The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Sunita Dhir.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare : Today I rise to welcome representatives from the Canadian Propane Association who

are joining us here in the gallery. Propane is a vital part of British Columbia’s

energy future, a reliable, low-emission fuel produced right here in Canada which helps

power our farms, industries, businesses and communities, especially in rural, remote

and Indigenous regions, where dependable energy access matters the most.

We appreciate the opportunity to meet with members of the Canadian Propane Association

over lunch today and to discuss practical, commonsense energy solutions that support

affordability, energy security and economic growth across our province.

I also want to thank the members of the Canadian Propane Association for once again

hosting a fantastic food truck lunch reception behind the Legislature, and for reminding

all of us that propane helps keep goods moving, food on our tables, and hard-working

British Columbians employed.

Will the House please join me in making that delegation from the CPA most welcome.

Darlene Rotchford : I have two introductions to make this morning.

First, over the weekend in CFB Esquimalt, in my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood, we have the Korean Navy arrive for two weeks of exercises and visits to the south

Vancouver Island.

I hope the House can make them feel very welcome. Some of them, you may see as well,

are touring the Legislature today. So yeah, make them feel welcome.

And No. 2, and very important, it is my father-in-law’s birthday. Many people in this

House hear me talk about my in-laws. I know not everyone’s relationship with their

in-laws is always the same, but I’m very grateful for Joe Rotchford, to wish him a

happy 76th birthday.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Youth Engagement in Future

Decision-Making for Communities

George Anderson : A few weeks ago I had the honour of giving a keynote address at the Nanaimo Model

United Nations. This was an event where high school students came together to discuss

global issues and engage in thoughtful debate. The topics debated during the simulation

included emerging issues, like artificial intelligence and warfare, as well as ongoing

human rights concerns, like child labour.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

It was inspiring to be among young people from my community of Nanaimo-Lantzville who were taking time out of their weekend to discuss important issues facing the

world today. There is a lot to learn from how these students approach the difficult

tasks in front of them. They listen closely to one another, challenge ideas with respect,

and work together to find common ground on complex and nuanced issues. In doing so,

they were embodying the very best of what our democratic institutions strive to be.

I also recently learned about a project completed by political studies students at

Vancouver Island University. They created a model city that imagined what Nanaimo

might look like 60 years from now. Their work aimed to answer the question: “What

kind of community do we want future generations to inherit?” It encouraged them to

think about long-term effects of policy decisions and the role they play in shaping

our community’s future.

The vision for Nanaimo focused on sustainability, accessible public spaces, improved

public transit and building a community that remains livable and connected for generations

to come. Learning about these initiatives fills me with a great deal of optimism.

These young people demonstrated creativity, thoughtfulness and a strong sense of responsibility

for the future. They are not waiting on the sidelines for the world to get better.

They’re already stepping forward, engaging in their communities and thinking about

practical ways to create a better future.

As members of this House, we spend a great deal of time thinking about the future.

We debate legislation, discuss priorities and make decisions that will have lasting

impacts on the people of this province. But it’s important to remember who will live

with the outcomes of those decisions long after our time here is done.

[10:10 a.m.]

The young people in our communities will inherit the province we are shaping today.

That’s why it’s so important that we continue to create space for youth to be engaged

in our democratic processes, not just in the future but right now.

Whether it’s through initiatives like the Model UN, academic projects like the one

at Vancouver Island University or through opportunities to work where legislation

is made, young people are already finding ways to make their voices heard. Throughout

this session, I’ve had the privilege of working along with five legislative interns in this building, and let me tell you, their energy,

insight and a fresh perspective in our institutions is stronger for it.

As this session comes to a close, we prepare to return to our communities at the end

of the week, and I want to encourage all of us to spend more time listening to the

young people in our communities.

Talk to your children, your grandchildren, nieces, nephews and youth in your communities.

Ask them what concerns them, ask them what excites them, and ask them what they hope

British Columbia can look like 20, 30, 50 years from now.

We often think about wisdom as something that comes with age and experience, but young

people bring something equally important. They bring fresh perspectives — they question

— that challenge our assumptions and force us to think differently. They are not afraid

to imagine possibilities that break norms.

As a colleague of mine has said, sometimes with age, wisdom comes alone. The message

I’m hearing from young people, in my riding at least, is that they want to be part

of the future, and they’re already ready to do so. It’s up to all of us to ensure

that they are listening, that we are encouraging their participation and that we are

making decisions today with the future in mind. I have to say, with confidence, that

young people are already doing this work. They’re building that future, and it’s in

good hands.

Often when we are looking at difficult decisions within our society, it’s young people

who stand up, and they say: “This is wrong. We need to make a concerted effort to

make sure that we’re leaving this place better than how we found it.” That’s the type

of courage that we ought to emulate in this building — one that is fearless, one that

is tireless in trying to ensure that the world that we live in is best for everyone.

Land, Water and Resource

Permit Process

Donegal Wilson : I rise today to speak about something I’m hearing with increasing frequency from across

British Columbia. That’s from small business owners, tourism operators, ranchers,

tenure holders, resource users and ordinary British Columbians simply trying to navigate

government. That is this. The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship appears increasingly frozen in place, not because staff do not care and not because

applicants are failing to do the work but because government has created a system

where staff themselves seem unclear on what the rules actually are.

British Columbians are trying to renew land tenures. They’re applying for foreshore

leases. They’re advancing their water licence applications. They’re moving projects

forward that should be straightforward. Instead, they find themselves trapped in a

bureaucratic purgatory. Months become years. Files sit untouched. Applicants receive

vague responses like “more engagement required,” “further information needed,” “additional

studies may be necessary.” But there’s no clear pathway to resolution, no certainty,

no timelines and no actual decision-making.

Increasingly, what I hear is this. If you don’t arrive with letters of support already

in hand from every potentially affected First Nation, your file will simply just sit

there — not because legislation clearly says that, not because a formal decision has

been made but because staff no longer seem confident in what standard applies. Is

it consultation? Is it consent? Is it something else entirely? Because of that uncertainty,

files are simply left to drift. That is not reconciliation, and that is not transparency.

It certainly is not good governance.

So let me be clear. Meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities matters. Respectful

engagement matters. Strong relationships matter. But what does not serve anyone, including

First Nations, is a provincial government that refuses to provide clear direction

to its own public service.

[10:15 a.m.]

What happens when government staff are left without clarity? Applicants are sent chasing

their tails, more reports are commissioned, more studies are required, and more procedural

hoops are created.

When frustration inevitably grows, government quietly allows the perception to form

that Indigenous consultation is the cause for this delay. That is deeply unfair because

in many of these cases, the real issue is not consultation. It is provincial indecision.

It is a ministry that no longer appears confident in its own authority to make decisions.

We have watched this shift over time from consultation to discussions around consent

and now increasingly towards a model that is true co-governance.

Whether members support that evolution or not, one thing should be obvious. Government

has a responsibility to clearly define how British Columbia continues to function,

how business continues, how applications move, how decisions get made, what the timelines

are. Right now that clarity does not exist, and sectors are feeling it.

During estimates this year, we heard directly that stakeholders in the adventure tourism

sector, operators whose livelihoods depend on access, renewal and predictable approvals,

are stalled. And the solution? A dedicated single-window process just for them to

navigate government dysfunction.

Think about that. An entire sector now believes that the only way to survive is to

create a special access point into government that goes around the regular system

that no longer functions. Surprisingly, government has agreed to this. They’ve stood

up the mechanisms to do just that — help one sector try to move while thousands of

other applicants will remain stuck in the same broken queue.

Small operators, farmers, community groups, businesses, families, people trying to

renew what they already hold. People are simply asking for a decision — not special

treatment, just a decision. This is becoming a competitiveness issue, an affordability

issue and a true survival issue for small businesses in British Columbia. Uncertainty

kills investment, and bureaucratic paralysis destroys trust. British Columbians should

not need consultants, political intervention or insider navigation just to get a basic

government file processed.

At the narrows in Sicamous, one applicant has spent years and hundreds of thousands

of dollars just trying to rebuild his dock that sits amongst hundreds of other docks.

Its own staff doesn’t appear to have the proper training, understand the proper process,

and it owes applicants clear expectations.

