British Columbia Hansard — 21 April 2026, a.m., Issue 158 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260421am-Hansard-n158

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 43rd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Morning Sitting Issue No. 158 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Morning Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ............................................................................................................................................. 6657 Members’ Statements ...................................................................................................................................................... 6658 Sicamous Ferry Society and Service David Williams Tourism Week Garry Begg Friends in Need Food Bank Lawrence Mok B.C.

Book Day Stephanie Higginson Y outh Sports Linda Hepner West Shore Chamber of Commerce Darlene Rotchford Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling) ................................................................................................................................. 6660 Oral Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 6660 Government Handling of DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues Á ’a:líya Warbus Hon. David Eby Scott McInnis Hon.

Niki Sharma Funding for Saanich Peninsula Hospital Rob Botterell Hon. Josie Osborne Access to Primary Care Services for Saanich Peninsula Clinic Patients Rob Botterell Hon. Josie Osborne Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Contract for Advisory Work by Former Deputy Minister Lorne Doerkson Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Government Spending Priorities and Car Allowances for Deputy Ministers Bruce Banman Hon. Brenda Bailey Reann Gasper FIFA World Cup Tickets for Elected Officials and PavCo Directors Kristina Loewen Hon.

Anne Kang Work of Chief Scientific Adviser and Government Action on Mental Health and Substance Use Issues Claire Rattée Hon. Josie Osborne Government Handling of DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues and Role of

Interpretation Act Peter Milobar Hon. Niki Sharma

Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 6666 Bill 9 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued) Bryan Tepper Steve Kooner Kristina Loewen Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................................................ 6673 Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued) Ward Stamer Hon.

Ravi Parmar Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 6678 Estimates: Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness (continued) Hon. Kelly Greene Sheldon Clare

6657 TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2026 The House met at 10:04 a.m. [The Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers and reflections: Hon. Christine Boyle. [10:05 a.m.] Introductions by Members Hon. Anne Kang: I rise today to welcome a group of guests who are joining us today for B.C. Book Day. With us in the gallery, we have Laraine Coates, the chair of Books B.C. and assistant director of marketing and busi- ness development of UBC Press; as well as Michelle Simms, vice-chair of Books B.C. and director of digital initiatives, Orca Book Publishers; and Sarah Felkar, the executive dir - ector of Books B.C.

Books B.C. is an amazing advocate for our local pub - lishers, and I’m very excited to see their display today at the reception during lunch hour at the Hall of Honour. Everyone is welcome. Also with us today are Michele Austin, president of Motion Picture Association Canada, and Sydney Grieve, vice-president of public affairs at the Motion Picture As - sociation Canada. MPA-Canada is one of the leading advocates of the film, television and streaming industry around the world.

They help Canada secure many big film projects — from Netflix to Disney, Amazon and Paramount studios — and we’re so excited to have them here with us. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Scott McInnis: I received a surprise text last night that I would have two constituents here in town from Kimber - ley. Erin and Jamie are here to take a little getaway to co- celebrate their 50th birthdays together here in Victoria. Would the House please make them feel very welcome this morning. Hon. Randene Neill: Further to B.C. Book Day, I want to welcome one of my constituents to the gallery today.

It’s not often that happens. Known by probably most of the people in this House, the mayor of Gibsons, Silas White, is here as part of B.C. Book Day. He grew up in publishing, with his mom and dad, in Harbour Publishing and now runs his own pub - lishing company, Nightwood Editions. It is my sincere hope that he will one day publish the memoirs of a certain MLA for Vancouver-Renfrew. Please give him a big, warm welcome. Br yan Tepper: It’s a bit of an emotional day, up and down today, but on the positive side, this is the first time I get to wish somebody a happy birthday in my family.

Emily Tepper, my tiny baby girl, is 23. She’s not very much bigger still at this point, but I want to let her know how much I love her, how Mom and Dad are always proud of her. Since Emily actually is right now in Mexico at a wed - ding, if she can stop bouncing long enough to show the bride and groom, I would like to congratulate Tyra Biffart and Alexei Alcock on their wedding today.

Susie Chant: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Andrii Plakhotniuk, the Am - bassador of Ukraine to Canada, who is here on his first official visit to B.C. with members of his staff from the embassy. [10:10 a.m.] I am pleased to say that yesterday they took

part in many meetings with government officials, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Lawrence Mok: Today I have the privilege to introduce my two good friends, John and Nancy. They are visiting the Legislative Assembly for the first time and also to watch our parliamentary democracy working at its finest during question period. Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome. Hon. Brittny Anderson: It is a fairly rare occasion that I get constituents visiting me here. Today I have Kamil and Louise visiting from New Denver.

We had a wonder - ful meeting yesterday, and I invited them to question per - iod so they could watch democracy in action. I just want to thank them for their advocacy and for all of the work that they do to support the community. Can this House please make them feel very welcome. Kristina Loewen: It’s a privilege for me to recognize a member of my family today. In speaking with the member for Surrey-Panorama, we discovered that we both had tiny baby girls on the exact same day 23 years ago — effectively, twins. Mine wasn’t so tiny, though.

She was nine pounds five ounces, and she’s been making a big splash ever since. It’s no secret to this House that she’s gone through a lot of struggles in the last couple years. I don’t know where those struggles are going to take her, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t unbelievably proud of her and all of the things that she has overcome. She has been through two psychoses from PANDAS. She’s been through relationship partner violence struggles. She is just an incredible young woman healing. She’s going

6658 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 to be a strong advocate. She’s going to share her story one day, and I’m just so proud of her. Would the House just join me in wishing my Gabriella Anne Brielle Loewen a really happy birthday. Bruce Banman: This side of the House, too, would like to welcome the Ambassador from Ukraine. Andrii and I and a few of the others — we got to share that we’re ac - tually, like him, probably banned for life from going to Russia. There has always been a special place for Ukraine and Ukrainians in Canada’s hearts. We have a special bond.

As I mentioned to him, my grandparents came from the area that is now Ukraine when they escaped here. Can - ada has always opened its arms to Ukrainians, and we will continue to do so. We want to thank you for being here. We look forward to…. This is not your first but it certainly won’t be your last visit to British Columbia. Thank you for your presence. George Anderson: Today I have the great privilege of welcoming Tyler Large to the Legislature. Yes, that’s large as in big, just so you all know. I was hoping you’d laugh, but anyway. That being said, Tyler is a constituent, and he’s also a good friend of mine.

He’s a co-owner of Country Grocer. That’s a chain across Vancouver Island. He’s also just a great human being. A fun fact is that when it comes to Strava points in Nanaimo-Lantzville, Tyler is one of the top people that you’re going to have to beat, with 5K done in 17 minutes and 29 seconds. I hope the entire House would help me in welcoming Tyler to the Legislature.

Members’ Statements SICAMOUS FERRY SOCIETY AND SERVICE David W illiams: I rise today to recognize the truly special community initiative in my constituency of Sal - mon Arm–Shuswap, the Sicamous Ferry Society and its free pedestrian ferry service across the Sicamous Narrows. What makes this service so special is that it is about more than simply getting from one side to the other.

It captures something of the country charm and welcom - ing spirit that make small communities like Sicamous so remarkable. [10:15 a.m.] For residents, it offers a practical and enjoyable way to access Sicamous Beach Park and the Shuswap North Oka - nagan Rail Trail. For visitors, it adds a unique adventure to their day, a scenic and distinct local experience on the water that reflects the beauty, warmth and character of the community. There is something timeless and inviting about it. It is the kind of simple but meaningful experience that feels right at home in rural British Columbia.

It brings people together, supports local businesses, encourages active transportation and gives both residents and tourists a chance to enjoy a relaxed, friendly atmosphere that makes Sicamous such a wonderful place to visit and live. What stands out the most is how this came together. In the face of a disruption and change caused by the Trans-Canada Highway bridge replacement, the people of Sicamous did what small towns so often do best. They stepped up, worked together and created something spe - cial for the whole community.

That speaks volumes about the generosity, ingenuity and pride of the people who call Sicamous home. I want to thank the Sicamous Ferry Society, its volun - teers, organizers and community parties for making this possible. This ferry is more than a service. It’s a reflection of the country charm, the community pride, neighbourly spirit that makes small towns so special. For the people of Sicamous, you should be very proud. TOURISM WEEK Garry Begg: I rise today in recognition of Tourism Week in British Columbia, April 20 to 24.

