Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 151

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M242 — Mental Health (Brain Injury) Amendment Act, 2026

Gavin Dew

Members’ Statements

20th Anniversary of Highway of Tears Symposium

Rosalyn Bird

Victoria Brain Injury Society

Darlene Rotchford

Fundraising for Diagnostic Imaging Services in Comox Valley

Brennan Day

Cowichan Capitals Junior Hockey Team

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

159th Anniversary of Clinton Ball

Lorne Doerkson

75th Anniversary of Bains Travel

Mable Elmore

Oral Questions

Comments by Chief Scientific Adviser and Government Action on Drug Toxicity Crisis

and Safe Supply

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Comments by Provincial Health Officer and Government Position on Drug Decriminalization

Anna Kindy

Hon. Josie Osborne

Electoral Reform

Rob Botterell

Hon. Niki Sharma

Ferry System Management and Executive Compensation

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Agricultural Land Commission Funding and Staffing

Ian Paton

Hon. Lana Popham

Agricultural Insurance Program and Support for Farmers

Ian Paton

Hon. Lana Popham

Emergency Services in 100 Mile House

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Josie Osborne

Emergency Services Expansion Project at Kelowna General Hospital

Gavin Dew

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Petitions

Lorne Doerkson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

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

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Ward Stamer

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Claire Rattée

Hon. Christine Boyle

Linda Hepner

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport (continued)

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Anne Kang

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Hon. Lana Popham

Ian Paton

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Korky Neufeld.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today I am absolutely delighted to be able to welcome Cyra Yunkws, who’s the chair

of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. She is, I think, just sitting up there.

She and I are going to be meeting later today.

She is a very passionate community leader. I got to meet up with her in the Hazeltons.

I’m really incredibly impressed with all of the work that she does for her community

and for her region.

Will this House please welcome Cyra today.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Today in the gallery, joining us, are representatives of the Hospital Employees Union.

We have Betty Valenzuela, financial secretary; and Barb Nederpel, president; along

with many other hard-working and very valued health care workers who are members of

the executive of the HEU.

Today they boast more than 60,000 members, all of whom are absolutely essential to

delivering quality care to people — to patients here in British Columbia. For more

than 80 years, HEU members have been working hard to speak out in favour of our equitable

public health care system and favourable working conditions for the people who serve

British Columbians each and every day.

I’d ask the House to please join me in welcoming our guests in the gallery with a

warm round of applause.

Ian Paton : I have two sets of guests here today from my riding of Delta South.

The first is Allan and Barbara Baydala. There they are. They’ve been living for 35

years in my riding of Delta South.

Barbara has been a leader in heritage, cultural and social services organizations.

She received the Queen Elizabeth II’s certificate and King Charles III’s Coronation

Medal for extraordinary contributions and service to our community.

Allan, her husband, has been very involved as the chair of the Delta Hospital Foundation.

He was the inventor of West Coast Air, and he was also the chief financial officer

for the Vancouver Port Authority.

Please welcome Allan and Barb Baydala.

Just as important is my older brother, Dave Paton, who’s here today. Dave is a very

well-known equine veterinarian. He’s here with his wife, Janet; with Janet’s brother

Robert and Kaija Clark from Ontario; and Dave’s high school friend Terry and Marilyn

Clayton.

Please welcome my brother Dave and his guests today.

Sharon Hartwell : I’m pleased to introduce to the House today a distinguished guest joining us in the

gallery, Cyra Yunkws, electoral area B representative and chair of the regional district

of Kitimat-Stikine.

Ms. Yunkws has demonstrated strong leadership in advancing the interests of her community,

working collaboratively to support local governance, regional development and the

well-being of residents across the district. I’m looking forward to having a meeting

with her tomorrow.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to Ms. Yunkws.

Lynne Block : [French was spoken.]

[10:10 a.m.]

It’s a pleasure to welcome the students, staff and parents from Cedardale, a French

immersion school in my riding of West Vancouver–Capilano, and welcome them to the

Legislature today.

I’d especially like to recognize the principal, Kristina Hayes; and teachers Sarah

Fee, Jo Ross and Elena Schroots, for guiding and supporting these students.

A heartfelt thank-you, as well, to the parents accompanying this school group. Actually,

there are going to be three groups today.

Your involvement makes opportunities like this possible.

[French was spoken.] To all the students, welcome. I hope your visit is inspiring

and memorable. [French was spoken.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M242 — Mental Health (Brain Injury)

Amendment Act, 2026

Gavin Dew presented a bill intituled Mental Health (Brain Injury) Amendment Act, 2026.

Gavin Dew : I move that a bill intituled the brain injury support act, of which notice has been

given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

British Columbia continues to face an overdose crisis of historic proportions. More

than 18,000 people have died. Five or ten times as many have survived non-fatal overdoses

but not without lasting consequences. When overdoses deprive the brain of oxygen,

the result can be severe and permanent brain damage, affecting judgment, memory, emotional

regulation and behavioural control. When it happens repeatedly, as it so often does

in the context of toxic drug use, that damage can accumulate over time.

For some of these individuals, tragically, full recovery will never be possible. Yet

despite the seriousness of that impairment, people living with acquired brain injuries

can still fall into a gap between systems, diagnoses and statutory categories.

This bill adds a definition of “brain injury” to the Mental Health Act and clarifies

that where a brain injury significantly impairs judgment, emotional regulation or

behavioural control, it can be recognized within the act’s framework for treatment

purposes.

This is a focused and measured effort, not a sweeping change. It does not remove safeguards,

lower thresholds or alter review panel or court protections. It is a definitional

clarification intended to support more consistent application of the law.

At its core, this bill rests on a simple principle. Access to appropriate, structured

care should depend on the level of impairment a person is experiencing, not on whether

their condition fits neatly within an incomplete diagnostic label.

As we mourn a decade of losing loved ones, I hope this House can unite around this

small change that can make a big difference.

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

Motion approved.

Gavin Dew : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

20th Anniversary of

Highway of Tears Symposium

Rosalyn Bird : Today I rise to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of the symposium on missing and

murdered Indigenous women and girls held in Prince George last week. This gathering

brought together families, survivors, community advocates and leaders from across

northern British Columbia who continue to carry grief and also a determination to

be heard.

The stories shared were not abstract. They were deeply personal. They reflected lives

lost, families forever changed and communities still searching for answers. For many

in the North, this issue is not distant. It is part of everyday reality.

Highways that connect our communities, like Highway 16, have also come to symbolize

risk, loss and unresolved justice. What stood out at the symposium was not only the

pain but also the persistence. Families continue to call for meaningful action, for

coordination between agencies and for systems that respond when someone goes missing,

not days later but immediately.

This is about recognizing that despite years of reports, recommendations and announcements,

too many families still feel they are navigating this crisis alone.

I want to acknowledge the families who attended the symposium, who shared their stories

and who continue to live with unimaginable loss.

[10:15 a.m.]

Parents should not have to become advocates as a result of losing a child. Yet too

many are forced into that role simply to seek answers and accountability.

Their courage in speaking out again and again is something that this House must never

take for granted, because behind every statistic is a name. Behind every name is a

family. Behind every family is a call for action that cannot continue to go unanswered.

My prayers and thoughts are offered to the families, friends and communities that

have lost their loved ones.

Your frustration and continued advocacy is acknowledged and respected.

Victoria Brain Injury Society

Darlene Rotchford : Today I am proud to highlight the work of Victoria Brain Injury Society, an extraordinary

local organization that has supported people living with brain injuries in our community

for over 40 years.

In B.C., more than 180,000 people live with brain injuries — caused by concussion,

head injuries, motor vehicles, domestic violence, workplace injuries — that can change

theirs lives in the blink of an eye. Survivors often experience memory loss, cognitive

challenges and difficulties with emotional regulation affecting their independence,

careers and relationships.

Yet acquired brain injury is often misunderstood as a hidden disability, leaving many

survivors dismissed or without validation for symptoms that can persist long term.

Through their programs, advocacy and commitment to public education, the Victoria

Brain Injury Society provides wraparound supports that improve quality of life for

survivors and their families. Their dedicated staff and volunteers foster a supportive

community where individuals navigating the challenge of a diagnosis feel understood

and valued.

When a loved one receives a brain injury diagnosis, it can be overwhelming for families

and caregivers to know how to best provide support, especially as they try to understand

challenges in memory, mood or energy. VBIS provides personalized support through their

Stronger Together program, helping families feel empowered and informed about available

resources and better able to advocate for their loved ones.

Survivors of brain injury also face significant barriers to accessing safe and affordable

housing. Challenges with memory retention and emotional regulation increase the risk

of depression, anxiety, substance abuse and homelessness. Through their housing outreach

program, survivors have accessed safe, reliable housing. Participants build skills

that foster resilience, confidence, independence and empowerment, reminding them that

their diagnosis does not undermine or limit them.

I am grateful for the Victoria Brain Injury Society’s dedication and continued commitment

to supporting people with brain injuries and for the remarkable impact they have on

survivors, family and our community.

Fundraising for Diagnostic Imaging

Services in Comox Valley

Brennan Day : I rise today to recognize something remarkable in the Comox Valley. The Comox Valley

Healthcare Foundation has raised $1.3 million to improve diagnostic imaging services

at the Comox Valley hospital. That community effort has already helped deliver six

new ultrasound machines, a new mammography unit and a second portable ultrasound machine

for our ER.

Those are not abstract upgrades. They are tools that will be used every day in obstetrics,

cancer care, women’s health, routine diagnostics and emergency medicine. The new ultrasound

machines alone are expected to be used roughly 14,000 times every year. That is something

worth celebrating.

It says something about the people of the Comox Valley that when a need is identified,

they step up. They don’t wait around. They get involved. They raise the money. They

support local health care because they understand exactly what is at stake, and they

should be proud of that.

This story also makes something very clear. When communities are being asked to fundraise

for critical hospital equipment, local generosity is doing more than supporting extras.

It’s helping sustain core basic care in communities across this province.

That should give this House pause, because equipment matters, but so does having the

staff in place to use it. In one of the wealthiest provinces in the country, in one

of the wealthiest countries on earth, communities should not be left wondering whether

the tools are there, whether the people are there or whether the system is keeping

up. The people of the Comox Valley will always do their part. That is who we are.

But local generosity should be strengthening the system, not compensating for basic

health care equipment needs.

Today I want to thank every donor, volunteer, organizer and everyone at the Comox

Valley Healthcare Foundation for what they have accomplished. They have done their

part, and we need to make sure that this House does ours.

[10:20 a.m.]

Cowichan Capitals

Junior Hockey Team

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : I want to recognize the Cowichan Valley Capitals, a team that means so much to our

community. For years, the Caps have brought excitement, pride and a strong sense of

local spirit to Duncan and the Cowichan Valley. They are more than just a hockey team.

They are a place where young athletes develop, where families gather and where fans

come together to cheer on something we all share.

The Capitals have a proud history in our valley, from their early success to their

return in the 1990s. They continue to represent hard work, determination and community

connection. Back in 1996, I was a season ticket holder, along with a few friends.

