Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, May 4, 2026

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 170

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Economic and Trade Opportunities with Singapore

Lawrence Mok

International Firefighters Day and Firefighter Health Risks

Darlene Rotchford

Role of Cabinet and MLAs

Lynne Block

Robert Barron and Local Journalism

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

Action on Social Issues

David Williams

Sunset Community Centre

Sunita Dhir

Reporting of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer

Stephanie Higginson

Macklin McCall

George Anderson

Harman Bhangu

Bryan Tepper

Ward Stamer

Bill M231 — Veterans and First Responders Month Act

Rosalyn Bird

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M231 — Veterans and First Responders Month Act

Rosalyn Bird

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation Course for MLAs

On the amendment (continued)

Brennan Day

Jennifer Blatherwick

Motion M207 — Liquor Service in Movie Theatres

Steve Morissette

Jody Toor

On the amendment

Jody Toor

Steve Morissette

Gavin Dew

Dana Lajeunesse

Kiel Giddens

Paul Choi

Donegal Wilson

Brennan Day

Steve Kooner

Monday, May 4, 2026

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Jennifer Blatherwick.

Introductions by Members

Rosalyn Bird : I would like to introduce some distinguished guests today. Up in the gallery, we

have Const. Ruben Vance from VicPD; Const. Pierson York from VicPD; Const. Alex Erwin

from VicPD; Const. Ross Mackenzie, also from VicPD.

We also have Assistant Fire Chief Michael Holliday from Prince George along with one

of his local firefighters, Carl Krause.

Jason Chan is also here. He is the president of the B.C. Police Association.

Will everybody please make them feel welcome today.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Economic and Trade

Opportunities with Singapore

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to speak about the importance of the trade relationship between Canada

and Singapore and, in particular, the opportunities that exist to strengthen British

Columbia’s role in that partnership for the mutual benefit of both jurisdictions.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Before I begin, I want to briefly share why this topic is personally meaningful to

me. In 1976, I travelled from Singapore to Canada to study engineering. Upon graduation,

I returned to Singapore and worked as an engineer. In 1988, I immigrated to Canada

and settled in beautiful Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Since then, I worked in the

overhead bridge crane industry in this province for more than 30 years, until I was

elected as an MLA in 2024.

My life has been shaped by both Singapore and Canada. I’ve seen firsthand the strengths

of each country, and I firmly believe that closer economic ties between British Columbia

and Singapore represent not only an opportunity but a natural partnership built on

shared values of innovation, trade openness and strategic thinking.

Singapore is one of Canada’s most important trading partners in Southeast Asia. Bilateral

trade between Canada and Singapore exceeds $3 billion annually, with Singapore consistently

ranking among Canada’s top export destinations in the ASEAN region. British Columbia

plays a significant role in this relationship, particularly through exports of natural

resources, forest products, agricultural foods, clean technology and digital services.

Singapore is a global hub. Despite its small geographic size, it is one of the world’s

leading financial centres and a gateway to Southeast Asia’s 650 million people. For

British Columbia, this presents a strategic advantage. Our province is Canada’s Pacific

Gateway, and we are uniquely positioned to deepen ties with Singapore as a conduit

to broader Asian markets.

Currently British Columbia exports a range of goods to Singapore, including wood products,

minerals and agricultural commodities. There’s growing collaboration in areas such

as education, where international students from Singapore contribute to our institutions;

and in technology, where Canadian firms are increasingly active in Singapore’s innovative

ecosystem.

However, there’s much more that can be done. One key area of opportunity is clean

technology. Singapore has ambitious sustainability goals, including investments in

water treatment, energy efficiency and low-carbon infrastructure. British Columbia

is a leader in clean technology innovation, particularly in hydrogen, carbon capture

and renewable energy systems. By creating targeted trade missions and partnerships

between B.C. companies and Singaporean agencies, we can position our province as a

preferred partner in helping Singapore meet its environmental objectives.

Another opportunity lies in advanced manufacturing and engineering services. Singapore’s

economy is highly industrialized and technologically advanced, with strong demand

for specialized equipment and expertise. British Columbian companies — particularly

in sectors like industrial machinery, automation and engineering consulting — can

expand their footprint by leveraging Singapore’s role as a regional headquarters for

multinational firms.

We should also look at agricultural food products and exports. Singapore imports over

90 percent of its food supply, making it highly dependent on stable and trusted trade

partners. British Columbia’s high-quality agricultural products — including seafood,

berries and specialty foods — are well positioned to meet this demand.

[10:10 a.m.]

Tourism and education also remain key pillars. As travel continues to recover and

expand, promoting British Columbia as a destination for Singaporean tourists and students

can generate economic benefits while deepening people-to-people ties.

In closing, as someone who has lived and worked in both countries, I can see the potential

clearly. By strengthening this partnership, we can create jobs, expand our economy

and build a more connected and prosperous future for British Columbia and Canada.

International Firefighters Day

and Firefighter Health Risks

Darlene Rotchford : Today we mark a day that everyone in this House has talked about and that I think

we can all support. Today marks International Firefighters Day.

I want to begin by recognizing the service of British Columbian firefighters right

across our province. These are individuals who run towards danger when others must

run from it. Every day they put their lives on the line to protect our communities.

They save lives, safeguard property and do so at a great personal risk to their own

health and safety. They deserve our unwavering support, our deepest respect and our

sincere gratitude — quite frankly, not just today but every day.

The work firefighters do is inherently dangerous and can have lasting impacts on both

physical and mental well-being. While most of us seek safety in times of crisis, these

brave men and women move directly into harm’s way, driven by a singular purpose: to

keep us all safe. At times, their selfless service comes at an ultimate cost.

That is why we must do everything in our power to support them, not only for their

sake but for their families’ sakes and our communities’ sakes. That’s why in 2017,

important steps were taken to better support firefighters by examining presumptive

coverage under our Workers Compensation Act. At that time, a limited number of illnesses

were covered. Heart injuries and diseases along with ten types of cancers were recognized.

For those who may not be familiar, “presumptive coverage” means that when a firefighter

is diagnosed with one of those conditions, it is assumed to be work-related, unless

proven otherwise. Now, this ensures that claims are accepted more quickly, allowing

them to access the care and support they need through WorkBC without unnecessary delays

— something, again, I think we can all agree with.

While this is an important start, it is not enough. Thanks to the tireless advocacy

of our B.C. Fire Fighters Association, it has become clear that firefighters face

elevated risk for so much broader a range of serious illness.

That’s why, in 2018, the act was amended again to include PTSD and other mental health

conditions as presumptive illnesses, not only for firefighters but for our other first

responders. We all can recognize the profound psychological impacts of repetitive

exposure to traumatic events for the people who do that work every single day. That’s

why we made further changes in 2019 to expand those protections to include wildfire

fighters, fire investigators and those serving First Nations and our Indigenous communities.

In the years that followed, additional cancers were added to this presumptive list

— again, something, I think, we all know needs to continue to be done. Today British

Columbia recognizes 18 types of cancers along with heart injuries and diseases as

conditions that firefighters face an increased risk of developing.

We are leading here in British Columbia for our firefighters. I think we should all

be proud of that — both sides of the House. It’s great.

As of March 16, 2026, we’ve now also, all of us, added eight additional cancers that

have been officially recognized as presumptive diseases linked to firefighting — another

meaningful step forward, ensuring firefighters receive the support they deserve.

While we’ve made significant progress, our work is not done. We all can remain committed

to working in partnership with our B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, our

firefighter locals, our federal firefighters, our forestry and First Nation firefighters

to build a compensation system that is effective, responsive and centred on workers,

one that fully supports firefighters and all of our emergency responders here in British

Columbia.

We need to ensure we continue to look for opportunities that strengthen protections,

improve outcomes and ensure the health and well-being of those who dedicate their

lives to protecting us.

With my last minute, I would like to just take a moment to thank my local firefighters

— IFF Local 730 here in Victoria, Local 4264 in Esquimalt, Local 5419 in View Royal,

our firefighters at CFB Esquimalt and our Local 5420 in Colwood.

You keep our communities safe. You keep my family safe. You do so at great personal

risk. You spend time away from your family. You miss holidays. You miss milestones.

You still give back for charity work, even when you’re off duty. You are nothing short

of a class act. Thank you for everything you do to keep us safe. Thank you for everything

you do to give back to your community.

