British Columbia Hansard — 2 April 2026, p.m., Issue 148 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260402pm-Hansard-n148

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 43rd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, April 2, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 148 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Wendy Cocchia, CM, OBC Second Session, 43rd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ................................................................................................... Hon. David Eby, KC Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities .......................................................... Hon.

Brittny Anderson Minister of Agriculture and Food ..............................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Deputy Premier ............................................................................................................... Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Minister of Children and Family Development ......................................................................................................Hon.

Jodie Wickens Minister of Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Diana Gibson Minister of Education and Child Care ............................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ................................................................................ Hon.

Kelly Greene Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions .................................................................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Environment and Parks .................................................................................................... Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Minister of Finance ......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Brenda Bailey Minister of Forests .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Parmar Minister of Health ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Josie Osborne Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Christine Boyle Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Minister of Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Bowinn Ma Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth ...................................................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies .................................................................. Hon. Rick Glumac Minister of Labour .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals .....................................................................................................................Hon.

Jagrup Brar Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills ........................................................................................Hon. Jessie Sunner Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................ Hon. Nina Krieger Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services ........................................................................ Hon.

Terry Yung Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ...............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ............................................................................................................. Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Transportation and Transit ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................... Hon. Randene Neill Minister Without Portfolio ..............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Grace Lore LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ......................................................................................................................................Trevor Halford Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................Jeremy Valeriote Deputy Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................................

Mable Elmore Assistant Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................Lorne Doerkson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ......................................................................................................................George Anderson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly....................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ......................................................................................................................Seunghee Suzie Seo Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees .............................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Committee Clerk ......................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Committee Clerk .........................................................................................................................................................................Darryl Hol Senior Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................................................................Hayley Hill Sergeant-at-Arms ..................................................................................................................................................................

Ray Robitaille Director of Hansard Services .......................................................................................................................................D’ Arcy McPherson Legislative Librarian ...............................................................................................................................................................Peter Gourlay

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS BY PARTY BC NDP Anderson, Hon. Brittny ........................................... Kootenay Central Anderson, George ................................................ Nanaimo-Lantzville Arora, Rohini ....................................................................Burnaby East Bailey, Hon. Brenda ................................Vancouver–South Granville Beare, Hon.

Lisa .......................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry .................................................................Surrey-Guildford Blatherwick, Jennifer ....................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Boyle, Hon. Christine .............................Vancouver–Little Mountain Brar, Hon. Jagrup ......................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Chandra Herbert, Hon. Spencer ..................... Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie .............................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Choi, Paul ..................................................Burnaby South–Metrotown Chouhan, Hon. Raj ................................. Burnaby–New Westminster Chow, George ....................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Davidson, Hon. Tamara / Laanas ...........North Coast–Haida Gwaii Dhir, Sunita .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Dix, Hon. Adrian .................................................. Vancouver-Renfrew Eby, Hon. David, KC .......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable ................................................. Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike .................................................Port Coquitlam Gibson, Hon. Diana ........................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Glumac, Hon. Rick ...................................... Port Moody–Burquitlam Greene, Hon. Kelly ..............................................Richmond-Steveston Higginson, Stephanie ........................................Ladysmith-Oceanside Kahlon, Hon. Ravi .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne ......................................................... Burnaby Centre Krieger, Hon. Nina ...............................................Victoria–Swan Lake Lajeunesse, Dana ..............................................Juan de Fuca–Malahat Lore, Hon. Grace .................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn ................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila .........................Nanaimo–Gabriola Island Morissette, Steve ...................................................Kootenay Monashee Neill, Hon. Randene ............................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Osborne, Hon. Josie ....................................... Mid Island–Pacific Rim Parmar, Hon. Ravi ...............................................Langford-Highlands Phillip, Joan / Amshen .....................................Vancouver-Strathcona Popham, Hon. Lana ........................................................ Saanich South Rotchford, Darlene ...............................................Esquimalt-Colwood Routledge, Janet .............................................................Burnaby North Sandhu, Harwinder ......................................................

Vernon-Lumby Shah, Amna ............................................................. Surrey City Centre Sharma, Hon. Niki, KC ....................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sunner, Hon. Jessie ....................................................... Surrey-Newton Toporowski, Debra / Qwulti’stunaat .......................Cowichan Valley Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer ...................New Westminster–Coquitlam Wickens, Hon. Jodie ............................. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Yung, Hon.

Terry .................................................Vancouver-Yaletown CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF BC Banman, Bruce .......................................................... Abbotsford South Bhangu, Harman .................................................. Langley-Abbotsford Bird, Rosalyn ............................................. Prince George–Valemount Block, Lynne ..............................................West Vancouver–Capilano Chapman, Brent .................................................................Surrey South Clare, Sheldon ....................................

Prince George–North Cariboo Davis, Pete ..................................................................Kootenay Rockies Day, Brennan ........................................................... Courtenay-Comox Dew, Gavin ..................................................................Kelowna-Mission Dhaliwal, Mandeep .......................................................... Surrey North Doerkson, Lorne .....................................................

Cariboo-Chilcotin Gasper, Reann .......................................................Abbotsford-Mission Giddens, Kiel ..............................................Prince George–Mackenzie Halford, Trevor ......................................................Surrey–White Rock Hartwell, Sharon ..............................................Bulkley Valley–Stikine Hepner, Linda ................................................Surrey–Serpentine River Kindy, Anna ........................................................................North Island Kooner, Steve ............................................Richmond-Queensborough Loewen, Kristina ..........................................................

Kelowna Centre Luck, Tony ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Maahs, Heather ......................................................... Chilliwack North McCall, Macklin .........................................West Kelowna–Peachland McInnis, Scott ......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke Milobar, Peter ............................................................

Kamloops Centre Mok, Lawrence ...........................................................Maple Ridge East Neufeld, Korky ............................................................Abbotsford West Neufeld, Larry ...........................................................Peace River South Paton, Ian ..............................................................................Delta South Rattée, Claire .................................................................................Skeena Rustad, John ...................................................................Nechako Lakes Stamer, Ward .........................................Kamloops–North Thompson Tepper, Br yan ............................................................

Surrey-Panorama Toor, Jody ............................................................Langley-Willowbrook Van Popta, Misty..............................................Langley–Walnut Grove Warbus, Á’a:líya ..............................................Chilliwack–Cultus Lake Wat, Teresa .........................................................Richmond-Bridgeport Williams, David ...............................................Salmon Arm–Shuswap Wilson, Donegal ............................................Boundary-Similkameen BC GREEN PARTY Botterell, Rob .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Valeriote, Jeremy .....................................

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky INDEPENDENT Armstrong, Tara .....................Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream Boultbee, Amelia .............................................Penticton-Summerland Brodie, Dallas .................................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Chan, Hon ..................................................................Richmond Centre Kealy, Jordan ............................................................. Peace River North Sturko, Elenore .........................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale PARTY STANDINGS Total seats – 93 BC NDP – 47 | Conservative Party of BC – 38 | BC Green Party – 2 | Independent – 6

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF RIDINGS A Abbotsford-Mission ........................................................Reann Gasper Abbotsford South ........................................................... Bruce Banman Abbotsford West .............................................................Korky Neufeld B Boundary-Similkameen .............................................Donegal Wilson Bulkley Valley–Stikine ............................................... Sharon Hartwell Burnaby Centre ...........................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Burnaby East ......................................................................Rohini Arora Burnaby–New Westminster .................................. Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby North ..............................................................Janet Routledge Burnaby South–Metrotown .................................................. Paul Choi C Cariboo-Chilcotin .......................................................Lorne Doerkson Chilliwack–Cultus Lake .............................................. Á’a:líya Warbus Chilliwack North ..........................................................

Heather Maahs Columbia River–Revelstoke ...........................................Scott McInnis Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .............................. Hon. Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville .................................... Jennifer Blatherwick Courtenay-Comox ............................................................ Brennan Day Cowichan Valley ....................... Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat D Delta North ................................................................Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ...............................................................................Ian Paton E Esquimalt-Colwood ................................................Darlene Rotchford F Fraser-Nicola .......................................................................... Tony Luck J Juan de Fuca–Malahat ...............................................Dana Lajeunesse K Kamloops Centre ............................................................. Peter Milobar Kamloops–North Thompson .........................................

Ward Stamer Kelowna Centre ........................................................... Kristina Loewen Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream ......................Tara Armstrong Kelowna-Mission ..................................................................Gavin Dew Kootenay Central ............................................ Hon. Brittny Anderson Kootenay Monashee ....................................................Steve Morissette Kootenay Rockies................................................................... Pete Davis L Ladysmith-Oceanside ........................................

Stephanie Higginson Langford-Highlands ................................................ Hon. Ravi Parmar Langley-Abbotsford ....................................................Harman Bhangu Langley–Walnut Grove ..............................................Misty Van Popta Langley-Willowbrook ............................................................ Jody Toor M Maple Ridge East ............................................................Lawrence Mok Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim ........................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne N Nanaimo–Gabriola Island ..........................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo-Lantzville ................................................. George Anderson Nechako Lakes ....................................................................John Rustad New Westminster–Coquitlam .................... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside North Coast–Haida Gwaii ............Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson North Island ........................................................................Anna Kindy North Vancouver–Lonsdale .....................................Hon.

Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ...............................................Susie Chant O Oak Bay–Gordon Head ......................................... Hon. Diana Gibson P Peace River North ..............................................................Jordan Kealy Peace River South ............................................................Larry Neufeld Penticton-Summerland .............................................. Amelia Boultbee Port Coquitlam ................................................. Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Burquitlam ........................................Hon.

Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ............................. Hon. Randene Neill Prince George–Mackenzie ...............................................Kiel Giddens Prince George–North Cariboo ......................................Sheldon Clare Prince George–Valemount ...............................................Rosalyn Bird R Richmond-Bridgeport .......................................................... Teresa Wat Richmond Centre .................................................................. Hon Chan Richmond-Queensborough ............................................

