Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, March 30, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 143

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

Tributes

Howard E. Grant

Hon. David Eby

Introductions by Members

Statements

Ina Forrest Achievements in 2026 Winter Paralympic Games

Harwinder Sandhu

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Christine Buemann

Kiel Giddens

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Bill M239 — Aboriginal Title Transparency Act

Scott McInnis

Members’ Statements

Wildfire Impacts and Preparedness

Harwinder Sandhu

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Community Services

Lawrence Mok

Budget Consultation Process

Steve Morissette

Forest Industry and Support for Value-Added Manufacturing

Sheldon Clare

Diversification of Trade and Investment

Susie Chant

Equine Culture in Langley and Development of Rural Land

Misty Van Popta

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford

Hon. David Eby

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Role of Non-Disclosure Agreements

Scott McInnis

Hon. David Eby

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence and Conflict-of-Interest Concerns

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Rick Glumac

Hon. Niki Sharma

Budget Priorities and Credit Rating

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Kiel Giddens

Credit Rating and Economic Impacts of Budget

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Jobs and Unemployment

Teresa Wat

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Drug Decriminalization Program

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Provincial Sales Tax and Support for Small Business

Gavin Dew

Hon. David Eby

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent report, Provincial Support for the Village

of Lytton’s Wildfire Recovery, March 2026

Petitions

Gavin Dew

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee , Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act

Amna Shah

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Trevor Halford

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Jeremy Valeriote

Bryan Tepper

Garry Begg

Korky Neufeld

George Anderson

Lynne Block

Darlene Rotchford

Macklin McCall

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Larry Neufeld

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Rob Botterell

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Kristina Loewen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026

Macklin McCall

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Monday, March 30, 2026

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Howard E. Grant

Hon. David Eby : I rise with a heavy heart to share with the House that Howard E. Grant, Knowledge

Keeper and Elder of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm First Nation, has passed away.

He spent 37 years on xʷməθkʷəy̓əm council and 26 years as executive director of the First Nations Summit society. He

worked for the federal government in senior bureaucracy for ten years, which assisted

him — knowing both the federal, provincial and Indigenous governments — in setting

up some crucial institutions that we rely on today: the First Nations Health Authority

and the First Nations Finance Authority.

He was an instrumental figure in establishing both of those, as well as the creation

of the MST Development Corp., a business partnership among the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Peoples, which allowed him to make significant contributions to the Guerin and Sparrow

cases as well.

You can’t talk about fostering connections between cultural groups in this province

without mentioning Mr. Grant. His father was a Chinese immigrant. His mother was a

xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Matriarch. His mother was one of the last fluent speakers of hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓, connecting her community to its past and its future.

It’s important to note that her marriage to his father actually lost them status and

resulted in Howard growing up in Chinatown as well as in xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and avoiding residential schools.

In 2013, he travelled back to China to visit his father’s homeland. It’s captured

in a documentary film called All Our Father’s Relations , a remarkable story about his family but really about British Columbia. I encourage

all members to see it.

We pass on our condolences on behalf of the government caucus and, I’m sure, the whole

House to his family, including Member of Parliament Wade Grant, for their loss and

for, in fact, our entire province and country’s loss with the passing of Mr. Grant.

The Speaker : Thank you, Mr. Premier. That was a fitting tribute to a very extraordinary person

and a dear friend.

[1:35 p.m.]

Many of you may know that when I started my reconciliation project in the Parliament

a few years ago, he was the first one of the four advisers who accepted my request

to be on my council. He was an extraordinary person, going out of his way, always

willing to help others.

So I, on behalf of all of us, am joining the Premier to send our condolences to the

family. He will be missed.

Introductions by Members

Bryan Tepper : I would like to welcome Raman Bains, if he could stand up for us.

Raman is a Punjabi-language Canadian singer, born and raised in Surrey, B.C., a city

known for its grit and also the beauty that comes from it. Having been born into a

community where vulnerability isn’t always easy to express, Raman leans into it. Raman

graduated with a degree in political science from Simon Fraser University and was

accepted into law school before he decided to pursue his career in music.

Raman has collaborated with both the Vancouver Whitecaps and Vancouver Canucks, performing

at the iconic B.C. Place and Rogers Arena. His latest project and debut album, A Desi Love Story , is out. Raman recently completed his U.K. tour and performed the album for the first

time locally at the SoMa festival in Vancouver.

Please welcome Raman Bains.

Statements

Ina Forrest Achievements in 2026

Winter Paralympic Games

Harwinder Sandhu : Today I am pleased to rise to recognize an extraordinary athlete from our community,

Ina Forrest, fresh off the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Paralympic Games. Spallumcheen’s

Ina Forrest and her team made history as the first wheelchair curling team to go undefeated

on their way to a gold medal. This marks her fifth Paralympic medal, having competed

in every games since 2010. What an incredible record of three gold and two bronze

medals.

Ina is now the most decorated wheelchair curler in history, and we are incredibly

proud to call her a member of the Vernon Curling Club and our community. She will

be celebrating at the home club this evening.

While I can’t join you in person, Ina and team, I am here with you in spirit.

Please join me in congratulating Ina Forrest and her entire team for their remarkable

achievement.

Introductions by Members

Linda Hepner : I would like the House to please welcome the Canadian Mortgage Brokers of British

Columbia, who are here today representing mortgage brokers from across this province,

professionals working every single day to help people find their homes.

They’re here to talk to us and to share with us their perspective and their experiences

trying to navigate and, we know, everyone trying to find a home in our beautiful province.

Thank you for being here today.

May the House welcome them.

George Anderson : I’d like to recognize the outstanding achievement of the Dover Bay Dolphins basketball

team from Nanaimo, who brought home silver at the 2026 B.C. 4A provincial championships.

As the tournament’s top seed, they showed tremendous heart, discipline and skill.

Joe Linder and Dane Schmidt were named first team all-stars, and players like Landen

Ross helped lead this remarkable run. I also want to recognize Head Coach Darren Seaman

for his leadership.

To the players, coaches, families and the entire Dover Bay School community: Nanaimo

is proud of you.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : I would like to welcome and introduce my constituents from the organization of Hindu

Mahila Society.

This organization focuses on community services, charity projects and organizing cultural

events. I want to say that our province is a better place because of the ongoing and

exceptional work they do for the community.

[1:40 p.m.]

With us today in the House are Remya R. Nair, president; Rejimon Palayathu, vice-president;

Raju Menon; Dr. Aladi Sukumar; Suraj Rajan.

I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Kristina Loewen : Today I want to introduce somebody that I don’t need any notes for. I know this person

quite well. In fact, I met him about 30 years ago when he was just a young 20-something

and he was sporting a full beard. I can assure you that he looked older then than

he does now — my husband, Andrew Loewen.

Together we’ve been married almost 30 years, and we raised four kids together. I am

excited to say that he accompanied me to Victoria without any of those children this

weekend, and we had a good time together.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I would like to join my colleague across the aisle in welcoming the Canadian Mortgage

Brokers Association of B.C. I am looking forward to a conversation with them later

this afternoon and grateful for the work that they do.

I also ask the House to join me in welcoming Jasmine Toor from the Mortgage Professionals

of Canada. Again, I’m grateful for good colleagues and good opportunities to learn

and work together.

Thank you, Jasmine. Welcome.

Bryan Tepper : Just three quick introductions.

We have Govind Malhi here. He’s a wonderful photographer, and he’s documenting Raman’s

visit with us today.

I’d also like to welcome for the first time Carlie Froats, my CA from back in Surrey-Panorama,

just getting started with me.

Then welcome back Gurjot Cheema, my riding president.

Thank you, all.

Hon. Grace Lore : I have several introductions to make today, so I thank you in advance for patience.

First, I am really thrilled to welcome Vancouver Island Senior Ladies, who are a group

of women up and down the Island, aimed at making connections, new friends, and being

engaged in community. I love the idea. I loved even more the chance to talk to some

of them today in the Hall of Honour. I learnt a few things. I’ve got a few ideas and

really appreciate the chance to connect. I’d like to give a warm welcome to Ruth,

Sandy, Cindy, Caroline, Rhondda, Linda, Diane and Wendy.

Second, I’d like to welcome Dr. Katharine Low. Dr. Low is a recent immigrant to Victoria

and comes to us from London via South Africa and Switzerland. She’s a respected academic

engaged in feminist-led research using arts and theatre to support doctors in their

training. She’s at the faculty of medicine at King’s College. Her work is creative

and transformative.

There are many things that could have brought us together. Reading her bio to you,

there’s many opportunities for overlap. But what brought us together was being the

mom of boys who love tackle football, and here we are.

Last but certainly not least, my mom is here today. My love of politics and community

comes in part from following my mom around when she worked as a producer at Global

Calgary. I have early memories of election night and party convention coverage.

My mom is joined by her lifelong friend and auntie to me, Janie Dale. I’m grateful

to have her here filling my bucket as well.

Will the House please help me make all of these incredible women welcome today?

Amna Shah : I am so pleased to see that in the gallery we are joined here today by Amar Randhawa,

Gurmukh Aujla, Roman Singh and Keerit Jutla. They are here from the Vaapsi Seva Society,

specifically the Vaapsi sober living program, which is a community-led, culturally-grounded

initiative that tackles addiction and the complex factors that sustain addiction.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now, vaapsi means “return,” and this program is specifically designed to support South

Asian men in their journey of return to health, to stability and to purpose. It combines

an evidence-based model with wise principles from Sikhi, namely seva, simran and sangat.

This reflects a model that is not only effective but also deeply human.

Will the House join me in welcoming these amazing men who do this noble work in our

communities.

Gavin Dew : I join the member opposite for Surrey City Centre in welcoming my friends from the

Vaapsi Recovery Home, especially my old friend Amar Randhawa, my friend Keerit Jutla,

as well as Gurmukh Aujla and Roman Singh.

Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you very much for the work that you

are doing to advance B.C.’s first culturally responsive sober living home for Punjabi

men. This is obviously very important work.

I think that, across this House, we share a belief that recovery is possible and that

your work is very important. Thank you.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : This week is a very important week for an outstanding organization that my ministry

gets a chance to be able to work with. That is the Forest Enhancement Society of British

Columbia.

We’re joined by the executive director, Jason Fisher, former ADM in government, who

I first got the chance to get to know when I first started in government, who now

sits as the treasurer; Trish Dohan; as well as their past chair and board director,

Dave Peterson.

If you haven’t heard of the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., this is an organization

that has been performing and delivering for British Columbians in forest health, in

helping our pulp sector and in wildfire risk mitigation over the course of the last

ten years. Over that ten-year span, 426 projects have been invested in around British

Columbia.

Over 62 million trees have been planted through FESBC funding, and more than the equivalent

of 225,000 seven-axle logging truckloads worth of fibre have been moved away from

our bush, that otherwise would have been in slash pile burns, to local mills to be

able to create jobs and opportunity.

