First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, November 17, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 97

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

Members’ Statements

Marpole Museum and Historical Society

Sunita Dhir

Wilma’s Transition Society

Á’a:líya Warbus

Louis Riel Day

Garry Begg

Mary Sjostrom

Sheldon Clare

Mayo Landicho and Jendhel Sico and Canadian Filipino Online Publication

Mable Elmore

Business Excellence Awards in Prince George

Rosalyn Bird

Oral Questions

Cowichan Tribes Land Title Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad

Hon. Niki Sharma

Waste Dumping Site on Cowichan Tribes Land

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

B.C. First Nations Justice Strategy

Rob Botterell

Hon. Niki Sharma

RCMP Critical Response Unit Actions and Deployment

Rob Botterell

Hon. Nina Krieger

Government Handling of Land Title Cases and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Niki Sharma

Name Change Legislation

Kristina Loewen

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Crime and Community Safety in Abbotsford

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Nina Krieger

Bruce Banman

Deportation of Persons Related to Extortion Activities

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Hon. Nina Krieger

Safety of Lawyers and Government Action on Extortion Cases

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Public Alert System for Sexual Offenders

Reann Gasper

Hon. Niki Sharma

Crime in Communities and Action on Community Safety

Peter Milobar

Hon. Niki Sharma

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report, Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Reliability of Premises Identification Information , November 2025

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2024-25

Petitions

Bruce Banman

Jordan Kealy

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Ward Stamer

Korky Neufeld

Bryan Tepper

Harman Bhangu

Trevor Halford

Lynne Block

Jordan Kealy

Jody Toor

Sheldon Clare

Dallas Brodie

Kiel Giddens

Bruce Banman

Scott McInnis

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix

Larry Neufeld

Elenore Sturko

Jeremy Valeriote

Rob Botterell

David Williams

Donegal Wilson

Gavin Dew

Monday, November 17, 2025

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Somewhere in the House — I haven’t been able to locate him yet, but maybe in the

back — is my Uncle Paul. Oh, there he is, right in front of me. Clearly, my eyes aren’t

working. He is visiting the precinct, not for the first time but the first time that

it is operating. He has been here for my swearing-in, but I told him: “You haven’t

experienced a question period yet, so you’ve got to come down.”

He is an outstanding family member, works for B.C. Ferries, I think going on almost

30 years. He’s the best sign guy a candidate could ask for. Every campaign he’ll take

time off and spend all day long putting up signs, well into the evening. He did that

when I first started off as a school trustee, and it’s continued on as an MLA. I think

so highly of him.

We are both Canucks fans, and that’s really tough. Anyone who was watching the Canucks

game last night knows that the first period didn’t go very well, but a 6-2 win over

the Lightning, so both of us were very happy when we were watching that.

Would the House please join me in making Paul Parmar feel very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare : I have two introductions.

The first one is to introduce a group that’s actually not present; they’re watching

us online. That is the class of Mr. Neil Walsh and education assistant Katie Bowell

at St. Ann’s Catholic School in Quesnel. They are studying politics and government.

I had the pleasure of speaking with their class last week and introducing them to

the process of making a bill by dividing them into three parties: the bicycle party,

the truck party and the car party. They had a great time with it. It was a good lively

exercise. I wanted to introduce them and welcome them to viewing us online and watching

our procedures.

If you could make them very welcome.

My second introduction is to the Invasive Species Council of British Columbia, who

are in the precinct today to discuss the concerns they have with introduced species,

whether they be flora or fauna. I welcome them to the precinct, and I hope that they

have a very fruitful and useful trip here, meeting with both opposition and government.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Members joined us earlier today to mark Louis Riel Day, which was yesterday, but

here in the House, we marked it today with Métis Nation B.C. Thank you to all members

who joined us in the Hall of Honour.

I want to welcome, no strangers to many of us here, acting president of Métis Nation

B.C. Melanie Allard; and of course, Métis Nation B.C. leadership as well who’ve joined

her: Patrick Harriott, Susie Hooper, Debra Fisher, Colette Trudeau, Marc Riddell,

Jeremy Twigg, Kamron Bajwa, Arsalan Anwar.

There were many others, including one of the cutest babies I’ve seen, aside from my

own a few years ago.

Anyway, it’s wonderful to see you all. Thank you for joining us here in the House

to honour Riel and Métis culture. Merci.

Ward Stamer : I’m pleased to introduce my consistency assistant, Nicholas Hamson, who joins us

in the gallery today.

Nicholas is a third-year communications student at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops,

specializing in public relations. In addition to serving the people of Kamloops–North

Thompson in my constituency office, he has worked on campaigns in both British Columbia

and the United States, with a particular passion for engaging young people in our

democratic process.

I ask the House to please join me in welcoming Nicholas to our chamber.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : History was made today. A Surrey-based radio program, Radio Swift program team came

especially to the Legislature today for a live broadcast from here to the people of

this province. They were here, I think, from 7 a.m. until 1 p.m. I know many members

from both sides got the opportunity to speak to them.

We have with us a good friend, Dr. Jasbir Romana. He’s a good friend, and he’s also

a very well-known, respected radio host. He has always been very fair, very neutral

and very objective in his approach to the talk show. I want to say thanks to him.

We also have…. I don’t think the next individual needs any introduction. Jinny Sims

is with us, former MLA and minister here. She’s now the host at Radio Swift in Surrey.

I want to wish her good luck with that.

They are joined by their team, Jashanpreet Grewal, Meninder Grewal and Supinder Grewal.

I want to say thanks to them and to Kurant Stacy and the partners for sending the

radio program here.

I want the House to please make them feel welcome.

Scott McInnis : I want to echo the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in welcoming

the delegation from Métis Nation B.C. here.

A big special shout-out to my friend, region 4 director from the Kootenays, Debra

Fisher, who is a fierce advocate for children and education back home in the East

Kootenay.

Welcome all of you, especially Ms. Fisher.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today I have 17 folks from the Youth Climate Corps joining us here. After question

period, we are going to be meeting with the Premier.

The Youth Climate Corps started out in my riding, and because of the support of the

Premier and our government, it’s now expanding across British Columbia, and we are

really hoping that it is going to expand across Canada.

I would like to introduce them. We’ve got Natalie Gerum, Hermender Singh Kailley,

Donna Hall, Delie Lawley, Kate Addison, Abbey Piazza, Tracey Maynard, Tracey Mitchell,

Owen Cornell, Mikasa Quaife, Keenan Miles, Mo Garg, Jesse Seifert, Bobby Davidson,

Michaela Phillips, Aida Goma Petit and my very dear friend Ben Simoni, the executive

director.

Please will this House make them feel very welcome.

Everyone, stand.

Linda Hepner : I want to echo a welcome for radio host Jinny Sims and Dr. Jasbir Ramana from Surrey

and Swift 1200 radio as well as their team: Jashanpreet Grewal, Supinder Khatta and

Meninder Grewal.

They’ve done interviews this afternoon and this morning from both sides of the House,

and they’re very popular radio hosts in my city of Surrey.

Harwinder Sandhu : Before I do my introduction, I would like to extend my heartfelt welcome to the Radio

Swift team, their incredible team.