Steve Kooner Richmond-Steveston ...............................................Hon. Kelly Greene S Saanich North and the Islands ....................................... Rob Botterell Saanich South ......................................................... Hon.

Lana Popham Salmon Arm–Shuswap ................................................David Williams Skeena ..................................................................................Claire Rattée Surrey City Centre ...............................................................Amna Shah Surrey-Cloverdale .......................................................... Elenore Sturko Surrey-Fleetwood ....................................................... Hon. Jagrup Brar Surrey-Guildford .................................................................

Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ........................................................ Hon. Jessie Sunner Surrey North ............................................................Mandeep Dhaliwal Surrey-Panorama ..............................................................Br yan Tepper Surrey–Serpentine River ................................................

Linda Hepner Surrey South ..................................................................Brent Chapman Surrey–White Rock .......................................................Trevor Halford V Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ........................................ Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Vancouver-Kensington ...................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Langara .............................................................Sunita Dhir Vancouver–Little Mountain ............................. Hon.

Christine Boyle Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................Hon. David Eby, KC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Dallas Brodie Vancouver-Renfrew ................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver–South Granville ................................ Hon. Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Strathcona ..................................... Amshen / Joan Phillip Vancouver–West End .......................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Vancouver-Yaletown ..................................................Hon.

Terry Yung Vernon-Lumby ....................................................... Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................. Hon. Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake ................................................Hon. Nina Krieger W West Kelowna–Peachland ..........................................Macklin McCall West Vancouver–Capilano ................................................Lynne Block West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...................................... Jeremy Valeriote

CONTENTS Thursday, April 2, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6201 Lawrence Joiner Bruce Banman Introductions by Members ............................................................................................................................................. 6201 Statements ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6201 Williams Lake Mustangs Ward Stamer Tributes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6201 Ashley Chester The Speaker Michael Sather Hon.

Lisa Beare Ram Labhai Sarpal Sunita Dhir Question of Privilege ....................................................................................................................................................... 6202 Claire Rattée Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 6204 Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued) Bryan Tepper Hon. Grace Lore Misty Van Popta Sharon Hartwell Macklin McCall Scott McInnis Korky Neufeld Lynne Block Hon.

Christine Boyle Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 Hon.

Ravi Parmar Reporting of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 6229 Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act Third Reading of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................... 6229 Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act Reporting of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 6229 Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 Third Reading of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................... 6229 Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................................................ 6229 Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act Hon. Niki Sharma Steve Kooner Jeremy Valeriote Sheldon Clare Bryan Tepper Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................................................ 6241 Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued) Kiel Giddens Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

6201 THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2026 The House met at 2:02 p.m. [The Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Tributes LAWRENCE JOINER Bruce Banman: I stand in this House with a heavy heart. I learned that one of British Columbia’s outstand - ing agricultural legends, Lawrence Joiner, passed away last night. For those who don’t know Lawrence, there is probably not a

section of agriculture that Lawrence or his family were not involved with — mink farming, chicken farming. Joiner’s corn barns were scattered throughout the valley every year. Most importantly, he also ran the OK Ranch up in the southern Cariboo. I believe the personal acres of that were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16,000 acres. We have probably had a beefsteak that was grown on that ranch at one time in our lives, if we are British Colum - bians. Lawrence has forgotten more about agriculture than most people will ever know. My condolences go to his family, to those who know him.

May we take a moment to reflect on the great life that Lawrence lived and what he has contributed to agriculture and to feeding British Columbians. May he rest in peace. Introductions by Members Heather Maahs: My condolences to the Joiner family as well.

On the other end of life, I would like to take this op - portunity to wish my two granddaughters, Marigold and Violet, a happy birthday. [2:05 p.m.] Statements WILLIAMS LAKE MUSTANGS Ward Stamer: I’d like to bring to everyone’s attention that the Williams Lake Mustangs were fortunate enough — good work on their part, hard work — to be able to beat the Kamloops Storm in their series four straight. On be - half of MLA Milobar and myself, we’d like to congratulate the Williams Lake Mustangs. Good luck on going through the playoffs with your next opponents in Princeton.

From our perspective, and from the House, can we give them a great round of applause for their win and carrying on in the playoffs. Tributes ASHLEY CHESTER The Speaker: Hon. Members, it is on behalf of all of us that I rise today to express deepest condolences to former Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Janet Austin, who recently lost her dear husband, Ashley Chester, a friend to many of us here and whose memorial service at Government House earlier today several of us were privileged to attend.

At the service, Ashley was remembered, over and over again, for his genuine interest in people and his intellec - tual curiosity. He was known for his wit, quiet thoughtful - ness and creativity, and Her Honour perfectly summar - ized his extraordinary character by describing him simply as a lovely man. Our deepest sympathies go out to his wife, the Hon. Janet Austin, his sister Carole and all of those who loved him. MICHAEL SATHER Hon.

Lisa Beare: I rise today to honour the life and service of Michael Sather, who had been a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and who passed away on March 27 at the age of 78. Michael was a good friend to so many of us here in this House. He was a fierce advocate for the people of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and a passionate environmentalist. Before serving in public office, Michael led a life of community advocacy in many forms. Alongside the Pitt Polder Preservation Society, he helped drive preservation of the Blaney Bog and Codd Wetland regional parks.

He was also involved in fighting wildfires, studying wildlife as a biologist and being a wilderness tourism guide with Hummingbird Nature Tours. He fought both for nature and for its preservation. Outside of his advocacy, Michael remained connected to the world around him, often spending his days fish - ing for salmon on the coast of B.C. or birding. In fact, in speaking with his wife, Annette, she shared fond mem - ories of his hiking together with their daughter on the Santa Rosa trails in Palm Springs and the work that they all did to protect the land around them.

While his love for the environment ran deep, it was his desire to help people, coupled with his strong respect for community, that drove him to public office. He started with an eight-year tenure as a constituency assistant to former MLA Bill Hartley. In 2005, Michael was elected to the B.C. Legislature, where he was able to represent his constituents with perseverance, thoughtfulness and a deep sense of responsibility. Throughout his time as MLA, he was known as some -

6202 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 one who listened carefully, spoke honestly and ap - proached public service with integrity and an independ - ence of mind. Michael never shied away from thoughtful debate. He was reflective and committed to evidence- based decision-making, guided by the belief that pub - lic office exists to serve people, particularly those whose voices are often unheard. He was a different type of politician. Michael was not afraid to uphold his values and provoke his colleagues with conversation and a difference of opinion.

After all, it was his community that he was fighting for. This included reaching across the aisle at times to achieve the greater good or being present for tough conversations. Annette shared a time with me where Michael worked with over 30 charities that had been cut off from fund - ing. He took action, working directly with the minister to reinstate the funding, protecting all those services for people in our community. Perhaps the strongest we saw Michael was in his pub - lic battle with frontal-temporal dementia and aphasia later in life.

Michael held a master’s degree in psychology and was able to self-diagnose his disease, catching it at an early stage. [2:10 p.m.] While vacationing in Hawaii, he realized he was not able to recall the names of the birds that he loved. Later in life, this resulted in aphasia-related shortcomings in com - munication and impairment of language. As a result of this diagnosis, Michael founded another community through the Maple Ridge Purple Angel de - mentia support group. Annette shared that they supported him with grace and kindness.

I’ve been so privileged and honoured to participate in the community walks that the Purple Angel organized to help carry on Michael’s story and legacy. But to be clear, this disease never slowed Michael down. He continued to return to nature and admire his environ - ment. Beyond his professional accomplishments, Michael must be remembered as a kind, curious, deeply humane individual. His compassion for others and his enduring commitment to public life left lasting impressions on col - leagues on all sides of this House and on the community he served. His impact to Maple Ridge’s ecosystem is clear.

Thanks to Michael, agricultural land was protected. He left a last - ing impression on colleagues on all sides of the House and in the community that he served. Regional parks were stewarded and an ongoing awareness of dementia grew. While we mourn Michael Sather’s passing, we also give thanks for his years of service and the legacy that he leaves behind. Given his passion for nature, I want to leave the House with a funny story shared to me by the member for Port Coquitlam. During a hike one day, Michael came across two baby bears, and he immediately thought to himself: “Uh-oh.

Where could the mother bear be?” No sooner than the thought had crossed his mind, Michael turned around and was smacked down by a big mama grizzly. When Michael came to, he later reflected that he could tell he was still alive because he could immediately feel the pain. It was a story he would tell time and time again in this building. On behalf of all the members, I extend our sincere con - dolences to his wife of over 30 years, Annette, his family and his friends, who all had the privilege of working with him.

And I want to thank Annette and his whole family for sharing Michael with us, for sharing Michael with the province. May his memory continue to inspire a moral and thoughtful service in this Legislature and beyond. We will all miss you, Michael. RAM LABHAI SARPAL Sunita Dhir: I rise today with profound sadness to honour the life of Mrs. Ram Labhai Sarpal, a cherished and respected member of our community who passed away on March 24 at the age of 82. Mrs.

Sarpal leaves behind a loving and devoted family — her husband, her four children and their spouses, nine grandchildren, two great-grandchildren and many ex - tended family members who will continue to carry her legacy forward. Thirty-eight years ago she immigrated to Vancouver with her family, and together with her husband, Mr. Dev - raj Sarpal, she built a life rooted in love, hard work and de - termination. In 1998, they opened a clothing business on Main Street that remains a valued part of our community today.

She will be remembered for her gentle nature, her kindness, her hospitality and the warmth she extended to everyone she met. Mrs. Sarpal was also an active and valued member of the Sunset Seniors Society, where she regularly participated in weekly gatherings, making new friends and strengthening community bonds. Her passing leaves a deep void, but her love and kindness will always be remembered. May her soul rest in eternal peace. Question of Privilege Claire Rattée: I’m rising on a question of privilege. I reserved my right yesterday, and I am raising this at the earliest opportunity.