On behalf of all of us, I want to thank Jason and his team for their outstanding work.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome here today.

Tributes

Christine Buemann

Kiel Giddens : With the mortgage brokers in attendance, I wanted to pass on sincere condolences

to a member who was with the delegation last year, who was not with us this year.

Christine Buemann from Prince George recently passed away, on February 1, of breast

cancer.

She was a friend to many mortgage brokers across the province and many, many people

in Prince George. Hundreds of people attended her celebration of life recently, and

we honour her today.

Thank you, and our condolences from the House to all those who knew her.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Ravi Parmar presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Forest Statutes Amendment Act.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m honoured to bring forward amendments to the Forest Act and Forest and Range Practices

Act. When we talk about the path forward for forestry, we must focus on what forestry

means for the people of British Columbia.

The changes we’re introducing today matter. They matter to the workers in the bush,

to those on the mill line, to forest-dependent communities and to the families who

rely on forestry paycheques to put food on the table.

Today in British Columbia, we live with a growing wildfire threat, a changing global

market, American duties and tariffs, low lumber prices and the end of the pine beetle

harvest. These are significant obstacles for a historic sector.

To meet this moment, we need to transform B.C. Timber Sales into a partner of choice

— modern, adaptable and able to respond to the various needs on the land base.

The amendments we’re bringing forward to the Forest Act are related to the B.C. Timber

Sales account, which governs how funds may be used by B.C. Timber Sales. In addition

to the amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act, there are three things that

will drive these changes.

First, we are going to create more opportunities to access fibre by allowing contract

logging, commercial thinning and wildfire risk reduction within B.C. Timber Sales

tenures.

Second, our amendments will fast-track the salvage of damaged trees, making it easier

for the forest sector to quickly access timber damaged by wildfire and other natural

disturbances, getting more logs into local pulp mills.

[1:50 p.m.]

Finally, we’re empowering B.C. Timber Sales for long-term, full-rotation forest stewardship,

managing timber sale licences through their rotation from initial harvest, to replanting,

to future harvest.

Together these amendments will contribute to a more dependable and predictable working

forest that supports getting the right log to the right mill and that supports good

jobs, investment decisions and economic stability throughout the forest sector in

British Columbia.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M239 — Aboriginal Title

Transparency Act

Scott McInnis : I move that a bill entitled the Aboriginal Title Transparency Act, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time

now.

At a time when transparency in British Columbia is not just lacking but increasingly

absent, this legislation is not optional. It is essential. British Columbians are

asking a very simple question: “What is happening on the ground?” Right now they are

not getting answers.

This government wants to go to the wall for private property owners. Well, here’s

a first step in the right direction on behalf of the official opposition. Across this

province, negotiations and legal proceedings related to Aboriginal title are unfolding

quietly, often behind closed doors, while the people most directly affected are left

in the dark — landowners, families, communities, businesses. They are not asking to

be obstructive. They are asking to be informed.

This bill certainly changes that. It ensures that when government enters into negotiations

or is involved in proceedings that could affect privately held land, those impacted

will receive clear, timely notice — not after the fact, not through rumour, but directly,

transparently and in plain terms. It requires that notices be filed to the land title

office so there is a public record. It requires annual reporting so British Columbians

can see the full scope of what is happening across this province.

This is not about choosing sides; it is about restoring trust. Reconciliation cannot

happen in the shadows. It cannot succeed if people feel excluded, uncertain or blindsided

by decisions that affect their homes, their land and their future.

British Columbians want to understand. They deserve to understand, and they have every

right to know. This legislation brings sunlight into a process that for too long has

operated without it. In doing so, it strengthens, not weakens, the path forward.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Scott McInnis : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Wildfire Impacts and Preparedness

Harwinder Sandhu : As we approach another wildfire season in British Columbia, I rise today to encourage

everyone to take steps now to be prepared.

For those of us in the Interior, wildfire is not an abstract risk. It is something

we have lived through. Communities across Vernon-Lumby and the Okanagan still carry

the impact of past fires, including the White Rock Lake wildfire. These experiences

have shaped us in how we understand risk, resilience and preparation.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, I see the impacts wildfires

have on farmers, ranchers, our food systems, as well as on our tourism sector — many

businesses and workers who depend on safe and beautiful landscapes. Preparation is

not only about protecting homes. It is about protecting livelihoods and local economies.

That is why I encourage everyone to take simple steps now. Have an emergency plan,

prepare a grab-and-go kit and understand evacuation alerts as well as reduce fire

risk around your home.

Important proactive work is also happening on the ground. I am immensely grateful

to the Ministry of Forests for investing $15 million in proactive wildfire mitigation

work, reducing fuel loads while protecting our vital watersheds on Aberdeen Plateau.

[1:55 p.m.]

I look forward to welcoming the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Water, Land

and Resource Stewardship to the site to show them this work firsthand.

I also extend sincere thanks to those who stand ready to respond — to our local firefighters,

B.C. wildfire service and volunteer groups such as Vernon Search and Rescue, Air Rescue

One and Rider Ventures — and to our communities for coming together to cheer these

heroes on. Their courage protects lives, our homes and communities.

Wildfire preparedness is a shared responsibility. As we head into the season, I encourage

everyone to take the time now to prepare, because when it comes to wildfires, being

ready makes all the difference.

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows

Community Services

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to recognize the important work of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community

Services, a non-profit organization that has been supporting our community for over

52 years. Last year alone, more than one in five residents in Maple Ridge and Pitt

Meadows accessed support through community services programs. In total, the organization

served more than 28,000 individuals, delivered almost 24,000 meals to seniors, and

provided 3,500 visits and wellness checks to vulnerable people, a clear indication

of the growing need in our community and the trust people place in this organization.

As a non-profit society, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services relies on government

funding, community donations and strong partnerships with individuals, families, community

groups and organizations to deliver essential programs that thousands of residents

depend on every year.

Through more than 30 vital programs such as the Neurodiversity Week in March and the

happy B.C. Family Day in February, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services provides

mental health counselling, youth and family supports, seniors services, legal and

victim services and community rehab programs.

Behind every one of these numbers is a person — a youth struggling with mental health,

a senior living alone, a family facing crisis, or someone experiencing homelessness.

Today I’d like to ask the House to please recognize and support the vital role of

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services, who are committed to showing up for people.

Budget Consultation Process

Steve Morissette : I rise today as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services to highlight the committee’s annual budget consultation. I want to let British

Columbians know that they can register right now to present at public hearings the

committee will be holding through June.

Each year during the budget consultation, the committee hears from individuals, community

organizations, businesses and local governments across the province. The consultation

works best when people know it exists and understand how to take part, which is where

you, my colleagues, come in.

I encourage all members to share information about the consultation through constituency

how and when to have their say.

This year the committee will be holding public hearings in Burnaby, Castlegar, Cranbrook,

Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Kelowna, Mission, Nanaimo, Prince George, Smithers, Vancouver

and Victoria. There is also an option to participate virtually.

As an MLA from a rural riding and a former mayor of a rural village, I can speak from

experience on the unique opportunity this consultation presents for rural areas. It’s

a great opportunity for those who live outside of major cities to participate in the

proceedings of the Legislature. The deadline to register for public hearings is April

I encourage all of you to share the details of this consultation with your constituents.

For those who are unable to participate in a public hearing, the opportunity to participate

by submitting written recommendations will also be available in June. I appreciate

your support in helping ensure this consultation reflects the voices from every part

of the province.

[2:00 p.m.]

Forest Industry and Support

for Value-Added Manufacturing

Sheldon Clare : I rise today to speak to the critical importance of value-added manufacturing within

British Columbia’s forestry sector, an opportunity that allows us to maximize the

full economic benefits of this foundational industry.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity and privilege of touring, along

with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, two exceptional operations in the riding of

Prince George–North Cariboo. These are Dürfeld Log and Timber, led by Ric Dürfeld;

and OT Timber Frames, founded by Oliver Tritten, with operations manager Juergen Poepsel.

What I saw was nothing short of inspiring. These are world-class manufacturers transforming

B.C. timber into high-value, precision-crafted products that are recognized across

our province, throughout North America and around the world.

Dürfeld Log and Timber, based out of Wildwood, north of Williams Lake, for example,

has contributed to remarkable projects such as the beautiful upgrades to the Williams

Lake Stampede Grounds and the spectacular Tsawwassen First Nation Youth Centre. Their

craftsmanship showcases what is possible when innovation meets tradition in the use

of wood.

Similarly, OT Timber Frames is demonstrating the future of our forest economy. Based

in Miocene, east of Williams Lake, they are preparing for a significant expansion

this year, one that will increase manufacturing capacity and create good-paying, skilled

local jobs for the region. This is exactly the kind of growth we should be championing.

Value-added manufacturing keeps more of the economic benefit here at home. It supports

rural communities and ensures that British Columbia remains a global leader not just

in resource extraction but in advanced wood products and design.

As we consider the future of forestry in this province, let us recognize and support

companies like Dürfeld Log and Timber and OT Timber Frames. They are proving that

with the right vision, support and sufficient fibre supply, our B.C. wood can continue

to build communities, drive innovation and create lasting prosperity.

Diversification of Trade

and Investment

Susie Chant : Thank you for the opportunity to address this House regarding one of British Columbia’s

key strategies in response to the ongoing economic turmoil.

I’m going to begin, of course, by acknowledging that I am speaking on the traditional

territories of the Coast Salish Peoples — in Victoria, the Songhees and xʷsepsəm, in North Vancouver–Seymour, the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations. I remain grateful for the teachings shared over the years and committed

to continuing my journey of truth and reconciliation.

Over the past year, we have advanced the StrongerBC action plan with determination,

reaching out across Canada and around the world to strengthen trade and investment

ties as we defend workers and businesses against unjustified tariffs. Interprovincial

negotiations continue to open new markets within our great country, while international

missions to Europe and Asia are deepening economic relationships.

Here at home, in my role as parliamentary secretary responsible for the Consular Corps,

I’ve had the privilege of chairing three significant meetings with representatives

from the European Union and the United Kingdom, the ASEAN member states and, most

recently, Mexico and Mercosur nations from South America.

Our Premier, along with the Minister of Finance, Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth

and the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, have played central roles in these comprehensive

discussions. Across all of these engagements, a consistent theme of collaboration

and mutual support has emerged. While sharing our ideas and ideals, we identified

new opportunities for trade and investment.

British Columbia has long benefited from solid ties across Canada and around the world.

Today, as we strengthen and diversify those partnerships, our province is better positioned

to thrive in a changing global landscape.

Equine Culture in Langley

and Development of Rural Land

Misty Van Popta : Langley is the horse capital of B.C. but could soon be facing an identity crisis

if support to the equine industry further erodes. Like many young girls, I dreamt

of owning my own pony, and for a brief time, when I was ten, I had one gifted to me.