I’m also honoured today to welcome very special and inspiring guests in the gallery,

Dhahan Prize for Punjabi literature winners. The Dhahan Prize celebrates Punjabi language.

This prize was created to call greater attention to the wealth of literary work produced

in Punjabi around the world.

We all know we live in one of the most diverse provinces, and our mother tongues and

language are our identity, a big part of our identity, and define who we are. Once

we lose our mother tongue, our language, our identity can be jeopardized. This group

is doing amazing work to just do that, to strengthen Punjabi literature.

The guests here today I want to welcome: Mudassar Bashir, Balbir Parwana, Bhagwant

Rasulpuri, Harinder Dhahan, and Barj Dhahan, Joyce Astifan, Kuljinder Shoker, Gurtek

Shoker, Wanda Dekleva, Rai Aziz Ullah Khan, as well as Ajit Thandi and Manjit Thandi.

Would the House please join me to welcome this amazing group of people who are spreading

knowledge over ignorance and sharing hope over despair.

Ji Ayian Nu. Welcome.

Lynne Block : I was honoured this morning to have the B.C. Youth Council come in and interview

me. I’d met several of them before at one of the UN symposiums in Vancouver. The calibre

of their questions and the professionalism that they displayed really stand in good

stead. I think they will be amazing future politicians and amazing future educators,

whichever they decide to do in the future.

If you give them a warm welcome, the B.C. Youth Council. Thank you so much.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’d like to welcome back to this place Amelia Hill. I can’t see her right now, but

she’s somewhere over here. She used to work in my office before she left for another

position.

I just want to say we miss her. We miss her spirit, her energy and all her passion

and always wish her the best and welcome her back here.

Steve Kooner : I’d also like to welcome a friend, a community leader, Barj Dhahan, who’s done exceptional

work for promoting Punjabi literature.

Can the House please welcome him again.

Hon. Randene Neill : So many amazing people in the stands today.

I just want to give a shout out, similar to the member opposite, to the Invasive Species

Council of B.C. I met with them this morning, and they were fantastic. Their local

grassroots campaigns, like squeal on pigs, do some really tremendous work. I’m really

happy with all of them.

[1:45 p.m.]

And a big shout-out to my constituency adviser from Sechelt. Lauri Paul is here today,

and her sister Lisa.

Thank you so much for coming, and thank you for the work that you do.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I’d like to welcome to the House Susan Sanderson, who is the executive director of

the Realistic Success Recovery Society and has been a longtime advocate for mental

health and addictions in our communities.

Even more so, she’s been a very staunch advocate on our own EDA in my riding. I think

she’s been a member of our party since before I was born.

I really thank you for all the work that you do in our community and welcome you to

the House today.

Ian Paton : I want to welcome three constituents of mine from Tsawwassen. A very well-known design

company, Sarah Gallop Design…. Sarah is here with her husband, Rob, and their daughter

Maddie. She’s a student at Southpointe Academy in Tsawwassen.

They got to meet the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition today. So happy to have

them over here. I had to pay for their lunch.

Anyways, please welcome Rob, Sarah and their daughter Maddie.

Amshen / Joan Phillip : I just wanted to wish, on this special day, my husband, Dr. Grand Chief Stuart Phillip,

and my little, well, younger brother, Georgie Carter, a happy birthday.

Susie Chant : A group of us met with Arthritis Research Canada at lunchtime today. I just want

to acknowledge their very people-centred work. The research they do, the knowledge

they share, everything that they do is completely focused on people, and for that,

I am suitably grateful.

I just want to acknowledge the folks that we listened to today: Alison Hoens, who

is a physiotherapist; Dr. Linda Li, who is the senior scientist; and Dr. Diane Lacaille,

who is the scientific director and also a constituent in my riding. I am so grateful

to have such remarkable people doing such remarkable work.

If we could all give them a hand.

Heather Maahs : I would like to take this opportunity to wish my oldest son, Gordon, a happy 45th

birthday.

Amna Shah : I just want to take a second to welcome a couple of people.

I’d like to welcome some longtime friends and dear advocates of the community, Kamron

Bajwa and Arsalan Anwar. I know we’ve known each other for a very long time. I want

to thank them for letting me know that they were here today, because I could hear

Kamron’s laughter from the front Legislature steps while I was in my office.

Thank you for that.

I also want to welcome a dear friend, Amelia Hill, who’s up in the gallery. She’s

a community builder. She’s a former colleague and a friend, and she is a reminder

to me about how love and compassion have no bounds and no limits.

Would the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : I have a special guest with me today in the precinct. I do apologize for her being

late for question period, but I think that you will not be surprised to know that

former MLA Jennifer Rice is joining us here today. I apologize for her tardiness,

but she does assure me she will be here today.

I also just wanted to give a shout-out to my colleague and wish him a happy belated

birthday.

George Anderson : I would like to welcome Greg Brown, Don Helgeson and Duane Seibel from Sea Wolves

Men’s Cancer Pack. This is a group of individuals who are focused on….

They’re standing up over there, just in case you want to know.

It’s a Vancouver Island–based non-profit supporting men with cancer. They’ve gone

out to bring these cancer packs to individuals. They’re advocating for funding.

I hope that the entire House will help us make them feel extremely welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Steve Morissette : It’s always a thrill for me to introduce somebody from my riding, because it happens

so rarely that they travel this far. I’m honoured to introduce Dr. Marcia Braundy

up in the gallery. She’s a longtime Slocan Valley resident and volunteer with our

riding association.

Across the aisle, I think we all agree that we stand on the shoulders of our volunteers.

She’s a wonderful, strong woman leader.

Please join me in welcoming Marcia today.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I see that a good friend, Sanjeev Ahluwalia, is in the House, hanging out with the Radio Swift team. He is a

new author of a book, Reflections of a Nomadic Mind . I encourage folks to check it out. I think there is a copy in the Legislature as

well.

Would the House please join me in making him feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : I also would like to welcome our dear friend Nirmal Mehroke and his wife, Tejinder

Mehroke. Nirmal has served as the president of Surrey-Fleetwood riding for 15 years,

and he and his wife have been selflessly active with the riding to serve the community,

participating in programs, organizing programs, advocating for the local issues for

30 years.

They were here to attend the convention, and they’re here today to watch question

period.

I would like to ask everybody to please make them feel welcome.

Rohini Arora : I have so many friends up in the gallery today, but I wanted to just take a moment

and shout out Hermender Singh Kailley, who is the secretary-treasurer of the B.C.

Federation of Labour.

It was just his 50th birthday, so if everyone would just join me in welcoming him

and celebrating his birthday.

Harman Bhangu : I just want to wish my mom, once again, a happy birthday. It was her birthday on

Saturday.

Getting together with family, seeing her around the grandkids, all her sacrifice,

hard work…. Without that, I would not be here in this House today. So I just want

to wish her a happy birthday again.

And I love you, Mom.

Members’ Statements

Marpole Museum

and Historical Society

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to recognize the important contributions of the Marpole Museum and Historical

Society, located in the historic Colbourne House in my constituency of Vancouver-Langara.

