First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, October 20, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 83

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Elmer Seniemten George

The Speaker (Hon. Raj Chouhan)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Members’ Statements

Festival of Lights and Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada

Mable Elmore

Renaming of Sports Fields at Abbotsford Schools

Korky Neufeld

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas

Sunita Dhir

Autumn Harvest in Rural B.C.

Donegal Wilson

BX Farm Tour in North Okanagan

Harwinder Sandhu

B.C. Women’s Softball Team at 2025 Canada Summer Games

Tony Luck

Ministerial Statements

Support for Forest Industry and Communities Impacted by U.S. Duties and Tariffs

Hon. David Eby

John Rustad

Jeremy Valeriote

Dallas Brodie

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and Property Ownership Concerns of Richmond Residents

Teresa Wat

Hon. Niki Sharma

Cowichan Tribes Land Title Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad

Hon. Niki Sharma

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Randene Neill

Government Target for Protection of Lands and Waters

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Randene Neill

Cowichan Tribes Land Title Court Case and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Legislation on Indigenous Rights Documentation and Meetings

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Obstetric and Gynecological Health Care Services

Peter Milobar

Hon. Josie Osborne

Jody Toor

Anna Kindy

Transplant Waiting List Case

Kristina Loewen

Hon. Josie Osborne

Women’s Health Care Services

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Á’a:líya Warbus

Tabling Documents

Chief records officer, annual report, 2024-25

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, administration report, 2024-25

B.C. Arts Council, annual report, 2024-25

B.C. Treaty Commission, annual report, 2025

Guarantees and indemnities report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2025

Statement of borrowings for 2024-25 pursuant to

section 56 of the Financial Administration

Act, schedules A and B

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2024-25

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Christine Boyle

Larry Neufeld

Jeremy Valeriote

Jordan Kealy

Stephanie Higginson

Scott McInnis

Lynne Block

Dallas Brodie

Tony Luck

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Ward Stamer

Bill 21 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Gavin Dew

Ward Stamer

Larry Neufeld

Rosalyn Bird

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Nina Krieger

Hon Chan

Macklin McCall

Bryan Tepper

Sheldon Clare

Monday, October 20, 2025

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld : I’ve got a long list of introductions here. Six out of the nine siblings of my family

are here today to visit. I come from a family of eight boys and two girls.

My younger sister Lydia is from Edmonton. She couldn’t make it. And the twins, David

and Betty, could not join in as well.

I would like to ask each brother to stand when I mention his name.

The closest brother to me is my brother Herb. And Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm or

deny that we got into a lot of trouble as teenagers.

My next brother is Walter. He played volleyball, and his volleyball team is inducted

into the Volleyball B.C. Hall of Fame.

[1:35 p.m.]

Then my brother Henry played basketball at John Oliver against Lars Hansen from Killarney

Secondary. He played in the NBA, and my brother was his good rival. So my brother

Henry.

Then my brother George. He played volleyball and also coached a women’s team, and

that women’s team is also inducted into Volleyball B.C. Hall of Fame.

Then the twin towers, Wolfgang and Werner, played football for John Oliver, and injuries

prevented them from further playing football.

These men raised me, so if I get into trouble in this House, it’s their fault.

I would like everybody here to make them feel welcome.

Hon. Adrian Dix : It’s a pretty good day for J.O. there. That’s all right.

I want all members of the House to join me in giving a warm welcome to Clean Energy

B.C., who are meeting with members on both sides of the House today.

Clean Energy B.C., interestingly, represents every successful proponent of the 2024

call for power. Many of the delegation, including First Nations clean energy leaders,

are seeking to invest in the current call for power. It’s very exciting to have them

here in the Legislature.

I want to introduce Kwatuuma Cole Sayers of CEBC, of Clean Energy B.C.; Jack Magnus,

Ombrielle Neria, Lili Meier.

Chief Chris Roberts of the Wei Wai Kum and of Clean Energy B.C.

Councillor Stephen Rayner of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and CEBC.

Jose Auffray from Ecoener.

Andrea Kausel from Capstone Infrastructure.

Jonathan Turner from Elemental.

David Thornton from EDF Power Solutions.

Roslyn McMann from BluEarth Renewables.

Ina Gjoka from Innergex Renewable Energy.

Shoshana Pasternak from Invenergy.

Carlie Smith from Boralex.

Yuho Okada from Barkley Project Group.

I know the House is going to look forward to meeting with these people today, and

I hope everyone in the House wishes them welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I see in the gallery today that we are joined by two individuals who have given so

much to their communities. Mervyn and Terri Van Steinburg are here in the gallery

to join us for question period today.

Mervyn is a retired member of the IBEW and a long-standing former labour coordinator

at the United Way. Terri has been a longtime advocate in the Federation of Post-Secondary

Educators and has served as president. They’ve served in numerous community organizations.

They are such terrific community and labour advocates.

Thanks so much for being here today.

Would the House please join me in making then feel welcome.

Elenore Sturko : She’s not here today, but she is watching at home. I just want to congratulate my

spouse, Melissa Sturko, who just returned this Saturday from participating in the

World Triathlon Championships in Wollongong, Australia.

Melissa competed with Triathlon Canada’s age group team and competed in the aquabike.

The kids and I are thrilled for her.

Would this House please join me in congratulating Melissa.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In the gallery today, we have members of the B.C. Notaries Association.

They are here to help recognize Make a Will Week, taking place from October 20 through

October 26 in British Columbia. Make a Will Week serves as an opportunity to remind

British Columbians of the importance of having a will in order to protect your wishes

and your loved ones. During calendar 2024, B.C. Notaries completed or updated 19,989

wills for British Columbians.

I am pleased to introduce members of the B.C. Notaries Association board of directors

in attendance. They are Rimpy Sadhra, board president; Cam Sherk, board vice-president;

Jackie Tate, board secretary and treasurer; Daniel Boisvert, director and city of

Delta councillor; Morrie Baillie, director; Kate Roome, director; and Chad Rintoul,

chief executive officer and town of Sidney councillor.

Would the House please make them welcome, because making a will is really important.

[1:40 p.m.]

Ian Paton : The Minister of Transportation just beat me to it, but I want to personally introduce

a good friend of mine, Daniel Boisvert.

He’s a Delta city councillor, but he’s also the past president of the B.C. Notaries

Association and currently a director now. I met with some of his colleagues last night.

He’s a resident of Tsawwassen, a constituent of mine and a proud member of the Delta

city council.

Please make Daniel Boisvert feel very welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : It’s so rare that I get to welcome people from my constituency into the House. Today

we actually have three people.

The first two folks that I just toured around the Legislature are JP and Rebecca from

Baldface, one of the owners and the general manager. They absolutely loved seeing

the Legislature. It was such an honour to tour them around.

Baldface is a cat-skiing operation just outside of Nelson. Nelson was named, I believe

it was in the New York Times , as the global leader in heli-skiing and cat-skiing. They’re down today for the HeliCat

conference.

We probably have more of my constituents really close to us here today in Victoria

than on a normal day, because we have so many incredible businesses that do heli-skiing

and cat-skiing right from the Kootenays and also from across British Columbia.

I would like to welcome Rebecca and JP, as well as everyone else from HeliCat.

For my second introduction, I would like to introduce Rachel Holt, who is here with

us today. She is a PhD ecologist. She’s done work across British Columbia, and I like

to call her a dear friend.

I would just hope that this House could make Rachel Holt feel very welcome.

Jeremy Valeriote : On behalf of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, I would like to introduce

Chad Rintoul, a Sidney councillor and CEO of the B.C. Notaries Association.

Will the House please make Chad feel welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I wanted to welcome representatives from two organizations who were here on the precinct

over the lunch hour to join the Premier and I in an announcement that we’ll be discussing

in a moment.

Andrea Seale is the CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society, and Sue Whittaker is a volunteer

and ambassador with the MS Society of Canada. Both of these organizations and these

individuals do extraordinary work on behalf of people who have life-altering diagnoses,

and they support them through very, very difficult times. I am just in awe of the

incredible achievements of these organizations and the work that they do.

Would the House please join me in thanking them for their work and making them welcome

for having been here earlier today.

Paul Choi : I am very excited to welcome the delegation from the Korean public service and particularly

the court system in Korea. If I can ask them to stand up, please.

They include judges, prosecutors, court clerks and a firefighter, as you can see,

in his uniform. They are here with the UVic law school on a research exchange program,

and they’re here in the chamber to learn about our parliamentary system.

Please, if I can ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

George Anderson : I have the great honour of introducing a constituent of mine, Mr. Yuho Okada.

He’s the president of Barkley Project Group and the former chair of the Clean Energy

Association of British Columbia. He has a very clear passion for the industry, and

it’s because of people like Mr. Okada that I have a lot of hope for the future.

I would hope that the whole House would welcome Mr. Okada to the House.

Tributes

Elmer Seniemten George

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary man, Dr. Elmer Seniemten

George, a much-loved Elder of the Songhees Nation, who passed away peacefully last

Thursday at age 90.

[1:45 p.m.]

One of the few remaining fluent lək̓ʷəŋən speakers, Dr. George devoted the last decades of his life to the revitalization of

his ancestral language. Through this unique work, he built relationships all over

this region, like with the University of Victoria, Royal Roads University, CFB Esquimalt,

Royal B.C. Museum, the city of Victoria, the Greater Victoria Public Library and with

us here in the Legislative Assembly.

He helped open many new parliamentary sessions with a blessing and was present in

this House on the dedication of our Talking Stick in 2006.

For his lifetime of service, Dr. George was awarded an honorary PhD by Royal Roads

University as well as the Meritorious Service Medal from the Governor General for

his work in translating the historic Douglas treaties.

Dr. George was a humble man. He worked in construction, logging and maintenance for

most of his life. He was a devoted husband to his late wife, Eva; a father to 12;

and a big Blue Jays fan.

Although beloved by many from across this beautiful province, none will feel this

loss more profoundly than the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

In 2023, Dr. George honoured our Legislature by selecting the text that spanned the

precinct’s retaining wall along Belleville Street.

Today, as he is laid to rest and we reflect on his enduring legacy, I will share the

powerful words he chose: “We thank our warriors that go to war. We hold gratitude

and respect for those who do not come back. They give their lives for us. Thank you,

ancestors. It is good that you are one together with the lək̓ʷəŋən People. Working together as one, our children will become strong. We all love the

children.”

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I wish to express to Chief Ron Sam and Chief

Jerome Thomas and their communities our very deepest sympathies.

Members, please join me in raising your hands to Dr. Elmer George and his life well

lived.

We will miss you, my friend.

O siém, hәysxʷq̓ә.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Employment Standards

(Serious Illness or Injury Leave)

Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

a bill intituled Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment

Act, 2025.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury

Leave) Amendment Act. This bill amends the Employment Standards Act to add a new,

unpaid, job-protected leave for employees dealing with serious injury or illness.

