British Columbia Hansard — 13 April 2026, p.m., Issue 150 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260413pm-Hansard-n150

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 43rd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday, April 13, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 150 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Monday, April 13, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ............................................................................................................................................. 6277 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................ 6277 Bill M241 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026 Elenore Sturko Members’ Statements ...................................................................................................................................................... 6278 Artemis II Lunar Mission Dana Lajeunesse Sage Transition House Lynne Block Farkhunda Muhtaj and Refugee Resettlement Rohini Arora Seabridge Gold and KSM Mining Sharon Hartwell Whalley Little League Garry Begg Cancer Awareness Jody Toor Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling) ................................................................................................................................. 6280 Oral Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 6281 Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Government Priorities and Confidence of House Trevor Halford Hon.

David Eby Gitxaała Mineral Rights Court Case and Proposed Changes to DRIPA Scott McInnis Hon. David Eby Funding for Long-Term-Care Facility and Affordable Housing in Squamish Jeremy Valeriote Hon. Bowinn Ma Hon. Christine Boyle Cowichan Hospital Replacement Project Workers and Cowichan Tribes Contractors Bruce Banman Hon. Bowinn Ma Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Health Care Facilities and Government Management of Capital Projects Misty Van Popta Hon. Bowinn Ma Government Management of Capital Projects for Highways and Infrastructure Lorne Doerkson Hon.

Mike Farnworth Government Financial and Project Management and Federal Infrastructure Funding Kiel Giddens Hon. Mike Farnworth Tabling Documents ......................................................................................................................................................... 6288 K’ ómoks First Nation Treaty, February 20, 2026 Kitselas Treaty, February 27, 2026

Question of Privilege (continued) .................................................................................................................................. 6288 Hon. Josie Osborne Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 6289 Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026 Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Donegal Wilson Hon. Randene Neill Sheldon Clare Hon.

Brittny Anderson Larry Neufeld Misty Van Popta Á ’a:líya Warbus Gavin Dew Lorne Doerkson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................................................ 6320 Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026 Hon.

Christine Boyle Claire Rattée Rob Botterell Linda Hepner Bruce Banman Anna Kindy Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 6335 Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport Hon. Anne Kang Brent Chapman Mandeep Dhaliwal Scott McInnis Jeremy Valeriote

6277 MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2026 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [The Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Scott McInnis: Unfortunately, she’s not able to be here in the gallery today, but I know that she’s watching at home. A very special constituent in the town of Revelstoke, Mrs. Helen Anderson, turned 103 years old yesterday. I know she has put on a smiling face and is already planning a big party for her 105th birthday. If the House would help me in wishing Mrs. Anderson a very happy 103rd birthday. Darlene Rotchford: I have two guests in the House to - day. One is Coun.

Ken Armour, and his stepdaughter is Leah Massine-Folliott. I had a lovely time spending my time in local govern - ment with Councillor Armour, and now I get to work with him in another capacity. I’m always excited to see our local government in the House, so hopefully, everyone can give them a big wel - come to the House. Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would like to wish my son, Diltaj Singh Dhaliwal…. It’s his 12th birthday. So can the House please welcome and make him feel special. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I have a few sets of introduc - tions today.

First, I would like to introduce somebody who is a fierce, fierce advocate for working people in this province. Karen Ranalletta, the president of CUPE B.C., is here with us today. CUPE is literally in every community, in every sector, helping us to build strong communities. I am so grateful for the work that every single CUPE member does across our province. [1:35 p.m.] I want to thank Karen for being here. She’s joined today by the new legislative coordinator for CUPE B.C., Caitlin Gilroy. Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Also, somewhere in the House — I don’t see him yet, but I know he’s going to be here — is somebody who is very special to me, a dear friend and former colleague, Baljit Sandhu, who is the regional vice-president of the In - terior for the Hospital Employees Union. Baljit works at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. He is a care aide. He has been a good friend and a strong ally for many, many years. Would the House please join me in making him feel very welcome. Finally, I have to say I see the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour in the House, Hermender Singh Kailley. Welcome, Hermender.

Larry Neufeld: I know that I’ve introduced my beauti - ful bride of — I like to say — 360 years. Those of us that have been married that long might appreciate that inside humour. The last time that we sat in this beautiful place of hon - our, I was alerted on my phone to a tragic event where my beautiful bride did attend the emergency room twice over a very short period of time. At the fear of encroaching upon some type of a copyright issue, I would say to the effect that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone. Please help me welcome Tammy Neufeld.

Amna Shah: I am absolutely honoured to introduce three very special people in this House. Today we are joined by my parents — my father, Syed Ashiq Ali Shah; my mother, Shahr Bano — and my brother Syed Raihan Ali Shah. I don’t think that my parents nor I would have im - agined that 20 years after we arrived to this country, their mildly opinionated daughter would somehow end up in the B.C. Legislature.

As I examine their life, their sacrifi - ces and their experiences, my challenges and my experi - ences absolutely pale with regards to their sacrifices that they’ve made for me, my brother and my sister in this country. I just want to give them a huge thank-you. Thank you for giving me the courage, the strength and the teachings to always speak in the face of injustice and to stand for what’s right in every aspect of my life. Thank you. Harman Bhangu: Last Friday, April 10, was my daugh- ter Audriana Bhangu’s birthday. She’s just been a guiding joy throughout the whole time. Now she’s six, but my son is seven.

So you all know that what I’m going to hear non- stop is the six-seven. Would the House please make her feel welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M241 —

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 Elenore Sturko: I rise to introduce the

Interpretation Amendment Act, which is on the order paper in my name,

6278 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026. I ask that it be read a first time now. The

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026, aims to re - peal

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation Act. The Interpret - ation Act is a crucial piece of legislation in British Col - umbia that outlines how laws should be interpreted and applied. It includes

definitions and rules that apply to all statutes and regulations in the province. In 2021, the act was amended to include

section 8.1, which makes it a legal requirement that every act and regulation must be interpreted in a way that does not derogate from the declaration.

Section 8.1 has already contributed to court decisions, including the Quw’utsun decision. While the Interpreta - tion Act was not the only basis on which she reached her decision on Cowichan Tribes v. Canada , Justice Young relied on this to support her conclusion that the Land Title Act does not protect property owners from Aborig - inal title claims. [1:40 p.m.] Her exact words were: “I find support for the view that the indefeasibility provisions in the LTA do not apply as against Aboriginal title in

section 8.1 of the Interpreta - tion Act, which directs that legislation be interpreted in a manner that does not derogate from Aboriginal rights. To construe it otherwise would also be inconsistent with U NDR IP.” Interpreting all laws and regulations so that they must be consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of In - digenous Peoples Act will fundamentally change how rec - onciliation is carried out. It is taking the power away from negotiations with government and placing it directly into the courts. For this reason, I believe

section 8.1 of the In - terpretation Act must be repealed. The Speaker: Members, this is first reading of the bill. Division has been called. [1:45 p.m.] Members, it seems like all the members are in the House. Is there any wish to waive the time? All right. We’ll continue, I guess. [1:50 p.m.] Members, the question is first reading of the bill intro - duced by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.] Elenore Sturko: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved. Hon. Nina Krieger: I seek leave to make an introduc - tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. Nina Krieger: It is my honour to welcome the emergency service dispatchers who are joining us in the House today and to recognize 911 awareness week. These professionals provide such a vital link in our public safety system in the service of all British Colum - bians. In moments of fear, uncertainty and confusion, they provide vital information and play such a key role in keeping our community safe.

It’s my honour to thank them on behalf of the province for the work they do every single day to keep our communities safe. With us we have Krista Morrison, who is E-Comm 9-1-1’s operational manager. I invite you to stand. Thank you so much. Adrian Dawson is E-Comm 9-1-1’s operations sup - port supervisor. We have Janine Vasilakopoulos and Troy Goodger, who are emergency call takers and police dis - patchers; Simon Lay, who is an emergency medical dis - patcher; as well as Krysta Stafford and Megan McMath, who are both alarm dispatchers with Saanich fire.

I invite everyone to join me in please making them feel very welcome. Members’ Statements ARTEMIS II LUNAR MISSION Dana Lajeunesse: Many of us will still remember gath - ering around the TV with family to watch grainy video imagery of the Apollo moon missions. Now 54 years later, over the past week or so, the appropriately named Artemis II mission came to a successful completion. [1:55 p.m.] For those who may not be aware, according to Greek mythology, Artemis was Apollo’s twin sister — a symbolic reflection of how times have changed over the past half century, a fact that is evident in this chamber.