Today on International Firefighters Day, and every day, we would like to thank you.

[10:15 a.m.]

Role of Cabinet and MLAs

Lynne Block : When we are elected to this House, we are entrusted with something sacred: the public’s

confidence. We are sent here to make decisions that shape the lives of families, businesses,

workers and future generations — decisions on taxation, debt, regulation, health care,

housing, education and the economy itself.

Those decisions are not abstract. They determine whether a senior can afford groceries,

whether a young couple can buy a home, whether a business can hire and whether our

children inherit prosperity or debt.

Yes, elected representatives should be accountable and supported in possessing a basic

understanding of economics, of public finance and of numeracy. We should understand

what a deficit is. We should understand what debt-servicing costs mean. We should

understand that regulations can both protect and burden, and we should understand

that every dollar that government spends first comes from the hard-working taxpayer.

Deputy Speaker : Just a minute, Member.

Darlene Rotchford : Order or privilege, is this not currently in front of debate in the House — the topic

which this member is speaking of — in private members’ time?

Deputy Speaker : Member, I’ll ask you to continue with your statement and just to refrain from referencing

other topics currently under discussion in the House.

Lynne Block : Thank you, hon. Speaker.

While that foundational understanding matters, I would argue something even more important.

Ministers, the individuals entrusted with leading portfolios and departments, must

have boots on the ground, expertise, experience and real-world understanding in the

areas they oversee.

A minister of health could understand health care not only from briefing binders but

from hospitals, clinics, conversations with doctors, nurses and patients and even

have direct experience from within the field.

A minister of agriculture could know the realities of farmers, supply chains, weather

risks and rising input costs — and even have a background in farming.

A minister of housing could understand what it means to navigate permits, construction

delays, labour shortages and affordability crises. Experience in the workforce that

is integral to housing would be an asset.

A minister of finance could understand markets, budgets, taxation and the consequences

of reckless borrowing. Experience and training as an accountant would be an ideal.

A minister of labour could know what it means to run a business or sign a paycheque

or navigate fair conditions for workers.

Policy made from an ivory tower often collapses when it meets reality on the ground.

The best ministers are not those who merely manage a title. They are those who listen,

learn and lead with practical wisdom. As President John F. Kennedy once said: “Leadership

and learning are indispensable to each other.” That is the heart of this issue. Leadership

requires learning, and learning requires humility.

No minister, no matter how intelligent or experienced, can know everything. That is

why good governance demands more than expertise. It demands openness to advice from

either side of the aisle. People could seek counsel from diverse voices — industry

leaders or front-line workers or economists or academics, municipal leaders, Indigenous

communities, non-profits and the very citizens affected by their decisions — not just

the voices that agree, not just the voices that are politically convenient but a broad,

diverse and honest range of perspectives.

[10:20 a.m.]

Decisions are made when more lived experience is at the table. Accountability matters.

If a minister fails to understand their file, ignores expert advice or imposes policies

disconnected from reality, the consequences are not theoretical. They are paid in

lost jobs, in delayed surgeries, in shuttered farms, in rising rents, in higher taxes

and in growing debt.

Public office is not simply a privilege. It is a duty — a duty to prepare; a duty

to understand; a duty to consult; and, above all, a duty to serve. So let’s ensure

all elected representatives, both sides of the aisle, have the support to understand

the economic and fiscal consequences of the decisions before us. But let us especially

ensure that ministers have the experience, the practical knowledge, the boots-on-the-ground

perspective and the humility to listen to experts and communities alike.

British Columbians deserve more than slogans. They deserve competence, they deserve

accountability, and they deserve leadership rooted in reality.

Robert Barron

and Local Journalism

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : Today I want to speak about Robert Barron, a man who made a lasting contribution

to the Cowichan Valley through his writing, his curiosity and his care for local history.

For many people in our community, Robert Barron’s name is connected with the Cowichan Valley Citizen and with stories that helped people better understand the place they call home. He

was part of the tradition of local journalism that gives a community its memory. In

that sense, his work mattered far beyond the newspaper page.

The local history coverage associated with Barron’s name in the Cowichan Valley has

been remembered as an important record of the region’s past. What made Robert Barron’s

work meaningful was not just that he reported on the events but that he helped preserve

the character of the valley.

Local newspapers do more than share news. They capture the voices, struggles, achievements

and everyday life of a community. Writers like Robert Barron help ensure that the

future generations can look back and see how the Cowichan Valley changed over time

and what values shaped it. This kind of work required patience, attention to detail

and a genuine interest in people.

The history of Barron’s contribution is tied to the long-running local reporting in

the Cowichan Leader and the Cowichan Valley publications. There is also something especially important

about the local journalism in a place like Cowichan. It connects neighbours to each

other. It makes civic life more visible. It gives recognition to people and the events

that might otherwise be forgotten.

Robert Barron’s legacy reminds us that strong communities are better built not only

by the leaders and institutes but also by the people who tell their stories honestly

and carefully. His writing helped shape the way the valley saw itself and understood

its own heritage.

Today we think about Robert Barron. We should be thinking about more than a newspaper

byline. We should think about a community historian, a storyteller and someone who

helped preserve Cowichan’s identity. The value of the contribution is lasting, because

the community that remembers itself is a community that stays connected to its roots.

Robert Barron’s work helped to do exactly that for the Cowichan Valley.

Thank you for your ten years at the Cowichan Valley .

I know I will miss him also sharing about our double hip surgeries and recoveries.

I just wanted to let him know I’m still doing well in my recovery.

I will end by saying the Nanaimo News Bulletin is lucky to have you, and I look forward to seeing your byline and your next column

in the Cowichan Valley Citizen from time to time.

[10:25 a.m.]

Action on Social Issues

David Williams : Today I rise to speak about the invisible people of British Columbia. Who are these

invisible people? They are present in every community, every town and in every riding.

They are the people directly affected by government policy, taxation, service failures,

health care delays and the rising cost of living. Yet, too often, their voices are

absent when decisions are made.

They are not invisible because they do not matter. They are invisible because government

fails to see them.

They are people on disability assistance who are expected to survive in one of the

most expensive provinces in Canada on supports that do not reflect the real cost of

rent, food, transportation, medication and basic daily needs. This government often

speaks about compassion, but too many people with disabilities are left in a system

that is not compassionate, not realistic and not fair.

They are families with children with autism and other special needs, who face uncertainty

— long waits, confusing rules and constant pressure to prove their child deserves

support. These parents are not asking for special treatment. They’re asking for stability,

fairness and support that meets the needs of their loved ones.

They are seniors on fixed incomes who worked their entire lives, paid their taxes,

raised families and built our communities. Now they find themselves squeezed between

housing costs, medical costs, food costs and tax changes. Many simply want to age

with dignity in the homes that they worked so hard to afford. Under this government,

even that’s becoming harder.

They are low-income renters and people at risk of becoming homeless. The government

says it is fighting poverty, but more than words are required. For many people, this

is the difference between stability and eviction, between having a door to lock at

night and sleeping in a tent, a vehicle or a shelter bed that may or may not be available.

They are people that are currently experiencing homelessness, only noticed when they

are seen as a problem. They need housing, but they also may need special mental health

care, addiction treatment, safety and a path back to stability.

They are people struggling with addiction and mental health challenges, too often

invisible until they are in crisis. Families are desperate. First responders are overwhelmed.

Communities are frustrated. Those suffering are trapped between stigma, illness, addiction

and a government response that has failed to provide timely treatment, recovery or

hope.

They are patients waiting for care — seniors, rural residents, struggling families

and those requiring specialized treatment. They are waiting for a family doctor; waiting

in emergency rooms, if those emergency rooms are even open; waiting for surgery before

it’s too late; waiting for mental health supports; waiting for care that is close

to home. The NDP government promised health care would get better, but too many British

Columbians are still waiting for the results.

In rural communities like the North Okanagan and Shuswap, people know what being overlooked

is like. They live it when services are centralized elsewhere, health care is harder

to access, transportation is limited, affordable housing is scarce, broadband is unreliable

and government programs are designed in Victoria without fully understanding rural

life.

This is the problem. The NDP has become very good at announcements, slogans, press

conferences and photo opportunities. But compassion is not measured in announcements.

It is measured in outcomes. It is measured by whether people can find a doctor, afford

a home, access treatment and live with dignity.