The entitlement is for up to 27 weeks within a 12-month period. The proposed amendments

will bring provincial legislation in alignment with financial supports available through

the federal insurance sickness benefits program.

Workers are at the centre of the economy we are building in our province, and at the

core of the proposed amendments is a commitment to people and to the principle that

they should never have to choose between their job or their health. For people facing

a serious health diagnosis and maybe a life-altering situation, the certainty of knowing

that their jobs will be there for them provides relief and alleviates an unnecessary

burden on their journey to recovery.

Currently there are no provisions in the Employment Standards Act that protect the

jobs of people who are unable to work due to their own long-term illness or injury.

This change reflects what patient advocates have been telling us; what we heard from

worker, employer and business organizations earlier this year. They all recognize

the importance of accommodating workers who suffer from a life-altering diagnosis,

and there was broad agreement that workers deserve to be able to return to their jobs

when they and their health care providers say that they are ready.

Every British Columbian knows someone who has been affected by a life-altering diagnosis,

or they may well have experienced it themselves, diagnoses such as cancer or multiple

sclerosis, heart disease, Parkinson’s; or experienced serious injury through a motor

vehicle accident; or are survivors of intimate partner violence.

These proposed changes ensure that their jobs are protected by including this leave

in the Employment Standards Act. This leave is already in place in federally regulated

industries and workplaces, as well as other Canadian jurisdictions, including Manitoba,

Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador.

[1:50 p.m.]

I am very pleased that we are moving forward to enshrine this principle in our act

in British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : 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

Festival of Lights and

Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada

Mable Elmore : Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending an incredible cultural celebration. I know

many colleagues from the House were also there. It was called the Festival of Lights,

where Diwali meets a festival of lanterns in a Coachella-style celebration held at

the Cloverdale Agriplex in Surrey.

Organized by the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada, the Festival of Lights was a multicultural

music and light festival, showcasing some of the best bands and singers and dancers

in B.C. performing alongside international artists. It had everything you wanted there:

food trucks, great culinary traditions from around the world, arts and crafts, family-friendly

activities, a fashion show — really bringing the community together. Of course, it

concluded with a spectacular laser light show, deejay music and just an incredible

time.

The 2025 Festival of Lights event embodies what the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada

is all about. Through its work of promoting intercultural understanding, the foundation

builds meaningful bonds between communities in Canada and across the Indo-Pacific.

From its headquarters in Vancouver, the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada reaches

out to countries such as India, China, Korea, the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam,

Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and many others.

Through events like this year’s Festival of Lights, the foundation seeks to position

British Columbia as an international hub of inclusion, global cultural exchange and

creativity. At the festival, neither borders nor politics matter. It’s all about the

beauty of diversity and the appreciation of different cultures.

We learned that fear doesn’t have a place in celebrations like Festival of Lights.

Love and kindness and harmony are all that matters.

Congratulations to the Indo-Pacific Foundation for a successful Festival of Lights.

I ask everybody to please offer their congratulations and appreciation for their leadership

to really make British Columbia a terrific province.

Renaming of Sports Fields

at Abbotsford Schools

Korky Neufeld : In Abbotsford, on September 26, we gathered with one heart and one mind to celebrate

something truly meaningful, the renaming of four sports fields at W.J. Mouat Secondary

and Colleen and Gordie Howe Middle School. These fields are more than places to play.

They are places where young people learn teamwork, build friendships, create memories

that last a lifetime.

Together with the city of Abbotsford, the Abbotsford board of education, the Semá:th

First Nation and the Máthexwi First Nation, we honoured remarkable individuals who

shaped the community of Abbotsford.

Jim Latham Field. He was a principal and educator who built the foundation of the

W.J. Mouat powerhouse football program.

Sophie Schmidt Field. Her parents also immigrated from Paraguay, as I did, before

Sophie was born. Sophie is a well-known, accomplished soccer star, a four-time Olympian,

an Olympic gold and two bronze medals, who used these same fields to hone her exceptional

skills.

Terry Felix Field. A trailblazer, the first Indigenous athlete to play professional

soccer, for three years representing Canada on the world stage. He also played the

sports he loved on these same fields as a young boy.

Const. John Davidson Field. He devoted his life to service and fitness. He was a beloved

liaison officer in our school system. He spearheaded a crash prevention program in

our school community. He was sadly gunned down in the line of duty on November 6,

2017, going to the aid of a fellow officer.

Each name tells a story of service, a story of excellence, a story of courage and

a story of belonging. Under the collective Indigenous saying “one heart, one mind,”

these fields remind us of unity and connection. They carry the spirit of the past,

present and future, and they will inspire generations to come.

[1:55 p.m.]

Thank you to everyone who helped make that exceptional day possible. May these fields

always be a place of joy and respect, where individuals battle out hard-fought games

in true sportsmanship.

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to extend my warmest wishes to everyone in British Columbia and around

the world who are celebrating Diwali today.

Diwali, the festival of lights, is a celebration of hope, joy and togetherness. It

is observed by many faiths — Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists — each with their

own rich traditions and meanings.

For Hindus, it marks the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after 14 years in exile, a

reminder that light always triumphs over darkness and good over evil.

For Jains, it commemorates the spiritual liberation of Lord Mahavir.

For many Buddhists, it celebrates the day Emperor Ashoka embraced peace and enlightenment,

values that continue to inspire us today.

Tomorrow Sikhs around the world will celebrate Bandi Chhor Divas, marking the release

of Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji and 52 princes from imprisonment, a story of courage, justice

and compassion.

Here in British Columbia, these celebrations reflect our diversity and the connections

that make our province stronger. Having grown up in India, these celebrations, the

glow of diyas and the laughter of neighbours still live in my heart, but I feel the

same light and warmth here in Canada, in the homes, temples, gurdwaras and community

spaces across our world.

As families and friends gather to light diyas, share delicious meals and celebrate

together, may we all take a moment to reflect on the light within our hearts and the

ways we can bring that light into the world around us.

To everyone celebrating near and far, happy Diwali and happy Bandi Chhor Divas.

Autumn Harvest in Rural B.C.

Donegal Wilson : It is nearing the end of October, and across the Boundary-Similkameen, the final

harvest is underway. The apples are coming off the trees, the grapes are on the crush

pads, the cows are coming home from the high country, and our farmers are winding

down their fields for another year.

This is a season that brings the whole region together from Grand Forks to Princeton,

Rock Creek to Cawston, Keremeos to Okanagan Falls and all the small valleys and benches

in between. It’s a time when rural British Columbia shows its strength, its work ethic

and its sense of community. Harvest marks the end of another long season, one that

started months ago with pruning, planting and seeding.

When we talk about harvest, it’s not just about produce or crops; it’s about people.

It’s about the families who work side by side in the orchards and vineyards, the ranchers

who spend long days gathering cattle off the range, and the truck drivers, packers,

processors and market vendors who make sure our local bounty reaches homes across

British Columbia.

It’s also about the small businesses that keep that rural life running: the equipment

shops, fuel stations, grocery stores and restaurants that open early and stay open

late to serve those working in our fields. These are the quiet heroes of our local

economy.

As we celebrate another successful harvest, I want to extend my deepest thanks to

everyone who contributes to the abundance we enjoy — the growers, the pickers, the

haulers, the families and the communities who make it all possible.

You are the heart of rural British Columbia. Your work sustains us not just through

the food you grow but through the example you set of hard work, perseverance and community

pride.

As the bins fill, the barns close and the season winds down, I hope everyone takes

a moment to appreciate just how much we have to be grateful for in this beautiful

part of our province we call home.

BX Farm Tour in North Okanagan

Harwinder Sandhu : At the end of September, I had the privilege of joining the fifth annual BX Farm

Tour, a beloved North Okanagan tradition that celebrates the heart of our farming

community.

[2:00 p.m.]

With 11 inspiring stops across the BX, visitors met with local farmers, shopped at

their stands and learned firsthand about both the triumphs and challenges of those

who put food on our tables.

Thanks to Jenn Cameron of Vanzeal Acres for the invitation and for helping coordinate

this incredible day.

From Brookside Orchards to Bee-Yotch Honey, Morrison Funny Farm, Curlew Orchard, Indigo

Valley Farm, Elderberry Fields, Harry and Stella’s Family Farm, Smith Family Farm,

Silverstar Veggies and Hobenshield Acres, every stop showcased a dedication, resilience

and innovation that defines our local farmers.

I also want to acknowledge the sponsors who made this possible, including Land to

Table Network Society, Tourism Vernon and Community Futures North Okanagan. Their

support helps sustain not just farms but the communities that depend on them.

A special highlight was meeting Jenn Cameron and Erika Sohni, founders of Lady Farmer,

two inspiring women growing not only food but knowledge and connection through workshops

on canning, crocheting and greenhouse maintenance. They are empowering women and strengthening

our community resilience.

We also met with the Rise Up team led by Lauren and Megan, connecting youth across

B.C. and inspiring the next generation of farmers and leaders.

The BX farm tour was more than a day on the land. It was a powerful reminder of who

we are. When farmers, families and neighbours come together, we grow more than crops.

We grow hope, resilience and connection.

Let’s continue to stand with those who feed us, nurture our land and strengthen the

root of our communities.

B.C. Women’s Softball Team

at 2025 Canada Summer Games

Tony Luck : I’d like to talk about what I did on my summer vacation today.

This past summer was one my wife, Wanda, and I will never forget. We had the incredible

opportunity to be in St. John’s, Newfoundland, to visit family and the absolute privilege

this year of being proud parents as we watched the Team B.C. under-19 women’s softball

team bring home the gold medal at the 2025 Canada Summer Games. And the best part:

our granddaughter Kailey Ross was on that roster.

I might get a little emotional. Let me tell you what an experience it was. The energy

in that ballpark was electric. Every pitch, every hit, every catch had the crowd on

edge. When the final out was made and Team B.C. defeated Ontario 9-6, the joy and

pride was just overwhelming. To actually be there and see your granddaughter work….

It was just amazing.

These young women worked incredibly hard to get there. Under head coach Allison McMillan,

the team was selected after an intense final camp held on June 2. Fifteen players

and two alternates made the roster, each one bringing their best to the field. They

built their chemistry through tournaments like the Canada Cup in early July at Softball

City, where they tested themselves against top competition and really came together

as a team.

And come together they did. Team B.C. went undefeated, outscoring their opponents

by a staggering 52-1 in the qualifying round. You could tell this group had something

special. They played with confidence, teamwork and focus.

Then came the big one, the gold-medal game against Ontario. It was a battle from start

to finish, but Team B.C. never wavered. Their bats were strong, their defence solid

and their determination unmatched. When the final score read 9-6, the celebration,

as you would know, was amazing.

That win didn’t just bring home a gold medal for the team; it also helped boost Team

B.C. to an impressive third place overall in the medal standings at the games. More

than that, it showed what happens when teamwork, dedication and heart come together.

To Coach McMillan and the players and everyone behind the scenes, congratulations

for a job well done.