Artemis II’s capsule, Integrity, transported its crew of four, which included Cdr. Reid Wiseman, pilot Vic - tor Glover, mission specialist Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen. Notably, Glover, Koch and Hansen not only represent the first Black person, the first woman and the first Can - adian to travel safely to the moon and back but, in doing so, also set another historic milestone. As the ship com - pleted its arc around the dark side of the moon, it reached a peak distance of 252,757 miles from Earth, a distance greater than any human had previously travelled.

Friday evening, as I watched Integrity splash down into the Pacific Ocean, memories of gathering around the TV with family to witness Apollo missions came flooding back.

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6279 During a later press conference, the day after their safe return to Earth, the crew of the Artemis II mission each delivered emotional speeches as they described their ex - periences. When Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen stood to reflect on his experience, he concluded by gather - ing his fellow crewmates together and relayed to the audi - ence: “You’re not looking at us.

You’re looking at a reflec- tion of yourselves.” I suspect what he meant was the Artemis II mission sig - nifies the beginning of a new era in space exploration, and it is a true indication of the unlimited potential of our spe - cies when we endeavour to work collaboratively and when we refuse to place limits on our capacity for innovation. As we celebrate historic as well as recent triumphs, let us also continue to expand the boundaries of our ingenu - ity as we strive toward a future better for all humankind.

SAGE TRANSITION HOUSE Lynne Block: Today I rise to take a moment to acknow- ledge an extraordinary place in my riding — a sanctuary, a lifeline, a true haven for women and children in crisis — Sage Transition House. For decades, Sage Transition House has quietly pro - vided safety, support and hope to women and children fleeing situations of abuse and violence. Its exact location remains confidential — even I had trouble finding it; it’s so well hidden — because safety is paramount. This is a place where women can finally breathe, feel secure and begin to rebuild their lives without fear.

At Sage, the focus is on healing and empowerment. Women and children are welcomed into a warm, support - ive environment with access to comfortable living spaces, counselling, educational programs and essential resources to help them regain independence. From meals to men - torship, from emotional support to practical guidance, every aspect of Sage is designed to nurture both safety and self-confidence. What makes Sage truly remarkable is not just the ser - vices it provides but the people who bring it to life — the dedicated staff and volunteers who offer compassion, guidance and hope when it’s needed most.

For the women and children who arrive, often at their lowest points, Sage is more than a shelter. It’s a lifeline, a place where fear be - gins to lift and hope takes root. The work of Sage Transition House reminds us of the power of community and care. It’s a quiet, steadfast hero on the North Shore, saving lives and giving families a chance to start over, stronger and safer than before. For anyone visiting or supporting Sage, the message is simple. This is a place of courage, compassion and trans - formation. And for the women and children who call it home, it is nothing short of life-saving.

FARKHUNDA MUHTAJ AND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT Rohini Arora: Last month at the Darpan’s IWD event, I was introduced to an amazing woman panellist, Fark - hunda Muhtaj. A professional soccer player and coach from Calgary, she’s captain of the Afghanistan national team and shared her story as being a key figure in evacu - ating the girls’ youth team from Afghanistan following the Taliban’s takeover. [2:00 p.m.] To say I was incredibly inspired would be an under - statement.

I asked her if she wanted to share a message with us, and I’ll read directly from what she had to say. “I would like legislators to know that although Canada has historically been supportive of resettling refugees, we cannot forget about the root cause of this crisis. We cannot contribute to the displacement of people through war economies and then also seek to manage the displacement of those same people. “As beautiful as Canada is, people around the world don’t want to be forced out of their homes to rebuild a life here.

What they want is peace and to be able to live in a dignified manner in their own countries. Ul - timately, we need to be more serious about the refu - gee crises by actually reducing the conditions that create them and not being complicit in the crimes against humanity, regardless of which nation is com - mitting it.” I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to say Halat chetor ast ayn to the MLA for Surrey City Centre’s parents for being here. As you can see, Afghan women lead the way again and again. It is a pleasure to be working with your daughter.

SEABRIDGE GOLD AND KSM MINING Sharon Hartwell: Seabridge Gold holds 100 percent interest in several North American gold projects. Their principal asset, the KSM project, is in northwest B.C. in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. The northwest of the province is rich in resources and opportunities. The government is setting their attention to these prospects. And 2026 marks a milestone for Seabridge Gold. They are celebrating 25 years of investment in the northwest. During this time, they have invested $1.2 billion in their property here in the northwest.

This success at KSM has defined one of the world’s largest copper and silver projects, containing 19.4 billion pounds of copper and 414 m illion cubic ounces of silver. The combined gold, copper and silver constitute an outstanding economic opportunity. Being leaders in their sector, the subsidiary KSM Min - ing has received the AME David Barr Award for excel - lence in mineral exploration health and safety. The awards

6280 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 celebrate remarkable individual and team achievements, contributions and innovation in mineral exploration and recognize excellence across the industry, including health and safety and innovation. KSM Mining earned its distinction for its pioneering efforts to foster collaboration and enhance emergency preparedness across British Columbia’s remote Golden Triangle.

In fall of 2023, they launched the Golden Tri - angle emergency response coordination meeting, bring - ing together emergency response and safety professionals from multiple projects and organizations. Rudi Fronk, Seabridge chair and CEO, said: “I’m very proud of our team for establishing a collaborative ap - proach to regional safety capabilities, including sup - porting community emergency responses. This is our commitment to safety and community.” AME president and CEO Todd Stone said: “On behalf of the AME board of directors, we congratulate and thank all 2025 AME award recipients.

Their leadership exempli - fies the spirit of mineral exploration and will continue to develop minerals that are essential to our future.” WHALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE Garry Begg: They have been to the World Series seven times — 1947, 1973, 1978, 1997, 2005 and 2024. They are recognized well as the powerhouse in Canadian baseball. They, of course, are the proud members and alumni of the Whalley Little League, and the World Series they have participated in are Little League World Series.

On Saturday, I was pleased and proud to attend the opening of their 70th season for those dedicated athletes and their parents and friends at Whalley Athletic Park — the atmosphere was electric and festive — hosted by presi - dent Clint Stewart. I know it meant a great deal to the players, families and volunteers, who showcased to Surrey the strength of our community and the positive impact of youth in sports.

The official Little League motto is: “Character, courage and loyalty.” Added to the official logo in 1960, this motto serves as a guiding principle to develop well-rounded citizens and instil lasting values through baseball and softball. [2:05 p.m.] The motto emphasizes building good character, fos - tering courage and promoting loyalty in participants. The courage and commitment of the supporters from all over Surrey is a testament to the value of that sport. Often re - cited before games, there is a pledge that reinforces those values. “I trust in God. I love my country and will respect its laws.

I will play fair and strive to win. But win or lose, I will always do my best.” Whalley Little League, you always do your best, and I hope that this is the best year ever. CANCER AW ARENESS Jody Toor: As a cancer survivor, I know firsthand the emotional and physical toll this illness can take. Can - cer does not discriminate. It touches people of every age, every background, every family. The reality is severe. One in two men and one in three women will face a diagnosis in their lifetime. Right here in our community, there are individuals and families walking this road today. Some are in the middle of treatment.

Some are waiting for answers. And some are learning how to live again. This is where I want us to stop for a moment and not just listen but truly take stock. Think about someone you know — a friend, a family member, a neighbour and, maybe, even yourself — and decide how you want to re - spond. Maybe you respond differently, because this month is not just about awareness. It is about truly being aware, aware in a way that asks you to pause and consider where you might not be paying attention right now. It’s about looking and booking that screening you may have been putting off.

It is about mak - ing that phone call to check in on someone who is fighting. It is about choosing small daily habits that protect your health. I have seen firsthand how those small decisions can make a meaningful difference. We also need to recognize that this journey is not just physical. It is emotional. It is financial. It can also feel very isolating. That is why community matters, compassion matters and showing up for one another matters.

As your MLA, I am committed to advocating for stronger support systems, better access to care and con - tinued investment in research that brings hope to those who need it most. Progress happens when we keep push - ing forward together. This month reminds us that every story matters. Every life matters. So let’s not simply acknowledge April being Cancer Awareness Month. Let’s respond to it. Let’s stand with those who are fighting, support those who are griev - ing and take real steps to protect our own health and the health of those around us.

When we turn awareness into thoughtful, intentional action, we do more than just raise awareness. We change outcomes, we strengthen one another, and we save lives. Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling) The Speaker: Members, following oral question period on Wednesday, April 1, the member for Nechako Lakes raised a point of order regarding words spoken by the At - torney General during oral question period. The Chair ad - vised the House that the matter would be taken under ad - visement so that the Hansard transcript and audio could be reviewed.

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6281 Having now done that, in the view of the Chair, the At - torney General’s language approaches the margins of what is ordinarily considered acceptable parliamentary lan - guage. While the Chair will not direct the Attorney Gen - eral to withdraw any particular phrase, the Chair again encourages all members to exercise care in their choice of words.