Her name, like mine, was Misty, and the two Mistys spent the summers of the 1980s

riding local rural roads and the great trails of Campbell Valley Park.

Fast-forward 40 years, and Langley is one of the province’s fastest-growing municipalities.

Where I once rode bareback down 16th Avenue is now an unofficial highway, and where

there were once small farmsteads, now subdivisions.

[2:05 p.m.]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a pragmatist that knows that change is a part of life. But

how we manage the pressures of densification and the protection of farmland is at

the centre of saving the culture of Langley. Recent changes have created a scenario

where it’s more equitable to convert small farmsteads into multi-million-dollar parcels

instead of providing support to local governments and developers to focus on urbanized

locations.

When times are tough for families to find fun and affordable things to do, low-barrier

tickets to a day of rodeo fun are a breath of fresh air, and the Valley West Stampede

has proven to be the organization to fill that gap in my community. With Thunderbird

Show Park’s place on the world stage as a first-rate facility, it has been a collective

sigh of relief in its recent acquisition by the Matheson family, which has ensured

that it remains in local hands.

Thank you for solidifying the future of equine culture of Langley. I know you have

big plans for the facility.

We must support and balance today’s pressures with our culture. We can build homes

and still protect the agricultural roots that define our communities, but that requires

an understanding of rural life, the value of local decision-making and a government

that sees agriculture not as an inconvenience but as a cornerstone of B.C.’s identity.

If we don’t stand up now, we may see our cowboys and cowgirls riding off into the

sunset.

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA

and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford : Another day, another example of how this government is allergic to transparency.

We have been promised by this Premier, by this government, for months that they would

deal in this House regarding DRIPA, that this Premier would make it a priority and

that he would table amendments that would give British Columbians the certainty they

deserve when it comes to some of the challenges we are seeing in our province today.

What do we get from the Premier today? Absolutely nothing. In fact, we are actually

seeing some of the language regarding these changes, these amendments, in the media

that are now leaking out. Imagine that. Legislators in this room right here are actually

seeing legislation before, not under NDAs, which a bunch of people are already under

doing…. But we’re actually learning about them from the media.

This has completely been bundled from the Premier from day one.

My question to him today. Where are the amendments? What’s his plan? How is he going

to deal with it? How is he going to fix this mess that he created?

Hon. David Eby : Thank you to the member for the question. The member will recall that the need to

amend DRIPA comes from a Court of Appeal decision that was relatively recent. We’re

working under compressed timelines.

Any time we have legislation that directly impacts and involves Indigenous People,

we have an obligation, a commitment we’ve made to Indigenous People, to sit down with

them and engage with them on that legislation. It’s exactly what we’re doing on the

Declaration Act.

These are cabinet-level documents that were disclosed only to people who had signed

non-disclosure agreements. This is something the previous government did when they

were on this side of the House with First Nations. It’s something that we’re doing

as well.

These amendments will be introduced in this House. There will be time for debate.

British Columbians will see them. The opposition will raise the questions that they

wish to raise about them.

The first step in drafting them…. Our efforts have been to engage with Chiefs across

the province who are willing and interested in engaging with us in this conversation.

It has been a challenging conversation. It is not where any of us hoped to be when

that legislation was passed unanimously in this House, and we have to address this

issue.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Here’s part of the problem. We have a Premier that will walk into one room and say

one thing, and he’ll walk into another and say the other.

He’ll say today: “There’s no issue with property rights. They’re never at stake. There’s

nothing to worry about there.” Then he’ll go at the beginning of this calendar year,

and he’ll say: “I am going to go to the wall to defend your property rights.” That’s

the language of the Premier.

He’ll also say: “I’m going to go as far as I will actually backstop mortgages. That’s

what the Premier of this province is prepared to do for you.” Then he’ll say: “There’s

no issue. Property rights are never…. There’s no issue with property rights. I don’t

know what the opposition is talking about, Mr. Speaker.”

We’ve got a leader of this province, an architect of this legislation, and he has

clearly got no plan, and he is clearly not liking the reaction that stakeholders are

giving him.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, part of the problem is that once again this Premier is not learning from his

past failures. He’s doing these negotiations, he’s doing this work under NDAs, behind

closed doors, and he’s not liking the reaction he’s getting.

Will the Premier step up, show some leadership today, table those amendments, debate

them in this House and clean up the mess that he made?

Hon. David Eby : I’ll remind the member that when the legislation was introduced, it was passed unanimously

in the House, which included members who sit on that side right now.

There was a Court of Appeal decision that did not go the direction that we hoped it

would go, that requires us to make amendments to the act to respond to it, to prevent

significant litigation risk for the province of British Columbia.

We are engaging with First Nations on that to the best of our ability in constrained

timelines with respect and a spirit of true partnership, which is how this original

legislation was drafted. We’re doing our best to do that. It is not an ideal situation,

and I acknowledge that.

I acknowledge, rightly, the concerns that have been raised following this Court of

Appeal decision. That’s why we’re taking this action. That’s why we’re taking the

action following the Quw’utsun decision, which deals with private property in Richmond,

like sitting down with the Quw’utsun, issuing a joint statement that people’s private

property is not at risk.

It’s important work to do, and we will ensure that that legislation is introduced

here in this House, that members have time to debate it, raise the questions that

they want to raise and understand it completely before there’s a vote in this chamber

on any proposed amendments.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA

and Role of Non-Disclosure Agreements

Scott McInnis : This government is making changes to this legislation that affects property rights,

resource development, mining and land use across British Columbia. But before anybody

is allowed to see those changes, you must sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Referring to these very NDAs, Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Terry

Teegee said: “These were imposed on us by the provincial government. I think more

involvement should have occurred to allow for more discussions.”

Can this government explain to British Columbians why gag orders are an essential

tool for making decisions about their land, their property and their future?

Hon. David Eby : What the member says is simply incorrect.

We are working with First Nations on amendments to respond to a significant litigation

risk to the province.

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby : Wow. This is the level of respect for First Nations leadership, what we hear from

the opposition.

We are engaging with First Nations leadership. Part of that involves engaging on cabinet-level

confidence documents, which requires an NDA, just like it did when the other members

sat on this side of the House. We have to do this work in partnership with First Nations

leadership. We are attempting, as best as possible in a severely constrained environment,

to do that.

I look forward to introducing the amendments here in this House so that members can

debate them and we can move forward. But what the member suggests, that this is in

relation to people’s private property or other key economic issues in the province,

is simply incorrect.

We’ll introduce those amendments, and we’ll have those debates. I look forward to

that.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : This isn’t the first time the government has operated in secret regarding land use

and property rights.

The Premier attended the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm signing ceremony in the front row and then told British Columbians he hadn’t been

briefed. We later found out that the federal minister, in fact, did brief the Premier

several weeks before that.

Now he’s proposing DRIPA amendments behind NDAs and cabinet confidentiality. Either

this government believes in transparency or governing in the dark.

Can anyone on that side of the House stand up and clarify this today, please?

Hon. David Eby : What the member said is simply false. It’s very unfortunate that we stand up, despite

knowing the opposite, and misrepresent, very clearly, the facts here.

The appraisers of British Columbia held an event a couple of weeks ago, and one of

their guest speakers expressly looked at the issue of the Quw’utsun decision and the

effect on property values in the Richmond East area.

Dan Jones, a Metro Vancouver–based appraiser, said:

“As an appraiser, I tried to analyze if there was any difference in market values

now, as there would have been before the decision came out and after.

[2:15 p.m.]

“Honestly, I couldn’t see any determination that there was an adjustment justified

or that I could support it if I was asked to do so. I really just didn’t see any engagement

between market discount that would be related to the Quw’utsun decision whatsoever

at this point in time.”

I know these are serious issues. These are important issues. But overstating the issues,

misrepresenting the issues, is not helpful, to say the least. These are issues that

any government would have to deal with, and we are. We’re doing it in a way to grow

our economy, to build partnerships with First Nations and to bring certainty for business

to be able to move forward.

That’s why we’re able to welcome Anglo Teck, the province’s largest corporate office

to ever locate in British Columbia’s history. That’s why we look forward to welcoming

the largest private sector investment in British Columbia’s history again with LNG

Canada phase 2. It is because we are creating the environment where $4 billion in

new mining investment decisions have been made in just the last four months.

I look forward to the Mining Minister making even more of those announcements.

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

and Conflict-of-Interest Concerns

Jeremy Valeriote : We raised an issue outside this House over the break that drew a strong reaction

from the government caucus. It turns out that the Minister for AI and New Technologies

has personal investments in a targeted AI and technology ETF, or exchange-traded fund.

I checked, and the Minister of Health doesn’t have a personal stake in health care

companies, nor does the Minister of Mining have investments in mining operations.

It’s a clever diversion for the NDP to focus on the $11 worth of Oracle shares buried

deep in a sub-fund in my retirement savings, but I’m still not the AI Minister, and

the original question remains unanswered.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote : A conflict of interest can be reasonably….

I feel privileged and honoured to be heckled for the first time in this House.

A conflict of interest can be reasonably perceived. AI is an unregulated sector that

has the potential to have a huge impact on our society, so our government lead on

AI should be able to describe a provincial workplan that has a clear-eyed view of

the risks and benefits of AI, unclouded by a personal financial stake.

This isn’t political point-scoring or a personal attack. It’s responsible risk management.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Jeremy Valeriote : To the Minister for AI and New Technologies, will he commit…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Jeremy Valeriote : …to the divesting of his AI and technology investments?

Hon. Rick Glumac : This question has already been answered. The member knows that several months ago

I went and met with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner about this ETF. I have a

letter from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that clearly states there’s no conflict

of interest.

I don’t know if the member ever did that. He was in a position of influence in an

agreement with the NDP and the Greens.

Did you ever go…?

The Speaker : Member, through the Chair.

Hon. Rick Glumac : Did the member ever go and talk to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner about their

own investments, which they seem to be worried about here?

It is absolutely critical that there is integrity in the decisions that we make and

that we utilize the resources at our disposal. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner

is there to give guidance, and it was received.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : The commissioner also pointed out to the minister that the public may not see it

the same way that the commissioner does, and he left it to the minister’s best political

judgment to make that determination.

This issue has also exposed a real weakness in our conflict-of-interest protections.

Whether a member has $4 or $400,000 in a particular stock or fund is not currently

disclosed. Just as importantly, the amount invested can change from day to day without

requiring the filing of a material change.

This is an accountability gap. To fill it, we need to come to a shared understanding

of how much money might reasonably constitute a conflict or perceived conflict, especially

for a minister of the government. I will note, with my $11, I am still not the minister

of AI.

This is only being discussed because we waded through the text disclosures.

