Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, April 20, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 157

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Creative Industries Week

Janet Routledge

Support Services for Seniors in Peachland and West Kelowna

Macklin McCall

National Volunteer Week

Sunita Dhir

Community Service and Volunteerism in Abbotsford-Mission Area

Reann Gasper

Vancouver Goldeneyes Hockey Team

Susie Chant

B.C. Trappers Association

Sheldon Clare

Question of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling)

Oral Questions

Government Handling of DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Trevor Halford

Hon. David Eby

Hon. Niki Sharma

Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation and Government Handling of Land Title Issues

Scott McInnis

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Government Handling of DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Scott McInnis

Hon. David Eby

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Action on Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Conditions at Hospitals

Gavin Dew

Hon. Josie Osborne

Access to Acute Psychiatric Care at Hospitals

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Primary Health Care Providers and Attachment Numbers

Brennan Day

Hon. Josie Osborne

Tabling Documents

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2025

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Linda Hepner

Garry Begg

Gavin Dew

Darlene Rotchford

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Diana Gibson

Kiel Giddens

Donegal Wilson

Jody Toor

Heather Maahs

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Bryan Tepper

Bill M233 — Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Ward Stamer

Rob Botterell

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness

Hon. Kelly Greene

Sheldon Clare

Ian Paton

Monday, April 20, 2026

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Kiel Giddens : Joining us in the gallery today is a delegation from the great city of Prince George,

the northern capital. We’ve got a number of councillors with us — Coun. Susan Scott,

Couns. Garth Frizzell and Kyle Sampson — as well as the city manager, Walter Babicz,

and the intergovernmental relations adviser, Annie Doran. They’re going to be meeting

with members on both sides of the House.

I’d ask that the House give them a warm welcome today.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : It’s my pleasure to welcome today, in the gallery, representatives from the Kidney

Foundation of Canada, who many of us had the pleasure of joining earlier for breakfast.

Today we have Dr. John Gill, a transplant nephrologist at St. Paul’s Hospital. We

have Deborah Tucker, Kate Chong, Stephanie Allan, Yash Kamboj, Melissa Lackie, Dominique

Ahadi — all staff of the Kidney Foundation.

Not here with us today in the gallery, but who must be mentioned, are Rob and Alexis

MacKay-Dunn. I want to say thank you so much to Alexis for sharing a very heartfelt

story of how she has come to have four kidneys and a thriving life once again.

I really want to thank the Kidney Foundation for the work that you do advancing kidney

health, promoting kidney health for British Columbians, working with researchers,

working collaboratively with partners across the health system to improve the lives

of British Columbians every single day. Thank you so much.

Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

Misty Van Popta : I would like to recognize two important groups in the chamber today, both equally

important to building this province. No strangers here in this chamber are Chris Atchison

and about 20 delegates from the B.C. Construction Association, all up there. A couple

of Langley members, Will and Ashley, if they don’t want to rise.

April is Construction and Skilled Trades Month. To see these members in our gallery

is a sign of the good and continuous work that they do to advocate on how we can work

together to support a strong, stable construction sector that can continue delivering

for our communities across this province.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

I have a second introduction. I would also like to make mention of another important

organization in this chamber, and that is CLAC. Last Monday words were spoken in this

chamber that I couldn’t say on a jobsite. Although I won’t apologize on behalf of

members on that side, I would like to apologize that they witnessed such disrespect

in this place of privilege.

I hope that your time here today, as representatives of the thousands of British Columbians

who choose to be represented by you, is a positive experience.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m delighted to have a number of family members in the chambers today. My husband,

Seth, is here. Seth does a wonderful job keeping our house running, alongside doing

his own good and important work. He’s here with my son, Aaron, who is smart and kind

and funny. I’m so proud to be his mom.

Also joining us — it’s a professional day in Vancouver today — is my older sister,

Allie, who is a health care worker and one of my favourite people in the world, and

her daughter Rosie, who is turning eight years old today.

Will the House join me in making sure that they feel extra welcome.

Reann Gasper : I am so privileged to introduce a distinguished guest who is seated with us on the

floor today, Randy Hawes. Randy is no stranger to this House. He has served with great

distinction, including being the mayor and MLA for Abbotsford-Mission. His dedication

to public service and to the people of the Fraser Valley has left a lasting impact

on communities, and I am proud to have him as a friend. His many stories and conversations

just leave me in awe sometimes.

Would the House please make him feel very special today and welcome him here.

I do have a second introduction. I have two guests in the gallery, and it is not often

that I do get to have people from my riding. It is a very special day because Doug

and Donna are visiting. They are in my riding association. It’s Doug’s birthday today.

Would the House just make them feel really special.

Steve Morissette : I’m pleased to introduce my friend and retired MLA in Kootenay-Monashee, Katrine

Conroy.

[1:40 p.m.]

Katrine and her family gave their life to British Columbia — starting with her late

husband, Ed, for ten years. Katrine followed with 20 more and three ministries. When

elected, I wondered if I should hyphenate my name with “Conroy” in order to represent.

Katrine, thank you for your support and your service.

Please join me in welcoming Kat to the House.

Rob Botterell : In the chamber today is my predecessor as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands,

Adam Olsen. As members will know, former MLA Olsen played a pivotal role in getting

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act enshrined into legislation

with unanimous support.

His seven years of work as an MLA and his time since as lead negotiator for the W̱JOȽEȽP Nation have been centred on ensuring the government lives up to the promises of partnership,

of co-governance and of free, prior and informed consent. We are lucky to have Adam

as a mentor and confidant in the Green caucus and thank him for his ongoing wisdom.

Will the House please make him very welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’m still at that age where I enjoy birthdays. It won’t last forever.

There’s a very particular person in the House here who’s celebrating a birthday. He’s

a young man in my eyes. Just the way that he responds in the House in question period,

running around…. We often refer to him as our Energizer Bunny, on this side of the

House.

Will you please join me in wishing the member for Vancouver-Renfrew, the Minister

of Energy and Climate Solutions, a very happy birthday.

Some Hon. Members :

“Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday, dear member for Vancouver-Renfrew.

Happy birthday to you.”

Peter Milobar : As we all know, we all lead very busy lives in this career that we’ve chosen — or

that the public has chosen for us, I guess. Some of us quite recently have been a

little busier than others, for strange reasons, but it has come down to my wife, Lianne,

deciding that spending some quality time with her husband will be coming to question

period.

Will the House please make Lianne welcome.

Hon. David Eby : In the House today, the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, Mayor Darryl, is here. I don’t know

if I can spot him. He’s somewhere on the precinct, I can advise the House.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby : Oh. Great. He’s with the Peace River regional district folks here to talk about local

issues.

Obviously, the House is well aware of the mayor’s leadership in the period following

the horrific events in Tumbler Ridge. He is a champion of the community and the region.

He is the person that people look to in their moment of crisis. He was solid as a

rock. He continues to be so, to advocate for the community and to encourage people

to come up and visit Tumbler Ridge. They have an incredible tourist opportunity for

British Columbians and all Canadians.

He’s an advocate in the best of times for Tumbler Ridge, and he was their rock in

the most challenging of times. I want to thank him so much for his work, on behalf

of the government caucus, and express huge appreciation for his efforts in his whole

time in office, particularly through the challenges faced by the community of Tumbler

Ridge and our province.

Anna Kindy : I’d like to welcome the folks from the Kidney Foundation who came to talk to us today

about a program called B.C. Donate Now — I think it’s a very important program that

will save not only lives but also health care dollars — and also Dr. John Gill from

St. Paul’s Hospital.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I think it was very well received by us,

and the message is taken very seriously.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : I have two individuals to introduce.

Michelle Staples is the mayor of the city of Duncan and a long-time Cowichan Valley

resident. First elected to Duncan council in 2011 and then chosen as the city’s first

female mayor in 2018, she is known to bring people together and is focused on community,

inclusion and collaboration across the valley.

The second individual is Audrey George, former Deputy Chief of Quw’utsun. She has

been a visible voice for reconciliation and community healing. She has also helped

lead every child matters march in Duncan, which has become an important annual event

recognizing residential school survivors and children who never made it home.

Together these two leaders represent the strong relationship between the city of Duncan

and Cowichan Tribes, especially around reconciliation, public dialogue and working

together on community issues.

Please join me in welcoming them here today.

Bruce Banman : I’d like to join my colleague from Kamloops Centre.

My wife, also, Sharon, is here in the gallery with us. I’m not so sure that I would

call QP quality time either. She’s given me instructions to be on my best behaviour,

so nothing like setting me up for failure.

Would the House please welcome her.

Members’ Statements

Creative Industries Week

Janet Routledge : This is B.C. Creative Industries Week, and we are celebrating a sector that reflects

who we are and showcases British Columbia to the world. From music and publishing

to video games, film and television, B.C.’s creative industries enrich our lives every

day. They are the stories we tell, the music we share and the experiences that connect

us.

Together they provide work for more than 170,000 people, and they contributed $7.4

billion to our economy in 2024. They fuel local businesses, draw visitors to our communities

and create opportunities for our people.

This past year B.C. talent earned national and international recognition. Cameron

Whitcomb won a Juno. B.C.’s animation and visual effects artists contributed to the

Oscar-winning films KPop Demon Hunters and Sinners .

This year B.C. talent will be featured at the FIFA fan fest, another moment for made-in-B.C.

performances to connect with a global audience.

Our skilled crews, creators, strong infrastructure, innovation and tax incentives

continue to attract film and television productions, like The Last of Us .

Interactive digital media experienced strong growth this past year.

Several titles by B.C. authors and publishers were featured on CBC’s “Best Canadian

Books of 2025.”

None of this happens without strong partnerships. I want to thank Creative B.C. and

their many partners — Screen B.C., Music B.C., Books B.C., Mags BC, DigiBC and many

others — for championing this sector.

Please join me in celebrating Creative Industries Week. They have made British Columbia

shine.

Support Services for Seniors

in Peachland and West Kelowna

Macklin McCall : I rise today to recognize two organizations doing important work supporting seniors

of West Kelowna–Peachland: the Westside Health Network and the Peachland Wellness

Centre.

In communities like West Kelowna and Peachland, one of the things we hear consistently

from residents is how difficult it can be to access services, not just health care

but the broader supports that people rely on every day. It’s not always one issue.

It’s navigating a system that can feel disconnected, where people are trying to figure

out where to go, who to call and how to get the help they need. That’s where these

organizations step in, not as replacements for the system but as something just as

important — connectors, supports and community anchors.

The Westside Health Network plays a key role in bringing people and organizations

together. It’s about coordination, making sure services are aligned, that information

is shared and that gaps are identified before people fall through them. That kind

of work often happens behind the scenes, but it has a real impact. When organizations

are connected, outcomes improve, people get help sooner, and they don’t get lost trying

to navigate the system on their own.

[1:50 p.m.]