Too many invisible people are being left behind. The senior choosing between groceries

and medication is not better off. A person with a disability trying to find housing

is not better off. A parent with a child with autism fearing the loss of support is

not better off. The low-income renter facing eviction is not better off. The patient

waiting for care is not better off. The person suffering addiction who cannot access

timely treatment when they are ready is not better off.

Leadership is measured not by how a government serves the loudest voices, the most

connected….

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

David Williams : One second.

So I say to government: listen to them, see them, because British Columbia should

be a province where no one is forgotten, no one is dismissed and no one is made invisible.

[10:30 a.m.]

Sunset Community Centre

Sunita Dhir : There are very few places in life where I feel like I leave a piece of my heart behind

every time I visit. In my beautiful riding of Vancouver-Langara, that place is Sunset

Community Centre in the heart of South Vancouver.

For me, Sunset is not just a building. It’s part of my family’s story. It’s where

I met my very first best friend after coming to Canada. It’s where my children attended

preschool, played basketball, learned music and nervously stepped onto the ice for

their very first skating lessons. It’s where my husband taught our boys how to swim

and where my parents now spend several days each week enjoying tea, music, dancing,

exercise and friendship. For my family and for so many families in South Vancouver,

Sunset Community Centre has been a sanctuary.

The centre is operated through a partnership between the Vancouver park board and

the Sunset Community Association, a volunteer organization that has spent decades

creating programs and opportunities for the community.

The history behind this centre is remarkable. Nearly 80 years ago, South Vancouver

was growing rapidly with young families after the Second World War. At a time when

there were few community spaces and limited resources, local residents dreamed of

creating a place where children could play safely, where families could gather and

where neighbours could connect. So volunteers got to work.

In 1945, the Sunset Community Association was formed. Community members organized

fundraising campaigns and events to bring their vision to life. Then in 1948, legendary

singer Bing Crosby came to Vancouver for a fundraising concert that raised $26,000

in a single evening, helping turn a community dream into reality.

What makes the Sunset story so special is not just the fundraising success. This centre

was built by ordinary people who believed deeply in creating opportunities for future

generations. Over the decades, Sunset Community Centre became the heartbeat of South

Vancouver and a welcoming place for one of the most culturally diverse communities

in our province.

In 2007, the beautiful Sunset Community Centre, designed by renowned architect Bing

Thom, officially opened at Main Street and 51st Avenue. Today the story continues

with the opening of the new Sunset seniors centre. For many older adults, especially

those who may live alone and face language barriers, community spaces are essential

to physical and mental well-being.

I especially want to acknowledge the leadership and persistence of Mr. Bhalwinder

Singh Waraich, who is the president of the Sunset Community Association and has championed

for this project for many years. Mr. Waraich, along with other residents, continues

to champion the need for a new aquatic centre in South Vancouver and in the Sunset

neighbourhood.

I’m pleased to share that the grand opening of the new Sunset seniors centre will

take place on Tuesday, May 12, at 10 a.m., with festivities and an open house continuing

until 3 p.m. This beautiful facility includes a commercial kitchen for meal programs,

multipurpose rooms, wellness and fitness spaces and welcoming gathering areas where

seniors can build friendships and stay connected with their community.

standards, such as LEED commercial interiors gold certification, Rick Hansen Foundation

[10:35 a.m.]

On behalf of the residents of Vancouver-Langara, I thank the dedicated board members

of the Sunset Community Association for helping make these dreams possible.

I warmly invite all members of this House and all British Columbians to visit the

Sunset senior centre and Sunset Community Centre in the historic Punjabi Market area

of Vancouver-Langara.

Deputy Speaker : 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 Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Reporting of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras

in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer : I move that Bill M217 be instituted, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act

as amended to be concurred in at report stage.

I’m very pleased to be able to stand here today and congratulate the committee on

all the good work that they’ve done to bring us to this stage. We all know that the

main reason why this bill was instituted in the first place was because of the improvements

to road safety. I believe this is a bipartisan bill. This is an opportunity for us

in the House to be able to come together and make meaningful legislation.

Dashcams promote safe driving behaviour. Over 50 percent of our commercial vehicles

already have dashcams, and many businesses have already instituted it into their safe

work procedures. They’ve already seen the tangible benefits of the reduction of collisions,

accidents and insurance claims because of dashcams. I’m quite confident that with

the ability to move this forward and having it as a bill will give us the necessary

tools to be able to make sure that all our commercial vehicles over that gross vehicle

weight of 8,200 kilograms will be, in the province of British Columbia and hopefully

across the entire country….

Some of the benefits, of course, we talked about — safe driving habits, but there’s

also the efficiency side of things as well. There are opportunities, of course, of

speeding up insurance claims and investigations, reducing legal disputes and costs,

and it also lowers the stress and the opportunities for people to make bad decisions.

The other thing that I’d like to talk about, if I may, is the amendments that were

brought forth in the committee. I believe that those amendments strengthen this bill.

Those amendments had not only the description of the commercial vehicle in question,

of 8,200 kilograms, but also what the operating requirements of the dashcams would

be, including night vision and forward-facing only, nothing inside the cab or any

privacy issues.

That was the other thing that was brought up in committee time and time again. There

were concerns about privacy. We’ve got existing laws already on the books, specifically

when it comes to commercial and businesses, not only to be able to determine how that

information is being used and stored but also how it’s being destroyed. I believe

that we have already got significant legislation in place to make that work very effectively.

On behalf of myself, I’d like to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak

to this bill, and I hope that we get unanimous support in the House.

Stephanie Higginson : I just want to recognize the work that the member opposite has done to bring this

bill to the House.

I agree with pretty much everything that was just said. I also really appreciate the

work of the committee on this bill. I think we are all supportive of the intention

of this bill to make roads safer for all of those using them, especially commercial

drivers that are such an important part of our economy, moving goods around the province

interprovincially, internationally.

I do have concerns about the bill as it’s been reported back, specifically with clause

1 and the current definition of “commercial vehicle.” The definition of “commercial

vehicle,” as it stands, in my opinion, is too broad and should align with commercial

vehicles that also carry speed limiters. This creates clarity for all drivers who

use their vehicles for commercial purposes.

As it stands right now, the current definition may unintentionally…. We think we know

what it means right now, but there are some unintended consequences when things aren’t

clear, and we hear that consistently from the other side. It may unintentionally apply

to smaller commercial vehicles, such as delivery trucks, smaller delivery vehicles,

landscaping vehicles and quite possibly anyone who insures their vehicle through a

corporate or commercial means.

[10:40 a.m.]

Clarity in definition will help us avoid confusion and creates consistency among federal

and provincial regulatory frameworks, which is something that, if you recall, was

brought up at the beginning of debate on this bill.

Also, based on the submissions that I reviewed from the public, including feedback

from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, I think the committee should be given

an opportunity to review these concerns regarding clause 1, and I’m also sure that

we may hear from the Minister of Transportation on this issue.

Macklin McCall : I rise briefly at report stage to reiterate my support for this legislation. This

is a practical, commonsense measure that will improve safety on our roads. The core

of this bill is straightforward. Better evidence leads to better outcomes for investigators,

for drivers and for the public.

We’ve already spoken in this House about the real-world value of dashboard camera

footage. It provides clarity where there would otherwise be uncertainty. It helps

determine what actually happened, especially in serious collisions, often in rural

and remote areas where there are few, if any, witnesses. Ultimately, it supports safer

roads and more effective investigations.

I also want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised earlier in this process about

privacy and the protection of personal information. Those are valid concerns, and

they were taken seriously. What we saw at committee was a thoughtful, non-partisan

effort to address those issues in a balanced way.

Members from different sides of this House engaged in constructive discussions, proposed

amendments and worked through the details to ensure this legislation strikes the right

balance. Those amendments strengthened the bill. They clarified how information is

handled; reinforced protections around personal data; and ensured that this tool is

used for its intended purpose — public safety.

The bill before us today is better because of that process. It now reflects an approach

that protects public safety while also respecting individual rights and ensuring that

this footage is not misused. That matters because public confidence depends on getting

that balance right.

This is the kind of legislation that should bring this House together. It supports

commercial drivers, it supports law enforcement, it supports families who deserve

clear answers after serious incidents, and it does so in a way that is measured, reasonable

and fair. At the end of the day, this bill is about improving safety, providing clarity

and ensuring accountability on the roads. It’s practical, it’s effective, and it’s

ready.

I encourage all members of this House to support it.