Will the Attorney General commit to make changes so that the public can see at a glance,

in an accessible format, maybe like a pie chart, whether a member has $4 or $400,000

invested in a particular company or sector so they can form their own opinion of what

is or may be a conflict of interest?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s really important that every member of this House understand the important role

of the conflicts commissioner. I just would like to urge everybody to do as the minister

of AI did. If you need advice on whether something is a conflict or not, they are

the resource for you to go to, and they will issue you letters that clarify what side

of the rules you’re on, as the member did in this circumstance.

It’s invaluable for this, and it helps to keep the integrity of our democracy.

[2:20 p.m.]

Budget Priorities and Credit Rating

Harman Bhangu : Five credit downgrades under this NDP government — five. That is not a technical

issue; that is a warning sign.

Every downgrade means higher borrowing costs, billions more in interest — money that

should be going to health care, to families and to the most vulnerable. Instead, British

Columbians are left paying more and getting less.

My question to the Finance Minister: how can the minister defend a budget that is

weakening our financial position and forcing future generations to carry the cost?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Moody’s has highlighted what we already know, that the economic circumstances because

of this trade war have diminished economic growth in Canada and elsewhere, and it’s

having an impact. Provinces across this country are posting record deficits. Alberta

just doubled their deficit in their budget. We’re seeing this across this country.

What we’re doing here in B.C. is two things at once. We’re protecting services that

are most important to British Columbians, and we’re working to continue to bring down

our deficit. We still have the most favourable ratings of any province across Canada.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Harman Bhangu : I am not going to take financial lessons from a minister that uses taxpayer dollars

for limo rides.

Budgets are supposed to be about priorities, and this NDP government has made theirs

clear: rising debt, repeated downgrades and a growing interest bill that is crowding

out services British Columbians rely on. That is not unexpected. It is a direct result

of their decisions and their policies. The consequences are simple — higher costs

for British Columbians and fewer supports when they need them the most.

Again, why has the minister chosen a path that weakens British Columbians’ financial

standing and leaves British Columbians paying the price for their incompetence?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question, but may I point out that I won’t

take advice from somebody who was going to cancel the Pattullo Bridge replacement

when it was almost finished. There’s a good decision.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : On this side of the House, we are taking measured steps. We’re doing two things at

once. We’re protecting services that are key to British Columbians…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : …and we’re taking very important steps to work on making sure we’re bringing down

our deficit over time, we’re tightening the public belt, and we’re taking important

measures to make sure our debt metrics remain competitive.

Kiel Giddens : British Columbia has seen five credit rating downgrades in four years with no improvement

in sight. This NDP government’s choices mean that billions of taxpayer dollars are

going to banks instead of growing the economy and opportunities for British Columbians.

Moody’s said: “The increase in deficits and rising debt largely stems from provincial

policy choices, which we view as evidence of a continued weakening in governance in

fiscal and debt management from high standards.”

Credit downgrades are a sign that government has lost control of spending. Based on

this government’s habit of spending, can the Finance Minister commit today that British

Columbia will not see any more credit downgrades, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Our three-year plan finds $3.5 billion in expenditure managements over the fiscal

plan. We reduced the size of the public sector by 15,000 jobs, and we make wise decisions

in regards to spacing out capital.

We know that that’s the decisions we make on this side of the House — and protecting

public services.

We also know the decisions you’d make on that side of the House because you told us.

To quote the minister from Fraser-Nicola…. Pardon me. To quote the member for Fraser-Nicola….

Interjections.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We have to let you dream.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : “If education and health care are the two biggest line items on the budget, they’re

the ones…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : …that are going to have to take the brunt of this somehow.”

That is not the decision we’re making on this side of the House. We will continue….

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : On this side of the House, we’ll continue to protect health care for British Columbians.

We will continue to make investments in good schools for British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : People know what that side of the House would do, and that’s why we’re over here.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Credit Rating and

Economic Impacts of Budget

Kiel Giddens : I don’t have confidence from that answer that this government is reining in spending,

and neither do the credit rating agencies. All four of them actually maintained a

negative outlook on this NDP government, despite what the minister just said.

Credit downgrades send a glaring signal to everyone that this province is becoming

the most expensive place to invest and create jobs. We’re seeing it now. The business

community has already told this government that their latest tax increases weaken

business competitiveness and threaten private sector jobs.

How many more small businesses will shutter and how many more jobs will be lost under

this government’s watch?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the question from my friend across the way.

My friend will know that since 2017, B.C. has seen one of the strongest GDP growths

in the entire country. We’ve seen 351,800 jobs created in British Columbia since 2017…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : …including 181,000 of them in the private sector.

We’re going to continue to do the work we need to do to attract investment. The Premier

has highlighted the investment that was made by Teck just recently. I can also share

with the members that Amgen recently completed their expansion of a brand-new research

lab, a $27 million investment. A Variational AI partnership with Merck, doing a generative

AI drug discovery, has now increased their investment, seeing up to $485 million.

Businesses continue to make investments in British Columbia. Why? Because we’re a

steady jurisdiction and because we are making key investments in key sectors, training

our future generation.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’ve never been heckled by three people who were running for a leadership race and

all dropped out at the same time. That is an amazing, well-coordinated effort.

We’re going to continue to do the work we need to do, investing in our people, investing

in the important services that people depend on and growing our economy.

Jobs and Unemployment

Teresa Wat : Despite the fact that the Jobs Minister is trying to paint a rosy picture of what

this government has done, the fact is B.C. lost 33,000 full-time jobs in February

alone. That’s over 40 percent of all monthly job losses in the whole country. B.C.

is supposed to be a leader, not in unemployment growth.

The only thing this Minister of Jobs has overseen since he took over this portfolio

is job losses. It seems the only job he focuses on is the one he hopes to get next.

When is this government going to abandon its job-killing agenda and keep British Columbians

gainfully employed in B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It took a long time to get to that. I can share with the member that B.C. continues

to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire country. I’m sure the member

saw that in the numbers. I’m sure the member also saw that we continue, still, to

see some of the largest investments across the board in British Columbia, more per

capita than every other province in this country.

Not only that, but it’s well acknowledged that B.C. will be leading the country in

economic growth.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members, it’s your time. You want to waste it? Be my guest. Otherwise, the minister

has the floor.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : They don’t have any questions left. I think that’s why they’re heckling so much.

As I’ve highlighted, we continue to make investments in our people. Our people are

our superpower. Those investments are turning around into investments in our infrastructure,

whether that’s mining, whether it’s natural gas, whether that’s tech or whether that’s

in life sciences.

We continue to be leaders in the country. We continue to grow employment, and we’re

going to continue to make those investments. Every single investment that we’ve brought

forward in the budget — whether it’s a $400 million strategic investment fund or whether

that’s investments into skills training, doubling the trades training in this province

— they have opposed. That is the key to continue to grow this economy, and we’re going

to continue to do that work.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Teresa Wat : I’m sure the Jobs Minister is fully aware of the statistics. The facts are the facts.

The government has caused a 50 percent increase in the unemployment rate in just four

years.

Even with the skyrocketing growth of the public sector, this government cannot manage

to lower the unemployment rate. Under this NDP government, the public sector has grown

by 45 percent.

When is this NDP government going to actually grow the economy and cut B.C.’s unemployment

rate?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think I misunderstood or misheard the member, but we have one of the lowest unemployment

rates in the country. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates from major provinces.

We’ve seen some of the fastest GDP growth in the entire country. We continue to see

some of the highest levels of investments coming to British Columbia.

I appreciate the members’ need to get up and have something to say. I appreciate that

it’s question period, and they want to try…. In fact, when they see job losses — most

British Columbians say we need to do better; we need to get more jobs — they wake

up happy. You know why? It’s because they get something to talk about in question

period.

We continue to do what we need to do. We hear from employers that they need more skills-training

opportunities. They would hire more people if they could get them skilled up and trained.

That’s why this budget doubles the skills training with large investments. It’s one

of the largest investments in human capital in the last 30 years, doubling skills

training, so that when an employer says, “We want to make an investment,” we have

people skilled up and ready to take those jobs.

Drug Decriminalization Program

Claire Rattée : Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on ideologically-driven experiments

by this government when it comes to the toxic drug crisis. There was $19 million budgeted

for the decriminalization pilot, to study it, and now we’re being told that there

were no results that were found.

I don’t understand if British Columbians should either not trust that that’s accurate

or shouldn’t trust this government to be able to manage their money.

I’m hoping that one of the ministers will stand up today and tell us: is there any

usable data that came out of the decriminalization pilot, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for the continued conversation that

I’ve been able to have with her in her role as a critic around what is truly one of

the hardest crises this province has ever faced, around the toxic drugs and the increasing

contamination of that drug supply, and our government’s efforts.

I would like to thank every member in this House, the efforts of every member in this

House, to do everything that we can to separate people from that drug supply, to be

able to enforce and come down on the people who peddle these drugs and to build out

a continuum of care so that people get access to the help and the supports that they

need. That is what this government has been focused on. That’s why we undertook the

pilot project around decriminalization. As members in this House know, and as we’ve

talked about, it didn’t result in what we had hoped for.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : What we know that needs to be done is to continue to increase those supports for

people, ensure that they get access through Access Central, through the growing Road

to Recovery that is coming out across the province.

The member was just in her riding, in fact, announcing a new detox withdrawal management

facility in Terrace, something desperately needed in the North. This government is

going to stay focused on those supports, on access to treatment and recovery, the

work that needs to be done to save lives.

[2:35 p.m.]

Provincial Sales Tax

and Support for Small Business

Gavin Dew : It is not just credit rating agencies that have lost confidence in this government.

Business confidence in B.C. is consistently among the lowest in Canada, and this government

keeps making it worse. On their watch, government jobs have seen ten times the rate

of growth as the private sector jobs that pay for them.

Today I’ll be presenting a petition from more than 7,000 employers calling on this

government to provide cost relief for small business. Behind every signature is a

small business owner trying to keep their doors open, their staff employed, their

taxes paid and food on the table for their own families.

This government’s expansion of the PST has gone over like a lead balloon with the

business community, especially after the Premier fobbed off their concerns as anecdotal.

A new member survey from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business finds that

taxes and regulatory red tape are the single biggest input cost constraint in B.C.,

scoring a whopping 13 percent higher than Canada as a whole.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Gavin Dew : More businesses have closed shop or left B.C. than have opened in the last five reporting

quarters.

How many more businesses will need to shut down before the government cancels their

job-killing PST expansion and takes their foot off the throat of small business in

this province?

Hon. David Eby : There’s no question that small business is crucial to the success of our province.

The interesting thing about small businesses is that they’re dependent on a lot of

the major projects that we are bringing into this province.

It matters that we’re second in Canada for economic growth. It matters that we’re

working with First Nations to advance major projects involving almost $50 billion,

with $40 billion worth of final investment decisions coming to term in the next year

alone.