For more than five decades, the society has helped preserve and share the many layers

of Marpole’s history, from the deep and enduring presence of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm people to the stories of early settlers, tradespeople and families who shaped the

neighbourhood we know today. Their work ensures that Marpole’s past is not only remembered

but understood as part of our collective story.

During my visits to the museum, I have been truly inspired by the dedication of its

volunteers, their efforts in restoring exhibits, maintaining the heritage home, curating

artifacts and engaging visitors. They reflect remarkable commitment and care. Colbourne

House, lovingly maintained, offers a rare and tangible window into Marpole’s early

20th-century life and reminds us of how far our city has come.

Recently I had the pleasure of attending the society’s annual Christmas market. The

event was filled with creativity, warmth and community spirit, with neighbours gathering,

local artisans showcasing their work and volunteers welcoming everyone with open hearts.

It was a beautiful example of how community heritage is kept alive not only through

artifacts but through connections.

I would like everybody to check out this remarkable place at the corner of Southwest

Marine Drive and 71st Avenue and experience a piece of Marpole’s amazing living history.

[1:55 p.m.]

Wilma’s Transition Society

Á’a :líya Warbus : Today I rise to acknowledge and honour the incredible work of Wilma’s Transition

Society. This is an organization that has supported women and children in the Fraser

Valley for nearly 40 years.

Wilma’s was founded on a simple but powerful belief that all women deserve safe, dignified

opportunities to build a prosperous life. Nearly four decades later that belief continues

to guide everything that they do.

From emergency shelter to longer-term supportive housing, Wilma’s provides a continuum

of care that meets women where they’re at and walks with them as they move toward

healing and stability. Their programs are trauma-informed, culturally grounded and

deeply rooted in and with community support.

Last week I had the honour of touring their newest development, P’esk’a La:lem, a

stage 3 housing building built exclusively for women and their children to continue

to thrive and remain connected to important supports. I was guided by the executive

director, Tammy, whose leadership and dedication have helped expand essential services

for these women and their families.

This represents more than housing in our community. It’s a place of cultural connection

and empowerment. It reflects Wilma’s ongoing commitment to providing culturally informed

supports, honouring women’s existing strengths and building permanent pathways to

long-term success. Through the dedication of service and decades of existence in our

community, they’ve helped countless women and children escape violence, overcome homelessness

and rebuild their lives with courage and hope. Their impact is felt across generations.

In a time when legal organizations like Rise Women’s is calling for more secure housing

options for women who are trying to flee domestic violence, we really need places

like Wilma’s and their continued work to be supported by all members of this House.

I just want to thank Wilma’s Transition Society today, and I look forward to continuing

and supporting their vital work in our community.

Louis Riel Day

Garry Begg : I recognize that we are gathered today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, known today as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

Yesterday, on November 16, people across British Columbia and Canada gathered to recognize

Louis Riel Day, marking the anniversary of his death in 1885. This year, the 140th

anniversary of his death, reminds us that his story remains central to our shared

history.

Louis Riel was a tireless advocate for the Métis Nation and one of Canada’s most significant

historical leaders. He is remembered as the founder of Manitoba, a defender of rights

and a Canadian hero whose vision continues to shape our country.

I acknowledge the Métis Nation British Columbia delegation who are with us here today,

led by acting president, Melanie Allard.

Your presence is a powerful reminder of the living legacy of Riel’s work and the strength

of the Métis people in this province.

Recognizing Louis Riel is part of our ongoing path with Métis people in this province

toward meaningful reconciliation. It’s a time to reflect on historic and present-day

injustices faced by Métis and all Indigenous Peoples and to honour the nearly 98,000

Métis people in B.C. who contribute to the vitality of our communities.

We also recognize the incredible organizations that support Métis people across the

province, including Métis Nation B.C., Métis Community Services Society of B.C., Métis

Commission for Children and Families of B.C. and the British Columbia Association

of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. Their dedication and community service are invaluable

as we continue moving forward together.

Louis Riel Day is not only a solemn tribute but also a celebration of Métis culture,

resilience and identity. His courage and legacy call on us all to learn, reflect and

stand alongside Métis people in advancing reconciliation.

[2:00 p.m.]

Mary Sjostrom

Sheldon Clare : It is with great sadness that I rise today to remember my friend Mary Sjostrom, Cariboo

regional director for area A and former mayor of Quesnel. Mary was a tireless advocate

for the North, someone with tremendous empathy and institutional memory, having been

in public service in the Quesnel area for decades.

Her recent roles included Cariboo regional district director for Red Bluff, south

Quesnel; Cariboo Chilcotin hospital district vice-chair; as well as sitting on the

finance, policy, emergency preparedness, solid waste management, Fraser Basin Council

and NDIT regional advisory committees.

First elected in 1999, Mary would go on to serve 15 years on Quesnel city council,

including six years as mayor. She also served as director and president of the North

Central Local Government Association and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities,

and she was a life member of both organizations.

Community volunteer work included the palliative care association, Quesnel Sunrise

Rotary, B.C. Winter Games, Relay for Life and the Quesnel Community Foundation. A

memorable contribution Mary made was championing the Quesnel Communities in Bloom

team to highlight the beauty of the city of Quesnel.

I first met Mary when we both served on the board of governors at the College of New

Caledonia. We became strong colleagues and friends. It was an honour to work with

her in various capacities, but most of all over the past year in my role as MLA. My

office and I were in frequent contact with Mary as we worked through the various issues

facing our constituents.

Mary’s contributions to our community, province and country are profound, and her

death is a great loss for us all.

We thank you, Mary.

My condolences, Butch. Mary will not be forgotten.

Mayo Landicho and Jendhel Sico

and Canadian Filipino

Online Publication

Mable Elmore : I wish to share a story about grief, healing and hope. Mayo Landicho, a celebrated

multimedia artist, was one of the performers who graced the stage at the Lapu-Lapu

Day festival in Vancouver on April 26, 2025.

Little did Mayo know that that day would end in immense grief. His goddaughter Jendhel

Sico, a talented young woman, was killed in the horrific tragedy.

After her funeral, Mayo gathered her family and close friends at his tattoo studio

on Main Street. He closed the shop for the day and transformed the space for a private

memorial. As Jendhel’s favourite songs filled the studio, Mayo tattooed members of

her family, etching on their bodies the memory of her beautiful soul.

It was Mayo’s tribute to his goddaughter and a therapy. Honouring his goddaughter

through his art was his own way of beginning the journey to healing.

This story was originally told in the new edition of the online-only publication canadianfilipino.net.

It’s part of the all-volunteer journal’s ongoing storytelling series called “Healing

Through Kapwa.” The series seeks to tell stories of healing and resilience and to

build solidarity within and outside the Filipino community. The series is a demonstration

of canadianfilipino.net’s continuing work to reflect the voices and aspirations of

Filipinos in British Columbia and across Canada.

The online-only publication started in 2016 and is managed by the Maple Bamboo Network

Society. The board of the Maple Bamboo Network Society includes, among others, Rey

Pagtakhan, who was the first Filipino to be elected as Member of Parliament in Canada;

Eleanor Laquian, an author and advocate of immigrant rights; and Emmy Buccat, a professional

in the fields of communication, marketing and events management.