Parliamentary debate is most effective and least likely to cause disorder when it is framed in terms of policies, arguments or their consequences rather than language that could be perceived as questioning the intentions of other members.

Although the point of order is not upheld, the Chair of - fers these comments as guidance to remind members to be temperate in their language. [2:10 p.m.] Oral Questions PROPOSED CHANGES TO DRIPA AND GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES AND CONFIDENCE OF HOUSE Trevor Halford: In December 2025, the Premier said: “A court decision creates a legal crisis requiring immediate action.” I want to stress the word “immediate.” April 1 of this year, the Premier said: “Amendments are non-negoti - able.” Non-negotiable. “We have to get these through.” He said that three times.

He also said: “We are working with the Chiefs to find a path forward. We have to do it, and we will do it.” Then he said, on April 2: “Changing British Columbia’s declaration of the rights of Aboriginal Peoples act is non-negotiable, and it will be pushed into law.” That’s what the Premier said on Wednesday, April 2, 2026. Another word the Premier used multiple times was the word “confidence.” I want to stress that word, the word “confidence.” I think it’s important because it’s very clear that this Premier no longer has the confidence of mem - bers of this House. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh.

Trevor Halford: My question to the Premier is: what changed? What changed? I thought that the crisis that we were in — the legal crisis that this Premier articulated, where immediate action was necessary to come into this House and do the changes that the Premier said would legally protect property right owners — was a matter of confidence. A matter of confidence. Today, as expected, he has backed down. What has changed? Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Hon. David Eby: I know the member is really want - ing to see a draft of the legislation that we’re proposing around the Declaration Act.

I understand the urgency. He has a right to see it as quickly as possible. I’ll just assure the member that what we’re doing right now is what I told the member and the public we’ve been doing for a while. We’re trying to find a path forward with the Chiefs. These are important partners for us in the work we have to do to grow our provincial economy and to address long-standing injustices in this province. If we can find a path forward that is less invasive, we’re going to do it. But we will be introducing legislation.

If the member is concerned about the level of confi - dence this House has in the government, we can always introduce a motion of confidence. There will be budget bills. But I’ve spoken to the House Leader, and he’s pre - pared to introduce a motion if the member is concerned. The Speaker: Member has a supplemental. Trevor Halford: Let’s be clear. The Premier is trying to find a path forward to save his job. That’s the path for - ward he’s trying to save.

At the end of the day, the biggest problem that we’ve had on this file — I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — is that the Premier will go into one room and say one thing, he’ll go into another room and say another thing, and it just keeps going, and it keeps going, and it keeps going. At what point does the Premier actually back up what he says when he says that there is extreme legal liability right now, that there are over 20 court decisions that could be pending right now and that we need immediate ac - tion to make sure that British Columbians, property right owners, are protected?

He promised that he’d have that legislation. He prom - ised that he would get that passed in this House. He prom - ised that he would protect property right owners. And to - day he has backed down on all of it because he does not have the confidence of his caucus. When is this Premier going to do the right thing, put this legislation forward, put it to a vote and have the con - fidence of this House? Hon. David Eby: What the member says simply isn’t true. We’ll be introducing the legislation. I understand his desire that we get it into the House as quickly as possible.

I will assure the member and all mem - bers that we will make sure, through the House Leader and their House Leader, that there is the time needed to debate this, and all members will get to fulsomely debate and discuss this. This is an important issue for the prov - ince. I’ve underlined that on multiple occasions. If the member is seriously interested in a confidence

6282 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 motion, we can bring that motion. But I think what the member is seriously interested in is becoming Premier without a leadership race. The people of British Columbia are not…. Interjections. [2:15 p.m.] The Speaker: Shhh. Members, order. Order, Members. Shhh. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Members. The Premier has the floor. Members, come to order. Hon. David Eby: Our caucus is strong. Our caucus is united. We have the confidence of the House.

Every mem - ber of our caucus understands the crucial importance of this work and the challenging moment that it’s in but the need for it to continue. The Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal the Dec - laration Act, causing chaos, the loss of thousands of jobs. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Members, wait for your turn, please. Hon. David Eby: There are two mines alone that rep - resent thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of investment, that rely on the very act that he is proposing to repeal. There is a clear difference in opinion in the House. We have the confidence of the House.

We will introduce the bill as quickly as we can. GITXAAŁA MINERAL RIGHTS COURT CASE AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO DRIPA Scott McInnis: Chaos? This is chaos. After nine long years of staunchly supporting the Declaration Act, we see that the NDP’s tone has shifted, maybe. The Gitxaała decision from December is an extremely serious one. It states that all B.C. laws must immediately be in line with the Declaration Act. Can this government guarantee today that any type of pause, or whatever other idea they may come up with, will actually reverse that reality? Hon.

David Eby: The member glosses over, of course, the fact that this was voted on by all parties that were in the Legislature at the time and many members that cur - rently sit with the Conservative Party who voted in favour of the Declaration Act. Interjections. Hon. David Eby: Well, those that weren’t here were staff. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Interjection. The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South will come to order now. Hon. David Eby: I know it’s upsetting for them to hear that, but it’s true. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Please continue. Hon.

D avid E by: The Gitxaała decision does have a serious implication for the province. We are working with Chiefs to try to find a path forward that is the least in - vasive way to address that litigation risk for the province and supports the work that we have to continue to do with First Nations to grow our economy, create jobs and oppor- tunity in this province. It is crucially important work. We stand by it. We’ll be introducing legislation. I hope, if the member is con - cerned about this, that he will support it. The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: I think everybody is forgetting that the Premier stopped debate after a whole 14 minutes for the

Interpretation Act, which is why we’re in this position to - day — 14 minutes. This legislation has been flawed from the beginning. Legal experts from around the nation have been warning since 2019 that we would be in this position today. There’s no plan; no certainty, moving forward; maybe, a pause. Litigation is coming fast and furious at this province — a promise that the Premier said DRIPA would avoid. Will this NDP government do the right thing for B.C. and repeal the Declaration Act once and for all? Hon. David Eby: Here it is.

Without any explanation for how the Conservatives would deal with the fact that multiple billions of dollars of investment in this province is built on the Declaration Act, is built on agreements en - abled by this act…. Interjections.

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6283 The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. D avid E by: Their proposal would repeal not just the act. It would repeal those jobs and those opportunities. What about the crucial agreements…? Interjections. The Speaker: Members, wait for your turn, please. Interjection. The Speaker: Member, you have already asked the question. Hon.

David Eby: What about the crucial agreements between the province and First Nations about children, about the children of First Nations in this province who are in need of the support of their culture and language and strong communities — the agreements struck, again, under the Declaration Act? They gloss over all of that and the very serious and im - portant issue that this province was settled without, for a large part, treaties.

Section 35 rights are a big deal that we have to work with, with First Nations to grow the econ - omy, especially in rural and remote areas of this province, where some of the largest opportunities are. [2:20 p.m.] Their proposal would cause the loss of jobs. It would cause major economic damage, and they ignore that. We’re doing the hard work, the important work… Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Hon. David Eby: …that should have been done a long time ago.

FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SQUAMISH Jeremy Valeriote: Once a quiet forest and rail com - munity, Squamish is now a bustling regional hub; centre for innovation, outdoor recreation, tourism and the new B.C. economy. I’ll also mention it’s a shining example of reconciliation and action with the Sḵwx̱ wú7mesh Nation. Squamish is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. After decades of neglect, Squamish was just inch - ing onto the radar of this government, to their credit to be fair. Unfortunately, they were the first to be dropped when money got tight.

Squamish Hilltop House long-term-care facility was slated to be completed in 2030. This government gath - ered community leaders for a 2024 election campaign an - nouncement but has now pulled the plug, along with six other facilities, with 2030 scratched out and replaced with “to be confirmed.” My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Squa - mish can’t wait. The demographic pressures are real and growing by the day. When will the desperately needed new Hilltop House be open for the seniors of the Sea to Sky? Hon.

Bowinn Ma: I want to thank the member op - posite for his question, for standing up for his community and advocating for the seniors in his community. I absolutely agree and our government also agrees that seniors need support and that communities right across the province require more long-term-care beds. That is exactly why the work that we’re doing right now is so in - credibly important, because when we have projects com - ing back with cost estimates of upwards of $1.8 million per bed, we know that we can’t deliver at the scale that com - munities really need.

We’re looking forward to the work that is already underway with health authorities — within my ministry and in partnership with the Ministry of Health — to get those costs down, to find ways so that we can actually de - liver the number of beds that communities require. The Speaker: Member, supplemental. Jeremy Valeriote: We spoke at length about govern - ment procurement in the House this morning, and I don’t believe it’s the job of the opposition to figure this out. So $1.8 million per bed. There have got to be creative solu - tions to that.