I believe that it owes First Nations a process that is respectful, transparent and

not use its political cover for provincial dysfunction. Right now what we’re seeing

is not leadership; it is paralysis, and British Columbians are paying the price.

Canadian Armed Forces Day

and Rim of the Pacific Exercise

Darlene Rotchford : I rise today to recognize Canadian Armed Forces Day and to speak about an event that

perfectly captures the professionalism, readiness and international leadership of

our Canadian Armed Forces, RIMPAC 2026.

For the people of Esquimalt-Colwood, this is deeply personal. Our community is home to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt

and the headquarters of Maritime Forces Pacific and home of the Canadian Pacific fleet.

Every day we see the dedication of sailors, aviators, soldiers, civilians, defence

workers, veterans and military families who serve our country with pride.

During RIMPAC, this service is showcased on the world stage. RIMPAC, or the Rim of the Pacific Exercise, is the world’s largest international maritime exercise. This year marks the 30th

integration of the exercise, bringing together approximately 31 nations, 40 warships,

five submarines, more than 140 aircraft and over 25,000 personnel from allied and partnered nations across the Indo-Pacific region.

Canada has been part of RIMPAC since the very beginning. In fact, Canada was one of

the founding participants when the exercise was first established in 1971. For more

than five decades, Canada has stood shoulder to shoulder with our allied partners

in the Pacific, strengthening cooperation, inter-operability and collective readiness. That consistency matters. It sends a message that Canada

is a reliable partner committed to international stability, the rule of law and the

defence of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

This year Canada’s contribution once again reflects the strength and capacity of our

Pacific fleet. Canadian soldiers and crews from Esquimalt will deploy multiple service

combatants, a submarine, a support ship as part of the multiple-nation exercise. Some

of those ships will then continue directly into further operations and missions throughout

the Indo-Pacific region after RIMPAC concludes, supporting Canada’s ongoing presence

alongside our allies.

[10:20 a.m.]

It is important, because RIMPAC is not simply about showcasing military hardware.

It is about people. It’s about allied navies, armed forces and air forces learning

to operate together seamlessly before a crisis even occurs.

It is about building trust between our nations. It’s about ensuring that when humanitarian

disaster strikes, when maritime security is threatened or when international stability

is challenged, allied countries can respond together quickly, professionally and effectively.

Exercises during RIMPAC include anti-submarine warfare, air defence, humanitarian

assistance, disaster responses, maritime security operations, diving and salvage operations

and complex multinational coordination at sea. That level of interoperability does

not happen by accident. It is earned through years of training, discipline and cooperation.

Canada should be incredibly proud of how highly respected our armed forces are in

that environment, and we should be exceptionally proud here in British Columbia.

Canadian soldiers are known internationally for their professionalism, leadership,

adaptability and ability to integrate seamlessly alongside allied forces. Whether

operating with the U.S., Australia, Japan, United Kingdom or other Pacific partners,

Canada consistently demonstrates that we are a capable, dependable ally.

Canadian Armed Forces appreciation day reminds us that behind every ship, every deployment and every international exercise

are people making sacrifices for our country. It is a sailor departing Esquimalt Harbour

for months away from family and community. It is the military spouse carrying extra

responsibility at home. It is a child counting down the days until a parent returns

from deployment.

For anyone who’s ever come to Esquimalt to watch a ship come in and see the little

faces and the families, it is something to be seen.

It is the veteran who served our country, and sacrifices continue long after they

leave their home — and before. As the PS for Armed Forces Development and Veterans

Affairs, I’ve had the privilege of meeting many serving members, veterans and military

families across the province. What always stands out to me is the humility, their

resilience and their unwavering commitment to service.

In Esquimalt-Colwood, we are proud to stand with our military community. We are proud that B.C. continues

to play such a vital role in Canada’s Pacific presence. And we are proud that when

allies from around the world gather for RIMPAC, Canadian sailors from Esquimalt will

once again help demonstrate the very best of professionalism, cooperation and readiness.

To every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces, to every veteran and to every

military family, thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, for your commitment

to Canada, and thank you for your commitment to B.C.

On June 7, make sure you all thank some of our Canadian Armed Forces in British Columbia

and their families.

Cariboo-Chilcotin Community

Attractions and Events

Lorne Doerkson : This is an open invitation to visit the heart of British Columbia, Cariboo-Chilcotin. I have often had the opportunity to visit communities throughout our region, and

at every stop, I am reminded why I am so proud to represent Cariboo-Chilcotin. Whether it is the West Chilcotin, where neighbours still gather and stories still

matter, or the incredible Savona bean dinner and fire department fundraiser, where

communities come together to support one another, these events are about more than

just entertainment. They are about community spirit.

In Ashcroft, people come from all over to paint the landscape and capture the beauty

of this community on canvas. Artists from all over British Columbia are inspired by

the rugged beauty and unique landscape at the yearly Plein Air event. These two communities

hosted the CPKC Holiday Train last year at Christmas, where the Barenaked Ladies entertained

hundreds of people in Savona and Ashcroft.

Cache Creek Graffiti Days is absolutely amazing. If you’ve never stood near a drag

racing strip and literally heard the thunder echoing through the valley from the roar

of these fast cars, you’re missing out. You can enjoy the burnout contest and, certainly,

the sock hop too. Beautiful classic cars converge from all over, and the pride in

that community is absolutely impossible to miss. Along the way, you’ll find bakeries

and farm gardens like you can’t imagine — fresh produce, home baking, roadside stands,

even a taco shop.

Then there’s the Fishing Highway. Now, let me tell you a secret about the Fishing

Highway. The fish are huge, and they are biting. The lodges and the campgrounds are

amazing, but the events are even bigger. Amazing fishing derbies like Deka Lake, Sulphurous Lake, Sheridan Lake, to name a few. Every year the Fishing Highway 24 Association

hosts the legendary Outhouse Races. Yes, I said Outhouse Races. If you’ve never witnessed

people in costume racing decorated outhouses on skis in the middle of winter with

crowds cheering them on, then you haven’t fully experienced the Cariboo spirit.

[10:25 a.m.]

Hot July Nights in 100 Mile House is a massive car show. The Lakers Car Club does

the same thing in Williams Lake. Cars come from all over western Canada and the U.S.,

thousands of people in attendance and hundreds of cars along so many events. The 108

heritage site stands as a stunning reminder of years gone by, preserving the history

and character for so many future generations. And now they have ghost tours as well.

We’re blessed with incredible First Nations culture, celebrations like powwows in

communities like St’uxwtéws, Esk’etemc and, of course, Williams Lake First Nation that bring together tradition, drumming,

dancing, community and culture in ways that are deeply meaningful.

And let me assure you that golfing is pretty darn good too, whether that’s at Williams

Lake Golf Club, the Coyote Rock Golf Course, Tobiano or the 108 Resort. They’re beautiful

courses. And since you’re coming, don’t forget your mountain bike, because we’ve got

some of the best mountain bike trails in all of British Columbia.

Now, if you want rodeo action, oh my goodness is this the place for you. From Bridge

Lake and the Interlakes to the Logan Parent bull riding event to Alkali Lake, from

Anahim Lake and Stone, the Spring Classic Indoor Rodeo, High School Rodeo and Little

Britches events and, of course, the legendary Clinton Rodeo.

This region knows rodeo, but don’t forget the Clinton Ball. The Anahim Stampede is

something to see — a wonderful parade, a barbecue. This special stampede and community

knows exactly how to throw a party. And if you’re on your way to Anahim, don’t forget

to stop at Tatla Lake for a nice piece of pie or potentially a farm market.

Of course, there is the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede every July long weekend.

The parade is incredible. The rodeo action is some of the best you’re going to see

in the entire world. It is truly one of British Columbia’s premier sporting events.

So many events that weekend — pancake breakfast, steak outs and, of course, stock

car racing at the incredible Thunder Mountain Speedway.

To say I’m proud would be an understatement. Come and experience our museums, our

farm markets. Come and enjoy the incredible hospitality in our lodges, our fishing

resorts, spas, guest ranches, hotels and restaurants. Come and fish our lakes, ride

our trails, attend our rodeos and meet the people who make our region so incredibly

special.

This is really only a small sampling of what you’re going to find in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. There’s simply so much to see and do. I hope you’ll come and visit Cariboo-Chilcotin this summer.