Let us recognize the work being done by canadianfilipino.net for their continuing

contributions to journalism and for promoting dialogue and understanding.

Business Excellence Awards

in Prince George

Rosalyn Bird : I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement celebrated at the 40th annual

Business Excellence Awards hosted by Prince George Chamber of Commerce on November

1. This milestone event once again highlighted the strength, innovation and resilience

of small and medium-sized businesses in our region.

SMEs continue to be the backbone of our economy, representing more than 98 percent

of all Canadian businesses and employing 70 percent of our workforce. In Prince George,

their role is even more profound. These businesses are run by our neighbours, our

friends and our families. They create opportunities, drive local innovation and help

shape the character of our community.

[2:05 p.m.]

The awards ceremony showcases just how dedicated our local entrepreneurs are, across

every sector from food and beverage to technological innovation, entertainment, philanthropy

and more. Each nominee and recipient demonstrated the kind of leadership that keeps

northern British Columbia moving forward.

I want to offer special acknowledgement to the Prince George Citizen , honoured with the Lifetime Achievement Award. The Citizen has served as a pillar of local journalism, documenting our history, amplifying community

voices and ensuring that the stories of Prince George are told with accuracy, integrity

and care. This recognition reflects the profound and enduring impact the Citizen has had on our region.

As we celebrate these accomplishments, we must also recognize that small and medium

businesses continue to face significant challenges. Yet they consistently show up

for our communities.

It is vital that we continue to champion and support their work in every way we can

by reducing barriers and ensuring access to the tools they need to help create an

environment where small and medium businesses can continue to thrive not just in Prince

George but across British Columbia.

The Business Excellence Awards remind us that when we invest in our local business,

we invest in the prosperity and future of our entire community.

Oral Questions

Cowichan Tribes Land Title

Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad : The Premier tells British Columbians he wants to protect homeowners, yet somehow

private property rights in the Cowichan case were not argued by B.C. He says the appeal

is only about, and I quote, “clarity.”

There is some clarity that the Premier could provide for the people of British Columbia.

Cabinet, no doubt, has received legal advice likely warning its government to defend

private property rights in court.

Will the Premier waive cabinet confidentiality and make public any legal opinions

he or his cabinet received regarding private property rights in the Cowichan case,

yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have to confess it’s a strange request, given that all of our legal documents and

our arguments are on the public record and filed for everybody about the arguments

we made in that case.

I just want to assure the public, as I do every time I stand up here and speak about

this, that we’re taking this very seriously, including the protection of private property

owners. We have a team of lawyers that are on top of it and working not only with

the Cowichan but also with the landowners themselves, directly engaging with them

so we can understand the impacts and where the province needs to step in.

We’re also actively engaging in our appeal and a stay application on the matter.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, I find it interesting, considering the legal advice that goes to cabinet comes

from her ministry, that she isn’t even aware of it. I think that is very telling in

terms of what legal advice their cabinet may or may not have received in terms of

the Cowichan case.

However, the Premier tells Indigenous leaders this appeal “isn’t really about the

Cowichan” while he tells homeowners that they should “rightly be worried.” Just like

private property and Aboriginal title can’t coexist, does he really believe that both

of these other statements he made are true?

If the Premier truly believes in transparency, will he come clean with the taxpayers

and publicly declare exactly why he decided to leave the protection of private property

rights up to Richmond, and Richmond alone, as per what the judge has said in her findings?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, I’ve said this over and over again. We’ve said this publicly and it’s in all

of our legal steps that it was very important to us that we uphold the private property

rights of landowners as we’ve worked through the difficult issues of reconciliation

with our First Nations governments, and we’ve been doing that.

I invite the member to take a look at our arguments that were at the Supreme Court

of B.C. and what we were pursuing on appeal and the work that we’re doing and also

when he was in cabinet in 2015 and issued the first response to civil claim in this

matter. The arguments that we made are very similar to ones at that stage.

Waste Dumping Site on

Cowichan Tribes Land

Sheldon Clare : In late 2023, Sperling Hansen Associates conducted an environmental assessment of

the Cowichan River toxic waste pile and estimated it at nearly 300,000 cubic metres.

[2:10 p.m.]

There is no way that this report didn’t end up on previous minister George Heyman’s desk.

Can the Environment Minister please confirm whether or not her ministry received this

report?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : Thank you to the member for the question.

We’ve heard people’s concerns about this site, and we are listening. That’s why we

issued a pollution prevention order on October 2, 2025, with the awareness of the

Cowichan Tribes. We take this matter very seriously.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : We will be verifying compliance with the pollution prevention order at the site.

We believe in working together with the Cowichan Tribes, in working on the pollution

abatement order and the pollution orders that we issue.

The Speaker : Member has supplemental.

Sheldon Clare : Three hundred thousand cubic metres is an awful lot of waste. There is no way that

this government was not aware of that.

Can you please tell me: when did this government know about this waste, and why was

it not acted on sooner?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : Thank you again to the member for your questions.

I have to disagree. We have a variety of tools that we use in the Ministry of Environment.

We use these tools to protect the environment and look at illegal waste dumps.

The responsibility of the cleanup rests with the polluter. As the province, our role

here is to ensure that those cleanups are done. We will continue to do this work with

the Cowichan Tribes and with all of our community members.

B.C. First Nations Justice Strategy

Rob Botterell : In British Columbia, Indigenous women make up 4 percent of the population, yet 49

percent, or roughly one in two, women in provincial custody are Indigenous. Public

Safety Canada tells us that it costs over $250,000 per year to incarcerate an Indigenous

woman and almost $150,000 to incarcerate an Indigenous man. Imagine what redirecting

even a fraction of those funds could do if invested instead in vocational training,

education, food security and stable housing.

This government committed to implementing the B.C. First Nations justice strategy

in 2020. It is intended to lead to better outcomes in the justice system for Indigenous

people.

To the Attorney General, when will this government fully implement the B.C. First

Nations justice strategy and protect Indigenous people from unjust incarceration and

police aggression?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I just want to thank the member for the question. It allows me to talk about some

very important work that we’re doing with the First Nations Justice Council.

In a short amount of time, we were able to open up 15 Indigenous justice centres across

the province. Those centres are made up of really strong Indigenous leaders and legal

counsel that are there to represent Indigenous people that are facing charges in the

criminal justice system in order to help them with, I think, what the member is raising,

a very important concern and commitment we have to mitigate against the overrepresentation

of Indigenous people in our justice system and the systemic racism that exists when

they face the criminal justice system.

They are doing incredible work. My hands go out to all of those people on the front

lines in Indigenous justice centres that every day are working through files with

Indigenous people and Indigenous women, with results. We have just launched a Prince

George diversion centre that’s there to help young people with their first offence

that’s a minor offence and connect them with their culture so we can change their

lives in partnership with Indigenous communities.

I’m really proud of that work. I know it takes a lot of effort, and my hands go up

to the First Nations Justice Council for helping partner with us on that work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

RCMP Critical Response Unit

Actions and Deployment

Rob Botterell : Clearly, as the Attorney General mentioned, the government may say it’s committed

to safeguarding Indigenous people from an unjust system, yet we continue to see the

province promote policing practices that further this violence.