Anyway, the same scenario in Squamish applies to the community housing fund. Non-profit Housing Squa - mish’s Government Road housing project intended to take advantage of construction synergies with a B.C. Housing project next door. This project application went in last June, with a response expected in September and then De - cember — strung along only to be cut on budget day. Housing Squamish is now left holding the bag, hav - ing invested half a million of its own dollars, expecting a go-ahead that never came.

Again, the rug pulled out after nine months of the province of B.C. being counted on as a reliable partner in housing. I’d like to ask the minister, with the utmost respect, if we can skip past the part about the work that’s been done — 95,000 units delivered or underway, rents decreasing — and that the community housing fund is not dead, only paused or mostly dead. I’d like to skip to the part where the minister can tell us how she’ll honour the work of this community non-profit housing society and make Housing Squamish whole. Hon. Christine Boyle: I am happy to speak both to

6284 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 the historic investments that we’ve made and the path forward. I was glad to be up in Squamish recently, and Sea to Sky with the member, announcing Squamish being part of phase 2 of the government’s HEART and HEARTH pro - grams, working together with the district of Squamish to bring people out of encampments and indoors. There are good, tangible programs that we’re doing in partnership with Squamish on that front. I don’t mean to be glib here.

I don’t think it is skipping past to speak to the significant investments that our gov - ernment has made in delivering housing in communities across this province, including Squamish. It’s 333 student housing beds, 54 supportive and transitional homes, 84 low-income homes, 137 affordable rental homes, 31 shel - ter beds plus the HEART and HEARTH programs we’re working on. After years and years of underinvestment from the members opposite, when many of them were in govern - ment, we are stepping up and investing, because we know what a difference it makes.

I know there are projects that we’re looking forward to funding out of last fall’s com - munity housing intake. We continue to work with project proponents and, in our work with the federal government, to see more dollars come in to continue those investments, because we know it matters. [2:25 p.m.] COWICHAN HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT WORKERS AND COWICHAN TRIBES CONTRACTORS Bruce Banman: I want to revisit a topic from a couple of years ago, specifically the Cowichan Hospital replace - ment project.

Jon Coleman, who is actually sitting in the gallery to - day, was cut out of working on that project because of this government’s exclusionary policies. My question. How does the minister justify hiring temporary foreign workers on the Cowichan Hospital in - stead of hiring Indigenous Quw’utsun contractors like Jon Coleman? Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’d like to take this question on no - tice, given the context that they provided here. The Speaker: The member has a different question? Bruce Banman: Actually, I do. The government really needs to look into the mirror when talking about temporary foreign workers.

Maybe this government wouldn’t need to increase the number of temporary foreign workers by 110 percent since 2018 if they stopped shutting out British Columbian con - struction workers. My question…. Interjections. The Speaker: Members, shhh. Interjection. The Speaker: Minister. Minister, please. Bruce Banman: How does the minister justify shutting out British Columbians, construction workers when the Cowichan Hospital is now $5.6 billion over budget? Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.

I’m just rolling back to this morning, when we had an opportunity to stand outside with members from the B.C. Building Trades — people who literally build this prov - ince and who are extraordinarily concerned about pos - itions that the opposition has taken, discussion that is happening in this House and outside of this House, that would literally reach into their pockets, harm their fam - ilies, take work away and ship it outside of our province. I just want to be really clear here. And I’m going to speak about projects…. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjections. [The Speaker rose.] The Speaker: Members. Come to order. Come to order, Members, please. [The Speaker resumed their seat.] Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: We on this side of the House are investing in our communities. We are investing in skilled trades. We are investing in jobs in our communities. I can speak to my own community. I can speak to the work done on the stal̕əw̓ asəm Bridge. Ninety-three per - cent of the labour force on that bridge was homegrown. They came from B.C.

Likewise with the Royal Columbian Hospital, the old - est hospital, where we are building a brand-new, beautiful hospital that will dramatically increase beds. I want to just tell a quick story that we heard this mor - ning about Cowichan… Interjections. The Speaker: Members.

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6285 Hon. J ennifer W hiteside: …where because of the work that we are doing, investing…. The Speaker: Take your seat, Minister. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS Misty Van Popta: Wow, it appears that some members of the government are not aware of the unintended conse - quences of their policies. Jon Coleman is a direct result of how exclusionary procurement has left out First Nations on contracts.

We know this government has horrible track records when it comes to completing capital projects, and now, instead of being transparent, this government is going to hide all major projects that are less than $125 million. That’s most schools, expansions into the health care sys - tem now hidden from scrutiny. [2:30 p.m.] You know what this government’s record is though? It’s $17 billion over budget and 158 years of delays. That’s the legacy of construction policy under this NDP government.

Will this government admit that they failed at deliv - ering projects on time and on budget, like the Richmond Hospital redevelopment project that is $1.1 billion over budget and two years behind schedule? Hon. B owinn M a: Our government is proud of the investments that we have made in capital infrastructure across the province. We have been implementing the single… Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. Bowinn Ma: …largest capital infrastructure investment in B.C. history, working to catch up on dec - ades of infrastructure deficits left behind by previous governments. Interjections. The Speaker: Members.

Members, the minister has the f loor. Interjections. The Speaker: Member for Kamloops Centre and the Leader of the Official Opposition will come to order. Interjections. [The Speaker rose.] The Speaker: Members, both sides, come to order. One member at a time. One minister at a time. The minister will complete. [The Speaker resumed their seat.] Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’ve been building record levels of infrastructure — schools, hospitals, transit — to meet the needs of British Columbians.

And while we are doing that, we have been taking a responsible approach to re-pacing some projects so we can continue to build what people need. The members opposite talk about debt and servicing costs, which is certainly… Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. Bowinn Ma: …a serious issue that needs to be managed. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. Bowinn Ma: But I really think that members op - posite need to figure out what their fiscal plan is, because they have spent entire question periods accusing us of not taking the deficit seriously, demanding cuts to services…. Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister will continue. Hon. Bowinn Ma: They have spent entire question per- iods demanding cuts to services, cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to projects…. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Minister, please conclude. Hon. Bowinn Ma: Then they turn around, go into communities and demand that we carry on with pro - jects regardless of how over budget they are, regardless of how expensive they are. They criticize us for the work that we’re doing to try to manage projects.

I really think that members of the opposition need to get on the same page about how they actually want to fiscally manage this province.

6286 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 The Speaker: The member has a supplemental. Misty Van P opta: I hear that they’re proud of their re - cord investments in infrastructure, yet they cut $7 billion from the capital plan in this year’s budget. As a result of this government’s mismanagement, they now have to cancel projects because they’ve run out of borrowed money. That includes cancelling long-term-care facilities that are desperately needed. When the government mismanages capital projects, everyone is infected, including union and non-unionized workers.

The Burnaby hospital phase 2 was approved for $180 million, and I am told that the latest estimated cost is $180 million, yet it is still on pause. When will this government get serious and stop with the exclusionary procurement processes and get projects in B.C. built on time? Hon. B owinn M a: If the member of the opposition, the critic for Infrastructure, believes that you can build an entire hospital tower for $180 million, I would really ser - iously think that they have to…. Interjections. Hon.

Bowinn Ma: The work that we are doing right now is to take the time to work with health authorities to ensure that we can actually deliver projects sustainably — work that the public expects us to do. The member opposite wants to go into communities and tell people that we need to build long-term-care homes even if it costs $1.8 million, $2 million, $2.5 mil - lion per bed. That is her prerogative. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’re going to do the work that it takes to be strong fiscal managers…. Interjections. The Speaker: Members. Hon. Bowinn Ma: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I can’t hear myself think when everyone is screaming. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. Continue. [2:35 p.m.] Hon. Bowinn Ma: This is important work. We’re proud of that work. We’re going to continue to do that work for British Columbians. GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR HIGHW AYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Lorne Doerkson: Let’s be clear. Management of pro - jects by this government is absolutely abysmal. If a 34 percent budget overrun on the Kicking Horse Canyon isn’t bad enough, how about a 143 percent over - run on the Illecillewaet highway — budgeted for $35 mil - lion, now costing $85 million?

My region was once promised a complete four-laning of the Cariboo connector, and the government cancelled it. Infrastructure in my riding is in horrendous disrepair. It is literally crumbling, and in areas, it’s unsafe. Will this government stand up and support the resi - dents of Cariboo-Chilcotin and get serious about the improvements to our highways and infrastructure, yes or no? Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s been interesting hearing the questions from the opposition on infrastructure in - vestment in the province of British Columbia. You know what? We’ve said yes to building the Surrey- Langley SkyTrain.