Tourism is a cornerstone of B.C.’s economy and a source of pride for communities throughout our prov - ince. This week we celebrate the people whose dedication, creativity and hospitality power one of the most dynamic and sustainable sectors, helping make B.C. a destination travellers aspire to visit, return to and recommend to the world. With year-round resorts and lakeside campgrounds, outdoor adventures, vibrant urban centres and Indigen - ous cultural experiences, tourism offers visitors authentic, four-season and uniquely British Columbian experien - ces rooted in people, places and culture.

Through locally owned restaurants, world-class food-and-beverage pro - ducers, attractions, museums and heritage sites, visitors connect with stories that can only be found here and with communities that proudly share them. Together this industry delivers real economic and so - cial benefits for people in every region of this province. Tourism generates $23 billion in annual revenue, contrib - utes $8 billion to provincial GDP and supports more than 113,000 jobs across nearly 17,000 businesses, the vast ma - jority of them being small businesses.

Nearly 40 percent of this activity occurs outside the Lower Mainland, making tourism essential to rural and remote communities. In March, this government launched the Look West tourism sector action plan with industry partners as we prepare to welcome the world for the FIFA World Cup. This plan is our roadmap to leverage global atten - tion; showcase B.C. as a world-class destination; and en -

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6659 sure long-term, sustainable growth that benefits people throughout the province. This Tourism Week we thank the workers, business owners and partners who make visitors feel welcome and strengthen our communities every day. I ask members of this House to join me in celebrating their contributions. FRIENDS IN NEED FOOD BANK Lawrence Mok: I rise today to say that three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit a facility of the Friends in Need Food Bank Society, which has served the commun - ities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows for more than 30 years.

Friends in Need has become one of the region’s most innovative community food recovery operations, turn - ing what would otherwise be landfill food waste into nu - tritious meals for families, seniors and students. For ex - ample, each week Friends in Need supports nearly 1,000 households, including families with children and seniors living on fixed incomes. [10:20 a.m.] For many residents facing rising housing and grocery costs, this organization has become an essential lifeline. One of Friends in Need’s most impactful initiatives is the perishable food recovery program, operating 364 days a year.

Through partnerships with local grocery stores, fresh food that would otherwise go to waste is recovered and redistributed to families in need. Since launching the program, more than three million kilograms of food has been diverted from landfill. Friends in Need also plays an important role in sup - porting students across school district 42, helping pro - vide food for more than 2,700 students each week through school meal and snack programs. Beyond supporting fam - ilies and friends, Friends in Need also serves seniors and vulnerable students, including home delivery for those with mobility challenges.

What makes this work especially remarkable is that the organization operates without ongoing government funding, relying instead on the generosity of volunteers, donors, local businesses and community partners. There - fore, I would like to thank the staff, volunteers, donors and community partners who make this vital work possible. B.C. BOOK DAY Stephanie Higginson: Colleagues, I rise today to recog- nize B.C. Book Day, celebrated on April 21, and to honour the people who bring British Columbia stories to life.

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

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

We’re proud to support B.C.’s book publishing com - munity by making the book publishing tax credit perma - nent and continuing strong programs through Creative B.C. and B.C. Arts Council. We are supporting publishers to grow, ensuring B.C. remains a great place to create and publish books. On B.C. Book Day, one of the best ways to show sup - port is simple.

Buy a B.C.-published book — like the one I’m currently reading right now, Unceded, by a B.C. author, George Abbott, on a distinctly B.C. topic, published by a B.C. publisher; or the next one on my list, Rainbow Wis - dom, recently published by one of my own kick-ass con - stituents, Mischa Oak. I want to thank Creative B.C., Books B.C., Mags BC and everyone who supports B.C.’s publishing community. Please join me in celebrating B.C. Book Day and the stor - ies that connect us all. YOUTH SPORTS Linda Hepner: I am the grandmother of five boys: one in rugby, one in basketball, two in lacrosse and one in hockey.

My riding has sports fields, arenas, a pool. I speak today about something special, about the bond between young athletes and the people who stand behind them, usually on the sidelines, in the bleachers or in the car at 5 a.m. on the way to a practice. When we talk about youth sports, we often focus on the scoreboard — the wins, the losses, the championships. But the real story is quieter and far more powerful. It’s a commitment that doesn’t always show up in the highlight reel. For children, sport teaches discipline, resilience and teamwork.

They learn how to handle pressure, how to bounce back from disappointment and how to work to - ward something bigger than themselves. [10:25 a.m.] None of that happens in isolation. Behind every young athlete is a parent, guardian or family member making sacrifices of their own. They are investing time, energy and often significant financial resources, not for recogni - tion but for the opportunity to help their child grow. They

6660 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 show up — rain or shine, win or lose — offering encour - agement, perspective and sometimes just a warm drink and a listening ear. For the children, that commitment is felt. It becomes part of their own sense of responsibility to their team, to their goals and to the people who believe in them. Today let’s recognize that youth sports are about much more than competition. They’re about character, they’re about community, and they are about shared commitment between parents and children.

Because long after that final whistle blows, those are the lessons that truly last. WEST SHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Darlene Rotchford: Today I rise to recognize an im - portant milestone in my community, the 70th anniversary of our West Shore Chamber of Commerce. In my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood, I’m privileged to have three cham- bers, but this one is extra special this year, and I’m also a proud member of it. For seven decades, the chamber has been a cornerstone of economic growth in our West Shore.

It has brought together local business, supported entrepreneurs and helped shape a vibrant, resilient regional economy that reflects the energy and ambition of the people of our Western Communities and beyond. From small family- run shops to growing industries, the chamber has been a steady partner advocating, connecting and championing local business. That work matters more now than ever. Our government works with strategies about building on that foundation. It recognizes that B.C.’s future de - pends on strong, connected regional economies, especially here on south Vancouver Island.

By improving infrastruc - ture, supporting trade, investing in workforce develop - ment and strengthening local supply chains, we are creat - ing the condition for businesses to grow and communities to thrive. We know that success doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens through partnership between government, business leaders and organizations like the West Shore Chamber of Commerce. Together, we are helping local businesses reach new markets, attract investment and good-paying jobs right here at home and right here in our Western Communities.

We’re ensuring that the West Shore continues to be not just a great place to live but a great place to build a busi - ness and a future. On behalf of this House, I want to extend my sincerest congratulations to our West Shore Chamber of Commerce for 70 years of outstanding service. Here’s to the next 70 years of growth, collaboration and success. I look forward to next month celebrating it with you. Hon. Brittny Anderson: I didn’t realize before, but we also have the city of…. The Speaker: You’ll want to seek leave. Hon. Brittny Anderson: Oh, sorry. I went straight in there.

May I seek leave to make an introduction? Leave granted. The Speaker: Now you can do it. Introductions by Members Hon. Brittny Anderson: I just want to welcome…. We have representatives from the city of Prince George here today. I’m going to be meeting with them later. I know many of my colleagues have meetings with them as well. I just want everyone in the chamber to welcome them into our House. Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling) The Speaker: Hon.

Members, on Tuesday, April 14, fol- lowing the oral question period, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order on decorum in the House, noting that some heckling in the House has transcended into yelling. The Chair took the matter under advisement and is now prepared to rule on the point of order. The Chair agrees with the Leader of the Third Party that as the House inches toward the end of the sessional period, the temperature in the House is likely to rise. As such, the Chair will take the opportunity to encourage members to be mindful of their conduct.

A passionate and lively debate is welcome in this hub of democracy, but the Chair expects members to balance that with a respectful, productive and professional level of decorum that befits the high office that members hold. [10:30 a.m.] Oral Questions GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF DRIPA CONCERNS AND LEGAL ISSUES Á’a:líya Wa rbus: It is clear this government has no vi - able plan. This Premier has gone from stating that the amendments to DRIPA were “urgent, non-negotiable” and promised to bring them in “as quickly as possible.” At one point, he was willing to go to an election over these critical amendments.

Instead, he has kicked the can down the road, leaving British Columbia in limbo once again. Clearly, the Pre - mier has lost the confidence of his own caucus and this House. My question to the Premier is simple. Who is running this government?

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6661 Hon. David Eby: I am honoured to have the support of both my caucus and the House. If the member wishes to move a motion of confidence in the House, we can test her allegations. But I’m a little bit…. Well, I guess I’m not surprised to hear Conservative voices stand and speak against govern - ment taking the opportunity…. Interjection. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. David Eby: Yes, it is a multiple month delay but the opportunity to sit down… Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon.

David Eby: …with First Nations to come up with a durable and lasting solution to what the Court of Appeal decided in the Gitxaała decision. It is literally called the Declaration on the Rights of In - digenous Peoples Act. So the opportunity to sit down with First Nations Leadership Council, Modern Treaty Nations and Chiefs to see if we can find a path forward is one this government will not pass up. It is consistent with the pattern of this government of working with key stakeholders on hard issues. On health care, we sat down with family doctors.