Small businesses provide the supplies to the mines, to the LNG projects, to other

multi-billion-dollar investments. That is how we have the fourth-lowest unemployment

rate in Canada. That’s how we have the second-highest rate of growth, first among

major provinces. That’s how we’ve created 181,200 private sector jobs since forming

government.

That’s how we’ve expanded per-capita capital investment in B.C. by 92.6 percent. It’s

by supporting British Columbians, giving them training opportunities, expediting permitting,

doing the hard work. That’s why four major private sector investments in the major

than any other province in Canada.

Now, what does corrode confidence is instability, chaos, fights, poor relationships.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Hon. David Eby : Honestly, is the Leader of the Opposition, who just had an MLA arrested — is he telling

me that he would bring stability to the government?

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby : I’m serious. That happened. That happened.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh. Members, let’s stick to the point, please. Members.

Hon. David Eby : Fights with First Nations….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjection.

The Speaker : The Leader of the Official Opposition will come to order now.

The Premier will conclude.

Hon. David Eby : Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

Stability, avoiding extremism…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. David Eby : …asking people who don’t meet minimum standards of ethics to resign — basic requirements

of leadership and government absent from the Conservative side.

We bring stability. We bring investment. We bring growth, the second-highest in Canada.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members will come to order.

Premier, please conclude.

Hon. David Eby : One of the leadership candidates of the Conservative Party just proposed partnering

with OneBC in residential schools denial and fights with Indigenous people. If they

think that’s going to grow the economy, that’s going to support small business, that’s

going to bring stability to the province, it’s not. Our government is proud to do

this work.

[End of question period.]

[2:40 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : I have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report, Provincial Support for the Village of Lytton’s Wildfire Recovery .

Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Come to order, please.

Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Petitions

Gavin Dew : I rise to present a petition signed by 7,092 employers. This petition calls on government

to provide tax and cost relief to our long-suffering small businesses. Specifically,

these small businesses outline very specific items of policy they would like to see

this government enact.

At a time like this, I think it’s very important we hear voices from small business….

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. You don’t have to explain the petition.

The Speaker : Member for….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Member for Surrey City Centre.

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills Committee

Amna Shah : I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private

Bills and Private Members’ Bills on Bill M214, intituled Firefighters’ Health Act.

The committee reports the bill complete with amendments.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

The committee report on Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, will be considered at

report stage during private members’ time.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move:

[That pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), that this morning’s Private Members’ Time

deferred division be further deferred until the start of Orders of the Day to the

next sitting day and that any division in

Section B in today’s sitting be also deferred.]

The Speaker : Members, there is a motion.

Division has been called.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition.

[2:45 p.m.-2:50 p.m.]

Members, please take your seats so the head table can take a proper count.

Members, the motion was made by the Government House Leader, and it reads “that pursuant

to Standing Order 16 (4), that this morning’s Private Members’ Time deferred division

be further deferred until the start of Orders of the Day to the next sitting day and

that any division in

Section B in today’s sitting be also deferred.”

[2:55 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

Lore

Blatherwick

Dhir

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Greene

Wickens

Kang

Begg

Arora

Higginson

Sandhu

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Chandra Herbert

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Shah

G. Anderson

Chow

Morissette

Valeriote

NAYS — 43

Loewen

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Halford

Rattée

Wat

Kooner

Banman

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Rustad

Wilson

McInnis

Paton

Day

Bhangu

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Dhaliwal

McCall

Maahs

Block

Stamer

Gasper

Mok

Davis

Chan

Boultbee

Sturko

Armstrong

Kealy

Williams

Chapman

Bird

Doerkson

Luck

Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Forests

and then, after that, the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 6, Motor Vehicle

Act.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Trevor Halford : I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege regarding remarks that

were made by the Premier earlier today.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools

Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker : We will call the chamber back to order, where we are going to begin our debate on

Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

I would call on the Attorney General to introduce the bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Over the past few years, we witnessed an escalation of disruptive protests occurring

in and around our K-to-12 schools. In 2023, these demonstrations began to interfere

with learning, and they created harmful and distressing situations for students, families

and staff who simply needed to be at school.

Government responded to this harm with the Safe Access to Schools Act in 2023. Access

zones were established by regulation for all K-to-12 schools at the end of the 2023-24

school year and then re-established for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years.

While the number of incidents has decreased since this act was enacted, they have

not yet disappeared. These behaviours continue to surface, and they continue to pose

risks. What we have seen, however, is that this legislation has a meaningful deterrent

effect.

At its core, this bill is about ensuring that children can learn in a safe, welcoming

and accessible environment. It is about ensuring that families and caregivers can

enter school grounds without fear or intimidation. It’s about ensuring that staff

who dedicate themselves every day to creating inclusive, supporting classrooms can

do their work without being confronted or harassed by protesters. Quite simply, no

one should ever be scared to go to school.

This bill continues the protections that ensure students and staff have unimpeded

access to their learning environments and that their health, safety and well-being

remain safeguarded.

As with any legislation that touches on rights and freedoms protected by the Charter,

we have taken care to minimize the impacts, while still achieving the essential goal

of protecting children and educators from harm and disruption.

[3:00 p.m.]

Restrictions apply only within designated access zones around K-to-12 schools, and

these access zones are not established automatically. They come into effect only when

established by regulation for each school year. They are limited in size, targeted

in scope and in effect only when students and staff are likely to be present.

Another important safeguard is the repeal provision. Instead of making these measures

permanent, we are extending them for two years. This ensures that two years from now,

like we are doing today, the Legislature can revisit this issue, assess the evidence

and consider whether the protections continue to be necessary.

This legislation is not aimed at most people. Most British Columbians understand the

importance of education to our children, and they know that schools are not appropriate

places for disruptive protests. But a small group continues to engage in behaviour

that interferes with the functioning of our education system and compromises the safety

and well-being of young people. We cannot allow this behaviour to continue.

For these reasons, we are introducing this bill today.

Steve Kooner : I rise as the Attorney General critic for the official opposition to speak to Bill

12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

We just heard the remarks of the Attorney General, and we heard that there was an

original enactment, the Safe Access to Schools Act, which, I believe, was brought

forward and enacted in 2024. We’ve heard remarks from the Attorney General that there

shouldn’t be impeded access to schools, and there shouldn’t be fear or safety concerns

about having access to schools.

We’ve heard that, originally, this was enacted a couple of years ago — two or three

years ago. Now we’re back here in the Legislature. Fast-forward two or three years

later. The government is trying to extend the time limit of this piece of legislation.

We’ve also heard from the Attorney General that despite the government bringing forward

this legislation, the fears and the safety concerns in regard to access to schools

have not ended. In essence, we’ve heard that the legislation that this government

introduced has not solved the issue of fear and public safety issues in regard to

access to schools. That has not been addressed, and that’s why we’re here, hearing

from the government that they want to extend this piece of legislation.

Those are my preliminary remarks. I’m going to get into my speech here. I rise today

to speak to Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

At its core, this bill is straightforward. If you look at this amendment act, it doesn’t

really have too much wording. It just has a couple of clauses in there, and it specifically

deals with dating issues and extending issues in regard to the original enactment.

This piece of legislation extends the repeal date of the Safe Access to Schools Act

from July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028. It gives an extension of two years, specifically.

That is the entirety of the amendment before us today.

Let me begin by stating clearly that I support safe access to schools. We support

safe access to schools. Every student in this province deserves to attend school,

free from public safety issues and free from fear at being able to access their schools.

Every parent deserves confidence that their child can enter school safely. Every teacher

and staff member deserves a workplace free from fearful interference. There should

be no ambiguity on that point.

[3:05 p.m.]

However, there are some concerns with this legislation. Specifically, we have heard

from the Attorney General that the original public safety concerns have not been dealt

with. With the original enactment, we are still seeing public safety incidents.

On a more common basis, we see real incidents. We see issues where students have felt

threatened. We’ve seen issues of lockdowns in regard to our schools. Having public

safety issues around our schools is entirely unacceptable. Schools are places of learning,

not places where children have to fear in terms of attending educational institutes.

The key question here, when we’re now revisiting this legislation, is: why is this

happening? We are seeing legislation being introduced, but we are not seeing the underlying

issue of what has been going on with our schools being addressed by this government.

The underlying issue is enforcement. We do see other pieces of legislation, such as

the Criminal Code of Canada. It talks about if there’s intimidation. It talks about

if there’s fearful impeding. It talks about harassment, if there’s criminal harassment.

Those mechanisms, those tools, are there in that other piece of legislation, the Criminal

Code. We’ve always had these tools of stopping fearful interference with access.

The problem seems to be that there’s not efficient enforcement. That has allowed for

these fearful interruptions, these fearful impediments to our school system, to continue.

The underlying cause needs to be dealt with. We’ve heard from the Attorney General,

just right now, that despite introducing this legislation two or three years ago,

these incidents where children fear to access their schools are still happening.

They’re still happening despite this legislation being enacted two or three years

ago. That is really concerning, because this is happening with the backdrop of public

safety issues happening right across the province. Whether we’re seeing it with our

school system, with religious places of worship, with retail shops or with just everyday

folk trying to walk in their neighbourhoods, we are seeing fearful impediments for

accessing different institutes or different services that British Columbians require.

This is happening on an ongoing basis. So there seems to be an underlying cause, the

real root of these circumstances that are now resulting in this government trying

to extend this piece of legislation. Those underlying causes need to be dealt with,

because public safety is paramount, and not enough is being done.

There is significant legislation out there, such as the Criminal Code, and we also

saw the original enactment of this piece of legislation. The problem seems to be that

there isn’t enough enforcement. If you do not enforce laws that currently exist, the

public is going to continue to see problems involving public safety issues.

This is very concerning, because public safety should be a fundamental issue that

gets dealt with immediately. We need to have proper resources with the enforcement.

We need to make sure our law enforcement is properly resourced. We need to make sure

our justice system is properly resourced.

[3:10 p.m.]

If we have the proper resourcing, we will see that people that want to take the law

in their hands and cause fearful interruptions…. We will see those actually decrease,

if we have effective enforcement and if we have effective enforcement tools.

What we are seeing…. As the Attorney General just alluded to earlier, the incidents

that the original legislation was designed to stop are not stopping. If they’re not

stopping, that means that the government is really missing the mark. The mark seems

to be that this seems to be more of a public safety issue that we’re dealing with

in this province. That public safety incidence isn’t just related to our schools.

It’s related to every aspect of life in this province right now.

When you are going out and talking amongst your colleagues, amongst neighbours, amongst

family, it’s a common theme that the public is talking about public safety, and they’re

saying that more needs to be done. They’re saying that there is not an effective enforcement

of the laws that we currently have. We can keep creating more and more laws, but if

you don’t resource the public safety enforcement mechanisms, the public safety enforcement

tools, the problem will not be solved.