At the same time, the Peachland Wellness Centre is delivering something just as important

— local, accessible support right in the community. It’s a place where people can

go, a place where they can connect, a place where support isn’t abstract. It’s right

there, right in front of them.

For many residents, especially seniors and those living alone or dealing with complex

needs, that kind of local access makes all the difference. It’s not just about services.

It’s about connection, prevention and making sure people don’t reach a crisis point

before they get help.

That’s something we should all recognize, because strong communities aren’t built

only through large systems. They’re built through local leadership, volunteerism and

organizations that understand the people they serve. That’s exactly what we’re seeing

here in West Kelowna and Peachland.

Today I want to recognize and thank everyone involved with both the Westside Health

Network and the Peachland Wellness Centre — the staff, the volunteers and the partners

who are doing this work every day.

You are strengthening our communities of West Kelowna and Peachland in a very real

way, and I thank you for that.

National Volunteer Week

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to recognize National Volunteer Week and to honour the remarkable individuals

who give their time, energy and compassion to strengthen communities across British

Columbia. Volunteers are the quiet backbone of our society. They show up in moments

big and small, bringing care, connection and hope to those who need it most.

In my constituency office, I see this spirit every day. Dedicated volunteers support

community outreach; help organize local events; and contribute to youth initiatives,

cultural celebrations and food drives — ensuring that no one feels left behind.

I have also witnessed volunteers step forward in times of need — supporting newcomers

as they build new lives, helping families navigate challenges and offering translation

so that language is never a barrier to accessing support.

This month at the Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade, I saw hundreds of volunteers — including

those from Khalsa Diwan Society, Ross Street Temple and many others — come together

in a powerful expression of service. They prepared and shared meals with thousands

of attendees, embodying the spirit of generosity and community. I was especially proud

of the volunteers at my Vancouver-Langara constituency booth, whose warmth, patience

and dedication made a lasting impression on everyone who visited.

To every volunteer in Vancouver-Langara and across British Columbia: thank you. Your

generosity uplifts us all and reminds us of the strength we find in serving one another.

This National Volunteer Week, let’s celebrate your invaluable contributions.

Community Service and Volunteerism

in Abbotsford-Mission Area

Reann Gasper : I want to reflect on something you feel right away in my riding, a community that

steps up and looks after one another. This weekend we saw that on full display through

the 2026 Community Service Awards.

I am proud of the spirit of this community. I am proud of the resilience in it. I

am proud of the people who keep choosing to show up for each other. The spirit of

a community is the heart of the volunteer, and in Abbotsford-Mission, that heart is

strong.

You see it in Rotary members running fundraisers that keep local programs going. You

see it at the food bank — people sorting, packing, making sure families don’t go without.

You see it in the volunteers who set up community events before anyone arrives and

are still there cleaning up when everyone is gone. You see it on the fields and in

our rinks — coaches opening gyms early, lining fields, driving kids to tournaments,

making sure every kid has a place to belong.

You see it in the search and rescue teams, in the volunteer firefighters, in the people

who step in when things go wrong and don’t wait to be asked. You see it in business

owners who sponsor teams, donate quietly and carry their community with them in how

they operate every day. You see it in the neighbours checking in, dropping off meals,

giving someone a ride — because small things matter.

That’s my riding, and that is the community I am honoured to represent here in this

House. It is not built on one moment. It is built on consistency, on people who don’t

need recognition to keep going but deserve it all the same.

[1:55 p.m.]

To those who might be watching, those who are a part of that effort, whether you call

yourself a volunteer or not, you should know this. It’s seen, it matters, and it reflects

something strong about where we live. Resilience does not just show up in hard moments.

It shows up in the everyday choice to care, to give, to take responsibility for your

community.

To every volunteer, to every organization, every business owner, every neighbour in

Mission who keeps showing up: thank you. I am proud to represent you.

Vancouver Goldeneyes Hockey Team

Susie Chant : Thank you for the opportunity to speak, as a new hockey fan, about the Vancouver

Goldeneyes.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm. I’m very grateful to work here.

I also live and work in North Vancouver–Seymour, home to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

The arrival of the Vancouver Goldeneyes marked an exciting and important moment for

the city of Vancouver, the province and for the future of women’s sport in Canada.

As Vancouver’s first team in the new Professional Women’s Hockey League, the Goldeneyes

represent more than just a new franchise. They represent progress. For generations,

women’s hockey has produced world-class athletes but too often without the professional

opportunities, visibility and support they deserve. This is now changing.

The name “Goldeneyes,” inspired by the common goldeneye duck native to our coast,

reflects the strength, speed and resilience that defines both the team and our region.

It’s a uniquely Vancouver identity, one that connects sport with the natural beauty

and character of our home.

The response has been incredible. Fans are filling arenas. Families are showing up.

Young girls across British Columbia are seeing, for many, a clear pathway from grassroots

hockey to the professional stage for the first time.

Just a few months ago my husband and I had great fun at the Pacific Coliseum, where

the Goldeneyes beat the Toronto Sceptres 5-0, with Sarah Nurse scoring twice and Kristen

Campbell earning the shutout.

But this momentum doesn’t sustain itself. Continued investment, media coverage and

community support are essential to ensuring women’s hockey not only grows but thrives.

When we support teams like the Goldeneyes, we’re doing more than cheering from the

stands. We’re building a more inclusive, equitable future for sport, one where every

athlete can succeed at the highest level.

B.C. Trappers Association

Sheldon Clare : On Friday, April 17, I spoke at the 81st B.C. Trappers Association annual general

meeting in Quesnel. I had previously spoken at the 1995 AGM in Prince George to warn

them about the new Firearms Act, so this was a terrific opportunity to reconnect with

these friends who are venerable stewards of the land.

The British Columbia Trappers Association was formed in 1945 as an association of

registered trappers, and it is the oldest trappers association in Canada. Their vision

is that trapping is British Columbia’s renewable heritage, and their mission is that

the B.C. Trappers Association is a dedicated, compassionate community of trappers.

As stewards in British Columbia, they manage fur-bearers responsibly and sustainably

through respect of our joint natural resources. Core values include dedication, compassion,

respect, integrity and responsibility.

In 1926, British Columbia was divided into registered traplines with the intent of

protecting species from overharvesting. Traplines are sold to a trapper so that he

or she is the only person with the right to trap fur-bearing animals inside that area.

Trappers are well connected with the environment. Trapping built our country. Trappers

are well aware of their responsibilities as conservationists and stewards of the land.

When wanting to know how many fishers, martens and wolverines there are in British

Columbia, researchers would be well advised to include the steady wisdom, skills and

expertise of B.C. trappers. As people in tune with the environment, trappers are well

positioned to advise government and academics regarding fur-bearing animal populations

and distribution.

Today the B.C. Trappers Association educates new trappers, encourages ethical trapping

processes and keeps its members well informed about matters affecting them. Their

quarterly magazine includes articles on improved humane traps and sets and information

on different species as well as the best way to maintain a healthy breeding population.

Congratulations to the BCTA on 81 years.

[2:00 p.m.]

Question of Privilege

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by

the member for Skeena earlier this month, which was taken under advisement.

On Wednesday, April 1, the member for Skeena reserved her right to raise a question

of privilege following oral question period.

The member outlined her question of privilege on Thursday, April 2, arguing that the

Minister of Health may have misled the House and that there were contradictions between

information provided by the minister in the House and correspondence from the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General, which the member for Skeena tabled with her

submission.

On Monday, April 13, the Minister of Health offered her submissions to the Chair in

response to the question of privilege, which countered the submission made by the

member for Skeena, and tabled supporting documents.

The core of the matter centres around data that, while subject to debate in the House,

is not required to be placed before the House. The Chair thanks the member for Skeena

and the Minister of Health for their thorough submissions, which assisted the Chair’s

review of the matter.

First, the Chair will remind the House of the ruling of the Chair on April 7, 2022:

“Guidelines for raising a question of privilege are outlined in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fifth edition, at pages 399 to 400. One of the essential elements required is a

brief written statement of the matter which the member reads to the House. The brief

statement is intended to inform the House of the facts on which the question of privilege

is based, and the statement should primarily focus on any applicable parliamentary

authorities which may be of assistance to the Chair, not arguments with respect to

differences of opinion or fact amongst members.”

On the matter at hand, the member for Skeena submits that, at minimum, the Minister

of Health made contradictory statements in the House that may amount to misleading

the House. When assessing such a question of privilege, the precedents are clear that

the Chair must examine any evidence that proves that the statement was misleading,

that establishes that the member — in this case, the minister — making the statement

knew at the time that the statement was incorrect and that establishes that the member

intended to mislead the House in making the statement.

Based on the submission made to the Chair, that threshold of irrefutable evidence

has not been met. The member for Skeena and the Minister of Health offered different

interpretations of information that ultimately amounts to disagreement of our debate

and therefore not a matter for the Chair to adjudicate.

Having carefully reviewed the respective submissions, the Chair cannot conclude that

there was an intentional or deliberate attempt on the part of the Minister of Health

to mislead the House or offer erroneous information. It is therefore the ruling of

the Chair that a prima facie breach of privilege has not occurred.

The Chair urges members to consult the Chair or the Clerks-at-the-Table to ensure

that members properly distinguish points of order and questions of privilege and to

ensure that the proper procedures are followed when raising a question of privilege.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of

DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Trevor Halford : It’s been 136 days since this government, since this Premier, said that DRIPA must

be amended. The Premier said back in December: “We will fix this.” The Premier said

he would go to the wall. The Premier even said he will go as far as backstopping mortgages.

Three weeks ago, what did the Premier say? The Premier said: “We have to do it, and

we will do it.” Another quote three weeks ago: “Yes, we are going to get these amendments

through. We have to.” Here is another one, and this one, I think, is actually the

most important thing that the Premier said over the last three weeks in his multiple

statements: “Significant legal liabilities for the province.” Then he said: “More

than 20 cases before the courts that could all have significant ramifications.”

[2:05 p.m.]

So here we are, and again the Premier has changed his position. Again he has added

more chaos to an already chaotic situation. He was the architect of this chaos. Let’s

be clear on that. But now he has put the province in a position of co-governance.

I want to know directly from the Premier. At what point in this process, in the chaos

that he caused, did he decide that it was okay to abdicate the responsibility of the

province and start in co-governance?

Hon. David Eby : The Court of Appeal for British Columbia rendered a decision in the Gitxaała case,

interpreting the Declaration Act. The member is right. I am concerned about what I

believe to be, the government believes to be, a significant legal liability for the

province that we have to address. The path to address that is one that necessarily

involves Indigenous People in this province because it involves the Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I can share with the House, I can share with the member that we have reached an agreement

with the First Nations Leadership Council. We’ve been engaging with Chiefs across

the province. We are going to engage in a process together that will conclude before

the fall legislative sitting to attempt to address together the concerns that government

has.