George Anderson : Let me begin by saying this. Road safety is not a partisan issue. Every member of

this House wants safer highways, safer commercial transportation and fewer families

receiving the kind of phone call that no family should ever receive. But our responsibility

is not simply to support a bill because its purpose sounds worthwhile. Our responsibility

is to make sure the law we pass is clear, targeted, enforceable and fair.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Transit, I relay some messages from the Ministry of

Transportation and Transit that initially the bill, as drafted, was too broad. It

would have captured vehicles that were never the real focus of this legislation —

smaller delivery vehicles, landscaping trucks, contractors’ vehicles and other small

business operators that are not the same as the heaviest commercial trucks operating

across the province and international borders.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit believes that the bill should be amended

so that it can address certain questions, such as who can access the footage, how

long it’ll be retained and other enforcement mechanisms. As we are going about trying

to draft better legislation, I believe it is important that we vote against this particular

bill and send it back to committee in order for these questions to be addressed.

At the end of the day, it’s responsible for us as legislators to be putting forth

the best legislation possible. I’m sure the member agrees that where we can ensure

that there’s clarity, we will be providing a better bill.

[10:45 a.m.]

For that reason, I believe this bill needs further work. I believe it needs stronger

safeguards and clearer rules. As it stands, at report stage, I cannot support it.

I will be voting against sending it to report stage.

Trevor Halford : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Trevor Halford : So grateful to have Star of the Sea White Rock grade 5 class who all were so patient

as they crammed into my office this morning.

I want to say thank you to the parents and the students who got up at what I’m told

is 4 a.m., in some cases, this morning to catch the ferry. So thank you.

I want to thank Ms. Hillard for chaperoning this class over here.

I also see former MLA Dan Davies has joined us as well. It’s always a great treat

to see Dan Davies here as well.

I want to make that class and Mr. Davies feel at home.

Debate Continued

Harman Bhangu : I rise today to speak in favour of the private member’s Bill M217.

One thing I want to clarify is…. On the weight stage that the member from Ladysmith-Oceanside

had brought up, that was actually agreed upon, and there was an amendment made that

covered that aspect about gross weight.

Being someone that came from the trucking industry, this bill will help. It will help

with ICBC if there are any accidents, and it helps with safety in a lot of ways. As

a trucker, you’d be driving straight ahead, and a lot of cars do drive erratically.

They would cut right in front of you. Most of the time, that would always be: “Hey,

blame the trucker” — every single time.

This would bring clarity. This would actually help the process of ICBC and everything

else that way. I feel this bill does cover a lot of issues and a lot of erratic driving.

It does make people more honest when they’re driving.

I had a dashcam in mine, and it always reminded you that you need to be a professional

as a trucker. This bill does bring professionalism to trucking and to the process

that it is if there was any accident to happen. So I strongly speak in support of

this bill. As someone that comes from the industry, someone that’s lived the life

of a trucker, this bill helps.

I think all members in this House should be supporting a bill like this that actually

brings transparency if issues arise. It helps trucker safety and, most importantly,

helps all British Columbians’ safety. That is the missing piece here that I would

like to highlight. This would bring a lot of clarity if anything was to go wrong.

I really would like the whole House to support this bill.

Bryan Tepper : Just sitting here, I was a little confused at hearing some of the debate that we

had. As I’m aware, we do have an 8,200-kilogram gross vehicle weight in there, if

that answers that.

Most of the other items that have been brought up are items that are generally dealt

with through regulation. Pushing this back to committee…. I will talk about how when

police bodycams came in, we dealt with all of these issues through regulation. The

bill is there and lays out the guidelines, but regulation is what we deal with on

a basis for any of these things that are being brought as what I see as roadblocks

to what’s being pushed forward as a very cost-effective method of road safety.

If we look at vision zero, which I think is an admirable program, it’s been in for,

I think, 15 years now, and we’re looking to bring down deaths and serious injuries

in this province. If we can place cameras in vehicles, first of all, it brings self-accountability

to the drivers of these vehicles, knowing that their actions are covered or recorded

by these dashcams.

[10:50 a.m.]

Again, financially nowadays it is extremely, extremely inexpensive to put a camera

in your vehicle, and we will go from there. But really, at that point, I don’t see

the argument against passing this on, on items like this.

Deputy Speaker : Member for Kamloops–North Thompson closes debate. You have one minute.

Ward Stamer : Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I was under the belief that this had already gone through in discussion, through committee,

on all these concerns that were brought forth, very specific on what vehicles were

going to be mandated — with 8,200 kilograms. It wasn’t small vehicles or landscaping

trucks or anything like that. The privacy concerns that the member across brought

up have already been dealt with, not only in committee but also on the reason why

those amendments were done.

In closing, I believe that this should be able to go to third reading, and we should

be able to have a vote in this House. We shouldn’t have to be going through this process

in the first place. I think all those questions have come up through committee, and

I believe that it’s meaningful legislation. It’s bipartisan. It’s something that we

all agree on is necessary for making our roads safer in British Columbia.

I’m asking for the Legislature and the House to support this bill.

Deputy Speaker : Members, we’ve run out of time now for this stage of debate.

The question is that Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, be concurred

in at report stage.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, division is deferred until

6 p.m. today.

Kiel Giddens : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Kiel Giddens : I’d like to introduce in the gallery Mary Mytting, who’s here with the Northern Innovation

Network — we met this morning — and doing great things for supporting entrepreneurs

in northern B.C.

Would the House please make her very welcome this morning.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will consider Bill M231, Veterans

and First Responders Month Act, as reported complete without amendment from the Select

Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Bill M231 — Veterans and

First Responders Month Act

Rosalyn Bird : I move that Bill M231, intituled Veterans and First Responders Month Act, be concurred

in at report stage.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is that Bill M231, Veterans and

First Responders Month Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, the House will now proceed to third reading of Bill M231, Veterans

and First Responders Month Act.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M231 — Veterans and

First Responders Month Act

Rosalyn Bird : I move that third reading of Bill M231 be read into the House.

I rise briefly to close debate at third reading of Bill M231, the Veterans and First

Responders Month Act.

Over the course of this bill’s progress through the House, members have spoken thoughtfully

about the service, professionalism and dedication of veterans and first responders

across British Columbia.

I want to begin by acknowledging again the uniformed guests in the gallery today and

expressing my sincere thanks to the committee for its careful consideration of this

legislation and to all members of this House who spoke in favour of the bill and contributed

to its advancement.

This legislation at its core is about recognition, but it has been discussed that

it is not only about recognition. It is about understanding the full reality of service.

It is about acknowledging not only what veterans and first responders do each day

but also what they carry, with their injuries and cumulative stress, and the lasting

impacts that come with that duty.

It is about creating space for greater public awareness so that British Columbians

understand the challenges of service, including the transition to new careers when

that service is cut short, and the resilience required to continue forward.

[10:55 a.m.]

Importantly, it is also about ensuring that future generations see the professions

clearly, as honourable and essential and, also, demanding and deserving of respect.

By designating November as Veterans and First Responders Month, this Legislature creates

an opportunity for education, for reflection and for community engagement across the

province. It creates spaces not only to honour service but to support advocacy for

safer, more resilient communities. It affirms that those who serve — veterans, RCMP

officers, Coast Guard members, city police, firefighters, search and rescue technicians,

911 operators and ambulance attendants — are not only recognized for what they do

but acknowledged for what they endure.

This is a modest bill, but it reflects something significant. It reflects a shared

understanding in this House that service matters, that recognition must be grounded

in honesty, respect and accountability.

With that, I ask all members of this House to support this bill at third reading.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is third reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act, has been read a

third time and has passed.

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

to Motion M205. I’ll just note that we have approximately three minutes for debate

on the amendment before I look to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to close

debate.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation

Course for MLAs

Deputy Speaker : Member for Courtenay-Comox for three minutes.

On the amendment (continued) .

Brennan Day : I rise to respond to the amendment from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

Frankly, this amendment is exactly the problem this motion is trying to address. The

motion before this House is simple. It says elected officials who make billion-dollar

decisions on behalf of British Columbians should have a basic understanding of economics,

public finance, debt, deficits, inflation, productivity and the cost of government

decisions. That should not be controversial to this House.