We addressed the concerns that they had, and we connected 600,000 people with a family doctor as a result. We sat down with the development industry and, as a result, led Canada in the construction of rental housing, multi-unit housing in neighbourhoods across, bringing down rents faster than anywhere else in Canada. Our work with the private sector and on permits re - form has delivered $50 billion in major project invest - ments that are reaching final investment decision this year. We will continue this work.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental. Á’a:líya W a rbus: The offer to put a motion of confi - dence and the confidence of British Columbians in this government goes both ways. The Premier was quoted as saying, again, “It is, bluntly, unavoidable” regarding amendments to DRIPA. He also stated he’s “trying to find that path to respond to these court decisions.” The confusion and the frustrations are mounting. They are not subsiding. The framework does not seem clear.

This government’s approach changes day to day, and the Premier does not exclude the courts in this chaos, stating that the courts have “misunderstood the original intent of the legislation.” My question is very simple. Do the changes to DRIPA fall under the Attorney General, and, if not, who exactly is responsible to bring this clarity to British Columbians? Hon. David Eby: These are hard conversations. I’d say this is probably the most challenging issue that I have had to deal with as Premier. It is incredibly difficult to do two things.

One is to ad - dress the serious challenge these court decisions have pre - sented and, at the same time, work in close partnership with First Nations to be able to do the work to deliver the promise of this incredible province we live in. But I would take the hard conversations that we’re hav- ing with First Nations any day over the conversations the Conservatives are having right now about whether or not to let residential school deniers back into their caucus. Interjections. Hon. David Eby: I am serious.

Those are the conver - sations that the leadership candidates are having for the Conservative Party right now. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. David Eby: And if you want to find a path for - ward in this province… Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. David E by: …one that denies the existence of residential schools and the horrors that they brought, that denies the rights of Indigenous People, it will only end up costing jobs, opportunity and prosperity for the entire province. [10:35 a.m.] Scott McInnis: My goodness, I thought two-minute statements were over.

After flip-flopping three times on Sunday over the Dec - laration Act and what to do, the Premier emerged yester - day and said he has plan No. 6 to fix the legal chaos that we’re in. He said: “We’ll be working with First Nations to find a solution by the fall.” Wow, so much detail to digest. Could the Attorney General stand up, please, and give us a few more details about her new grand plan? Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Hon. David Eby: I would say that this House, on ser - ious issues, requires forthrightness and full disclosure.

6662 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members. Members on the opposition side, we can continue with that if you want. This is your time. Interjection. The Speaker: Okay, let’s keep it, then, that way. Hon. David Eby: The member in this House rose yesterday and said that I wrote a letter in support of an agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm First Nation that was re - cently announced.

What he didn’t disclose was that, ac - tually, there was a letter that expressed concern about how the federal government was approaching relations with xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm, excluding the province. Not only that, the letter was about a different agree - ment entirely that was released in March of last year. In addition, as part of the FOI package that was received by the member, there was an email. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, please. Interjection. The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, the Premier has the floor. Hon.

D avid E by: In the FOI package received by the member that he was citing, there was an email from the Deputy Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for the government of Canada, dated March 5, 2026 — the Dep - uty Minister of Indigenous Relations apologizing for failing to brief the government about the xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm agreement before it was announced. Now, the fact that the member would rise repeatedly in the House, despite having this in his package, tells you everything you need to know about what he is saying about our government’s relations with Indigenous People.

The Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke, supple - mental. Scott McInnis: It’s nice to finally get some answers on the xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm agreement from this Premier. In 2021, the Premier brought in amendments to the

Interpretation Act after a whopping 14 minutes of debate on the particulars. The changes stated that B.C. laws must be in alignment with UNDRIP. That’s exactly what the courts determined in Gitxaała. Then the Attorney Gen - eral blamed the courts. Could the Attorney General please stand up and ex - plain what exactly the courts got wrong? Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve been nothing but clear about our

interpretation and take on the Gitxaała decision. What we see is a… Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. Niki Sharma: …difference of opinion in what the court found and what our intent of the original legisla - tion was. It’s in our court arguments before the court. It’s in everything that the Premier said. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked about it repeatedly. We are seeking leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada to get that clarity, and we’re working with First Nations to figure out how we can amend or work through DRIPA to make sure that we’re protected.

We’ve said this multiple times, and we’ll continue to say that. The Speaker: I think I’m going to read my ruling again. I just read it before the question period. Be courteous. Be courteous, good listeners. That’ll help us all. FUNDING FOR SAANICH PENINSULA HOSPITAL Rob Botterell: We know the best health care is pre - ventive care. [10:40 a.m.] We also know that in this year’s budget, there is still going to be 20 percent of British Columbians who will re - main unattached to a primary care provider. That’s the tip of the iceberg.

Organizations like the Saanich Peninsula Hospital Foundation, in my riding, are cutting funding support and putting Saanich Peninsula Hospital at risk. It’s hard to keep a hospital open when you can’t pay the doctors. My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the min - istry or Island Health cover the $150,000 shortfall for this year if the Saanich Peninsula Hospital Foundation does not reverse its funding decision? Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

It’s been an extraordinary and somewhat unique relationship on the Saanich Peninsula between the health care foundation, primary care providers and the primary care network, working together to ensure that community physicians are able to fill shifts at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital, an important part of delivering care, particu -

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6663 larly for those people who are not attached to a primary care provider but still need that care while in the hospital. The Saanich Peninsula Hospital and Health Care Foun - dation have taken an independent decision to focus their efforts on recruitment and retention, which we all know is equally important. The society at Shoreline, where a num - ber of these primary care providers have been providing this doctor-of-the-day service at San Pen Hospital, have been filling those positions.

Island Health is in direct contact with the society and monitoring this, really valuing the work that doctors con - tinue to do to support the hospital. Of course, the ministry stands ready to support and serve, should we be called upon. The Speaker: Member, supplemental. ACCESS TO PRIMARY CARE SERVICES FOR SAANICH PENINSULA CLINIC PATIENTS Rob Botterell: On March 31 this year, the SPOT clinic closed in my riding, with over 500 patients, many of whom are in complex care.

One month ago I asked the minister to ensure that all these patients, many of whom are In - digenous, continue to have timely access to individualized primary care, the type of care they require. The minister assured me that attaching these patients to appropriate care is a top priority. We have reached out to the ministry on repeated occa - sions, and nobody can tell us exactly how many patients lost their physician when SPOT closed at the end of March or how many patients still remain unattached in mid- April. This is really unacceptable.

To the Minister of Health: what steps will you take to provide accurate information on unattached patients and ensure that they are all attached before the end of April? Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for his advocacy and the ongoing conversations around the SPOT clinic, which was providing care for some of the more complex and vulnerable individuals in the Saanich Peninsula Hospital. The Saanich Peninsula primary care network is work - ing with First Nations, the FNHA and the Ministry of Health to continue to deliver primary care out on the Saanich Peninsula.

There are 363 patients that were re - ceiving services or being cared for by the two physicians at the SPOT clinic. Some of those patients already had access to another primary care provider, but, as the member said, it is a priority to make sure that those remaining patients are able to be connected. The good news is that there is space in primary care providers to be able to attach these patients, and this pro - cess is ongoing.

The work includes identifying those com - plex patients that need attachment with W ̱ SÁNEĆ pri - mary care providers, with Island Health specialized ser - vices like mental health and substance use services. The four W̱ SÁNEĆ communities are leading primary care through new primary care resources through the pri - mary care network and their First Nations primary care initiative. The South Island Division of Family Practice is also engaged in this work. I’d be pleased to provide the member with a more de - tailed update. I know that Island Health has been in direct contact with the two physicians.

As I receive updates, I’ll be very pleased to pass them along to the member. [10:45 a.m.] PROPOSED CHANGES TO DRIPA AND CONTRACT FOR ADVISORY WORK BY FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER Lorne Doerkson: We know that this government loves to give out lucrative contracts to their friends and insiders. Doug Caul, a recently retired deputy minister, was hired by this government to give advice on amending DRIPA. Mr. Caul was the deputy minister when DRIPA was passed in 2019. His contract is worth $250,000, a quarter of a million dollars for amendments that are no longer going to come before this House.

What a tangled web this really is. Which is it: did the Premier reject the advice he paid $250,000 for, or did he cave to the pressure inside his own caucus? Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we’ve got to be careful when attacking career-long public servants who’ve served under governments of all political stripes. They provide good advice. They’ve provided good coun - sel to governments — whether or not they were Liberal or, in other cases, Conservative or Social Credit or New Democrat. It’s important that we value that experience without at - tacking them, because they’re working hard for the public.

Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. S pencer C handra H erbert: They are working as public servants to provide good advice on this and a num - ber of other files. I want to ensure that we provide the respect for people who work hard to benefit all British Columbians, and that is, indeed, what Mr. Caul has done. I believe that his valu - able work is benefiting all of British Columbia.

6664 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES AND CAR ALLOW ANCES FOR DEPUTY MINISTERS Bruce Banman: I think the minister confuses getting value for money over attacking a public servant. There’s a big difference. British Columbia lost 40,000 jobs in the last two months. However, we have learned that the Minister of Jobs isn’t overly concerned about B.C.’s job losses. He’s more con - cerned about getting his deputy minister a $14,000 car allowance. I would like an answer to my question.

How can the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth oversee the losses of 40,000 jobs, along with a $13.3 billion deficit, and then personally sign off, in good conscience, on a $14,000 car allowance for his deputy minister? Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member opposite makes ref - erence to an

article by the Canadian Taxpayers associa - tion that looks at a long-standing policy from 2013, where executives in the public service receive opportunity for a car allowance. To be clear, this is a long-standing policy, and our government…. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister an - swer, please. Hon. Brenda Bailey: Our government abides by these policies. However, it’s important to know that we are look- ing very broadly in our expenditure management review at all opportunities for us to pull back on spending. The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Bruce Banman: I guess we can look on the bright side. At least it wasn’t a $6,000 limo bill. So $345,000. That’s how much this government is spending on car allowances for just their deputy ministers. Meanwhile, British Columbians are being told that they need to tighten their belts. They need to pay more taxes. People have to choose between buying groceries or paying rent. That’s what they’re being asked to do.

To the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Re - duction, at a time when British Columbia is experiencing record food bank usage and lineups, my question, does she think it is acceptable for her deputy minister and CEO of CLBC to be receiving a whopping $14,000 car allowance? Hon. Brenda Bailey: This car allowance policy is from 2013. It’s a long-standing policy, and it’s important to recognize…. [10:50 a.m.] Interjections. The Speaker: Members, hold on to your opinions, please. Let the minister answer. Members. Interjection. The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South. The minister has the floor. Hon.

Brenda Bailey: It’s important to recognize the incredible contribution that our deputy ministers make to this province, and I will not have them besmirched by this accusation of overpayment. Our public service is an important contributor to how our province runs. We know that they make less than a comparable role in the private sector. We know that they make less than many public servants in their roles in other provinces. It’s very important that we can continue to at - tract strong people into these roles. This is part of that.

It is true that our government is looking very broadly at opportunities for expenditure management. But I do want to point out that the member speaks incorrectly to sug - gest that somehow we’re out of line in our taxes compared to other provinces. British Columbia remains extremely competitive. In fact, if you make $149,000 or less… Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. Brenda Bailey: …you are paying the lowest amount of tax of any taxpayer in Canada at that amount.

We take the job of managing public finances very ser - iously, and that is why you see, in Budget 2026, the de - cision to make very difficult choices. We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people. We’re slow - ing capital builds and re-pacing capital, and we’re taking modest measures to increase the public purse. In this day and age of these difficult times, it’s neces - sary, and this work needs to continue.

Reann Gasper: At a time when this government is cut - ting supports for children and families with autism, they have no problem giving their deputy ministers and asso - ciate deputy ministers car allowances for up to $1,200 a month, over $14,000 a year for deputy ministers to lease new vehicles. This government is paying for their deputy ministers to drive six-figure cars while families are losing funding needed to put their children through therapy. How can this government justify giving deputy min - isters $14,000 car allowances while ripping funding away from children with autism? Hon.

Brenda Bailey: Conservative math.

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6665 Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. Brenda Bailey: In Budget 2026, we added $475 million to that file. This budget made very difficult decisions, but we stood up for children and families, and we are proud of it. Interjections. The Speaker: Members, please. Hon. Brenda Bailey: Let’s be clear. We are talking about a group of deputy ministers…. You know how many are affected by this? Thirty-six people. There are 36,000 public servants… Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. Brenda B ailey: …and 0.1 percent have this bene - fit. The benefit was from 2013.

It’s a long-standing benefit so that we can compete for the best people to be in these roles. These people are not the 1 percent. They make less in these jobs than they would in the private sector. They make less in these jobs than comparable provinces. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. Brenda Bailey: We are proud of the work that they do. The Speaker: Members, when you have asked a ques - tion, have the courtesy to listen to the answer. It will take less time, and more questions can be asked. Okay?

FIFA WORLD CUP TICKETS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND PAVCO DIRECTORS Kristina L oewen: This government is not done giv - ing away cushy positions to friends and insiders. Recently they appointed Rob Fleming and Jane Shin, both former NDP MLAs, to the board of PavCo, conveniently right be - fore FIFA. Can the minister confirm that all tickets for elected of - ficials and PavCo directors will be publicly disclosed prior to each game? [10:55 a.m.] Hon.

Anne Kang: I could speak on behalf of govern - ment and MLAs that we will not be accepting any free tickets other than our protocols and the work that we need to do to be attracting businesses here, to be supporting our stakeholders. There will be a ticketing policy that will be coming out very soon, so the member opposite will be able to get an update soon. WORK OF CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISER AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE ISSUES Claire Rattée: Last week I asked the minister whether she agreed with her own handpicked chief scientific ad - viser, Dr.

Daniel Vigo, after he said that safe supply is a disincentive for treatment and that harm reduction for those with severe mental illness amounts to harm en - hancement. The minister refused to answer and instead doubled down on the very policies that he criticized. At the same time, this government is paying up to $1 million a year, plus expenses and salary support, for his advice and receiving quarterly reports that the public and opposition still haven’t seen, despite FOI requests filed last June. What concrete, measurable results has this million- dollar contract actually delivered for British Columbians? Hon.

Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. The advice and guidance that Dr. Vigo has been able to provide this government is unparalleled in terms of the ability that he has, the knowledge he has, the expertise he has in helping us understand better the needs, particu - larly of those British Columbians that are experiencing the concurrent disorders of severe mental illness, of brain injury and of addiction. These are individuals for whom they are not able to provide and seek the help that they need, and Dr. Vigo has helped us to understand what the needs are for those people.

That is why we are expanding involuntary care options. That’s why we’ve provided, through Dr. Vigo, in- creased guidance to those clinicians around interpreta - tions of the Mental Health Act as they apply to children, as they apply to people who are experiencing these con - current disorders. We’re going to continue that work with Dr. Vigo. He is producing a report, and we will have more to say about that soon. Claire Rattée: That response is exactly what I antici - pated.

If involuntary care is the only thing that this min - ister can point to for over $1 million worth of taxpayer- funded work, I hate to break it to the minister, but she just proved my point. This government already publicly committed to ex - panding involuntary care months before Dr. Vigo was even appointed. As far as I can see, the only meaningful advice that Dr. Vigo has provided government on the pub-

6666 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 lic record was his recent indictments of safe supply and decriminalization. So after nearly two years and millions of dollars in quarterly reports that the public still hasn’t seen, did this government pay for independent advice that it had no in - tention of following? Hon. Josie Osborne: I think the member missed part of the last answer that I provided — the service that Dr. Vigo is providing us in understanding more clearly that intersection of psychiatric disorders and severe mental ill - ness together with addictions.

This is an evolving area of science and medicine, and Dr. Vigo is on the very edge of that, helping us to provide better guidance to clinicians so they can best serve people who are experiencing those concurrent disorders. That is invaluable work. It is work that has not been done before.

It is work that is helping us every single day to identify those individuals who need that type of care at a time when we continue to build out the entire spectrum of mental health and substance use supports that British Columbians depend on — from early intervention, educa - tion and prevention; right through to different treatment options, bed-based and not; into recovery, helping people heal on that journey. Providing that very specific knowledge that Dr. Vigo has, again, has been invaluable service here to British Col - umbia. I’ll defend that work every single day.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF DRIPA CONCERNS AND LEGAL ISSUES AND ROLE OF

INTERPRETATION ACT Peter Milobar: It’s been interesting today that both the Premier, who’s a lawyer, and the Attorney General, who’s a lawyer, have been using very exacting language when they talk about the courts and the original intent around DR IPA. But the questions have actually been about the 2021 14-minute amendment to the

Interpretation Act that was brought in by the Premier when he was then the Attorney General and what exactly the courts got wrong with that ruling. [11:00 a.m.] Can we get very clearly on the record from the Attor - ney General, based on the

Interpretation Act changes from 2021 that impacted how the courts and how ministers are to interpret DRIPA in relation to decision-making — very clearly one of the few answers that were provided in that 14 minutes by the then Attorney General, now Premier — what exactly the courts got wrong, based on those chan - ges to the

Interpretation Act — not the original intent of DRIPA but the

Interpretation Act changes that this Pre - mier brought in, in 2021? Hon. Niki Sharma: Let me try this again. When we introduced the changes to the

Interpretation Act, and the Premier did as AG, and DRIPA, we stated our original in - tent of what they were meant to do. Our issue is with the Gitxaała Court of Appeal decision. We believe, and our arguments were very different than where the court landed, that they misinterpreted the ori - ginal intent of those legislative instruments that we intro - duced in the House. So we are appealing. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. N iki S harma: This is a normal course of things.