We really do need to look at the underlying issues behind the legislation. Why is

the problem not stopping? We need to stop the problem. Our children, British Columbians’

children, are the future of this province. When we look at vulnerable people, we think

of children, we think about seniors, and we think about other groups. If we do think

about the vulnerable, we need to make sure that we are addressing the underlying causes

in terms of the issues that we are seeing on a daily basis.

We need to be asking ourselves: why are the situations escalating to the point that

we now have to look at creating new laws, when there are existing laws that deal with

harassment, interference, fear? Those have been long-standing laws. They have been

there for years and years. We need to be asking: how come we didn’t have these problems

before, and they’ve become a new problem, when we’ve had these laws for a very long

time?

What seems to be missing in the discussion? There seems to be a failure to recognize

that there’s a widespread public safety crisis that we are dealing with throughout

this province. Whether that involves repeat property offenders or repeat violent offenders,

or we have people that want to create fear, create harassment or create criminal impediments

for students, it all seems to come down to the same rubric. It comes down to an issue

of public safety.

If you are dealing with an issue of public safety, you have to deal with enforcement

mechanisms. You have to make sure the enforcement tools are properly resourced. At

the end of the day, you can try creating more and more laws, but if you have a lack

of enforcement, you’re not going to get anywhere. In terms of creating that safety

for children, you must properly resource.

I currently serve as critic for Attorney General, and we recently had debates on the

budget in regard to Attorney General budgets. One of the concerns I had was that the

justice realm isn’t properly funded in this province. We need to make sure our law

enforcement, our justice system, is properly resourced.

[3:15 p.m.]

We need to make sure we are being proactive. We need to make sure we are providing

more resources. If we have more visibility of our public safety enforcement, you will

have more of a deterrent effect. That’s why the deterrent effect is a major, major

element of looking at criminal law, at the Criminal Code or at public safety statutes.

Deterrence serves a major purpose.

One thing that seems to be missing right across this province is that public safety

is not properly resourced. Until we deal with that, there might be ongoing concerns.

You can create as many words as you like, but if you don’t have the tools, if you

don’t have the tools in motion, the problem is not going to disappear. So the answer

to the underlying problem really matters. Do we have the enforcement tools?

I would suggest that we do have the enforcement tools, but they’re not properly resourced.

The question becomes…. If you don’t properly resource the enforcement mechanisms,

are you going to solve the problem in regard to the fear that’s preventing access

to institutions such as schools? You will not be able to do that if you don’t properly

resource the actual enforcement mechanisms.

That’s where this government seems to be not supporting students, children and the

vulnerable population throughout this province. Until we address that issue.… The

ongoing issues that were mentioned earlier about fearful disruptions, about harassment

or about impediments won’t be dealt with until you’ve got the enforcement mechanisms

that are mobilized, properly resourced, highly visible and actually stopping the underlying

public safety issues.

This government has failed, time and time again, on public safety enforcement. That

is the reality. We see that constantly being discussed in the public domain. Public

safety is an ongoing issue on a daily basis in this whole province.

With this piece of legislation, we saw another piece of legislation addressing a different

topic but also having to deal with access — safe access. That’s another aspect that

we are dealing with — the public safety crisis in this province. To deal with all

situations, all different aspects that involve public safety, if you do not properly

fund public safety enforcement tools, that public safety problem will not be resolved.

It doesn’t matter which area we are dealing with. Whether it’s schools, religious

places where we worship, business venues or neighbourhoods, this government needs

to do better.

Like I mentioned earlier, we already have laws. We’ve seen this law, the original

enactment. We also have the Criminal Code of Canada, which has been there forever

and which addresses the very behaviours such as intimidation, obstruction, causing

disturbances, interference with lawful activities.

These are not new concepts. They are not gaps in the law. There are established offences

to deal with this type of conduct. When we are seeing repeated public safety incidents,

the issue is not that the law is unclear. The issue is that the law is not being consistently

enforced.

[3:20 p.m.]

Instead of fixing that problem of enforcement, what are we seeing? We are seeing legislation

being used to compensate for weak enforcement. We are seeing words being introduced

into statutes in lieu of enforcement. We are seeing the government extend measures

instead of strengthening the system.

The system needs to be strengthened, and the supports around the system need to be

strengthened in order to get results to make sure children are not fearing to have

access to their safe places such as schools.

We are seeing a reliance on new rules instead of ensuring existing rules are applied.

We have existing rules to address the exact conduct that the Attorney General referred

to earlier. We have had these rules for a very long time. How come we’re not seeing

any meaningful action on that legislation that has existed for a very long time? That’s

the question that needs to be asked.

Bill 12 is attempting to solve a problem. It’s a problem that needs to be solved,

because children need to feel safe, students need to feel safe, and they need to have

safe access. But the underlying issue is that we currently have laws to deal with

behaviour that is actually creating fear for students and children, but it’s only

if those laws were enforced that we could actually get rid of that fear that our students

and children are seeing when they’re trying to access their schools.

Another point I’d like to make about the original enactment and this particular statute

is that this statute is now attempting to extend the previous statute by another two

years. There was originally a time limit put on the original statute. It was brought

into force in 2024. The time limit was until 2026. A couple of years were given. Why

did the government only give it a couple of years? Why did the government only give

it two years?

They gave it two years because they were trying to bring a temporary solution until

they found a permanent solution, a permanent solution to a big problem. I would respectfully

submit that that big problem is our general public safety crisis in this province.

This government has not been effective in addressing that crisis in this province.

It’s already been two years. Now, since this government has not been able to deal

with the exact behaviours that need to be dealt with in terms of making sure our kids

feel safe and students feel safe accessing schools, we are now back here so that government

can come up with another temporary solution and just give another two-year time limit

on this legislation while they look for permanent solutions.

Now, that’s a little bit problematic, because that kind of shows that this government

is being reactive, not proactive. By now, there should have been some sort of framework

for a permanent solution. That should have been brought forward. So put it out there.

It’s very important to protect children. It’s very important to protect students in

regards to their safe access to their learning places. Children are students, and

children are the future of this province.

But we must do more than just give them a temporary solution. We must give them a

permanent solution, and that permanent solution comes in the form of public safety

enforcement in this province and making sure public safety is properly resourced and

funded. To the degree that our public safety enforcement establishment needs further

resources, those needs must be dealt with as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

This government must give time to address the real issue. It’s had enough time to

review and do an assessment, but we must see a permanent resolution to the underlying

cause that our children and our students are seeing on an ongoing basis.

It shouldn’t be acceptable that we are seeing more and more incidents of lockdowns

at our schools where children fear — they’ve had one lockdown, or another school’s

had a lockdown — to now attend school. That doesn’t create a safe environment for

learning.

I remember attending school when I was a child in this province. I don’t think I ever

heard of any lockdown happening. When I went to, say, elementary school in the ’80s

or went to high school in the’90s, I don’t recall hearing these types of incidents

that we are hearing about today in this province. Seriously, there has been something

that has changed. And we are seeing that, despite new legislation being introduced,

the problem isn’t going away in terms of public safety issues in this province related

to schools.

The government is now extending the original time aspect of the original legislation,

which is July 2026, to July 2028. So we will now be in a state of a temporary fix

to the underlying problem for another couple of years. But we must get to the bottom

of this. We must have a permanent solution. It doesn’t send a good message to children

or students in saying: “Hey, we’re going to give you a temporary fix here. We’ll relook

at the problem in a couple years.”

What about these students? They’re probably in the school system right now. They’re

thinking: “Okay, what do I do two years from now?”

If this government is serious about solving safety issues for students in regards

to accessing schools and education institutes, then this government must introduce

a real plan in funding and resourcing the public safety enforcement mechanisms that

exist in this province. Where is the plan?

Increase in police presence may be needed. Where’s the plan to fund that even more?

We need to make sure there’s consistent enforcement across communities. Is that happening?

We need to make sure there’s support for officers on the front lines. Whether that

be law enforcement or bylaw enforcement, we’ve got to make sure that the people on

the front line doing the enforcement have the support to actually enforce laws to,

in fact, make sure there’s safe access to schools.

We also need to make sure…. We need to work with Crown prosecutors to ensure there’s

proper follow-through if somebody is creating an infraction of the law, with the current

law that it sits with, involving access to schools without any fear.

Without all these elements in terms of the justice system, law enforcement and consistency

in enforcement…. If all these mechanisms are not dealt with, nothing will change because

the enforcement will not change. The same public safety incidents will continue. The

same public safety issues will occur, and we’ll be back here again, extending this

legislation once more. And children will be wondering: where’s the permanent fix?

[3:30 p.m.]

Children require stability. One of the things that, in family law, courts look at

is they want to make sure children are in stable situations. When you’re just giving

temporary fixes every couple of years, that’s not creating a stable environment.

All in all, we’ve had laws that deal with these types of concerns for a long time

— such as harassment, intimidation, impediment — that prevent all this stuff. We’ve

had laws for a very long time.

Now we are back here again, asking for a temporary fix, but we are not funding the

proper public safety enforcement. If this government only did, we would not be asking

for permanent fixes. We would be getting permanent solutions. And students deserve

permanent solutions. Children deserve permanent solutions, because stability matters

for this age group.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It’s an honour to get up in the House today and have the opportunity to support an

amendment brought forward by my colleague the Attorney General.

In 2024, the Safe Access to Schools Act was passed to ensure that students and staff

can safely access their schools and be protected from harmful and disruptive behaviours.

This is such an important piece of legislation that we brought in, in 2024, and this

amendment will help ensure the safety of children at schools. And really, what could

be more important? Kids deserve to have a place of learning that feels safe to them,

where all children feel safe and welcome.

It’s true that we also have to make sure that folks are able to express their opportunity

to be opposed to things, to have the right to protest, the rights that are protected

in our constitution. But we must balance these two things. It’s very, very important

that children feel safe at their schools and that people working in those schools

feel safe — the work of teachers. These folks do such important work. They play such

a key role in our children’s lives. To think of them feeling unsafe in their school

environment is just really heartbreaking.

I know that, for myself…. I’ve raised three children in the school system in British

Columbia. We’ve had the opportunity to have extraordinary teachers in our lives. I

really just want to share my respect for the teachers that do incredible work with

our kids. It’s important that they, too, feel very safe at school. School can be a

place of joyous learning, a place of community and a place where kids get to be themselves.

It’s so important that that’s protected.

Since this was originally brought in, in 2024, access zones have been placed around

K-to-12 public and independent schools during the school year to protect both students

and staff members.

I’m pleased to say that we have seen a reduction in the number of protests and disruptions

around schools over the last two years. However, these disruptions do continue to

occur, and sometimes they’re quite harsh and very upsetting. This behaviour is persisting.

Because of that, we do need to take additional action to keep kids safe in British

Columbia so they’re supported in schools and are able to do their best.