But instead of debating that reasonable proposition, the government has done what

it so often does in this place. It has tried to turn a practical debate into a wedge

issue. It has tried to change the channel. It has tried to make out a basic motion

to be something far darker than it really is — the absolute horror of basic economics

education. But this motion is not about ideology. This is about competence.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in health care. This government has spent years

announcing inputs — more money, more plans, more strategies, more press releases,

more ribbon cuttings. But the outputs tell a very different story.

Emergency rooms are still closing in rural British Columbia. Seniors are still stuck

in hospital beds because long-term-care capacity doesn’t exist. According to the seniors

advocate, more than 7,000 British Columbians were waiting for long-term care in 2025.

It is now 7,800 this year, an average wait time of over a year.

This is what happens when government confuses spending with results. A government

can spend more and deliver less. It can announce more and build less. It can hire

more administrators and still leave patients waiting, seniors stranded and families

desperate.

That is why economic literacy matters, because debt has to be serviced. Deficits have

consequences. Capital delays cost money. When government mismanages major projects,

that is not government money being wasted. It is money earned by the people of British

Columbia.

British Columbians do not need another amendment designed to turn a serious debate

into a partisan morality play. They need a Legislature that understands the real-world

consequences of the decisions it makes. That is what this motion is about, and that

is why I cannot support this amendment. I fully support the original motion as written.

[11:00 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Member for Coquitlam-Maillardville closes debate on the amendment.

Jennifer Blatherwick : Thank you so much, hon, Speaker. I will not take up too much of this House’s time.

I think it’s been really interesting listening to us go back and forth. I think sometimes

we all struggle in this House to engage with the genuine intellectual and philosophical

arguments behind our points.

One of the things that I was very clear about in my moving this amendment was how

expensive it is when we don’t understand the laws of British Columbia. I could have

debated very clearly on morality but I did not, because there are multiple instances

of situations where members of all levels of government did not understand the basics

of laws that protect us, the reason behind why we have laws.

I also have had the experience, as many members of this House have had, of serving

in local government. My service was as a school trustee, which was six years that

I truly enjoyed. One of the reasons I did enjoy it is because school trustees, the

B.C. School Trustees Association every year puts on an academy. For three days, school

trustees go and they learn. If you’ve been in local government, you are very familiar

that there is a local government academy where members of local government — municipal,

village — can go and can learn about different topics of law.

I did not choose the amendments that I put in there randomly. I chose them because

they are repeated over and over in the agendas of both the local government academy

and of the B.C. school trustees academy. If local government thinks those are very

important topics for us to learn about, because they concern the administration of

laws and the understanding of legal consequences, I don’t believe we can disregard

that.

I also feel…. We all don’t know each other very well in this House. Members on this

side have gotten an opportunity to know me. I am not a partisan bun fighter. If anyone

in this House thinks that I would waste a bun, clearly, you haven’t been paying attention.

But I genuinely value education. I think it makes us all better. And I appreciate

the effort that the member opposite has put forward in making this motion. I value

education. I think we should all participate in it. I think we should do it every

year, and I think we should commit time and resources to making that happen.

So I am hoping that we will all support this amendment to the motion. You will notice

that I did not move to remove the original intention of the motion, which was economics,

which I truly believe we should all have a basic functioning, working knowledge of.

That is my little speech. I sincerely hope that this motion brings us together and

does not separate us. We can all come together in learning to do better for our constituents.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is the amendment to Motion M205.

Division is being 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 to the member next on the

list of precedence to move their item of business.

Motion M207 — Liquor Service

in Movie Theatres

Steve Morissette : I move Motion M207 standing in my name on the order paper.

[That this House calls on the B.C. Government to allow small, independent movie theatres

to serve liquor during mixed-age showings.]

I speak to a simple, practical idea that supports small businesses, strengthens community

gathering spaces and reflects how people enjoy film in 2026. This motion supports

the fact that we know small business is the economic engine of British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

Across British Columbia, small, independent movie theatres are more than just places

to watch films. They are cultural hubs. They host local events, film festivals and

school screenings and gather community together. But many of these theatres are struggling

to compete in an era of streaming services and rising operating costs.

At the same time, we’ve seen a shift in how audiences experience movies. Larger corporate

cinemas already offer expanded food and beverage services, including liquor in many

adult-only settings. Yet small, mostly rural, independent theatres, often the most

creative and community-focused, face regulatory barriers that limit their ability

to diversify revenue. I learned of this challenge from my own riding, where we have

two independent single-screen theatres, the Castle Theatre in Castlegar and the Royal

Theatre in Trail.

By chance, last year I ran into the owners of the Royal Theatre at the airport, on

their way to Victoria for the cinema industry gathering. They explained that it’s

hard for independent, rural, single-screen theatres to thrive and sustain operations.

They asked if I could support them in asking for changes to liquor laws to allow them

to sell beer and wine in mixed-age audiences. Currently for a live performance in

the same theatre, they would be allowed to serve alcohol in a mixed crowd — but for

a movie, no.

This law originated in the U.K., back when film was first used commercially. Film

was affordable for everyone, all classes of people. Live theatre was for the upper

class. The law was instituted because you couldn’t trust the common working person

to have alcohol.

An example the theatre owners shared with me was regarding the recent Taylor Swift

Eras Tour. The tour came to B.C. Place. The venue was filled with 160,000 fans over

three nights. The vast majority were teenage fans. Alcohol was sold there every night.

When the local theatre replayed the concert for local fans that couldn’t afford the

time or expense to attend the live shows, they could not sell alcohol to help sustain

their operations.

This motion calls on government to modernize those rules. This change will support

and help to sustain the 50-plus independent theatres across British Columbia. Allowing

small, independent theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings, while maintaining

strict safeguards, would give these businesses a fair chance to compete.

It would not mean unrestricted access. Responsible service requirements, age verification

and clear enforcement mechanisms will remain in place.

This is about fairness. It’s about economic sustainability. It is about supporting

small business in British Columbia. Most importantly, it’s about preserving the unique

character of our communities. When a small theatre closes, we don’t just lose a screen;

we lose a gathering place and a shared cultural experience.

This is a modest, commonsense step that supports local small business, reflects modern

realities and keeps our communities vibrant. I encourage all members of this House

to support this motion.

Jody Toor : It’s an honour to speak on Motion M207, liquor service and movie theatres. As mentioned

by the member from across, movie theatres have been more than just places to watch

films. They are gathering spaces, what many call “third places,” where people come

together outside of home and work to share stories, emotions and experiences. In an

increasingly digital and isolated world, these spaces matter more than ever. Yet over

the past few years, movie theatres have been struggling to survive.

In 2012, the B.C. government took a step forward towards modernizing by allowing liquor

services in movie theatres. However, that policy came with some limitations. Alcohol

could only be served in adult-only screenings and in the lobby areas.

While well-intended, these restrictions have limited the potential impact of the change

and have not gone far enough to support theatres facing ongoing financial challenges.

Allowing movie theatres to serve alcohol to responsible adults during regular screenings

is not a threat to society. It is a moderate, practical step that could help these

important cultural spaces remain visible.

[11:10 a.m.]

Adults are already trusted to make responsible choices in a wide range of environments,

and there is no compelling reason to treat movie theatres differently. Restaurants;

bars; and cultural events, such as concerts, all successfully serve alcohol in settings

where people of different ages are present. These establishments manage to enforce

legal drinking age requirements every day without issues. The systems and practices

already exist. Theatres would simply be joining a well-established framework.

Moreover, this is not an uncharted territory. Other provinces, such as Alberta, already

allow movie theatres to serve alcohol more freely. These authorities have demonstrated

that it can be done responsibly, without negative impacts on public safety. At its

core, this is about fairness, modernization and supporting local businesses that provide

to our communities.

Movie theatres are part of our cultural fabric. Giving them the flexibility to adapt

to changing consumer outcomes could make a meaningful difference in their ability

to survive and thrive in today’s society. If we value these shared spaces and the

role they play in bringing people together, then we should be willing to be responsible

to take steps to support them. Expanding responsible alcohol services in all movie

theatres — not just in small, independent ones — is one of those steps. For that reason,

I bring forward an amendment to the motion.

I rise to support an amendment to Motion M207. This amendment ensures that all movie

theatres in British Columbia have the option to serve alcohol during mixed-age showings.

[That Motion M 207 be amended by deleting the text shown as struck out:

That this House calls on the B.C. Government to allow small, independent movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings.]

On the amendment.