Parambir Singh Achievements

in Skilled Trades and

Mentorship of James Smith

Rohini Arora : It’s an honour today to recognize an extraordinary young British Columbian whose story

reflects perseverance, determination, talent and the incredible value of skilled trades

in Canada.

I first learned about Parambir Singh through skilled trades instructor James Smith,

who reached out to me after hearing my debate in the House speaking up for workers.

James wanted to share the story of a remarkable student and apprentice whose journey

represents exactly why we must continue championing skilled trades and supporting

the next generation of workers in our community.

Parambir Singh came to Canada in 2016 as an international student at Camosun College.

Like so many newcomers to Canada, he arrived with ambition, determination and a willingness

to work hard to build a better future.

During his studies, he worked as a manager at Husky while building a life here in

Canada. His path later took him to P.E.I. and into long-haul trucking, but along the

way, Parambir realized he wanted something more hands-on, a career where he could

build, solve problems and make a difference in people’s lives every single day.

After receiving permanent residency, he decided to pursue plumbing, a trade he had

always felt drawn toward. That decision has already led to remarkable success. In

2024, Parambir was awarded the Plumbing and Pipe Trades Foundation Award, recognizing

both his talent and dedication.

More recently he represented British Columbia at the provincial skills competition

in Abbotsford, where he won gold in plumbing, an incredible accomplishment that reflects

countless hours of preparation, discipline and hard work. If this isn’t an immigrant

success story, I don’t know what is.

[10:30 a.m.]

Now Parambir Singh is preparing to travel to Toronto to compete in the Skills Canada

National Competition, 2026, where he will proudly represent British Columbia on the

national stage. What an honour that is. He is representing not only himself but his

family, his instructors, his fellow apprentices and our entire province.

I can only imagine how proud his family and his friends are. They must be incredibly

proud watching his journey unfold, from arriving in Canada as an international student

to now standing among the very best young plumbing competitors in the entire country.

His story also reminds us of how important skilled trades are to the future of British

Columbia and Canada. Tradespeople build our homes, maintain our infrastructure and

keep our communities functioning every single day.

His story is exactly why I’m incredibly proud of our government for investing $241

million in skilled-trades training, creating opportunities for the next generation

of tradespeople right here at home. It means attracting talented instructors whose

passion inspires apprentices like Parambir Singh and preparing our province with the

knowledge and passion to build B.C.

Behind many successful apprentices stands a passionate mentor. In Parambir’s case,

that mentor is James Smith, an instructor and trades advocate who cares deeply about

supporting the next generation. Whether preparing students for their Red Seal or for

provincial and national competitions, introducing young Indigenous workers in remote

communities to the pipe trades or mentoring newcomers to Canada through hands-on workshops,

James exemplifies the leadership and dedication that this province needs.

Because of instructors like James Smith, talented individuals like Parambir Singh

are given the opportunity to pursue excellence and realize their full potential. Who

knows? Perhaps we are watching the future greatest plumber this country has ever known.

To Parambir Singh: congratulations on your incredible accomplishments. British Columbia

is proud of you. Canada is proud of you. Bring home gold, Parambir Singh. We believe

in you. Good luck at the Skills Canada National Competition 2026. We will all be cheering

you on.

Deputy Speaker : Just a reminder to members participating online to refrain from using your phone while

you’re onscreen.

Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic

and Preventive Dental Care

Kiel Giddens : I rise today to speak about an important community health care service in Prince George.

The Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic — operated by the Prince George Native Friendship

Centre, in partnership with the Prince George and District Dental Society and Northern

Health — provides essential dental care to vulnerable residents in our community.

Led by Dr. Richard Wilczek and supported by volunteer dentists, hygienists and community

partners, this clinic helps people who would otherwise have nowhere else to turn for

urgent dental care.

This clinic is in an important training partnership with the College of New Caledonia.

Dental hygiene and dental assistant students provide hours of service, while gaining

valuable firsthand clinical experience working alongside community dentists and serving

vulnerable patients. Unfortunately, this service for low-income individuals is now

at risk of closing because of the government’s shortsighted decision to eliminate

funding for not-for-profit dental clinics across B.C.

The need for these services is actually growing, not shrinking. Across the province,

the number of not-for-profit dental clinics increased from 19 in 2021 to 25 last year.

In the last year alone, these clinics provided more than 53,000 patient appointments

to over 24,000 individuals, with nearly one-third of those patients living in rural

and remote communities. Yet despite this growing need, every one of these clinics

now has had their provincial funding pulled.

In my community of Prince George, the Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic serves approximately

15 patients each and every week during a three-hour clinic session. Over the past

year, the clinic supported 223 clients, performing 331 extractions, and delivered

more than $85,000 worth of essential dental care services. All of this was achieved

with just $25,000 in annual provincial grant funding. That is an incredible return

on investment for the province.

This is preventative health care service before patients need to seek higher levels

of medical attention in our health care system. The grant has paid the hours of work

for the coordinator of the program and is important for the clinic to operate even

at this modest amount. For many individuals experiencing poverty, homelessness and

other barriers to care, this clinic is their only option. The location is accessible

and connected to an organization that serves many of these individuals in other ways.

[10:35 a.m.]

Historically, the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction has supported B.C.’s not-for-profit dental clinics by providing year-end grants to

the B.C. Dental Association, which would then disburse the funds to local clinics.

The ministry wrote to the Dental Association on March 9 of this year, and the funding

was not renewed for the fiscal year-end only weeks later.

The ministry cited the expansion of the Canadian dental care plan, but this neglected

the fact that too many of the most vulnerable patients still fall through the cracks

with this federal program. Many cannot afford the upfront cost and still face too

many barriers to access.

Without preventative and urgent dental care, people are often left suffering until

they end up in already overcrowded emergency rooms. In fact, low-income adults in

British Columbia are six times more likely to visit emergency rooms for dental issues

than other residents.

Cutting modest funding for preventative community dental care will not eliminate the

need. It simply shifts costs onto other emergency departments and further strains

an already overburdened health care system. That’s why I believe that supporting community-based

dental care is both compassionate and fiscally responsible.

According to the B.C. Dental Association, emergency departments cannot provide definitive

dental treatment. They manage pain, prescribe antibiotics and then discharge patients

often only to have them return when infection or pain worsens. If just 5 percent of

the 53,000 appointments delivered by not-for-profit clinics in 2025 had instead resulted

in emergency room visits, the cost would have been approximately $672,000 in hospital

triage costs and roughly 900 hours of ER physician time. That is physician time we

cannot afford to lose in a system already facing critical shortages.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Barb Ward-Burkitt, executive director from the

Prince George Native Friendship Centre, as well as Nicole King-Smith, their director

of health. I want to thank them for their work. I’ve also met with Dr. Wilczek and

want to thank all of the volunteer dentists, hygienists and those who support patients

in Prince George. Lastly, I want to thank Quinn Mathiesen-Newcomb from the B.C. Dental

Association for meeting and for the important provincewide advocacy that they have

done on this file.

I urge the minister to reconsider this decision and work with not-for-profit dental

clinics across British Columbia to ensure these essential services remain available

to the people who need them most. I would also invite the minister to meet with the

Prince George Native Friendship Centre to learn more.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will consider Bill M217, Dashboard

Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, as reported complete with amendment from the Select

Standing Committee on Private Members’ Bills.

Reporting of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras

in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer : I move that Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, as

amended, be concurred in at report stage.

This amendment was really just a housekeeping amendment to adjust the gross vehicle

weight that was originally on the definition of a “commercial vehicle” from 8,200

kilograms’ gross vehicle weight to 11,793 kilograms’ gross vehicle weight.

I certainly appreciate the quick work by not only the legislative staff but the selective

committee to make the necessary changes and to allow this important bill to be able

to move to third reading and, hopefully, pass in this session.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is that Bill M217, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, the House will now proceed to third reading of Bill M217, Dashboard

Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras

in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer : I move third reading of Bill M217.

Again, we in B.C. have always been proactive in our quest to make our roads safer,

from introducing road smart programs, graduating licences and licensing programs for

new and commercial drivers, to speed limiters, electronic logs in our big rigs and

now mandatory dashcams in those commercial vehicles.