Interjections. The Speaker: Members, it’s your time. You want to continue to waste it? Be my guest. Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve said yes to investing $195 million in northwestern British Columbia — $195 million to open up billions of dollars in mining ex - ploration and jobs for British Columbia. We are investing over $35 million on Highway 97, $105 million on another part of Highway 97. We’re spending over $90 million on the Kicking Horse bridge replacement in Golden. We’re spending money in the Okanagan, Trepanier Bench inter -

section improvements. All in opposition ridings, and they complain about the expenses. It’s jobs that are being built by this province, something they don’t seem to understand. Interjections. The Speaker: Shhh. If you let him answer, he will. Please. Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I’d also like to make this point, given the questions that have been asked, because they’ve been talking about the workers in this province. Well, let me remind this House:

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6287 when the members on that side, some of them, sat on this side of the House, what did they do? They…. Interjection. Hon. Mike Farnworth: Actually, no. It’s one, two and three over there and a staff member for your leader, and other staffers probably. But the bottom line is this. They so weakened labour standards in this province that other provinces were re - fusing to recognize the Red Seal program in this province, because the people that that member’s private bill benefits wanted to do just that. Guess what.

On this side of the House, we’re building infrastructure. We’re training apprentices. We’re training more Indigenous apprentices. We’re training more women apprentices. We’re training the future of this province, and we’re going to continue doing that. GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING Kiel Giddens: Unfortunately, it’s the workers… Interjection. The Speaker: Shhh. Let’s hear the question. Kiel Giddens: …in this province that will have to pay for the three credit rating downgrades the province has just had in the last couple of weeks.

The federal government released their streams for build Canada strong. It includes a program that matches provincial investment in areas like housing and health care. While our cost of borrowing is going up, this gov - ernment has mismanaged the capital plan so badly that we could end up leaving federal funds on the table because we can’t afford to match. Dawson Creek hospital, $212 million over budget. Cowichan Hospital, $560 million over budget. This has led to cancelled health care infrastructure, like phase 2 at Burnaby Hospital, cancelled long-term-care homes.

When projects actually do go ahead, they are billions over budget. [2:40 p.m.] In the real world, project managers would be fired for this kind of mismanagement. Well, it’s about time we fire t he NDP. Can the Minister of Finance guarantee that British Col - umbians will not lose out on federal infrastructure dollars for much-needed long-term-care homes and health care infrastructure because of this government’s credit down - grades and capital project mismanagement, yes or no? Hon.

Mike Farnworth: There is nothing more ludi - crous than that question, the idea that this side of the House will leave federal money on the table. We will not do that. But the biggest threat…. Interjections. The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members. Interjection. The Speaker: Member, if you don’t stop heckling and interrupting others, the Chair would have no choice but to ask the member to leave the House. The minister will complete. Hon. Mike Farnworth: I know the member really would like to find a way to become Premier, but I want to assure him this House is not going to collapse.

The mem - ber on the other side, to his right, is going to be able to participate in a leadership race, and he may or may not win. But the bottom line is this. We do not leave money on the table. The only threat to projects and the only threat to workers is the policies and the ideas of that side of the House. We’ve seen it in the past, where they stripped away workers’ rights, where they ensured that we didn’t have the apprentices that we need to build the projects in this province. They stripped away the qualifications of workers.

We received reports that that government received, when they sat on this side of the House, that said we were in dan - ger of not having our Red Seal certifications recognized. That’s the danger to the building of this province — not ensuring that we’ve got trained, skilled, well-paid, union - ized workers building British Columbia in every part of this province. [End of question period.] Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I seek leave to make an introduc - tion. Leave granted. The Speaker: Proceed. Introductions by Members Hon.

Ravi Kahlon: I’m sitting here in the House, in the middle of question period, and my aunt and uncle walk into the House. I don’t know. They didn’t tell me. I don’t know what that says about me. I want to recognize Poli and Gurbaksh Kular, Inderjit Hayer and Pinder Hayer, from my community. My uncle Poli played with my dad on the field hockey team for

6288 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 many, many years. He coached me when I was a kid. His son went to the Olympics with me. I’m just surprised to see them here. I’m hoping the House can please join me in making them really welcome. Tabling Documents Hon. Mike Farnworth: A couple of things. First, I rise to inform all members that pursuant to Standing Order 25C, I have formally advised you, hon. Speaker, and all House Leaders of the two forthcoming addresses to the House with respect to treaty-related business.

The first address, by a representative of the K’ómoks First Nation, will take place on Tuesday, April 14. An address by the Kitselas First Nation will take place on Wednesday, April 15. In order to inform the House and in anticipation of the forthcoming items of business, by leave, I move that the K’ómoks First Nation treaty and Kitselas treaty be tabled. Leave granted. Question of Privilege (continued) Hon. Josie Osborne: I rise to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Skeena.

The raising of a question of privilege and the finding of a prima facie breach of the individual and collective rights of this place is the most serious undertaking that you must consider. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you provide me with a little bit of latitude to outline the two elements in my reply for your consideration. The issue at hand is regarding Dr. Somers and previ - ous Speakers’ rulings around the form and completeness of engaging in Standing Order 26. Regarding Dr.

Somers’s research data, since 2005, the inter-ministry evaluation database, or IMED, was an integrated data set consisting of governance from a multiministry steering committee of B.C. citizen data that was housed at Simon Fraser Uni - versity and shared with Dr. Julian Somers. [2:45 p.m.] In March 2021, following months of discussion and in alignment with the expiry of IMED information-sharing agreements and with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

section 33(h), the data was tran - sitioned to the province’s new data innovation program. This action was taken to ensure appropriate stewardship and because it is standard practice with all research agree - ments that provide access to and the use of B.C. citizen data. Any published findings produced with this data and any data Dr. Somers personally collected were not im - pacted by this order, and they remain in Dr. Somers’s pos- session. The principal effect of the transition is govern - ance-related. Dr.

Somers is no longer the sole custodian of the data, consistent with public sector data stewardship and equitable access principles. To be clear, the data continues to exist. The request was for Dr. Somers to transition the data to the DIP and to de - stroy his copy of this data housed within the IMED, con - sistent with general practices around provincial data on B.C. residents at the end of a research project. As I stated in the House, the data set continues to exist in the data innovation program and is now, in fact, access - ible to other researchers.

It is being used by researchers both inside and outside government to this day. Now, regarding the procedures around a question of privilege, I believe that I’ve addressed the concerns the member for Skeena raised in an effort of being transpar - ent and open and not by engaging in debate. However, I would be remiss to not address the proced - ure for raising a question of privilege under Standing Or - der 26. Parliamentary Practice in B.C., fifth edition, lays out the procedure and essential elements of raising a ques - tion of privilege in

chapter 17, pages 399 and 400. “The essential elements when raising a question of privilege are (1) a brief written statement of the matter prepared by the member, which cites relevant author - ities; (2) a copy of the offending article, if applicable. “Three, a copy of the motion that the member in - tends to move, should the Speaker find a prima fa - cie breach of privilege has been established, must be tabled. “Four, as a matter of practice and courtesy, mem - bers are encouraged to give prior notice in writing to the Speaker of the intention to raise a matter of privilege.” In addition, Parliamentary Practice in B.C. continues on page 400, “If a question of privilege involves another member or includes an allegation of another member, that member should be present when the question is raised,” as found in the B.C.

Journals , June 26, 1991, p. 62. Further, Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Practice in B.C. , 17.8.4 on page 404…. The S peaker: Minister, maybe you can submit a sub - mission to the Speaker. You don’t have to read it here. Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, I can absolutely do so. I have documentation to submit the government’s position and will submit that now. Thank you. Orders of the Day Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6289 reading on Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amend - ment Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Act. In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Ministry of Tour - ism, Arts and Culture estimates. [2:50 p.m.] [Lorne Doerkson in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 15 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are go - ing to contemplate Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act of 2026. I would call on our Minister of Environment to intro - duce the bill. Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move that this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce for a second time the En - vironmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026. The 2018 act was a landmark piece of legislation designed to sup - port and create durable decisions. It introduced require - ments to seek consensus between the province and First Nations at key steps in the environmental assessment pro - cess, and it provided dispute resolution provisions to sup - port that when necessary. We have heard from First Nations and industry that this aspect of the act has not been working as intended.

That is why we are taking action today to revise the dis - pute resolution framework so it can better support con - sensus-seeking, predictability and trust. Over the past six months, we have done extensive con - sultation and cooperation with 46 First Nations and en - gaged with First Nations organizations, industry repre - sentatives and project proponents. We have listened. We have learned. And we have reflected. We heard strong interest in focusing on early issues resolution to support consensus-seeking.