Thank you to all of Team B.C. at the 2025 Summer Games for making us all proud here

in B.C.

Ministerial Statements

Support for Forest Industry

and Communities Impacted by

U.S. Duties and Tariffs

Hon. David Eby : I rise today to speak about a grave threat to British Columbia, a threat to our province,

to our country’s sovereignty and to the industry and workers who literally built this

place.

From our homes and hospitals to our schools and office buildings, every one of us

owes a huge debt of gratitude to the hard-working people in the forest sector. I think

we can all agree on that. I’ll ask us to just take a moment to applaud and show our

appreciation for those hard-working people of the forest sector.

[2:05 p.m.]

Obviously, it’s not enough to just show appreciation. The forest industry here in

B.C. is facing an existential crisis, and that’s because President Donald Trump has

decided to attack Canada’s economy. For ten months, Trump has issued threats and imposed

tariffs against our country.

Let’s be clear. The purpose of these attacks, against one of the United States’ greatest

and most long-standing allies, is to weaken us, to make us part of the United States.

He has said it himself, time and time again, that Canada would face no tariffs if

we just became the 51st state.

These aren’t just words. These are attacks — attacks on our economy, attacks on our

jobs, attacks on our families and attacks on our communities. As Canadians, when we

are attacked, we stand together.

The softwood lumber dispute that Canada has had with the United States has been decades

in the making, but Trump’s new tariffs on the Canadian industry are another devastating

hit. They threaten thousands of jobs in dozens of communities, communities like Campbell

River, Comox, Quesnel, Prince George, Port Alberni, Surrey and many more. Good jobs,

proud communities, decades of hard work, and now it’s an uncertain future.

An additional 10 percent tariff on Canadian forest products on top of the unfair,

crushing duties that have been in place for years…. U.S. duties and tariffs will soon

approach a staggering 45 percent. Mills are being squeezed, workers’ paycheques are

at risk, and forestry-dependent communities are facing a strain.

Consider this. Canadian wood now faces a higher tariff rate going to the U.S. than

Russian wood does. Wood coming from a country led by Vladimir Putin, who launched

an illegal and unprovoked invasion of our ally Ukraine. That’s not just wrong. It’s

outrageous.

It drives up housing costs for Americans and puts people out of work on both sides

of the border. Now is the time for unity. Only by standing together can we protect

the good people who work in the forest sector and in all industries being attacked

by Donald Trump. And the unity must go beyond this chamber. It must be a unity that

calls every British Columbian to action.

To every MLA: I ask you to consider calling your family or friends in the U.S. Tell

them how these tariffs are hurting communities in our province and making life harder

for Americans too.

To mayors: reach out to your sister cities across the border. Tell them the tariff

insanity must end.

To industry leaders: call your buyers, your partners. Tell them what’s at stake for

both sides.

To union leaders: talk to your counterparts in the U.S., worker to worker.

And to every British Columbian: if you have a cousin, a friend, a former co-worker

south of the border, pick up the phone and tell them that tariffs hurt everyone. Tell

them that Canadians will always stand up for fairness, for good jobs, for a proud

and independent country.

When we invite people into this fight, we make our struggle stronger. We’ll show them

that we’re all in this together, not just as British Columbians but as neighbours,

workers and friends.

I also want to be clear. Ottawa has a central, critical role to play here as well.

When our auto and steel industries are attacked, it’s treated as a national emergency,

as it should be. But when forestry towns in B.C. are under threat, where is the same

urgency? We need the same national commitment.

Forestry contributes more to Canada’s economy than the auto sector and supports more

direct jobs, yet too often it’s treated as an afterthought. If we can stand up for

auto and steelworkers in Ontario, then we must stand up for forestry workers here

in British Columbia.

We’ve seen Ottawa step in and help an Ontario paper mill facing tough times, which

is good. But why not a B.C. mill? Why not B.C. workers? Why not the communities that

have carried this country’s forest industry for generations?

Last week I stood with industry and labour leaders to call for B.C.’s fair share of

the announced $1.2 billion federal support fund and for targeted help for the people

and towns hit hardest by these tariffs.

Here in B.C., we’re ready to do even more. We’re standing up for workers facing curtailments.

We’re making sure B.C. wood means B.C. jobs. We’re building more value-added production

right here at home. We’re getting more B.C. wood products to global markets. And we’ll

show Americans that these tariffs hurt everyone — workers, builders, families on both

sides of the border.

We will never stop fighting for B.C. workers, for B.C. jobs and for B.C.’s future,

because when we build in B.C., we build for everyone. And no matter what Donald Trump

throws our way, we will stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and we will not back

down.

John Rustad : I want to start, first of all, by just saying I’m a Blue Jays fan.

Go, Jays.

There is nothing like sports to bring Canadians together.

[2:10 p.m.]

I would agree with the Premier that we should be fighting with Ottawa to make sure

that we get our fair share of the support that’s necessary for this province. However,

I think when it comes to forestry, there is a lesson that obviously needs to be talked

about here in this chamber, and that is the history.

This government…. Since it’s taken power, we’ve seen a reduction in our annual allowable

cut from 75 million cubic metres. Last year we cut about 32 million. That’s a 60 percent

reduction in our forest sector, zero impact from Donald Trump. That was all about

this government, a 60 percent impact. And what were the reasons for that impact on

our forest sector? Well, legislation year after year, continual bureaucracy, process,

time.

We are the highest-cost producers by a mile, in British Columbia, to the rest of North

America. You can’t operate a soft forest industry in that kind of environment, when

you are the highest cost. And anytime you’ve got a market that goes down….

Permitting. It’s extra impossible to get permits these days. It takes three years,

if you’re lucky, to get a permit. For example, we’ve had wildfire wood, wood that

has been damaged and destroyed by wildfires that should be available for our forest

sector. It can take years just to get a permit.

You go to Alberta. A wildfire goes through, and within three months, they’ve got permits,

and they’re in there cutting. Shortly thereafter, they’re doing the rehab, and they’re

planting. They’re treating their forest industry as it should be treated, with respect.

We’re not seeing that in British Columbia. We wonder why mills close. We wonder why

we have all these problems.

Access to fibre. There is ag wood that is being isolated and cut off. There are policies

that have been brought in that have shut down our mid-term timber supply. There’s

been a never-ending stream, enough that COFI, year after year, comes into this building

and meets with ministers and meets with us and says: “Please stop. Stop. Just let

us sit for a bit so we can at least try to adapt.” Yet change comes time and time

again, making it impossible for this industry to operate in this province.

Yes, Donald Trump is having an impact today. An additional 10 percent is the straw

that might just very well break the camel’s back. But it is the layers and layers

of weight that have got us to this position to make us this vulnerable.

I want to give B.C. Veneer as an example. The Premier talks about value-added. I agree

that we need to get value added to our forest sector, but you can’t add value if you

don’t have a primary product to add value to. And here’s B.C. Veneer, a company that

provided veneer to UBC so that they could make leather out of wood, so that the Premier

could go to Japan with a soccer ball and show the technology that we developed here

in British Columbia.

They can’t get wood. They’re scrambling to get wood from the States, from Oregon,

just to keep the 56 workers they have working and their families fed. That is the

forest industry, and that has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I agree we do need to be united in our fight against Donald Trump and the Americans.

I agree that we need to stand up. We need to get a deal with the Americans on softwood

lumber. We’ve had ten years with this government that has done nothing to get a deal,

absolutely nothing. There’s no leverage. There’s no way to be able to get a deal.

They’re not willing to come to the table because we have put nothing on the table

to actually get them to, to this point. I can tell you, the Premier banning Kentucky

bourbon is not going to do it.

What we should be doing is finding ways to get leverage. I suggested this to the Premier

back in February, and he took it to Ottawa, and I’ve heard nothing since. Let’s put

a carbon tax on thermal coal being shipped out of Vancouver from the United States.

Eighteen million tonnes a year comes through here. Just a small carbon tax would be

a $640 million annual fee that could be collected, that could be accumulated, that

we could use as leverage to try to get a deal with the softwood lumber. If the Americans

say, “You’re not treating us fair,” that we shouldn’t do it, fine. Let’s just ban

shipping thermal coal from the United States through the Port of Vancouver. Enough

is enough.

[2:15 p.m.]

Our trade with Asia has dropped dramatically. Our trade with the U.S. has gone up

under this NDP government. Let’s reverse that. Let’s get our independent trade offices

reopened. Let’s do what we can to get our trade happening in Canada, get the barriers

taken down.

This government has made a little bit of progress with Alberta on some alcohol issues,

but we have a ton of things that we need to be doing across this country. Where’s

the urgency in unity to bring that down, to open up this country? I’m not seeing it

from this government.

There are some other things we can do, more important things, I think, that we need

to be focused on in terms of unity and what we need to be doing as a country and what

we can do as a province.

We are currently giving our Canadian oil to the Americans at a 20 to 30 percent discount.

A 20 to 30 percent discount. We are just giving a gift to the Americans. Why? Because

we can’t get it to international markets. Let’s get out of the way and start supporting

getting our oil offshore so that we can get good value for Canadians and build wealth

for Canadians, not for Americans.

We are currently selling our natural gas out of British Columbia at an 85 percent

discount to the Americans. We’ve got tens of trillions of dollars of natural gas in

this province, and we’re just giving it to the Americans.

It took us 15 years. We got an LNG project going in B.C. Great. Let’s celebrate. This

is a great project for British Columbia. In 12 years, they built 12 LNG projects in

the States, and they’ve got five more being built. Fifteen years to get one project.

We’re selling our natural gas to the Americans, supporting their projects. They’re

liquefying it and getting international prices. What’s wrong with us? What’s wrong

with this province? How is this elbows up?

Enough. Get out of the way. Get our products to market. Stop supporting and subsidizing

the Americans. That is what we need to do and be united behind — taking advantage

of the values, the assets that we have, creating wealth and jobs and prosperity for

people right here in British Columbia.

I stand united with all British Columbians. I know, as the Conservative Party of British

Columbia, we do. We want to see British Columbians prosper. We want to see wealth

generation. We want to see taking advantage of our full assets. We want to make sure

that people want to stay here and live in British Columbia. This is what we are united

on.

That means ideology and governments that refuse to get out of the way need to step

aside so that, as all British Columbians, we can realize our potential and truly be

able to fight back against this unfair process that’s coming from the Americans.

Jeremy Valeriote : British Columbia’s forests are the envy of the world. Stewarded by Indigenous Peoples

for millennia, our old-growth and second-growth forests provide cultural identity,

clean air and a home for our most precious flora and fauna.

It’s true that at this moment, our forests are under attack. A century of extractive

logging practices and shortsighted opportunism has decimated our forests and left

our forestry industry facing mill closures and job losses. Uncertainty and unfair

trade practices from our neighbour to the south are the latest in a series of threats

and challenges to the industry. Forestry is the lifeblood of communities across British

Columbia. We can’t abandon these communities to the whims of the tyrant to the south.