This matter concerns statements made in this House by the Minister of Health regarding the destruction of addic - tion, homelessness and public safety data. During ques - tion period, I asked the Minister of Health: “Dr. Somers spent over two decades building one of the most comprehensive databases in the world on ad- diction, homelessness and public safety in British Col -

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6203 umbia, tracking real outcomes for more than 300,000 people. [2:15 p.m.] “In his letter, he confirmed that just as the province was preparing to move ahead with major policy chan - ges, including decriminalization, his team was or - dered 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 ex - periment, 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?” The Minister of Health stated: “Let me be perfectly clear.

This is false and abso - lutely misleading, what the member is saying. “The data that Dr. Somers collected was not de - stroyed. 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 data- base. The data still exists. That database allows for in - creased data collection and provides broader availabil- ity to researchers and academics. The data was moved to this new database. It is being used to this day by researchers.” Those are categorical statements.

They go directly to the integrity of the information being provided to this House. This matter is highly material. It concerns one of the most comprehensive data sets in the world on addic - tion, homelessness and public safety, a data set tracking outcomes for more than 300,000 individuals — data that relates directly to major public policy decisions, including decriminalization. I’m now going to refer to a written directive issued by Leigh Greiner from the Ministry of Public Safety and So - licitor General to Dr. Somers on March 5, 2021. Dr.

Som - ers received this letter one week after his deputy minister briefing “incorrectly stating that all our ISAs were about to expire and that the DIP could replicate all our data.” It states: “All data must be destroyed, and all media storage devices that housed ministry data must be sani - tized. This includes all backup copies, uploads and data on any media devices.” It further requires confirmation that this destruction has taken place. “Once complete, please send me a confirmation letter that these steps have oc - curred and the data has been destroyed.” This creates a clear contradiction.

The minister told this House that the data was not destroyed. The govern - ment directive states that the data must be destroyed. Both of those statements cannot be true. I have confirmed with Dr. Somers that he never transferred the data to the government. In addition, the data collected by Dr. Somers was the result of numerous research projects designed by inter - national collaborators and funded by external grants, not under contract to the B.C. government. I will also place on the record Dr.

Somers’s statement: “Any denial that scientific data were irretrievably destroyed is demonstrably incorrect.” He further indicates that this included unique data sets, including randomized trial data, that cannot be recreated. “The data we were forced to destroy included data from randomized, controlled trials that were obtained with the consent of participants. There is no way to re-create that data. Those studies alone are valued at more than $30 million in taxpayer funds.” When Dr.

Somers refers to data being irretrievably de- stroyed, he is not referring to general information that could be re-created elsewhere. He is referring to linked, longitudinal data sets and randomized trial data de - veloped by teams of scientists over the course of decades, data that cannot simply be reconstructed after the fact. This is not a question of administrative transition or duplication. This is a question of whether unique and ir - replaceable research data was destroyed. The minister suggested that this data was simply transferred to another system.

However, the directive before us does not describe a transfer of identical data sets. It explicitly requires de - struction of the data and sanitization of all storage devices. Instead of addressing that contradiction, the minister chose to dismiss the concern and characterize it as mis - leading. She further chose to attack the credibility of the researcher rather than address the substance of the issue. Dr. Somers is a trusted adviser to governments in Can - ada and internationally.

He is one of North America’s most accomplished researchers regarding addiction poli - cies and services, and until this government launched our decriminalization and safe supply, his expertise was regu - larly sought by the B.C. government. The Speaker: Member, I would ask the member to con- clude her remarks quickly, because when we are speaking on a point of privilege, we don’t have to go into extended debate. The member can provide her submission to the Chair, and the Chair will take that under consideration and seek information from the other side as well.

So you don’t have to go into the details. [2:20 p.m.] The member…. In order to inform the House of the rel - evant elements of privilege…. That’s stated on page 399, Parliamentary Practice, fifth edition. Claire Rattée: I will just jump ahead to that, then. First, was the House misled? There is a clear and direct contradiction between what the minister told this House and what is set out in a written directive issued by govern -

6204 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 ment. The minister stated that the data was not destroyed while the directive explicitly requires that it be destroyed irretrievably. For the record, I have the letter that states that, and I will table that as well. Second, was it material? This issue goes to the core of government decision-making on addiction policy and public safety. It concerns the evidentiary basis for a major public policy initiative, including decriminalization and their supposed safe supply experiment.

This government implemented a first-of-its-kind ex - periment, costing millions of dollars, that it now admits did not achieve the results it had hoped for. At the same time, British Columbians were told this approach was evidence-based. Dr. Somers’s team had designed an evalu- ation plan for B.C.’s…. The Speaker: Member, again, all the Chair needs to hear are the elements of the privilege question that you are raising. We don’t need a detailed submission. You can provide that in writing to me. Claire Rattée: I will provide it in writing, then. The last point is, was there intent or recklessness?

I think I’ve already gone over that in some detail. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you find that a prima facie breach of privilege exists so that this matter may be properly considered by this House. I will table these documents. Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Government will take its time, and the minister will respond at a later opportunity. Orders of the Day Hon. Brittny Anderson: In here, I call continued second reading on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amend - ment Act, 2026. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act. In

Section C, Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. [Mable Elmore in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 11 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 (continued) Bryan Tepper: I was partway through my speech and was put off till today. I’d just finished actually through clause 20 so moving on from that. I would actually, before I get started…. I had time to reminisce about what debate has gone on before myself.

I note that I’m very glad to see that there has been a lot of agreement with the Third Party, with my comments that I had made after the fact, and even from some of the gov - ernment speakers that had agreed on a lot of my points. I will start again at Bill 11. It talks tough on safety, but it ignores unsafe housing conditions that fuel the prob - lems day after day. It targets tenants with broader eviction powers, especially the narrow weapons clause, while com - pletely ignoring drugs, fire risk and lack of supports. The weapons provisions in

section 4.8 simply allow eviction of people found with weapons and nothing further. No mandatory police involvement, no risk assessments and no protections for elderly residents nearby who could be in danger during removal. Our seniors in recovery deserve better than eviction only. They need prevention through staffing and treat - ment. The government left police, fire and paramedics en - tirely out of the room — no integrated protocols. Housing workers are put at risk without clear rules or protection. [2:25 p.m.] Locking people out inflames conflict, especially for those in crisis.

Who responds when a tenant is armed? It’s not clarified. Eviction takes time, unlike current 911 urgency. Bill 11 expands eviction but ignores smoke, fires and unsafe buildings. Supportive housing needs staffing, safety and treatment, not punishment. This is about look - ing tough, not real work. Consider real stories. In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, fires from butane torches have killed residents in SROs with faulty sprinklers. Current RTA doesn’t fix buildings. Bill 11 seizes torches but ignores wiring. Elderly tenants with dementia wander into danger. Lockouts ex - acerbate this.

Municipalities like Surrey and Burnaby re - port endless calls, needles, overdoses, yet no mandatory supports here. Compared to current law, Bill 11 weakens tenant prop - erty rights in

section 32 without reciprocal landlord dut - ies for safe housing. Eviction expansions under

section 47 sound strong, but residential tenancy branch backlogs, RTB, mean delays, displacing problems. Weapons clause. Current danger grounds actually do cover it. This just rebrands without urgency. No protection for recovery folks. Eviction sends them back to the streets, worsening cycles. If serious about safety, mandate 24-7 staffing ratios, fire retrofits, addic - tion services. There are none here. Fund treatment beds. Consult first responders. We’ve had silence.

The elderly deserve dignity, walkers, meds, safe spaces that we provide to our college students, but government dodges costs, fools municipalities with eviction carrots. Problems displaced, not solved. They say: “Fix the system. Enforce building codes. In - tegrate services.” This bill fails. It’s symbolic, not substan -

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6205 tive. British Columbians demand more in 2026, but this appears to be par for the course for this government — bills full of symbolic wording, but no real effect to those words. This displaces risk rather than eliminating it at the source. I’ve found myself saying that every day this week during speeches and debate. British Columbians expect far more than this kind of symbolic legislation from their government in 2026.

They expect homes that are genuinely safe and supportive for all residents, not regulatory experiments that prioritize political optics over real outcomes and try to fool muni - cipalities into accepting more of the same failed approach that has caused so many problems already. This bill fails that fundamental test. I have a little bit of time left, so I actually would like to say a couple of more things. On this bill, I’ve found that strengths are minimal and procedural, with clearer

definitions. There’s some consistency in how supportive housing fits under the RTA, and it does have the targeted weapons language that operators have requested. But weaknesses dominate this entire thing. Everything of substance is delegated to future regulation. We have no minimum staffing, no mandatory supports, no police integration required at all. Tenant protections, looking through it, are diluted.

We have property seizure, access restrictions, easier evictions with vague safeguards, left to cabinet though. [2:30 p.m.] This bill ignores root causes — underfunded treatment, crumbling buildings and absent on-site clinical supports. It creates real risks of abuse or displacement of the very vulnerable people it claims to help. This bill has had critics, which are tenant advocates. They’re already warning it could increase homelessness by making eviction easier, which…. I will note the Third Party mentioned that that exact scenario was their num - ber one fear in this bill. It has become classic incrementalism.

We respond to operator and municipal pressure with regulatory tweaks and headlining safety measures while dodging the far harder and more expensive work of funding actual sup - ports, enforcement and treatment. No one wants to be seen as soft on weapons in sup - portive housing, but this bill solves none of the underlying policy failures. To me, it appears this is more political management of municipal backlash than really genuine system reform. So I would thank you, Madam Speaker, and have my seat. Hon. Grace Lore: I’m grateful to be here today and to have a chance to speak to this legislation.