We would gather in

section 8 and cheer them on, until political life took me away

from the arena. Night after night, they gave us thrilling hockey and reminded us what

it means to play with heart.

Thank you to the players; the coaches; the staff; the volunteers; and, especially,

the fans who came to make Capitals part of our community tradition.

Sorry to my West Shore MLAs. The Cowichan Valley Capitals defeated the Victoria Grizzlies

4-3 in overtime on Monday, which was yesterday, April 13, winning game 7 of their

series. The Capitals advanced to the next round to face Nanaimo Clippers.

I just want to let the team know that I’m still cheering them on from afar. Go, Caps,

go!

159th Anniversary of Clinton Ball

Lorne Doerkson : It’s New Year’s Day 1868 inside the Clinton Hotel. Guests are dressed in their finest

gowns and suits as they waltz across the floor.

This was the first Clinton Annual Ball. It is believed that the ball began in the

late 1860s, most likely in the hotel’s new billiards room after the Smith family acquired

the Clinton Hotel. Accounts differ as to whether or not that happened in 1863 or 1867,

but what is agreed is that Mrs. Smith was the driving force behind the first ball.

What began as a community celebration has grown into a remarkable tradition. This

year marks the 159th anniversary of the event, which is recognized as the longest

continuously running event in British Columbia and one of the longest in Canada.

In the early years, people travelled to Clinton by sleigh, horseback and on foot to

attend. Participants planned for months, ordering gowns and suits from distant places,

making this event a true social highlight of the region. The ball has been held in

several venues before finding its home at the Clinton Memorial Hall, a hall built

in remembrance of fallen war veterans, famous for its hardwood-sprung dance floor,

so much so that rumours persist that it is built on used tires.

Through 159 years, this event has endured floods, fire, war and two pandemics, yet

it continues to bring residents of Clinton and the South Cariboo together each year

in celebration of their shared history and community spirit. The Clinton Ball remains

one of Cariboo-Chilcotin’s truly treasured traditions, and I invite everyone to come

and experience this remarkable piece of living history.

I’m especially pleased to share that legislative intern Annika Clark will be joining

me this year at the ball and that Bernice Weihs-Anderson has already picked out a

gown for her. We’re very much looking forward to the music and, of course, the tall

tales that accompany this event, and we are very excited to attend.

I ask this whole House to congratulate the Clinton Ball on 159 years of celebration.

75th Anniversary of Bains Travel

Mable Elmore : In a world dominated by huge corporations and monopolies, local businesses serve

as the backbone of our communities. Local businesses are the indispensable threads

that weave vibrant communities, building social cohesion, neighbourhood character

and economic resilience and prosperity at the grassroots level.

[10:25 a.m.]

A great example is Bains Travel, whose offices at 6550 Fraser Street are a few blocks

south of my Vancouver-Kensington constituency office. For a bit of history, Bains

Travel was founded in April 1951 by Kuldip Singh Bains, here in Victoria, British

Columbia, which was 75 years ago. Built on a strong commitment to service and community,

the company quickly established itself as a trusted travel provider.

In 1969, a second location was opened on Fraser Street in Vancouver, marking the beginning

of what would become the company’s long-standing presence in the area. The location

was managed by Kuldip’s nephew Narinderpal Singh Bains, who is also known as Paul.

In 1998, Paul, alongside his wife Dolly, assumed leadership of the business and continued

to expand and strengthen its operations.

Today the Fraser Street operation remains the head office and has been serving the

community for over five decades, or 57 years. The company has since grown to include

additional locations in Surrey, Abbotsford and Mississauga. Now in its third generation,

the day-to-day operations of Bains Travel are managed by Sumeet Bains, continuing

the family legacy of service and innovation.

Originally founded to serve the Indian immigrant community and their travel needs

to their native country, Bains Travel has evolved into a full-service travel agency,

offering a wide range of travel solutions, including corporate travel, leisure travel,

group tours and specialized itineraries.

Looking ahead, Bains Travel is focused on continued growth through technology, enhanced

customer service and expansion of its service offerings while preserving the personalized,

community-focused approach that has defined the company for over 70 years.

An important member of the Sunset on Fraser Business Improvement Association, I ask

everybody to please join me to wish Bains Travel a very happy 75th anniversary.

Stephanie Higginson : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Stephanie Higginson : I hope the House can help me welcome a group of grade 11 and 12 students from Ballenas

Secondary and their teacher Amanda Young.

You’re about to witness question period. We will try to be on our best behaviour for

your presence. I’ll just let you all know that we do what we do in here to make British

Columbia a better place for you, and I look forward to connecting with you later today.

Claire Rattée : I also seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Claire Rattée : I noticed that my friend Mayor Sean Bujtas is in the gallery today. I’ve introduced

him in here a number of times, so I don’t think he needs another introduction.

I would just ask that the House make him feel welcome, please.

Oral Questions

Comments by Chief Scientific Adviser

and Government Action on Drug

Toxicity Crisis and Safe Supply

Claire Rattée : Today marks the ten-year anniversary of the public health emergency. Since it began

back in 2016, we have lost more than 18,000 British Columbians to overdose and thousands

more brain-injured, with no end in sight. These are not just statistics. These are

real people.

This government continues to push policies like safe supply in the face of growing

evidence of harm. Even the government’s own handpicked chief scientific adviser, Dr.

Daniel Vigo, has said: “Harm reduction is not harm reduction. It is harm enhancement.”

I will ask the minister directly. Why is this government ignoring its own expert,

or does she agree with Dr. Vigo’s statement?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

It is a sombre anniversary today, that of the declaration of a public health emergency.

As you look at the media articles and the coverage around this anniversary, you see

that many articles start with personal stories of people that were lost, stories about

their lives that were cut short, stories about the person that they were — a son or

a daughter, brother or sister, mother or father.

Holding people at the centre of this crisis is the focus of this government’s work.

But the crisis goes back farther, before 2016, when people were dying of toxic, unregulated,

poisoned drugs. That’s why this government continues to focus on building out a continuum

of care and supports to meet people at any place they are in their journey.

That includes tackling this crisis from every angle — whether it’s prevention; early

intervention; harm reduction that separates people from the toxic drug supply, that

keeps people safe and alive so that they can be connected to treatment and supports.

[10:30 a.m.]

Our government will continue to listen to the advice of experts, of advisers, of people

with lived and living experience, to families, and we’ll continue to stay focused

on taking every angle that we can to combat this tragic and terrible crisis.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : That wasn’t a response to the question that I asked. It was a pretty simple one.

This is the government’s own handpicked chief scientific adviser on this crisis, and

he has made it clear now what his feelings are on harm reduction. It was a simple

question, and I’m looking for a simple response here on whether or not this government

agrees with what he has said.

Or is this going to be like another doctor that we’ve discussed, where when his findings

didn’t align with the ideology that this government wanted to pursue, all of a sudden

he wasn’t important anymore? Taxpayers have spent millions of dollars on his research

and work, and we’ve still yet to see a report come out.

Five British Columbians are dying every single day, and despite that, this government

continues to defend policies that are actively making this crisis worse. There is

growing evidence linking safe supply to increased harms. Dr. Vigo also said, “Safe

supply is actually a disincentive for treatment,” and that involuntary care, when

there’s a person with a mental impairment, is a question of saving the person’s life.

I will ask again, to the minister, very clearly, does she agree with Dr. Vigo’s assertions

or not?

Hon. Josie Osborne : There is nothing simple about this crisis. It is complex. It is individual to people.

It is multifactorial with so many causes, and that is why it requires a multitude

of angles, of strategies, of policies, of programs, of initiatives to tackle.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Our government has engaged Dr. Vigo to provide some very specific advice, because

as we’ve seen, over the last decade and more, the…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …changing nature of the toxic drug crisis is resulting in what we’ve already spoken

about today in this House, around acquired brain injury and impacts unlike we’ve ever

seen before. That’s why Dr. Vigo provides us with advice, particularly on people with

acquired brain injury, who are suffering from severe mental illness, who have substance

use disorder.

Harm reduction works — whether it’s overdose prevention services, prescribed alternatives…

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …a LifeguardConnect app, drug testing and checking.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thousands and thousands of deaths have been averted through harm reduction services.

Keeping people safe, keeping people alive to connect them to care is absolutely essential,

and it’s just one part of the work that this government is doing.

We are going to continue to stay focused on this because every life saved is a life

worth saving.

Comments by Provincial Health

Officer and Government Position on

Drug Decriminalization

Anna Kindy : The minister knows that harm reduction is not safe supply. Harm reduction is methadone,

Kadian, and it’s Suboxone. So when she links safe supply to harm reduction, that is

misinformation. There is no data supporting harm reduction. There’s data to the opposite.

Talking about harm reduction, after three miserable years, this government ended their

failed decriminalization experiment. But yesterday the provincial health officer confirmed

she still supports legalizing illicit drug use in our communities.

Let’s be clear. This experiment…. British Columbia saw record deaths of almost 2,600

people in 2023 alone, the worst year on record.

So which is it? Does the Minister of Health stand with her government, who ended this

failed policy, or with the provincial health officer, who wants to bring it back?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The misinformation here is that prescribed alternatives don’t save lives. The misinformation

here is that toxic drugs and substance use disorder are a criminal justice issue,

not the health issue that they really are.

[10:35 a.m.]

That’s why we undertake initiatives like prescribed alternatives, where people have

access to something that they are physiologically addicted to. Yet if they’re not

provided with a safe way to be interrupted from a toxic drug supply….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Members, come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne : It is so important to remember that people are at the heart of this. As we discuss

and we debate here in this House and have different opinions and take different approaches,

we’re going to continue to listen to experts. We’re going to continue to listen to

people with lived and living experience. We’re going to continue to listen to community

leaders as we make important decisions about how we tackle this crisis.

It takes all of us together to tackle this. That’s why we are going to continue to

do the hard work of building out a continuum of services….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Please conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Ten years ago, when this public health emergency was declared, there was virtually

nothing available for people to support. In these last ten years, we have come so

far in building out this continuum of care. We are going to continue, because we know,

once again, one life lost is one life too many.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Anna Kindy : As the minister knows, prescribed alternatives that work have been around for years,

with evidence behind them. I will repeat, for people that don’t know, that methadone,

Kadian and Suboxone have evidence behind them.

Safe supply is unmonitored opiates. And we know that these dillies ended up in kids’

hands, and I know for a fact there are children that died because of safe supply.

British Columbians need certainty. This government has already shown that it’s willing

to experiment with policies that cost lives. Decriminalization created chaos in the

streets. Drug use in hospital escalated. Pregnant nurses, and I know that for a fact,

were fitted with respirators, meaning gas masks, because they were exposed to people

smoking crack and methamphetamine in hospital. That’s what decriminalization did.

To the minister, will she stand today and commit unequivocally with her government

and never bring decriminalization back to B.C. ever again?

Hon. Josie Osborne : It is clear that the policies that members opposite would bring, if they had the

privilege of being on this side of the House, would result in lives lost.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, come to order. Let the minister answer. Shhh.