The best path forward, in my opinion, for this province — for the success of our province;

for the success of our resource sector; our economy; for projects like the Red Chris

mine, the Eskay Creek mine, North Coast transmission line, LNG projects — requires

cooperation between government and First Nations.

If there is any opportunity for us to reach a cooperative solution to the challenges

we face as a result of that court decision; and, separately, the Quw’utsun court decision

to provide clarity to British Columbians around private property, we will always take

the collaborative route.

It took longer to get here than I had hoped for. I accept responsibility for that.

It is possible to move off confidently in the wrong direction. But I am sure that

the right path for our province is this path forward with First Nations to draft,

to respond to, to find the path to address these liabilities that government sees;

to do it in partnership; and to bring it back to this House.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Once again, it’s all in the words the Premier uses. I don’t see an agreement. I see,

maybe, an agreed-upon statement that doesn’t foster an agreement, that doesn’t give

certainty to British Columbians on the chaos that this Premier has inflicted. Not

at all. It’s the Premier’s words himself. His words: “significant legal liabilities.”

Those are the words of the Premier.

That is why he said numerous times about the urgency that, no matter what opposition

there was, this legislation had to get done to legally protect British Columbians,

and he has failed on that on all fronts because of his incompetence and his inability

to actually lead this province. His failure has done a disservice to British Columbians,

to First Nations. It’s been an absolute embarrassment.

My question is not to the Premier. It’s to the Attorney General. Does she agree with

the Premier that there are significant legal liabilities facing British Columbians

right now, and if so, why are we not taking those steps to protect British Columbians?

Hon. David Eby : There are two sets of liabilities facing the province. The one is the set of liabilities

that comes from the Gitxaała decision around the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples. I have shared with the member that we are sitting down with First Nations

leaders across the province to co-develop a response to that to bring back to this

House for the fall session.

[2:10 p.m.]

In my opinion, the time is worth it to bring that forward, because there is a second

set of liabilities that the province faces, and it’s the one the member always ignores.

It’s the one he always glosses over and all of his colleagues do, when they pretend

that we don’t have to work with First Nations in this province; when they suggest

that we stop conversations with First Nations; when they suggest that they will repeal

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act without regard for the consequences

to the jobs, to the major projects in this province.

We have to address that liability too. The only path forward to address that is in

partnership with First Nations. Addressing the first set in partnership allows us

to address the second set, grow the economy, create jobs, deliver for British Columbians.

They cannot provide an explanation of how they would do that, while at the same time

fighting First Nations tooth and nail. You hear them advocating for a fight again

today.

We are taking a step back to try to find a path forward in partnership with First

Nations, and that is vitally important for the economic future of British Columbia.

The Speaker : Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford : I guess government is hard. For us on this side of the House, we have been very clear

on where our stance is. The problem that we are in now is because…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Trevor Halford : …the Premier of the province has not been clear on any statements he’s been giving

since December on where this province is on DRIPA. It has changed six times in a matter

of weeks.

My question again is to the Attorney General. Does she agree with the Premier when

he says that there are significant legal liabilities? And does she agree with the

fact that if we do nothing right now, there is no chance that there will be a court

decision that comes before we actually see some form of leadership from that side

of the House and actually put forward legislation and stand by it and actually say

what they mean?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think the Premier and this side of the House have been clear about what we’re advocating

for and what we…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …need to see with respect to protecting the province from liability. What’s different

on this side of the House is the approach that we take to doing the work — very different

than the other side. We are sitting down to form durable agreements that will last

to protect British Columbia’s interests and to bring our partnership with First Nations

stronger. That is the path forward, and we will make sure we deliver on that.

Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation

and Government Handling

of Land Title Issues

Scott McInnis : Clear as mud over here.

This government likes to go down memory lane, so I’m going to take them on a trip

on one. From March 4, 2026, the Premier said: “I was not briefed on this. I was not

aware of the content of the agreements.” From the same day, the Premier said: “It’s

possible that somebody in the public service received a heads-up or knew about it.”

British Columbians have a right to know what their government is doing on decisions

that affect their rights, their property and their way of life. But this Premier has

decided they don’t. When caught in the trap of his own making, he claimed he attended

the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm signing agreement as just the regular old local MLA.

But we now know, through freedom of information — thank goodness for that — that an

invitation went directly to the Premier’s office. Not a junior staffer, not his constituency

office — to the Premier’s office. We also know that this government sent a letter

of support for this agreement a full year ago.

A very simple question: why is this Premier so determined on keeping British Columbians

in the dark on decisions that affect them directly?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Unlike the other side, I think it’s important that we actually engage with Chiefs,

with councils. We understand the

section 35 rights of Indigenous People in this province

— that we respect them.

I know the member opposite has suggested we should just flip a switch and extinguish

the rights of Indigenous People and makes the argument we should do it in court all

the time.

Interjection.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh, Member.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : “Why won’t you extinguish?” he says. “Why won’t you extinguish?” he says, as if Indigenous

Peoples’ rights were like a cigarette. They’re not. We have to sit down in consultation

and cooperation. That’s the court-ordered rights. That’s the responsible thing. That’s

the economically responsible thing. That’s the morally responsible thing.

We will do it in such a way that we ensure that British Columbians know what we’re

doing, that we work with them to ensure that they’re part of that. Indeed, we saw

that example last week as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : The nation, cities, businesses, non-profits, community leaders all came forward in

support of treaty.

We’re going to continue to do that work. It’s hard work, and it’s made harder when

people say things that aren’t true, like “They’re coming for your land,” like the

opposite side seems to suggest treaties are out. They’re not coming after your homes,

hon. Members. They’re working and seeking honourable discussions and agreements with

us on a government-to-government basis.

The Speaker : Member has supplemental.

Government Handling of

DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Scott McInnis : Let’s be clear. British Columbians have no idea what this government is doing when

it comes to reconciliation in British Columbia. It has become very evident, even to

the Premier himself, that DRIPA has become a legal mess. This is devastating for investors,

for business certainty throughout B.C. at a time when we cannot afford that sentiment.

This legal chaos was predictable, but the NDP government chose to plow ahead anyway.

The Premier knows that the Gitxaała decision from December creates major litigation

risks for this province. My question to the Premier. What changed in the last 24 hours

that made him abandon any changes altogether?

Hon. David Eby : I know the member heard my answer to the first two questions. We have not abandoned

the concern that we have about legal liability facing the province. What we’ve done

is taken a step back to enable ourselves to sit down with First Nations leaders to

co-develop a response to that to ensure that government’s concerns that we have are

addressed and also, hopefully, to be able to address the concerns coming out of the

Quw’utsun case British Columbians have about private property in a cooperative, collaborative

way so we’re moving forward together as a province.

The reason we are doing this goes exactly to the member’s point. If we hope to continue

to…. The Minister of Mines has announced four new mines or major expansions last four

months — over $3 billion of investment, thousands of jobs. If we want to continue

doing that work, we have to do it in partnership with First Nations. We cannot do

it fighting in a courtroom. We cannot do it in conflict. That is why we’re taking

the time to reach this collaborative solution to the problem that government is concerned

about.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Jeremy Valeriote : Here I go, changing the subject again.

In many communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we have a large number of temporary

foreign workers. This will be the last time I use the word “foreign” in this because

it sounds pejorative to me. These workers help to keep local businesses running and

play an active role in local communities in hospitality, agriculture, construction

and food service.

We know the importance of this program as well as how much and how badly it needs

to be reformed. Closed work permits that tie workers to one employer are, frankly,

inhumane; open to abuse; and create real stress for people and families who are looking

for a path to permanent residency and citizenship. I know this program is largely

federal jurisdiction, but the province also has a duty to look after all workers in

the province, even those who are here temporarily.

To the Premier: what tangible steps is the province taking to make sure that B.C.

is a safe place for people on TFW visas, especially those on closed work permits who

remain most vulnerable to exploitation?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : Thank you very much to the member for the question. I think we all understand that

when people come from other places to do important work in our province, we want them

to be treated appropriately, we want them to have access to the same rights that other

workers in the province have and we want to ensure that there is enforcement of those

rights.

That’s why our government brought in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act,

which requires that employers are certified before they apply for an LMIA with the

federal government.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have provisions in the Employment Standards Act to ensure that temporary foreign

workers who are here are protected.

We work very closely with groups like the Migrant Workers Centre and with other migrant

worker organizations to ensure that we have appropriate outreach to a very important

part of our labour force.

I will just say that it certainly is the view of this government when it comes to

the rights of individuals that if folks are good enough to work here, they’re good

enough to stay here. We strongly advocate with the federal government for pathways

to citizenship for people who are here under temporary work permits.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : Just over an hour ago, the government announced that instead of adopting the proposed

increase in the cap on temporary workers from 10 to 15 percent in rural and remote

communities, a figure that many rural leaders have been calling for to fill critical

labour gaps, the provincial government will simply allow rural employers to maintain

current levels of temporary workers for only an additional year.

This “short-term solution” provided by the government will only create long-term instability

and uncertainty for workers serving rural and remote communities, many of whom have

established roots in our communities. Others, like the skilled chef I met, would be

sent back to their country and persecuted if not able to stay.

To the Premier or to the government. Temporary workers are not numbers on a spreadsheet.

They are integral members of our rural communities. What message does this short-term

extension send to workers and businesses in my riding who are making essential contributions

to our economy and our communities?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Thank you to the member opposite for his advocacy as well as to many members in this

House on both sides that have advocated for their communities when it comes to making

sure that we’re recognizing the worker shortage that we’re seeing across the province.

This specific program is one that was implemented by the federal government, so the

one-year extension is from the federal government. There were two options in there:

to allow individuals to maintain the 10 percent cap and then to increase it.

We went with the first option because we recognize the impact that businesses are

feeling. We know that there’s a lot of work that they are doing, as well, on the advocacy

front, and we appreciate their advocacy.

It’s very important, recognizing this is only a one-year extension, that this only

prolongs the issues that we’re seeing, that the member has outlined here. The TFW

program has serious problems. We know that there’s exploitation in the system when

we look at closed work permits. Individuals aren’t able to move around. We know when

we look at LMIA programs that individuals are being sold LMIAs for upwards of $100,000

just to be here and then having ongoing concerns.

These are individuals that are coming here to support our economy. We need to ensure

we’re doing everything to support them. We do need to reform the program. We can’t

just have one-off extensions. We need to reform the program, and that is why our government

is advocating to the federal government regularly to say that we need to have greater

control over the economic immigration that we have in our province.

We need to expand our PNP programs so that these individuals that are coming here,

that we so desperately need, have those pathways to citizenship, have the rights that

they were promised, are getting the treatment that they believed they were going to

get when they came here and are not being exploited.