I’m also grateful to the Minister of Housing for bringing the work here for - ward. A lot was done to thread a needle to balance really difficult questions, and this legislation, in my opinion, does this. As the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I represent a lot of communities with supportive housing in them, and I represent a lot of people who need and have benefited from supportive housing. That includes the provision of meals, available supports, life skills training and other care and services that sometimes people need. There is a lot of this supportive housing in the com - munity I represent.

Unlike some, I think this is a good thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think my community benefits from this supportive housing. It means people in my community are in this housing instead of, for example, sleeping rough or in encampments. That’s good. One thing has been clear. Supportive housing is hous - ing. It is people’s homes. It is meant to offer to people that sense of home, that sense of stability and the services and supports that our community members often need.

Supportive housing, however, for all the same reasons that it’s essential, especially for those who need additional supports than they can access in market or low-income housing — for those facing substance use, mental health or concurrent disorders; for those who have experienced brain injury or addiction; or any number of other reasons that people need supportive housing — can have its own challenges. This is what these changes are about.

It’s about giving practical, usable tools — tools that reflect the reality in supportive housing — while still protecting the rights of tenants and keeping supportive housing under the RTA. It’s not about choosing between safety and rights. It’s about doing both and doing both well. Frankly, that’s what providers need. It’s what communities need. It’s also what tenants themselves deserve. They deserve protection of their rights as tenants, and they deserve safety and se - curity in their own buildings. Let me walk through what some of these changes ac - tually do.

I do this because some of these changes reflect conversations I’ve had with community providers who are looking for new tools and who are looking to do some - thing other than eviction. First, and very importantly, this legislation provides a clearer, stronger tool to deal with weapons. Of course, supportive housing has always had rules around weapons. The ban is not new. Until now, though, providers have often had to prove not just that a weapon was present but that it was used or intended to be used to cause harm.

That can create delays and uncertainty and risk. [2:35 p.m.] This legislation and these amendments fix that change. Now the presence of a weapon, whether it’s a firearm or a replica, whether it’s Tasers or other dangerous items…. The existence of them themselves can be sufficient grounds to end a tenancy. That’s a practical shift. It means providers can act ear -

6206 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 lier. It means less time spent building complex evidence when providers know and the neighbours of someone with a weapon in their supportive housing know that the whole building community would be better served. Now, this concrete change, this practical and usable change, is one of many. I’m going to share a few others. I also want to ground us in something really important. The vast majority of people living in supportive housing are doing exactly what all of us want. They’re working towards stability, healing and building a sense of home.

They’re our neighbours, community members, people try- ing to build or move their lives forward. When I talk about the challenges, say, of weapons in supportive housing, I do so to talk about the tools that are available and what supports might need to be there to help someone do just that — to rebuild their lives. In doing so, it’s important that we don’t suggest that people in supportive housing are inherently dangerous or not worthy of safety and security. We need to be able to ensure that folks have safety in their own units to pursue that life improvement, to find that stability.

This is the balance that this legislation is seeking to find. In those cases where something difficult happens, where there’s a real and immediate risk to other tenants, to staff, to the broader community…. When those mo - ments happen, we know that in the past, providers have not always had, and they tell us they have not had, the tools that they need to respond quickly and safely. So this is about those practical, usable tools. I need to say that for myself, in my community with significant amounts of affordable and supportive housing, there have been real tragedies. There has been violence.

There has been loss. But there has also been hope. There has also been recovery. There has also been connection. We add these practical tools so that there can be more of the latter and less of the former. These changes also provide a continuum of response, not just eviction. This is a direct ask I’ve had from my community. These are conversations I’ve had with hous - ing providers, particularly those who’ve dedicated their lives to creating housing, to ensuring everything possible is done for those folks that we might call “hard to home, hard to house.” I hate that language. People need services and supports.

They are not inherently hard to house. Folks have had ex - periences, violence, brain injury. There are folks in our community who dedicate their lives to wrapping around these neighbours, to making sure everything possible is done, that they can be housed and stay housed. Part of this, part of their ask, is a con - tinuum of options and not just eviction. Before these changes in the status quo, it could be diffi - cult to manage a dangerous situation with limited tools, or it could force moving straight to eviction.

Neither of these options work well in complex human environments with complex neighbours and tenants, like supportive housing. Housing providers in our community that I know are not in the business of housing to evict people, though of course it is a necessary tool. It’s an important tool. But I think of one housing provider in particular who told me about the nature of the work, the work to support people with harm reduction, with care, with recovery. [2:40 p.m.] They need the tools and opportunities to keep folks connected in their housing.

They need the tools and op - portunities so they can share and provide those tools and opportunities with their neighbours. That is what these changes offer. Amendments will create, essentially, a cooling-off per - iod. Not every situation should result in someone losing their housing. Sometimes what is needed is time, space, de-escalation. This tool allows providers, again, to respond immedi - ately to safety risks, because we must stabilize a situation and, where possible, preserve tenancy.

People who are liv - ing, say, with addiction or concurrent addiction and men - tal health, who’ve had brain injuries, don’t disappear when they are evicted. They remain in our communities, and they do so with less support, less security, less stability. This is not about forcing staff and tenants to remain in an unsafe situation either while trying to keep some - one housed or while a complex process unfolds to move towards eviction. It’s about something different altogether, alternative tools.

There are also faster, clearer pathways for urgent ac - tion, because sometimes these situations do require speed and clarity. Providers have told us when serious incidents occur — violence, fire-setting, repeated threats — the sys - tem can be too slow to respond. These changes support faster access to the residential tenancy branch in these high-risk cases. Instead of prolonged uncertainty, there’s a clear path forward — immediate safety measures followed by a fair and expediated process. That’s the balance. Quick action and due process.

Both are essential, and they’re essential to staff doing the work and to tenants, both the tenant involved and their neighbours. Again, I want to ground all of my comments here in two realities. Most folks, I would say all folks, in supportive housing are trying to rebuild or build lives; to move forward; to get the security, hope, connection and services that all people deserve. Yet these are complex environments. These are situations in which we need to be able to react to someone quickly. The second thing I want to ground my remarks in, once again, is the reality of some instances in supportive housing.

Again, in my community, that has been violence in cases, that has been the loss of people. Providers need

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6207 these tools, and their neighbours deserve quick action as well. Several tools to manage guests. Sometimes the risk doesn’t come from a tenant; it comes from someone brought into the building. The amendments provide stronger abilities to enforce guest policies, limit access when needed and respond to non-residents when they are creating unsafe conditions. I know some of the situations here in Victoria that have raised significant concern were the result of guests, not tenants. Residents don’t want to live in buildings that aren’t secure themselves.

They don’t want to live in places that aren’t safe from the guests of their other tenants. These tools are necessary. We’re also talking about protection for workers and others. These changes strengthen these broader protec - tions. While tenants need a safe place to live and people deserve housing, staff also have a right to work in safety, to go to work and know their safety is an equal considera - tion. So now providers will have clearer authority to act when anyone on site, not just a tenant, is put at risk.

Finally, these changes bring more clarity, greater clarity, between supportive and transitional housing. That may sound technical, but it has real-world impacts. Transi - tional housing is meant to be that — transitional, tempor - ary. It’s not meant to be a forever home. Clarifying the dif- ference provides understanding of what rules apply when and where, ensures tenants can understand their rights and ensures that response is quick and appropriate to the type of housing involved. Let’s also be clear what this bill is not doing. These changes are not about making it easier to evict people.

In fact, creating additional tools is about the exact opposite. [2:45 p.m.] When we have tools to de-escalate and preserve hous - ing, we’re talking about less eviction, not more. When evic- tion is necessary, though, it should have both quick results and due process. Also, supportive housing remains, of course, under the Residential Tenancy Act, so tenants keep their rights. Due process remains in place, but it is about more tools for cooling off or accountability. It is about being able to act fast, especially when tenants or staff are unsafe. This bill, these amendments, are part of a broader com - mitment.

This bill is about improving a system, one that we have been investing in. In my community alone — I’ve mentioned my community a number of times specifically — 742 units of supportive housing since 2017. That’s huge. There are 304 more supportive housing units under con - struction. These are folks who are not camping in Beacon Hill Park, who are not among the folks who are still mak - ing Pandora or other locations their home. Those housing units are the right kinds of homes, with supports. They’re meant to support people in such a way as…. Additional efforts have been made to ensure they’re person-specific.

We have youth-specific supportive housing. I can see it from my downtown office, my community office, and I love it. I love when I see it across the street. That is sup - portive housing for youth who may otherwise be un - housed and extremely vulnerable. The vast majority of them have had experience with MCFD. It’s about doing what’s right. We also have recovery-oriented housing that opened just this week and culturally grounded, Indigenous-led supportive housing. I connect regularly with service providers and recently met with neighbours, police and providers all at once.

This is about collective work, community work. At the end of the day, it’s not just about policy. It is about the place we call home. It’s about our neighbours, and it’s about get - ting it right by those neighbours, housing providers and the broader community. I’ll close with this. Supportive housing works. It is a gift to have it in my community. I welcome all 742 units. I look forward to the remaining 300. It helps people stabilize and improves health outcomes. A provider in my community always tells me that they took photos of folks when they first moved in, and six months later they had to take them again.

People were unrecognizable. They did not look the same. They had their photos taken for ID so staff could get to know them. They were unrecognizable. It works. It builds stronger community. But for it to work, it has to work for everyone. It has to be safe. It has to be safe for the people who live there, for the people who work there, for the surrounding com - munities. These changes are about making that possible, improving the system with practical tools, balanced policy and through a continued commitment to doing this work thoughtfully, responsibly and together.

I am thrilled to support this bill and appreciate the op - portunity to speak to it. Misty Van Popta: I am here today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, a piece of legislation that, at first glance, seems responsive to the complex realities of housing insecurity in our province. It is a bill that attempts to reconcile two difficult truths — that housing systems must adapt to serve vulnerable populations and that legal protections must remain firm, predictable and just.