Members can respond after the answer the minister is providing. If you disagree, ask

another question. Let her answer.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We know that the people who are at the highest risk of dying from toxic, poisoned

drugs need to be separated from that supply. That’s why prescribed alternatives….

And the member knows very well about the changes that we made, because we agree. We

never want to see a prescribed alternative end up in the hands of someone for whom

it was not intended.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : It’s why we made the decision, and it’s why we’re doing the work to strengthen the

safeguards around prescribed alternatives by introducing witnessed dosing, for example.

It’s why we’re going to continue this work.

Once again, this is not a criminal justice issue. This is a health issue. And to criminalize

the people who, through no fault of their own, are in a situation relying on toxic

street drugs….

[10:40 a.m.]

We have to keep people alive. We have to connect them to care, the treatment, the

supports. Our government is focused — more than just the Ministry of Health; across

government — on the supports that people need to do that work, to keep them alive

and to help end this crisis.

Electoral Reform

Rob Botterell : The political moment has changed. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged that in Davos.

So will this government meet the moment with real action?

The government committed to strengthening our democracy, including supporting the

work of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform. This all-party committee

didn’t just study the issue, and I had the honour of being on that committee. It made

a clear recommendation: a citizens assembly to give British Columbians a direct say

on proportional representation. Even the federal NDP’s new leader, Avi Lewis, said

he supports electoral reform.

Will the Premier and his caucus respect the clear recommendation of the all-party

committee and take the next step toward a better electoral system for British Columbians

by striking a peoples assembly on electoral reform?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to start by appreciating the members that sat on the Special Committee on

Democratic and Electoral Reform. It’s so important, and I know every single member

of that committee understood this member’s very deep passion for making sure that

our democracy is strong. And I appreciate that work.

We are currently in receipt of that work, also waiting for the Chief Electoral Officer’s

final report and a following report from that committee as the work continues. We

take it super seriously because it is important that our democracy is strong, that

we have the tools that we need to keep adapting with the changing pressures on our

democracy.

We’ve done good work together across parties when it came to the referendum that was

in 2018, where British Columbians decided that the current voting system was where

they wanted to stay. That doesn’t mean there isn’t other work to be done when it comes

to making sure that our electoral system is strong in this province.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : It’s been 139 days since the report of the special committee was tabled in the Legislature.

The recommendation for a people’s assembly was the outcome of extensive deliberation,

including review of past work on this issue and a recognition that times do change

— with almost 1,000 submissions, a large majority of which expressed support for proportional

representation and reopening the discussion. That was an all-party special committee.

Will the Premier and his caucus support moving ahead with a peoples assembly this

year?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I mentioned before, in British Columbia, we put a referendum, and that was joint

work with the B.C. Green Party at the time. British Columbians have spoken very recently

on this issue through the referendum of what type of electoral system they prefer.

It doesn’t mean that there’s not more work to do or that we don’t take the reports

and the recommendations seriously, which we do. Stay tuned. We are going to be assessing

the report and the upcoming work and responding either through legislative action

or other actions.

Ferry System Management

and Executive Compensation

Harman Bhangu : The NDP’s handpicked CEO, Nicolas Jimenez of B.C. Ferries, has overseen disruptions,

cancellations and breakdowns across the system, leaving British Columbians dealing

with delays, missed sailings, growing uncertainty, and there has been no real accountability.

Despite that, this CEO is earning a high six-figure salary with additional perks funded

by the taxpayers, including a car and housing allowance in Victoria. If he is truly

committed to leading B.C. Ferries, why isn’t he living where he works and paying for

his own housing?

My question. Why is this government asking British Columbians to subsidize the living

expenses of a highly paid CEO while services continue to decline?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I’m happy to answer the question that the member has raised.

First off, as the member would be aware, B.C. Ferries is an independent body. It is

not a Crown corporation.

I hear a little bit of chuckling from the other side, and I’d remind the other side

of the House that the reason it is that is because the last time some of them were

on this side of the House, and most of them voted for the government that was on this

side of the House, they set up that format under which B.C. Ferries operates.

B.C. Ferries — the authority appoints the board. The board appoints the CEO. They’re

the ones who determine the contract.

In terms of B.C. Ferries and the recent challenges it has had, the CEO did go and

publicly apologize and said that what happened over the long weekend was unacceptable.

The reality is that 99 percent of the time, B.C. Ferries meets its sailing targets.

There are new vessels coming to replace the aging fleet. There are also new vessels

that are arriving as we speak, the new Island class ferries.

The CEO and the great people who work at B.C. Ferries are doing everything they can

to maintain an important transportation network on the coast of British Columbia,

and I have confidence that they will continue to do that.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Harman Bhangu : Maybe the minister would want to place a call to Joy MacPhail, former minister under

this government, who oversaw the fast ferries debacle.

Again, this CEO is making a high six-figure salary, and taxpayers are yet covering

the cost of his housing. At that level of compensation, shouldn’t commitment to the

job come without a housing subsidy?

While the minister justifies this decision…. Commit today to ending taxpayer-funded

housing perks for a CEO of B.C. Ferries.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : As I said, the contract with the CEO is determined by the board, which is put in

place by the authority that is independent of government. As I said, that is a format

that was set up by a previous administration.

But what I will say the public wants to see is what B.C. Ferries is doing, which is

to be building new ships to meet the changing needs of B.C. Ferries. The new ferries

are….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member. Member, you have already asked the question. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : B.C. Ferries serves the entire coast of British Columbia. They do it 99 percent of

the time on time, the way it’s supposed to. Things do happen, but I will tell you

what is also happening. B.C. Ferries is investing in new terminal upgrades. There

are new Island class ferries. Some have already been delivered. More are on the way.

There are four brand-new ships coming to this west coast.

At the same time, we want to ensure that B.C. Ferries and British Columbia are treated

fairly, the way that east coast ferries are treated. We want to see the federal government

treat this province the way that east coast ferries are. We don’t want to see a massive

subsidy going to Newfoundland and Quebec and the Maritimes when we don’t get the same

treatment.

Those are the things that B.C. Ferries is working to change. Those are the things

this government is working to change. And we’re going to continue to ensure we’ve

got a first-class transportation system in this province.

Agricultural Land Commission

Funding and Staffing

Ian Paton : The Agricultural Land Commission is responsible for protecting 4.6 million hectares

of agricultural land reserve across this province, yet staffing levels have been cut

after years without meaningful increases to its overall budget.

Farmers are facing serious delays when seeking routine approvals for things that are

essential to running a modern farm. At the same time, enforcement capacity is stretched

so thin that municipalities like Delta are increasingly being forced to step in to

address non-compliant uses on farmland, adding costs for local taxpayers and responsibilities

that should properly belong to the province. The system that is supposed to protect

agricultural land is struggling to keep up.

To the Minister of Agriculture: if protecting farmland is truly a priority, when will

this government restore funding and staffing to the ALC so it can do its job and support

the farmers who rely on it?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham : Thanks to the opposition member. I’m looking forward to starting our estimate process

today. We’ll have five hours to get into all of the nitty-gritty.

To the member’s question, he’s not wrong. The ALC is facing some tough times right

now. Their budget has not changed, but we see more and more pressures growing on the

agricultural land base, and they do have a mandate to protect agricultural land and

to encourage farming. I do have confidence that they are going to be able to do their

job regardless of their limitations right now.

I think all British Columbians want to see our agricultural land base protected and

used for primary agriculture, value-added agriculture.

The challenges that they’re facing right now will not stop them from doing their job,

but I will say that it makes it more difficult.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Agricultural Insurance Program

and Support for Farmers

Ian Paton : Farmers in British Columbia are facing rising costs, climate uncertainty and growing

risks to their operations. Yet this year’s provincial budget includes a $16 million

cut to the agricultural insurance program, a program designed specifically to help

farmers manage those risks during drought, climate change, landslides and frozen blueberry

bushes and grapevines.

To the Minister of Agriculture, at a time when food security and food sovereignty

should be a priority, why is the government reducing support for farmers who rely

on this program to protect their crops and their livelihoods?

Hon. Lana Popham : I will say that I have always appreciated the member’s passion about agriculture.

We share that. He’s an excellent critic for me.

This particular item is more of an accounting change, and I look forward to getting

into those details in estimates later today.

Emergency Services

in 100 Mile House

Lorne Doerkson : Last year the 100 Mile House emergency department was closed 24 times. It’s getting

so much worse. This year already this emergency department has been closed 16 times,

most of the Easter long weekend.

The community rallied this week, and you can sense the anger, the frustration and

the fear around the repeated closures. People in my community are avoiding surgeries

and cancer treatments entirely because they can’t trust this department to be open

when it needs to be. More than 3,300 people have signed a petition calling for immediate

action to keep this ER open.

How has the minister allowed emergency care in 100 Mile House to become so unreliable

that families can no longer count on it in their moment of need?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for his question, for his advocacy for his constituents,

for the many conversations that he and I have had.

The people living in 100 Mile House are facing a terrible situation when they cannot

know for certain which nights their emergency room will be open or will be closed.

No community wants to experience that.

That’s why Interior Health is working hard on the gaps in service that 100 Mile Hospital

is facing. We have made adjustments to the notification process based on the feedback

from the community, understanding the distances that people need to travel.

At the heart of this, it is about restoring the staffing levels to ensure that there

are predictable, stable emergency room services.

In the bigger picture, that’s why our government has been focused on recruiting U.S.

professionals, physicians who are moving here from the U.S. after a campaign that

the opposition actually opposed us doing this work.

We are going to continue the work with the colleges to streamline credentialing, continue

the work to do everything we can to attract locums to fill these positions, examining

the role of nurse practitioners, looking at the role of virtual care — everything

to bring back that stable, predictable service at 100 Mile House.

I make a commitment to this member — as I have on the phone, as I have to the mayor,

as I have to the regional hospital district chair — that I am going to work on this

each and every day, together with Interior Health, until we can see that service restored.

[10:55 a.m.]

Emergency Services Expansion

Project at Kelowna General Hospital

Gavin Dew : Can the government provide an update on Centennial hall 19?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I’ll take that question on notice.

The Speaker : The member has a different question?

Gavin Dew : Centennial hall 19 is the official name given to the 19th bed in the emergency ward

hallway of Kelowna General Hospital. Under this government, hallway health care has

become so routine that beds in hallways have official names in their systems.

At Kelowna General Hospital, there are as many as 50 beds in the hallways of various

wards at any given time. This is all tracked. This is all known. The minister knows

this, and if she doesn’t, she should resign.

So 13 years after Kelowna General Hospital’s Centennial tower was opened, why is more

than 50 beds’ worth of expansion space on the fifth and sixth floors sitting empty

and unfinished, behind lock and key, while patients lie, and even die, in hallways,

without proper monitoring equipment, without privacy and without dignity?