I want to thank all the members, both on the select committee and in this chamber,

for their bipartisan support on Bill M217. That will make our commercial drivers more

responsible in their driving habits and make B.C. roads and the public safer.

[10:40 a.m.]

Harman Bhangu : I support this bill, and the reason why is that I came from the trucking industry.

I know firsthand that this can actually help. It can actually bring people more accountability.

When you know that there are going to be drivers in big trucks with dashcams, a lot

of the other vehicles now will think again before they cut them off or anything.

I’ve been in situations like that, where you’re driving straight down and someone

just nips in, in front of you, and everyone says: “Blame the trucker.” This will bring

some clarity, and it’ll bring some guidelines.

I fully support the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and I support this bill.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, there’s the option for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to close the debate.

Okay. Members, the question is third reading of the Bill M217.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, has

been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will proceed with continuing debate

on Motion M205.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation

Course for MLAs

(continued)

Lynne Block : In a democracy, accountability does not end on election night. It begins there. The

decisions made in this Legislature affect every family, every worker and every future

generation. They shape taxes, spending, debt, health care, infrastructure and human

rights. That is why it is both reasonable and responsible that newly elected members

of the Legislative Assembly receive mandatory training in economics, public finance

and numeracy.

These are not partisan ideas. They are essential tools for informed decision-making.

We would never expect a pilot to fly without training or an engineer to design a bridge

without understanding physics. Yet elected officials are asked to make enormously

complex decisions involving billions of public dollars and the well-being of millions

of people without being informed.

Good intentions alone are not enough. Public service requires preparation, humility

and a willingness to learn. As former South African President Nelson Mandela said:

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

Mandatory orientation courses would not dictate ideology or political belief. They

would simply ensure that all members, regardless of background or party, possess a

basic understanding of the responsibilities of governing in the public interest. At

a time when misinformation and distrust are rising, strengthening the knowledge and

competence of elected officials is not elitist. It is democratic. Citizens deserve

leaders who are prepared not only to speak passionately but to govern responsibly.

Deputy Speaker : The Member for Kelowna-Mission closes debate.

Gavin Dew : Before I close, I want to return to the words of my original motion, that the House

ensures elected representatives are accountable and supported to possess a basic understanding

of economics, public finance and numeracy as they make decisions on taxes, spending,

debt and regulation and, therefore, request that the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee institute a mandatory course in these subjects for all newly elected members

of the Legislative Assembly as part of member orientation.

[10:45 a.m.]

This is far from an extreme proposition. It is common sense. It does not ask every

member to become an economist or to share the same policy views. It asks something

much simpler — that before newly elected members are called upon to vote on matters

with billion-dollar consequences, they receive a basic grounding in how public finance

works, how incentives work and how numbers should be understood in context.

Context matters. Without context, numbers can mislead. Gross figures can obscure net

outcomes. Nominal increases can be mistaken for real progress. Governments can present

a flattering picture that does not line up with what people actually experience in

their lives.

British Columbians deserve a legislature that understands the cost of delay, the burden

of debt, the effect of rising payroll costs, the importance of investment and the

role incentives play in shaping behaviour. Is this sustainable? What is the net effect?

What does this cost in the long term? What behaviour does this reward or discourage

on the part of individuals, organizations, entrepreneurs and investors? Will it create

jobs and opportunities or drive them elsewhere?

Those kinds of questions would improve scrutiny, debate, accountability and decision-making.

It is fair to say that some of the weakest decisions in public life reflect a failure

to think clearly about trade-offs, incentives and costs. Sometimes governments act

as though spending more is the same as achieving more. Sometimes numbers are technically

true but incomplete in substance. Sometimes the economic consequences of policy choices are

treated as secondary, only to reappear later as higher costs, weaker growth or fewer

opportunities.

That is exactly the pattern my original motion seeks, in a modest way, to improve.

I will say this. Government members actually began this debate with what could have

been an interesting and constructive approach, the suggestion that Conservatives could

benefit from stronger economic literacy too. Fair enough. Nobody has a monopoly on

economic literacy.

British Columbians would be better served if they had a government and an opposition

competing to offer the best evidence-driven and economically sound policy possible.

That is why it was so disappointing to see the government then decide to get cute,

with an amendment designed to dilute my original motion. Instead of engaging substantively

with the subject of the motion on economic literacy, the government chose to fold

in a broad range of other matters, including “evidence-based science, truth and reconciliation

and human rights.”

At a time when B.C.’s small business confidence remains weak, when we have lost tens

of thousands of jobs over the last few months and when recent court rulings have created

real uncertainty around the security of fee simple property rights, you would think

it would be uncontroversial for this Legislature to focus specifically on the economy.

Instead, the government seemingly will do anything to avoid that. Rather than keep

this debate where it belonged, on economic literacy, they chose to stir the culture

war pot and give provocative speeches in the hope of eliciting a reaction that would

let them change the channel.

British Columbians do not need more channel-changing. They do not need more rhetorical

fog. They do not need a style of politics that is constantly searching for wedge issues

at the expense of serious and substantive debate about the fundamental operations

of government and the fundamental health of our economy.

My original motion was offered in a practical and non-judgmental spirit as a tool

to strengthen how members assess financial impacts and communicate decisions to the

public. This side of the House will not play along with the government’s political

games. We support my original motion, and we will not support an amended version designed

to dilute it and distract from the focused conversations on economic literacy that

British Columbians deserve.

British Columbians deserve serious, grown-up government focused on fundamentals, and

that is exactly what Conservatives will give them.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[10:50 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’m really pleased to welcome the grade 4 and 5 classes from John Howitt Elementary

in Port Alberni. They’re up in the gallery today, accompanied by their teachers, Ms.

Dyer and Ms. Bouchard, and a number of other staff and parent chaperones.

I just want to explain. We’ve been having debate here in the House this morning around

a motion that a member of the opposition has brought forward about mandatory education

for MLAs. So to all of the students in the gallery, I want to say that the learning

never stops. That’s what we do here in the House as well, as we discuss and debate

ideas and legislation, all about making life better for British Columbians.

I would ask my fellow MLAs here in the House to please welcome the grade 4 and 5 students

from John Howitt Elementary.

Amna Shah : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker : Proceed.

Amna Shah : We have an incredible human being up in the gallery today. We are joined by Sam Atwal,

who is here with a group of students. Sam and I go way back in terms of advocacy and

service to our community. I have had the pleasure of learning so much about what really

good community service means to our communities. I just want to congratulate Sam Atwal.

Members on this side of the House recognize his work and his advocacy.

Will the House join me in making him feel very welcomed here today.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is Motion M205 as amended.

Division has been called.

Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look and proceed with debate on

the amendment to Motion M207.

Motion M207 — Liquor Service

in Movie Theatres

(continued)

Harwinder Sandhu : I stand in this House, as a proud representative for Vernon-Lumby, to oppose the amendment presented by the B.C. Conservative member from the opposition.

In addition to the concerns that have already been raised and discussed in the previous

days, I want to share comments directly from local Vernon Towne Theatre owner, Scott

John, who is also one of the strongest community pillars in our community.

Scott shared how this amendment would actively hurt them versus the current state:

“Large corporate cinemas are multiplexes with many screens and already have the ability

to designate one for liquor service. Small independent theatres are usually single

or double screens and do not have that ability. Large chains already have major advantages,

including first choice of movies, while smaller theatres are often left behind. I

hope this adds some context from our point of view.” These comments highlighted why

the original motion matters, without the amendments. That is why I oppose this amendment.

I want to thank the member for Kootenay-Monashee for his continued advocacy for rural communities and for bringing the original motion

forward. As we know, independent theatres are more than places just to watch movies.

They are gathering spaces where people connect, support local culture and share experiences

together.

In Vernon, we are fortunate to have the Towne Theatre. Since opening in 1938, it has

remained as an important part of our community. Today it hosts films, concerts, live

music and community events, while also supporting independent filmmakers and local

artists. What stands out most is how much theatres like this give back. They host

fundraisers, create spaces for community groups and bring people together. They are

not just businesses. They are part of the fabric of our communities.