We spend a lot of time talking about said tyrant in this chamber, particularly during

question period. Thankfully, besides talk, we also know what we need to do. We must

come together to protect forests and thereby protect forestry in British Columbia.

We know that the future of forestry must prioritize ecosystem health, it must focus

on local ownership and local jobs, and it must be done in true partnership with First

Nations.

We must make sure that we are thinking long term and managing our forests holistically

to ensure that they and the communities they support can survive this administration

and the ones to follow.

Dallas Brodie : Here we go again. The government’s favourite go-to excuse, playing the Trump card.

This can’t be the answer to all of the government’s failings. We have been witnessing

the decline of B.C.’s forest industry for the last three decades. Of course, none

of us want the tariffs coming from the south, but we are not hapless bystanders on

the issues plaguing our forest industry.

The trouble is that the call is coming from inside the House. We all know that. This

government is the one punishing our forest sector with high corporate taxes, high

stumpage fees and extremely low allowable annual cuts. In fact, stumpage fees in B.C.

are still double what they are in Alberta.

[2:20 p.m.]

Will the Premier blame Donald Trump for that? And why can’t the industry get fibre?

It has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the government’s pro-UNDRIP

policies. This government has ceded its authority over the land to the 200-plus bands

who use Aboriginal title claims to veto projects across British Columbia. That’s the

truth, and the Premier knows it.

And the Leader of the Opposition is no better. What did he promise last year? A strategic

land return to First Nations that would put 20 percent of B.C.’s forested land under

band council control.

Donald Trump did not make this government sign UNDRIP into law. Our forestry sector

does face a crisis, but the Premier should stop looking for scapegoats south of the

border and take a good long look in the mirror. I might add that calling people names

does not help with our relationship with people south of the border.

If he truly wants to help, then his government should cut taxes, stumpage fees and

band council vetoes. This would immediately revive our forest industry. It would bring

dozens of mills and thousands of good-paying jobs back to rural communities across

B.C.

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and

Property Ownership Concerns

of Richmond Residents

Teresa Wat : Richmond residents are confused. They are worried.

This letter from the city says: “The court has declared Aboriginal title to your property

which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership.” Richmond residents

deserve an answer.

Will this Premier defend their right to the homes they own?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This province was the first out of the gate to say that we were appealing the Cowichan

decision. This is precisely because of what the member raised, which is that we are

going to defend the rights of property owners in that area.

We are working with parties, including…. I’ve met with the mayor of the city of Richmond

and some of their councillors. Our legal teams are working together and will continue

to do so.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Teresa Wat : Again, people are afraid. They have heard nothing from the member for Richmond-Steveston,

and they hear silence from this Premier’s Attorney General.

Richmond residents deserve a solution. They deserve a government that will demand

this court case is resolved at the Supreme Court of Canada. There’s an information

session on October 28 where Richmond residents are looking for answers. Our Richmond

Conservative MLAs will be there.

Will this Premier and the NDP MLA for Richmond-Steveston also attend the meeting?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I was not being silent. In fact, I just answered the member’s previous question.

Not only was our government the one to step forward first to say that we’re immediately

appealing the decision. We are hard at work right now with our team of lawyers, because

we will defend the rights of property owners.

We know that people’s ability to buy, sell and mortgage private property is key in

our legal system and our rights of ownership in this province and across this country.

We are hard at work, working not only with the city of Richmond and their council,

with the federal government on grounds of appeal at the Court of Appeal level….

We know that upholding private property rights is very key and critical work along

with the work of reconciliation. This will always be our approach, to resolve outstanding

questions of legal theory, and attack them when we need to and, also, sit down with

First Nations to try to resolve issues and bring forward a final resolution of some

of the past wrongs. We are going to keep at that work, and we won’t give up.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title

Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad : Today the Premier stood and said that he’s going to fight for private property rights,

and I’m happy to hear that. Certainly, that is our goal: to protect private property

rights. However, I did ask this question, and I want to ask it again.

[2:25 p.m.]

When the Premier was Attorney General, instructions were given to the government lawyers

to not argue extinguishment of Indigenous rights where they overlap with private property

rights — in other words, to not argue to protect the rights of private property.

The question, quite frankly, to the Attorney General is simple. Since that is the

direction that was given, how can this government stand and legitimately say that

they are actually trying to protect private property rights?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It is simply not true what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Without getting

into very complicated legal arguments and the details in the 30 minutes that we have

here, what we argued before the Supreme Court of B.C. was displacement and suspension

of Aboriginal title, that a private property right sits above that title so we could

protect the interests of private property owners.

There were, before the court, many arguments. Arguments were based on the case law

and what we thought were the best arguments to protect private landowners. As the

member opposite knows, the city of Richmond did argue extinguishment, and that also

failed at the Supreme Court.

We will continue at it. I’ll just note that in 2014, the Leader of the Opposition

was the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and that was when the

Cowichan decision was first filed. We should be asking for his record on what he did

with that at the time.

The Speaker : The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, this government has had ten years to deal with it. Clearly, they haven’t done

anything with that file, unfortunately, except let it go to court, when it says clearly

that its goal was to not have things go to court.

But I want to ask this. Private property rights are not protected by the Canadian

constitution; Indigenous rights, when it comes to title, are. Indigenous rights allow

for exclusive and beneficial use. This is private property rights.

It’s clear that the city of Richmond explained very clearly that this government,

as well as the federal government, did not argue the extinguishment and protection

of private property rights that they did. There was a very distinct and different

course that was taken by these two governments. Given that our constitution does not

protect private property rights, we need change.

So two things. Will this minister support a direct reference question to the Supreme

Court of Canada so that we can get an answer immediately and not have this uncertainty

lasting five to ten years while we wind through the course, and will this Premier

and this government support the call for changes to the Canadian constitution to enshrine

private property rights?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ll start by addressing the first question from the member of the opposition.

The proposal that’s put on the table to have a reference at the Supreme Court of Canada,

just to be clear what that would do…. It would not consider the actual facts of the

case that’s right now what we will put before the Court of Appeal. It’s not clear

that it would address the legal issues that arose out of the Supreme Court of B.C.

decision that we see would be multiple grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court would

only issue an opinion, which would not be strictly binding and would not immediately

overturn the trial court’s decision.

So we disagree with the member’s suggestion that that would bring any level of certainty,

and we’ll continue on the path of challenging it with all the tools that we have.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Health Framework

Jeremy Valeriote : Our licence plates say: “Beautiful British Columbia,” not “Barren British Columbia.”

Our natural heritage and biodiversity is one of our main economic drivers, and that’s

why we attract over $20 billion in tourism spending annually.

The Peace River watershed alone provides up to $8.6 billion in economic value every

year, and the Lower Mainland’s aquatic systems provide $30 to $60 billion annually.

That is real wealth.

Yet there seems to be a narrative in this House that protecting nature means stifling

economic progress. The truth is the opposite, and if there is a single reason for

the existence of this Third Party, it’s to realize that paradigm shift.

[2:30 p.m.]

This government released their draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework in

2023, but since then, nothing. It isn’t in the minister’s mandate letter, nor in the

2025 service plan.

Our caucus theme for this week is reliability and predictability, and it applies to

the natural environment as much as it does to business, non-profits and particularly

the forest industry.

My question is for the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. When will

this government finalize the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework and back

up its promises with real legislation?

Hon. Randene Neill : Thank you for the question from the Leader of the Third Party.

We know that long-term ecosystem health and biodiversity are absolutely critical not

just to our province in terms of our economic prosperity but also for the health of

all British Columbians.

Our draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework is a recommendation, as you

know as well, from the old-growth strategic review report. The idea is to create that

paradigm shift that you’re talking about.

Part of that is our 30 by 30, our commitment to protect 30 percent of British Columbia’s

lands and waters by 2030, and we’re well on our way to that. All of these efforts

and many more are fundamental to protecting against the worst effects of climate change.

We are excited to continue to move forward with our biodiversity and ecosystem health

framework, and we welcome any discussions with the Leader of the Third Party as well.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Target for

Protection of Lands and Waters

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m glad the minister brought up the 30 by 30 commitment to protect 30 percent of

B.C.’s lands and waters by 2030. Right now only 15 percent of B.C.’s land is permanently

protected. To meet its own commitment, the province must nearly double that number

in the next five years.

This government may claim a higher figure, around 19 percent, by including what it

calls other effective conservation measures. But conservation experts say those don’t

meet international standards for permanent protection. OECMs remain vulnerable to

activities that directly harm biodiversity.

In just six years, this government’s pro-development predecessor protected way more

of B.C.’s land base than this government has in eight years.

Again to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, how does this government

portray itself as green while falling behind on its promise to protect 30 percent

of B.C.’s land and waters, and when will it finally deliver on this crucial commitment?

Hon. Randene Neill : Once again 30 by 30 is absolutely dear to my heart, and we are absolutely not falling

behind. In fact, we hope to reach 30 by 30 by even earlier, and I think that’s a commitment

that we’re all committed to on both sides of this House.

We know how important it is to protect our lands and waters in British Columbia. At

the end of the day, that is all we have. If we’re not able to have healthy, secure

watersheds and water supply, we put all of our health at risk. When we get out into

the back doors and we enjoy the back country, we fall in love with it. And when we

fall in love with something, we want to protect it.

This should be a non-partisan issue. This should be something that we all work towards

together, because it’s incredibly important not just for the health of British Columbians

but for the future of all of us.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title

Court Case and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie : A judge has decided that homes in Richmond are now owned by the Cowichan Tribes because

their great-grandparents once fished there. That is Aboriginal title.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Member, please continue.

Dallas Brodie : There are 200 more bands in B.C. with their own Aboriginal title claims. Judges have

the legal authority to give away every square inch of this province, including your

home, as long as Aboriginal title remains in our constitution.

Property rights are the foundation of Western civilization. Aboriginal title is an

existential threat to that civilization.

My question is for the Premier. Will he support constitutional reform to legally extinguish

Aboriginal title?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We take a different view than the member on many things, including this one. The

work of reconciliation and sitting down with First Nations across this province to

resolve historic wrong and to bring certainty to the land is the path forward. It’s

a path that we will continue to take, and it’s an important one.

I’ve already talked quite extensively about our approach in this legal matter that

we’ll continue to take to uphold private property rights, and we will continue to

work with First Nations to bring agreements and certainty to the land.

[2:35 p.m.]

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Legislation on

Indigenous Rights Documentation

and Meetings

Dallas Brodie : It’s no secret that the Premier supports Aboriginal title. So does the Leader of

the so-called official opposition. They both support UNDRIP and its never-ending giveaways.

Recently we learned that in 2021, B.C.’s freedom-of-information law was amended to

block public disclosure of any documents related to Indigenous rights. Now the Premier

wants local governments to meet secretly with Aboriginal groups as well.