When we have challenges with court decisions, we appeal and we try to get a higher court to look at our arguments and correct the law on that. We are seeking that process. Yes, that is part of the appeal that we’re seeking about the

Interpretation Act and DRIPA. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call con - tinued second reading debate on Bill 9, the Freedom of In - formation and Privacy Act. In the Douglas Fir Room,

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

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Sup - ply, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. [Mable Elmore in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 9 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIV ACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 (continued) Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re continuing second reading for Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. Bryan Tepper: I will just pick up a little bit before I left off to keep continuity here and give it a third try at this. I understand the importance of judicial independence.

I understand the sensitivity of communications between the judiciary and the executive. But this provision is extra - ordinarily broad. It covers communications about pro - posed policies, proposed programs, proposed enactments. It covers communications made on behalf of a judicial of -

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6667 ficer, which could include staff, clerks or anyone claiming to speak for a member of the judiciary. And it is drafted as an absolute discretion of the head of the public body with no requirement to demonstrate harm, no balancing test and no obligation to disclose after any passage of time. This is a new exemption, carved out of whole cloth, and it should trouble anyone who believes the public has a right to understand how its laws and policies are shaped. I also want to touch on clause 15, which is amending

section 56. Currently there’s a hard limit on inquiries into review — 90 days. This bill allows the commissioner to specify a later date. [11:05 a.m.] So we have a system where the government delays the initial response. Then, if you are lucky enough to get a re - view, the commissioner can now delay the review indefin - itely and specify a later date. What date — next year, next election cycle? Justice delayed is justice denied. Informa - tion delayed is democracy denied. Why are they doing this? Why, in 2026, are we mov - ing backward on transparency?

It’s because this NDP gov- ernment has realized that their policies cannot withstand scrutiny. They don’t want you to see the internal memos on why the decriminalization of hard drugs failed so spectacularly. They don’t want you to see the real data on their housing starts, which are plummeting, despite their announcements. They don’t want you to see the correspondence regard - ing the cost overruns on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain or the North Shore wastewater treatment plant. They don’t want you to see the deals regarding Indigenous land claims that are being cut without public consultation.

If they were proud of their record, they would open the filing cabinets. They would say: “Look at what we did.” But they’re not proud; they’re afraid. They’re afraid of the voters. When the Premier took office, he promised a different way of doing things, though the only thing that is differ - ent is the creativity they apply to censorship. It’s the same old NDP. I want to return to that phrase in clause 13: “unreason - ably interfere” with the operations of government. Let us be clear. The Freedom of Information Act is an interfer - ence. That’s its purpose.

It was designed to interfere with the natural tendency of power to protect itself. When the government spends $100 million on a com - puter system that doesn’t work, an FOI request interferes with their attempt to cover it up. When the Minister of Health fails to hire the doctors promised, an FOI inter - feres with the ability to spin the numbers. When the Min - ister of Reconciliation says he knew nothing of granting Indigenous title over most of the LMD, what is obvious to everyone is that this government knew exactly what was going on.

This bill allows them to hide the briefings that they re - ceived under the premise that it would interfere with this government’s secret negotiations. By making interference a grounds for rejection, the NDP is essentially saying: “You can only have the information if it doesn’t bother us. You can only have the information if it doesn’t make our jobs harder.” That’s not how democracy works. The government works for the people. The records belong to the people. The people have a right to be a nuisance. The people have a right to be repetitious if they aren’t getting the truth.

I want to highlight the transition clauses again, spe - cifically clause 26. It says that the new stricter detail re - quirements in clause 2, the reasonable-time excuse, do not apply to retroactive requests. However, clause 28 says that the “malicious” and “interference” excuses do apply retroactively. Look at how carefully this is crafted. It cherry-picked which rules apply backward to maximize the ability to kill existing requests. This is weaponizing the transition. It’s clearing the decks. Furthermore, this deserves special attention.

Clause 28 makes the expanded grounds for dis - regarding a request retroactive. The transitional provision states that

section 43, as amended by this bill, “applies to requests received before, on or after the date this

section comes into force” — retroactive. Requests that have already been filed — requests from journalists, from opposition researchers, from concerned citizens — can now be subjected to these new, broader, un - defined grounds for dismissal. The government can reach back in time and make inconvenient questions disappear. [11:10 a.m.] If that does not chill the blood of every person who values democracy and accountability, I do not know what will. This bill is an admission of failure.

Only a govern - ment that has lost control of the narrative, only a govern - ment that has lost the trust of the people feels the need to hide to this extent. The Conservative caucus believes in an open, transpar - ent and accountable government. We believe that if you spend the public’s money, the public has a right to see the receipts. We believe that if you make decisions about pub - lic land, the public has a right to see the negotiations. This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It takes the “free” out of freedom of information by adding fees.

It takes the information out by creating broad, undefined categories for rejection. It empowers the government to label its critics as malicious. It empowers the bureaucracy to hide behind unreasonable interference. When you step back and look at this bill as a whole, not clause by clause but as a complete picture, the pattern is unmistakable. This is not a transparency bill. This is a se - crecy bill. Clause 2 makes it easier to reject requests. Clause 3 weakens the duty to respond. Clause 7 creates new exemp - tions from disclosure. Clause 13 massively expands

6668 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 the grounds on which requests can be ignored entirely. Clause 21 introduces fees for proactive disclosures. And clause 28 makes the expanded grounds retroactive. This is not a bill to modernize the FOI Act — that free - dom of information. It is a bill to immunize the NDP from accountability. We’ve seen the scandals, we’ve seen the mismanagement, and now we see the cover-up. I wanted to bring up — today, alone, we saw the power of a freedom-of-information request, when the Premier….

Actually, let me back up, because I was questioning how a freedom-of-information request came in so quickly around the issues of the xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm land deal yesterday. And today we find out it was from a previous issue. I mean, I’m thankful that the NDP agrees that they did know about the xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm land deal now through that Freedom of Information Act request. But again, if we had been relying on the later information request, we wouldn’t be expecting to see it for months from now. We are now just getting a freedom-of-information request from last year.

So I urge every member of this House who believes in the fundamental democratic principle of transparency to reject this bill. Do not give this secretive government more shadows to hide in. The people of British Columbia de - serve the truth. Bill 9 is designed to ensure they never get it. Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Free - dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amend - ment Act, 2026. I want to be clear from the outset.

I’m deeply concerned about this legislation, not just because of what it does on its own but because of what it repre - sents as a part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern we are seeing from this government, a pattern of less transparency, less accountability and more control over information. [11:15 a.m.] We have seen the use of NDAs, non-disclosure agree - ments, used extensively by this government and through - out different ministries.

And we have seen in the public domain the complaints from the public and the media about the lack of transparency that is happening in gov - ernment negotiations, in government deals. This is very concerning. Just in the latest budget from this government, we saw an abolishing of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. The Office of the Merit Commissioner is supposed to bring transparency to decisions of hiring and firing, in terms of human resources. Yet that office is now being taken out. That’s another element of lack of transparency.

Now we are seeing this bill, which is attempting to re - strict information that the public can receive in regards to government decisions. This is very, very concerning, be - cause we are seeing a long-standing trend of lack of trans - parency and secrecy on the part of this government. So a troubling pattern is emerging. Like I said, Bill 9 does not exist in isolation. It is a part of a pattern that we are seeing, a pattern where this gov - ernment is steadily closing doors that should remain open. I’ve mentioned three specific incidents about this pat - tern.

One we see with this bill, Bill 9, that deals with the restrictions to freedom of information. Another, I’ve ex - plained, is in regards to the removing of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. And thirdly, I’ve mentioned exten - sive use of non-disclosure agreements. When you view the substance of this bill, Bill 9 will al - low to charge a fee to access information. That will fur - ther create an impediment for accessing information. We have seen trends where there are less disclosure requests when there are fees involved. And that takes away from accountability.