For example, the RCMP’s controversial and heavily criticized critical response unit

will be enforcing this government’s new fast-tracked resource and infrastructure projects.

This unit is being deployed despite the RCMP’s own investigation into its abuse of

force and authority both in Fairy Creek and in Wet’suwet’en territory. The RCMP have

admitted that this unit overstepped its authority, yet still this government sees

its deployment fit.

To the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, why is this government authorizing

the deployment of the CRU, and how does this government plan on deploying this unit

against First Nations opposition to projects such as Ksi Lisims?

Hon. Nina Krieger : I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question, which speaks to, I think,

shared concerns that we have around not only the overrepresentation of Indigenous

people in the justice system but about ensuring that law enforcement does their work

in a culturally informed and safe way for vulnerable communities, particularly First

Nations.

This is why our ministry works in partnership with the Ministry of the Attorney General

on the Indigenous justice strategy and on closely working with police, including the

RCMP. My ministry meets with representatives of First Nations communities on a regular

basis — including, most recently at the First Nations Leadership Gathering — to hear

directly about any concerns about the RCMP so that in the work of superintendence,

my ministry can work with law enforcement very directly to ensure that communities,

Indigenous communities, are safe.

Government Handling of Land Title

Cases and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie : For four years, the Kamloops Indian Band has been pretending to have found the remains

of 215 murdered children, perpetuating the worst lie in Canadian history. Instead

of defending British Columbians from this baseless allegation of mass murder, the

Premier, who I see is not here today….

The Speaker : Member. Member, we don’t identify members who are here or not.

Dallas Brodie : Retracted, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier lashes out at anyone who dares to question the claim. Now the very same

band is advancing an Aboriginal title claim over the entire city of Kamloops, a land

grab that threatens the private homes of 100,000 private residents. I condemn this

band’s outrageous and opportunistic claim, and I pledge my full support to the innocent

and hard-working people of Kamloops.

My question to the Premier is this. Whose side is he on, the homeowners of B.C. or

the tribes seizing title to their properties?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I find myself often at a loss for words when this member raises what is a very painful

and shameful line of denialism for residential schools.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : On behalf of survivors in this House, I want to condemn that.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Please continue.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We stand on the side of survivors that are searching for the truth and searching

for us to stand with them in pursuit of that truth. We will continue to do that every

day.

I don’t even know how to answer the rest of that question. Maybe I’ll leave it at

this. The history of this province and the work that we have to do on reconciliation

is rooted in us coming to the table and sitting down with our First Nations partners

to resolve the historic wrongs of the past and build a future for everybody in this

province that lifts everybody up. We’re committed to that work and will continue to

do so.

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

[2:20 p.m.]

Dallas Brodie : It is obvious that this government won’t defend the private homes of British Columbians.

It’s obvious from the very arguments that were made in the Cowichan case, where the

best and strongest argument was pulled deliberately by the former then AG.

Neither will our courts defend the private properties of British Columbians. The disaster

in Richmond was the inevitable result of nearly 50 years of court rulings that expanded

Aboriginal title. Why would they stop now?

Just like our Premier, they believed that it was an unforgivable sin for our founders

to assume control over these lands and create a fee simple title system. Just like

our Premier, they planned to give away citizens’ money, land and power to tribal chiefs

forever to pay for that sin.

My question for the Premier is this. Will he agree that Aboriginal title is an insult

to our founders and an existential threat to B.C. and its economy which must be removed

from Canada’s constitution?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ve answered this question already.

Name Change Legislation

Kristina Loewen : This weekend delegates to the B.C. NDP convention voted to completely repeal this

government’s changes to the Name Act.

When defending his own bill, the Minister of Energy said: “Allowing dangerous offenders

to hide their identity through a legal name change is extremely troubling to victims

and their family and can result in safety concerns for members of the public.” Yet

nobody in the NDP caucus defended their bill.

Why didn’t the Premier stand up at the B.C. NDP convention and defend legislation

that keeps British Columbians safe?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I thank the member for the question.

I’m happy to let the member know that the Premier has made it clear that if there

are unintended consequences to the piece of legislation that the member is raising,

we will address those. But one thing is absolutely clear. We will not allow those

who commit criminal acts to escape their criminal record by changing their name. That’s

plain and simple.

Though I must admit I do find it somewhat interesting, when the member talks about

reactions at party conventions, about their own party convention.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : When the opposition leader used his speech to attack Elections B.C. and Dr. Bonnie

Henry, no one spoke against that. When a guest speaker unfairly attacked a member

of the press gallery, the delegates stood and applauded, and not one member on that

side of the House stood up.

We’ve made it clear. We will deal with unintended consequences, but let’s be also

clear….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Stop it, Members. Come to order. Come to order.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Those who commit a criminal act are not going to be allowed to escape their record

by changing their name.

Crime and Community

Safety in Abbotsford

Korky Neufeld : Last Wednesday, November 12, another Abbotsford shooting. Bullets sprayed a business’s

window on King Road. The ninth shooting since September 1 in Abbotsford alone, and

still no charges in any of these cases.

This past Sunday, yesterday, I attended the funeral of a well-respected businessman

that our community is still mourning. Not a single NDP MLA showed up.

Can the Minister of Public Safety promise that no more Abbotsford families will have

to mourn another senseless loss before Christmas, yes or no?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I’d like to start out by expressing my sincerest condolences to Mr. Sahsi’s family,

his workers and the entire community affected by the good works that he has done.

I had a chance to attend a vigil for Mr. Sahsi held in Surrey that also served as

an opportunity for different levels of government to come together and speak about

the work that is being done to combat extortion and to keep communities safe.

I’ve had the chance to engage with business owners and with families who are scared,

which underscores our singular focus on disrupting these crimes, stopping these crimes

and keeping members of the community safe. It’s this that is behind the work of the

B.C. extortion task force, which represents one of the largest task forces ever assembled

in B.C. history.

It includes all levels of the RCMP, the police of jurisdiction, including Abbotsford.

It includes members from the CFSEU, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit.

It includes members from the Canada Border Service Agency.

We are starting to see real results from their work, which is coordinated and comprehensive,

including arrests, charges and removals from Canada, in accordance with laws. This

government and my ministry will not rest until those perpetrating these crimes are

held to account and our communities are safe.

Bruce Banman : Thank you very much to the Solicitor General.

You know, condolences. This family wrote a letter. They don’t need your condolences;

they need your action. That’s what they need.

Abbotsford ranks the third-highest in Canada for extortion-related incidents and No.

1 per capita. Families and businesses are being targeted, threatened and traumatized.

I’ve received the personal phone calls.

When will this Premier come to Abbotsford, look people in the eye and tell them when

the shootings will stop?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I do extend my condolences.

The fear of families, of business owners, of community members is real, which is why

our government is singular in its focus and leading the way in Canada with our B.C.

extortion task force and with the involvement of Canada Border Service Agency. Other

jurisdictions, which are wrestling with these same crimes in Alberta and Ontario,

are now looking at B.C. as a model. We will continue to….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Shhh, Members. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger : I’d appreciate the opportunity to answer.

