with the drug crisis, and that’s

the crisis of people with permanent acquired brain injuries. Again, they need care

environments. Again, these are people that are not typically capable of making decisions

that are in their best interest. And it’s not their fault. They have a brain injury.

But I think it is incumbent upon us…. I think this is one of those few times where

it is important for government to recognize that there is a duty here, a duty of government

to step up and make sure that we care for the people that are the most vulnerable

among us.

There’s nothing in this legislation that addresses those concerns — the need for actual

care environments for people within these supportive housing units — or again, like

I said, that looks at: how are we determining who goes into which facility, and is

that facility adequate for their needs?

We have a lot of different people in British Columbia that need to access supportive

housing. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach.

Yes, it will not be the easiest thing in the world to go through every single tenant

and look at what their needs are and what their story is and what we have available

and probably have to move some people to accomplish it. But it’s work that has to

be done because the situation right now is untenable. This is not going to work in

the long term. It’s already not working. We’re already seeing what’s happening.

Another piece that I want to just speak really briefly about before I close is around

the fact that while there is supportive housing available in this province, first

of all, we don’t have nearly enough. We determined that, very clearly, during budget

estimates a couple weeks ago. There is not enough capacity. I know the government

knows that and they’re trying to work on it, and I understand that. But there simply

isn’t enough capacity.

[3:15 p.m.]

But beyond that, what’s really concerning for me and what I struggle with greatly

is the fact that when I’m doing outreach work with vulnerable populations, with people

that are experiencing homelessness, the story that I probably hear the most frequently,

maybe besides…. They don’t want to have to wait so long on a wait-list to be able

to access treatment, and many have given up because of how long the wait-lists are.

The most common story that I hear is: “Okay, even if I get into treatment, then what?

Where do I go? I’ve been told that I can get put in such-and-such facility. It’s a

supportive housing facility. This is the place they’re going to send me to, and I’m

not willing to go there.”

I don’t blame them. We have more people right now in this province that would rather

stay living on the street than go into a supportive housing unit that is run by this

government. That is incredibly concerning.

I don’t lay that all at the feet of this government because, as somebody that was

in an SRO many years ago under a different government, I recognize that these conditions

have been very poor for a very long time. But they have significantly deteriorated

in recent years. That is very concerning.

When I was somebody that was experiencing homelessness, I knew people that would intentionally

go out and commit a petty crime so that they’d be arrested and put in jail so that

they would have a roof over their head. Most people weren’t going to pass up the opportunity

to have a roof over their head, but now they are. They feel safer on the street.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : My apologies to the member across the way. May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker : Carry on, Minister.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : My apologies. I’m a bit excited about this introduction, because usually we have

school groups from across British Columbia that get a chance to be able to come and

watch the proceedings, but we have a school group from Mexico in the House, from Maple

School.

We’ve got 18 grade 12 students, 23 folks in total, that have travelled all the way

over from Mexico to be able to watch our parliamentary democracy in action.

You’re going to be watching my colleague debate a very important piece of legislation,

and I hope you enjoy your time here in British Columbia and at our Legislature, the

people’s House.

So will the House please join me in making these students from Mexico very welcome.

Deputy Speaker : Indeed. Welcome, everyone.

Welcome, everybody in the chamber, where we are continuing debate on Bill 11, the

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act of 2026, and we are hearing from our MLA for Skeena.

Debate Continued

Claire Rattée : I was just talking about the difference back in 2010-11-ish and now and the way that

people that are unhoused, that are street-entrenched, are feeling about supportive

housing units and the desire not to go into one.

I was talking about the safety concerns that they feel. They’re valid. They are valid

safety concerns. Whether it’s being fearful that there might be a fire in the middle

of the night, that somebody might attack them….

Again, I understand that this legislation is trying to address that by addressing

the issue around weapons, but as I highlighted earlier when I spoke about Diana, she

was assaulted with someone’s fist. So what good would this legislation do? It wouldn’t

do anything. It wouldn’t have prevented what happened to her. It wouldn’t have kept

her safe.