Action on Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Steve Kooner : We have heard about legal liabilities. We have heard about ongoing cases. British

Columbians are facing these issues right now because of this government. This government

introduced DRIPA. It was this Premier who introduced

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation

Act. It was this government that created this legal liability around DRIPA. This Premier

is out of ideas and does not have a further plan.

Can this Premier guarantee legislation in the fall session about these DRIPA amendments,

yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think we’ve already canvassed this a few times with some of the questions that

we’ve faced about our plan — our plan about having these discussions concluded by

next fall and our serious commitment….

Interjection.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The upcoming fall. Thank you.

Our serious commitment to work through these challenging times….

Our way is going to bring a durable solution to this problem. We’re not going to end

up in court like they would on the other side, with intractable claims of not…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …sitting down to solve problems together. We’re not going to end up tearing up agreements

and not being at the negotiation table with First Nations, ending major projects…

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …stopping billions of dollars from coming into this province.

They don’t have solutions over there. All they have is creating more and more problems,

not to mention the mistruths…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …that they spread about what’s actually happening on the ground here. We’re going

to get to that durable solution, and we’ll keep working.

Conditions at Hospitals

Gavin Dew : Hallway health care has become shockingly routine under this NDP government. Front-line

staff are doing all they can in inadequate facilities, and they are absolutely devastated

by what’s happening in our hospital hallways.

After I raised the issue last week, I was made aware by a whistleblower of a young

woman who tragically died this month in the hallway of Kelowna General Hospital and

another hallway patient who went into cardiac arrest and ended up in the ICU.

My question to the Minister of Health is simple. Exactly how many people have died

in hospital hallways across this province on her watch?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and raising the critical importance of continuing

to invest in health care in this province.

Whether it is investing in new infrastructure; new hospitals; renovated and new surgical

suites; new cancer centres across this province; as well as investing in the staff,

the physicians and the medical folks that we need to run them…. Nothing is more important

to a person and to their family than being able to access health care in a timely

way when they need it. That’s why our government continues to invest. That’s why our

government continues to raise the budget of the health system to make sure that we

continue to strengthen this system.

We are proud of our public universal health care system and, unlike members on the

other side, have no intention to introduce two-tier-style, American-style health care

into this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, wait for your question.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Every British Columbian deserves access to health care, and that’s why…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …we will continue to tackle the challenges that we face in health care, worker recruitment

and retention by building a new medical school at SFU, recruiting U.S.-trained professionals

— something we know members on the opposite side have been opposed to.

These are the steps that it takes. We’ll continue bringing those doctors here. We’ll

continue investing in these hospitals to deliver the health care that British Columbians

deserve.

Access to Acute Psychiatric

Care at Hospitals

Claire Rattée : In order for universal health care to work, people actually have to be able to access

health care. Increasing the health care budget does very little for British Columbians

if there are no meaningful results attached to it and things just continue to get

worse.

Recently I raised the tragic death of a young man who slipped through the cracks after

being left waiting without proper supervision or support in Vernon Jubilee Hospital’s

psychiatric unit. He voluntarily admitted himself and was left for days in a hallway

bed, despite being certified under the Mental Health Act. Since then, I have had numerous

families reach out to me about loved ones that they have lost in that same psychiatric

unit.

Now I have learned that same unit is on diversion for the foreseeable future, meaning

that patients in crisis are being sent to the emergency department and left in hallways

while staff have been instructed to briefly assess and move on.

To the minister: there are really only two options here. Does she admit that the current

system cannot safely hold people in acute psychiatric crisis, or does she believe

that the current system, where patients are left in hallways, is acceptable?

Hon. Josie Osborne : There are thousands of mental health and psychiatric beds in facilities across this

province. It’s an important part of the health care system, and when a person is in

crisis, it is a service that they need.

That is why we continue to invest, with $131 million in this year’s budget, into this

system. That’s why we continue to expand the number of beds that are available across

B.C. It’s also why we continue to expand across the entire continuum of mental health

and substance use care so that people receive the prevention and early intervention

that is needed before problems become worse. That’s why those beds are available,

so that when a person is in crisis, they are able to access the care they need.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member understands that I cannot speak about individual cases, but that doesn’t

remove the responsibility and the urgency to which this government is continuing to

act to build out this system of care for people at a time when they need it most.

Primary Health Care Providers

and Attachment Numbers

Brennan Day : Let’s talk about results. This government loves misleading press releases and keeps

announcing gross new primary care attachment numbers. But for British Columbians,

the only thing that matters is whether they have ongoing access to a primary care

provider or not. We know from the government’s own reports that they’re juicing the

numbers to paper over their failure.

To the minister: what does the government count as a successful attachment on the

health connect registry?

Hon. Josie Osborne : All right. Let’s talk about numbers. Let’s talk about success. So 600,000 British

Columbians attached to a primary care provider since 2023. Over 1,000 new family doctors

practising here in British Columbia — the highest number of physicians per capita

in the entire country. Tripling the number of nurse practitioners working in primary

care and serving British Columbians across the province.

Primary care is the backbone of our health care system. That’s why we have a primary

care strategy. That’s why we continue to invest in team-based primary care. That’s

why we’ve opened 48 urgent and primary care centres across British Columbia.

I’m proud of this government’s record, and we will continue to invest in primary care

so that all British Columbians who want a primary care provider have one.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day : Let’s get into the numbers. This government claims they’ve attached 600,000 people

since 2023, but 25 percent of British Columbians, 1.3 million people, don’t have a

primary care provider. That number has barely moved since the report last year. According

to this government’s own numbers, that leaves 1.3 million British Columbians without

a doctor. This government, by their own reporting, has made almost no progress.

To the minister, if she could please clear something up for us.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh, Member. Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Order, Members.

Brennan Day : Are you counting attempted attachments as successful attachments on the health care

registry to try and juice the numbers, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : We have exceeded the rate of population growth when it comes to attracting new physicians

in this province and attaching people to a primary care provider.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : That’s not just for doctors. That goes for nurses as well.

That is the work of a government hard investing in the things that matter. That is

new medical schools to train family doctors. That is attracting physicians from other

jurisdictions. That is streamlining and speeding up the credentialing for those people.

That is building out team-based primary care so that those physicians who are working

have the most time possible to spend with their patients, because they’re working

in a team of nurse practitioners, of dietitians, of physiotherapists, of clinical

counsellors, of social workers — all the people it takes to provide that wraparound

care for people.

There was an independent report that was recently released by OurCare, and it showed

that B.C. had the highest jump in the number of people reporting that they’re attached

to a primary care provider. In fact, 82.6 percent of survey respondents said they

have a family doctor or a nurse practitioner, and that is up from 71 percent just

a few years before.

This government believes in public universal health care. We are going to continue

this work, and we’re not going to stop.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2025.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 14, Forests Statutes

Amendment Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Emergency Management

and Climate Readiness.

[2:35 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Members, we will call the chamber back to order, where we are contemplating Bill

16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Linda Hepner : Thank you for allowing me to continue my comments on this Bill 16. I had closed the

session last Thursday talking about the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the

clauses that were shifting that into discussions that would allow disputes to go to

the dispute resolution committee.

What I wanted to make clear on that is that also within Bill 11, recently adopted

by this House, the supportive housing complaints and issues were chosen to go through

a dispute resolution process. I think it’s going to be very, very important that we

have a more fulsome discussion on the capacity of that dispute resolution team, because

I’m hearing from many in my own riding that there are exaggerated timelines for hearing.

Adding more to it, as we just recently have done, may trigger some lags in decisions.

But I’m going to move on now. While Housing is my file, I can’t ignore the rest of

this omnibus bill.

Part 2 guts the NDP’s own Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, the very mandates they rammed

through six years ago, doubled down on two years ago and called historic. Clauses

7 to 10 quietly slash the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent; eliminate the

2026 and 2030 targets from legislation altogether; and shove them into regulation,

where cabinet can rewrite them behind closed doors.

This is the second major retreat in this file in under a year. First, they killed

the provincial EV rebate. Now they are dismantling their own law and hiding it in

a miscellaneous bill. In 2025, our Conservative caucus introduced legislation to repeal

these unrealistic mandates. The NDP voted it down and mocked us. Today they are doing

exactly what we proposed, only they lack the courage to admit it.

British Columbians deserve better than a government that sets flashy targets for press

releases, attacks anyone who questions those targets and then quietly walks them back

when reality bites.

Families in Surrey–Serpentine River told this government for years that EVs are still

too expensive, charging infrastructure is inadequate and our electricity grid cannot

handle this fantasy. The NDP cancelled the rebate, watched sales collapse and now

acts shocked. You cannot kick away the ladder and blame people for not climbing.

[2:40 p.m.]

Even as they retreat, they have left the punitive credit-trading system in place,

so manufacturers will still raise the price of gas vehicles or cut supply to B.C.

dealerships. That means working families still pay for a policy the government no

longer believes in. This is not leadership. It is ideological whiplash that drives

up the cost of living.

The numbers expose the fantasy. In 2019, the NDP said EV demand was higher than expected.

In 2023, EVs hit 25 percent of new vehicle sales, so the government got cocky and

accelerated the targets. Then reality hit.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I just need to introduce another member here just for a quick moment. I’m

sorry to interrupt.

Minister of Local Governments and Rural Communities.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I just want to recognize in the gallery that the Vancouver school board international

education group is here with us today.

Hello, everyone. It’s wonderful that you are here. Right now you can hear that we’re

discussing the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Right now we have a member from

the opposition speaking, and soon we’ll have a member from our side, and that’s the

work of the House today.

Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a wonderful time in Victoria, and

thank you for learning more about our democracy here today.

Will the House make them feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much.

Welcome to everyone in the gallery.

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner : By 2024, adoption had levelled off on our EV sales. By 2025, sales dropped sharply.

Now the minister says adoption has been slower than expected. Slower than whose expectations?

Not ours, not the dealers, not the families who have been telling this government

for years that these vehicles are still too expensive and the infrastructure doesn’t

exist.

The New Car Dealers Association has been clear. Manufacturers that cannot meet the

26 percent target face three choices: raise the price of gas vehicles, buy credits

from competitors or cut supply to dealerships. That means fewer choices and higher

prices at the worst possible time.

The NDP have now built a system that punishes working people for buying vehicles that

they actually can’t afford. Even as they back away from the targets now, they are

still leaving that punishment structure in place. Even if every British Columbian

wanted an EV tomorrow, the province does not have the power supply or charging infrastructure

to support that shift.

The Premier says B.C. needs to stand on its own feet and reduce dependence on the

United States, but this policy pushes in the other direction — more dependence on

imported power, more dependence on foreign supply chains, more dependence on decisions

made outside of British Columbia.

For a government that talks a big game about self-reliance, this policy tells a very

different story. These mandates may have looked good in a press release in Metro Vancouver,

but they were never realistic in the North, the Interior or rural British Columbia

— where distances are longer, winters are tougher and charging infrastructure is limited.