When will this minister and this government stop dragging their heels, stop making

excuses and get this ready-made space open to patients?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I want to thank the member for raising an important issue in his community. We have

heard stories like this in communities right across the province when we formed government

in 2017.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Stories like these are what drive and have driven our government to make the investments

that we have in health care infrastructure in communities across our province. Since

2017, we’ve completed 14 major new and upgraded hospitals and health care facilities…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the minister has the floor. Members.

The minister will complete.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : …including in many communities that are represented by members of the opposition,

communities that for many years, prior to our government forming, were ignored in

terms of investment in health care infrastructure.

That being said, we know that there is more to do. That’s why Budget 2026 continues

to invest in more major hospital projects and more acute care facilities, and we will

continue to do that work right across the province.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Lorne Doerkson : I rise to introduce a petition, signed by 3,311 people, demanding that this government

address repeated closures of the 100 Mile Hospital emergency department.

I rise to introduce a second petition today, signed by 94 residents, demanding improvements

to the Canim Lake South Road and Mahood Lake Road. This road has become impassable.

Point of Order

Jeremy Valeriote : I rise on a point of order under Standing Orders 36, 40(3) and 43.

I understand there’s a tradition of heckling in the people’s House. I believe there’s

a fine line between gentle heckling to indicate disapproval and outright yelling of

statements. This place only works if one person has the floor at a time. I don’t think

the voters would be too impressed.

I’m asking, Mr. Speaker, for your assistance in returning some productive dialogue

to this place. We are here for six of the next seven weeks. It’s only bound to get

worse. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. The Chair will take that under advisement.

[11:00 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, we’ll be doing committee stage on Bill 11, the

Residential Tenancy Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I’m calling Committee of Supply estimates for the Ministry

of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. After they are done, it will be the Ministry

of Agriculture and Food.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Lorne Doerkson : I want to continue my remarks from yesterday with respect to Bill 15, Environmental

Assessment Amendment Act, 2026.

I wanted to pick up where I had left off. I won’t speak a whole bunch more on this.

I do want to just highlight what I was speaking about yesterday with respect to timelines,

because that is my biggest concern about Bill 15. I think there is some agreement

on this bill, so that’s exciting news. I do know that at committee stage, there’s

going to be much conversation about those very things.

Again, I told a little bit of a story yesterday, and I’d like to tell it again because

it’s important, so much — to not just my riding but, I think, to the province. You

might recall the comments that I shared about Dan Peron.

I just can’t explain the seriousness of his situation, where he lost his permit because

it simply expired. During that process of renewing it, in that two-year period, Dan

had some very serious struggles. I will say that when he was finally in a position

to have that permit renewed, he was too busy to talk to me the day I phoned him to

explain how happy I was. The reason he was too busy is because he was hiring staff,

he was buying equipment, and he was buying some trucks. Everything that Dan was doing

that day was a taxable event and, therefore, income to this province.

That is my biggest concern. I worry about this and other bills that we’ll be speaking

about with respect to timelines around getting through the environmental process,

which is very robust in this province, to say the least, at this time.

I guess the biggest concern I have is the conversation around new technical tables,

new leadership tables, new dispute resolution. All of that is concerning.

Again, I highlighted the fact yesterday that we had forestry landscape tables introduced

in this province a number of years ago. I’m still not certain that even one of those

is completed. I think there’s probably great work…. I know there’s one happening north

of me, in Quesnel. I do know that there’s great work happening at those tables, but

it’s tedious, and it’s slow.

[11:05 a.m.]

At this time in this province, I think that we need to be very aware of those delays

and what it might cost us in the end. I know often…. We speak all the time about big

corporations and potential losses of those types of businesses, but, frankly, it’s

some of the smaller ones that I’m more worried about than anything.

I worry about people like Dan Peron and other companies that have had challenges.

I know that I mentioned Tsi Del Del yesterday and gave thanks to the Forests Minister

for helping to move that permit up. The effect of that permit holding up is on hundreds

of people that work for Tsi Del Del, which is one of the largest logging operations

in the Cariboo — definitely a little bit concerning.

I think the other thing that’s going to be greatly talked about during committee is

the actual dispute resolution process itself. I think that there’s going to be a real

need for some clarity around that, and we’ll certainly be looking for that.

My biggest concerns are the economic consequences. I’m fearful that any delays in

construction or those types of things are going to cost jobs and tax revenue to the

province. Those are my biggest fears.

Madam Speaker, I will certainly thank you for the honour to speak here today. I appreciate

sharing some comments on Bill 15 and look forward to committee stage.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Environment and Parks to close

debate.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : I thank the members of this House for their comments on Bill 15, the Environmental

Assessment Amendment Act, 2026. These amendments reflect months of engagement and

collaboration with First Nations, industry and participants across British Columbia.

They strengthen consensus-seeking, enhance transparency and provide greater certainty

for environmental assessments.

I appreciate the contributions of all members here in this House as we work together

to advance reconciliation, protect our environment and communities and build a strong,

sustainable future for our province.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is second reading of Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment

Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Next in the big House is second reading on Bill 14.

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s good to be back after a couple of weeks. I think I was about ten minutes in,

with an hour and 47 to go. But I’m not sure if the House Leader wants me to talk for

an hour and 47, even though I would love the opportunity, as I know the Minister of

Energy would, for me to be able to talk about it.

Let me do a quick recap of the first ten minutes of my speech, just in case the members

opposite, in particular my colleague from Kamloops, didn’t get a chance to hear.

I am excited to be able to rise in the House and introduce Bill 14, the Forest Statutes

Amendment Act, and now be in the position as the Minister of Forests for the province

of British Columbia to be able to speak to the amendments to the Forest Act and the

Forest and Range Practices Act.

When we were last here, I took the opportunity to thank, and I want to do so once

again, the countless British Columbians across the province who participated in the

review of B.C. Timber Sales, which is a big driver for us bringing forward the amendments

here today; but, in particular, to thank the team at B.C. Timber Sales for all the

work that they’ve done. The words that I’m going to be speaking for the next little

while are reflective of their hard work.

At its core, this legislation really is about one thing, and that’s ensuring that

British Columbia’s forest sector is stronger and more resilient and better positioned

to deliver for workers, communities and future generations.

[11:10 a.m.]

At its foundation, forestry is a source of good-paying, family-supporting jobs. It

is the backbone of communities in every corner of this province and, I would argue,

in every corner of this country. It is a strategic economic asset, not just for us

as British Columbians but for us as Canada and all Canadians.

We also know, as I touched on in my remarks when we began a couple of weeks ago, that

the forest sector is facing big challenges right now. We have market uncertainty.

We’ve seen the pressures from unfair trade actions from Donald Trump. We saw the duties

announcement just last week. That actually went down, but really, we don’t have the

full picture yet, given the fact that we are still facing more investigations and

the threat of more 232 investigations.

We know that those duties and that tariff, the 232, are unfair and unjust and they

hurt workers on this side of the border as they equally hurt homeowners or those who

are prospective homeowners in the United States as well.

We’ve also seen the impacts of wildfires, pests and climate change, especially given

that we are heading towards, and already are in the midst of, the 2026 wildfire season.

We’ve heard clearly from workers, contractors, loggers, communities and First Nations

that the system is broken and must evolve. After all, forestry is about people and

place. When I think about the people of British Columbia that work in forestry, I

think of a guy like Bill at the West Fraser facility in the Interior, in Chetwynd,

who has worked his entire life at that facility — 48 years, with many more to come

because of his excitement with his job and the ability to serve.

I think of another individual at the Gorman facility in West Kelowna who had a similar

story, working well over 40 years, nearly 50 years, at that same facility. I think

of a young forestry worker in Campbell River who was just in the midst of completing

their studies at UBC, who asked me very clearly, as a new minister: “Do I have a future

in forestry in Campbell River?”

I think of a young worker from Crofton who just lost his job, who happened to live

in my community of Langford, who was wondering what’s next for him. I think of First

Nations leaders from the North, like the Kitsumkalum, who have stepped up to purchase

an asset in their community — not just to provide good-paying, family-supporting jobs

for their residents, for their community members, but for the entire region as well.

In this difficult job that we all have as legislators, but in my particular instance

as the Minister of Forests, I’m often reminded of how challenging our jobs are, given

the circumstances of the world we live in and sometimes the difficulty with trade

actions from other jurisdictions. I’m also reminded that in the case of forestry,

forestry is all about people, people of British Columbia. It’s also about this beautiful

province. This absolutely beautiful province and the people give me hope every single

day in my role as British Columbia’s Minister of Forests.

Last week I had the opportunity, as did a couple of members opposite and the Premier,

to be at the COFI Annual Convention, which is really a key date, a key week, in our

province, where forestry leaders — those that work in industry, the environmental

movement, those who work in the bush, all around forestry — come together to talk

about the challenges and opportunities. At that convention, the Premier and myself

laid out our clear path forward for forestry.

It is grounded in the action of our government in ensuring that forestry can be that

formidable sector that continues to provide good-paying jobs and, also, provides the

ability for communities to succeed.

I shared, in my remarks at COFI, that the path forward for forestry, for many, is

uncertain. Just ask folks who have lost their jobs, and they’ll tell you it’s uncertain.

For many, it’s rocky, given the challenges we’re continuing to face in our forest

sector — and have faced, I would argue, over the last 50 years.

I think what they expect from this government — all members of British Columbia, all

those who work in forestry — is for the government to chart a path forward. The path

forward for forestry, for me, and the key objectives that keep me going in the face

of challenges and obstacles and also opportunities, is to build a working forest within

a land management framework that will last for generations.

It’s to fight like hell for forestry jobs in every corner of this province and every

corner of this country for those communities that depend on them everywhere; to make

more in B.C. by building a competitive, value-added forest economy; to build healthier,

more resilient forests; to better protect communities from wildfires; and also to

forge powerful partnerships so British Columbia can compete and win in global markets.

[11:15 a.m.]

I would argue that one of the most key aspects of my job as Minister of Forests is

to protect our watersheds, our biodiversity and wildlife by ensuring conservation,

habitat restoration and responsible stewardship are at the core of how we manage our

forests.

These priorities are about moving our sector forward with purpose from boom and bust

to stability. It’s about predictability. It’s about delivering for people, for forest-dependent

communities in every corner of our province.

The message I’ve heard loud and clear from people on the ground in development of

Bill 14, and all the other steps that we are going to be taking over the course of

the next number of weeks and months, is all focused on building a forest sector that

we can be proud of and built for the next 100 years.

I often think of the First Nation leaders in my community that are always reminding

me that it is so important for us as community provincial leaders — whether at the

local level, provincial level, the national level, at the Indigenous level…. We have

to think seven generations ahead. That is exactly what Bill 14, the Forest Statutes

Amendment Act, is all about.

It’s about taking the lessons we’ve heard, particularly through the B.C. Timber Sales

review in 2025, and turning them into action. It’s about giving B.C. Timber Sales

the tools it needs to better deliver for people, because BCTS, B.C. Timber Sales,

must deliver for people. B.C. Timber Sales plays a unique and critical role in our

forest sector.