This government has said that they’re bringing this bill forward for efficiency purposes. But in the language of this bill, there are aspects where you can extend the time period of when disclosure must be made. A signifi - cant factor is that there is vague language used through - out this bill on where the government can now decide if a request fits the bill of some of this vague language. Ac - cess can be impeded to information. That does not serve the public. That does not serve public transparency of the government. Transparency is not optional in a democracy. It is es- sential.

It is what allows the public to trust their govern - ment. It is what allows this Legislature to function prop - erly. And it is what ensures that power is exercised re - sponsibly. When transparency is reduced, accountability suffers. When accountability suffers, public trust erodes. This is why this bill and its contents matter so much to be debated. [11:20 a.m.] It is a core responsibility of the government to have transparency, to be accountable to the public. But when you put restrictions, through this legislation, on whether information can be accessed in the first place….

Secondly, a fee being payable creates a huge obstacle for accessing information to hold the government account - able. That’s a huge problem. At its core, Bill 9 limits British Columbians’ access to government information. It does so in a few ways. It expands the government’s ability to ignore or dismiss FOI requests. This is troublesome. How can the govern - ment allow for behaviour that’s going to ignore or dismiss FOI requests from the public? That is deeply troubling and concerning. Also, this bill introduces new fees for accessing infor - mation.

This information, the government’s information, is the public’s information. The government governs for the public, so it doesn’t make any sense when the govern - ment is adding new fees to impede the public from view - ing government actions and decisions being made. It doesn’t make any sense.

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6669 This legislation, Bill 9, weakens the standards and timelines for responses. The government has argued that this bill will create some efficiency for accessing informa - tion. But if you look at the essence of this bill and you look at the language of this bill, you will see there are also some discretionary measures where timelines can be extended. When timelines can be extended, it defeats the purpose or the intent that the government is saying that they’re bring- ing forward this legislation. We know what will definitely happen.

It won’t be ef - ficiency in accessing information or processing freedom- of-information requests. What this bill will actually do, despite what the government is saying that this bill will do, is minimize scrutiny of the government. It will mini - mize accessing information or evidence to hold this gov - ernment accountable. Now, just in the public domain, there was a media re - port that this government spent $165,000 on coffee for an event in the U.S. That’s $165 per coffee cup. When that came out in the public, there was uproar. The pub - lic doesn’t agree with that. The public does not agree with that.

The public agrees that there needs to be transparency. The public should have access to that information. That’s the point. Public should have access to that information. What this legislation is going to do is make it tougher for accessing information such as that. The information that came about…. There were reports that this type of legislation is going to make it more difficult to get that type of information. That’s the point. [11:25 a.m.] It’s the process. It’s the transparency. That’s what I’m getting at. Providing transparency is the utmost respon - sibility of the government.

If you take that to the public, do you think the government should be less transparent or more transparent? I’m pretty sure the public is going to say the government should be more transparent. That’s the point that I’m trying to make here. There are some real troubling issues with some of the language of this bill. Some of the impediments I spoke about earlier. I was speaking to vague, undefined terms that appear throughout this legislation, where informa - tion can be restricted.

For example, the bill talks about how information can be restricted where there are issues of abusiveness, mali - cious or repetitious or excessively broad requests and re - quests that may unreasonably interfere with operations of the government.

When you look at these words where information requests can be restricted, they can be re - stricted where the government feels the requests are abu - sive, where the government feels the requests are mali - cious, where the government feels that the requests are repetitive, where the government feels the requests are ex - cessively broad and where the government feels that the requests may lead to unreasonably interfering with oper - ations of the government. We’ve seen examples of legislation from this House that have resulted throughout the court process.

We’ve seen court cases that are interpreting legislation passed from this House. We’ve seen the government state it wasn’t the intent of the government to have certain legislation in - terpreted how the courts are interpreting that legislation. Now, when you have overly broad terms used in this par - ticular bill, where the government can prohibit access to information based upon certain categoric words that can be interpreted quite broadly, there can be a significant re - striction on how much information the public gets access to. This is a problem.

This is a problem when you have vague wording that can allow for restricting of informa - tion. None of these terms that I just spoke about are well defined. They are left entirely open to

interpretation. And who is actually doing the interpreting? Well, the inter - preting is going to be done by the government, so there are these broad words used, which will allow for the restrict - ing of information to the public. These broad words that are used for restricting infor - mation access.... The

interpretation of those words will be left to the government. That’s an issue because, on one hand, there are transparency issues. There is an overall pattern of a lack of transparency happening. On the other hand, there is more legislation such as Bill 9 that’s being brought forward, where there are restrictions put in place to future requests for information. [11:30 a.m.] The

interpretation of those restrictive words is going to be left to the government to decide what those restrict - ive words mean and whether requests can be denied. At a time where we are seeing a pattern of lack of transparency, the government should be bringing bills to this House that provide more transparency, not less. This bill is deeply troubling. There are huge risks in - volved in terms of the vague language in this bill, as I’ve mentioned. I’ve enumerated the different words that can be used to restrict access to information.

I’ll just give a few examples of how the vague terms create a problem for ac - cessing information in practice. The use of these vague terms restricting information means that requests that are inconvenient to the govern - ment can be labelled in ways that justify ignoring them. It means that persistent applicants, people who are sim - ply trying to get answers, can be dismissed as repetitious, can be dismissed for their persistence in trying to access information.

What these vague terms of restriction mean is that broad requests, often necessary to uncover systematic issues, can be dismissed as excessively broad. These vague terms of restriction also mean that any request that cre - ates political discomfort could be framed as interfering with government operations. We’re dealing with a danger-

6670 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 ous precedent here in terms of unjustly restricting infor - mation to the public with this bill. As I mentioned, we’re dealing with a government that’s already struggling with transparency issues. This is where context matters, because this is not a government with a strong track record of transparency. This is a government that has already faced criticism for being overly secretive. When the same government brings forward legislation that expands its ability to ignore information requests, we have every reason to be concerned.

This legislation has a provision that allows the govern - ment to charge fees for records that currently don’t have an impediment of pricing involved or fees involved. This is problematic. Bringing in new fees is problematic. Put - ting new fees on information that is supposed to be infor - mation of public domain is problematic. [11:35 a.m.] This legislation also raises a simple but important ques - tion: should British Columbians have to pay to access in - formation that already belongs to them? That is what this bill enables.

This bill creates a system where transparency can be paywalled, and that’s not acceptable. Again, this bill and what it brings in terms of lack of transparency fit into a broader pattern. The government has already introduced fees into the FOI system. This gov - ernment was warned at that time that it would reduce ac - cess, and now instead of removing barriers, they are add - ing more. Step by step, access to information is becoming more difficult, more expensive and more restricted.

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

Putting Bill 9 into the bigger picture, we are seeing a step back from transparency. The government is expand - ing its ability to refuse information requests. The govern - ment is introducing new costs for access. The government is weakening response timelines and operating within a broader pattern of secrecy, from NDAs to removing in - dependent oversight to now limiting access to informa - tion. This is not a coincidence; this is a direction of this government. Public trust is at stake. The real issue here is trust, pub - lic trust.

Once people start to believe that a government is hiding information, once the public start to believe that access is being restricted and once the public start to feel that they are being shut out, that very public trust is very difficult to rebuild. Freedom of information is not a technical issue. It is a democratic principle. It ensures that governments remain accountable to the people they serve, but Bill 9 moves us in the wrong direction. It limits access, it introduces costs, and it expands the government’s ability to avoid scrutiny.

Perhaps most concerning of all, this bill fits into a broader and troubling pattern of reduced transparency from this government. From NDAs to eliminating oversight to restricting ac - cess to information, British Columbians are seeing a gov - ernment that is becoming less open, not more, and that should concern every member of this House. [11:40 a.m.] Kristina Loewen: There is something that sits at the very heart of a functioning democracy: transparency. Free - dom-of-information laws exist for a simple but powerful reason. Government works for the people, not the other way around.

When citizens elect representatives and fund programs through their taxes, they have the right to know how those decisions are being made, how their money is being spent and whether those in power are acting responsibly. Freedom of information is one of the primary tools that allows that scrutiny to happen. It allows journalists to in - vestigate stories that matter to the public. It allows citizens to understand decisions affecting their communities. And it allows members of this Legislature, both government and opposition, to ensure accountability.

In British Columbia, our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was designed to ensure that re - cords held by public bodies can be accessed by the pub - lic, while still protecting privacy and security where ne - cessary. It recognizes a simple principle, that information created by government ultimately belongs to the public. History has shown that when access to information is strong, democracy itself is stronger. Across Canada and here in British Columbia, some of the most import - ant public interest stories have come from freedom-of- information requests.