If an EV works for your family, buy one. My own family has three. My son has one.

My stepson has one. And actually, my grandson has one — recently, his very first vehicle

— although he really wants a muscle car, but that’s beside the point.

Families and businesses deserve a choice. The NDP took that choice away. This bill

gives some of it back but only because reality has finally overruled ideology.

Moving on, talking about now

part 1 that expands cabinet confidentiality and removes

the time bar on judicial review.

[2:45 p.m.]

After years of this government’s secrecy, they now want to make it even harder for

British Columbians to hold them accountable. We will be asking pointed questions about

what prompted these changes. We must look at this with a jaundiced eye and examine

it more closely if this bill gets to committee stage.

I’ll skip over the University Endowment Lands amendments. They are simply funnelling

more funds into consolidated revenue funds. I don’t think I need to talk a lot about

that.

Moving on to clause 28, which authorizes the proportionate use of force for mental

health interventions in our prisons. The government’s broader failure on mental health

and addictions has flooded our streets with chaos, and communities are bearing the

costs of that failure every single day. This, I believe, is a first step to advancing

involuntary care, where much more is needed.

Clauses 4 to 6, on the Fuel Price Transparency Act, simply authorize new fees and

interest charges by regulation — again, another way the government reaches into the

pockets of businesses without it coming to the House for proper debate. It’s becoming

more and more clear that regulation is a preferred way of governing in this House.

I’m going to sum up. I think this bill perfectly captures the ominous signs of the

government in terms of announcing bold targets on spending and quietly watering them

down in an omnibus bill, which this one is doing. British Columbia’s housing crisis

was created, in large part, by NDP policy that discouraged supply, overregulated development

and failed to build themselves within budget.

As a former mayor who actually had to balance a budget and did get housing built,

I do know what works. Lower unnecessary costs on developers. Respect municipal autonomy.

Protect property rights. While this bill takes one step towards lowering DCCs, it

undermines it with municipal uncertainty and no funding plan for those projects that

have been determined worthy of the lower DCCs.

It is a half-measure, and we will be requiring answers, from the minister responsible,

on exactly what projects would be exempted and under what provisions. How much DCC

revenue would municipalities lose provincewide? What is the detailed plan to replace

that funding to those local governments?

Some of the parts of the bill reflect what we have, in fact, been saying for years

and been asking for, but we will oppose the parts of the bill that are cloaked in

secrecy and any potential off-loading of costs in what appears to be a circuitous

way to shave a budget mess.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Garry Begg : I, too, will address all sections of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, as

did the member before me. I know it gets quite repetitive, but it’s important that

we address the issues inherent in the act. As she did, I’m going to talk about the

changes in the endowment lands, the development cost charges, Residential Tenancy

Act, Correction Act, Judicial Review Procedure Act, Fuel Price Transparency Act and

the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

This is legislation that is being passed now. For example, in endowment lands, if

passed, the legislation enables the enforcement of UEL bylaws through ticketing, in

accordance with the municipal ticketing framework established in the Community Charter.

In other words, it will allow the UEL to set out ticketing offences and penalties

of up to $3,000 in a bylaw.

It also establishes that fines collected via ticketing may offset some of the operational

costs of enforcement through that ticketing. And it allows University Endowment Lands

bylaw enforcement officers to prosecute tickets in provincial court. It speeds up

the process for that purpose.

We’re making this change now because people expect and deserve good governance, no

matter where they live in this province. It creates a mechanism of bylaw enforcement

which was identified as a high priority for the community during public consultations

of the UEL services structure and governance study.

The amendments to the act will enable the enforcement of UEL bylaws by ticketing,

similar to what already goes on in other municipalities and local governments.

We have consulted with First Nations. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation was notified. We’ve consulted with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation staff to discuss the proposed amendments. Consultation also included the B.C.

prosecution service and the judiciary of British Columbia.

Next on the list is development cost charges. Here, we are proposing legislative changes

that give the province the authority to establish new categories of project types

that qualify for reduced development cost charges and development levels. These new

categories and project types will be created through future provincial regulations.

They’ll give local government and TransLink flexibility to choose to reduce or waive

DCCs and DCLs for additional types of housing and infrastructure to allow under current

provincial legislation. This is important now, at this time, to meet Canada’s proposed

build communities strong fund, which is requiring provinces to reduce development

charges on multi-unit housing and cost-match federal contributions, among other conditions,

to access federal infrastructure dollars.

Making these changes at this time will put B.C. in a very strong position to engage

Canada in its proposed programs and quickly implement any conditions required to enter

a future agreement, once Ottawa finalizes the project details. This allows local governments

access to funding that supports core public infrastructure that enables housing.

With these changes, the province will be able to expand the eligible categories of

developments, so local governments and TransLink can lower upfront costs where it

makes most sense for the communities. Lower upfront costs, of course, can make stalled

or marginal projects viable and speed up construction timelines, helping get homes

built for people in the time of financial insecurity. Homebuilders, local government

and TransLink will want and will get harmonized, predictable rules that streamline

the process and help reduce the barriers for getting homes built.

The outcome, we hope, is that the legislation will position B.C. to remove barriers

so more homes can be built in challenging times while helping communities fund the

infrastructure people rely on. Our new actions will help unlock more housing, while

supporting the housing-enabling infrastructure that communities need through Canada’s

new build communities strong fund.

B.C. will also bring new categories into force by regulation once federal program

details are finalized, ensuring the province can align the changes with federal support

and avoid leaving local governments at risk.

[2:55 p.m.]

Local governments and TransLink will continue to decide whether to waive or reduce

DCCs and DCLs. The bill only creates authority to name additional eligible categories.

If lost development cost charges revenue is not offset by federal-provincial grants,

local governments or TransLink must then top the DCC-DCL reserve rules that are unchanged

from our previous amendments.

With regard to tenancy statute amendments, the first amendment aligns the evidence

rules for administrative penalty proceedings with the existing dispute resolution

process. It provides clarity that those proceedings use evidence designed for administrative

decision-making rather than the court rules of evidence. It makes the whole process

more fair and efficient.

The second amendment corrects an error in both the acts, the RTA and the MHPTA, by

clearly confirming the director’s authority to review decisions and orders from facilitated

settlements. If approved, this amendment will apply retroactively to reflect how the

RTB has been conducting these reviews since 2024, ensuring that people can have confidence

in RTB decisions made during that time.

The rules of evidence are formal rules designed from case law governing the admissibility,

weight and presentation of evidence. Under the common law, these rules are generally

not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. They will be here. The act expressly

disapplies the rules of evidence to residential tenancy branch dispute resolution

proceedings but is silent with respect to compliance investigations. It clarifies

explicitly in the act to ensure that the same rules of evidence apply in both processes.

The acts were amended in 2023 to allow the RTB to conduct facilitated settlements.

This involves updating amendments originally passed in a 2015 bill that have never

been brought into force. One provision was intended to give the RTB director authority

to review facilitated settlement decisions or orders, but because of an oversight,

that provision could not come into force. The amendment clarifies the RTB director’s

authority and confirms the validity of reviews already carried out.

Moving on to the Correction Act, the proposed amendments there formally authorize

correctional officers to assist health care providers when delivering involuntary

psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act. At present, health providers must

rely on non-correctional security officers because correctional staff lack the statutory

authority to do so. The amendments close the legal gap and bring practice in line

with operational needs.

Additionally, in the AG Ministry, their investigations and standards office, the ISO,

proposes legislative changes that better reflect their authority to conduct inspections

and investigations and review disciplinary hearing appeals. They also include the

requirement to report inspection findings to the AG Ministry and the public as well

as to refine the inmate complaint process to make it more accessible and to give the

director broader discretion when complaints are investigated.

That’s an important change because it ensures timely and appropriate responses during

mental health crises in correctional centres by allowing trained correctional officers

to support health care providers directly. It also improves the effective use of public

resources by reducing dependence on non-correctional security officers. The ISO, the

investigations and standards office, amendments better reflect the authority and the

process taken when the ISO investigates and responds to complaints by individuals

in custody, thereby increasing access and accountability.

[3:00 p.m.]

These amendments support a more consistent and coordinated approach to involuntary

psychiatric care and custody and prepare the system for the potential expansion of

involuntary treatment spaces in other correctional centres. They reflect consistency

in approach for individuals interacting with the investigations and standards office

and introduce a requirement for inspection reports to be made public.

Correctional officers are highly trained to manage high-risk and complex situations,

and they’re very well equipped to support individuals in crisis. The amendments ensure

officers can assist health care providers as required, improve continuity and consistency

of care and support coordinated responses during psychiatric emergencies. The amendments

provide clear statutory authority only for the specific purpose of assisting health

care providers during involuntary psychiatric treatment under the B.C. Mental Health

Act.

Going on to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the amendments there modernize the

procedure to keep judicial reviews fair, timely and affordable. The changes clarify

how sensitive cabinet information is protected during court challenges while ensuring

judicial reviews remain streamlined and focused on accountability rather than becoming

expensive trial-like proceedings. The amendments also introduce a clear 60-day deadline

to apply for judicial reviews in most cases, reducing delay, uncertainty and legal

costs for individuals, tribunals and government.

It’s important that we make this change now because of a recent B.C. Court of Appeal

decision regarding the mink breeders, confirming that courts can require the government

to produce a list of cabinet documents during the judicial review even though cabinet

discussions are confidential. Being forced to disclose lists of cabinet documents

creates legal risk, undermines public interest and immunity and adds another cost

as well as delay to court proceedings.

Other governments in this country — Canada and Alberta — already have stronger legal

tools to protect cabinet confidentiality. B.C., by comparison, is exposed. The outcomes,

we hope, of these amendments will lead to faster, more predictable judicial reviews;

stronger protection of cabinet and Treasury Board confidentiality; and reduced costs

and delays in the entire process.

In the fuel transparency act, the act, as set out in 2019, promotes transparency,

competitiveness and public confidence in the transportation fuel market. The new amendments

will enable an industry-funded model where the administrator, the British Columbia

Utilities Commission, can recover the costs of administering the legislation from

fuel producers and wholesale fuel importers.

It creates the authority for government to make regulation that authorizes the administrator

to set fees payable by fuel producers and wholesale fuel importers during a fiscal

year. It specifies that unpaid levies would be recoverable as a debt owing to the

government and would accrue interest on the amount outstanding.

The legislation further creates authority for government to make regulations that

require the commission to hold a hearing before setting fees. That enables affected

parties to have the opportunity to express their views on a fair fee allocation framework.

Regulations will also set interest rates payable for unpaid fees.

Why are we doing this now? Since the transparency act came into force in 2019, costs

have been paid by government. The shift to an industry-funded approach will alleviate

that cost, ensuring that resources continue to be made available for other government

priorities.

[3:05 p.m.]