It provides a transparent, market-based pricing system, which was first introduced

in 2003, and builds on the work that was delivered in the 1990s by former Forest ministers

like Dan Miller with the small business program. It supports small and medium-size

operators, especially those operators that don’t actually have access to tenure.

The ability for them to get access to fibre is critical. That is jobs for loggers

and contractors, but it is jobs for those smaller mills and for those value-added

reman facilities as well. It serves as a key partner in advancing stewardship and

economic development across the province. That is going to be a huge aspect of my

remarks as I introduce and speak to Bill 14.

B.C. Timber Sales creates jobs and prosperity in every corner of this province, but

it is fair to say, over the course of the last year, as I began the review of B.C.

Timber Sales alongside the panelists that I chose, but participating myself, that

BCTS, in order to be able to meet today’s challenges, must have flexibility to operate

in a modern context. Bringing it into 2003 was one step, but it’s 2026. Things have

changed.

It’s fair to say that BCTS has not been successful these past few years. Their targets

have been unacceptable. That is direction that I’ve received from the Premier to ensure

that we can increase harvesting. In order to do that, we know that we need a stable

working forest, a stable land base. That is why Bill 14 proposes legislative updates

that allow BCTS to use existing funds in more flexible and effective ways.

This is not about spending new money. It’s about taking the money that government

already provides B.C. Timber Sales as a business and spending it in a way that delivers

more for British Columbians and, most importantly, delivers more for forestry workers

and communities so that fibre can move more efficiently, so that we can support a

wider range of public values and so that we can unlock new opportunities across the

land base.

We know that when fibre flows, jobs follow. We know, and we see that. We see that

in the opportunities that exist in every corner of this province.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we saw an incredible announcement in our forest sector

here in British Columbia. Spearhead, a company based in Nelson, British Columbia,

a family-owned and -operated company, just announced a $60 million investment in a

brand-new glulam facility, a $60 million investment at a time when one would argue

it is the most difficult period for the forest sector in British Columbia’s history.

It’s not just that investment. We see nations investing in purchasing tenure. We see

more assets being purchased. We see, over the course of the last number of years,

in particular the last quarter of our budget, people participating in our forest sector

in purchasing equipment because of our wildfire risk equipment trust fund.

We’ve heard from Canfor, one of the largest companies — not only in British Columbia;

in Canada. They have invested $900 million in British Columbia’s forest sector since

2019 — $900 million.

[11:20 a.m.]

It is important to recognize that while we face big challenges in forestry — whether

it’s communities like 100 Mile or Crofton, most recently, or Vanderhoof and Fraser

Lake in the past number of years — there are investments being made in our forest

sector.

What British Columbians expect from this government, through the work that we are

doing with Bill 14, the steps that we’ll be taking over the course of the next number

of months and years, is for us to chart the path forward.

Bill 14 is all focused on managing our forests well, because we have an obligation

as legislators, an obligation as government to leave something better for the next

generation. Again, that speaks to the work that we are doing to ensure that we are

thinking seven generations ahead.

Bill 14 introduces new tools to allow B.C. Timber Sales to do more. I’d like to say

that it unshackles B.C. Timber Sales. After all, I’m responsible for a piece of legislation,

in the case of the Forest Act, which was first introduced in 1912 and, certainly,

has seen amendments to that legislation. But I think it’s fair to say that tinkering

with

an act from 1912 is not wholesale change, and our forest sector looks entirely

different than it did in 1912.

We need new tools that provide flexibility in how fibre is accessed and moved, and

these tools need to support longer-term management, and enable powerful partnerships

with First Nations, with communities and industry. We need to ensure that every British

Columbian benefits from our forest sector.

I see young people up in the gallery that probably don’t know much about forestry

but are going to get a chance to get a bit of a crash course in forestry from my remarks.

I hope I don’t bore them. But they know, through the discussions that they have in

school, how important education is, how important their teachers are, how important

their parents and their families and their communities are. Forestry is a foundational

sector in our province that helps pay for the services, helps pay for the infrastructure

that we as British Columbians count on.

Welcome, kids, to the Legislature. I hope you have an incredible experience here,

and I hope my speech on Bill 14 is the highlight of your time here.

For the benefit of all members, I’m going to spend the next little while walking you

through some of the key aspects of this legislation, Bill 14.

Bill 14 creates more opportunities to access fibre. First, in the case of contract

logging, the amendments brought forward through this piece of legislation will ensure

that we are able to enable B.C. Timber Sales to directly contract harvesting operations.

That means we can take a more proactive approach and a proactive action, I would argue,

on the land base.

We have to remember that, as a government, we are responsible for a land mass, over

95 million hectares, that is larger than the size of most countries in Europe — a

subnational government.

Again, British Columbia’s forest sector faces big challenges, but I think it’s also

important for us to recognize that we are the third-largest exporter of softwood lumber

in the entire world. It’s Russia, Sweden and then British Columbia. Pretty incredible.

That speaks to the work that is happening.

When we talk about our land mass and proactive action on that land base, that is reducing

wildfire risk through fuel management. It’s advancing commercial thinning to improve

forest health. Through the work that we’ve already done since the implementation,

steps that we’ve taken on the BCTS review and action plan, we’ve already awarded three

sales in commercial thinning — one in the Sunshine Coast and two in Prince George.

In particular, I want to give a shout-out to someone who I hold in very high regard,

who is a successful recipient of two of those sales: Freya Logging, Liam Parfitt.

I know my colleague across the way has spoken to Liam, an outstanding leader in forestry,

an outstanding individual who sees the potential for us to be able to create even

more jobs by going into our secondary forests and doing more thinning, more pruning

and spacing.

This is going to not only ensure that we can increase our yield rates over the next

number of years, over the next number of generations, but also provide good-paying,

family-supporting jobs while looking after our environment. That is climate action

on the record. That is climate action in the work that we’re doing.

This aspect and this amendment are about ensuring that logs are delivered to the right

places at the right time. This is built on the work that happens in every corner of

our province, in particular through the leadership of individuals like Nick Arkle

from Gorman Bros., who just completed an acquisition of the Weyerhaeuser mill in Princeton,

a $120 million investment they made because they believe in the forest sector here

in British Columbia.

[11:25 a.m.]

This legislation, this amendment in particular, is about being proactive, not reactive.

It’s about using the tools we have to reduce risk and create value at the same time,

while ensuring that the accountability exists, that we can speed things up and get

more sales out.

These types of activities support access to fibre not available through traditional

sales models. Bill 14 will provide contractors with a broader range of opportunities

on which to bid. These new licence types build on existing work by B.C. Timber Sales

to provide a wider range of contract types that better reflect regional conditions,

project scopes and the diverse skill sets that we have in every corner of this province,

in addition to increasing participation within the forest sector for marginalized

communities.

The second step that we’re taking as part of this work in amendments to Bill 14, the

Forest Statutes Amendment Act, is we’re going to fast-track the salvage of damaged

trees. I think, when I say that, the salvage of damaged trees, fire comes to mind.

I want folks to keep that in mind. We’re going to ensure that we’re fast-tracking

the salvage of damaged trees and take the opportunity to access more undeveloped timber

sales as well.

This is a very practical and important change, and, I might add, one of the pieces

of this legislation that has unanimous consent, even from the environmental movement

that sees the potential here as well. This is a very practical and important change.

It allows B.C. Timber Sales to offer timber sale licences that are not fully developed.

Why does this matter? Because it accelerates the timelines.

I talked about, in my earlier remarks, my expectations of B.C. Timber Sales to speed

things up, to be able to hit our targets, to be able to get to a rationalized apportionment.

This responds directly to the concerns that I’ve heard, time and time again, from

industry about when fires occur, when insect damage occurs in our forests — the ability

for us to be able to step up, get in there and get access to this fibre. It allows

us to respond more quickly to damaged stands, including those impacted by wildfire,

and it gets that land into production faster.

We see, with the impact of the last number of years of wildfires, in particular, and

also going back to the end of the pine beetle kill as well, that we have a huge potential

to build a reforestation economy here in British Columbia. British Columbians should

be proud that every time we harvest one tree, we plant three more trees in place.

Not only that, in addition to that, there is a huge potential in partnership with

the federal government for us to plant even more trees. We have planted billions of

trees over the course of the last number of years since we formed government.

There is huge opportunity for us to do even more in development of a reforestation

economy — putting young people to work; putting First Nations to work; ensuring that

there are more good-paying, family-supporting jobs — while ensuring that as we protect

that land base, we take advantage of the opportunity to salvage and also reforest.

That in the long run is going to generate massive amounts of revenue for British Columbia.

In a world where timing matters, this is about moving with urgency. It’s about ensuring

that we do not leave fibre stranded on the land base. This is about new streamlined

licence opportunities that will increase the amount of recoverable wood and speed

up access to support mills throughout the province, especially pulp mills, especially

pulp mills that are struggling right now in accessing fibre but also economic access

to fibre.

We know that when people talk about economic access to fibre, the biggest driver for

that is pulp prices right now. Pulp prices are very low. I’ve heard directly from

the pulp sector when I was at COFI last week that unless pulp prices can get back

up to over $800, they’re not going to be making any money. Right now it’s $670. They’re

losing money every single day. Unfortunately, that’s not something we can control.

We can’t control pulp prices, but we can take steps to ensure that they have access

to fibre.

I want to share one example. The Mine Creek fire near Kamloops, near my colleague

the critic’s riding. I had an opportunity to visit the ground in partnership with

the local forest district office; the B.C. wildfire service; as well as the Coldwater

Indian Band, which was one of the proponents in a sale.

That fire began on September 1, 2025. On September 8, just a few days later, B.C.

wildfire service was in the process of fighting that fire, but while they were fighting

that fire, B.C. Timber Sales, the local district office, the Coldwater Indian Band

and local proponents already began flying that fire.

[11:30 a.m.]

Why were they flying that fire at the same time we were fighting that fire? Because

they already saw the opportunity to look ahead, to ensure that as the B.C. wildfire

service does its incredible work in putting out that fire, there was an ability for

us to move quickly and efficiently in planning to ensure that we could do that salvage

logging.

On September 28, just 20 days later, after flying that fire and beginning the planning

work, stakeholders from all of government, from outside, from the forest sector and

from local nations came together, and on October 7, just a few days later, a permit

was submitted. Then literally two weeks later, by the end of October, that permit

was approved.

So when we talk about permit efficiency, let’s start…. The fire began September 1.

On September 8, planning began. Literally a month later, a month and a bit later,

a permit was approved. That is the hard work of the public service. That is the hard

work of the forest service, and I think it’s something we should be proud of.

It is not just the ability for us to be able to move efficiently. I want to remind

all members that it is not just foresters that are at the table. Biologists, agrologists,

those who are considering the impact on the soil, those who are ensuring that we’re

looking after the soil and biodiversity integrity — all of those folks have a seat

at the table. All of those folks make up the forest service.

These new salvage licences are expected to deliver up to an additional 500,000 cubic

metres of fibre, approximately over 11,000 truckloads, to the market. That is a big

deal, and it’s one of the reasons why I’m so happy to introduce and support Bill 14.