We need to do more to address those safety issues because they are really real concerns.

At this point, as I said, they’re actually preventing people that should be accessing

supportive housing units from doing so.

There are also a lot of concerns over people having their things stolen. That’s something

that happens frequently in shelters and supportive housing.

There’s concern around bugs, and it’s a very valid one — pests of all kinds, whether

it’s bedbugs, cockroaches, body lice. This is something that’s happening frequently

in supportive housing units. I don’t know how many people in this House have ever

had to experience something like that, but I can tell you it’s incredibly awful. It’s

degrading. I don’t think anyone in British Columbia should have to face that.

I don’t think anyone in British Columbia should have to live in a unit where they’ve

got bugs crawling on them in the middle of the night, or their ceiling is rotting

and making their only washroom unusable. It’s just not acceptable.

I really think that we need to do better, and I do truly believe that the minister

cares about this and wants to.

So again, I’ll close with just saying I really hope that the minister is willing to

work with me in committee stage to bring forward some amendments that, I think, will

really strengthen this bill and ensure that we can do the best job that we can, if

we’re going to reopen this piece of legislation for the people of British Columbia.

[3:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : I’ll be the designated speaker, although I don’t expect to take the full time.

I rise today to speak to Bill 11, legislation that seeks to amend the Residential

Tenancy Act by expanding landlord powers and government regulatory flexibility, giving

broad jurisdiction to modify tenancy agreements, seize property and restrict access

to housing and determine and intervene on “weapons” use. I put weapons in quotes for

reasons that’ll become apparent further along in my speech.

Recognizing that the ministry’s approach to the prioritization of housing safety guides

the development of Bill 11, we appreciate and understand the bill as a response to

concerns from members of the supportive housing sector about limited tools to address

violence against people and property.

That being said, this bill holds potential to give broad discretionary powers over

and against populations that are already heavily regulated and policed. It reads as

a desperate and shortsighted response to the impacts of the housing crisis on front-line

workers at the expense of tenant rights and dignity.

In this way, we understand this legislation as one that puts workplace safety up against

tenants’ rights. This contributes to a cycle in which individuals are pitted against

each other, distracting us from the reality that both workers and tenants are experiencing

harm at the hands of increased housing and living costs, worsened mental health supports,

an ongoing toxic drug crisis and ever-deepening, overlapping inequities. In essence,

the government has selected one part of a systemic problem that has many elements.

A central concern we have with this legislation rests in its capacity to claw back

tenant rights. These include

section 14(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act, which clearly

states that amendment to a tenancy can only happen if both the landlord and tenant

agree. However, under clause 7,

section 14.1, this legislation gives the government

regulatory power to make exceptions to this right, thereby making it more likely that

tenants will experience eviction and housing instability even in the midst of their

term. So we’re sacrificing the rights of tenants in this way.

Further, this legislation would allow landlords to make an application to the director

to restrict access to the residence without notice to any other party. This is a fundamental

departure from precepts of procedural fairness that others in society expect to be

respected and expect to have the protection of.

Further still, clause 16 provides the ability to end a tenancy earlier if the landlord

convinces the director that a tenant is likely to adversely affect the quiet enjoyment

of another person who is authorized to be on the property. We wonder, in reviewing

this, how this is possible, considering that previous amendments to the Residential

Tenancy Act excluded supportive housing residents from the right to quiet enjoyment

in the first place.

[3:25 p.m.]

Further, this framing makes way for bias, discrimination and racism, considering that

a large number of supportive housing residents are Indigenous and racialized, and

leads us to wonder why tenants are to be punished when they haven’t done anything

wrong.

In regard to weapons, this legislation provides that a landlord can request an order

to end a tenancy if the tenant has been in personal possession of a weapon on residential

property or if the landlord has observed a weapon in plain view in the tenant’s rental

unit. Considering that the definition of “weapon” is prescribed and that tenants would

risk eviction if the landlord observes a weapon, the power given to landlords and

housing operators to control tenants here is unbelievable — simply, huge overreach.