If the Premier is so proud of giving away public land, money and power, then why is

he passing laws to keep it all being done in secret?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I’d remind the member, when it comes to this House, that asking questions around

legislation that is on the floor of the House to be debated and questioned during

the committee stage of the bill is inappropriate. Her questions she can ask during

the appropriate stage when that legislation is being discussed in the House.

Obstetric and Gynecological

Health Care Services

Peter Milobar : The unfortunate resignation of seven ob-gyns, the whole department, in Kamloops should

not have come as a shock to this government or to this minister, given that for the

last several years they have been trying to get changes and agreements negotiated

with this government both around ob-gyn services, the TRFO and midwifery clinics in

Kamloops. In fact, they thought they had a deal with this government just before the

last election. Then, like every other election promise this government did, it disappeared

after the election.

A year later the ob-gyns, facing burnout and fear for patient safety, crafted a letter

to Interior Health and the Minister of Health letting them know that they needed to

see the changes or they would have to consider resignation. That was on October 1.

Nine days later at 4:30 on a Friday of a long weekend, Interior Health notified the

ob-gyns that there would be no further negotiations — that, in fact, their resignations

would be accepted and the government and Interior Health were done negotiating.

How does the minister explain firing seven ob-gyns instead of actually negotiating

for patient safety and physician safety in Kamloops?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and raising the very serious issue around

providing maternity services to people in Kamloops and the region, which, of course,

is absolutely critical, and people need to know that it is there for them.

I want to start off my answer by assuring people that for anybody who is going into

labour or is experiencing serious risks in their pregnancy, they should always present

at Royal Inland Hospital and that the care will be there for people to continue to

work with their primary care providers during this time.

The ob-gyns have been negotiating with Interior Health, and that work continues. Interior

Health has made it very clear that they are willing to sit down and talk with, and

they are talking with and have been for months, as the member indicates, on this.

Interior Health has also heard from at least a dozen other ob-gyns who are interested

in prospective employment, and they are discussing that with them as well.

It’s just so important that we continue to take all the steps necessary to make sure

that these services remain robust particularly at a time, as we have canvassed often

in this House, around the shortage of specialists and the shortage of physicians that

we’re experiencing.

That’s why Interior Health will continue to take these steps. They will continue to

recruit. They will continue to talk with the physicians. It is my expectation, and

I have made it very clear, that I expect the physicians and Interior Health to sit

down, negotiate together and to continue to put the patients’ interests first.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar : Well, that answer simply doesn’t hold up. The reality is they’ve been begging for

two other ob-gyns to be recruited into Kamloops over the last couple of years, and

they haven’t been able to fill those spots. Yet now the minister wants us to believe

they’re going to magically find seven to replace the seven they just fired because

they didn’t want to keep negotiating.

The 12 the minister mentions are not credentialed in Canada. It would take years of

shadowing before they would actually be up to steam, because they actually applied

previously and were deemed to be not acceptable to fit into the ob-gyn services within

Kamloops already.

There’s a very simple way. The minister keeps saying they’re negotiating. Interior

Health has told the doctors that negotiations are over and done, that the ministry

and Interior Health are done with this.

[2:40 p.m.]

Will the minister table, present, unredacted, the email that Interior Health sent

on October 10, which was before the final letter of resignation from these doctors

that everyone is talking about? Will she table and present to this House that document,

that email, that 4:30 on the Friday of the long weekend said negotiations were over,

the ministry and Interior Health were done, and thank you very much for your services,

ob-gyns, but we’re done with you?

Hon. Josie Osborne : As I just stated, it is my expectation that Interior Health will continue to work

with the physicians and that they will continue to undertake the work on hiring more

and finalizing a contract…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member. Member.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …that will significantly increase compensation to fill vacancies. In the meantime,

Interior Health continues in recruiting and attracting locums to fill spots.

I want to be very clear that physicians don’t just submit a resignation letter and

then walk out the door. They have duties to uphold, and that includes a 90-day transition

period. That is time for Interior Health to continue working on this file and to continue

working with these ob-gyns. It is my hope that perhaps some of them will change their

approach.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne : The member talks about credentialing taking, I think he said, years. That’s why this

government has been working so hard to reduce credentialing and licensure. For physicians,

particularly coming from places like the U.S., it is now measured in months, not years.

In fact, we are working to get that down to weeks because we know that is one tool

that we can use to continue to bring more physicians and more health care workers

to this province to strengthen the health care system so that people have the health

care that they need, when they need it and where they need it.

Jody Toor : Fraser Health Authority is the biggest health authority in the province. A simple

question to the minister on women’s health.

How many gynecological oncologists are currently in the Fraser Health Authority? I’m

not looking for long answers; I’m looking for a simple answer. What’s the number?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

Gyne-oncology services are something that are incredibly important for women, people

who are experiencing cancers of a certain kind. Of course, attracting those physicians

to B.C. and increasing the number has been part of the work we have been doing in

expanding these services.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, let the minister finish.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We have made a commitment to establish gyne-oncology services in the Fraser Health

Authority. We are working towards that.

In the meantime, we have expanded these services in Kelowna, and that has significantly

brought down the wait time for people in the Fraser Health area who are able to travel

next door to Vancouver Coastal Health.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We are going to continue this work, working towards establishing these services in

Fraser Health.

I’ll wait for the second answer to continue.

Anna Kindy : I’m going to answer that question for the minister. Fraser Health has 2.2 million

people. It’s the biggest health authority in British Columbia, and it has zero gynecological

cancer surgeons. The Ministry of Health had promised three positions for Fraser Health.

Thinking about that and thinking about what’s happening in Kamloops…. We’re talking

about resignation of seven ob-gyns. I’m not sure that the minister understands that

obstetrical emergencies are emergencies, and Kamloops is a tertiary care centre. People

go to Kamloops for complex obstetrical care.

I’ve heard from an ob-gyn surgeon who told me that women’s health is “a mess” in B.C.

and that this mess is brewing everywhere.

Does the minister agree with this statement?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question. I want to thank her, too, for her care

and attention to women’s health, because I share that passion with her.

We are talking about gynecological oncology and the services, and the member has talked

about the services that are or are not available in Fraser Health. I really want her

to understand and this House to understand that as we expand these services, and have

done so in Kelowna, we have brought down the wait times for women in the Fraser Health

area.

Previously only four in ten people were receiving their surgeries within the target

times, and now, because people can get that service in Kelowna — which is available

to people from the North and from all areas of the Interior, not having to travel

down to the Lower Mainland — it means that nine out of ten women are meeting those

surgical timelines. This is a phenomenal increase in capacity and service for people.

We are going to continue this work in expanding out in the Fraser Health Authority.

In the meantime, yes, women do travel across the border of the health authorities

into Vancouver Coastal so that they can access these services. Fraser Health has expanded

the pre- and postoperative capacity in Fraser Health, which minimizes the number of

trips that people need to do into Vancouver Coastal Health.

This government is deeply committed to women’s health. We have taken extraordinary

steps in past years, including the introduction of free contraception, for example.

We will continue to support reproductive health and the rights of women, not as all

members of this House will. I have to emphasize that it is so deeply important that

we continue to do this work, and it will not stop.

Transplant Waiting List Case

Kristina Loewen : Lyndsay Richholt is a Kelowna mother who was given six months to live, and then she

was wait-listed for ten. She has a transplant match, yet she has just become another

wait-listed number left to die in the system.

Why are women like Lyndsay having to fight for their lives in a system that’s supposed

to protect them? When will this government realize that their incompetence and inaction

is leading to the unnecessary deaths of women in this province?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I thank the member for bringing up a particular case. I think the member understands

that I cannot stand here and speak to individual cases, but I would welcome her, as

many members of the opposition have done, to approach me directly, to come to my office

about specific casework so that I can work with them to do everything I can to support

their constituents.

Regardless of the political party that anybody chose to run for, it is my commitment

as the Minister of Health to work with my staff to serve all members of this House

in undertaking this kind of work.

We are, as I have said, a government deeply committed to women’s health, a government

that is working hard to fill the gaps that were left for us — to strengthen our health

care system, investing billions of dollars in new infrastructure, attracting 1,000

family doctors through the establishment of a new family physician payment model,

working to reduce the time it takes to credential and license here in B.C., attracting

more physicians than ever before so that we can ensure that people like the member

speaks of do not fall through gaps. That is the last thing that anybody in this House

wants to do.

I invite everybody to stand united with me and this government to do this work in

recruiting physicians and health care workers so that we can deliver the health care

to people that they need.

Women’s Health Care Services

Claire Rattée : When it comes to women’s health, this government’s record is shameful. In Kitimat,

more than 700 women were left waiting for gynecologic surgeries due to a lack of basic

equipment.

The Kitimat General Hospital Foundation, with donations from industry and small businesses,

had to step up, fundraising for an ultrasound table, most of a CT scanner, a TOCO

transducer and a Fluent fluid management system so that those surgeries could finally

be done locally. They’ve done more for women’s health in three years than this government

has in ten.

Does this minister believe communities should be forced to fundraise millions of dollars

for basic women’s health care?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for her work in supporting women’s health

as well. But I have to completely disagree with her characterization of our approach

to supporting women and women’s health.

As I said, we are providing free contraceptives. We are expanding the scope of practice

of pharmacists to prescribe those contraceptives.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’ve improved patient access to IUDs, to cervical anaesthetic, by increasing physician

compensation in those areas, paying family physicians who also provide care at maternity

clinics through the LFP program, developing a service contract model for midwives

to support them in the work that they do in their full scope of practice and upholding

the rights of people who are pregnant to make decisions for their bodies for themselves.

Starting next spring we will, with support from the federal government, be providing

free public coverage for hormone replacement therapy. We have invested in in vitro

fertilization, helping families and women achieve the goals that they have in starting

their own family.

I won’t take anything from the other side that says we do not support women’s health,

because that is absolutely not true.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I hate to bring a different light to how we understand success when it comes to women’s

health in this province. In one of the most critical times of a woman’s life, bringing

a new child into the world, this government has thrust them into an uphill battle

just to access care.

When women do not feel safe either walking in the streets or lying in a hospital bed,

and they are surrounded by chaos, how can we accept the answers given by this government

today that they care about women and women’s health? We have heard story after story,

and the suffering is only compounded by the ERs that are closed, by the pediatric

wards that are shut down and by the ob-gyn teams that are driven out.

This minister talks about crossing boundaries of health authorities, but we know that

many people who want to receive care in a timely manner actually have to cross to

the States and pay out of pocket.

My question is very simple. In terms of commitments, commitments actually do not save

lives. Doctors and nurses do.

I just would like to ask the minister one simple question. How many women have to

die before this government takes women’s health seriously?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I will proudly stand here and defend this government’s record on supporting women,

supporting reproductive rights and doing everything that we can to help women and

their families thrive.

The member talks about people crossing borders and crossing into the U.S. to pay out

of pocket. Well, I think often about what life would be like if they were on this

side of the House, and I can tell you that people would be paying out of pocket because

they would bring in two-tier….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Members, come to order.