This is similar to the long-standing practice of public utilities like B.C. Hydro

and Fortis funding the BCUC for their oversight through an energy levy that is set

each year. The BCUC, as you know, is an independent regulatory body responsible for

regulating B.C.’s energy utilities, basic auto insurance rates and interprovincial

pipeline rates. The commission has also been appointed by government as the administrator

of the fuel transparency act.

Why the change? Currently the Fuel Price Transparency Act doesn’t allow government

to recover admin costs from fuel suppliers. As a result, all administration costs

are currently being funded by government. Amending the act allows costs to be recovered

directly from industry.

The B.C. Utilities Commission, in its role, will design, set and collect the fee.

The BCUC was appointed as administrator of the Fuel Price Transparency Act in 2019.

The allocation methodology for collection will be determined by the BCUC in a public

process.

With regard to zero-emission vehicles, the proposed amendments reduce the 2035 target

from 100 percent ZEV sales to 75 percent ZEV sales. It removes the prohibition on

the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles from January 1, 2035. It shifts

the 2026 and 2030 ZEV sales target to the ZEV regulation alone to allow greater flexibility

to adapt to changing market conditions.

There are new regulations that implement the details of these legislative changes,

which will be updated in due course. The updated regulations will retain the 26 percent

ZEV sales target for 2026. They will also include the 2030 target, which will be determined

following emission standards proposals by the federal government for 2030, which are

expected to come later this year.

It’s important that we make the changes now. We’re making amendments to revise our

sales target in response to evolving market conditions. We are aligning the ZEV mandates

with the federal government’s goals, which provides certainty for automakers; reduces

their regulatory burden; and supports them in addressing challenges, such as slowing

consumer adoption driven by high purchase costs, supply chain disruptions and the

U.S. tariffs.

How do they affect profitability and affordability? The proposed changes address affordability

of vehicles by ensuring that the targets are achievable, avoiding the potential of

automakers artificially reducing the supply of internal combustion engines in the

province, which could increase the price of new and used vehicles.

Although ZEVs currently have higher upfront purchase costs, their maintenance and

operation are significantly lower, often making total cost of ownership for ZEVs less

than conventional internal combustion engines.

Gas is the major contributor to household fuels. Transforming to electrified transportation

significantly reduces household fuel expenditures. A typical EV driver in B.C. saves

$2,600 to $3,400 per year compared to a driver of an equivalent gas vehicle, or up

to $34,000 over a decade.

This is sensible information. It is important that we address these issues as they

emerge.

Gavin Dew : I rise to speak to Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[3:10 p.m.]

There certainly is a lot in this act, some of which is certainly miscellaneous, some

of which follows the time-honoured government technique of shoving things they don’t

want to talk about into an omnibus bill so they can pretend that it’s not material.

We then have to unpack it and point out what’s actually substantial in this bill and

what’s actually embarrassing for government as they climb down on a number of areas,

including on EVs.

I’ll just talk a little bit about the bill. I’ll talk a little bit about what’s in

the bill and some of the kinds of considerations that we’ll be looking to get a better

understanding of as we work our way through analyzing the bill further during committee

stage.

The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act adjusts many pieces of legislation, some

of which, again, are items that the B.C. Conservative caucus has been calling for,

for some time. God forbid the government actually call them full bills. Then they

would have to acknowledge their climb-down and surrender on those areas. Instead,

they are, of course, buried in this miscellaneous statutes act in order to avoid the

government having to talk about the ways in which they are climbing down, surrendering

and otherwise backtracking on their agenda — which is a consistent theme this week.

We’ve, obviously, seen over the last number of weeks the Premier hold six different

positions on DRIPA; surrender virtually the entirety of his own personal legacy; and

generally render himself functionally toothless, as a Premier with little to no legacy

to speak of in history.

It’s interesting to see the ways in which these items are being clawed back.

Deputy Speaker : Member, apology. I’ll interrupt.

I have to recognize one of our other members, our Minister of State for Local Governments.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today in the gallery we have students from the Vancouver school board international

education. I just want to thank them so much for coming here to Victoria and for coming

to the Legislature.

Right now you are watching democracy in action. We are debating a Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act. Right now you have a member of the opposition speaking. Next, we’ll

have a member from our team, our government team, speaking. I hope that you are learning

something today. I welcome you here.

I hope that everyone in the House will help welcome these students. Thank you very

much.

Deputy Speaker : Welcome to everyone in our chamber.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew : I’ll pick up where I left off, which was the Minister of Jobs with the worst performance

on private sector jobs in the country heckling me about his legacy. It’s interesting

to hear the gentleman speak in that way.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members, Kelowna-Mission has the floor.

Gavin Dew : Thank you very much.

As I was talking about, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act adjusts many pieces

of legislation, including walking back significant commitments previously made by

this government.

It reminds me of when they surrendered on the carbon tax. It reminds me of when they

surrendered on mandatory care but slow-walked actually implementing it. It reminds

me in particular of what’s happening as we speak, which is that the Premier is engaging

in a slow-motion surrender on DRIPA and has fundamentally, frankly, undermined investment

certainty in our province while setting reconciliation back by a decade.

It’s just interesting to watch that overall theme of government walking back previous

commitments and flip-flopping wildly all over the place, which we see in this legislation.

I know it makes some of the members opposite unhappy to hear that talked about, but

the good news for the Minister of Jobs is that he can get his leadership campaign

cranked up real good, real soon.

Deputy Speaker : Member, if I could get you to focus, please, on Bill 16, I would appreciate that

very much.

Gavin Dew : Well, thank you very much. I will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker.

It’s very good to see some of the changes that are in the miscellaneous statutes act.

Obviously, in 2025 our caucus called for changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act,

and this government opposed those changes. Yet now we see that’s something that they’re

actually moving toward.

We’ve also been calling for more mental health supports, especially in our prisons,

and it’s interesting to see the government now authorizing the use of proportionate

force to help those in prison receive mental health and medical support. That’s an

area that I’m very passionate about seeing progress on.

I have recently introduced a private member’s bill to address the matter of brain

injuries. That, obviously, fits into the overlapping conversation around how we make

sure that individuals who have received brain injuries — whether those be through

all matter of different ways they could have received those injuries including, tragically,

through non-fatal overdoses…. That is a very serious issue that we’re dealing with

in significant volume.

[3:15 p.m.]

It has been exacerbated by the reckless decriminalization experiment that this government

rolled out, and now it’s very important that we get the right kinds of measures in

place to make sure we’re able to address the challenges of individuals with brain

injuries, individuals who are wrestling with addiction, individuals who need mental

health supports. I certainly am pleased to see some progress being made toward enabling

that in our prisons.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that we need to make sure that

individuals who are in our prisons are able to get access to mental health. Also,

the opportunity that we have, that has as yet been slow-rolled and not moved forward

by this government, to repurpose the dramatically underutilized Oliver penitentiary

— which sits at about 25 percent utilization, partially because we’ve seen a 42 percent

decrease in the charge rate in the Kelowna area, which means that individuals who

should be incarcerated are not incarcerated.

If they are incarcerated, we should be making sure that we are doing what we can,

including through these kinds of measures, to enable access to mental health and medical

support. In some instances, it may be that what’s necessary is mandatory care for

individuals who are being involuntarily put into care but not charged criminally.

That is an opportunity for us to repurpose a facility that the taxpayer has paid for

that is sitting at least half, if not 75 percent, empty.

It’s a real opportunity — and I think, again, it overlaps with some of these changes

happening around mental health supports — for us to make sure that we are taking care

of individuals who are wrestling with addiction, who are stuck in that cycle where

we’re seeing the overlap of homelessness, mental health, addiction, brain injuries

and, in some instances, criminality on a recurring basis. It’s very important that

we get the right balance, very important we move forward with those kinds of changes.

We do have concerns about some of the changes being brought in

part 1 of the bill,

including amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act that expands the authority

to keep documents confidential. That does follow in a theme that we’ve seen from this,

the most secretive government in Canada — a government that is tearing up the legacy

of Mike Harcourt’s NDP government of the 1990s, who were leaders in freedom of information

and who in, I believe, 1992 or 1993, brought forward legislation that really actively

set the template around freedom of information.

Over the life of this, the most secretive government in the history of Canada, we’ve

seen an absolute demolition of freedom of information. We’ve seen the addition of

charges that targeted one specific journalist who the government found irritating.

We have seen now, most recently, with the amendments they’re bringing forward to FOI,

the ability to scope or to have more ways to push back on FOI and to refuse disclosure.

And we certainly have concerns around amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure

Act that would expand the authority to keep documents confidential.

Particularly when we look at the cumulative effect of all of these different changes,

it’s hard not to conclude that this is a government that is dedicated not to transparency

but to secrecy, and it’s hard not to guess why they would want that, given that they’re

failing on virtually every front.

Just minutes ago, I asked for answers around people who are dying in hallways in our

hospitals. I got no answers. I’ve been asking for more than a year for answers around

underutilized space at Kelowna General Hospital, including through the estimates process,

including through question period. This government simply refuses to provide basic

factual information, which is really, really unfortunate.

It’s to the point where MLAs can get more information from individual whistleblowers

who email us frequently, providing us with information that government refuses to

disclose. We actually know the information in many cases, but the government, who

are terrified of transparency, continue to hide it, and they continue to enact, through

this bill, changes that will make it easier to hide information. So that’s a really,

really unfortunate dynamic that we’re seeing enacted further in this bill, and I doubt

it’s something that anybody in this government is particularly proud of.

In regard to amendments to the Housing and Municipal Affairs elements of the bill,

our Conservative caucus supports the reduction of development cost charges, which

have, obviously, significantly increased the cost of new housing. Everyone has heard

various different versions of statistics to the effect that government and tax costs

comprise on the order of 25 or 30 percent of the cost of housing. Those are, obviously,

very, very significant costs that are very challenging in terms of the upward pressure

they place on housing prices.

We need to have an appropriate, structured approach to making sure that we’re able

to try to reduce some of those government-imposed costs on housing. The reduction

of development cost charges is certainly one way to begin accomplishing that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Obviously, there needs to be a full and balanced approach, and ideally, that needs

to be done in consultation with municipalities, which is something we haven’t seen

a lot of from this government.

Recently we saw a private member’s bill brought forward by this government around

the Professional Reliance Act go down in flames after having 88 percent of the feedback

that was submitted on it be totally negative — every single municipality totally negative.

That bill ultimately died.

The reason I think there was so much negativity was the accumulation of ill will by

municipalities who are tired of the heavy-handed imposition of policy by this government

from on high without an appropriate level of consultation. We certainly have seen

that in regard to short-term rental. We’ve seen that on all kinds of different fronts

where, again….

This is a government that doesn’t have its own house in order but likes to reach into

the pockets and reach into the freedoms and reach into the property rights and reach

into the homes of individual British Columbians and reach into the mandate of municipal

governments, completely ignoring subsidiarity, completely ignoring the idea that municipalities

might actually have some idea of what they’re doing and imposing their vision from

on high.