Jody Toor : This is a simple and reasonable change. It does not require any theatre to serve

alcohol. It only ensures that every theatre has the same opportunity to decide what

works best for their business and their audience.

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 regulation. Two theatres can follow the same rules, serve

the same communities and meet the same safety standards, yet only one is permitted

to expand its offerings. That inconsistency is difficult to justify and confusing

for consumers. If we believe in equal treatment, we should not be prioritizing one

business model over another.

This is also about enhancing the movie-going experience for many adults. Going to

the movies is not just about watching a film. It’s also a social outing, date nights.

The option to enjoy a glass of wine or a local craft beer can make that experience

more enjoyable and more complete.

Larger theatres with their advanced sound systems, premium seating and established

service practices are just as capable of providing safe, well-mannered environments.

There is no compelling reason to exclude them from offering the same experience.

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

advancement across this industry. It would allow theatres to offer their offerings,

remain competitive and better respond to changing consumer experience. It also opens

the doors for stronger partnerships with local breweries, wineries and producers,

giving them more opportunities to showcase British Columbian products. That supports

not just the theatres but local businesses and regional economics throughout this

province.

We should also be clear about safety. Reasonable and responsible alcohol service is

already governed by strict provincial regulations. Staff training, age verification

and service standards are well-established and enforced in B.C. This amendment does

not weaken those protections in any way. It simply ensures that all theatres operating

under those rules are treated equally.

Ultimately, this amendment is about consistency, fairness and choice. It supports

theatres of all sizes, regardless of if they’re small or independent; respects the

ability of businesses to make reasonable and responsible decisions; and gives consumers

more options in how they enjoy their experiences.

The question before us is simple. Do we maintain an unnecessary restriction, or do

we create a level playing field? I urge this House to support this amendment and allow

all movie theatres, allow this motion to take place and broaden the motion….

[11:15 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker : We’ll just take a few minutes and pass the amendment around.

Trevor Halford : Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Trevor Halford : Thank you to the House. We actually have our second class from Star of the Sea, who

I’m told is up there right behind me.

I just hosted these guys in my office. Big fan of Star of the Sea School. It’s actually

where my daughter Alexandra goes.

I want to say thank you to Mr. Luyten.

Just so you guys know, and you can tell your parents, we’re actually debating right

now the ability to potentially have liquor in movie theatres. Obviously, you need

ID and all that stuff, so don’t get….

I want to say thank you, guys, for being here today. I look forward to seeing you

guys after you leave the House.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : Members, the amendment is being circulated. We’ll just take a short recess so everybody

has the opportunity to take a look at it.

The House recessed from 11:16 a.m. to 11:19 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Okay, Members. The amendment has been circulated, and I’ll call the House back to

order.

Steve Morissette : I’ll speak to the amendment. I appreciate the effort to make things equitable. I

feel that with the original motion…. That was the point of the original motion, to

support small, rural, independent, single-screen theatres.

[11:20 a.m.]

We really want to support small businesses around the province and support them to

manage to thrive.

Larger, multi-screen theatres already have the ability to serve alcohol and to gain

that income from alcohol sales. They can have separate areas. They can use one screen

for a showing for 19 plus. They already have that ability, so I don’t support the

amendment. While I appreciate its intent, I think it’s already covered. Really, this

is to focus on small, rural, independent, single-screen theatres.

Gavin Dew : The concern about broadening the intention of the motion is ironic in light of the

last vote that we just had.

The reality is that I think folks on all sides of this House want to support small

business, and I do believe that the original motion is laudable. I think that it is

beneficial to allow small, independent movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age

showings. That’s a commonsense policy. I think that, broadly, we all want to enable

people to have more flexibility in terms of the experience that they have when they

go to the movies.

The intent of the amendment, which I think is equally laudable, is to expand that.

The approach that has been taken by the member was to bring a motion rather than a

bill, so, simply, to provide a general spiritual direction to be taken forward which

may result in changes to be implemented by government. We think it is only appropriate

that the changes be of breadth, that the changes are focused on allowing movie theatres

to serve liquor during mixed-age showings.

Certainly, that would be inclusive of the member’s original intent to support small,

independent movie theatres. Implicit in the motion but explicit in his speech was

the reference to small, independent, rural movie theatres.

We certainly recognize that there are significant economic and commercial challenges

faced by those small theatres in particular. However, broadening the motion to encompass

all movie theatres would allow for a more all-encompassing approach, which would allow

a balanced approach across the board.

I think, at this point, it’s relevant to speak about why this matters. What we have

seen over the last number of years has been a gradual movement both within B.C. and

across the country toward more commonsense liberalization of policies like this that

recognize that adults are adults and can be trusted to do adult things as grown-ups.

That includes being able to have a beer while you watch a movie.

There is a really important balance to be struck here, obviously. The expectation

that we should have as a society is that people can comport themselves with dignity

in an appropriate environment. And that is exactly what the member has brought forth,

which is, again, a motion to allow movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age

showings.

I hear some heckling from the other side about this happening with kids. I don’t understand

why the member is heckling against her own member’s motion, because the same fundamental

balance is there regardless. Whether it’s an independent cinema or whether it is a

larger cinema, the same fundamental aspect is there. The same spirit that appears

to be embodied in the intent of the original motion is there.

However, we’re simply allowing for this to happen more broadly. The reason why this

is important is a couple of things. Independent cinemas, larger cinemas — no matter

what they are — are actually very, very difficult facilities to adapt, as the member

well knows. In many instances, once they’ve been built out, they’re not a particularly

adaptable format which can easily be converted to another use. If they’re not able

to remain commercially viable, that’s a real challenge, especially when they are,

in many cases, a cornerstone, anchor tenant for a larger development.

So it’s really important that we try to make sure that our movie theatres can sustain.

One of the reasons why movie theatres have come under increased strain, of course,

is that we saw a lot of different consumer behaviours evolving, both prior to, during

and after COVID, where in many cases, when people were not able to go out to the movies,

they invested in home theatre systems. They changed their behaviours, just as in many

cases, they started cooking more at home. With those changes, we have seen those cinemas,

again, whether they’re independent cinemas or whether they’re part of larger companies,

come under real strain.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’m well aware, as the member, I think, has flagged in their original motion, that,

in particular, in small communities, small cinemas have taken that pressure particularly

hard. In many communities — I think of cinemas I visited, theatres I visited — there

are real and smart efforts underway to make sure that we try to restore the vitality,

vibrancy and economic viability of those cinemas.

Again, by broadening the motion through this amendment, we’re allowing for broader

direction, we’re allowing for broader conversation and we are joining with the member

in encouraging government to enable movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age

showings.

We, obviously, think that there ought to be the right kind of balance struck around

that. We, obviously, believe in people taking responsibility for their actions. We,

obviously, believe that this is the kind of logical, commonsense liberalization that

would allow people to go about their business in a normal way, have a great time and

also keep those movie theatres alive.

Dana Lajeunesse : I can’t support this amendment for the reasons that have already been noted by my

colleague. Liquor is already allowed to be served in larger theatres, and what we’re

talking about here is helping to keep our small businesses and our local small community

assets viable.

On its surface, we’re talking about liquor licensing, but at its heart, this is about

something much larger. It’s about who we are as a society, what we value and how we

support the arts as essential infrastructure for healthy individuals and healthy communities.

Independent movie theatres are not just places where films are shown. They’re cultural

anchors. They’re gathering places. They’re often the last remaining shared public

spaces in small towns and rural communities, places where people of all ages can come

together to experience stories that reflect who we are, challenge what we believe

and expand how we see the world.

When we talk about health in this House, we rightly spend a great deal of time discussing

hospitals, doctors and emergency rooms. But health is also about mental well-being,

connection, belonging and joy. The arts contribute profoundly to all of these.

Research and lived experience tell us that engagement with the arts reduces isolation,

supports mental health, fosters empathy and strengthens social cohesion. A community

with vibrant arts and culture is a community where people feel more connected, more

resilient and more healthful. This is especially true in small communities where access

is limited. This is not a luxury; this is a public good. Yet when we look at how public

funding is distributed, it’s very clear the arts are still, too often, treated as

an afterthought.

Across the province and, frankly, across the country, we invest heavily and proudly

in sports infrastructure, arenas, stadiums, training facilities and event complexes.