Hon. Josie Osborne : They would be bringing in two-tier health care, enabling people with the money to

get to the front of the line,

whereas this government….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : This government will stand for fair, equal access to universal health care every

single day.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. Diana Gibson : I have the honour to present the annual report of the chief records officer.

I have the honour of presenting the annual report on the administration of the Freedom

of Information and Privacy Act.

Hon. Anne Kang : I have the honour to present the B.C. Arts Council annual report, 2024-25, and supporting

documentation.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I rise with pleasure to present the B.C. Treaty Commission annual report, 2025, and

thank the commissioners and all nations for working together to find agreement and

build a better province.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I have the honour of presenting two reports today.

The first one, I respectfully present the approved guarantees and indemnities report

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, in accordance with the Financial Administration

Act,

section 72(8).

[2:55 p.m.]

The second, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present

reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, on all amounts borrowed by government

and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of

the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal ’24-25.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have the honour to table the Environmental Appeal Board 2024-25 annual report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle

Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We will call this House back to order. We will ask our minister

to introduce Bill 27.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes to amend the listed acts as follows. The proposed amendments to

the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter expand the existing framework under which

a local government council or board meeting may or must be closed to the public to

include circumstances related to the protection of sensitive Indigenous heritage,

knowledge and expressions; and protection of confidential information related to intergovernmental

negotiations.

The amendments consist of two parts.

They allow a council or board meeting to be closed when the subject matter being considered

relates to information that would be prohibited from disclosure under

section 18.1

of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which protects information

that, if disclosed, would harm the cultural practices or traditional knowledge of

any Indigenous People.

The amendments also expand an existing provision to require that a council or board

meeting be closed if it relates to the consideration of confidential information relating

to negotiations involving local governments and First Nations. However, a council

or board will still need to pass bylaws and make decisions in open meetings.

These proposed legislative changes respond to requests for amendments received from

local governments and First Nations and are expected to support local governments

in building relationships with First Nations, advancing reconciliation and fostering

government-to-government relationships while balancing the principle of open, transparent

governance through their targeted scope.

The amendments to the School Act and consequential amendments to the Expropriation

Act are in response to the May 23, 2025, decision of the British Columbia Supreme

Court, BCSC, in which the court ordered the province to enact legislation within six

months to provide for the expropriation of private property for the provision of francophone

schooling by le Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, commonly

referred to as the CSF.

For context, the CSF was established by the province in 1996 for the purpose of providing

publicly funded francophone schooling to

section 23 rights holders. The province takes

our constitutional obligations under

section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms to facilitate minority francophone education very seriously.

[3:00 p.m.]

The CSF is the sole French-language school district in British Columbia and serves

and each serves a designated geographic region.

The 59 anglophone school districts are commonly referred to as majority boards of

education. Currently the School Act permits majority boards of education the power

to expropriate land and improvements within their school district without the approval

of the minister.

The CSF does not have any expropriation authority. The recent B.C. Supreme Court order

directed the province to enact legislation granting the CSF expropriation authority.

The proposed amendments grant the CSF a new authority to expropriate lands and improvements

for francophone schooling, subject to approval by the Minister of Infrastructure.

Further, the amendments align expropriation powers for majority boards with those

being provided to the CSF, by requiring ministerial approval of expropriation powers

for anglophone boards of education. Requiring approval of the minister for all 60

boards of education aligns the legislation with existing approval processes. The changes

to the Expropriation Act are consequential to these changes to the School Act.

Lastly, these amendments meet the requirements of the court decision.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Minister, for opening debate on Bill 27 this afternoon.

Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I am honoured to rise in the House in support of Bill 27 and the proposed amendments

to the School Act and the Expropriation Act.

As the Minister of Infrastructure, one of my key responsibilities is major capital

project planning services and delivery for schools. It is a responsibility, as members

of the House know, that affects our most precious resource: our children and their

futures. These amendments support the delivery of capital planning for all 60 school

districts in the province.

The amendments will do two things.

The first thing that it will do is formalize existing practices by requiring ministerial

approval prior to a school district expropriating private property. Expropriation

is considered a tool of last resort that school districts have used only three times

in the last ten years.

The second thing the amendments do is extend the authority to expropriate private

property to the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, known as

the CSF.

I could definitely benefit from additional French lessons, and I would’ve in high

school as well. It was a long time ago.

The CSF is B.C.’s only francophone school district and has a provincewide mandate

to deliver schooling in French to francophone students.

This amendment provides the CSF with the same powers of expropriation as all of the

other 59 boards of education. The province takes its constitutional obligations under

section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms very seriously. These obligations

require that the province fund and facilitate minority francophone education in many

communities in British Columbia, and these amendments do just that.

In addition, this portion of the amendments respond to the May 23, 2025, British Columbia

Supreme Court decision directing the province to provide the CSF with expropriation

power.

The changes in Bill 27 align B.C.’s expropriation powers with many other Canadian

provinces where ministerial approval is required before a school authority can expropriate

land and where there is no distinction in expropriation powers between minority- and

majority-language school boards.

More broadly, these amendments will support our work to build the schools that families

need in their communities.

We are making historic investments in school capital so that all students can have

the best educational experience possible. Since 2017 the province has invested over

$6.6 billion in school capital, which has resulted in almost 46,500 new student spaces

and over 39,000 additional seismically safe seats in B.C. schools. Of these new seats,

over 20,000 are completed and 26,500 are currently underway.

We will continue to work with all school boards to support education throughout British

Columbia and expand access for families, because students deserve the opportunity

to learn in the best environments possible.

These amendments support our ongoing work to deliver for families, for communities

and for future generations. There is, of course, more work ahead, and we’re committed

to doing it in partnership with all school boards across B.C.

[3:05 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 27, a piece of legislation which may

at first glance appear modest but in fact raises important questions about the proper

role of school boards, local governance, property rights and accountability in our

province. I will be speaking to

part 1 today.

Bill 27 enacts a number of amendments.

part 1, it amends the School Act and the Expropriation Act. It clarifies when and

how school boards and francophone education authorities may acquire, hold, dispose

of or expropriate land for improvements. It also imposes new prior approval requirements

for the minister.

Additionally, bringing equal opportunities and requirements of francophone CSF district

schools is warranted. These changes are worthy of support in principle because they

aim to clarify boards’ authority to use land for educational and housing needs while

introducing stronger oversight for significant actions like expropriation, which is

a sensible balancing of local flexibility with accountability to taxpayers and the

provincial government.

A guiding principle for this side of the aisle is that decisions should be made as

locally as possible by those closest to the communities affected. Yet decisions that

can have large fiscal or property rights ramifications must carry appropriate checks.

Bill 27 does this in several key ways. It enables school boards to acquire and hold

land for improvements for truly educational purposes, including student or employee

housing, outdoor spaces. That empowers districts to respond to local conditions.

At the same time, when a board wishes to acquire land or expropriate land, Bill 27

requires prior ministerial approval. This is a reasonable check. The public interest,

tax dollars and property rights are at stake. In short, local school boards are still

enabled, but with oversight.

Expropriation, taking private property for public use, is, by definition, a significant

governmental intrusion. Bill 27 rightly emphasizes that such powers should not be

used lightly. The new wording clearly states that a board may expropriate land within

its school district. But then it says that the board must not expropriate land without

prior approval of the minister. Moreover, Bill 27 ensures that this approval is not

the same as the approval required under

section 18 of the Expropriation Act, thereby

preserving the legal safeguards surrounding expropriation.

These are important protections. They prevent boards from unilaterally wielding expropriation

powers without oversight. This is reasonable. Property rights matter, and taxpayers

must have transparency when governments seek to take or transform property.

Clarity of legislative authority and transparent decision-making also matter. Bill

27 replaces older, more tangled sections of the School Act and Expropriation Act with

clear language defining “land” to include any interest, clarifying the board’s powers,

specifying when approvals are needed. This clarity is good. When laws are understandable,

boards can act confidently, citizens know what to expect, and accountability is higher.

To strengthen transparency, we should insist that once land is disposed of, the proceeds

be accounted for properly. They should not disappear into general budgets without

trace. That kind of oversight ensures public trust.

No bill is without its risks. From a conservative vantage point, several caution flags

should be raised. The phrase “housing accommodation for students or employees,” which

I believe is in

part 2, actually, is laudable, but if left loosely defined, it could

lead to boards expanding into real estate speculation or expansive employee housing

that bears little relation to core educational objectives. The ministerial approval

regime must be active, not passive.

Even with oversight, expropriation remains a heavy tool. Boards will need to demonstrate

actual need of public benefit. The process must protect landowners’ rights and ensure

fair compensation.

Subsection (5) allows disposal, subject to the orders of the minister, but what guarantee

is there that realized value of disposed assets is reinvested in educational purposes

rather than diverted elsewhere?

[3:10 p.m.]

I would like a clear framework. Proceeds stay in the educational system in the district

in which they were acquired, are reinvested locally and are reported transparently.

How does Bill 15 come into effect? Would there be motive or provisions for the minister

to work outside the school districts to start an expropriation process?

These are matters that I will bring up at the committee stage.

To ensure that Bill 27 delivers its promise, I offer the following implementation

recommendations. Boards proposing expropriation should be required to publish a clear

rationale, cost-benefit analysis, alternatives considered, how the acquisition supports

student outcomes and how they will protect landowners’ rights and compensation. When

boards dispose of land or improvements, the proceeds should be assigned to a designated

fund locally, with annual reporting on how the funds were used, ensuring public oversight.

I would like to see that the minister carry out periodic audits of boards, land portfolios,

acquisitions, holdings and disposals to ensure that boards are acting prudently, delivering

on the educational purpose and avoiding excessive risk or speculation.

In British Columbia, our schools are the bedrock of our society. They influence not

only academic outcomes but community stability, teacher retention, student well-being

and local identity.

From my lens, enabling communities to build what they need, where they need it, without

unnecessary red tape, is a positive move. But we must guard against unintended consequences.

If left unchecked, boards might venture into real estate deals, landholding for speculative

purposes or expropriation as a default rather than a last resort. We must keep the

focus on students and teachers and not land portfolios.

Additionally, the clarity about ministerial approval seeks to prevent jurisdictional

confusion and unintended financial burdens on taxpayers. That is critical in a province

where many school districts are already feeling stretched. Careful governance, transparent

oversight and clear communication are essential.

In conclusion, in principle I support Bill 27. It acknowledges important realities

that schools need land and improvements, that boards require flexibility, that property

rights must be respected and that oversight matters. That said, support must come

with vigilance.

My call to the government, the minister, school boards and this Legislature is the

following. Let us ensure that ministerial approval processes are robust. Let us track

and report every major acquisition and disposal with public performance metrics and

outcomes for students and the community. Let us safeguard property rights and ensure

expropriation remains a tool of last resort, subject to full accountability. Let us

focus relentlessly on students and educators, because that is why we have school districts

and boards and pass laws like these in the first place.

If we do these things, Bill 27 can indeed become a positive step, enabling smarter

infrastructure and better educational environments. If we fail to exercise appropriate

guardrails, we risk mission creep, tax burden and diminished trust.