Yet as we examine this bill more closely, we find our - selves confronting a far more complicated picture, one that demands not only cautious support in select areas but also serious critique; scrutiny; and, frankly, concern. Let me begin by acknowledging a few things. For too long, our legislative framework has struggled to adequately account for supportive housing. The original Residential

6208 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 Tenancy Act was built around traditional landlord-tenant models, ones that assume independence, stability and rela - tively equal bargaining position between the parties. [2:50 p.m.] But supportive housing does not fit neatly into that framework. It involves individuals who are often navigat - ing homelessness, mental health challenges, addiction or systemic marginalization. It involves operators who are not merely landlords but service providers, caregivers and intermediaries between tenants and broader social supports.

In this respect, Bill 11 performs an important function. It recognizes that supportive housing is different. By for - mally defining supportive housing, supportive housing rental units and housing stability support, the bill brings clarity where ambiguity has long existed. It attempts to bring these arrangements into the legal fold rather than leaving them in a grey zone of partial exemptions and in - consistent application. That, in principle, is a positive step but has taken entirely too long to get here.

Similarly, the bill’s effort to remain certain outdated exemptions, particularly those related to housing con - nected to health facilities…. It reflects a desire to ensure that residents in those environments are not entirely out - side the protections of tenancy law. Moving from a model of total exclusion to one of conditional inclusion has the potential to extend at least some degree of legal recogni - tion to individuals who previously had none. Yet this is where the bill’s promise begins to unravel. What Bill 11 ultimately creates is not simply inclusion but stratification.

It establishes, in effect, a two-tier tenancy system, one for traditional renters and another for those in supportive housing. And while differentiation in law is not inherently problematic, the nature of that differentia - tion matters profoundly. In this case, the distinctions introduced by the bill overwhelmingly trend in one direction, toward the dilu - tion of tenant protections. Let us consider what that means in practice.

Under this bill, tenants in supportive housing may face reduced protections in several key areas: entry into their units, access to their property, control over their personal belongings and even the stability of their tenancy agreements. Landlords, redefined in this context to include sup - portive housing operators, are granted expanded author - ity, often through mechanisms that will be defined not in legislation itself but in future regulations. This brings us to one of the most troubling aspects of the bill, the dra - matic expansion of regulation-making power.

Almost every piece of major legislation we’ve touched in the past year continues to move important information into regulation, where it doesn’t get scrutinized. Trad - itionally, core rights and obligations in tenancy law are set out clearly in statute. This ensures transparency, predict - ability and democratic accountability. Changes to those rights require legislative debate, public scrutiny and the consent of this assembly. Bill 11, however, shifts a significant portion of that au - thority away from the Legislature and into the hands of the executive.

It allows for the creation of rules governing entry into rental units, restrictions on tenant access, seiz - ure of personal property, amendments to tenancy agree - ments and even the circumstances under which tenants may be evicted — all through regulation. This is not a minor procedural change; it is a fundamental rebalancing of where power resides in our legal system. While flexibility is often cited as a justification for such shifts, and indeed there are situations where flexibility is necessary, we must ask ourselves: flexibility for whom and at what cost?

For tenants, particularly those in supportive hous - ing, flexibility can translate into uncertainty. It can mean that the rules governing their homes may change without the full weight of legislative oversight. It can mean that protections they rely on today may be altered tomorrow, not through open debate but through administrative decision-making. [2:55 p.m.] This is especially concerning given the population that supportive housing is meant to serve. These are not individuals with abundant resources, legal expertise or the capacity to navigate complex and shifting regulatory landscapes.

They are, by definition, among the most vul - nerable members of our society. Yet under this bill, they are the ones who will be subject to the most flexible and therefore the least certain legal framework. Let us now talk about issues of tenant rights within supportive housing. The bill introduces provisions that allow landlords to enter units under broader conditions than those permitted under the original act. It enables re - strictions on tenant access to residential property. It cre - ates the possibility of interfering with tenant property in ways that were previously prohibited.

Each of these changes may be defensible in isolation. One can imagine scenarios in supportive housing where staff need to enter units more frequently, where safety concerns necessitate restrictions on access or where inter - vention in a tenant’s personal environment is part of pro - viding care. But the problem lies not in the existence of these powers; it lies in the lack of clear, enforceable limits on them. By leaving the specifics to regulation, the bill does not establish a firm baseline of rights. Instead, it cre - ates a framework in which those rights can be adjusted, expanded or contracted over time.

In doing so, it risks normalizing a lower standard of tenancy protection for a specific class of residents. [Lorne Doerkson in the chair.] This raises a fundamental question. Should the level

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6209 of legal protection one receives in their home depend on their vulnerability? If anything, we might argue the op - posite — that those who are the most vulnerable should be afforded the strongest protection, not the weakest. Another area I’d like to discuss is the expansion of evic- tion powers. Bill 11 introduces new grounds for eviction, including provisions related to the possession or presence of weapons.

It broadens existing grounds by replacing specific references to landlords and other occupants with a more expansive term, “authorized person,” which in - cludes a wide range of individuals. On the surface, these changes may appear reasonable. Safety is, after all, a legitimate concern, particularly in shared or supportive housing environments. But we must be careful with overreach. The introduction of weapon-related eviction grounds, for example, raises important questions about propor - tionality and context. What constitutes a weapon? Under what circumstances is its presence considered grounds for eviction?

How will these provisions be applied in practice, particularly in cases where individuals may possess items for legitimate or non-threatening purposes? Similarly, the expansion of eviction grounds to include impacts on any authorized person significantly broadens the scope of what may be considered disruptive or harm - ful behaviour. This could lead to situations where tenants are evicted not for clear violations of tenancy agreements but for conduct that is interpreted, perhaps subjectively, as affecting a wide range of individuals.

Again, the issue is not that these concerns are invalid, but that the bill does not sufficiently constrain how they are addressed. It is also worth noting the changes to tenancy agree - ments themselves. Under the original act, amendments to tenancy agreements generally require the consent of both parties. This reflects a basic principle of contract law that agreements should not be altered unilaterally. [3:00 p.m.] Bill 11 introduces exceptions to this principle, allowing for changes to standard terms under certain conditions, particularly in supportive housing contexts.

While there may be practical reasons for this, such as the need to adapt agreements to evolving support needs, it nonetheless represents a departure from foundational legal norm. It shifts the balance of power further toward landlords and operators and away from tenants. Finally, we must consider the broader philosophical implications of this bill. At its core, tenancy law is about more than contracts and regulations. It is about homes. It is about spaces in which people live, rest, recover and re - build their lives.

When we create different standards for different types of housing, we are making a statement about whose homes are entitled to what level of protection. Bill 11, intentionally or not, creates a hierarchy of hous - ing rights. It suggests that those in supportive housing, those who arguably need stability and security the most, may receive a more conditional; more flexible; and, ultim - ately, more precarious form of tenancy. There are elements within this bill that are necessary, even overdue. The recognition of supportive housing within the legal framework is one such element.

The ef - fort to bring previously exempt housing into the scope of the act is another. The acknowledgement that a one-size- fits-all approach to tenancy law may not be sufficient is, in itself, a valuable insight. But support for these objectives does not require full acceptance of the bill in its current form. If anything, it demands that we do better. It challenges us to ensure that flexibility does not come at the expense of fairness, that efficiency does not override dignity and that the needs of the system do not eclipse the rights of the individual.

At the same time, in that sense, this bill is not an end point. It is a beginning. We must ensure that the creation of a specialized framework for supportive housing does not come at the expense of fundamental rights. We must ensure that flex - ibility does not become a euphemism for reduced protec - tion. We must ensure that the expansion of regulatory power is accompanied by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability. Above all, we must ensure that the people at the centre of this legislation, the tenants, are not treated as an afterthought.

A true measure of this bill will not be found in its def - initions or in its clauses but in its consequences. It will be found in how it shapes the daily lives of those who depend on supportive housing. It will be found in whether it pro - vides stability or uncertainty, protection or vulnerability, dignity or diminishment. Let us proceed with caution, let us amend where amend- ment is needed, and let us strengthen where strength is lacking. Let us remember that in the pursuit of flexibility, we must never lose sight of fairness.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, and I do so with a growing level of concern the deeper one looks into what is being proposed. At the outset, I think it is important to ground this dis - cussion in what the Residential Tenancy Act is intended to do. It is the primary piece of legislation that governs the legal relationship between landlords and tenants in this province. It establishes rights, it establishes respon - sibilities, and it provides a framework that is supposed to bring clarity and stability to something as fundamental as housing.

On the surface, that sounds straightforward, and for many people, it is. So it is entirely reasonable to ask why changes of this magnitude are being brought forward at this time, who has been asking for them and whether the consequences have been fully considered. [3:05 p.m.]

6210 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 This legislation introduces a new framework for what is described as supportive housing within the residential tenancy system. It creates a new division dealing specific - ally with supportive housing rental units. It expands the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations, and it alters provisions related to tenant con - duct, landlord authority, inspections, compensation and dispute resolution. These are not minor adjustments. They represent a shift in how housing is categorized, managed and enforced within the province.

That shift carries with it implications that extend well beyond the wording of the bill itself. One of the first challenges that arises when reviewing this legislation is the lack of a clear and practical defin - ition of “supportive housing.” The term is used broadly, yet it captures a wide range of circumstances that are not the same and should not be treated as though they are. There are individuals who require affordable housing due to income constraints, including seniors who are try - ing to maintain independence on fixed incomes.