Through conversations with theatre operators, it has become clear that the current

rules create a real inconsistency. If a theatre hosts a live concert, it can serve

alcohol during mixed-age events, but if it shows a film, it must either restrict the

audience or eliminate alcohol service entirely. That does not reflect how these venues

operate, and it creates unnecessary barriers. In most cases, it is simply about allowing

somebody to responsibly enjoy a glass of wine during a movie while supporting a local

theatre.

[10:55 a.m.]

Independent theatres are already facing significant challenges, rising costs, competition

from large chains and continued growth of streaming services. Across Canada, many

independent theatres are struggling. When these spaces disappear, we lose more than

a business. We lose gathering places that help build community connection.

One of the barriers they face in British Columbia is the restriction on liquor sales

during mixed-age screenings. Meanwhile, the other venues do not face the same restrictions.

We saw this clearly during Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour film. Concert venues could serve alcohol during mixed-age events, while smaller theatres

showing the same could not. That creates an uneven playing field. My debate opposing

this amendment is about fairness, opportunity and supporting local businesses.

The motion, without the amendment, does not require theatres to serve alcohol. It

simply gives them the option to do so responsibly within existing laws. For a small

theatre, every revenue stream matters. This change could help them remain sustainable,

continue supporting local artists and keep their doors open.

It is also worth noting that British Columbia currently is the only province in Canada

that does not allow this. Passing this motion, without the amendment, would bring

us in line with the rest of the country. Ultimately, this is about community. In many

smaller towns, independent theatres are among the few places where people can gather,

connect and share experiences together. By us opposing the amendment, it offers a

practical and balanced solution. It recognizes the challenges these theatres face

and gives them a tool to adapt, to succeed.

When we support places like this, we are supporting connection, fairness and community

itself. For those reasons, I am proud to support the original motion, and I encourage

all members to do the same. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Korky Neufeld : I rise today to speak about Bill M207 and to raise what I believe is a fundamental

issue of fairness, of consistency and common sense in the government’s approach to

liquor policy in British Columbia. That is why removing the word “independent” levels

the playing field for all movie theatres across British Columbia. Why not let the

owners decide whether they want to serve liquor or not in their theatres instead of

government restricting certain theatres from doing it?

This bill proposes allowing liquor service during mixed-age movie screenings for small

and independent theatres. While supporters of the bill argue this is about helping

local cinemas survive, the legislation creates more questions than answers. The central

issue is this. If responsible liquor service during mixed-age movie screenings is

appropriate public policy, then why would the government not apply it to small and

independent theatres instead of all theatres?

Why restrict it? Why create another arbitrary distinction? Why would some theatres

be trusted while others are restricted under the exact same circumstances? That’s

why removing the word “independent” is clear, and it is fair.

Either adults can responsibly consume alcohol while attending a movie with minors

present under regulated provincial laws or not. The standard should not change based

on the size of the building, the number of screens or the business model of the theatre

operator. Who decides these distinctions?

Public safety rules should be based on behaviour and standards, not on square footage.

Yet this bill proposes exactly that — one set of rules for some theatres, another

set of rules for others. That is not fairness; that is selective policy-making. That’s

why removing the word “independent” is an important legislative change.

We already allow liquor services in countless mixed-age environments across British

Columbia. Adults can consume alcohol at restaurants where families dine together.

Adults can drink at concerts attended by minors, at sporting events, at community

festivals, at bowling alleys, at live theatre productions, at conference centres,

at airports. At all of those places, responsible adults are trusted to consume alcohol

under regulated conditions while minors are present. Importantly, those venues are

not divided into small or large categories before government decides whether liquor

services are acceptable. The rule applies equally.

But not to allow small and independent theatres? Why not include all theatres? Removing

the word “independent” clarifies this inconsistency. So why are movie theatres treated

differently? And why does Bill M207 deepen the inconsistency instead of solving it?

This bill risks creating an uneven, distorted playing field across British Columbia’s

entertainment industry.

[11:00 a.m.]

A theatre with two or three screens may qualify for expanded liquor permission, while

other theatres with four or five screens down the road remain restricted, despite

serving the same community, operating under the same provincial liquor laws and employing

trained staff following the same rules. How does that make sense? How is that fair competition?

Perhaps, most importantly, where exactly does government draw the line? If a theatre

expands and becomes successful, does it lose its privilege? If a theatre has different

ownership, does it lose its licence? There are problems with legislation built around

arbitrary classifications rather than consistent principles across the board.

Businesses across the province are exhausted by government’s constant creative carve-outs,

exceptions, pilot projects and selective rules instead of establishing one fair, transparent

framework for all. This bill continues that trend. Instead of modernizing our liquor

policy for all theatres in British Columbia, government proposes another narrow exemption

targeting one category of business.

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a minute. You still have time.

Point of Order

Amna Shah : I call a point of order. The member keeps referring to the amendment to the motion

as a bill. Yeah, I’d just like to point that out.

Deputy Speaker : Correct. Yeah, it’s an amendment to the motion.

Thank you, Member.

Continue.

Debate Continued

Korky Neufeld : But fairness matters. If liquor service during mixed-age screenings is considered

safe and acceptable, then all theatres should be allowed to apply under the same standards.

If strict conditions are needed around staff training, age verification, serving limits,

security or licence requirements, then establish those rules provincewide, and apply

them equally. Do not create a system where some businesses are trusted while others

are arbitrarily excluded.

That’s why we need to remove the word “independent” from this legislation, and I ask

everyone in this House to support it.

Deputy Speaker : Just a reminder, we’re debating the amendment on the motion.

Darlene Rotchford : Thank you for that clarification.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here today on the traditional

unceded territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People known today as Songhees and the xʷsepsəm Nations, which my constituency office also falls on.

I’m going to speak against the amendment to the motion because I won’t be supporting

the amendment to the motion, the original motion that was put forward by the member

for Kootenay-Monashee which called on the government to allow small independent movie theatres the option

to serve liquor at aged showings, because I believe the amendment is not going to quite do what I think the

member thought that it would.

At the core of the original motion, it was about choice, fairness and stability, so

I can appreciate the comments from the member of the opposition. It proposed a measured

and responsible approach that would allow independent theatres, should they choose….

So rounding that up, we want to….

I think that will change the intent of what we’re looking at, because we want to continually

look to strictly adhere to B.C.’s liquor laws, to Serving It Right protocols. Some

of those bigger ones can already do this, so I think that amendment talks about something

that can already be done.

Let me be clear. This motion, again, originally was never geared towards those corporate

chains. It was very much the independent ones because of the way things can currently

be done. It was about smaller community-rooted theatres, the ones that bring character,

culture and connection to places in our community, not the bigger ones. Therefore

that motion would not fall in line, or the amendment to the motion wouldn’t.

Again, because there were some comments about bills, I think it is important — because

we’re being pointed at, and you talk about the order of things — that this was an

amendment to a motion not a bill. This motion would still have to go to a ministry,

and the ministry ultimately would have the decision, because it’s not a bill.

Here on southern Vancouver Island, we are fortunate to have lots of independent theatres,

such as the Roxy Theatre down on Quadra. Since we have people from all sides of the

House that maybe sometimes get to spend some fun in this city when we’re not in this

building on weekends, occasionally…. The Capitol 6 on Yates and the Vic Theatre down on Douglas. These venues are more than just a place to watch a film. They are

a gathering space. That’s where families come together for untold stories, where communities

find common ground.

I encourage everyone in this House, if you haven’t had the opportunity when you are

in this beautiful city, to go down and check them out. Because the difference between

big theatres, which the amendment is looking to, is that independent theatres give

people an opportunity to step away from the pressures of daily life and that shared

experience, that entertainment, to inspire and connect. They play an important role

in preserving our arts and culture within our community.

That’s why when we look at the amendment to do that and creating that bigger space,

it would take away some of that. Like many small businesses and cultural institutions,

these theatres are faced with significant challenges in recent years, something the

opposition brings up to us quite regularly. So I would hope that they would support

the original motion without amendment.

The pressure of global inflation is changing consumer habits, and the rise of streaming

services has taken its toll. For many, the margin between success and closures becomes

increasingly narrow. That’s why, again, when you look at the way that the amendment

to the motion was, it was looking at bigger theatres, not smaller ones, which the

intent of the original bill was.

[11:05 a.m.]