How many of us have objects in our house that have the potential to do any of these

things? Kitchen items: knives, scissors, forks, bottles. Cleaning supplies: bleach,

mop and broom handles. Things that can be thrown: cell phones, lamps, vases. Things

that can be used as rope: clothes, cords, Christmas lights. Pets if they have the

capacity to cause harm — for example, some dogs. Sports equipment: bats, walking or

skiing poles, ice skates. The list goes on and on.

We don’t have the comfort in this legislation, the clarity, of how this is going to

be limited and how procedural safeguards will be in place to eliminate the very real

risk that a landlord could observe a weapon and it could result in these far-reaching

consequences for the tenant.

Danielle Sabelli, a lawyer at the Community Legal Assistance Society, is quoted on

this proposed legislation: “This isn’t safety; it’s control and surveillance. When

you give housing providers the power to exclude someone from their home and the power

to enter their unit with fewer safeguards, you create the conditions for abuse. You

create a pipeline to homelessness.” This quote brings our attention to a gaping hole

in the government’s approach to this legislation — that of attending to the issues

that make tenants vulnerable in the first place.

Let me just stop here. Can you imagine anybody in this chamber, anybody viewing this

speech and viewing this on Hansard , being subjected to this type of arbitrary, subjective power by another individual

without safeguards? This is really, really concerning. And here we go again. What

we’re doing is we’re giving a degree of power in a relationship that is already asymmetrical

to the landlord and not building in the safeguards.

Indeed, this piece of legislation does nothing — and beyond this, the weapons issue

and other issues I’ve mentioned — to attend to the current conditions that lead to

increased risk of violence, harm and eviction.

An example of this includes consistent issues with elevator function, including one

at the Portland Hotel in Vancouver that had broken down for nine months, leading to

multiple residents, especially ones who use wheelchairs, being unable to leave their

floors for weeks and months at a time.

[3:30 p.m.]

To be clear, this means that residents were disconnected from community, unable to

access medications, even get groceries. Others were forced to actually crawl up and

down the stairs, to sleep in the lobby. They were left to use the courtyard in the

back of the building to relieve themselves since there is no accessible washroom on

the ground floor. This is completely unacceptable.

This is British Columbia. This is a wealthy province. This is a province that has

protected, and aims to protect, rights of the most vulnerable, and here we have legislation

that goes in exactly the opposite direction.

Giving more powers to survey, police and expel tenants does nothing to increase safety,

despite this government’s claim through their introduction of this bill. To the contrary,

risk of violence and a vulnerability to harm are not inherent to individuals. They

are instead drafted into the systems we create, the same systems we have the power

to change.

We ask whether this government is, in fact, interested in increasing safety or simply

in solidifying a system that hurts supportive housing workers and tenants alike. And

that is the issue. This is going to impact, in a very negative way, both workers and

tenants alike.

Once a person is denied access to their possessions, to their home, once they no longer

have a home, where do they go? How might they access support in actions taken against

them?

We know that the people targeted in this legislation are already more likely to experience

poverty, addiction and barriers to service. What happens when another stabilizing

force, sometimes the only stabilizing force, is taken from them?

I know from personal experience — working for 25 years with First Nations across this

province, sitting on a housing panel to ensure that housing is made available — that

housing that is safe and accessible is at the very core of the wraparound support

that’s needed to support the most vulnerable in our society. It’s not a question of

taking this type of measure. It’s a question of building the supports so that there’s

not even a thought that this type of measure is needed.

So what guarantee can the NDP make that those evicted won’t become homeless? That’s

the question. What guarantee can the NDP make that those evicted won’t become homeless?

A common answer, to brush this question under the rug, is that these people will have

to “connect to other resources,” but the reality is that resourcing is not only scarce

in housing. Our health care system is overburdened. Legal services are usually either

far too expensive or stretched thin. And addiction and mental health services are

under ever-increasing pressure.

In short, other support services are at capacity, and the answer of “connecting people

to other resources” sidelines the reality that the government is, at best, not equipped

to deal with the fallout of ruining the lives of people who have no recourse. B.C.

cannot afford this.