We’ve heard from our partners in the education sector that these safe access zones

have been helpful in keeping protests and disruptions away from schools, in ensuring

that students and staff can safely access schools and focus on learning, which is

the top priority for us in government.

Extending the sunset clause by two years, until June 30, 2028, will ensure that access

zones can be established beyond the end of the current school year.

Let me be clear. Schools should be welcoming. They should be safe. They should be

inclusive places. And harmful disruptions have no place in and around British Columbia

schools.

[3:35 p.m.]

We all understand that people have a right to express and voice their views and advocate

for change, but not at the expense of safety for students and staff. Children have

a right to education, and disrupting their learning is simply not appropriate.

These kids are our future. This is how we build B.C. These are the folks that someday

are going to be populating this chamber. These are the folks that are going to be

our future teachers and doctors and folks that are delivering our mail and folks that

work in all aspects of life in British Columbia. They deserve to have an experience

where they can learn in a way that feels safe and inclusive, and that’s what we’re

providing in B.C. schools.

We must continue to provide support and take action as needed to keep kids safe at

school so that they can focus on what the most important thing is — which, of course,

is learning. And we will continue to work with districts directly to explore all options

available to make schools safer and more inclusive places to learn.

Jeremy Valeriote : Dozens of Canadian churches have been burned down since May 2021, with many being

confirmed as arson. Mosques have received federal security funds to combat Islamophobia

and hate attacks against Muslim women. We have heard sentiments of uneasiness during

Ramadan for people entering mosques, attending services, and this uneasiness….

Deputy Speaker : Member, I hope we will get to this bill fairly quickly, please.

Jeremy Valeriote : We will, very quickly, and I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

When I’m saying “services,” these sentiments of uneasiness have persisted for years

and reportedly have grown. On recent synagogue attacks, this legislation comes after

three separate Toronto area synagogues were shot at since March 2. The shootings prompted

police in Vancouver and Victoria to send additional patrols to Jewish places of worship

and community organizations.

We do have concerns regarding the broad definition of interference within this bill.

I will echo opponents to this broad definition, who have stated that: “In other words,

any protest outside a place of worship would be illegal regardless of the actual activity

taking place in the facility.”

Deputy Speaker : Member, we’re debating Bill 12, which is the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act

of 2026. If you could kindly direct your comments to Bill 12, that would be appreciated.

Jeremy Valeriote : I now understand the concern, and apologies for my confusion.

I will have to sit, because I’m not prepared to speak to Bill 12.

Bryan Tepper : I rise today on second reading of Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act,

2026. This bill proposes a simple but consequential change. It extends the repeal

date of the Safe Access to Schools Act from July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028.

While the intent behind the original legislation, to protect students and educators

from genuine harm, is admirable and one that every member of this House shares, I

cannot support its extension without the most rigorous scrutiny.

The principle of safe, uninterrupted access to our K-to-12 schools is not in dispute.

Students deserve to learn free from intimidation, disruption or fear. Yet this act,

as implemented and as proposed for extension, has raised profound and unanswered questions

about proportionality, demonstrable effectiveness, Charter rights and jurisdictional

overreach.

I will probably vote in favour of second reading solely to advance the bill to committee

stage, where we can demand precise answers on its real-world application. But forgive

me if I find the government’s position a little disingenuous, as they seem to find

wearing shirts, threatening people they disagree with, to these various school grounds

about our children….

[3:40 p.m.]

While we explore the sufficiency of less intrusive alternatives already enshrined

in the Criminal Code and rigorously safeguard the fundamental freedoms of expression

and assembly that define our democratic society, let us begin with the facts as presented

by the government.

The Safe Access to Schools Act, passed in 2024 as Bill 22, established 20-metre access

zones around every K-to-12 school, encompassing the school property itself and a legislated

buffer zone beyond it. These zones are active 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on school days and

during extracurricular activities.

Within them, the act prohibits a sweeping list of behaviours: impeding access to or

egress from the school; disrupting educational programs or extracurricular activities;

participating in a protest, which is important to note — we’ll get to that — engaging

in interference, which is broadly defined as “advising or persuading anyone to refrain

from participating in or providing an educational program;” and intimidating or causing

reasonable concern for a person’s physical or mental safety. Police are empowered

to arrest without warrant on reasonable grounds.

The act also allows for injunctions and includes limited exemptions, like lawful labour

actions under the Labour Relations Code and certain work activities.

The government’s narrative is one of preventative success. They tell us, since 2023,

there have been more than 40 protest disruptions outside K-to-12 schools, sometimes

requiring police intervention. I would highlight the “sometimes requiring police intervention.”

They claim the frequency has fallen since the SASA’s enactment, using this trend to

justify the two-year extension.

Yet when we move from government assertion to verifiable fact, a striking and telling

absence emerges. A thorough review of public records, news reports and answers to

the order paper’s questions reveals there are no documented instances of arrests,

tickets or charges laid specifically under this act. No parents have been publicly

reported as arrested for voicing concerns at their own children’s schools under these

provisions.

The primary, and perhaps only, publicized interaction involves protesters at school

board offices, administrative buildings separate from children, who are warned to

move along, with the act cited as authority.

This application, affecting citizens protesting funding and policy decisions before

their elected trustees, clearly falls outside the stated spirit of protecting children

at school grounds. It reveals the act’s utility as a tool for managing dissent in

the broader education ecosystem, not just for safeguarding school yard gates.

The government cites a decline in disruptions but offers no transparent, auditable

data on how or whether the act’s unique and powerful provisions were ever invoked

to achieve this. Could it be that these numbers at the time were high because it was

on people’s minds and has since gone down? Does it have anything to do with this act?

Police have always possessed general authority to address genuine threats — trespass,

mischief, intimidation or obstruction — under the Criminal Code and then common-law

powers to prevent breach of the peace. I know many times those tools were what I used

as a police officer in instances just like this.

If the act has not produced a single reported enforcement action in nearly two years,

one must ask, critically: is it truly preventing imminent harm that existing law could

not? Or is it casting a broad, chilling shadow over peaceful expression, achieving

compliance not through the use but through the threat of its poorly defined powers?

[3:45 p.m.]

This brings me to the heart of my concern. While protecting students from tangible

harm is paramount, this legislation has not demonstrably been used for that purpose

alone in any documented case. Instead, it’s dangerously broad and subjective language,

prohibiting not just violence or the physical blocking of doors but the act of participating

in a protest or anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a

person’s physical or mental safety.

It creates a high risk of silencing legitimate parental voices and community dissent.

Parents have not just a role but a fundamental right and responsibility in their children’s

education. All too commonly recently, that has been pushed aside. School board decisions

on funding, curriculum, library resources or staffing cuts directly affect families

and communities. Peaceful, lawful protests at or near school boundaries, even if passionate

or dissenting, are a cornerstone of democratic engagement and civic accountability.

The official opposition believes strongly in the right to assemble peacefully, a freedom

enshrined in

section 2(

c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also

cherish the freedom of expression under

section 2(b). Access zones, which some have

rightly called bubble zones, can effectively prohibit the exercise of these rights

in public spaces, even if that is not the stated intent.

Consider a real-world scenario. A parent, distressed by the closure of a neighbourhood

school or a radical change to a cherished program, stands 15 metres from the school

gate on a public sidewalk at 5 p.m. holding a sign that reads “Keep our schools open.”

Under this legislation, if an extracurricular event is underway, that parent could

be deemed to be participating in a protest within the zone or causing concern to someone

entering the building. This is not a hypothetical overreach. It is the logical, foreseeable

consequence of the act’s sweeping wording.

The law creates a mechanism where subjective discomfort can be conflated with objective

threat. I would bring up an instance where somebody says their child is upset seeing

a crowd of people at school. Does that create a problem, or has that now become a

crime under this legislation? To understand the implications, we must compare this

bubble zone and precedents the government itself invokes.

In 1994, British Columbia enacted Canada’s first bubble-zone law, the Access to Abortion

Services Act. It created buffers, ten- to 50-metre zones around clinics, doctors’

offices; 160-metre zones around the homes of providers; and 50-metre zones around

the homes of staff. It specifically banned protesting, besetting, harassing, filming

or even attempting to persuade within these zones, offences carrying clear fines of

up to $2,000 or six months in jail.

That legislation was a response to a specific, at that time intense, context of harassment,

intimidation and violence targeting vulnerable patients and health care professionals

at very specific, identified locations. It was narrowly tailored to an acute crisis.

The Safe Access to Schools Act, by stark contrast, applies blanket, one-size-fits-all

prohibitions across every public and independent school in the province, over 1,500

sites, regardless of whether a single incident has ever occurred on that site, and

it lacks the penalty clarity of its 1994 predecessor.

[3:50 p.m.]

Enforcement relies on a patchwork. Reference to the Offence Act and the Violation

Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation, which sets a $2,000 fine per contravention,

plus a $300 victim surcharge for if…. You can get a ticket for $2,300.

Arrest without a warrant is authorized. Yet the act itself contains no stand-alone

penalty provisions, only the power to restrain contraventions by injunction “whether

or not a penalty or other remedy is provided.”

This creates profound legal uncertainty. Is this a regulatory ticketing matter or

something more akin to criminal prohibition? This ambiguity is a recipe for arbitrary

enforcement and a shield against accountability. The jurisdictional questions are

equally pressing. The government has simultaneously tabled…. Sorry, I’m going to skip

that portion.

The government has changed other legislation. A telling criticism of distinction emerges

in those changes. In other legislation, the clause explicitly prohibiting participating

in a protest has been removed. I would suggest this omission is a tacit admission

by the drafters that such a blanket prohibition on protest in a public space would

not survive a Charter challenge.

One must then ask: why does that same, likely unconstitutional, clause remain in the

Safe Access to Schools Act? Is it because the government believes the rights of parents

and citizens near schools are less worthy of protection or because this law just hasn’t

been legally stress-tested yet, due to its lack of use?

Meanwhile at the federal level, Bill C-9, introduced this past October, amends the

Criminal Code to prohibit the display of Nazi symbols, SS symbols and other hate symbols

in public with exemptions for journalism, religion, education and art.

It adds aggravating factors for offences motivated by hate and creates a specific

offence for intimidation at buildings used for religious worship. But notably it does

not establish fixed-distance bubble zones. The federal approach is conduct-specific.

Intimidation must occur at the place of worship. It targets harmful behaviour not

geography. It does so under the clear federal jurisdiction over criminal law.

This applies directly to the schools and places of learning that this act is referencing.

Why then does this provincial government feel compelled to create hundreds of provincial

bubble zones that encroach on what is fundamentally a matter of criminal law? Intimidation,

criminal harassment, obstruction and mischief are already comprehensively addressed

under the Criminal Code. This appears to be provincial overreach, duplicating and

potentially conflicting with the tools already available to police and courts and

doing so with a less precise, more rights-infringing instrument.