Meaningful col - laboration should begin early in a way that respects In - digenous governance, knowledge and decision-making. When issues are not resolved early, they accumulate, cre- ating pressure points and impacting timelines late in the process. The message was clear. Improving issues resolu - tion reduces the need for formal dispute resolution. We’ve also heard that the existing legislative frame - work requires more structure to bring clarity to dispute resolution provisions. The amendments address this input. The first major amendment is the creation of a new tool, the issues resolution protocol.

This protocol is designed to facilitate early issue resolution and support consensus- seeking throughout environmental assessments. It will be grounded in a standard issues resolution protocol which has been co-developed with B.C. First Nations. First Nations that are participating in the environ - mental assessment can use it as a template, starting at the first phase of the process, customized to their specific governance context. This protocol will clearly outline how issues are discussed, escalated and resolved, and when the other parties should be involved.

The protocol is directly responsive to input from First Nations consulted during the development of these amendments. It is a new tool under the act, but it is not a new con - cept for First Nations or the environmental assessment office. First Nations and the environmental assessment office have used this kind of approach to successfully re - solve issues, government to government, for many years. It supports early identification of issues, respectful discus - sion and collaborative resolution.

This brings more trans - parency, certainty and predictability to the process along with the flexibility to incorporate First Nations govern - ance systems and legal traditions. The second major amendment revises

section 5 of the act to update the dispute resolution process. The re - vised provisions clarify how dispute resolution is initiated, when it is available and what issues it can address. Dispute resolution will be available at early phases of the environmental assessment only, used by mutual agree - ment and focused on issues within the scope of the act. It will no longer apply during the effects assessment or recommendation phases, as experience has shown it is not effective at this late stage of the process. Instead, at those stages, outstanding issues can be addressed through the issues resolution protocol.

The intent is to resolve issues early and prevent the need for dispute resolution in the first place. The amend - ments also strengthen transparency for all participants in the environmental assessment. [2:55 p.m.] At its core, this legislative package supports consensus- seeking, provides clearer pathways for issue resolution and ensures that dispute resolution remains a constructive tool. It also supports predictability for all participants in the environmental assessment process, helping to ensure that environmental assessments remain timely, transpar - ent and effective. This brings us to the third amendment.

Relationships with First Nations located in B.C. are a priority and a core focus of this government. The Supreme Court of Can - ada’s Desautel decision in 2021 confirmed that Indigenous groups located outside of Canada with a credible claim to Aboriginal rights in Canada may be owed a duty to con - sult. That ruling clarified that where the province has a duty to consult, that consultation may be different from consultation with First Nations in Canada.

6290 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 We’re introducing updates to the Environmental As - sessment Act to support the environmental assessment office’s ability to differentiate its consultation with U.S. tribes. Consistent with recent orders under the Environ - ment and Land Use Act, the legislation will clarify that U.S. tribes cannot participate in the environmental assess - ments as participating Indigenous nations. We take very seriously our obligations to consult with Indigenous groups who may be impacted by a proposed project.

That consultation with U.S. tribes will take place outside of the participating Indigenous nation framework. This ensures a clear approach that respects the unique re - lationship B.C. First Nations have with the province, while upholding our consultation obligations to U.S. tribes. These amendments reflect consultation and cooper - ation with First Nations, engagements with other parties that participate in environmental assessments and collab - oration on the path forward. This shared commitment to improving environmental assessments in British Colum - bia was clear throughout our discussions.

These amend - ments respond directly to what we’ve heard from First Na- tions, industry and participants across the province. For First Nations, they offer a process that respects governance and treaty rights through early consensus- seeking and issues resolution. For industry, they provide increased transparency, predictability and the certainty needed to invest in British Columbia. For the public, they give assurance that our natural resources are managed through a fair, rigorous and predictable system.

With the introduction of these amendments, we are fostering reconciliation and building a stronger, more eco - nomic future for all British Columbians. Donegal W ilson: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 15 as the designated speaker for the opposition — legislation that proposes changes to British Columbia’s en- vironmental assessment framework. Environmental assessment is one of the most import - ant responsibilities entrusted to this Legislature.

It is where we make decisions that shape how development proceeds, how landscapes are protected, how watersheds are safeguarded and how communities understand their place in the future of this province. These decisions are not abstract. They affect whether projects move forward with clarity or uncertainty. They affect whether communities feel heard or left behind, and they affect whether British Columbians continue to have confidence in the systems that guide land and resource decisions across our province.

As the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I approach this legislation from the perspective that en - vironmental assessment must do two things at the same time. It must protect what makes British Columbia extra - ordinary — our landscapes, our water and our wildlife — and it must provide a clear, stable pathway for responsible development to move forward. [3:00 p.m.] These are not competing objectives. They are comple - mentary responsibilities and something that we must fig - ure out for the prosperity of British Columbia.

Environ - mental assessment exists to ensure that projects proceed in a way that respects ecosystems, supports communities and provides certainty to those making long-term invest - ments and jobs in our province. That balance matters, es - pecially in rural British Columbia, where many of these projects exist today. In the communities I represent, environmental assess - ment is not a distant administrative process. It is part of our everyday reality. I come from a region rich in mining, forestry, water, recreation and all of the things that require environmental assessments.

It shapes whether infrastruc - ture is built, whether resource projects proceed, whether employment opportunities expand and whether environ - mental values that define these regions are protected for our future generations. When we consider legislation that proposes changes to how environmental assessments operate, we’re not simply debating process. We’re debating how those decisions are made, and we’re debating today who participates in those decisions. We’re debating whether the framework we cre - ate today will provide the clarity British Columbians ex - pect tomorrow.

I want to acknowledge at the outset that the Environ - mental Assessment Act review process did include engage- ment with Indigenous governments, local governments, proponents, environmental organizations and commun - ities across British Columbia. That work was completed last year. Participants identified areas where the system could be strengthened, particularly with respect to early issue resolution, coordination between decision-makers and clarity in how those assessments move forward. I believe this Bill 15 is an attempt to work towards those goals. They are important objectives.

They are objectives that deserve careful attention in this House. Bill 15 proposes to respond to some of these priorities. But as legislators, our responsibility is not only to consider what a bill is intended to do but what the actual outcomes it creates are. We are to examine how clearly those inten - tions are reflected in the legislation itself. Predictability in environmental assessment does not come just with intentions. It comes from structure. It comes from timelines. It comes from transparency in the process overall.

And honestly, it comes from clarity about how those decisions will be made in practice and applied in every single project equally. Many of the changes proposed in this bill introduce new mechanisms intended to support that coordination and earlier resolution of issues within the environmental assessment process. Those mechanisms may prove use -

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6291 ful — I believe they could — but many of the details that determine how they will operate remain to be defined through regulation at a later date rather than established directly in statute. That distinction, I believe, matters, because environ - mental assessment functions best when communities understand how the process works before it begins, not af - ter it has already started. It also functions best when pro - ponents understand the sequence of decisions they will face with attached timelines. Investors need to know how long they’re planning for.

It also needs to function with Indigenous governments, local governments so that the public can see clearly how their participation shapes that outcome. Today my remarks will focus on three questions that I believe are central to understanding the legislation before us. First, how does Bill 15 respond to what participants identified during the Environmental Assessment Act re - view process? I think that’s a really valid question. Second, where does the legislation strengthen the en - vironmental assessment framework? Are those timelines clearly defined?

Third, where does the bill leave important operational details to regulation that will need further examination as it moves forward through committee stage? Regulation doesn’t have that,

whereas statutes do. We need to under - stand in committee stage what’s being moved to regula - tion and what that’s going to look like, going forward. [3:05 p.m.] Environmental assessment is one of the places where this Legislature most directly shapes the long-term future of British Columbia’s land, water and communities. It de - serves careful attention. It deserves thoughtful scrutiny. It deserves legislation that provides the clarity that British Columbians expect from the framework that guides the most important decisions in our province.

With that in mind, I would like to begin by speaking about the role environmental assessment plays in pro - tecting British Columbia and the natural resources and landscapes that define it. Environmental assessment is one of the most import - ant tools this province has so that development proceeds responsibly and the landscapes British Columbia de - pends on are protected for future generations. It is where environmental protection and economic opportun - ity meet.

It is where long-term stewardship is translated into practical decision-making, and it is where the prov - ince demonstrates how it intends to balance growth with responsibility. Bill 15 is an important tool to try to meet that re - sponsibility. As the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I see environmental assessment as part of a broader system that protects the natural foundations of our province — our watersheds, our forests, our wildlife habitat and the landscapes that define both. It is not simply a procedural requirement; it is a safe - guard.

It ensures that projects are evaluated not only for what they build but what they will affect for this genera - tion and the generations that follow. It ensures that cumu - lative impacts are understood before decisions are made. It ensures that our drinking water, our fish habitats, our agricultural land and our species at risk are all considered in that decision-making to influence outcomes. And it en - sures that decisions made today do not create unintended consequences for future generations.