When we don’t deal with the fallout, this is often the last step, and it sets back

the life chances, the safety, the mental and physical health of the very tenants that

we’re trying to support to move to a life that is much better than the circumstances

that they’ve experienced. It’s just a mechanism to turn the clock back and undo the

progress that’s been made without those additional services.

We have no evidence that this legislation is accompanied by increased services to

ensure that anyone evicted does not end up homeless, that it’s seen as a way to keep

working at supporting these tenants and these individuals.

[3:35 p.m.]

While the government claims that they have engaged with multiple external parties

in developing this legislation, the lack of transparency about who these partners

represent and the feedback we have received about this bill from those in community,

those with lived experience, raises concerns about whose voices and experiences are

at the centre of this process. As a bill that holds such tremendous impact for tenants,

we wonder what consultation exists with those who have lived experience of living

in social and supportive housing and being evicted.

In my riding, we have supportive housing, and there is an obligation on the government,

when it takes this sort of approach and proposes this sort of legislation, to do extensive

consultation not just with those who are advocating for the change but those that

are going to experience the impact of the change.

This research need not be started from scratch, as those with lived experience have

been offering insight and solutions for decades. As we spend time debating whether

or not to make it easier for people to be homeless, and that is what this legislation

does, solutions such as those proposed by SUDU could be taken up and applied to the

roots of the issues we are facing.

These include consulting people with lived and living experience of unregulated substance

use and supportive housing residents, to inform policy developments in supportive

housing; fairly compensating, training and resourcing positions in social and supportive

housing, to prevent burnout and maintain working conditions; creating authentic, peer-led

support, operational and emotional first aid and de-escalation roles for housing residents;

and more. This type of step of eviction should be the very last resort.

In the world of law, there’s an expression: best efforts. What that means is no stone

unturned. There is, absolutely, no stone unturned in trying to find alternative solutions

to the ones presented and enabled in this legislation.

These solutions are publicly available. As SUDU board director Gina Egilson shares:

“It is abhorrent that the Minister of Housing has established a task force to dismantle

what scant rights still exist for supportive housing residents. If the upstream solutions

to the intersectional crises of housing and toxic drug supply were adequately addressed

through meaningful consultation with residents, this incredibly harmful, punitive

policy response would be unnecessary.”

Punitive. That’s the fundamental way to describe this legislation in one word: punitive.

Making it easier for landlords to evict tenants, prohibit their movement, seize their

property does not make social housing sustainability safer. It’s a band-aid on the

multiple gaping wounds left by a lack of resourcing for both tenants and staff. We

don’t need a band-aid. We actually need to deal with the core causes and ensure that

we are making best efforts to find every other conceivable solution than this heavy-handed

type of legislative eviction response.

With the emphasis of governmental powers in this bill, protections for tenants will

come in through regulation, of course. That’s standard practice for this government.

When in doubt, don’t spend the time to lay out in detail the criteria that will guide

decisions that have huge impacts on British Columbians in this province. No, put it

in regulation.

[3:40 p.m.]

We’ll put it in regulation. We’ll figure it out later. Then we’ll send it off to cabinet.

Then cabinet, meeting behind closed doors, subject to very broad exemptions from disclosure,

will decide what the regulation will do, will pass the regulation. Then those of us

who enjoy looking at the Gazette and spending hours trying to work out the meaning can go and dig out the regulation.

It’s a fait accompli, the regulation. The decision’s made. That’s not reassuring.

We’re supposed to just believe the minister that this will occur in a thoughtful,

considered way, with full consultation and despite the fact we won’t see, beforehand,

the criteria. We won’t have an opportunity to debate the issues, the contents, because

it’s all prescribed.

That’s the path forward that this government is taking in so many pieces of legislation,

and it fundamentally sidelines the role of this Legislature. It is completely disrespectful

of the public in this province, who deserve a right to have the opportunity to participate

in consultation on either side, whether you’re a landlord; a tenant; or somebody potentially

impacted, like workers.