We are leading the way in Canada in terms of the work of the B.C. extortion task force,

in terms of the advocacy that our government has done, which has led to the Bishnoi

group being designated a terrorist organization, and in terms of the leadership we

have demonstrated on bail and sentencing reform. We will continue to do this work

through all levels of government.

I must also take this opportunity to urge….

Interjection.

Hon. Nina Krieger : This is really important, sir.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

The minister will conclude, please.

Hon. Nina Krieger : I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the community that have

come forward with information, which is directly supporting investigations in progress,

and to encourage everybody with information, no matter how small, as soon as they

have it to come forward to police. This is making a difference in the investigations

and leading to arrests and removals.

We will not stop this work until people are safe.

Deportation of Persons

Related to Extortion Activities

Mandeep Dhaliwal : Yesterday I was at Darshan Singh Sahsi’s funeral. I am sick and tired of going to

these kinds of funerals.

We have heard that the three extortion suspects are deported.

Why is this NDP government hiding the reason and their identities?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you very much for the question, and thank you to the member for referencing

the work of Canada Border Service Agency, which is an integral partner in….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, let the minister answer, please.

Members, come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. Nina Krieger : The suggestion that we are withholding names or protecting criminals, frankly, is

absurd and is stoking fear, which is not helping the situation.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger : CBSA is a federal agency, a key member of the task force, but Ottawa sets the rules

and controls this information. The province does not have these names and cannot access

or release federal immigration information.

I have heard from community members who have let me know how important it is to have

information, such as names, that they are asking for. I have to maintain, though,

the integrity of investigations under way, because we want….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger : It’s imperative that the investigation is under way, that the integrity is protected,

because we want it to lead to arrests, charges and convictions or removals from Canada

if people are not in the country lawfully.

We will continue to work with our federal partners regarding anything related to immigration

and CBSA.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, let the Chair recognize you.

Safety of Lawyers and

Government Action on

Extortion Cases

Steve Kooner : This government is not leading. It’s being reactive, not proactive. This extortion

crisis is out of control.

Lawyers are now being targeted. And if lawyers are being targeted, it’s important

to know whether judges and witnesses are also being targeted.

Can this minister tell this House with absolute certainty that no judges and witnesses

in B.C. have been targeted, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : These investigations are ongoing, and it’s important, in order to keep the integrity

of the system, that those names and who is part of those investigations are not revealed

here. It’s not going to further anybody’s interest to do so.

I want everybody to know that we are taking this very, very seriously. I take the

opportunity to what the member raised this weekend, calling on the federal government,

which we have advocated for specific changes, to consider extortion a terrorist charge.

I was surprised when he raised that, because had he looked at the Criminal Code or

looked at what we have raised with the federal government, declaring the Bishnoi gang

a terrorist organization…. If he would have looked through that, he would know that

because of the work that we were doing…. Anything that’s committed on behalf of a

terrorist group is a terrorist offence, including extortion.

We are doing the work to make sure that our Criminal Code and everything is there

for us to go after these people.

Public Alert System for

Sexual Offenders

Reann Gasper : A woman in Abbotsford is now facing 13 sex offence charges, including luring and

trafficking a minor. While she was at large, parents had no warning at all.

Mothers like me are terrified for our children’s safety in this province.

Will the minister commit today to issuing immediate public alerts when a child sex

offender is wanted, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I appreciate this very important issue that’s raised by this member. The police have

certain criteria that they employ when they issue alerts to communities, and those

alerts and those decisions made by the police are there to make sure that communities

are safe.

Certainly, every time there’s an issue like this raised, we take it with the utmost

seriousness, and I know that my colleague at Public Safety does as well, to make sure

that communities have the information they need and that people are safe.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are doing a lot of work on this side of the House when it comes to going after

sexual assault, going after offenders, whether it’s online or in communities, because

we want to make sure that the people that are committing these offences are properly

behind bars and that people are protected from further instances of their crime, and

we’ll continue to do that work.

Crime in Communities and

Action on Community Safety

Peter Milobar : Well, the government keeps saying that they’re working to make communities safer,

but the bottom line is that communities are not safer. In fact, they are more unsafe

than ever before under this government’s watch.

If you look at things around the extortion cases, this government is very quick to

try to take credit for things — action being taken, people being deported; yet as

soon as they get asked for any detail on that, they instantly refer back to: “Well,

that’s federal. That’s federal jurisdiction. We can’t actually talk about that.” So

did they actually do anything, or did the CBSA, which is federal jurisdiction, actually

do something for a change because this government’s inaction has led to ever-growing

extortion issues in British Columbia?

We hear about sexual predators on the loose and deflection away — that they can’t

really take extra steps.

In Kamloops, businesses are reporting a 26 percent surge in crime, while the Public

Safety Minister says they’re doing everything they can do to try to keep communities

safe. Businesses are losing millions of dollars a year of merchandise walking out

the door, and they very clearly attribute it to the chaos being driven by a convergence

of mental health, housing, the affordability crisis and catch and release, because

property crimes are not taken seriously by this government.

They’re calling on the government for hands-on street management and real health care

integration, because they have failed, to this point, in keeping our streets safe.

When will people, when will the business community in this province stop hearing that

the government is working on something and start hearing about the government implementing

and actually delivering results that, as the Premier said, people would actually be

able to see and feel on the streets? Because they’re not safer. It is getting worse.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m happy to talk about results — the results that we’re showing for British Columbians

on a very important issue that’s out there, and that’s public safety.

The ReVOII program, the repeat violent offender initiative, that’s circling around

over 400 of the most violent offenders…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …in the system and going from an individual who is responsible for hundreds of calls

to the police a month to none. That’s a result in a community.

I want to talk a little bit, also, about the bail and sentencing reform that we put

on the agenda through B.C.’s leadership that is dealing with the types of property

crime that the member is raising, saying that if somebody is coming before this justice

system over and over again, there needs to be respect for the law. Those individuals

need to have accountability. So right in there, in the bill that’s before the House

and the federal government, is B.C.’s work reflected in that Criminal Code change

to make sure that those people that are causing the most impacts on communities are

held and not causing those impacts.

We’ll keep at it until all communities feel safe in this province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Reliability of Premises Identification Information , and the Police Complaint Commissioner’s annual report, 2024-2025.

Petitions

Bruce Banman : I stand today to present a petition from very concerned members of my community,

whereas B.C. Housing is planning a supportive housing project at 2270 Martens Street

in Abbotsford, directly across from Abbotsford Traditional school grounds.

The housing project will be in proximity to vulnerable students, children aged 11

to 18, less than 60 metres from a field and playgrounds used by said children. The

housing project contains a safe consumption room, increasing the risk to residents

and vulnerable children in the area, and there has been a lack of transparency, public

input, consideration of alternative locations, collaboration or disclosure of plans

by B.C. Housing.

Lynne Block : I request leave.

The Speaker : For what are you asking leave, Member?

Lynne Block : I’d like to make an introduction that I made earlier.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please, proceed.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block : In the introductions, I introduced the B.C. Youth Council, and I wasn’t sure if they

were in the House. They are now.

I’d like you to stand and receive a warm welcome.

They were absolutely professional.

[2:40 p.m.]

Petitions

Jordan Kealy : I’d like to present a petition from my community of Fort St. John. They’ve gathered

this petition to be brought forward.