We justify those investments quite rightly by pointing to community benefit, economic

spinoffs, public enjoyment and health. But when it comes to arts infrastructure, local

theatres, performance spaces, galleries and cultural venues, the scale of investment

is often dramatically smaller and the scrutiny far greater.

We would never question whether a hockey arena should be allowed to sell alcohol during

a game attended by families. We understand that those revenues help keep the lights

on, subsidize youth access and make the entire operation financially viable. Yet today

small, independent movie theatres, many of which operate on razor-thin margins, are

prohibited from doing exactly the same thing during mixed-age film screenings.

That disparity matters. Independent theatres are struggling. Global inflation, rising

rent, increased utilities, changing distribution models and the long shadow of the

pandemic have all taken their toll. In many rural communities, the local theatre is

hanging on by a thread. When it closes, it won’t come back.

[11:30 a.m.]

The original motion offers a practical, low-cost, commonsense tool to keep those theatres

alive. We’re not talking about mandating alcohol service. We’re not talking about

large corporate multiplexes. We’re talking about giving small, independent theatres

the choice — the same choice that music venues, performing arts centres and sports

arenas already have.

The other arts and cultural spaces rely on liquor sales to remain viable. Mixed-age

concerts, theatre productions and community festivals across British Columbia serve

alcohol responsibly under existing rules. They do this while prioritizing safety,

compliance and community standards. There’s no reason independent movie theatres should

be treated differently.

That extra income could mean the difference between closing their doors and staying

living wage or continuing to offer affordable tickets for seniors and families.

Kiel Giddens : I want to thank the member for Langley-Willowbrook for bringing forward this amendment.

I think it is common sense.

I do want to thank the member for Kootenay-Monashee for his original motion. I think

both of these fit together. It’s actually an excellent motion that the member for

Kootenay-Monashee brought forward, and I think the amendment we’re talking about actually

strengthens it significantly.

I want to maybe use a little bit of an example from my own community as I get into

my discussion on it. Over the past, I’d say, ten or 12 years, B.C. has been embarking

on a journey of updating its archaic liquor laws. If we look at a country in Europe

compared to what we’ve had in B.C. up to ten or 15 years ago, it’s just no comparison

whatsoever.

I think what we’ve come to realize is that we need to let adults be adults, to have

responsible governance and rules around these things but make sure that there is flexibility

for people to live their own lives. They don’t need big government telling them what

to do on everything. They can make their own decisions.

In Prince George, we only have one movie theatre. It is not an independent theatre

but it is a small theatre actually. It’s a little bit of an outdated one. It’s a bit

of an eyesore for folks who are used to the large-scale facilities in the Lower Mainland,

but it’s ours. It’s where people go to gather to watch a movie with their family.

If you want to go to view a concert with your family, say the Taylor Swift concert,

they had it played in our movie theatre.

These are the types of things that I think we should have the ability for adults to

choose — what to do with their own lives. At mixed-age showings, this amendment is

making sure it includes theatres like the one in Prince George that would be, actually,

excluded. I think this is an opportunity for us in this House right now to say: “Let’s

step forward and keep modernizing our liquor laws in B.C.”

The member for Juan de Fuca–Malahat…. I appreciate his comments, but he did use the

example of arenas and art centres. I just took my kids to the Prince George Spruce

Kings game on Saturday night. They’re in the Coastal Conference finals against the

Nanaimo Clippers right now in BCHL playoff action. I chose not to have a beer that

night, but right next to us was another dad who was having a beer with his kids. That

is exactly what we should be encouraging, just adults making their own choices and

not having government telling everyone what to do at all times.

The example that was used, I think, is a perfect example of the fact that the sky

didn’t fall when those changes came into effect for sports arenas and stadiums. Prince

George had banned that in facilities for many years. They loosened that up.

[11:35 a.m.]

It allowed more revenue for these arenas that need upgrades. There are millions of

dollars needed in upgrades at the CN Centre in Prince George right now. The Kopar

Memorial Arena is slated for replacement.

Our cities need revenue and so do different sizes of businesses. We would love to

see a little bit more redevelopment in our theatre in Prince George, but they have

to be profitable for that to happen.

What this amendment is doing is making sure that the theatre in my community is also

included. I appreciate the member for Kootenay-Monashee really caring about theatres

in his community. I think that’s fantastic.

I also support small business, and I want that to be included, but I would like all

theatres to be included because it means it’s equitable. It’s the same regulations

across the board that these theatres are subject to, so we should have it across the

board for all different sizes of businesses that might be included in this.

Thank you very much for the time, and I look forward to continuing to hear the debate

on this.

Paul Choi : I’m pleased to rise today in support of the original motion and oppose the amendment

for the simple reason that the original motion is doing exactly what we were talking

about to bring fairness and equity to the liquor in theatres, because already large

theatres and multi-complexes have ability to serve liquor.

I want to thank the member for bringing the original motion forward. This is one of

the motions that may sound small at first, but it speaks to something much bigger.

It is about how we support local businesses, arts and culture and community spaces

that people genuinely value.

Now, independent theatres are special places. They are not just buildings with screens

and seats. They’re places where families gather on the weekend, where students discover

film and films that you may not see on streaming platforms. From someone who enjoys

that as well, sometimes being able to see something that is different and unique,

especially when it’s local film, is something that we should ensure that we support

and encourage.

It’s where community groups come to gather as well. In many communities, especially

smaller towns, the local theatre is one of the few remaining cultural gathering places.

It is part of the identity and character of the community.

I want to thank all of us in this House who understand how hard it is to become a

small business and survive these days. As a former small business owner myself, I

know that small businesses do not operate in unlimited margins. You worry about rent,

utilities, staffing, insurance, maintenance and whether enough people can come through

the door.

For independent theatres, these pressures are even greater now. They face rising costs,

changing consumer habits and competition from streaming services. A theatre cannot

simply move online and offer the same experience. The whole point is that people come

together in person, in the community. When we talk about allowing small, independent

theatres to have an additional revenue option, we’re not talking about something extravagant.

We’re talking about giving them one more tool to keep their doors open.

This original motion is about fairness, as I said. And right now, as we talked about,

we already allow liquor services in many mixed-age settings. People can attend concerts,

sports events, art events, festivals and community events where adults may purchase

liquor while families and young people are also present.

We trust those venues to follow the rules. We trust them to check ID, train their

staff, follow Serving It Right requirements and serve responsibly. So why should small,

independent movie theatres be treated differently? That is the reasonable question

that we ask here.

Now, the original motion does not say every theatre must serve alcohol. It does not

say every screen must have liquor. It does not remove public safety rules. It does

not change the obligation to ensure minors are not served. This simply says that small,

independent theatres should have the option to make it fair if they choose to apply

for the opportunity and operate within the rules.

Now, this matters because every community is different and every theatre is different.

Some may want this option, some may not, but giving them the choice is a practical

and respectable approach.

It can also help cultural spaces come alive. It also matters for local economic development.

When people go to local theatres, they often do more than just buy a movie ticket.

They may go out for dinner. They may stop at a cafe. They may support other businesses

in the area. This kind of local activity matters. Cultural venues bring foot traffic,

energy and life into our neighbourhoods and town centres.

[11:40 a.m.]

If we want vibrant communities and if we want to support the actual places where arts

and culture happen, independent theatres are where it brings people together. They

support local filmmakers, Canadian films, documentaries, international films and community

programming that may not be available in larger community venues. And they give people

a reason to leave their houses, meet their neighbours and share an experience. That

is worth protecting.

That is why I oppose the amendment but support the original motion, because it is

practical, it is modest, it is targeted and it is respectful to both public safety

and small business realities.

For this reason, I’m pleased to support the original motion but oppose the amendment.

Donegal Wilson : I definitely want to stand up in support of the motion as well as the amendment.

In my riding, I only have small, independent theatres. I appreciate that the member

for Kootenay-Monashee is looking to level the playing field.

In my region, I have the Gem Theatre in Grand Forks as well as the Oliver Theatre

in Oliver. Honestly, they’re not competing with other large theatres, so the amendment

doesn’t have a lot of impact in my riding, which is why I support it.

We should be enabling businesses in every single way we can to make businesses successful

in British Columbia. If it allows liquor to be served in large theatres under certain

circumstances now, why wouldn’t we just make it level so that the rules are the same

for everybody?