So it’s very important, as we try to move forward the kinds of policies that will

help to enable more affordable housing, including policies around development cost

charges, that there is a greater spirit of consultation and engagement with municipalities

in order to ensure that there is not only policy that makes sense but also buy-in

from those municipalities.

When I say “buy-in,” I don’t mean buy-in at the tip of the bayonet. I don’t mean the

kind of buy-in that you get when municipalities know that if they don’t play ball

and they don’t say the right things, they’re not going to get funding that they need

for growth from this government, which unfortunately has been a consistent pattern.

Municipalities know that if they stand up and if they push back, they will not receive

funding. They will not receive positive decisions from this government.

That, in my opinion, is not a way to collaborate with levels of government, whether

they be federal government, municipal government, regional government. You name it.

Not a great way to do business, but unfortunately that is the reality of what we’ve

been seeing, and it’s why the level of frustration has risen to a boiling point with

this government, not only from the public but also from municipalities.

Let’s talk a little bit more about some of the other changes that are forthcoming

through this bill. I previously mentioned the amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure

Act, which contains two clauses that would allow government to make more documents

subject to cabinet confidentiality and enable a period of time to be an argument for

preventing judicial review. Again, secrecy, more secrecy and more secrecy.

As we work our way through, we see in clauses 7, 8 and 9 amendments to the Zero-Emission

Vehicles Act, which is probably one of the more significant climb-downs from this

government. Much like the carbon tax, much like mandatory care, much like DRIPA, these

were articles of faith for this government to which they were entirely committed until

they weren’t. Really, there’s not much left that this government stands for other

than the desperate attempts of the Premier to cling to power before triggering a leadership

race or an election.

This is the NDP’s second major retreat on EV policy in less than a year. First, they

killed the provincial EV rebate, and now they’re gutting their own EV mandates and

hiding it in this miscellaneous statutes bill. That’s not the sort of thing you do

if you’re a government that’s proud of what you’re doing. It’s the sort of thing that

you do when you’re trying to do things quietly, which is exactly why we’re making

noise about it.

We want folks to know exactly what this government is doing. They don’t. That’s why

they continue to push against transparency, push for secrecy and live up to their

reputation as Canada’s most secretive government.

I think it bears note that six years ago this government made B.C. the first place

to legislate EV sales targets. Two years ago they doubled down with targets of 26

percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035. They said it was extremely

urgent. They said it was historic. They acted like anyone who questioned it was out

of touch, including those that own and drive electric vehicles.

I personally have an electric vehicle, but I have one because I made a market decision

to do so. It happened to work well for the purposes that myself and my family wanted

to have it for, and therefore, I made a decision of my own volition to do so. Certainly,

there are folks for whom that is the right decision to make. There are folks for whom

that is the right vehicle.

The great news about living with freedom and democracy and capitalism is that people

get to make choices and that products get to compete in order to provide solutions

that are workable for what people need in their lives. Certainly, we’re all for that.

[3:25 p.m.]

What we’re not for are overstated mandates that supress people’s ability to make decisions

in a market environment or that make assumptions that people living in Fort St. John

are going to want to drive Teslas — when the reality is that’s not a functional product,

not a functional use, not a functional environment where you particularly want to

have an electric vehicle.

There might be individuals for whom it works, and in that case, I celebrate their

freedom to make that decision. But from every conversation that I’ve had with individuals

in communities like Prince George, what you really have is a combination of provincial

and federal policies that have force-sold EVs to dealers and created situations in

which it really just doesn’t make any sense; in which, frankly, the drivers of non-EVs

are being forced to artificially subsidize EVs; in which dealerships are being forced

to artificially subsidize EVs, mostly so that governments can feel good about themselves.

In some instances, you had dealerships in, say, Prince George that are, effectively,

selling EVs at a colossal discount, because they’re not able to get the vehicles that

the market actually wants there unless they also take EVs. So you have people literally

buying EVs if they’re going to drive in Victoria or Vancouver and buying them from

Prince George in order to arbitrage that price. That’s not how a market is supposed

to work. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work.

Those are the kinds of skewed incentives and skewed outcomes that can only be created

by governments that really don’t know what the heck they’re doing and don’t have an

understanding of markets or of market behaviour or of consumer choice or respect for

those things.

When our caucus brought forward legislation to repeal these unrealistic mandates and

heavy-handed mandates, this government voted them down. They did not want to retreat

under actual legislative democratic process with the opposition bringing forward a

change, but now they’re doing exactly what we said they would have to do, which is

retreating.

The only difference is they’re trying to do it quietly under the cover of this miscellaneous

statutes bill, with the hope that nobody will notice. And, frankly, maybe nobody will

notice because — you know what? — the entirety of the media and the entirety of the

conversation is caught up in a number of higher-profile issues like DRIPA, where,

of course, they’re also retreating and they can’t figure out where they stand.

The Premier has had six positions in the last week, and their caucus is clearly divided

and falling apart and churning as a result of that.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I’m going to ask you to focus on this bill, please.

Gavin Dew : My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will.

I mention all those factors around the dissolution and disarray that are happening

in the government only simply to point out that if that’s what it took in order for

us to actually get this change made — which we’ve been calling for, for some time

— then, I suppose, so be it.

What the bill actually does is it cuts the 2035 target from 100 percent to 75 percent.

It removes the ban on selling new gas-powered vehicles after 2035. It strips the 2026

and 2030 targets out of legislation and moves them into regulation, where cabinet

can rewrite the rules behind closed doors, without a vote in this House. This is exactly

how this government plans to avoid accountability when its grand promise falls apart

again.

So that’s, really, what’s been happening here. The numbers that, actually, are there

around what’s happened with EV sales expose a fantasy land that this government has

been operating in and denying it.

In 2019, they said that EV demand was higher than expected. In 2023, EVs hit 25 percent

of new vehicle sales, so the government got cocky; jammed the accelerator; and accelerated

the targets about as fast as a Tesla accelerates, which is pretty darn fast. But then

reality hit. By 2024, adoption levelled off, and by 2025, sales dropped sharply.

This is the reality of what happens in a marketplace. You have early adopters who

are keen to take up the kinds of products that are there, and there are going to be

folks that want to buy electric vehicles. Fantastic.

There are going to be people for whom incentives were the reason. There are going

to be people for whom the life cycle, lifetime costs of the vehicles made sense. There

are going to be individuals for whom it is possible for them to front-load a higher

cost of purchase in exchange for a lower cost of long-term maintenance and fuel, electricity

rather than gas, and that’s fine.

But the reality is that you hit a certain point at which that relatively easy, lower-hanging

fruit of adoption is there, and then there’s a whole heck of a lot of people that

don’t want to buy an EV. Whether the economics don’t work for them; whether the performance

factors don’t work for them; whether they don’t work logically in their climate; whether,

god forbid, they just have made a consumer choice that that’s not what they want to

purchase, there is a certain resistance point that you hit in terms of adoption of

any product in any market. The cost to families is very obvious.

The New Car Dealers Association has been very clear. Manufacturers that can’t meet

the targets face three choices. They can raise the price of gas vehicles and — pop

quiz — who pays for that? Consumers pay for that. You can’t tax a business. You can

tax consumers through a business. You can tax consumers even harder with these kinds

of targets that are overblown and out of touch and not predicated on any reality but

just on the fantasy land this government lives in. So they can raise the price of

gas vehicles.

[3:30 p.m.]

Again, what does that do to hard-working families that need to commute? It hits them

harder at a time when they’re already struggling with an affordability crisis. They’re

already struggling with a business confidence crisis. They’re already struggling with

a weak job market. They’re already struggling with the horrendous conditions created

by choices made by this government.

Then again, you raise the price of gas vehicles. Dealers could buy credits from competitors

or they can cut supply. That means fewer choices and higher prices at the worst possible

time. This government built a system that punished working people for buying the vehicles

they can actually afford and the vehicles that they actually want — based on their

own consumer preference, based on their own needs, based on their own financial circumstances,

based on whatever they base it on — because that’s the amazing glory of consumer choice.

So unfortunately, families are still paying for a policy this government no longer

even believes in. It’s ridiculous. That’s one of the things that is being rolled back

under this legislation.

It’s, again, very clear that this government is trying absolutely desperately to avoid

having a real and fulsome conversation about the policy change they’re making, the

retreat that they’re making, and that’s why they’ve buried it in a miscellaneous statutes

act, because they don’t want to talk about it. They’re clearly embarrassed by it,

and they really hope that we all just kind of forget about it and that we’re all sufficiently

distracted by the collapse of their government and by their ever-changing story on

DRIPA that nobody even talks about this.

That’s why it’s so important that we do talk about it. It’s important that folks recognize

that this is a pattern with this government — policies that are not predicated in

any economic logic or understanding, policies that ignore consumer preference, policies

that punish people for making their own decisions, policies that take away choice

from hard-working families and that force car dealers to become the unwilling agents

of ramming social engineering down the throats of British Columbians.

That’s really not a good way to do things. Again, I think, hopefully, this government

has learned its lesson as it beats a retreat from that failed set of policies, but

I am not totally convinced that they will actually ever learn their lesson.

Unfortunately, it will be the people of British Columbia that have to learn the lesson

after nine long years of this government that hopefully do not stretch too much further.

There will be an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to have common sense

again, whether it be on zero-emission vehicles or any other topic at hand where common

sense has been woefully absent.

Let’s talk about a few other changes that are made through the bill. We can look down

to clause 17 where there are amendments to the University Endowment Land Act. I will

look forward to hearing more during committee stage as to the underlying intent and

purpose of these changes.

At a superficial level, it appears this is primarily focused on parking tickets. Parking

tickets are important. Once upon a time, I used to go to UBC. Once upon a time, I

used to work at UBC. Parking was always a complex matter there, including but not

limited to the fact that…. I believe the issue they are attempting to address here

is, really, around the enforceability of parking tickets, which is an interesting

and nuanced issue.

I will be interested to hear what information is provided around the actual recovery

rate or the actual rate of payment of parking tickets that has led to this amendment.

That will be a very interesting conversation to have in order to understand exactly

what’s happened there. I think, obviously, it speaks to some broader questions around

governance and around the ways in which UBC is structured to act as a quasi-municipality

in that area.

Having served at one time on the board of the University Neighbourhoods Association

out at UBC some 20 years ago, there are, obviously, a variety of different governance

complexities there, some of which have been very innovative and have led to tremendous

success in terms of the growth of that community. There are also other challenges

that I know remain frustrations for individuals living there, frustrations for the

university itself.

So I hope that in due course, as we get through committee stage, we’ll hear a little

bit more about the underlying rationale behind this change. Again, because numbers

matter, it’ll be helpful for us to actually hear data around what’s happening and

around exactly the size and magnitude of the problem that would be solved by this

amendment.