That is why I think Bill 15, introducing the dispute resolution earlier in the process, really helps us in this pro - cess. British Columbia’s natural environment is not only central to our identity as a province; it is essential to our economic future. We need to figure out how to get this right. We need to figure out how to bring that investment to our province. That comes from predictable timelines with known pro - cesses for all investors and companies in British Columbia. We also need to support our landscapes for tourism, re - creation and other economies that exist within our land - scape.

We need to support biodiversity that is recognized around the world as one of our defining strengths in this province. Environmental assessment plays a role in protecting all of these values and is why we have worked so hard over many years to make sure this act learns and grows. It also provides the framework that allows Indigenous govern - ments, local governments and the public to participate meaningfully in decisions. I think that Bill 15 is aspiring to create that framework but is lacking in the public and proponent sections.

I look forward to digging into that in committee, because I think that those are two key things that seem to be missing in this legislation. I know in many rural communities, major projects are not abstract discussions. In my own communities at Princeton, we’ve been on a long journey together as a com- munity, as Princeton has looked to expand their copper mine. We have seen views from all sides. Hudbay Min - erals has worked very hard to get through the environ - mental assessment and to bring the community along.

We are thankful to see that the permit has come through but, at the same time, feel sad that not all communities came out and supported it, in the end. The Lower Similkameen Indian Band has come out with a letter. They do not support this project. I don’t know whether this bill would have prevented that or what that looks like, going forward, but my hope is that this bill would have caught that and solved it much sooner and not created that instability for my community. I lived in Princeton in the 1990s when the copper mine closed the first time, and I can tell you the devastating im -

6292 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 pacts it had for that community. More than half the com - munity lost their jobs. We lost doctors. We lost dentists. We lost everybody who supported that industry. It became somewhat of a ghost town. So I am fearful that the boom and bust will again come to Princeton if we can’t get this solved. If this bill helps prevent that, then I look forward to committee stage to learning how that could happen. In many rural communities, major projects are not ab - stract policies. I just shared what it means for one com - munity.

I have many other mining communities in my riding. I have Greenwood, which has built a whole legacy on mining. [3:10 p.m.] I have forestry. I have recreation. I have tourism. I have community forests. I have all of these things that go through environmental assessments. It’s really important that we figure out how to get this right, because they do shape employment opportunities and infrastructure in - vestments long term. They also shape land use decisions that affect entire regions for decades. They shape whether development proceeds in a way that strengthens communities or cre - ates uncertainty within them.

Environmental assessment helps ensure that those decisions are made carefully. It helps ensure that development proceeds with awareness of the long-term impacts. It helps ensure that British Colum - bians can have confidence that projects moving forward have been reviewed through a structured and accountable process. It also plays an important role in supporting reconcilia - tion. It creates opportunities for Indigenous governments to participate in decision-making that affects their ter - ritories.

It supports collaboration between governments, and it helps establish processes through which knowledge, priorities and stewardship responsibilities can be reflected in project review. I am hoping that Bill 15 will be able to move that process through sooner so that we don’t have these communities in disagreement at later stages of the project that create more uncertainty. I believe that environmental assessment works well when it protects ecosystems and it supports communities. It strengthens public confidence. I believe the minister said that in her opening remarks.

I did hear her say, spe - cifically, that providing public confidence was a key thing in this particular piece of legislation. I look forward to committee stage, where we’re able to dig into that a little bit, because I don’t necessarily see how communities do participate in this process, how pro - ponents participate in this process. I see a government-to- government protocol agreement, but I don’t see how the rest of the people involved in the decision are brought into that process. So I look forward to digging into that in committee stage.

But I know what happens when environmental assess - ments lack clarity, when timelines are uncertain, when participation structures are not clearly defined or when operational details are left unresolved. Uncertainty does not remain contained within the assessment process it - self. That rolls out into community. It rolls out into invest- ments. It rolls out into housing. In Princeton we have a large number of unhoused people, largely because of the uncertainty of that permit in Princeton.

People did not move their families and pur - chase properties or build new town and community hous - ing because they didn’t know whether employment would continue long term. It had a lot of social implications to that permit being held up for many, many years. I hope that this process, without a timeline in it defined within the statute, isn’t going to just add a length to that but will actually translate into quicker decisions on the ground. But I do know that it does spread outward. It affected the community greatly. It affects proponents.

Definitely Hudbay spent I don’t know how much time try- ing to bring the community along in their process, trying to educate people — open houses, one-on-one meetings — trying to get through the process of the environmental assessment. It did affect the confidence of British Columbia’s sys - tem as a whole. It is an unknown — a lot of the environ - mental assessment process. We outlined that it’s going to be 180 days, but there have been many mechanisms to pause it. This process, actually, is before the 180 days start, and there is no timeline with that.

So this could take years, and those investors have no idea how long that timeline is, how long they’re going to be out that money or whether they can actually invest and move forward in British Columbia. I think that’s why we need to figure out a predictability in this environmental assessment amendment.

I think the changes proposed in Bill 15 deserve really careful atten - tion as we consider how they will shape that framework going forward. [3:15 p.m.] Before turning to the specific changes proposed in Bill 15, it is important to recognize that British Columbia’s environmental assessment framework already reflects many years of development, experience and improvement. We’re not writing this on day one. We know exactly what we have learned. We went and we consulted. We have a whole report on what we heard on what the changes need to be to the Environmental Assessment Act. So we’re not starting from zero.

It is a system that has evolved over time in response to lessons learned from pro - jects; from communities; from Indigenous governments; and from those responsible for implementing the pro - cess itself, our staff here at the ministry. It is also a system that already contains important strengths. We have some strong winds within that legislation. I think that the what-we-heard report outlined some key recommendations that we need to bring forward to

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6293 make this act really work for all British Columbians. My concern is that this particular Bill 15 is only one of the many recommendations that are included in this act. I did not see or hear from the minister her plans to implement or introduce more legislation to implement the changes requested by community and industry. I believe that the commitment to early engagement is a great commitment. I believe that it is a necessary com - mitment.

I hope that the government actually implements that, that it’s not just lip service — that we just put this in legislation and then we end up in court later and find out we knew we had to consult, but we didn’t. It’s similar to what has happened in Okanagan Falls, where they knew that the First Nations should be con - sulted on their incorporation, but at the same time, they just kept pushing it off and saying: “Yeah, we’ll do that. Yeah, we’ll do that.” Well, they sent it to referendum with- out including First Nations and then sent it to First Na - tions after a decision was made.

Not surprisingly, the First Nations have some concerns. They have things they want to see implemented into those changes. But it was already after the referendum, after the community thought they decided on something. So now we are in a perpetual conflict. There is anti-Indigenous sentiment in my communities. People don’t understand what is happening. We have moved to tables. I bring that up because Bill 15 talks about moving into tables. How do people in communities know what is hap - pening at these tables?

How do we understand when we are not there to hear the history, to hear what we are going to do and why we’re doing these decisions? All we get is a decision at the end. I did not see in this Bill 15 anything that talks about reporting out to the public about how that decision was made. It says: “to the parties.” How do the rest of us under- stand how those decisions were made and what happened at those tables? I’m concerned that they’re separate tables. These aren’t community tables. They’re Indigenous tables.

I understand the government-to-government relation - ship, but by not including the proponent and, possibly, the local elected officials in those tables, we are setting our communities up for division because we can’t bring them along. We can’t include them in why these decisions were made. I went a little off script there. That’s okay. I think it’s important that the communities stay en - gaged, that they know what’s going on, and I’m hoping that this Bill 15 can be adapted to allow that participation, that it isn’t just government to government with a final de- cision and the rest of us have to live with it.

I think that there’s a real need to bring community along. Reconciliation includes the people that live in the community and where the project is taking place, the people that work at that particular business that are going to be impacted by it, both negatively and positively. Every - body needs to be brought along so that they understand the decisions. Over time, our framework has evolved to better reflect the importance of Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous priorities and government-to-government relationships within project assessment.

I know that work continues, and it remains an essential component of building a sys - tem that reflects the realities of decision-making. It also supports coordination across ministries and agencies. It’s supposed to be kind of a one-window appli - cation process, but we can see clearly in the engagement that that is not how industry feels. They don’t feel like they’re dealing with one particular agency on the environ - mental assessments. They are being sent all over — into WLRS, into Environment, into Forests, into Mining — and they don’t know where they’re going next or what the steps are.

I’m hoping that Bill 15 will help to clarify some of that, but I’m concerned that it just adds another layer and doesn’t provide that clarity. Environmental assessments often require decisions from multiple parts of government. As I just said, the en - vironmental assessment office plays an important role in bringing all those decision-makers together and ensuring those assessments proceed within a structured framework rather than through disconnected approval pathways. That is our stated goal — structured framework. [3:20 p.m.] But I think the reality on the ground is disconnected approval pathways.