That is the issue there. Why is the removal of rights enshrined in legislation and

protections tacked on with regulation? Let me repeat that. The removal of rights is

enshrined in the legislation. And the protections? They’re in regulation. We’re being

asked to support a bill and we don’t even know what some of the key criteria are that

will guide this.

I acknowledge that in limited circumstances, doing work by regulation is a completely

acceptable approach. But for things that are as fundamental as the items that are

left to regulation in this bill, it is deeply concerning that we are taking this approach.

What would we do…? First, the Green caucus, my colleague Jeremy Valeriote and I, we’re

not about simply….

Deputy Speaker : Member, we don’t refer to our other members by name, please.

Rob Botterell : Right, right. Thank you. I apologize.

The Third Party caucus supports a housing-first model. Evidence is clear. Providing

housing without conditions gives people the security and stability that they need

to solve other challenges in their lives. Whether people are struggling with addiction,

with health challenges, with unemployment, with language barriers or a confluence

of these challenges, making sure that people have somewhere safe and warm to sleep

that they know is safe and will be there for them at the end of every day is key.

Many, many individuals who are struggling with these types of challenges have come

to understand that they are not going to be treated the way that we others are treated.

They’ve come to realize that they don’t get the same treatment we do.

Can you imagine if we gave these sorts of powers to people in our community? If you

were renting an apartment in Victoria or renting an apartment in Vancouver and you

weren’t in supportive housing, can you imagine what the uproar would be? But here

we are. We’re proposing legislation to basically codify that we’re going to treat

tenants in supportive housing in a much less humane way and remove fundamental human

rights without procedural fairness.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve spoken earlier about the solutions put forward by people with lived and living

experience in supportive housing. I can only pass along their concerns and their approaches

and their recommendations because I don’t have the lived experience. But I can say

I can, certainly, understand how I would react if I was subjected to any of the provisions

in this legislation.

Let me take you back to the definition of weapons. What if I had a…? Oh my gosh, maybe

I have a broom handle. Oh, it’s a weapon. Who gets to decide that it’s a weapon? Maybe

that’ll be defined and won’t be included in regulations, but we don’t know. We don’t

know what’ll be in and out in regulations. We don’t have any assurance that it won’t

be, that we can rely on.

As I said, I’ve spoken earlier about the solutions put forward by people with lived

and living experience, and I’d like to re-emphasize them briefly because they are

important to the way we need to think about this problem.

We know that there are people living in supportive housing who have complex needs,

who pose challenges to staff and to other tenants. We get that. We understand the

challenge that the government is trying to solve with this bill, but we disagree fundamentally

with the approach that they’re taking.

People with complex needs require more support and more self-determination, rather

than less. They need us to believe in them, rather than exercising punitive powers,

as has been described. Evidence is clear that eviction does huge harm — increasing

stigma, eliminating trust in systems and pushing people further away from supports.

Who are many of the individuals in supportive housing, through no fault of their own?

Indigenous people, who have suffered for hundreds of years. They bring a history of

an experience in our communities of being distrusted, treated badly, marginalized,

attempts at assimilation…. Yet here we are. We’re going to take an eviction approach.

The evidence is clear. Eviction does huge harm, and it eliminates trust. Once you’ve

eliminated trust…. We all know through experiences in other parts of our lives that

trust is extraordinarily difficult…. It takes a long time to rebuild. Where are the

safeguards?

We know stability is one of the key determinants of health and social outcomes. That’s

why the Third Party caucus has been so supportive of initiatives like the Village

model, which provides not only stability but wraparound supports and community outreach.

It’s why we’ve been so consistent for years that we need to target the systemic drivers

that are increasing homelessness and despair and we need to ensure that low- and no-barrier

housing is available to everyone that needs it — low- and no-barrier housing.

So the government is bringing forward this legislation. They’ve set out an approach,

and we don’t see the procedural safeguards here. There are many unanswered questions

that have been left to regulation. We don’t see any accompanying increased investment

to ensure that if these draconian powers are used, we’re not going to have another

homeless person that we don’t have the resources in place to support, that we don’t

have the supports to provide a path back to the type of treatment that we should expect

as British Columbians, whoever we are, whatever our circumstances are.