In the context, the motion offers a practical and grounded step forward. We know that

arts and culture venues, particularly music venues, are already permitted to serve alcohol during

mixed-age events. They do so responsibly, with appropriate safeguards in place and

in full compliance with provincial regulations.

Comments made by the opposition that this can’t be done already are actually not true.

I’m sure it wasn’t intentional. I’m sure you know, because I can appreciate their

passion on what they’re talking about, but they can already do that. They’ve shown

that it’s entirely possible to maintain a safe and welcoming environment for young

audiences which allows adults to enjoy additional amenities.

The question before us is straightforward. Should independent movie theatres be given

the same opportunity? The amendment that was put forward wouldn’t allow that to happen.

By allowing liquor services during mixed-age showings, we provide these more independent

theatres an additional tool, one that can help strengthen their financial footing,

support local employment and ensure their continued presence in our community.

If that amendment that would not look to what the original intent of that motion was….

It’s not about transforming theatres into something they are not. It’s about giving

them the flexibility to adapt, to evolve and to remain a resilient, rapidly changing

environment. You heard from my colleague here earlier about letters that we’ve already

started to receive — that if that amendment to the motion passed, it would not necessarily

be getting the same results as they think it would.

Importantly, it’s about doing so while maintaining public safety and community standards.

The framework already exists within the ministry; the rules are clear. That’s why

the original motion, without the amendment which this member is trying to put forward,

was written the way it was.

There is something enduring about the shared experience of cinema. In a world that

can sometimes feel divided, these spaces remind us that people from different backgrounds

and perspectives can still come together in a shared experience, and I believe you

get that in the smaller, independent theatres.

Our theatres are, in many ways, steady anchors in their communities. They endure,

not because it is easy, but because it matters. They are part of a broader network

of local spaces that fosters creativity, connecting and a sense of belonging. Again,

that’s why, when we looked at the original motion, it was just that — not the broader

motion that.…

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Member for Kelowna Centre, you’ve got two minutes.

Kristina Loewen : Two minutes — oh.

I rise today to speak to the amendment to this motion. I want to briefly recognize

the member who brought it forward, the MLA for Kootenay-Monashee, for doing something that every MLA in this House should be doing, listening carefully

to the people they represent and bringing those real-world concerns into this chamber.

This is the heart of representative government and something that is the foundation

of what we should be doing in this place.

I do appreciate the amendment, removing the word “independent” from the motion. Conservatives

believe government policy should be fair and consistent for all businesses, not designed

to favour one category of business over another. Governments should not be in the

business of picking winners and losers.

If a policy makes sense, it should apply fairly. If a regulation no longer makes sense,

governments should be willing to review it openly and honestly. If businesses are

being treated differently without a compelling public reason, we should ask why. That

principle matters.

Too often in B.C., businesses feel like they’re navigating a maze of inconsistent

rules, exemptions and special carve-outs that seem arbitrary and difficult to justify.

Small businesses feel it, communities feel it, and the public feels it. Do we really

want to create a scenario where the public have to ask themselves which rules apply,

based on whether a theatre is independent or not?

What theatres are really asking for is not special treatment. They’re asking for fairness.

This motion opens the door to a broader conversation about whether our liquor policies

are modern, consistent and rooted in common sense, and the amendment applies new legislation

equally and across the board.

I want you all to know that all three of my daughters worked their first job at a

local theatre just five minutes from our home. To each of them, it was a place where

they all received real work experience, learned customer service, had co-workers for

the first time, and began to see what it meant to live in and serve community.

At the end of the day, people want fairness, they want consistency, they want to be

heard, and they want a government willing to listen. By removing the word “independent”

from this motion, we can apply the same fairness to all.

Deputy Speaker : The member for Langley-Willowbrook closes debate.

Jody Toor : Over the course of this discussion, one thing has become very clear. This motion is

not simply about serving alcohol in movie theatres. It’s about how we balance modernization

with responsibility, economic opportunity with community standards, and consumer choice

with public confidence.

[11:10 a.m.]

The amendment to Motion M207 removes the words “small” and “independent,” ensuring

that all movie theatres in B.C. have the option to serve alcohol during mixed-age

showings.

No one is denying that movie theatres have faced real challenges in recent years.

They are important gathering spaces in our communities, and many are working hard

to adapt in a rapid, changing entertainment landscape. The question before us, however,

is not whether theatres matter. The question is whether expanding alcohol service

into regular mixed-age screening is the right solution. Do we maintain an unnecessary

restriction, or do we create a level playing field?

Throughout debate, important questions were raised about public safety, family environments,

enforcement standards, economic impact and the long-term cultural shift this may create.

Those questions deserve thoughtful answers, because when government expands alcohol

service into mixed-age environments, it sets a standard that will certainly lead to

pressure for similar changes in other public spaces.

At the same time, we also heard arguments about fairness and consistency from this

side. If theatres are already operating under provincial liquor regulations, then

government must clearly explain why some businesses are treated differently from others.

That inconsistency has been part of this debate as well.

At its core, this is about fairness. The current wording creates an uneven playing

field allowing some theatres to offer a service that others cannot, despite operating

under the same provincial regulations.

Ultimately, this discussion extends beyond movie theatres themselves. It is about

how we balance economic interests with the responsibility to maintain community spaces

that reflect the standards and values British Columbians expect.

There are economic benefits as well. Expanding this option to all theatres would encourage

advancement across the industry. It would allow theatres to diverse their offerings,

remain competitive and better respond to changing consumer experience.

As legislators, our responsibility is not simply to follow trends or assume every

expansion is automatically progression. Our responsibility is to ask careful questions,

examine consequences and ensure that any change we make genuinely serves the public.

For that reason, I appreciate the discussion that has taken place here today and a

few weeks ago and the thoughtful input from all members of all sides of this chamber.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is amendment to Motion M207.

Amendment negatived on division.

Deputy Speaker : Now we’re back to the main motion.

On the main motion.

Deputy Speaker : Member for Kootenay-Monashee closes debate.

Steve Morissette : Today we have the opportunity to support a simple, practical change that reflects

modern realities, supports small businesses and helps keep community gathering spaces

alive across British Columbia. Small businesses are the economic heartbeat of British

Columbia, and in these challenging global times, we must do all we can to support

small business whenever we can.

Independent movie theatres are much more than places to watch films. They are cultural

hubs where neighbours gather, where local events and festivals are hosted and where

families and friends share experiences together. In many rural and small communities,

they are the only place that regularly gathers diverse members of the community together.

Small independent theatres struggle. Rising operating costs and competition from streaming

services have made it increasingly difficult for small independent cinemas to survive.

This motion offers a reasonable, commonsense way to help them remain sustainable.

[11:15 a.m.]

In my own riding, theatre owners shared with me how the current liquor regulations

create an uneven playing field. A theatre can serve alcohol during a live performance

with a mixed-age audience but not during a film screening in that same venue. Meanwhile,

larger entertainment venues and major corporate cinemas already operate with far greater

flexibility.

This motion is about fairness and modernization. It recognizes that responsible liquor

service can coexist with family-friendly environments, just as it does in many other

entertainment settings today. Strong safeguards, age verification and responsible

service requirements will continue to apply.

Most importantly, this motion supports over 50 independent theatres across B.C., many

of them small rural businesses that contribute greatly to the character and vibrancy

of their communities. This motion is targeted. It is targeted to small independent

theatres because they are the theatres whose sustainability is most challenged.

Large chain theatres are great. I support their success as well. They do already receive

benefits far beyond the independents. They benefit from being the first to screen

new shows, from having the capital and space to add separate viewing areas to accommodate

alcohol sales. They can close off one screen for alcohol sales.

This motion was kept simple to help sustain small theatres. We heard from independent

theatres that they did not like the amendment. They said it really dulls the impact

of the motion for small independent theatres. It does not create a level playing field

but, rather, continues the dominance of large corporate theatres.

Quote from an independent theatre owner in the Okanagan, Scott John, again: “I saw

that the motion was amended, and unfortunately, as amended, if it passes, it probably

actively hurts us versus the current state. The large corporate cinemas are universally

multiplexes with many screens. They already have the ability to designate one for

liquor service. Small independent theatres are exclusively single or double screens

and don’t have that ability.”