Journalists use these requests to ob - tain briefing notes, internal emails and policy documents that reveal how decisions were made behind the scenes. Those records shine a light on government activity that might otherwise remain hidden. This is not something governments should fear; it’s something governments should welcome. Transparency is not only about releasing documents. It’s also about allowing the public to understand the data behind government decisions.

Too often British Colum - bians hear headline numbers — the cost of a program, the number of housing units built or the size of an invest - ment — without seeing the records that explain how those numbers were calculated. British Columbians deserve to understand how those numbers are built. Does a statistic include all the variables? Does it ac - count for the full cost of taxes, fees, admin and long-term

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6671 impacts? Without access to the underlying records, the public cannot properly evaluate whether a policy is work - ing or whether the numbers being presented tell the full story. Freedom of information is often the only tool available to uncover those details, and when that access becomes more difficult, the public’s ability to evaluate govern - ment decisions becomes weaker. When access to infor - mation becomes restricted, suspicion grows.

People begin to wonder what information they are not seeing, and that is exactly why freedom-of-information laws must always lean towards openness. Transparency lends itself towards trust. It’s trust-building. Freedom of information is not just used by journalists or political actors. Everyday British Columbians use it as well. In the Okanagan region, we are seeing increasing numbers of citizens turning to freedom-of-information re- quests to better understand decisions affecting their com - munities.

The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen recently reported that freedom-of-information requests from the public have more than doubled in recent years, with dozens of requests submitted for records ranging from planning decisions to government communications. Many of these requests are not coming from lawyers or large media organizations. They are coming from or - dinary residents — people trying to understand why a decision was made; people seeking information that may affect their neighbourhood, their property or their liveli - hoods. That is transparency in action.

It is citizens partici - pating in their democracy. When those requests are an - swered openly, it builds confidence that public institutions are working in the public interest. Transparency is not a partisan issue. It is not a Con - servative or an NDP issue. It is democratic, a democratic principle. No matter who forms government, the public must have the ability to ask questions and receive answers.

That is why legislation affecting freedom of information deserves careful scrutiny in this Legislature. [11:45 a.m.] When access to information becomes more difficult, when requests can be dismissed more easily or new bar - riers created, it does not simply affect journalists or pol - itical opponents. It affects every British Columbian who wants to understand how their government operates. That’s why this debate around Bill 9 matters so much. The strength of our democracy depends not only on elec- tions but on the ability of the public to see what their gov - ernment is doing between those elections.

Transparency is not a threat to good government; it’s what makes a good government possible. Before we can properly debate Bill 9, it’s important that British Columbians understand what this legislation does. When we strip away the legislative language and technical wording, the reality is quite simple. Bill 9 makes it easier for a government to refuse freedom-of-information re - quests and harder for citizens to obtain records that be - long to the public. It does this in two key ways. First, it expands the grounds government can use to ask that requests be dis - missed.

Second, it introduces new fees related to records that are supposed to be proactively disclosed. Let us begin with the first change. Under clause 13, Bill 9 expands the categories government bodies can use to ask the Office of the Information and Privacy Com - missioner to dismiss a request entirely. The bill introdu - ces terms such as “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “ex- cessively broad” or requests that “unreasonably interfere” with operations of government. At first glance, these phrases may sound reasonable. No one would argue that a truly abusive request should over - whelm public institutions.

But the concern here is not the intention; it is the wording. These are broad and subject - ive terms. What is excessively broad to a ministry might simply be a citizen trying to understand a complicated issue. What is considered repetitious could be someone following up on incomplete or heavily redacted records. And what is deemed to interfere with operations could simply mean a request that asks difficult questions. Public bodies already have the ability to apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard abu - sive requests. That authority already exists.

Bill 9 expands those powers further, and that raises a reasonable ques - tion. If government already has tools to deal with abusive requests, why widen these powers? This concern is not theoretical. We have already seen situations in British Columbia where public bodies have argued that requests interfered with their operations. For example, in the Okanagan, the district of Summerland applied to the Privacy Commissioner to limit a resident’s freedom-of-information request after dozens of submis - sions related to municipal decisions and bylaw matters.

The commissioner ultimately allowed the municipality to disregard multiple requests because responding would generate tens of thousands of pages of records and require significant staff time. That case demonstrates something important. The system already has mechanisms to deal with extreme cir - cumstances. What Bill 9 risks doing is widening the defin - ition of what counts as a problem request. Once that door opens, legitimate requests, including those from journal - ists and citizens asking difficult questions, could be dis - missed more easily.

Freedom-of-information requests often begin broadly because the public simply does not know what records exist inside government. Citizens cannot request a docu - ment that they do not know exists. Instead, they request categories of records — emails, briefing notes, internal re - ports — that may shed light on how a decision was made. If government gains the ability to dismiss requests simply

6672 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 because they are considered too broad, the risk is that im - portant records will never see the light. And that matters. Many of the most important public interest stories in Canada have come from freedom-of-information requests — internal emails revealing policy decisions, reports iden - tifying problems in public programs, records explaining how key decisions were made. Those revelations are not always comfortable for governments, but they are essen - tial for democracy. The second major change appears in clause 21.

This provision would allow public bodies to charge fees for copies of records, even when those records are made avail - able through proactive disclosure. The entire purpose of proactive disclosure is to make information available to the public without requiring formal requests. It’s meant to increase transparency. Charging fees for those records undermines that prin - ciple. It creates a financial barrier to accessing informa - tion that should already be public. [11:50 a.m.] Students, researchers, journalists and community or - ganizations often operate with limited resources.

When fees become part of the system, some people simply stop asking for records. And when fewer people ask questions, fewer answers come to light. In the Okanagan, we have seen how freedom of infor - mation can help residents understand decisions made by local governments. Across municipalities and regional districts, residents regularly use freedom-of-information requests to obtain records about development approv - als, bylaw enforcement decisions, contracts and internal communications.

Local governments maintain extensive lists of docu - ments that are only available through freedom of informa - tion, everything from contracts and development files to expense claims and internal reports. These records allow residents to understand decisions affecting their neigh - bourhoods and their communities. When residents ques - tion a development decision, when they want to know how tax dollars are being spent, when they want to see the background behind a policy decision, freedom of infor - mation provides that path to answers. The challenge with Bill 9 is not that it introduces one dramatic change.

It introduces a series of small barriers. Each one may appear minor on its own, but together, they move the system in a different direction, a direction where requests can be dismissed more easily, where fees discour - age access and where citizens must work harder to obtain information that ultimately belongs to them. That is why this legislation deserves careful scrutiny. At the heart of this debate is a very simple question. If the information created by government ultimately belongs to the public, why are we making it harder for the public to access it?

If the records exist because taxpayers funded the work that produced them, why are taxpayers being asked to pay again to see them? [The Speaker in the chair.] These are not partisan questions. They’re democratic ones, ones that I’m asking for all British Columbians to - day. The strength of our institutions does not come from controlling information. It comes from trusting the public with it. And the strength of our democracy is measured not by how easily government operates in private but how open it is to the people it serves.

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

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place to continue at the next sitting and move adjournment of debate. Kristina Loewen moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Susie Chant:

Section A reports progress on Bill 14 and asks leave to sit again. Leave granted. Sunita D hir: Committee of Supply,

Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and asks leave to sit again. Leave granted. Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today. The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6673 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room The House in Committee,

Section A. The committee met at 11:08 a.m. [Susie Chant in the chair.] Committee of the Whole BILL 14 — FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 (continued) The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Com - mittee of the Whole on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amend - ment Act, 2026, to order. On clause 5 (continued). Ward Stamer: On clause 5, we had a fairly lengthy dis - cussion yesterday on the contract logging authorization portion of it. Just looking for a little bit more clarification from the minister on this.

When we talked about the minister’s remarks about stringent requirements and regulations, that also comes back to the operational plan that is mentioned throughout Bill 14. Does Bill 14 add additional standards and restric - tions that are already currently in the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Act? [11:10 a.m.] Hon. R avi P armar: Happy to walk the member through this again. As I noted several times yesterday in discussion on previous acts, everyone is to abide by the Forest Act and FRPA. The use of the word “stringent” is not something new that is just being added as it relates to this legislation.

It was amended. The Forest Act and FRPA were amended in 2024, in relation to the use of cutting permits and road permits as well. I would remind the member again that the intent of government, through these changes in relation to the word “stringent,” is to talk about the specifying of the work as it relates to contract logging, making sure that we’re not just aligning the work to the legislation but actually giving the specifics around how we do that. Ward Stamer: To further that, as we were talking about those standards….