Next, Bill 14 will help shape the future of forestry — this is a big one — to long-term,

full-rotation forest stewardship. For too long, our system has focused on minimum

obligations, free-growing requirements that ensure basic regeneration but do not always

maximize the long-term value of our forests.

I’ve often talked about, over the course of the last year, since I took on the role

of Minister of Forests, the need for us to move from volume to full area-based tenureship,

full-rotation management. My colleague across the way and I have talked about this

in estimates the last two iterations, about us looking to other jurisdictions that

are decades ahead of us, in the case of Nordic countries in particular.

Full-rotation, area-based forestry is not going to be exactly the same as those Nordic

countries like Finland and Sweden, because they have very little biodiversity. They

don’t have any primary forests. They cut them down.

We still have 11 million hectares of our primary forests, in particular 11 million

hectares that will not be touched because they’re in protected parks because of the

work of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Parks, or for other reasons

that are very important and critical to the success of our province.

But there is an opportunity for us to do more of that full-rotation management that,

in the long run, is going to create more job opportunity, is going to increase the

yield rates from our forests as well.

This bill allows B.C. Timber Sales to invest beyond those minimum standards. I hear

from British Columbians in Langford-Highlands. I hear from people in the North, the

Interior, the coast, everywhere about the importance that we all have, the values

that we all share in good forest management and stewardship of our lands.

They support…. I think it’s unanimous in this House, I hope, and also unanimous in

British Columbia that we need to do more spacing, we need to support pruning, and

we need to support full-rotation management. It is a duty that we have to ensure that

we have more healthier forests, that we get higher value from our fibre and we better

align with modern expectations around stewardship and sustainability.

This is about protecting our watersheds. Water is something that brings everyone together.

Our water is at risk. We talked about it in this House just a few weeks ago, with

the impact of Donald Trump in the United States. We have to protect our watersheds.

We are doing work right now because of the hard work of my colleague in Vernon in

stepping up and getting $15 million for her community from my ministry to be able

to do spacing, pruning and thinning in the Aberdeen Plateau, an important watershed,

because that is the third-largest watershed in British Columbia and supplies thousands

and literally billions of dollars when you look at the agricultural sector.

Our forests are not just about today. They’re about ensuring that we’re planning for

decades from now, seven generations from now. They are about ensuring that the forests

we manage continue to provide ecological, cultural and economic benefits well into

the future.

to agreements. This may sound technical, but I am looking forward to the questions

from the member opposite when we get to the committee stage. This is really technical,

but it’s also very important. It means more flexibility, it means more innovation,

and it means clearer expectations and stronger compliance as well.

[11:35 a.m.]

After all, we’re creating a system that can adapt to different regions, to different

forest types and different objectives, because we know, representing 93 ridings in

this House, representing a massive province that looks different on the coast than

it does in the Interior and than it does in the North, that a one-size-fits-all approach

does not serve us well and, most importantly, does not serve British Columbia well.

I think it’s so important, as we talk about Bill 14, that we remind ourselves that

forestry is all about people and place. The steps that we’re taking — from contract

logging, which is going to create more jobs for loggers and contractors and why there

is such strong support from the logging community in the form of the Truck Loggers

Association, the Interior Logging Association, and many of those truck loggers and

contractors that I’ve met, whether it was last week at COFI or in other parts of our

community, throughout the province as well…. I hope, from a former, current, retired

logger….

I’m not sure how you refer to yourself, member across the way. Once a logger, always

a logger, right?

I hope that there’s support from him as well, because he sees the opportunity with

contract logging.

Contract logging is not going to replace the current aspect of timber sales, but it

gives us one more tool to speed things up, to be able to get to our rationalized apportionment

so we can get those local logs to local mills to create more good-paying, family-supporting

jobs, while also ensuring that we’re not only creating those jobs. We are also providing

the world with the most sustainable wood products that the world needs. Russian lumber,

B.C. lumber — pretty easy choice, I might add.

We need to be more competitive. We need to get back into those markets. It’s why we’re

opening offices in the U.K. It’s why we’re continuing to do the work in Japan and

South Korea. Bill 14 is a critical part of our ability to be able to compete in those

global markets. Bill 14 is a critical part of our ability to be able to ensure that

we not only compete, that we win in those markets.

I’m just going to end with a few more remarks about Bill 14. I would love nothing

more than to talk for an hour and 19. My colleague across here will know how excited

I was, but I don’t think I’m going to be coming back to this piece of legislation.

And I want to give my colleague across the way, who I hope will be the designated

speaker and, I have every expectation, will be speaking for two hours on this as well….

No pressure.

I want to end with my time, before the Speaker shows up and sends us to lunch, to

talk about Bill 14 and the connection that we all have to our forests. I’m proud of

our sustainable forestry practices. I’m proud of the work that is happening on the

ground.

In 2003, First Nations had 3 percent access to our annual allowable cut. Today, in

2026, they have access to over 22 percent. That was because my friend John Horgan

made this a priority, and my friend the Premier ensured that we are continuing the

efforts to ensure that First Nations, the true stewards of our land, have more access

to that tenure. After all, forestry is about people and place, and it’s fair to say

that forestry invokes a lot of opinions and perspectives from British Columbians,

sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I often joked, and I joked about this in my remarks at COFI, that often I’ll end a

too many trees down,” and: “Minister, you’re not cutting enough trees down.” Forestry

is that foundational aspect of our economy and always will be.

Bill 14, in addition to what I’ve already talked about, also has consequential amendments

to the Forest and Range Practices Act. These changes ensure that contract logging

activities align with stewardship requirements. They ensure that public engagement

continues to be a key part of decision-making. My colleague across the way from the

Cariboo talked about this in the context of the fact that we’re actually doing forest

landscape planning in the Cariboo. This is First Nations, this is industry and this

is government all coming together to plan out the future of forestry.

If we get this right and we are able to deliver a working forest, as the Premier touched

on in his remarks at COFI, this will lead to us eliminating cutting permits. The biggest

complaint I hear about is how long it takes to get a cutting permit approved. We know

it’s not cutting permits when they get to the ministry. It’s all the work that goes

into developing a cutting permit. Sometimes it can take two to three years. That’s

unacceptable. So let’s do all that work up front.

I often compare it to building an OCP, an official community plan. You build out that

long-term plan, that vision for your community, and it’s no different in this case.

You build out the vision for harvesting — where you’re going to put your roads in,

where you’re going to develop your cut blocks.

You do that work up front with everyone at the table, including First Nations, because

First Nations were not at the table. But they are at the table, and they’re leading

the work at the table. So First Nations, local governments, industry, loggers, contractors,

environmental organizations — everyone at the table and ensuring that when we’re talking

about forestry, we’re talking about it in the long-term sense.

[11:40 a.m.]

The consequential amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act ensure that all

of our contract logging opportunities and activities align with stewardship requirements.

They ensure that public engagement continues to be a key part of decision-making,

and they ensure that as we modernize how we operate, we do not lose sight of our responsibilities

because flexibility must always go hand in hand with accountability.

Taken together, all of the changes that I’ve spoken of this morning in Bill 14 position

B.C. Timber Sales to be a stronger and more effective partner on the land base, a

partner that can deliver on multiple objectives, a partner that can support workers

and communities and a partner that can help us meet the challenges of today while

preparing British Columbia and our forest sector for the future.

This flexibility allows B.C. Timber Sales to fully realize and sell the volume it

is responsible for. Most importantly, it enables BCTS to leverage partnership volumes

through the auction system. That supports market pricing, it supports transparency,

and it supports fairness across the sector.

The United States, in particular the U.S. Lumber Coalition, can make all the noise

they want about how we are subsidizing our sector — not factually true. Our market

pricing system is the best in the world. I think we all agree on that. In fact, NAFTA

panels again and again…. I can keep going on, because we keep winning those NAFTA

panels because the U.S. Commerce Secretary isn’t following U.S. law.

It was just a couple of weeks ago we had two rulings, and we won both of them. We’re

going to keep winning them, because we have a system, an auction system, that delivers

for British Columbians. When we can get more logs through that auction system, we’re

going to create more good-paying, family-supporting jobs, we’re going to get more

local logs to local mills, and we’re going to get that product into the hands of people

who are building the infrastructure and building the homes — not just here in British

Columbia, not just throughout Canada but around the world.

This bill was not brought forward in isolation. It is grounded in the recommendations

of the 2025 B.C. Timber Sales review.

I want to thank, once again, the incredible leadership shown by my friends Lenny Joe,

CEO of the First Nations Forestry Council; Vanderhoof councillor Brian Frenkel; and

a former minister who sat on this side of the House when he was a B.C. Liberal, George

Abbott, who was just recently appointed the chair of the Treaty Commission.

A review that engaged thousands of British Columbians and engaged stakeholders across

the province. A review that produced 54 recommendations. A review that made it clear

that change was needed. This was not change in the form of tinkering around the edges

— transformative change.

We are going to be doing more work on those 54 recommendations outside of this legislation,

but this legislation gets the ball rolling. We’ve already begun implementing many

of those recommendations. In our work to expand BCTS’s mandate, last year BCTS performed

up to 30 percent better from Q3 last year to Q3 this year. That’s 30 percent in just

one year.

Again, with the market conditions, low market prices and complete collapse of the

U.S. housing market, a 30 percent increase in sales is not too bad, I would say. That

is because of the hard work of the forest sector and because of the hard work of BCTS

and the forest service staff in every corner of this province.

This legislation, Bill 14, represents a key step forward in our work. These legislative

amendments altogether are expected to increase B.C.’s fibre supply by as much as 17,700

truckloads or 800,000 cubic metres, directly supporting faster fibre delivery, stronger

local economies and more responsive forest stewardship. It reflects what we heard

from contractors who want more opportunities, from value-added manufacturers who want

access to those logs.

One of the first steps we took in launching that review of B.C. Timber Sales was that

we increased category 4 from 10 percent to 20 percent. I remember my team saying:

“Minister, don’t have too-high expectations. It’s probably going to take a few years

for us to get from that 10 to 20 percent.”

You know how long it took? One year. From 10 percent to 20 percent — we set that goal.

We said: “Oh, it’ll take a few years for us to get it.” In one year, we reached that

target because we have a strong, vibrant reman and value-added manufacturing system

here, and we are going to continue to push for more because we’re going to make more

in B.C.

After all, when we formed government in 2016, six million logs left our coast for

other jurisdictions. Because of the work of our Premier and because of the work of

my predecessor, John Horgan, we have seen an 80 percent reduction in raw log exports

— an 80 percent reduction, something that we all as New Democrats should be very proud

of.

[11:45 a.m.]

We hit that 20 percent target because, after all — in the case of forestry, I hear

it every day — communities want stability. And for First Nations who are seeking a

greater participation, we were delivering 3 percent access to the AAC in 2003; 22

percent in 2026.

This is about building a forestry sector that works — a sector that provides predictability;

a sector that supports innovation; and a sector that delivers good-paying, family-supporting

jobs. It’s about making sure the right log gets to the right mill in British Columbia.