When a local theatre closes, we lose more than a screen. We lose a gathering place,

a cultural space and a piece of community identity. Supporting these theatres means

supporting local jobs, local economies and the shared experiences that strengthen

our communities.

This is a modest but meaningful step that supports small business, reflects how people

enjoy entertainment today and helps preserve important community spaces for future

generations. I encourage all members of this House to support this motion in support

of small independent theatres.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Up in the gallery right now, we have grade 7s from…. Their teacher is Kirsten Pierce

from Monterey Middle School. They’re here learning about the Legislature right now.

We have private members’ time, and we’re just about to vote on a motion, M207, alcohol

sales in theatres.

Can I please have this House give a warm welcome to this class.

Lorne Doerkson : I seek leave, also, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Lorne Doerkson : I appreciate that this couple will probably be formally introduced a little bit later

by the member for Langley-Willowbrook, but I did have the pleasure of meeting them this morning.

I’d sure like for the House to welcome Avtar and Mandy Bal to our chamber this afternoon.

They are the proud mom and dad of our member for Langley-Willowbrook.

[11:20 a.m.]

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : The question now is Motion M207.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member next on the

list of precedence to move their item of business.

Motion M208 — Regulation of

Wastewater Utility Costs

Harwinder Sandhu : I move the Motion 208, standing in my name on the order paper:

[That this House calls on the provincial government to address the gap in price regulation

from private wastewater utility companies to ensure they charge fair rates to their

customers.]

As a proud MLA for Vernon-Lumby, I’m honoured to rise today to present Motion 208, because this issue speaks directly

to fairness, transparency, accountability and the responsibility we have as a government

to ensure that all British Columbians have equal access to essential services at reasonable

and sustainable costs.

Over the past several years, I have heard from many residents in my community, from

Silver Star and the area, who are deeply concerned about the growing costs of private

wastewater utilities. I want to give them a huge shout-out for their tireless advocacy

over the years, incredible work and persistence.

The level of public support for this motion has been significant. More than 30 constituents,

and still coming my way, have written to my office and to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship appreciating this motion and asking our government to take action to create stronger

protection for our communities facing excessive wastewater charges.

For decades, residents in Silver Star community have been advocating for oversight

and regulation of private sewer utilities. Their concerns are not new and, unfortunately,

neither are rising costs that they continue to face. At a time when families everywhere

are facing global affordability challenges, rising costs and economic uncertainty,

rural residents should not be burdened by utility fees that continue to increase without

meaningful accountability or oversight.

Our constituents shared with me that homeowners recently received another increase

on their 2025 wastewater invoices following substantial hikes in the previous years.

They described that financial strain many residents are facing as payment policies

have also changed, requiring people to pay much earlier in order to receive discounted

rates. For many households, coming up with thousands of dollars up front is simply

not realistic.

Another resident explained that since 2023, they have experienced a nearly 36 percent

increase in fixed fees alongside major increases in consumption charges.

These are not minor adjustments. These are substantial increases that families, seniors

and working people are struggling to absorb.

This highlights one of the central problems with private wastewater utilities in many

rural communities. Residents often have no choice when it comes to their provider.

These utilities typically operate within a single-service area, meaning homeowners

cannot switch companies or seek more affordable options elsewhere. In practice, this

creates monopoly conditions where customers are effectively locked into one service

with very limited protection against unreasonable pricing. Without proper oversight,

residents are left vulnerable to escalating costs year after year.

Research provided by the Silver Star Property Owners Association demonstrates just

how serious these disparities have become. In some cases, annual wastewater costs

for residents range between $1,300 to $1,500, while nearby municipalities pay close

to $400 to $500 for similar services. Some homeowners are paying as much as three

times more than the residents in neighbouring communities for the comparable service.

This is not simply about utility bills. This is about fairness. It’s about ensuring

where a person lives does not determine whether they are forced to shoulder disproportionate

financial pressure for essential service. Rural British Columbians deserve the same

transparency, accountability and protections that other residents expect and receive.

[11:25 a.m.]

This issue has been raised for many years, in fact, as far back as 2005. During the

Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention, the city of Vernon brought forward

private sewer utilities in the same way that private water utilities are regulated.

The motion was endorsed, yet 20 years later, many residents are still waiting for

meaningful action.

This motion calls on government to introduce legislation that would help to ensure

wastewater utility companies charge fair, reasonable rates to their customers. The

goal is simple but important — to establish transparency, accountability, fairness,

stronger consumer protections for the people who rely on these systems every single

day.

I encourage all members to support this.

Donegal Wilson : I rise today to speak to Motion M208, brought forward by the member for Vernon-Lumby, and want to thank her for her advocacy.

At its core, this motion addresses something very simple, and that’s fairness. It

asks whether British Columbians who rely on private utility systems for essential

services should have confidence that the rates they are charged are fair, transparent

and subject to appropriate oversight.

I think that is a reasonable question, because wastewater is not optional. It’s not

something that you get to opt out of. It’s not something you get to shop around. Families

do not get to opt out of this infrastructure, and they do not get to look for other

providers in different ways. Where service is essential and the customers are effectively

captive, I believe that oversight matters.

I would suggest that if we’re having this conversation, we must be honest about the

full picture, because wastewater is only half the question. The same households receiving

wastewater bills are also receiving water bills and other utilities.

For most families, affordability is not separated neatly into categories depending

on which pipe the service comes through. It’s all part of the same monthly cost of

keeping a home functioning. There are serious affordability questions not just in

privately operated systems but in municipal systems, regional district systems, improvement

districts and provincially administered systems as well.

Across British Columbia, families are seeing rising utility costs driven by aging

infrastructure, regulatory changes, deferred maintenance, treatment upgrades and climate

resilience pressures. I believe in rural British Columbia, like the member for Vernon-Lumby, we’re seeing it disproportionately in the South Okanagan. They’re magnified because

our customer base is small and those infrastructure costs are high. This motion identifies

just that specific regulatory gap.

I agree that essential utility customers deserve fairness, and that is the principle

that I obviously support. In my own riding, I’ve heard from families facing bills

that would shock most British Columbians, bills that are no longer an inconvenience

but a genuine affordability crisis. This is creating real stress on seniors and people

on fixed incomes.

For working families already managing groceries, fuel, insurance, mortgages and rising

day-to-day costs, this is becoming a new line item that they’re having to make choices

about. Unfortunately, they don’t get to make that choice to opt out of this.

Part of that frustration is not just simply the cost itself. It’s the lack of transparency.

People are asking very reasonable questions. Why are the rates increasing? What capital

work is required? How are these decisions made? Were alternatives explored? What reserves

exist? Was outside funding pursued? We know…. I’ve spoken in this House frequently

about how there is no outside funding for these private water systems and wastewater

utilities.

When the service is essential and customers cannot simply walk away, that uncertainty

becomes deeply frustrating. They’re basic public health necessities. We regulate fairness

in every other sector where consumers have more freedom of choice than they do here.

We regulate cell phone providers, yet we don’t regulate wastewater treatment pricing.

The principle behind the motion is sound. I believe, for me, that has never been separated

from water. It’s water and wastewater. Even the member mentioned the UBCM particular

motion that they put forward and ratified, and it was water and wastewater. They deserve

to know that someone is listening.

[11:30 a.m.]

With that, I’ll be proposing an amendment to this motion:

[That Motion M208 be amended by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the

underlined text as shown:

That this House calls on the provincial government to address the gap in price regulation

from for private water and wastewater utility companies to ensure they charge fair rates to their customers.]

Deputy Speaker : Member, would you like to speak to the amendment?

We’ll take some time to get some copies and circulate that.

On the amendment.

Donegal Wilson : I want to speak specifically to the amendment that I propose to Motion M208.

At first glance, some may ask whether this amendment is necessary. I believe it is.

It’s about fairness in private water and wastewater utility pricing. I believe that

it needs to include both. One pipe goes in. One pipe goes out. Almost all of these

systems have both. It’s a private water and a wastewater system.

You’ve heard me speak in this House about Heritage Hills. It needs $23 million. That’s

for a water and a wastewater system. We’re rebuilding both. Those things need to travel

together. For the households paying these bills, they’re not experiencing them in

isolation. They come on the same bill. It’s the same manager, usually, of both utilities.

It’s the same owner. It’s often a subdivision.