The reason why I’m also bringing it up is that with policy and regulation changes through FRPA, there have already been some significant changes in the authority when it comes to setting up, designing and de - veloping blocks throughout the province of British Col - umbia. A lot of the work that was previously done by li - censees has now been shifted over to government. When we start looking through these lenses at oper - ational plans and forest stewardship plans, we also look at…. When we talk about standard-making bodies, what other standard-making bodies are being involved in this process?

When we talk about designing these blocks and designing where we’re logging and having changes to policy and regulation…. My question is: are there additional rules and regula - tions that are going to be superseding what’s already in the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Act inasmuch as…? Will there be more stringent environmental conditions that are higher than what is currently the standard in our statutory law? Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m not entirely sure what the member refers to when he says that industry had a role to play in terms of designing and that now government has somehow taken that on.

I’m just not aware of what exactly he’s referring to, so if he wants to go down that road in re- lation to clause 5, I’m happy to take questions. I just want to remind the member again that the intent when we talk about stringent regulations is to ensure that we’re specifying the work and aligning it with FRPA and providing that discretion to timber sale managers. That is the intent of the legislation. That is the intent as we speak to the work that could happen with contract logging. In relation to standard-making bodies, we touched on this yesterday.

Third-party certification is the only intent there for the Ministry of Forests as it relates to that part of the legislation. Ward Stamer: Maybe just for clarification, can the minister explain what the third-party accreditation or the third parties are in that process? Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re really proud to have a part - nership with SFI, the sustainable forestry initiative. B.C. Timber Sales utilizes that as their third-party certification. Ward Stamer: When we talk about the contractor log - ging authorization….

I think we talked a little bit about it yesterday, and I’d like to be able to ask a couple more questions when it comes to that. If BCTS is going to be re - sponsible for the work that’s going to be taken forth on the ground in a particular block, inasmuch as instead of…. In the past, the timber would be sold, and somebody would assume the licence and go and do the logging. [11:15 a.m.] Who, ultimately, is responsible if there’s any environ - mental damage that is created in that process by the con - tract logger? Hon. R avi P armar: It would be B.C. Timber Sales, un -

6674 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, April 21, 2026 less the individual doing the work is in violation of the contract. Ward Stamer: To expand a little bit more on that, does the minister have any examples of what the bidding pro - cess and deposits may look like with those risks? Currently with the BCTS program, a contract logger that would turn around and purchase that licence, in all reality, assumes many of the risks that could happen on the ground, and that is their legal responsibility in that set-up.

So if the minister is going to be changing the param - eters on how that work is going to be done, can the min - ister explain what the bidding process and, possibly, the deposits would look like on trying to form that risk pack - age so that BCTS isn’t totally on the hook if there’s any damage done? Can he elaborate a little bit more on what BCTS is looking at doing? Hon. Ravi Parmar: I remind the member that, as we touched on yesterday, the intent is for us to ensure that the work that we’re doing aligns with the government pro- curement process set by the Minister of Finance.

As it relates to deposits, I would advise the member that we’re not at the stage yet where we have specifics. We would be working, past royal assent, with the Truck Log - gers Association, Interior Logging Association, North West Loggers Association and the contracting community to be able to engage on the best approach forward. I think it’s a reasonable question and something we’ll certainly be looking at once we get through royal assent. Ward St amer: To further that, what are the levels of qualifications that are also going to be used? I’m sure that those are going to be forthcoming as well.

Can the min - ister give us a couple of examples of what types of levels of qualifications the ministry will be looking for in these contract logging authorizations? Hon. Ravi Parmar: As we touched on yesterday, we will be working, once royal assent is received on Bill 14, with the contracting community on preset qualifications. We’re looking forward to doing that work with them. I would note for the member…. Experience, their re - cord, whether they are safety certified and whether they have suitable equipment are examples that the member is probably looking for, in terms of what we would be look - ing for.

Ward Stamer: As the minister just mentioned equip - ment, are there going to be very specific lists of equipment that these contractors are going to need in the perform - ance of these duties, or will there still be the flexibility of the contractor base to determine how that work is actually going to be done on the ground? Hon. Ravi Parmar: It really depends on the contract and the type of work that is underway, but the intent of the Ministry of Forests and B.C.

Timber Sales is to be able to work with the contracting community, because we want the contracting community to be able to take advan - tage of these opportunities when they arise. [11:20 a.m.] Ward Stamer: Is the minister aware of any contract thresholds that are going to be required for First Nations contractors? Hon. Ravi Parmar: No. Ward Stamer: On the contract authorization, when we talked about risk yesterday, we also talked a little bit about the opportunities with BCTS, where BCTS may put, through their program of bidding for licences, First Na - tion blocks.

I’d like a little bit more information on this. Again, it goes back to the clause 5 with the contractor log - ging authorization and some of the risks that could be as - sociated with the work and possible risks not only to the contractor but also to the government. Can the minister expand a little bit more on the risk factors if BCTS assumes a block that has been developed by First Nations and bids it onto their website and, ultim - ately, takes chain of custody on that? Is that risk now as - sumed by the provincial government and the BCTS, or is that risk shared with First Nations?

Can the minister explain to me how that risk actually works out? Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re in the early stages where we are developing more of these partnerships, so there’s ob - viously nothing yet in relation to contract logging because Bill 14 hasn’t passed yet. I would advise the member…. As I touched on yester - day, there have been examples where First Nations…. I’m not aware of community forests. I’ll check in with my team in regards to that. But certainly, First Nations have used the BCTS auction system to use our bidding pro - cess, and, in that case, we would have an agreement in place with them.

It would depend on the agreement, but, in many cases, that would be a shared responsibility and shared risk as well. Ward Stamer: To further that from the minister, is that a statutory decision that’s going to have to be made, or is that a policy or regulation to be made on sharing that risk? Hon. Ravi Parmar: There’s nothing in Bill 14 that speaks to the statutory piece that the member is referring to. That would just sit in the agreements that we would have with nations. I have been advised by my team that we have had similar cases with community forests as well.

Tuesday, April 21, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6675 Ward St amer: The reason I’m asking these lines of questions is because they refer directly back to clause 5 about the contractor obligations.

Again, if BCTS ends up developing a block with their people and whether they put that block on the auction system the way we have now where a contractor ends up purchasing the fibre and being responsible for everything that occurs on that block or on that licence…. [11:25 a.m.] Now, all of a sudden, we end up having a situation where BCTS could turn around and offer up the same type of process to a block where there’s a contract logging authorization. They’re basically going to pay for the log - ger to be on the block, and that block is not developed by BCTS. It could be developed by somebody else.

Is that going to be occurring, or is that something that BCTS is not going to be responsible for? On one hand, the minister talks about having other blocks that are part of the auctioning system. Is BCTS assuming any responsibil - ity on those blocks that have not been developed by BCTS personnel? Hon. R avi Parmar: I just want to be very clear. There are many examples where B.C. Timber Sales goes out and purchases blocks from licensees. There are countless ex - amples of that. The member is well aware of that. But they have to meet our standards. If it doesn’t meet our stan - dards, we wouldn’t proceed.

Ward Stamer: Okay. For clarification, then, if we’re going to be talking about accreditation and talking about licensees…. If a First Na - tion may not be a licensee but may be in an operational area, is it still going to be acceptable in BCTS’s eyes to be able to accept those permits from First Nations? Is there still going to have to be a licence designation from them to be able to offer that process? Because right now…. The minister is correct. BCTS is actively pursuing and trying and purchasing standing timber inventory from the licensees on blocks that have already been developed.

My question is a little bit further down the line. Are we going to be accepting permits from First Nations on the same level as from licensees? The Chair: Can I ask the member to advise me how this is tied in with clause 5, please. Ward Stamer: I will, Madam Chair, because it comes back to risk. Who is assuming the risk on those blocks? Is it the government? Is it the licensees that put them up? Is it a partnership? If somebody makes a mistake on the layout of one of those blocks and there’s environmental damage, someone is going to have to pay for that dam - age.

Unless we have control of, actually, who is developing those blocks, somebody has to assume that risk if some - thing goes wrong. No different than if I purchase a B.C. timber sale right now. I do something wrong and it’s proven that I did something wrong and I caused environmental damage, I’m responsible for that. So it’s no different than if BCTS is going to turn around and take responsibility on an exist - ing block from either another licensee or being developed by somebody else. I just want clarification that the BCTS is not assum - ing that risk from those other licensees or

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260421am-Hansard-n158
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260421am Hansard n158
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	522beb90bba9f85b2691414059b42fa82bce1228

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