There are individuals experiencing homelessness who require stability and access to services. There are those dealing with mental health challenges. There are those navigating substance abuse. There are distinct realities, each with different needs, different levels of support and different expectations around supervision and safety. What this bill appears to do is bring those different realities together, under a single legislative approach, without sufficient distinction. That creates uncertainty for those who are expected to implement the policy and for communities that must live with the outcomes. When

definitions are unclear, inter - pretation fills the gap and that leads to inconsistency. It also makes it difficult to establish appropriate standards because the needs of one group may be very different from the needs of another. Without that clarity, there is a risk that housing solutions will be mismatched to the popula - tions they are intended to serve. There’s also the question of who has been consulted in the development of these changes. Concerns have been raised about the process; about the level of engagement; and about the absence of key voices, particularly those involved in public safety.

Fire service stakeholders and emergency responders have been clear in expressing that their concerns have not been adequately addressed. These are individuals who understand how buildings function under pressure, who respond when situations escalate and who are often the last line of defence when something goes wrong. Their perspective is not theor - etical. It is based on experience. It reflects what is happen - ing on the ground in communities across the province.

When those voices are not meaningfully included in the development of legislation that directly affects the environments they respond to, it raises serious questions about whether the full scope of risk has been considered. This bill addresses tenant behaviour, and it does so in a way that suggests conduct is at the centre of the issue. While behaviour is certainly a factor in any housing en - vironment, it’s not the only factor, and, in many cases, it is not the root cause of the challenges that are being ob - served.

There are broader issues that come into play, in - cluding building safety, security staffing levels, main - tenance and environmental conditions within the units themselves. There are also concerns related to drug activity within these spaces, which adds another layer of complexity that cannot be addressed simply through tenancy provisions. Focusing on behaviour without addressing those underlying factors risks creating a situation where the symptoms are managed without dealing with the cause.

It also places expectations on tenants and on those manag - ing these facilities that may not be realistic given the con - ditions that they are working in. Housing environments are shaped by their design, by the resources available to support them and by the sys - tems that are in place to respond when issues arise. With - out a comprehensive approach that takes all of these ele - ments into account, the framework remains incomplete. There’s also a practical concern about enforcement and responsibility.

The bill does not provide a clear indication of who is responsible for ensuring safety when situations escalate beyond what would normally be considered ten - ancy matters. In cases where tenants may pose a risk to themselves or others, where there may be the presence of weapons or where behaviour becomes unpredictable or dangerous, there needs to be a clear understanding of who is responsible for responding and what authority they have to do so. In many of these environments, supportive housing workers are the individuals present on a day-to-day basis.

They are tasked with providing support, managing cases and assisting tenants in navigating complex challenges. Their training is centred on support and harm reduction, not on enforcement or crisis intervention at a level that involves significant risk. Expecting them to manage situa - tions that fall outside their training creates pressure that is not sustainable and raises concerns about safety for both workers and residents. [3:10 p.m.] This issue becomes even more pronounced in smaller and rural communities. Many of these communities do not have facilities that were designed with supportive housing in mind.

Instead, they are dealing with tempor - ary shelters or adapted spaces that may have little or no supervision and staff who may not have the specialized training required to respond to a wide range of situations. Resources are limited, and access to additional support services is not always readily available. In those settings, the introduction of a legislative framework that assumes a certain level of capacity can create additional strain. It can

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6211 place communities in a position where they are expected to meet standards or manage situations without having the necessary tools or support to do so effectively. That is not a reflection of a lack of willingness at the community level. It is a reflection of the reality that dif - ferent communities have different capabilities and policy must take that into account. Another concern relates to the classification of those housing environments. Many of the buildings being used for supportive housing were originally designed as single- room occupancies.

They were not built as care facilities, and they do not necessarily include the features or safe - guards that would be expected in a setting where residents may require a higher level of supervision or support. When those buildings are used in ways that extend be - yond the original design, it introduces risks that need to be fully, carefully managed. Those risks are not limited to structural considerations. They extend to how spaces are used, how occupants interact and how emergencies are handled.

Without clear standards and appropriate oversight, there is a potential for conditions to develop that are not safe for residents, for staff or for the first responders. The legislation does not provide sufficient detail to address those concerns in a way that inspires confidence. There is also the broader context of housing supply in the province. There is no question that there is a short - age, and there is pressure to find solutions.

However, the approach reflected in this bill suggests an attempt to in - corporate supportive housing into a broader effort with - out fully addressing the unique requirements that come with it. Housing is not a single category, and the needs of differ- ent populations cannot always be met with a single frame - work. When policy moves in that direction, there is a risk that solutions become generalized to the point where they lose their effectiveness. Housing that is intended to serve one purpose may be asked to serve another, and over time, that can lead to challenges that affect both residents and communities.

It can also place additional demands on sys - tems that are already under strain, including emergency services and local support networks. Emergency responders are already dealing with in - creasing demand, and supportive housing environments often contribute to that demand due to the complexity of the situations involved. Calls may involve medical emer - gencies, mental health crises or incidents that require co - ordination between multiple agencies. These are not rou - tine situations, and they require resources, training and clear protocols to manage effectively.

The legislation does not appear to address how these pressures will be miti - gated or how coordination will be improved. There is also the matter of regulatory authority. The bill expands the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations related to supportive hous - ing. While regulation-making authority is a common fea - ture of legislation, the scope of the authority being granted here raises questions about how key aspects of the frame - work will be defined and implemented.

When significant elements of policy are left to regulation, it can reduce the level of scrutiny and debate that would otherwise occur within this House. That approach may offer flexibility, but it also creates uncertainty. Stakeholders may not have a clear under - standing of what is expected until regulations are de - veloped, and those regulations can be changed without the same level of legislative oversight. For a framework that has such broad implications, there is a strong argument to be made for greater clarity within the legislation itself.

All of these considerations point to a broader issue, which is the need for a more com- prehensive and deliberate approach to supportive housing policy. The intent to provide housing and support for those in need is not in question. It is something that all members of this House recognize as important. The context lies in how that intent is translated into policy and whether the framework that is being established is capable of achieving its objectives in a way that is safe, effective and sustainable. [3:15 p.m.] The decisions we make in this area have real conse - quences.

They affect individuals who rely on those hous - ing environments for stability and support. They affect workers who are committed to providing assistance under challenging circumstances. They affect communities that are working to balance compassion with safety. They af - fect the systems that respond when things do not go as planned. For those reasons, it is essential that legislation of this nature is clear with this intent, grounded in practical real - ity and informed by those who have direct experience. At this stage, there are too many unanswered questions and too many areas where clarity is lacking.

That is not a pos - ition that lends itself to confidence in the framework be - ing proposed. As I continue, I think it is important to reflect on the communative effect of what is being proposed. Legisla - tion of this nature does not operate in isolation. It inter - acts with existing systems, with existing pressures and with the realities that communities are already navigating. When those interactions are not fully considered, the re - sult is often a layering of complexity rather than a solution of the underlying issue.

There’s a growing concern that what is being advanced through this bill is an attempt to streamline or consolidate multiple challenges to a single legislative approach, and while that may appear efficient on paper, it does not reflect the lived experience of those who are directly affected. Housing challenges are not uniform across this province. They vary by region, by population and by the resources

6212 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 available to support them. A framework that does not ac - count for that variation risks creating outcomes that are uneven and in some cases counterproductive. In many communities, there is already a sense that sys - tems are being stretched beyond their intended capacity. Local governments, non-profit organizations and service providers are doing their best to respond to increasing de - mand with limited resources. They are adapting, they are innovating, and they’re often stepping in to fill the gaps that exist at a broader level.

When new legislation is introduced, it should serve to support those efforts, to provide clarity and to strengthen the overall system. It should not introduce additional un - certainty or place further strain on those who are already operating at their limits. What is particularly concerning is the absence of clear accountability mechanisms within the framework being proposed. When responsibilities are not clearly defined, it becomes difficult to determine who is responsible when something goes wrong. That lack of clarity does not re - main within the pages of legislation.

It manifests in real situations where decisions must be made quickly and where the consequences of an action or misdirection can be significant. There are also implications for landlords and housing providers who may find themselves operating within a framework that is not fully defined. Expectations around inspections, compliance and dispute resolution appear to be shifting, yet the details of how those expectations will be applied remain uncertain.

That creates a level of risk for those providers, particularly smaller organizations that may not have the capacity to navigate complex regu - latory environments without clear guidance. It is also worth considering the impact on tenants themselves. Individuals who reside in supportive housing environments often face complex challenges, and stability is a key factor in their ability to move forward. When the framework governing their housing is unclear or subject to change through regulation, it can create uncertainty that undermines that stability. Predictability in housing is not a minor consideration.

It is a foundational element of well-being. Another issue that arises is the relationship between this legislative framework and existing enforcement mechanisms. When disputes occur within the residential tenancy system, there are established processes for resolu - tion. The introduction of a new category within that sys - tem raises questions about how those processes will adapt and whether they are equipped to handle the unique cir - cumstances that may arise within the supportive housing environments.

These are not always straightforward dis - putes, and they may involve factors that extend beyond traditional tenancy matters. The role of inspections is also an area that warrants attention. Inspections are a critical component of main - taining safety and ensuring compliance with standards. However, the effectiveness of inspections depends on clar - ity in what is being assessed and consistency in how those assessments are conducted. Without clear standards that reflect the realities of supportive housing, inspections may vary in their application, leading to inconsistencies that undermine their purpose.

There’s also the broader issue of how this framework aligns with other areas of policy, including health services, social services and public safety. [3:20 p.m.] Supportive housing does not exist in a vacuum. It inter- sects with multiple systems, each of which has its own mandates and challenges. Effective policy in this area requires coordination across those systems, and that co - ordination must be reflected in the legislative framework. At present, there is little within this bill that provides assurance that such coordination has been fully con - sidered.

The absence of that consideration raises concerns about how effectively the framework will function once implemented. It also raises questions about whether the burden of coordination will fall on those at the local level, who may not have the authority or resources to manage it effectively. It is also necessary to consider the long-term implica - tions of the approach being taken. Housing policy is not something that can be addressed through short-term measures alone. It requires a long-term perspective that takes into account demographic trends, economic con - ditions and the evolving needs of the population.