The member mentioned Silver Star. I’ve got Sage Mesa, Skaha Estates, Mount Baldy,

Apex Resort. Many of these municipalities have water and wastewater together.

To have a motion come forward that only speaks to one-half of the combined utility

doesn’t make sense for residents, and I hope that the member will accept my amendment

in good faith. It’s an amendment to try to make significant change for the people

in rural B.C., and it comes with the reality of what it costs to keep our taps running

and our toilets flushing.

I believe that the amendment is small. It’s not an intent to try to hijack the member’s

motion, though I do believe the motion could have been expanded to include regional

districts, municipalities. We’re seeing this affordability crisis across British Columbia.

It doesn’t matter what kind of system we’re looking at. But in respect of her motion,

I’m only focusing on the private water systems.

I do wish that it had come forward as a bill that was actually going to facilitate

change, that we could be debating a bill that would make the thresholds on what makes

water and wastewater affordable. I have many members on this side of the House, as

well as that side of the House, that are dealing with unaffordability in their private

water utilities but also in their public water utilities.

We know that these are captive customers. You don’t have an option. It comes as a

bill in the mail, and you have to pay it. I spoke in this House about Sage Mesa being

proposed at $1,000 a month just for their water. They still need their wastewater

fixed, as well, which would be an additional cost. That is not affordable.

I have canvassed the minister in estimates, as much as I could, specifically about

this piece. Why do we not have thresholds on what is considered affordable? Why have

we not defined “affordable”? Because $12,000 a year for just your water bill to me

is not affordable.

I support the member’s intent of trying to put some thresholds and some guidance around

what we should allow private water companies and wastewater companies to charge people.

The amendment should have included municipal systems, regional districts, improvement

and irrigation districts. Again, I did not want to hijack the motion and rewrite it

and lose its intent, so I made the small adjustment to add water. I’m hoping that

government will accept that motion, and I hope the member accepts the amendment in

the spirit that it was given, in an effort to make things better for rural British

Columbia.

Small systems are inherently vulnerable, and it includes aging infrastructure, the

small customer bases. When I mentioned Sage Mesa, I think it’s 223 doors splitting

$32 million. That is a disproportionate ability to do that. We have higher construction

costs, regulatory compliance pressures, treatment upgrades, deferred maintenance.

When those pressures are passed directly to a limited number of ratepayers, those

impacts can be severe.

I don’t think it’s theoretical. It’s happening right now. I believe that’s why the

member has brought this forward. It’s happening in her riding. I did a little bit

of research this morning on private water systems to see what the impacts would be.

It’s obvious that the bulk of these systems exist within the South Okanagan, Okanagan

and up into Vernon and her riding.

That’s why I continue to stand on my feet in this House to bring attention to this

problem, and I appreciate that the member did. I hope that accepting that small amendment

to include water into her motion is accepted and that we can move forward to make

things better for our constituents that are being forced to look at these bills and

figure out a direction forward that they can afford.

Deputy Speaker : We’re going to take a recess. The amendment is being copied to allow it to be distributed.

We’ll be in recess.

The committee recessed from 11:35 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Okay, I call the chambers back to order.

The amendment is in order. It’s being circulated. Everybody should have a copy.

Harwinder Sandhu : I want to thank the member from the opposition for speaking and sharing her thoughts.

However, I just want to share that I’ve been working with this group for years and

did thorough research. In British Columbia, water is already controlled by the comptroller

of water rights, and therefore this amendment is unnecessary.

As well, the member also questioned why it’s a motion, not a bill. All members of

this House should know that during private members’ time, we are not supposed to propose

a money bill. The original intent was to present a bill, but I wanted to do it so

it’s successful. After doing my thorough research, again, the best decision was made

to present it as a motion so it can succeed rather than presenting a bill and not

abiding by the private members’ guidelines. Then the bill would go nowhere. I want

to clarify that.

I oppose this amendment, and I appreciate all the members to hopefully support this

motion.

Misty Van Popta : I appreciate hearing the response from the member across the way on this amendment,

but it does speak to general concerns. From a municipal background, I have experience

in utility costs and the impacts to everybody on property taxes. One of the biggest

drivers is water and utilities, like wastewater. So I understand that it is important,

given that this is a motion and not a bill, to still recognize that we have an extreme

amount of pressures on our utility costs, also including waste removal.

We all have very few opportunities to stand in this House to present a motion or a

bill, and I really do appreciate that this is something that you’ve thought significantly

about and are obviously advocating for residents in your community. But this is an

opportunity where we can take a motion and encompass…. You know, open it up just a

little bit more to make sure that the advocacy is for all British Columbians, just

adding in that water piece.

The intent is there. This motion wasn’t meant to kind of hijack it or make it not

intended for the purpose. I do want to recognize the impact of…. There are very few

of us that have had a bill or a motion on the floor, and this is a big opportunity.

I just really appreciate the member coming forward with this. But I still feel like

this small tweak, just adding these two words, “water and,” is something that makes

it just a little bit more robust.

That is strictly because a lot of the time we don’t experience our utilities separately

and, in the effort of recognizing affordability for British Columbians, just to highlight

the impacts that water also has on homes.

You know, when we were discussing the motion itself, the original motion, and bringing

forward an amendment, there were conversations around: what does affordability mean

in the context of this motion? There are no guidelines. I understand the cost implications

when we present a motion or a bill to this House, but there was an opportunity for

us, in the amendment, to make it a little bit firmer on identifying what affordability

means and also encompassing more regional districts.

I live in Metro, so there are lots of conversations on the impacts of especially wastewater

treatments — conversation quite a bit right now. But we can’t just stop and take people’s

bills and motions and just try to rework them into something else.

[11:50 a.m.]

I think the intent is still here with this amendment, highlighting the work that this

member has done on advocating and doing a little bit of cross-aisle tweaks to it,

just to make it a little bit more robust. That’s the intent with my colleague here

for Boundary-Similkameen, and I’m really thankful that she brought this forward.

And then what is that transparency requirement in the original motion? We made a conscious

effort to kind of leave it as is, just add the water piece, because the bulk amount

of British Columbians, a significant part, are on private systems. So we’ll leave

the amendment to highlighting private systems but just add the water piece.

I want to thank the member for the original motion, but I’ll still be supporting having

water included in that.

Amna Shah : I rise to speak against the amendment to this motion. I’m a bit perplexed at the amendment

in itself. What we do know is that there is currently a gap in provincial legislation

that relates to the costs of private wastewater systems. We know that. It affects

people in rural areas of our province.

But I think we may be missing something here, and that is that private water utilities

are often regulated so that they cannot charge customers rates that are far greater

than their own cost of operations, for example. That is not the case for wastewater

systems.

When there’s an amendment proposed to simply open something up — which doesn’t really

make sense because the prior half that is recommended for amendment, which is water

utilities, is already regulated — I fail to see the point of the amendment.

What we know is that there is already a mechanism in place to ensure fairness in pricing

for water but not for wastewater. That’s what the original motion intended to do —

to close that gap. So I’m not really….

You know, I appreciate the member’s willingness to kind of really broaden the scope

of the motion. However, I just don’t think that it’s relevant, because there is that

mechanism in place.

Private water utility rates are established by a rate application to the comptroller

of water rights as per the Water Utility Act in this province and also as per the

Utilities Commission Act. In these cases, a hearing is provided to customers, and

then a decision is made on the application to the comptroller of water rights.

So again, I’m not really sure what the amendment intends to accomplish, because I

don’t really think it’s relevant to open up the motion.

What we do know, for rural people across the province…. Sometimes when companies increase

rates that are not regulated, people feel the brunt of that, especially in rural areas,

and it can really sometimes amount to price gouging. I think in this chamber we all

strive to develop — whether it be legislation or motions or bills — or advocate for

fairness for everybody across this province.

While the idea of opening up this motion via an amendment sounds really good, it just

doesn’t apply in this case because the regulation is already there.

Unfortunately, I will not be supporting this amendment. I really urge the members

to understand that there is regulation of private water, private water utility companies,

and that it really just doesn’t make any sense to broaden this motion here.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

But with that, I respect and I appreciate the member’s amendment.

Noting the hour, I ask that we adjourn debate.

Amna Shah moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.