This is a tough one, when it comes to…. They’re requesting to reduce the costs and

increase access to innovative cancer drugs by lowering drug prices and guaranteeing

access. Lighten the load for patients and families by reducing additional costs for

cancer care, including lab fees, transportation, prosthetics, treatments, incontinence

products, cooling caps and more.

This was brought to me from a member of my community, Justin Hupanda. He is a member

of the Canadian Cancer Society. He also said that he really appreciated that Bill

30 got brought forward and that he was happy to see it proceed through the House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs

Statutes Amendment Act.

Then in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 31, Energy

Statutes Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal

Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We’ll call the House back to order, where we will be continuing

debate on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Ward Stamer : I rise today on behalf of the B.C. Conservative caucus to speak firmly, clearly and

unapologetically against Bill 25, the housing and municipal standards amendment act,

2025, a bill that pretends to be about solving the housing crisis but, in truth, centralizes

power, weakens local democracy, exposes municipalities to fiscal instability and prioritizes

provincial control over real community needs.

This legislation is yet another example of government that governs by decree rather

than by collaboration, a government that demands compliance from local governments

while ignoring the lived realities of the communities they claim to help. Bill 25

continues a disturbing pattern. Instead of working with municipalities, the government

has chosen to legislate over them.

This bill expands the minister’s ability to dictate development standards, override

municipal bylaws and impose one-size-fits-all requirements in Victoria. This Premier

can say whatever slogan he wishes about cutting red tape or turbocharging housing,

but what this bill actually does is strip communities of their decision-making processes

and authority that allows them to respond to unique local conditions.

Local councils are elected by their neighbours. They understand the transportation

networks, their water capacity, their fire response coverage and their school availability.

But Victoria does not. Bill 25 tells local governments: “You can zone what we say,

where we say and when we say. Your planning priorities no longer matter.” This is

not partnership. This is not collaboration. This is central planning, and British

Columbians know where that leads.

The most irresponsible aspect of this bill is its assumption that growth can be mandated

without first ensuring infrastructure capacity exists. Transportation, sewer, stormwater,

fire protection, policing — these systems do not magically expand because the province

legislates more density.

[2:45 p.m.]

Municipalities have warned government repeatedly that they cannot absorb the population

growth at the acceleration levels being imposed through Bills 44, 47 and now 25. Yet

Bill 25 introduced new ministerial directives, new mandatory zoning alignments and

a deeper reach into municipal land use authority without offering municipalities the

fiscal tools to keep up.

The result? Cities will be forced to approve housing they cannot service. Developers

will build faster than municipalities can upgrade pipes, roads and public safety.

And residents existing in future will be left dealing with the fallout of overloaded

infrastructure and declining service quality.

This is not planning; this is wishful thinking codified into law. This government

loves to lecture municipalities about doing their part, but it quietly ignores the

critical truth. You cannot build or maintain infrastructure with provincial press

releases.

Bill 25 deepens municipal exposure to financial risk by forcing accelerated development

approvals without providing new revenue streams to pay for that servicing; restricting

municipalities’ ability to charge development cost charges, commonly known as DCCs,

and community amenity contributions in ways that reflect the actual needs and costs

of those projects; and also imposing provincial housing targets that may not align

with long-term capital plans.

So what does this actually mean on the ground? It means property tax payers, the families

that are struggling most with affordability, will pay for growth that they didn’t

choose and that the province won’t fund.

The B.C. Conservatives believe in local fiscal authority and responsibility, not setting

municipalities up for failure. One of the greatest fallacies in this government’s

approach is the benefit that all communities are the same. A small rural municipality

cannot absorb the same density expectations as a major urban centre. A mountain community

with limited buildable land cannot conform to the same zoning formulas as a flat,

suburban municipality. A community with wildfire risks, floodplains or a limited water

supply cannot simply scale up when Victoria says so.

But Bill 25 ignores this. It assumes that every municipality must bend to a provincially

crafted development model, regardless of geography, climate resilience, cultural context

or community capacity. This is not thoughtful. This is not evidence-based. It is ideological,

and it lacks forward thinking.

The government claims that Bill 25 will improve affordability. Let us be very clear.

Nothing in this bill guarantees any affordable housing. It does not require developers

to build affordable units. It does not address speculation on the concentration of

land ownership. It does not provide protections for renters beyond market exposure.

It does not reduce construction costs, taxes or regulatory fees.

What it does do is increase land value expectations, and it will also push home prices

and rents higher, not lower. Every time the province imposes mandatory upzoning, the

assessed value of land in those zones jumps. That increase is captured not by the

renters, not by first-time buyers and certainly not by the municipalities but by speculators

and large development firms. This government is unintentionally inflating land markets

while claiming to fight them.

Our caucus, the B.C. Conservative Party, believes strongly in subsidiarity, the principle

that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible. Again, allowing our municipalities

to do the job that they were elected to.

Local accountability. Again, councils know their communities better than Victoria

ever could or ever would.

And fiscal prudence. Again, communities cannot grow responsibly if they lack the resources

to do so.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 25 violates these principles by overriding local autonomy and forcing municipalities

in compliance instead of cooperation. A government that respects local decision-making

does not need to centralize authority. A government confident in its policy does not

need to impose mandates. A government that truly wants results works with partners,

not over them.

Another troubling element of Bill 25 is the continued erosion of public consultation.

This government has already reduced public hearings on rezonings through previous

legislation. Bill 25 continues that trajectory by expanding regulatory authority and

narrowing the circumstances under which ministries can actually invite public input.

British Columbians deserve a voice in shaping their neighbourhoods, not to be told

that their input is an inconvenience slowing down the provincial agenda.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker : Just one moment, Member.

Thank you. Continue, Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer : British Columbians deserve a voice in shaping their neighbourhoods, not to be told

that their input is an inconvenience slowing down the provincial agenda. Democracy

is not a box to check. It is a process that protects fairness, transparency and trust.

This government should not be choosing speed over democracy. It should be choosing

good planning over political messaging.

Bill 25 also fails to address the real economic drivers of B.C.’s housing shortage

— high interest rates, high construction costs, a shortage of skilled trades, long

provincial permitting delays, provincial taxes and fees, immigration targets disconnected

from housing capacity, speculative finalization of land. None of these are fixed by

forcing municipalities to rezone more land.

We cannot legislate supply into existence when labour, materials and financing are

unavailable. We cannot legislate affordability while ignoring the cost structure that

drives prices. We certainly cannot legislate community support while excluding communities

from the process.

A B.C. Conservative housing plan would have a much different approach. We would have

a collaborative, not a coercive, relationship with municipalities; provincial investment

in infrastructure long before imposing density targets would be provided; localized

planning, recognizing that communities are not interchangeable.

We’d be restoring public consultation and transparency and trust in the process. We’d

be reducing provincial fees, delays and the regulatory burdens that are troubling

our entire sector. We’d be targeting affordability directly, not just assuming that

the market will direct it. We will also, again, empower municipalities to shape responsible,

sustainable growth. This is how building should work in this province, not from Victoria

but with partnerships throughout British Columbia.