When legislation is introduced without that perspective, there is a risk that it will need to be revisited or revised in rela - tively short order, creating further uncertainty. The expansion of regulatory authority within this bill contributes to that uncertainty. While it allows for adjust - ments to be made over time, it also means that key aspects of the framework may shift without the same level of pub - lic debate or legislative scrutiny. That can make it diffi - cult for stakeholders to plan and to invest in the systems and infrastructure needed to support supportive housing effectively.

There’s also a question of balance that must be con - sidered. The Residential Tenancy Act has traditionally sought to balance the rights and responsibilities of land - lords and tenants. That introduction of a new framework within that act must maintain that balance while also ad - dressing the unique circumstances of supportive housing. Achieving that balance requires careful consideration and a clear articulation of how rights and responsibil - ities are allocated. At this stage, it is not evident that the bill achieves that balance.

The emphasis on certain as - pects, combined with the lack of clarity in others, creates a framework that appears uneven. That unevenness can lead to challenges in implementation and can affect the confidence of those who are expected to operate within it.

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6213 Throughout this discussion, there has been a recurring theme, and that is the need for clarity — clarity in defin - itions, clarity in responsibilities, clarity in standards and clarity in how the framework will be applied across differ - ent contexts. Without that clarity, even well-intentioned policy can fall short of its objectives. It is also important to recognize that clarity is not something that can be achieved solely through regula - tion after the fact. It must be built into the legislation itself.

It must be present at the outset so that those who are af - fected by the policy have a clear understanding of what is expected and how the system will operate. There’s an opportunity here to take a more deliberate approach, to engage more fully with those who have ex - pressed concerns and to ensure that the framework being established is one that reflects its realities on the ground. That approach may take more time, but it is time that would be well spent on developing policy that is both ef - fective and sustainable.

I do not believe that anyone in this House would sug - gest that the challenges associated with housing can be addressed through a single piece of legislation. They are complex, they are interconnected, and they require a range of responses. Supportive housing is one part of that response, but it must be developed in a way that acknow - ledges its complexity and its importance. The bill before us represents an effort to move in that direction, but it does so in a way that leaves significant gaps.

Those gaps are not minor, and they have the poten - tial to affect the safety, stability and effectiveness of sup - portive housing across the province. Addressing those gaps requires more than incremental adjustments. It re - quires a reconsideration of how the framework is struc - tured and how it will be implemented. As members of this House, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation we pass is not only well-inten - tioned but also well designed. That responsibility includes taking the time to ask difficult questions, to listen to those who are affected and to adjust where necessary.

It also in - cludes recognizing when a proposal is not yet ready to pro- ceed in its current form. This is one of those instances. The concerns that have been raised are substantive, and they reflect the experi - ence of those who are directly involved in housing, in public safety and in community support. They are not ab - stract concerns, and they should not be set aside. [3:25 p.m.] There is still an opportunity to address these issues, to refine the approach and to bring forward a framework that commands broader confidence.

Doing so would strengthen the policy and would better serve the individ - uals and communities that it is intended to support. In its current form, however, the bill does not provide that level of confidence. It introduces significant changes without sufficient clarity, it expands authority without corresponding details, and it does not fully address the practical realities of implementation. For those reasons, it is difficult to support. The goal of providing safe, stable and appropriate housing for those in need is one that we all share. It is a goal that deserves careful attention and thoughtful policy.

Achieving that goal requires more than broad frameworks. It requires precision, consultation and a willingness to ad - dress complexity rather than simplify it. I would encourage the government to take a step back, to engage more fully with stakeholders and to ensure that the framework being developed is one that reflects the di - versity of needs across this province. That approach would not only improve the legislation but would also contribute to more effective outcomes in the long term.

Macklin McCall: I rise today to speak to Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, and specifically to the parts of this legislation that are being presented as ad - dressing safety within supportive housing. Let me say this at the outset. Safety in supportive hous - ing matters. It matters to the people who live there, it mat - ters to the workers who show up every day, and it matters to the communities around these buildings who are rely - ing on the system to function properly. When it doesn’t, we don’t see small consequences. We see escalation. We see instability.

And, in many cases, we see real risk, both to the people inside those buildings and the people responding to them. Now, this bill is being framed as a step toward improv - ing safety. But when you actually read it, when you look at what it does and, just as importantly, what it does not do, a very different picture starts to emerge. This legislation creates new powers, it creates new mechanisms, and in particular, it introduces a pathway to end a tenancy based on the presence of a weapon. On its face, that sounds reasonable.

Most people would hear that and think: “Of course, that makes sense.” But legislation isn’t judged on how it sounds; it’s judged on how it works. The moment you move from how this sounds to how this actually would be applied on the ground, you run into a very real problem, because this bill does not clearly define what a weapon is. That is not a small oversight. That is the foundation of the entire provision.

If you are going to create a law that allows someone to be removed from their housing, you need to be absolutely clear about what triggers that consequence — not vague, not left open, not deferred to regulation at some other date. Very clear. Without that clarity, you are not creating safety. You are creating uncertainty for tenants, for staff and for the people who will ultimately be expected to respond when something goes wrong. That’s where I want to focus. The difference between something that looks like safety in legislation and some - thing that actually functions as safety in the real world

6214 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 comes down to whether the people on the ground under - stand exactly what they’re dealing with and exactly what they’re expected to do. Right now this bill does not give them that. This is where the problem becomes very real. When we talk about a weapon, most people picture something obvious — a firearm, a large knife, something clearly designed to cause harm. But that’s not how this actually works in the real world, and it’s not how the law treats it either. Under the Criminal Code of Canada,

section 2, a weapon is defined broadly and intentionally so. It is not limited to firearms and knives. It includes anything used, designed to be used or intended to be used to cause injury or to threaten or intimidate another person. That means a weapon is not just about what something is. It’s about how it’s used. That distinction matters because a knife on its own is not necessarily a weapon. It depends on the context, and it depends on the intent. The law recognizes that. [3:30 p.m.] In fact, we see this play out very clearly in the courts when conditions are imposed on someone after they are released.

A judge doesn’t just say, “Do not possess a knife,” because everyone understands that a knife can mean many things. It could be a machete, it could be a large combat-style knife, or it could be something as simple as a butter knife. The courts are precise. They will say: “You are not to possess a knife, except for a knife used in the preparation of food or except under specific, clearly defined circum - stances.” That level of clarity is not accidental.

It exists so that police know when a condition has actually been breached, the individual understands what is allowed and what is not, and a judge, after the fact, can fairly deter - mine whether an offence occurred. Without that clarity, you create confusion, you create inconsistency, and you risk punishing behaviour that was never intended to be captured in the first place. Without that level of clarity, you create absurd outcomes.

A person preparing food in their unit, using a knife for its intended purpose, should not be put in a position where the same subject, without context, could trigger enforcement or eviction. That is why the courts are precise. They under - stand that the object is not the issue. The behaviour is. Take that reality and apply it to this bill. Here, we are not talking about a criminal charge. We are talking about someone losing their housing. Yet the legislation does not clearly define what a weapon is. It leaves that to regula - tion. It leaves that to

interpretation. That creates a very real problem. In supportive housing environments, the distinction between a tool and a weapon is not a theory. It happens in real time. A kitchen knife used to prepare food is not a weapon, but that same knife held in a threatening way during a conflict becomes one. A piece of broken furni - ture, a tool, even something as simple as a rock can be - come a weapon depending on how it is used. That’s the reality that the law has to account for. If you don’t clearly define what triggers action, then the people on the ground are left to guess.

In situations involving po - tential violence, guessing is not acceptable. This is where the issues move beyond definition and into real-world risk. Once you accept that a weapon is not always obvious, that it can be anything depending on how it’s used, the next question becomes unavoidable. Who is expected to deal with that? This bill creates the condition, but it does not clearly define the response. It does not say who makes the call that something is a weapon, who is responsible for inter - vening and what that intervention is supposed to look like in the moment.

That matters, because in supportive housing environments, those situations do not happen in a controlled setting. They happen quickly. They escalate unpredictably, and they often involve people who are al - ready in crisis. Now, I’ve dealt with these kinds of calls, and I can say this clearly. A situation involving a weapon, real or per - ceived, is not a low-risk situation. It is a high-risk call. It is the kind of call that requires training, equipment and backup. When police respond to someone who is armed or pot - entially armed, they do not walk into that situation cas - ually. They assess. They coordinate.

They rely on their training. They have tools available to them — a firearm; a baton; OC spray; communication skills; and, most im - portantly, backup. Even with all that in place, those calls are still unpredictable. They can turn in seconds. Now compare that to who is actually present in sup - portive housing: housing staff, support workers, in some cases volunteers — people who are there to provide sup - port, not to manage violent encounters, not trained to as - sess threat levels in the moment, not equipped to inter - vene safely and not backed by immediate support when something escalates.

Yet under this framework, they are the ones most likely to be first on scene. They are the ones who will see the behaviour. They are the ones who will have to decide. Is this a weapon? Is this a threat? Do I act? Do I wait? Do I call police? Those decisions are being made without clear legislative guidance. Let me walk through how this actually plays out. A staff member observes a tenant in distress. There’s an object in their hand. Maybe it’s a knife. Maybe it’s something else. It’s not immediately clear whether it meets the threshold of a weapon. Now that staff member has to make a deci - sion.

Do they intervene? Do they wait? Do they call police immediately? Once police are called, this is no longer a low-level situation. This becomes a high-risk response. If that call is delayed because the situation wasn’t

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6215 clearly understood, then by the time the police arrive, the risk has been escalated. [3:35 p.m.] That is how these situations unfold — not in a con - trolled, clearly defined way, but in real time with incom - plete information and real consequences. That is not a safe system. Hesitation in those environments can lead to escalation, and overreaction without clear standards can lead to unnecessary conflict. Either way, the people placed in that position are be - ing asked to manage risks that they were never trained to manage.