That is what we heard in the what-we- heard report. It doesn’t seem to matter which what-we- heard report. Whether it’s on the Environmental Assess - ment Act or any of the other bills that we’ve heard in this House, the disconnected approval pathways continue to be the number one concern. I was at COFI last week, and we heard that clearly. Disconnected government processes, the unknown, not knowing the pathway, not understanding how permits ne - cessarily go through decision. Yes, once they get to a cer - tain point, they go into the timeline, but it’s all the steps prior to that that are really unknown.

I think that this environmental assessment process has the ability to build public confidence if we do make it pub - lic and we do bring them along. I believe that there need to be clear participation opportunities that are understood, that communities are better able to follow the decisions that affect their regions and that transparency supports trust, not just in individual project decisions but in the broader framework overall. People need to understand the framework, how it works, when they can expect to be updated and what those updates look like.

I think environmental assessments in - tend to provide better project outcomes, and I think that in those what-we-heard reports, that is the desire but, ob - viously, not our current practice. We heard that, clearly, in there. It allows technical issues to be examined before they

6294 B ritish Columbia Debates M onday, April 13, 2026 become barriers later. I’m hoping that Bill 15 allows us to get to that. I think that engaging participants during the environ - mental assessment doesn’t require wholesale change. I think it’s there. It’s in the act already. I think it’s creating that framework for how we are going to deliver on it. The participants in the what-we-heard report called for targeted improvements. They asked for earlier issue reso - lution, which we’re discussing here today. They asked for clearer timelines, which is not in this legislation.

This is actually one of my biggest concerns going for - ward. What are the timelines for this new process? We introduced it, but we have not attached any kind of time - line to it. They asked for the better coordination across approv - als. They want that one window. They want a single point. They want to understand the framework of how their de - cisions are made, when they’ll know and how they will be communicated with. Bill 15 responds to a couple of their requests but is pretty silent on some of the big ones. Again, I’m going back.

I did not hear from the minis - ter when she introduced this bill if this is the first of up - coming legislation changes that will implement the what- we-heard recommendations or whether we’re just cherry- picking a couple. The question becomes, then: if you only do part of it, is it enough? I hope that, in her response at the end, she will clarify whether there’s more legislation coming. As part of the Environmental Assessment Act review process, the province undertook engagement across the province.

I’ve mentioned before that it included Indigen - ous governments, local governments, industry, environ - mental organizations, technical experts and members of the public across B.C. These participants were not asked whether this should exist. That is a given. The environmental assessment pro - cess must exist. They were asked how it would work bet - ter. What could they do or what could they implement to make things better? The responses were remarkably consistent across Brit - ish Columbians. They asked for predictability in timelines. It was their number one ask.

They asked for clarity about how decisions move forward and when those decisions can be expected. Are you sensing a theme? This is coming forward in this speech. They asked for transparency in how issues are raised, discussed and resolved during assessment. They asked for clearer participation structures so that everyone involved in the process understands their role and their respon - sibility. They asked for earlier resolution of issues so that concerns are addressed before they become barriers later in project review. That’s No. 5 in what we’re talking about today.

In No. 6, they asked for better coordination across ministries and agencies, recognizing that environmental assessment does not operate in isolation of other approv - als. They asked for consistency across projects so that ex - pectations do not change depending on sector, region or individual assessment pathways. [3:25 p.m.] We don’t want to see different decision pathways with different facilitators.

We don’t want to see the huge dif - ferences from region to region, or we risk that decision framework, that investment, because nobody knows…. “If I’m going to this region, it’s different than if I go to that re- gion.” It’s important that the framework is consistent. In No. 8, they emphasized the importance of mean - ingful Indigenous participation throughout the environ - mental assessment and a foundation of the decision- making, moving forward. I think that one, as well, is what we’re discussing here today. I don’t think these are abstract policy observations.

They were operational concerns raised by people working within our system and participating in it directly. These are the people on the ground. Participants were describ - ing how environmental assessment functions in practice. They want to know how this looks, how it feels, what it looks like on the ground. They were describing where improvements could make processes more understand - able, more efficient and more predictable for everyone involved. Predictability emerged as one of the strongest themes throughout the engagement.

I’m hoping that Bill 15 ac - tually introduces clear predictability for proponents, for the people in the community, so that we can all under - stand how this is going to work and what the timeline at - tached to it is. I believe that the people that made those recommenda - tions believe that we need all eight. I don’t think that only addressing two of the eight recommendations will neces - sarily create the improvements on the ground that they want.

I acknowledge this is a first step, but I hope to hear from the minister that there’s more legislation coming, that she is going to signal in committee what’s happening in regulation around timelines and what those changes to those timelines could look like, what pauses a project. Participants indicated that they understand how as - sessments move forward and when decisions are expected. It is essential not only for their proponents but for their communities, for their investors, for their local govern - ments and everybody affected by those decisions. Transparency was the other consistent theme.

While this bill talks about transparency and the reporting, that reporting seems to live within the tables. It doesn’t ne - cessarily go out to the proponent, that I can see, in the wording that has been provided, and it certainly does not speak to the public. So I’m interested to dig into that at committee. I think that participants emphasized that environ - mental assessment works best when the processes are

Monday, April 13, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6295 clear, visible and understandable for everyone. That’s not laid out in the legislation necessarily, the whole process, and I’m hoping that, again, the minister can speak to that in committee — what this will look like on the ground in regulation. She spoke to having a template that they would pick up.

I’m hoping she’ll be able to table that template for us to consider at committee so that we can really see how this works or is intended to work, understanding that there are differences between nations and governances and that it’s not going to be the same for everyone, but the template and the framework should be similar. I believe that earlier issue resolution was also one of their clear priorities, and that’s why we’re here today. I be- lieve this government is trying to meet that.

I do feel like it falls short, and I look forward to perhaps making some amendments at committee or at least getting clarification on the record of the minister’s intent during that process. I believe that coordination across approval systems was also raised consistently. Not waiting for one permit from one ministry that cascades to another permit for another industry, which cascades to needing some kind of archae - ology, which cascades to…. It just keeps going.

I also think that I’ve seen on the ground that for many of the professional members, whether they’re engineers or whatever, their credentials are not necessarily accepted these days, and I wonder where that is going as a govern - ment overall. These are people that are qualified, and we have people within government staff not necessarily with the same qualifications yet that have decision-making over these items. I could go into that, but I’d be down a rabbit hole of us talking about docs and other things, which I won’t do today.

I believe that aligning assessment timelines with per - mitting decisions needs to happen, and it needs to hap - pen to strengthen the process overall. Participants indi - cated that stable expectations across sectors and regions strengthened confidence and that confidence will trans - late into investment, jobs, economic opportunity for our communities. [3:30 p.m.] I believe that the maintenance of the public confi - dence…. That is lacking. It was so lacking in our incor - poration in Okanagan Falls. It’s so detrimental to our community. We have an open house coming up.

After a year, the people in Okanagan Falls are going to find out what’s hap- pening. I know that it’ll be a respectful discussion, but it’s really late in the process, considering that those letters patent have to be approved so they can have an election this fall. My understanding is it’s by June, from the minis - ter, so I don’t know how much input the public is actually going to have at this point. I’m a little disappointed in that. I’m hoping that this Bill 15, if it had been there…. I know that’s not an environmental assessment, but the core beliefs of this….

The minister said in her opening re - marks that they use this process in other applications. I hope she takes that to heart, and the other ministries as well, that we need to do this stuff earlier. We need to fig - ure it out. But they can’t be tables isolated from commun - ity and from the proponent. I think that the one area where Bill 15 doesn’t respond directly to engagement feedback is the request. Clearly, Bill 15 is trying to do it, but I feel like we didn’t hit the nail on the head with the issue resolution.

I see that the First Nations have a way to escalate into this process, but how does the proponent have a way to es - calate into this process? If they get into a stalemate where they’re not able to move forward, how do they escalate into a process? I’m not terribly familiar with the Environmental As - sessment Act. Perhaps that exists. But I think that the pro - ponent also needs to be able to move into this framework if they are also feeling like something is being flagged and not being addressed — that government, First Nations or proponent can initiate the tables to start this.

I look forward to committee to be able to ask those questions, whether that’s something the minister would consider. They’re looking for predictable issue resolution, pre - dictable timelines, predictable structure. What does that look like? None of that is outlined in the bill. Again, the minister referenced a template that I’m hoping can be tabled during committee stage for us to have a review so we can better unders

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260413pm-Hansard-n150
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260413pm Hansard n150
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	77dca9205fe050bab5f19952a4000861d138876d

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