It’s about building more here at home, and it’s about ensuring that our forests continue

to be a source of pride and prosperity.

At the end of the day, as I began my remarks, this is about people. Forestry is about

people and place. It’s about the workers who show up every day. It’s about the families

who rely on the sector. It’s about the communities that are built around it. We owe

it to them. We owe it to every British Columbian to ensure that in these troubling

times that we’re dealing with…. With all the war and conflict, this formidable sector,

this sector that built British Columbia….

We are surrounded by wood. We’re surrounded by B.C. wood. We have to get this right.

Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, is practical. It is one action, one item,

of steps that we’re taking to get it right. It is thoughtful. It is forward-looking.

It is recognizing that the world is changing, and it ensures that our forest sector

can change with it — stronger, more flexible and better equipped to deliver for people.

On this side of the House, we’re committed to building a strong, sustainable forest

sector for the next 100 years. Our path forward for forestry means that a B.C. Timber

Sales organization that moves just as fast, faster fibre, creates more opportunities

for workers and contractors and ensures local logs go to local mills.

These changes matter. They matter to the workers grinding it out every single day

in the bush. They matter to the workers on the mill line, who will see a steady stream

of timber. It matters to the truckers that are moving our product to jurisdictions

around the world. It matters that local companies and communities will be able to

access the fibre they need.

I ask for all members of this House to take the work in, through debate on second

reading and through committee, also to support Bill 14. This is a practical piece

of legislation. It is legislation that has strong support from the forest sector and

strong support from members of the environmental community, and I would ask all members

of this House to join me in supporting Bill 14, the Forest Statutes Amendment Act.

Ward Stamer : I thank the Forests Minister for his opening remarks. And yes, I am the designated

speaker. Seeing that we have a few minutes, I would certainly like to be able to start

our presentation.

First off, the minister brought up a lot of really good points in moving our forest

industry forward when it comes to increases in reforestation, commercial thinning,

wildfire fuel reduction, opportunities for value-added. I can go through the whole

list of what this is supposed to do.

Bill 14. I’ve labelled on the very top of it “unintended consequences,” because that

really comes to the crux of this. We’ll be able to get into that opportunity when

we get to committee — that many of the improvements the minister is speaking of, of

what their vision of BCTS should be, are already available through policy and regulation.

There don’t need to be any laws changed other than the ability of BCTS to spend money

in their existing budget, as the minister said. In his words, that is really the only

reason you would have to change the law — for that.

I mean, we’ve got requirements in this bill when we talk about more stringent regulations.

Well, we’ve already got a bible this thick when we have a BCTS licence that is purchased,

so now it’s going to be this thick?

Honestly, what is really the reasoning behind many of the things that are in this

bill that are not attached to just the requirements of the government to be able to

spend money on commercial thinning?

The minister mentioned that BCTS has been successful at a grand total of three commercial

thinning projects so far that were bid successfully.

Interjection.

Ward Stamer : Three more on the way, I’ve just been reminded. We have millions of cubic metres

of fibre that could be commercially thinned, and we’re up to six. Those are fantastic

goals.

[11:50 a.m.]

Again, we look at the numbers that have also been brought forward. I’m not trying

to be negative about this, because there are some really good things the BCTS would

like to do. But there’s nothing in there talking about how much it’s going to cost.

There’s nothing in there, in anything that they’ve put out, on any negligible timelines,

on how this is actually going to occur. It doesn’t talk about anything about supervision

on work that has been tried before, under both the Ministry of Forests and the BCTS.

That has been a dismal failure.

One of the examples is roadbuilding, where BCTS, as the largest licensee in the province,

used to build hundreds of kilometres of roads every year, both permanent and semi-permanent.

I’d love to know how many they build now. It’s a mere fraction of what they used to

do, because they don’t have the experience to do it.

What makes you think that we’re going to, all of a sudden, be able to shift gears

here and allow contract logging? They’re going to pay for contract logging, because,

in the end, that’s going to give us more value added to our value-added manufacturing

sector. Well, I’m sorry if I feel a little bit pessimistic, but I’m very pessimistic

that they actually even have the experience or the supervisory staff to be able to

do that in the first place, let alone how much this is going to cost.

Are we going to have bidding? Are we going to have direct awards? Are we going to

just pay them by the hour? I mean, this business is very precise. That’s the reason

why we’ve had mills that have been operating on razor-thin margins, doing everything

they possibly can to stay in business for themselves and their workers and their communities.

Then they get a phone call: “Sorry, but the numbers just don’t work.”

As we get the opportunity to get through this, there are two things that are going

to be occurring. We can talk about the opportunities of BCTS enhancing what they do

in the stewardship plans that they have. Also, what the intent of BCTS was in the

first place was to bring fibre to the marketplace and sell it for a profit. Again,

this is supposed to be self-funding, self-revenue, as it says in the documentation.

Every year, consistently, they’ve lost money. The Ministry of Forests is $909 million

this year. Direct revenue is about $500 million to $521 million. That is a net loss.

Including wildfire costs, I may add. It’s still a negative revenue driver. It wasn’t

that long ago when the Ministry of Forests had a $1.5 billion surplus in their revenues

less than five years ago. Now, consistently, every single year, the taxpayers have

to subsidize.

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

Ward Stamer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant :

Section A reports progress on Bill 11 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir : Committee of Supply,

Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, reports progress on the Ministry

of Agriculture and Food and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Madam Speaker, I hope everyone has a nice lunch. We’ll see you in a little bit.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : We stand adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I’m calling the Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, the Residential

Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 7 (continued) .

Claire Rattée : Before we left last evening, we were on

section 4.3, and I was asking questions about

the Lieutenant Governor in Council being able to authorize changes to the tenancy

agreements without requiring agreement from both the landlord and tenant. I understand

that these powers have been placed in regulation. I’m wondering why that is.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : It’s good to be back continuing this discussion.

These authorities will allow government to authorize a landlord to amend existing

tenancy agreements to remove standard terms that are no longer required or add, remove

or change a non-standard term. These authorities ensure that existing tenancy agreements

can be amended to reflect regulatory changes and achieve the policy intent of the

regulatory changes.

They align with bringing into force other tools within the bill and allow future flexibility,

which is why often administrative elements are left to regulation.

Claire Rattée : In light of that, I would like to move an amendment that:

[Clause 7 is amended by adding the following

4. 3

(4) A tenancy agreement for supportive housing must include provisions to protect

tenants from exposure to hazardous substances, including smoke or vapour, originating

from other rental units or common areas.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée : Speaking to the amendment, I know that this is somewhat similar to one that I had

moved previously, but the purpose of this — and I won’t speak too much to why I want

this in there, because I think I have already, previously — is that I’m looking for

an alternative avenue to try and make sure that that is somehow incorporated in here.

If this is giving landlords the ability to amend existing tenancy agreements, I think

that it really makes sense that some kind of a provision like this is implemented.

I understand that the minister had said previously, when we were discussing this,

that there is the ability to ban smoking within these areas. But I think that, realistically,

because we’re talking about typically very vulnerable populations, it makes sense

that this should be a standard that is put on all supportive housing units, that all

those tenancies should very clearly state that there shouldn’t be smoking within the

indoor spaces in common areas.

The Chair : At this point, we’ll take a short recess of five minutes while we consider the amendment.

The committee recessed from 11:10 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair : I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026,

back to order. We are on the amendment to clause 7.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks to the member for this. As the member identified, it’s very similar to a conversation

we had yesterday on a similar proposed amendment, so I’ll just, again, speak to the

program.

This is a program management issue and not a residential tenancy issue. Issues such

as this can be related to other regulatory and enforcement frameworks, including,

as I outlined yesterday, building code and fire safety regulations, health and environmental

standards, contractual and funding requirements for housing operators. Those housing

agreements between operators and tenants are likely the place for this conversation.

Bill 11 was not drafted as a comprehensive housing quality code. Its purpose is to

remove tenancy law barriers that prevent timely action where safety issues arise,

but I absolutely welcome having these types of program-related conversations with

the member and hearing her thoughts and feedback on how we might be able to move forward

together.

Amendment negatived.

Claire Rattée : I would like to move on to

section 4.4 now. Why does the bill allow the government

to create exceptions to protections that prevent landlords from seizing or interfering

with tenant property?

Hon. Christine Boyle :

Section 26(3) of the RTA prohibits a landlord from seizing a tenant’s property or

interfering with a tenant’s access to their personal property.

[11:20 a.m.]

This

section 4.4 establishes regulation-making authorities to prescribe exceptions

section 26(3) of the RTA. Exceptions to this prohibition may be required when a

tenant is temporarily restricted from the supportive housing site. We spoke about

that regulation-making authorities to prescribe exceptions to

section 26(3) of the

RTA.

Exceptions to this prohibition may be required when a tenant is temporarily restricted

from the supportive housing site. We spoke about that, a temporary restriction to

de-escalate and be able to support the long-term continuation of the tenancy. But

in a temporary restriction, the tenant wouldn’t be permitted to access their personal

property during a restriction.

Section 4.4 relates to

section 4.6, which outlines further parameters around the exception.

Claire Rattée : Just to confirm, then, this isn’t specifically just for the removal of weapons. This

could also apply in situations outside of just the removal of weapons.

Hon. Christine Boyle : It’s not specific to weapons. It’s really focused on the temporary restriction tool

enabled in the bill.

Claire Rattée : So which section, then, is dealing with the removal of weapons?

The Chair : The member has a clarifying question.

Claire Rattée : Thank you, Chair.

Just to clarify my intent with this, I think what I’m trying to ask or ascertain here

is: does

section 4.4 still provide the authority to remove those weapons, or is that

independent in the legislation somewhere else?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the clarification. Let me try to answer it, and if I don’t get at exactly

what you were going for, I’m happy to come back around.

This act covers the landlord-tenant relationship. Search-and-seizure powers remain

with law enforcement.

Bill 11 enables new tools related to weapons. The specific section, though…. Of course,

sections work together in various ways, but

section 4.8, which we’ll get to soon,

establishes new reasons to end a tenancy when a tenant or person permitted on the

property by a tenant personally possesses a weapon or the landlord observes a weapon

in plain view in the tenant’s rental unit.

Claire Rattée : For clarification, then, is there anything in this bill and these amendments that

has the purpose of actually being able to confiscate a weapon, or is this simply that

a tenancy is ended if a weapon is found?

I would like some clarification around that, because my understanding was that a weapon

would be seized. But if it’s not going to be seized, does that mean that if someone

is caught with a weapon, their tenancy is ended and they’re allowed to leave with

the weapon?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The legislation gives housing providers a range of tools to respond to possession

of a weapon. The first approach would be voluntary compliance focused on safety.

As the member knows, supportive housing providers have relationships with tenants

to understand and work together as a first response, where possible. Eviction would

be a last resort in that situation. Just to reiterate, search-and-seizure powers remain

in the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

[11:30 a.m.]

Claire Rattée : I’m just trying to gain a bit more clarity, then, on

section 4.4, because it says

“in respect of the seizure of any personal property of a tenant or the prevention

of interference with the tenant’s access to the tenant’s personal property.”