As we work through some other changes…. Again, there are some very minor changes.

Obviously, clause 24 eliminates the offence that removing any plant, flower, shrub

or tree at the University Endowment Lands is an offence and to be forced to pay a

fee up to $100. That, to me, is the kind of change that belongs in an omnibus bill.

It’s a small, minor tweak. I’m sure there has been some complex conversation behind

what has led to that change. That belongs in an omnibus bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

A climb-down on electric vehicle mandates probably belongs in some kind of actual

legislation. Again, it’s the kind of thing that you would do if you were proud of

the change you were making; the kind of thing that you would do if you were conceding

that you had actually overshot the mark previously; the kind of thing you would do

if you wanted to provide transparency to the vehicle-driving public, to car dealers,

to policy analysts and so forth.

You’d think that would be a pretty big conversation you’d want to have. You’d think

that this rollback would be accompanied by the same kind of fanfare and foofaraw that

the legislation it is rolling back was accompanied by — the kind of conversations

around leadership, the kind of conversations around policy.

Unfortunately, you won’t get that. You’ll get it buried in an omnibus bill. You’ll

get it buried in a place where it is never to be found. You’ll get it buried somewhere

that the government hopes no one will ever find it, so they can just quietly skulk

back on it with their tails between their legs, having realized that they overshot

the mark on that particular policy.

Similarly, again, I do think that the matter around cabinet confidences probably requires

a little more scrutiny than you would see in an omnibus bill like this. Clearly, this

is an attempt to just quietly slide it through without any attention being brought

to it.

Again, I’m not surprised the government is doing that, given the intensity and vitriol

with which their amendments to FOI were received by media; by advocates; and, most

importantly, by disgruntled former, frustrated New Democrats, the kind of people that

are saddened by watching the legacy of the NDP ripped up — by watching Mike Harcourt’s

1990s legacy around freedom of information be flushed down the drain, the final pieces

ripped up, burnt, the ashes flushed down the toilet — because they’ve destroyed freedom

of information in this province.

Again, they have earned that nickname, that reputation, as the least transparent and

most secretive government in Canada. That is really, really unfortunate to see, particularly

as we are grappling with major, major decisions where time and time again, day after

day — heck, minute after minute and hour after hour this last weekend — we’ve seen

government waltz with little accountability and little transparency through a completely….

Deputy Speaker : Member, please come back to Bill 16.

Gavin Dew : I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I just get so passionate about this government’s lack

of transparency that I can’t help myself but continue to return to that theme. It

is a theme of considerable frustration that I think a lot of British Columbians have.

Again, we’ve seen a series of other changes be made through this act. I think I’ve

touched on most of them. I mentioned, obviously, the changes around government authorizing

the use of proportionate force to help those in prison receive mental health care

and medical support. It’s a difficult piece of conversation that we need to have.

I don’t think anybody takes those kinds of trade-offs, those kinds of conversations

lightly. I think those are the exact kind of important conversations that we need

to be able to engage with fulsomely.

We need to be able to find that difficult balance, because we are unfortunately and

tragically dealing with an epidemic of mental health challenges. We’re dealing with

individuals who have serious, serious brain injuries.

Again, I brought forward legislation in an effort to try to scope brain injuries more

clearly into the Mental Health Act so that we can better enable both voluntary and

involuntary care for those individuals who, tragically, have been through the cycle

of non-fatal overdose and being revived — the loss of blood to the brain, the brain

damage that subsequently occurs — and are, unfortunately, in many cases, not ever

going to fully recover.

So we are going to need a system of care, a full-spectrum system of care, that takes

into account the full range of individuals, the harms that have been done — tragically,

the legacy of an overdose crisis that has been fueled by a reckless decriminalization

experiment in this province.

I am, again, looking forward to further conversation around all these different amendments

that are being brought forward at committee stage. I wish that some of them were being

brought forward as bills in their own right with the kind of scrutiny and conversation

that they fully deserve, but I have every confidence that, between myself and members

of the Conservative caucus, we will engage in fulsome diligence on these matters as

we move into committee stage. I am hopeful that we will see fulsome answers to the

kinds of questions that are likely to be asked during committee stage.

I hope that we will see constructive engagement, particularly around those items in

this bill that really should not be matters of partisan politicking but should be

matters of dialing in really, really important, important policy.

Again, those pieces around making sure that we are enabling proportionate force to

help with mental health supports are really tricky conversations. I hope that we will

be able to have a mature further debate around that in committee stage.

Again, I look forward to seeing the bill continue to committee stage. I look forward

to that discussion in full.

With that, thank you very much for the time today.

[3:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Recognizing the MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood.

Darlene Rotchford : Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Always nice to see you in the chair making sure people

stay in line. I know it’s hard in this place.

It’s an honour to rise in this House and speak to support Bill 16, the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act of 2026. I’d like to thank all of our ministers who brought

forward parts of this act. I have complete faith in my ministers and my government,

unlike some people in this House, apparently.

At a glance, this bill may not carry the same headline-grabbing weight as some of

the more sweeping legislation we debate in this chamber. It does not propose a single,

transformative policy shift. Nor does it focus on one issue alone. Instead, it does

something equally important, something foundational to good governance. It ensures

that the laws we’ve already passed are working in the way they are intended to work.

That matters very deeply, because government is not only about introducing new ideas.

It’s about maintaining, refining and improving the system we already have in place

so that we remain fair, efficient and responsible to the people we serve. I believe

that is exactly what Bill 16 does.

I will speak a little bit about different parts of this bill and break down what some

thoughts are around that.

A commitment to transparency and good governance. One of the core principles of responsible

governance is transparency. British Columbians expect their laws to be clear, consistent

and up to date.

Bill 16 reflects that expectation, bringing forward a series of targeted, practical

amendments across several statutes. These are not sweeping ideological changes. They

are careful, thought-out updates designed to clarify intent, correct inconsistencies

and ensure that legislation is implemented as it was meant to be. This is a standard

practice in any well-functioning legal system. More importantly, it is a commitment

to openness, to accountability and to doing the work properly.

By bringing these amendments forward publicly rather than quietly allowing inconsistencies

to persist, the government is demonstrating respect for both this House and the people

of British Columbia.

Strengthening access to justice. Let me begin with the amendments to the Judicial

Review Procedure Act. Access to justice is a cornerstone of our democracy. When individuals

challenge decisions made by government or administrative bodies, they deserve a process

that is fair, timely and affordable.

The amendments in this bill move us closer to that goal. They introduce a clear 60-day

deadline for filing most judicial reviews. This reduces uncertainty and prevents prolonged

legal disputes that can be costly for individuals and institutions alike. They also

clarify how sensitive cabinet information is protected during current proceedings.

This is about balance. This is about ensuring accountability while also protecting

the integrity of confidential decision-making processes that are essential to effective

government. Without these protections, we risk turning judicial reviews into lengthy,

trial-like proceedings, driving up costs; increasing delays; and, ultimately, making

that system less accessible. With these changes, we are creating a process that is

more predictable, more efficient and more accessible for everybody.

With some of the comments about transparency and concern about our government, I would

like to remind the members of the House that I am not a minister. This wouldn’t apply

to me directly, and I still support our ministers and our Premier with this change.

Deputy Speaker : Member, apologies to interrupt. We have someone seeking leave.

Claire Rattée : Could I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Claire Rattée : I have the honour to introduce, on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition,

a group of 23 grades 11 and 12 students from Earl Marriott Secondary as well as two

adults that are with their group.

We’re just in the middle of a debate on a piece of legislation here, so I hope you

enjoy your time here.

I would just ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker : Welcome to everyone in our chamber. Thanks for joining us today.

Apologies for the interruption, Esquimalt-Colwood.

Debate Continued

Darlene Rotchford : Not a problem. I know they’re just so excited hearing about this miscellaneous bill.

Welcome to the House.

Fairness and efficiency in tenancy matter. Turning now to the Residential Tenancy

Act and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, these amendments may be described

as housekeeping, but their impact is anything but minor. For renters and landlords

alike, clarity in the law is critical.

One amendment confirms the authority of the residential tenancy branch director to

review decisions arising from facility settlements. This authority has already been

exercised in practice, and this change ensures that those decisions remain valid and

trusted.

[3:45 p.m.]

Another amendment aligns evidence rules for administrative penalty proceedings with

those used in dispute resolution. What does that mean in practical terms? It means

decisions can be made more fairly and efficiently without being bogged down by overrigid

court-style rules that are not suited to administrative processes. For renters in

Esquimalt-Colwood and across B.C., this translates into greater confidence in the

system. It means disputes are resolved more quickly, more consistently and with greater

clarity.

Supporting housing and community infrastructure. Housing can be one of the most pressing

issues across our province. We’ve heard, on both sides of this House, talk about the

importance of housing and people who are struggling looking for different types of

housing. We just need to ensure that everyone has the tools in their toolbox to do

what they can to do their part for housing in our province.

These amendments affect the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter and related

statutes that are designed to help address the challenge in a practical and meaningful

way. The changes give local governments new tools to reduce or waive development cost

charges for a broader range of housing projects.

Why does this matter? It’s because upfront costs are one of the biggest barriers to

getting housing projects off the ground. By providing flexibility to reduce costs,

we can help make more projects viable, especially at a time when construction costs

and interest rates remain high. These amendments also position B.C. to access significant

federal funding for infrastructure through the proposed building communities strong

fund.

Again, we all have our part to play in ensuring that we’re having housing built here

in British Columbia. This is about more than just housing units. It’s about building

complete communities — communities with the infrastructure needed to support growth,

from transit to water systems to our public amenities.

For growing communities like those in my constituency, these tools are essential.

They mean more homes can be built more quickly and in a way that aligns with the needs

of the people who live there.

Modernizing enforcement of University Endowment Lands. Very exciting topic. The amendments

to the University Endowment Lands act address a long-standing gap in enforcement.

Residents in these communities have been very clear. They want effective, practical

tools to ensure compliance with local bylaws. Currently enforcement relies on court

proceedings that are time-consuming and very expensive.

This bill introduces a more modern approach — ticketing, similar to what is already

done in municipalities across B.C. This is a commonsense solution. It improves compliance,

reduces costs and brings governance in the area in line with the expectations of its

residents.

Next, improving transparency in fuel pricing. Turning to the Fuel Price Transparency

Act, transparency in fuel pricing is essential for consumer confidence. These amendments

shift the cost of administering the act from the taxpayer to industry through an industrial-funded

model managed by the B.C. Utilities Commission. This is a fair approach. It ensures

that those who are part of the fuel market contribute to the oversight of the market

rather than placing the burden on the public.

Importantly, the expected impact on fuel prices is negligible — less than 1 percent

for a typical fill-up. At the same time, this change frees up government resources

to be used in other key priority areas. It is a practi