The government release for this bill cited a recent study showing that people living

in supportive housing were incarcerated nearly 84 percent less than people experiencing

homelessness in 2022 and had nearly 32 percent fewer hospital admissions in 2022.

With this statistic obviously on the minds of the government, we ask: why would you

choose to make eviction easier rather than supportive housing safer?

[3:50 p.m.]

The Third Party caucus will not be supporting this bill due to the fact that, one,

it increases the chances that tenants will be surveilled, criminalized and thrown

out of their homes with no resources or recourse. Two, it pits the safety of workers

against the safety, rights and dignity of tenants. Third, it gives powerful regulatory

authority to the government, leading to a lack of transparency and increased vulnerability

to tenant rights. Fourth, it is not engaged with or implementing the experience and

expertise of supportive housing tenants, especially ones who have experienced eviction.

If the government is truly worried about safety in communities, about homelessness,

about the toxic drug crisis, about reducing costs in our health and justice systems,

then we urge them to rethink this punitive approach.

People experiencing or at risk of homelessness are part of our communities, and they

deserve to feel as much. We should be treating them in the same way we would expect

to be treated, and I don’t believe that there are many British Columbians that would

find this type of punitive framework something that they would embrace and welcome.

Models that are culturally safe, connected and well designed improve safety for the

people they support, for the staff that work there and for the wider community in

which they are situated. Eviction does not.

Hon. Terry Yung : I’m pleased to rise today in the House in support of the proposed amendments to the

RTA, Residential Tenancy Act, as relating to supportive housing.

I first want to thank, for the passionate comments, the member for Saanich North and

the Islands as well as, earlier on today, the member for Skeena. I also want to thank

the Minister of Housing and her staff for this key and important piece of legislation

that will make a difference to a lot of people.

Just to recap the clear points of what we tried to accomplish here. This amendment

will try to help keep weapons out of supportive housing. It will help de-escalate

serious safety situations for the people living in supportive housing, will clarify

when the Residential Tenancy Act can apply and, also, improve site staff and guest

protections for the people who actually work and live in supportive housing.

Before I start, I also want to keep in mind, in this discussion, the vast majority

of people in supportive housing are looking for stability — peaceful people. They

want a place to belong and a place to call home instead of being on the streets or

being homeless.

Across B.C., in this province, approximately 15,000 people live in supportive housing,

and most are working hard to rebuild their lives. They want a roof above their head,

and they want peace and quiet, dignity and independence and, also, to be very good

neighbours to the people living alongside them — no different than in a strata, no

different than in housing anywhere you see in this province.

Supportive housing provides people with a safe place to live, alongside voluntary

support, as is the case of supportive housing in the Downtown Eastside — the latest

one in Bob and Michael’s Place, across from the Woodward’s building. For many people,

this is a step to move forward for people that have faced homelessness, trauma, mental

health challenges or substance use challenges.

[3:55 p.m.]

Supportive housing is also a workplace. People work at supportive housing. It’s where

the front-line workers and staff members on site show up every day to support residents.

It’s a community where tenants share space with their neighbours, neighbouring to

the supportive housing sites. That means tenants, workers and guests all need to feel

safe.

These amendments are about increasing health and safety in supportive housing while

continuing to protect tenant rights under the RTA, the Residential Tenancy Act. You

may ask why we need any changes. Why? It’s because this is in response to real challenges

that supportive housing providers and tenants — many of whom I’ve met, and I’ll go

into that later — have identified.

At the same time, housing providers are supporting people whose needs are due to past

interactions, experience of the toxic drug crisis, growing mental health and substance

use challenges affected by all these prior lived experiences, as my friend from Saanich

North has stated.

Providers and site workers, staff, made it clear that they need additional tools to

help them deal with situations. And they are rare. The vast majority of the residents

are peaceful, good neighbours, but in the rare situations where health and safety

risks arise, we need to protect the people who call supportive housing home. These

are situa