I’m just trying to understand the purpose of this section, then. If search and seizure

is still law enforcement’s purview and responsibility, what exactly is this

section

meant to be granting? What are the specific circumstances in which this

section would

be applicable, and what is it that a landlord is able to do as a result?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I think I’m getting closer to understanding what you’re trying to get at here, so

thanks for the continued follow-up.

Section 4.4 is really, as I said, related to the new tool around temporary restrictions.

Right now the RTA, in 26.3, outlines that a landlord must not prevent a tenant from

accessing their own property or must not access that property themselves.

In the case of a temporary restriction, the landlord would be restricting a tenant

from going back into their property, as we’ve discussed, for de-escalation reasons,

to create that temporary cool-down period. So 4.4 provides an exception from what’s

currently outlined in the RTA.

Not just that, but it also…. You can imagine a situation where somebody has a temporary

restriction, but they might have a medication in their room or something else that

they need access to. So 4.4 would also be able to create an exception where the housing

provider or a staff member or a support worker could access a particular needed piece

of property, medication, etc., that the tenant needs during that temporary restriction

period.

Claire Rattée : Specifically in 4.4, where it says “in respect of the seizure of any personal property,”

what is that

section referring to, then?

I understand the other part, and we do have some more follow-up questions on that

because there was the assumption that, yeah, medical devices and things like that….

But there is a specific part that says “in respect of the seizure of any personal

property.”

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : “Seizure” is the current language in the RTA. It just means a landlord — or housing

provider, in the case of supportive housing — can’t go into your unit and take your

belongings. I think that is understandable.

So 4.4 is establishing possible exemptions to that, like we spoke about in the case

of a temporary restriction. Not to seize it, but to be able to have access to the

property to retrieve items that a tenant might need during that temporary restriction

period.

Claire Rattée : Are there specific criteria that are going to be set out? What would the specific

criteria be beyond just these temporary evictions?

Can I just understand a bit more clearly? Are there any other ways in which this could

be applied? Is it going to be very black and white and very clear for housing providers

when they are allowed to exercise that right, or does this potentially have a bit

of ambiguity?

Hon. Christine Boyle : That will be outlined through the work under 4.6. We’ll get there, but I’m happy

to answer now.

So 4.6 establishes regulation-making authorities to prescribe exemptions to

section

30(1)(

a) of the RTA. This

section also establishes regulation-making authorities that

will be used when establishing the temporary restriction process, including circumstances

in which and periods of time during which a landlord may restrict access to the residential

property, whether the restriction applies to all or part of the property.

As an example, a tenant in a larger building may be relocated to a different part

of the building if the escalating conflict is related to a specific neighbour. It

establishes requirements, conditions, restrictions or prohibitions when restricting

a tenant’s access. So that is the work of

section 4.6.

Linda Hepner : Just for my clarification…. I know my colleague is a lot more skilled, relative to

the supportive housing elements, than I am. But relative to just housing and tenancy,

I’m wondering if you can explain.

If they’re seizing items and they’re not seizing weapons — that’s under a different

providing element — then what happens to things like assistive devices, wheelchairs,

walking sticks, medical devices? Are those going to be identified as explicitly prohibited

throughout the regulations? Will there be an inventory? Who stores them? How do you

get them back? Is there compensation later if something is missing?

Can you just help me better understand, within the environment of supportive housing,

how that would play out?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I again want to be clear. They’re not seizing items.

The tool being created is to temporarily restrict access to a unit for a number of

reasons that we have addressed. We’re enabling the possibility of being able to retrieve

items like the member listed, important medical items, as needed, during that temporary

restriction so that a tenant has access to them.

No items are being seized. That’s, I think, an important clarification.

Linda Hepner : Okay, could the minister, then, help me understand the language that says “in respect

of the seizure of any property of a tenant”?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : The language of seizure is simply copying the language in the original RTA — which,

again, in 26(3) says a landlord must not seize any personal property. The amendment

in Bill 11 is creating regulation-making authority to make exceptions to that, in

the case of needed retrieval of property during that temporary pause.

The language of seizure isn’t about taking property. It’s just a consistency in language

to refer to being able to access a needed medical device or such for the tenant during

that temporary pause.

Again, there is not seizure. The original language in the RTA uses the language of

seizure in the context of a landlord “must not seize.” Where there’s a temporary restriction,

the bill will enable an exception to be able to access supports as requested by the

tenant that they may need during the time in which their access to their unit is restricted.

Linda Hepner : For my clarification, if you’re — let’s use your example — moving a disruptive client

or tenant to somewhere else and you’re taking, but not seizing, their property and

then something goes missing, what is it…? If the tenant says, “I had this, this or

this,” is there a process within the regulation that we’re keeping track of this?

How is it that the tenants’ belongings that are being moved, not seized…? We’re not

including things like personal property, like their medications or like their assistive

devices, if they need canes or wheelchairs or walking sticks or whatever. I’m assuming

those are not part of what would be removed as they undergo whatever the process is

to get them into either a different unit or a different circumstance.

Can you help me understand how you’re keeping track? If you have a complaint that

what you’ve taken, not seized, from them hasn’t been returned, what is the process

the tenant has?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, this is a pretty rare exception, and the rules around it will be outlined.

We’ll get to that, I’m sure, in 4.6.

I think it’s important just to reiterate, in the case of a temporary restriction of

access, that the tenant’s unit remains their unit. It would be locked. Their possessions

are safe inside there. This exception is for a belonging that they may need to take

with them for a relocation or during that temporary access for immediate use — again,

as identified, a wheelchair or other medical device.

If there are challenges, it remains the process that a complaint could be made to

the housing provider or, if necessary, escalated to the RTB. As we look toward implementation

and work with housing providers on implementation, we will continue to look at these

important questions and nuances.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Birch Room

The House in Committee,

Section C.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C, to order. We are meeting

today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Tourism,

Arts, Culture and Sport.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $183,761,000 (continued) .

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you to the minister and staff for returning for a few minutes.

Following on yesterday’s answer, I just want to mention my appreciation for the moving

of Rec Sites and Trails into the Ministry of Environment and Parks. It makes a lot

of sense, and I’m sure there have been some positive results.

One quick question on what we’re calling in Whistler “tourism paying for tourism.”

At the end of last year, the resort municipality of Whistler proposed an increase

to its property tax regime for class 8 recreation properties like ski hills and golf

courses. They would be taxed at 20 times the rate paid by residential properties.

This was passed in order to “make tourism pay for tourism,” lessening the burden on

local residents to bear the brunt of the costs associated with infrastructure, resources,

services and amenities that many non-residents will use throughout the year. This

was an expression of frustration with the imbalance here.

My question for the minister is: does Budget 2026 or the Look West tourism action

plan provide any resourcing or strategic direction to ensure that municipalities with

high tourist traffic don’t have to sacrifice services for their residents? How will

local residents of resort municipalities like Whistler be supported by the provincial

government, moving forward?

Hon. Anne Kang : Thank you so much to the member across for the question. Our ministry has a resort

collaborative working group, and Whistler is a very active and vocal member of this

group. Within this working group, we have cross-ministry staff who work with municipalities

such as Whistler to bring in their concerns and to address their concerns and to find

ways forward.

[11:10 a.m.]

This task group is one that’s very active, and from what I understand, positive directions

are moving forward, and solutions are being discussed at this moment.

Jeremy Valeriote : On a different topic, does Budget 2026 provide any specific funding for disability

and sport to ensure that sports and recreation remain equitable, inclusive and accessible

for all British Columbians? How can organizations such as Whistler Adaptive Sports

tap into that funding, both now and in the years to come?

I apologize. Staff asked me if I had anything but tourism questions, and I said I

didn’t. I forgot about this one.

Hon. Anne Kang : Thank you so much for that question. Our ministry continues to work very closely

with our sport partners on practical solutions to support athletes with affordability,

adaptability and making sure that everyone is able to access the sport that they want.

We have made one-time investments in the last three years to address sport affordability,

including $3.6 million for resilient, inspire, strength and engage, which is the RISE

grant program, to support young people in and from government care; also, $3.5 million

for B.C. Games Society to help offset inflation-related operation costs, as well as

$7.7 million to viaSport to support affordability across the amateur sports system.

I understand the member’s question is about adaptive sport and disability. We will

be very happy to connect after estimates with Whistler Adaptive Sports to see which

application and grant process will be best for their members. We’ll be very happy

to be working with the member across.

Jeremy Valeriote : I do want to return to the “making tourism pay for tourism” topic. I appreciate the

minister’s answer. I’m drawing parallels between a community or municipality with,

for example, a mill or a big industrial…. For example, Squamish will have an LNG export

facility and the ability to draw taxes from that.

My understanding is, even at a multiplier of 20 times, it is very difficult for communities

like Whistler to ask, in this case, Vail Resorts to help cover some of these local

costs that are borne within the resort municipality and not within the commercial

lease.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide any further thoughts on the best way — perhaps

property tax is not the best way — or some mechanism to ensure that the corporations

reaping the benefits of this tourism help to contribute to the local community in

a structured way.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang : Thank you so much to the member for that question. I’ll elaborate a little bit on

the support that we are giving resort municipalities like Whistler. We really appreciate

how their infrastructures are set up and are very welcoming to tourists internationally

and across our nation and for locals, as well, and understand the pressures that they

are facing.

The resort collaborative working group is exactly tackling issues that you have described.

We are working cross-ministry on various issues so that we can find solutions and

support for that. One of the ministries would be the Ministry of Finance, which takes

a look at possible resourcing or taxation incentives that are available. They also

work very closely with Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Whistler is a very active member of this group. They constantly are in conversations

and very alive to the challenges that they are facing right now.

I would encourage Whistler to continue to have these conversations within the working

group, and definitely my ministry continues to be an active support for Whistler.

Jeremy Valeriote : I appreciate the ministry’s continued working with the resort collaborative working

group.

My last question. I think I’m out of time — or nearly. Announced last week, adventure

tourism hub under FrontCounter B.C. to provide a new streamlined approach for adventure

tourism operators to obtain land tenure approvals. Overall good news, given the number

of permits that are backlogged even just in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. I think a streamlined

approach is good.

I will say I was struck by the list of operators that seem to be highlighted: heli-skiing,

cat-skiing, heli-hiking and commercial snowmobiling. As a member of the Green Party,

I find these pretty fossil fuel–intensive. Especially in my riding, there are a lot

of self-propelled tourism opportunities.

So my question. Given the Look West action plan’s recognition of outdoor recreation

as one of the major economic engines of the tourist sector, how does the Look West

action plan support and promote local participation in outdoor recreational activities

that are less fossil fuel–intensive and more conducive to long-term ecological health?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang : Thank you so much for that question, to the hon. member. British Columbia is known

for its super, natural beauty here in our province. Many people seek to come to British

Columbia because of our nature, our mountains, our waters. Sustainability tourism

is one of the very important conversations that we have with our partners that we

work with.

Some of the activities may be v