That is not fair to them, and it is not fair to the tenants. It is not fair to the first responders who will ul - timately be called when something goes wrong, because by the time the police are brought in, the situation has al - ready escalated. Now we are no longer dealing with pre - vention. We are dealing with response. This brings us to the core issue with this bill. When you step back and look at it as a whole, what it is really focused on is removal, ending a tenancy, removing someone from a unit, creating a mechanism to push risk out of a building.

Again, on its face, people hear that and think that makes sense. If there’s a problem, remove it. But that’s not how safety actually works. Removing someone after a situation has escalated, after a weapon is involved, after a threat has been made, is not prevention. That is response. Often it’s a late response, because by the time you are invoking these provisions, the risk has already mater - ialized. The situation has already reached a point where someone feels threatened, where staff are concerned, where police may already be involved.

The question be - comes: what has this bill done to stop that from happening in the first place? The answer, when you look at it carefully, is: very little. The reality in supportive housing is this. The behav - iours that lead to these incidents do not appear out of no - where. They’re connected to unmanaged addiction; un - treated mental health issues; unstable environments; and a lack of consistent, structured support. Those are the driv - ers. That is where risk begins. This legislation does not address those drivers. Instead, it focuses on what happens at the end of the chain.

It cre - ates a mechanism to remove someone from the situation if it becomes serious enough. What happens next? That individual does not disappear. They do not suddenly become more stable. They are simply moved to another building, perhaps another neighbourhood, another part of the system that is dealing with the same pressures and often without the supports they needed in the first place. The behaviour continues, the risk reappears, and the cycle repeats. We remove someone from one building, but we do not remove the underlying issue. What happens?

That individual ends up somewhere else — another build - ing, another neighbourhood, often the same conditions, the same pressures and the same lack of support. The be - haviour does not disappear. It follows them, and now an - other group of staff, another group of residents, are deal - ing with the exact same risk. This is not resolution; this is repetition. This is not a solution; this is displacement. We have seen this pattern before. We move the problem instead of solving it. We respond to the outcome instead of addressing the cause.

Then we wonder why these same issues continue to show up in different places under the same conditions. If the goal of this legislation is truly safety, then it can - not stop at eviction. It has to address what is happening before that point. It has to reduce the likelihood that these situations occur at all. Right now this bill does not do that. This is where the gap in this legislation becomes even more clear.

While this bill focuses heavily on the idea of weapons, it largely ignores the risks that are most com - monly present in these environments — the risks that ac - tually drive calls for service, the risks that put people in danger on a daily basis. One of the biggest of those risks is fire — not theor - etical risk; real risk. We’re talking about open flames in - side units, butane torches being used indoors, improvised heating or cooking methods and electrical setups that are unsafe. These are not rare situations.

These are the kinds of conditions that lead to fires that put entire buildings at risk, not just one unit; that put other tenants at risk; that put staff at risk; and that put fire crews in danger when they have to respond. [3:40 p.m.] Yet when you look at this legislation, those realities are not the focus. Instead, we see an emphasis on control measures tied to individuals rather than addressing the conditions that create the danger in the first place. It doesn’t stop at fire risk.

There are also ongoing issues tied to drug use within units, the storage of substances and the presence of materials that can be volatile or hazardous. Again, these are not isolated issues. They are part of the day-to-day reality in many of these buildings, and they re - quire a coordinated response, not just from housing oper - ators but from fire services, paramedics and police offi - cers, because each of those services sees a different part of the problem. Fire sees the hazard. Paramedics see the medical impact. Police see the escalation and the risk to others.

This bill does not bring those perspectives together. It does not create a framework that reflects how these situa - tions are actually managed on the ground. Instead, it nar - rows the focus. It identifies one type of risk, labels it in broad terms and builds a response around removal. In do - ing so, it misses the bigger picture. Safety in supportive housing is not defined by a single factor. It is the result of multiple risks interacting at the same time — fire risk, health risk, behavioural risk, en - vironmental risk. If you do not address those together, you

6216 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, April 2, 2026 are not improving safety. You are only addressing part of the problem and leaving the rest in place. When we talk about safety in these environments, we cannot ignore the people who are there every day — the staff, the support workers, the people tasked with manag - ing these buildings and supporting the individuals who live in them. Right now under this framework, they are being placed in the middle of all of this.

They are expected to observe behaviour; to assess risk; to determine when something crosses a line; and, in the case of this bill, to recognize when something constitutes a weapon and de - cide what to do next. Let’s be clear about what we are asking of them. These are not police officers. They are not trained to respond to high-risk, potentially violent situations. They do not have the tools, the authority or the backup that is required to safely intervene when someone is armed or acting in a threatening way. Yet they are the ones who will be the first to encounter these situations.

They are the ones who will have to make that call. That puts them in an incredibly difficult pos - ition because, if they hesitate, if they are unsure whether something meets the threshold, the situation can escalate. And if they act without clear guidance, they risk inflam - ing a situation that could otherwise have been managed differently. Either way they are being asked to manage risks that the legislation has not properly defined. That is not fair to them.

It is not fair to place that level of responsibility on individuals without giving them the clarity, the structure and the support they need to do it safely. And it is not just about physical safety. There is also the reality of what they are exposed to on a daily basis — high-stress environ - ments, unpredictable behaviour, situations that can shift very quickly. Adding uncertainty on top of that, especially around something as serious as potential weapons, does not im - prove safety. It increases pressure, it increases risk, and it increases the likelihood that something will go wrong.

When systems are unclear, the burden does not disappear. It gets pushed down onto the people on the front lines, the people with the least authority to change the situation but the most exposure to its consequences. If this legislation is serious about safety, then it needs to reflect the reality of who is actually carrying that responsibility, and right now it doesn’t. When you step back from the individual provisions in this bill, there is a broader issue that cannot be ignored. This legislation does something very deliberate. It creates powers in law, but it leaves the details to regulation.

Over and over again, key elements of how this weapon will ac - tually function, what qualifies as a weapon, how tenancy agreements can be changed, when access can be restricted and what procedures are followed are not clearly set out in the legislation itself. They are deferred, left to be deter - mined later by cabinet. That matters because there is a fundamental difference between what is written into law and what is left to regu - lation. When something is in legislation, it is debated in this chamber. It is scrutinized. It is visible to the public.

But when it is placed in regulation, those decisions can be made without the same level of transparency, with - out the same level of debate and without the same level of accountability. [3:45 p.m.] In some cases, regulation is appropriate but not when you are dealing with things like this; not when you are creating powers that can remove someone from their housing; not when you are dealing with safety, risk and the responsibilities of people on the ground. Those are not minor administrative details. Those are the core elements of how this system will operate.

Yet instead of clearly de- fining them in law, this bill pushes them out to be decided later. That creates two problems. First, it creates uncertainty because the people who are expected to work within this system — staff, operators and first responders — do not have a clear framework to rely on. They are being asked to operate within rules that are not fully defined. Second, it creates a lack of accountability. If the system does not work as intended, if there are unintended conse - quences, if people are put at risk…. Those decisions were never fully tested here. They were never fully debated.

That is not how legislation dealing with safety should be structured. If the government is confident in these powers, then they should be clearly laid out in this bill so that every - one understands them; so that they can be properly exam - ined; so that the people affected by them, both tenants and workers, know exactly where they stand. Clarity is not op - tional in a system like this. It is essential. Right now that clarity is missing. When we talk about safety, especially in environments like supportive housing, we have to be honest about what that actually means.

Safety is not created by broad lan - guage in legislation, it is not created by leaving key def - initions unresolved, and it is not created by introducing powers that only take effect after a situation has already escalated. Safety is created through clarity — clarity in what constitutes a threat, clarity in who is responsible for responding and clarity in how that response is carried out. In the absence of that clarity, what you do not get is flexibility. What you do not get is consistency. You get hesitation in moments where decisions need to be made quickly.

You get uneven application from one building to the next. Ultimately, you get a system that does not func - tion the way it was intended. This bill had an opportunity to bring forward a frame - work that reflects the realities on the ground, a framework

Thursday, April 2, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6217 that recognizes the risk in supportive housing is not de - fined by a single factor but by a combination of behaviour, environment and available support. It could have brought together the perspectives of those who actually respond to these situations — police, fire, paramedics and the workers who are there every day. It could have provided clear

definitions, clear roles and a co - ordinated approach to managing risk before it escalates. Instead, what we have is a piece of legislation that fo - cuses on one outcome, removal, without fully addressing how we prevent situations from reaching that point; with - out clearly defining the threshold that triggers that out - come; and without ensuring that the people responsible for managing these environments have the tools, the guid - ance and the support they need to do it safely. The consequences of getting this wrong are not theor - etical. They are very real.

They affect the safety of tenants, they affect the safety of workers, and they affect the safety of the broader community. If we are serious about improving safety in supportive housing, then we need to do more than create mechan - isms to respond after the fact. We need to build systems that reduce risk in the first place; that provide clear direc - tion; that support the people on the front lines; and that ensure that when something goes wrong, there is no con - fusion about how it is handled. Safety is not defined by what we intend; it is defined by what actually happens when the system is put to the test.

Right now this bill leaves too much uncertainty in the mo - ments that matter most. Scott McInnis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to start by wishing you a happy Easter and every- body in the gallery a happy Easter coming up. I also want to make a note of the Deputy Speaker’s com- ments earlier today and how brave she was in her words that she delivered to the House. It was quite an emotional delivery, and I applaud her courage for doing that. [3:50 p.m.]

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260402pm-Hansard-n148
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260402pm Hansard n148
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	12cbaa9e30136e767443eff65321bdc668d153f6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).