I will be supporting second reading with a clear understanding that with great flexibility

comes great responsibility. Let us ensure that the power is granted to lead to tangible

outcomes tomorrow — better classrooms, better support for students and teachers, responsible

stewardship of public assets and a stronger commitment to local communities.

I look forward to the committee stage work, to work with colleagues to refine and

implement these changes.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Today I’m pleased to speak to proposed amendments to the Community Charter and the

Vancouver Charter that will allow local governments to hold closed meetings under

specific circumstances when discussing confidential or culturally sensitive information

shared by First Nations.

[3:15 p.m.]

These changes were driven directly by local governments, with strong leadership from

the Union of B.C. Municipalities. UBCM passed resolutions in 2017 and 2023 calling

for these amendments, and municipalities across B.C. have consistently voiced their

support.

The city of Vancouver also formally requested changes to the Vancouver Charter to

enable in-camera government-to-government negotiations between the city of Vancouver

and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

I’d like to share a couple quotes of support from local governments.

Mayor Ross Siemens of Abbotsford shared that the city of Abbotsford supports the proposed

changes to the Community Charter’s closed-meeting provisions, saying: “This legislative

update will assist all communities in fostering respectful government-to-government

relationships with First Nations and advancing reconciliation through confidential

trust-building dialogue.”

I’ll also share a quote from Mayor Richard Stewart from Coquitlam: “Reconciliation

is a key priority at the city of Coquitlam, and we have actively committed to strengthening

relationships with local First Nations through open and honest conversations. These

proposed official changes to the Community Charter are intended to enable local governments

and First Nations to meet to advance government-to-government relationships, which

includes the sharing of confidential and culturally sensitive First Nations traditional

knowledge.”

These amendments bring local government in line with provincial and federal practices,

which already allow closed meetings for similar reasons. So let me be clear. Transparency

remains a core principle of local governance. These changes do not alter the requirement

that decisions, bylaws and final votes must still be made in public meetings. What’s

changing is the ability to hold closed meetings in very specific circumstances when

discussing confidential or culturally sensitive information shared by First Nations

or during intergovernmental negotiations.

This isn’t about avoiding public scrutiny. It’s about respecting Indigenous rights,

protecting sensitive cultural knowledge and creating space for trust-based collaboration.

These are situations where public disclosure could cause harm — for example, revealing

the location of sacred sites or sharing details of ongoing negotiations.

The scope of these changes is narrow and clearly defined. Councils and boards remain

accountable to their communities, and the province will provide guidance to ensure

these new provisions are used appropriately. This is a step forward in reconciliation,

requested by local governments repeatedly, and it reflects the province’s commitment

to supporting local governments and to supporting respectful government-to-government

relationships.

Again, this work responds to numerous requests, and these changes would allow local

governments and First Nations to collaborate and build trust. New closed-meeting rules

will only apply in specific situations, to balance out those requests from local governments

and the important government-to-government work that they have on their plate with

a commitment to continuing to uphold the priorities of transparency and respectful

collaboration.

There will be no changes to requirements about final decisions, and the province will

be available to provide guidance as local governments navigate and make informed choices

under the new rules.

I thought it would be helpful to provide an example about where these new rules might

come into play. Here is one of a number of tangible examples we have heard from local

governments as to why these changes are needed.

A local government wants to approve a certain land use for a specific site that would

impact a First Nation’s traditional use of a river as a bathing site. The First Nation

doesn’t want to provide the detailed location of the site in a public meeting, to

protect the site from increased public use or from vandalism or illegal scavenging

or more.

[3:20 p.m.]

In that example, the First Nation and the local council could meet in an in-camera

meeting to discuss impacts of a proposed land change on the sacred or cultural or

spiritual use of the site, but the final land use decision and related bylaws would

still need to be decided in an open public meeting.

We’ve heard similar examples related to this request from local governments when talking

about sacred or spiritual sites — similarly, conversations related to traditional

Indigenous knowledge — where understandably, a nation wants to protect some portion

of that knowledge or specific site locations while working government to government

on good outcomes, and those outcomes still being transparently made in the public

eye and communicated to the public.

These are important balances to be made, and that’s why local governments have continued

to request this change from the province and why we have worked closely with local

leaders and the Union of B.C. Municipalities on these changes.

I, again, think it’s important to reflect that these are provisions that local governments

already have in place in their government-to-government work with the provincial government

and with the federal government. Expanding those same provisions to allow for government-to-government

work with nations where important land use decisions are being made will allow for

improved coordination and communication that allow those local governments to deliver

on their priorities and that support interest in partnership and trust-building and

collaboration.

I can speak to my own experience in the city of Vancouver, where…. I spoke earlier

to the city of Vancouver’s specific request for this change in addition to two resolutions

passed at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The city of Vancouver is doing important

work in collaboration with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations on the delivery of housing, on support for members of those nations living

within the city’s boundaries, as well as other Indigenous, First Nations residents

in those boundaries.

Important government-to-government conversations should be able to happen, as they

do with other levels of government, where there’s sensitive and culturally significant

information while maintaining a commitment to public transparency.

I can say, as well, and it’s reflected in the two quotes that I read as well as support

from a broad number of local governments, that there is incredible work happening,

led by local governments and regional districts around this province in partnership

with First Nations, to deliver on affordable housing, access to lands, park use and

a whole number of shared regional and provincial priorities, where these partnerships

allow us to do more for more people all across the province.

This important work, again, requested by local governments, in line with what is already

at stake or in place for local governments related to provincial and federal governments….

This is a small amendment that allows that partnership work and collaboration to continue,

and I strongly support it.

Larry Neufeld : I think most people in this House would be aware that I am an engineer, and as such,

I am driven to find efficiencies in everything that I can. I do want to recognize

the fantastic contribution of the folks that look after us in this House.

Please don’t take any offence at me taking the efficiency of grabbing the podium from

my colleague. No offence intended. We certainly appreciate your contributions, without

question.

The other reason that I’m happy to speak in support of Bill 27 is, again, my drive

toward efficiency. Bill 27, of course, is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2) of 2025.

[3:25 p.m.]

While this bill may appear technical in nature, it carries significance for how we

build schools and how governments at every level relate to one another. It touches

two critical pillars of governance, education and intergovernmental relations, and

both deserve thorough scrutiny.

As Conservatives, we support pragmatic legislation that removes barriers, increases

fairness and respects accountability. Bill 27 achieves a part of that goal, if not

a good portion of that goal, but as with many omnibus amendments, the details demand

vigilance.

and francophone school boards. For decades, school district 93 has operated without

the same authority to purchase or expropriate land for the purpose of building new

schools. This imbalance created real-world consequences. Those included overcrowded

classrooms, delays in building approvals and missed opportunities to serve francophone

families who value education in both of Canada’s official languages.

The Conservative Party supports this correction. It recognizes linguistic equality

and administrative consistency. It means all boards can now respond to growth and

demographics without needless provincial bottlenecks. Yet with every new authority

must come oversight.

Expropriation is not a casual tool. It is the most coercive instrument government

holds over private citizens. When we empower school boards to take land, we must ensure

that property rights are respected, that fair compensation is transparent and that

ministerial approvals, those of us that are held to account by the electorate, remain

more than just a formality.

We therefore call on the Minister of Education to publish clear public guidelines

to be followed whenever expropriation is contemplated, guidelines that ensure landowners

are treated with dignity and that boards justify each and every acquisition and do

it in a public manner.

Modernizing the School Act is wise, but modernization without transparency invites

mistrust. We will support this portion of the bill while urging government to reinforce

procedural fairness through policy, not merely through statute.

Where we urge caution, in addition, is in the expanded authority to meet in camera.

While my esteemed colleague did speak of some examples where that may be appropriate,

holding closed-door discussions, I would caution, between municipalities and Indigenous

governments can potentially lead to mistrust. Again, I respect and honour the comments

that were made by my colleague.

To say further, confidentiality can at times be necessary to foster trust and reach

agreements in good faith, as has been stated. That being said, the Conservative Party

of British Columbia maintains that transparency must remain the default, not the exception.

Too often residents learn after the fact that decisions affecting land use, taxation

or shared services were made privately with minimal disclosure. My concern is that

this undermines the credibility of everyone at the table, or potentially does, municipal,

provincial or Indigenous.

We therefore encourage government to pair these amendments with a public reporting

requirement, a short

summary after each in-camera meeting outlining the purpose, the

scope and any non-confidential outcomes. In my estimation, doing so would maintain

public confidence without compromising sensitive negotiations.

This bill demonstrates that effective governance is often about alignment, not reinvention.

By updating the School Act and the municipal charters, Bill 27 brings clarity where

confusion once existed. It ensures consistency across education systems and across

levels of government. Yet we must guard against the temptation to treat technical

amendments as simply routine.

[3:30 p.m.]

Each clause carries long-term implications for how power is used or can be used. We

as legislators owe it to British Columbians to ensure that such power remains checked

by oversight, accountability and, beyond all, public trust.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia believes in principled decentralization,

placing authority closer to those who are affected by it but within a framework of

rigorous transparency. Bill 27 does indeed move in that direction, and we will support

it while holding government to the standards that good governance demands.

In closing, Bill 27 is not dramatic legislation, and that, in my estimation, is its

strength. It addresses real gaps that have hindered education delivery and intergovernmental

collaboration. We, on this side of the House, support the bill because it is technically

sound, administratively rational and socially fair.

Our support, as stated previously, however, comes with an exception, the exception

being that these powers will be used judiciously, that citizens will be kept informed

and that transparency will remain the cornerstone of public trust.

Jeremy Valeriote : The Third Party caucus welcomes these proposed changes that would afford the same

privilege and confidentiality to First Nations as we do to other governments with

respect to negotiations between governments.

The proposed amendments allow or require local governments to hold closed meetings

when discussing culturally sensitive and confidential information, but they don’t

change requirements to make final decisions in open meetings.

Cori Ramsay of the UBCM, Union of British Columbia Municipalities, said her group

and First Nations requested the changes, saying they give nations the same level of

confidentiality that other levels of government receive, which is fair.

These proposed changes are a step forward in recognizing the nation-to-nation relationship

between Indigenous communities and municipal governments. This is not about exclusion.

This is about ensuring that First Nations receive the same level of confidentiality,

and it’s about creating a more just and respectful way of working together.

We support these changes, and we stand firmly against any rhetoric that seeks to diminish

Indigenous sovereignty, silence Indigenous voices or question the legitimacy of Indigenous

ways of governance.

With respect to expropriating land for francophone schools, we support this change

but wish it came with commensurate support for other languages, including Indigenous

languages, and we urge the government’s consideration be given to that eventuality.

Jordan Kealy : I rise today to speak to Bill 27 and to the quiet but significant shift of power

it represents, a bill that on the surface looks procedural, administrative, even harmless.