The one thing I do want to say is that I don’t really understand why this came forward

as a motion. I wish the member had brought it forward as a bill that was actually

going to make change. This motion is kind of a temperature check of the House. I find

it a little hard to see how this is going to impact change and why we’re arguing,

necessarily, semantics around why the government themselves would be opposed to just

saying “all theatres” and why there’s such strong opposition to that in a motion where

we’re just checking the temperature in the room.

I believe that all businesses need equal rules. When we start trying to figure out

who is small and independent…. Is it somebody who has three theatres? Are they still

small and independent? What makes them become a not-independent theatre? I think just

having a straight all-theatres rule makes sense to me.

I wanted to share that I had a fundraising event in Vernon at the Vernon Towne Theatre

many years ago. It was for the Lumby Mabel Lake Snowmobile Association. They were

doing a screening of a local snowmobile movie. One of the challenges we had at that

particular theatre was getting people to attend, getting the 20- to 25-year-olds to

come out and participate in a fundraising event when we weren’t able to provide any

alcohol at the event. We ended up having to rent the entire theatre, get a liquor

licence and do it as a special event venue.

I do support the member’s motion in removing those barriers. I definitely feel like….

Like I said, I just wish it had come forward as a bill that was actually going to

make an impact for my theatres in my region. Doing this temperature check, to me,

feels kind of…. I wish it was more. I guess I’ll say that. I wish that we were actually

making a change for my theatres.

I do appreciate that Kootenay-Monashee is probably in a similar position to mine,

where he has only independent theatres. I believe that’s probably why the wording

of his motion is the way it is. But I don’t see omitting “all theatres” like we have

in the amendment as a negative. I think it just creates a temperature check in the

room that we support small business and we support all small business and large business

in British Columbia on an even playing field.

I do think that whether alcohol should be served or not is kind of a non-issue. I

believe that we have laws and rules in British Columbia. We’ve had other members speak

to being able to lawfully drink in hockey arenas and other venues. I know that in

Oliver, regularly, in their arts theatre, they are able to serve some great Oliver,

B.C., wine as part of their showing and as part of your evening out on those particular

events.

[11:45 a.m.]

I believe that this isn’t about whether drinking is responsible or not. I believe

that we have the laws in place and we have precedents all over the place. The fact

that these independent theatres have not been able to take advantage of that, I think,

is why this member has brought forward this motion.

I also think that we just want to ensure that there’s flexibility in the business

model for all businesses. I agree with the other member that this gets people out.

They go out for dinner. They make it an evening. They might actually do something

else while they’re out.

In small towns, quite often once we get home, not much is open. We end up tending

to find at-home pursuits. So I support anything that gets people outside in their

community and being part of their community.

I do support the amendment and want all businesses to be on an equal playing field.

Brennan Day : I’m pleased to stand up and support the amendment from my colleague from Langley-Willowbrook.

I think this side of the House should also give a round of applause to the member

for Kootenay-Monashee for recognizing the struggle that the theatre industry in British

Columbia is currently under, under this NDP government.

And $1.6 billion is what the theatre industry is worth in Canada; 66.6 percent of

that business is all we have left after the damaging effects of COVID drove people

to watch from home. Of that revenue, 38 percent hinges on the sales of food and beverages

to the sector.

What this amendment is asking for is not anything extreme. This is already done in

jurisdictions across this country. And I think it is extremely important that British

Columbia gets out of the stone age and starts treating adults like adults in adult

spaces and mixed-use spaces. We need to be pushing for family-friendly and inclusive

atmospheres in all of the third places where we meet in small communities and large

communities across the province.

What we should also take note of…. Currently, right now, today there are NHL stadiums

that are sold out at capacity to watch the game on a screen. This should be encouraged

across the province in places like small theatres, not just the tiny and small, independent,

single-screen theatres, as the member mentions. Currently in British Columbia, the

law already allows for alcohol consumption in theatres. But that requires adult-only

showings and generally only applies to multiplex theatres.

Why? Why is this government so committed to policing every aspect of daily life in

British Columbia? We can do far, far better than that here in B.C. with no major change.

I’ll speak about the Comox Valley. We had, at one point, two theatres, one of which

had two screens and one that had one — the Palace and the Caprice Theatres. Anybody

that’s grown up in the Comox Valley will remember these fondly. Now we only have one

small multiplex. This is not a 30-screen Vancouver theatre. This is a theatre that

I go to with my son to watch the latest and greatest Star Wars films, as it turns out these days.

Happy May 4th.

It’s important that we spend that time together and get people out of their houses.

Too many people now are simply streaming them at home. We need to encourage British

Columbians to get out into public, to support small local businesses.

When 38 percent of the revenue of theatres is based on food and beverage, why not

give them a shot to remain open? We will lose these third places, whether they are

small, independent screens or large screens, regardless, because the trend line since

2018 is that we’ve lost 34 percent of revenue in that industry year over year. We

must put a stop to it and encourage these businesses that force people to come together

in the community with their families to participate.

This amendment is not asking for anything radical. This is just asking us to allow

British Columbians to take responsibility for themselves, to treat adults like adults

and to allow business to flourish in British Columbia.

This side of the House will always support businesses, small and large, to be able

to meaningfully participate in the economy of B.C., to try and drag ourselves out

of the deficit that eight years of this NDP government has created and the impending

catastrophe on the finances of this province that has now been done.

[11:50 a.m.]

This should not be controversial. This amendment is not controversial. This amendment

just levels the playing field for businesses across British Columbia to participate

in the economy, which we desperately, desperately need more people to participate

in. People are fleeing. We need to make it easier, not harder, to conduct business

in B.C.

This amendment to remove “independent” from the motion is a basic, simple equity.

I would encourage all members on the other side of this House to support this amendment.

It’s not controversial. It’s not hard. Let’s put B.C. businesses first.

Steve Kooner : I rise to speak in support of the amendment brought forward by the member for Langley-Willowbrook.

The original motion that was brought forward, M207, limits the changes to just independent,

small movie theatres.

It’s important to note the business community is struggling, and theatres are struggling

right now, right across the board. We need to keep the theatre industry afloat, and

we need the theatre industry to keep moving forward so the population in British Columbia

has access to entertainment to its fullest extent.

If we limited the changes to only small, independent movie theatres, we would be limiting

the type of entertainment that British Columbians would have access to, because the

bigger movie theatres have more selection. This is an important point.

The other thing is that over the last decade, the business community has really been

struggling. The choices have been narrowed down in terms of what British Columbians

can actually access in terms of services. So we need to be doing more.

If the amendment was allowed, it wouldn’t limit the motion that was brought forward

by the member for Kootenay-Monashee. It would allow for liquor to be served in mixed-age

categories in small, independent, rural movie theatres as well as larger movie theatres

that have a lot of selection. We need to be encouraging businesses right across the

board to have an environment of success.

There’s an element of fairness. We shouldn’t be discriminating against any sort of

business just because of their size or their quantity in this province. The law should

be clear and fair right across the board.

The other thing is that we currently have a precedent. You can go watch a hockey game

over at Rogers Arena. There’s alcohol served there. You could go to a restaurant;

alcohol is served there. You could go to a major concert; alcohol is served there.

So why stop at just small, independent movie theatres? Why not extend that also to

apply to major movie theatres, as well, to its fullest extent?

We shouldn’t have restricted options. There’s already a precedent in different hospitality

businesses, where we have restaurants and sports venues that are already providing

alcohol service, are already providing liquor service. So with this motion, why would

we be limiting the extent of businesses that could actually provide liquor services?

For that reason, I’m supporting this particular amendment that’s been brought forward

by the member for Langley-Willowbrook so we can have liquor services that can be provided

by all movie theatres right across the board in this province.

The other thing is that it’s just common sense. If there’s an adult population here,

they should be able to decide on their choices, rather than have the government tell

them where they can purchase their liquor or not in terms of, say, a small, independent

movie theatre chain or a larger movie theatre chain.

[11:55 a.m.]

I know the member for Kootenay-Monashee said that the liquor services already exist

for the larger chains, but he did also mention that they only exist to a limited extent.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

If we are amending the laws, it should be fair right across the board.

The member for Courtenay-Comox, with his able submissions, also mentioned that the

theatre industry has been struggling and mentioned that 38 percent of the revenue

for the movie theatre chains comes from food and beverage. So if 38 percent comes

from food and beverage, we should be doing more to encourage these movie theatres

to be supplying or having access to supplying alcohol services.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue this debate, and I move to adjourn

the debate.

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned now until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.