The Charter is not a suggestion. It’s the supreme law of Canada.

Section 1 allows

for reasonable limits on rights but only if they are demonstratively justified in

a free and democratic society. The government has not met that onerous test here.

They cite the 40-plus disruptions since 2023, many of which predate this act and were

centred on debates over SOGI curriculum and other policy issues but provide no breakdown

distinguishing between violent or criminal acts and lawful, peaceful protests.

[3:55 p.m.]

They claim success because disruptions have fallen yet refused to disclose whether

this decline is due to this act, changed public sentiment, increased police liaison

or the simple fact that the peak of a particular social debate has passed.

In the absence of enforcement data, the claim of cause and effect is speculative at

best. Therefore, the committee stage must be an exercise in forensic accountability.

We must demand exact and verifiable statistics on all invocations of the act.

How many arrests without warrant? How many tickets issued? How many injunctions sought?

We require the file numbers, dates, locations, detailed case studies and disclosures.

Were any of these actions taken against parents at their own children’s schools or

against protests specifically concerning school board cuts, staffing or curriculum?

The Attorney General must provide anonymized summaries, evidence of insufficiency.

The minister must table specific incident reports from before the SASA’s enactment

where police were unable to act under existing Criminal Code provisions — reference

section 423 on intimidation, 264 on criminal harassment, 430 on mischief, 120 on obstructing

a police officer — or common-law powers, necessitating this new law.

Justification for extension without a review. Why are we extending a sunset clause

on a powerful law without first conducting an independent, arm’s-length review of

its necessity, effectiveness and Charter compliance? Should that review not proceed,

not follow, an extension?

Consideration of narrow, rights-preserving amendments. The committee must explore

explicit carve-outs for peaceful parental expression; distance-based distinctions,

example of a small buffer zone for peer protest; or a mechanism where zones are activated

only by court order upon application showing a specific, credible threat at a specific

school — a surgically precise tool instead of a provincial blanket.

Colleagues, this is not about opposing student safety. It’s about ensuring that safety

measures are necessary, proportionate, effective and minimally intrusive upon the

democratic values we are entrusted to uphold. The right to assemble peacefully and

express dissent is not a threat to education. It is its very foundation. A society

that teaches civics in the classroom but criminalizes peaceful practice on the public

sidewalk outside sends a devastatingly contradictory message.

History shows that bubble zones — while well intentioned in narrow, specific contexts

— can, over time, become tools to marginalize unpopular views and sanitize public

discourse. Once established, the boundaries of such zones only ever seem to expand,

and their prohibitions multiply.

I will support sending Bill 12 to committee, not because I endorse the extension but

because this House owes British Columbians a transparent, evidence-based debate before

entrenching this law for another two years. Let us use the committee to question the

Attorney General and the Education Minister rigorously on the act’s real-world track

record, not its theoretical benefits.

I’ve laid out questions that I will be pushing to ask in the committee stage. Hopefully

there will be answers.

Let us compel the government to finally provide the data it has withheld. Let us examine

whether federal criminal law, properly resourced and enforced, already equips police

adequately. Let us be prepared to amend the legislation significantly to protect both

physical safety and foundational freedom.

[4:00 p.m.]

In closing, all students have the right to safe access to school grounds, but parents,

educators and citizens also have the inviolable right to peaceful assembly and expression

in public spaces. The official opposition will always defend both. We look forward

to a committee process where facts, evidence and constitutional principle, not fear

or political convenience, will guide our ultimate decisions.

I want to finish up off what my colleague before me from Richmond-Queensborough had

said about being properly served in this province, because provincewide, we are not

being properly serviced by the police and by the courts, and that is what leads to

laws like this needing to be put in place. “Needing” I say a little sarcastically,

I guess, because we should not need these with the current laws that serve us under

the Criminal Code of Canada. Time to start dealing with the real issues.

Garry Begg : Thank you to the member opposite for some of the things he brought up. He, like I,

spent many years as a police officer. In my case, I spent many years as a police instructor,

so you will forgive me if I stray a bit to talk about some things that we were taught

as policemen and I taught as a police instructor.

What we’re talking about today are two pieces of legislation designed to enhance safe

access to important places for British Columbians.

Bill 12, which is the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, extends the 2023 Safe

Access to Schools Act to July 1, 2028, simply to ensure students, staff, parents and

caregivers can access schools without obstruction.

Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, establishes protection against

harmful, disruptive or intimidating behaviour around places of worship like gurdwaras,

temples, synagogues, mosques and churches.

On its face, none of us in this House would disagree with the intent of that legislation.

Schools, we all believe, should be safe places for children, and the ability to practise

your faith without fear or intimidation is fundamental to who we are as Canadians

and as British Columbians.

We all know that in recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in threats and

harassment targeting places of worship and schools across the province. That’s why

we’re introducing the legislation.

As I refer back to my days in policing, I taught, and I’m sure he learned, that the

most dominant thing in policing is the respect that we have for the law and that as

a matter of practice, we apply, in our daily lives, tact to how we enforce the law.

We do not enforce every law. We enforce laws with what we call discretion, and in

my view, discretion is the biggest policy that we have.

As a policeman driving down a street, you may see many things, and you may selectively

enforce laws that you see. You’re not required to. You can’t ignore it, but you do

what you can.

So when we talk about places of worship, places where people go to practise their

faith, the question that must be asked is: should they be free, in a democratic society,

to do that? The answer….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder that we are talking about safe schools today. I know we’ve

bounced back and forth a little bit, but I’d appreciate it if you could focus on Bill

12 and the safe schools.

Garry Begg : Thank you. The two, of course, are intertwined, which is why I bring that up. I’m

talking about the ability of the police to be discreet, to apply discretion.

[4:05 p.m.]

So change the scenario. We’re driving down a street near a gurdwara, synagogue, mosque,

whatever. Do the police have the ability to discreetly enforce laws around that area?

The answer, of course, is yes.

The reason that the answer is yes is because there is a second and third thing that

has to be applied to laws in this country. And they apply all across the country.

That is, in many cases, will charges be approved? Is it likely that charges will be

approved? Secondarily, then when the matter goes to court, are we able to prove what

we’ve done? The discretion

part is the police part to decide what should be done.

In cases like I just outlined around places of worship, we believe, in this country,

that people are free to practise their faith.

Now our law says that when you interfere with that happening — whether it’s a school

district, a school board in a public area — that is unlawful, which doesn’t necessarily

mean that there will be an arrest in that case. It means that the police have the

ability to enforce the law in the bubble zone surrounding schools. And that’s important.

We want our children to be safe. We want our children to know that their ability to

go to school every day and be uninterrupted in what they do is important.

I know the member opposite. I don’t think he disagrees with me in principle, that

that’s the way things should be. The safe access zones are enforced so that police

can intervene if they believe that the specific law is being violated. The law doesn’t

say the police must intervene. It says they can intervene.

On this side of the House, we encourage the best practice to be discretionary. I think

that’s forgotten in the course of this discussion here. The police always have the

capacity to enforce the law, but they may not be there. Or they may be there and decide

that there is no violation of the law or that the likelihood of conviction by Crown

— first of all by Crown approving the charges and then conviction by the court — may

be very low.

All across the country we have provincial laws and we have federal laws, some of which

are duplicative of each other. That doesn’t mean that we in British Columbia cannot

and should not exercise our discretion when we enforce the law.

If a person engages in behaviour within an access zone, police may be called to intervene.

And the police’s intervention may be simply talking to the people who are protesting

and saying: “You shouldn’t be here. Would you go away?” That is enforcing the law.

That is applying discretion. It is not, as my friend opposite said, a clear and absolute

conviction that will result in the person being convicted in a court of law.

I would say that, most recently, the rise in confrontation that has happened at schools,

particularly when it comes to matters like SOGI, have been disruptive. I suggest that,

in every case, the police, when attending…. Unless the violators were aggressive,

assaultive or doing someone else, the police role there would be to disrupt that,

and I suspect that those who were protesting SOGI would obey the police. They would

go away, and there would not be a charge.

It is important to understand, as we move this forward, that what we’re protecting

are people and places. In summing up, I would say that we expect a lot of our police.

The least we can expect of them is that they exercise discretion as they have for

100 years. They are discreet individuals whom we empower to enforce laws. There are

very rare cases where police must do something.

[4:10 p.m.]

To move this forward, I say that’s what we do. We trust our police to exercise discretion

and do their job as they’re paid to do.

Korky Neufeld : I rise today to speak with caution, deliberation and a deep respect for both the

intent and the implications of extending the Safe Access to Schools Act.

Well, the Safe Access to Schools Act was first enacted in 2024. Now this government

wishes to extend this to 2028 and, what’s troubling for me, without a review of the

unintended consequences.

They’ve got two years of information. What is and is not working, over the last two

years? How is enforcement working, or not working, over the last two years? Was there

consultation with principals, with police, etc.? How broad was that consultation?

Can they make that consultation public? None of that happened, and now you’re asking

us to extend legislation — temporary legislation, to boot — without a public review

of the past two years.

Now, so you can appreciate where I’m coming from, I was the board chair in my district

when we had 300 concerned citizens, parents and community members converge on our

school board building during a public meeting. Why were they there? They needed clarification,

not a hammer. They needed to be heard, not arrested.

Someone once said this — I want to say this not because I agree with it, but this

is where it could lead: “If you take away my voice, all I have left is my fist.” None

of us condone that kind of behaviour, but if we restrict people from expressing their

concerns, then we’re left with only one other option.

There’s no question in anybody’s mind in this building, and even in the public, that

safety of children, safety of educators, safety of school staff must be among the

highest priorities of this House. That’s not up for debate. That’s a given. Schools

must be places of learning. They must be free from fear of disruption and intimidation.

On that principle, I believe all members would agree.

However, it is precisely because this objective is so important that we must examine

this legislation with care. This legislation sits at the intersection of two very

important principles, ones that we must never treat lightly — the safety of individuals

and the preservation of our fundamental freedoms. It’s both/and, not either/or. Laws

enacted in the name of safety must be measured not only with their intentions but

also by their scope, by their clarity and by their consequences, whether intended

or unintended.

At its core, this act establishes access zones around schools, areas in which a wide

range of activities are restricted. Within these zones, individuals are prohibited

from protesting, from engaging in what is defined as interference and from actions

that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for someone’s physical or mental

safety. At first glance, this may seem reasonable. No one supports harassment or intimidation

at school entrances. We already have laws for that. They’re clear. But the concern

arises on how broadly these prohibitions are written.

[4:15 p.m.]

Let’s start off. The definition of “interference,” for example, includes “advising.”

When I go to someone, I advise them. I’m giving them my opinion. So now interference

could be advising, giving my opinion, or persuading — now that’s a little bit stronger

— o