But beneath its technical language, this bill reaches deep into two pillars of democracy:

property rights and government transparency.

I will speak very directly, when it comes to my region, that I have actually seen

the effects of hidden transparency when it comes to the effects of caribou protection

in my region and transparency being hidden with the current government and how that

was done and the consultation that happened with my region. When it finally did come

out to the public, it caused mass confusion and a lot of problems.

I urge this government to encourage transparency in the biggest way forward, especially….

I fully endorse First Nations and their cultural practices. We have to learn about

them. The best way to learn about them is to actually have them out in the open so

that people know about them, not hide them behind closed doors.

I think the truth is what people want to hear, and if it comes out at the last moment,

after a decision has already being made…. In my region, that’s where I saw a lot of

racism come out, and it wasn’t a nice thing to see.

[3:35 p.m.]

My first concern. Bill 27 repeals and rewrites

section 96 of the School Act. It now

gives school boards and francophone authorities the explicit power to acquire, hold

and expropriate land not just for classrooms but for staff housing, student housing,

board offices and outdoor facilities.

That’s a sweeping definition of educational purposes. This means that a school board,

with ministerial approval, could take private land, land that someone’s family has

worked for generations, and call it educational. And the safeguard? A single minister’s

signature.

The bill even states that the ministerial approval for expropriation is not approval

under the Expropriation Act, meaning it may bypass the very process that ensures notice,

hearings and fairness for affected landowners.

When the government rewrites laws to make it easier to take land, every British Columbian

should pay attention, because this isn’t just about new classrooms. It’s about state

power over private property power that can be used or abused, depending on who holds

the pen.

My second concern under this bill is that the minister becomes the gatekeeper of local

land decision. A school board can’t expropriate without the minister’s approval, but

the criteria for that approval is nowhere to be found — no public list, no clear process,

no right of appeal. That means decisions affecting entire communities can be made

in Victoria behind a desk with no obligation to explain the reasoning. That’s not

oversight. That’s control.

We’ve seen this pattern before, local decision-making eroded, provincial power expanded

and transparency quietly replaced by ministerial discretion.

Bill 27 also changes the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter, expanding the

reasons that city councils can meet in secret. It introduces new clauses that allow

and require closed meetings when the discussions involve Indigenous entities or information

harmful to Indigenous interests under FOIPPA.

Now, reconciliation is important. Protecting sensitive cultural information is important.

But if we start closing doors more often than we open them, we lose one of the cornerstones

of democracy — public accountability. Municipal councils already struggle with the

balance between privacy and transparency. This bill tips that balance too far. It

normalizes secrecy. It creates a culture where closed becomes the default, not the

exception.

What’s more, it gives the cabinet the power to decide who qualifies as an Indigenous

entity — no clear definition, no published criteria, just regulation at the discretion

of the cabinet. That’s a dangerous level of ambiguity, because when the government

decides who counts as government, it’s already forgotten what democracy means.

Put these two pieces together, new powers to expropriate land and new powers to close

public meetings, and you start to see the architecture of quiet control. On their

own, each change could be defended as administrative fine-tuning. Together they point

to a steady trend: less transparency, less accountability and less respect for property

rights.

This government has made a habit of centralizing authority, of saying: “Trust us.

We’ll decide what’s in the public interest.” But democracy doesn’t run on trust. It

runs on transparency. When people lose the right to see what’s happening behind the

doors of power, or worse, when they lose the right to keep their own land, it’s not

progress. It’s regression.

Bill 27 may not make headlines, but it should, because it quietly hands the government

the tools to take land and to hide decisions.

[3:40 p.m.]

If this government truly values democracy, then it should be strengthening public

safeguards, not removing them. It should be clarifying rights, not blurring them.

It should be opening doors and not closing them.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than backroom expropriations and closed-door

councils. They deserve a government that operates in daylight.

Stephanie Higginson : I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 27, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act. While the name suggests that it’s routine legislation, this bill is anything

but routine. It contains thoughtful, forward-looking amendments that touch on two

foundational pillars of our province: respectful governance with Indigenous communities,

and the future of public education infrastructure.

Let’s start with the amendments to the Community Charter, which represent significant

and respectful evolution in how local governments engage with First Nations. These

changes respond to direct requests from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the city

of Vancouver, local governments and First Nations. The Union of B.C. Municipalities

passed resolutions in 2017 and in 2023 calling for these changes.

In March 2024, the city of Vancouver formally requested that the Vancouver Charter

be amended to provide the ability to conduct government-to-government negotiations

in camera with the nations that are within the city’s boundaries. Currently local

governments can only close meetings for a very limited set of reasons, and that doesn’t

include First Nations relations. It’s outdated.

These changes allow First Nations governments the same provisions as other levels

of government when engaging with local governments. There are not more provisions.

There are not different provisions. They’re the same provisions.

The proposed changes align with

section 18.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act, which states that a public body must not release information if it

could reasonably be expected to harm the rights of Indigenous People.

These changes will give local governments and First Nations the space they need to

collaborate and build trust during negotiations. This is not a departure from transparency.

It’s a recognition that reconciliation requires trust, and trust is built through

respectful dialogue.

When I was a school trustee — it’s a little bit different but still the same — I was

on the board of education, and we made truth and reconciliation a strategic goal because

we knew it would improve the learning outcomes not just of the Indigenous students

in our school district but of all the students in our school district.

In order to be able to follow through on that, it required deep relationship-building

with the nations whose territory fell within the boundaries of the school district.

That meant we had to do hard work to get past both the long-term and the near-term

harms caused by the school district. It was hard work. It was not work that could

be done in public. It was work that needed to be done in private. It was relationship-building

work.

That work resulted in a school called Qwam Qwum Stuwixwulh, which is a tripartite

partnership between the school district, the nation and the federal government. The

school is built by the federal government and run by the school district on nation

land. It is the only one of its kind in British Columbia. That’s the type of good

work and results that comes out of the ability to have these important discussions.

[3:45 p.m.]

For too long, Indigenous governments have had to navigate public forums that are not

conducive to the conversations needed to build meaningful partnerships and deal with

culturally sensitive and appropriate issues. No other level of government has had

to endure that. They’ve had to do this separately.

In my riding, there are a number of sacred sites that require cross-government work

for protection and maintenance. Everybody knows that this area is a burial site, but

what everybody doesn’t know is where on that site the remains have been repatriated

— remains that got dug up because of culturally insensitive ways of building and developing

in the past, that were allowed to be repatriated in a culturally appropriate and sensitive

way. We know in our community that there are remains there. We know the area, but

we don’t know the exact spot.

That’s what we’re talking about here. The nations don’t want to publicly disclose

these locations, but they’re also not looking to limit access. They just simply want

to discuss these issues in a constructive and respectful manner that recognizes and

protects the privacy and sacred nature of these areas. By creating space for private,

culturally appropriate discussions, we are saying clearly that we respect protocol.

We are committed to evolving practice in order to do better and to be better.

I heard a great saying the other day. Change is required because the future is different

than the past. That is what these amendments represent, change that reflects a better

future that is different from the past. These amendments broaden the scope of mandatory

closed meetings for intergovernmental negotiations, ensuring that sensitive discussions

between governments — whether local, provincial or Indigenous — can occur in protected

space.

This is about creating conditions for collaboration and not secrecy. Importantly,

while discussions may be private, decisions remain public, preserving the democratic

accountability that British Columbians expect and deserve. This is reconciliation

in action. It’s not symbolic. It’s structural. It’s about embedding respect into the

very fabric of our governance systems.

The province has also completed engagement with First Nations, treaty Nations and

local governments across B.C., and the feedback from these engagements confirmed broad

support for protecting confidential and culturally sensitive information so that local

governments and First Nations can collaborate and build trust during negotiations.

The proposed updates reflect the province’s commitment to reconciliation and to building

government-to-government relationships.

I’m just going to finish up by talking a little bit about the School Act amendments.

We see another vital area of reform here, and this time it’s focused on education

infrastructure. The bill clarifies the authority of boards of education and the francophone

school district to acquire, hold and, when necessary, expropriate land for educational

purposes. It’s quite simply a practical change. As has been said, it aligns the province

with other provinces.

In communities across British Columbia, we are seeing growing student populations,

changing demographics and increased demand for modern learning environments. School

boards need clear, consistent tools to plan for the future, and these amendments help

provide that clarity.

They also introduce an important safeguard. Ministerial approval is required for any

acquisition or expropriation outside the board’s jurisdiction. This ensures that while

boards are empowered to act, there is provincial oversight to maintain fairness, coordination

and alignment with broader educational goals.

Let me be clear that expropriation is not a tool to be used lightly, and that’s why

provincial oversight remains in place. In rare cases, it may be necessary to ensure

that students have access to safe, accessible and high-quality learning spaces. These

amendments ensure that when decisions are made, they are made with transparency, accountability

and purpose.

Taken together, the changes in Bill 27 reflect a government that is responsive, responsible

and respectful. We are strengthening relationships with Indigenous communities, supporting

local governments and ensuring our education system has the tools it needs to grow

with British Columbia. This bill touches on many of the core values of our province

and reflects on our desire to ensure legislation reflects those values of respect

for Indigenous rights, commitment to public education and a belief in good governance.

[3:50 p.m.]

I urge all members of the House to support this bill. It’s thoughtful. It’s principled.

It’s necessary legislation that moves British Columbia forward and reflects the needs

of our growing and changing province.

Scott McInnis : I appreciate my colleagues. I’m sorry. I did jump the queue here as I have another

engagement in a few moments.

I’m going to be very brief speaking to Bill 27 here this afternoon. I think most of

my questions can be answered in the committee stage when we move through here.

I have to say, after initially hearing the first reading, I had some concerns about

this. I still have some questions, but it’s refreshing, again, to know that this was

brought forward by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because to be completely frank,

when I hear “closed-door meetings” and the provincial government, I get a little nervous.

I think we, the opposition, feel the same way, that transparency is extremely important

here.

I have a couple of questions that I’d like to address just around some of the wording

in the legislation.

I think, first of all, we have to be very cautious about disclosing some of this information

that’s being discussed in these meetings. I think disclosing it or not has to be done

in a fair and open way. I know the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs talked

about open public voting that’s available on the public record. But if there’s sensitive

information that’s shared, for example, with a local nation, I think there has to

be a mechanism for how those discussions take place and sharing that with non-Indigenous

British Columbians as well.

Indigenous entity. I know it was brought up earlier. I think that’s something that

we need to just look at a little bit more closely. I’m going to explain why here just

very briefly.

I’m used to hearing Indigenous governing body, and the language looks like it’s been

changed here. So does that include the Métis, for example? Who represents the Métis

at those closed-door meetings? Is it land-based nations only that get to participate

with local governments?

We have certain things happening in the province right now with U.S.-based tribes.

The Sinixt, for example, being given Aboriginal rights by the Supreme Court of Canada,

but they have no land claim that’s been granted by the Supreme Court here. Do they

or don’t they get to sit down with, say, the Nelson muni