In conclusion, Bill 25 is not a housing strategy. It’s a power grab, a download of

costs, again, and a substitution of local knowledge for provincial ideology. It weakens

municipalities. It undermines public confidence. It does not guarantee affordability.

It risks creating communities that grow faster than they can be safely serviced.

British Columbians need a real housing strategy, one built on partnership, transparency,

sustainability and a respect for local democracy. For these reasons, the B.C. Conservative

caucus cannot support Bill 25.

We stand for local autonomy, responsible growth and policies that actually improve

housing affordability, not just policies that sound good in a press release.

Korky Neufeld : I rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment

Act. I want to start off by just quoting some stories from our local newspaper in

Abbotsford.

[2:55 p.m.]

It says: “Housing Crisis in the Fraser Valley.”

“As the rising housing market continues to inflate and the wages stay stagnant, young

people find it increasingly difficult to improve their living conditions.

“What income levels can afford a $1 million mortgage? How can someone save for a down

payment on a $1 million house while struggling to pay such high rent? Is owning a

home in the Fraser Valley an attainable goal?”

These are questions that many young people in British Columbia are asking as they

plan for their future.

Just a story to start off with.

“Currently my fiancé and I are looking to move into a detached home that aligns with

our goals as a couple. We purchased a condo in 2017, and since then it has soared

in value, $245,000 to approximately $650,000. Despite this jump in overall equity

to put towards a detached home, we’re finding that even most townhouses are beyond

our reach.

“My fiancé is an industrial electrician, and I’m a full-time support worker. We both

have very well-paying jobs, but despite our net income, the Fraser Valley is not affordable.

Because of the high cost of housing, we are considering relocating to another province.

“It saddens me that we are being pushed out of our home province, where all of our

friends and family are. We want to provide for our future family with the same childhood

that we had: a nice backyard with a trampoline, possibly a blow-up pool for the summer

and a garden where we can grow vegetables and fruits. Is this realistic for us if

we remain in the Fraser Valley?”

The answer is no, they don’t think so.

Another story.

“When looking at a single person with a good career, we can see some barriers when

it comes to owning a home or upgrading their existing one. Ashlee purchased a two-bedroom

apartment in Abbotsford in 2010 for $125,000. She was only 21 years old, but the cost

of the apartment was low, which also meant the down payment was an attainable sum

to manage, about $7,000. She was also able to co-sign the mortgage loan with her father,

a privilege that not all are afforded. She worked eight long years in retail to fulfil

the mortgage payments, and she retained roommates to offset monthly costs.

“Twelve years later her residence is currently valued at around $420,000, an increase

of just over 236 percent. Even with this shocking jump of $295,000 worth of equity,

it’s still insufficient for her quest to upgrade to a detached house or even a townhouse

in the Fraser Valley with a soon-to-be career as a social worker. The real estate

market she was once able to buy into as a single person is now beyond her reach should

she choose to sell her apartment.”

Bill 25. While I acknowledge its intent in legislation — namely, to increase housing

supply and address our province’s affordability crisis — I must express some serious

reservations about the scope, the approach and the potential unintended consequences

of what this bill proposes. This bill is Bill 44 on steroids.

At its core, Bill 25 represents a significant shift in how land use planning and housing

decisions will be made in British Columbia. The bill amends the Local Government Act,

it amends the Vancouver Charter, and it amends the Short-Term Rental Accommodations

Act, all under the stated goal of removing barriers to small-scale, multi-unit housing.

We all share the objective of seeing more houses being built, but the question before

us is how that housing gets built. At what cost to local communities and the cost

of additional infrastructure? Where is the democratic accountability? This bill is

not a simple zoning update. It is a profound centralization of power, command and

control — one that removes decision-making authority from locally elected councils

and communities and transfers it directly to the provincial cabinet and the Minister

of Housing.

Municipalities like Abbotsford are committed to working with the province. The key

word is “with” — in partnership, in collaboration, in co-governance. This is what

is posted on the Abbotsford city website:

“At its annual convention in Victoria, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM, got

behind Abbotsford’s push to have the province of B.C. provide funding to cities to

help cover rising infrastructure costs resulting from the increased residential density

permitted by provincial housing legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

“The successful adoption of the infrastructure funding UBCM executive resolution is

proof that this is an issue felt by municipalities across the province and that action

needs to be taken to ensure that communities are ready to meet the rising demand for

city services, since more people living close together means more people using the

same water, the same sewer, the same roads and the same infrastructure.

“This resolution proposes that the province invest in a long-term, predictable, allocation-based

funding program to support local government infrastructure servicing needs and stimulate

growth of the provincial economy, as well as invest in provincial infrastructure investments

and provincial permitting processes required to support housing-related population

growth.

“We are encouraged by the support this resolution received and look forward to seeing

this proposal move forward so municipalities are relieved of undue financial pressure

as a consequence of the province’s mandated housing targets.”

Let me move on to the first part of the bill, the Local Government Act and the Vancouver

Charter amendments. Under these changes, every municipality with more than 5,000 residents

and located within an urban containment boundary will be required to adopt zoning

bylaws by June 30, 2026, that permit small-scale multi-unit housing — such as duplexes,

triplexes and fourplexes — on what were previously single-family lots.

At first glance, that sounds reasonable, but the bill goes further. It prevents —

I want to repeat: it prevents — municipalities, locally elected governments, from

setting their own standards for the size, the form or the density of these new housing

units. This will completely alter existing neighbourhoods. The city of Abbotsford,

like other municipalities, needs to alter their official community plan.

It gives cabinet, not local councils, the authority to determine what housing forms

must be permitted, where and at what scale. In other words, local zoning autonomy,

the very foundation of community planning, is being overridden by executive regulation.

And should a municipality fail to comply with the prescribed deadline, the minister,

with cabinet’s approval, is empowered to unilaterally enact or amend the city’s bylaw

to bring it in line with provincial directives.

Well, let me ask the question: where is the working with? Where is the partnership?

Where is the collaboration? Where is the co-governance? Instead we get command and

control. This is an extraordinary shift in power, one that effectively sidelines local

government and removes the voice of the people from decisions about the shape and

density of their neighbourhoods.

I want to read another

article that came out of Abbotsford. It’s called “Disagreements

Over Provincial Housing Mandates.” “In 2023, the province issued mandatory housing

targets for Abbotsford under the Housing Supply Act. In response, the city adopted

bylaws allowing for increased residential density to meet the provincial requirements.

However, the city has publicly stated that meeting these ambitious targets places

significant financial strain on its infrastructure, such as water and roads.”

The city of Abbotsford desires strongly to work with this government. The question

is: is this government willing to work with the city of Abbotsford in a meaningful

way?

Equally concerning is the

section of the bill dealing with off-street parking requirements.

As of June 30, 2024, municipalities will no longer be able to require off-street parking.

In other words, no garages, no driveways are required, no designated spaces for parking

for small multi-unit homes that the province now mandates must be permitted as single-family

lots.

This means that a developer can build a fourplex with zero parking spaces, even in

communities where transit options are limited or nonexistent, where amenities are

not in walking distance. For families, for seniors, for tradespeople, for people with

mobility challenges, this is not a theoretical inconvenience. It’s a very real, very

practical problem.

[3:05 p.m.]

The inevitable result will be congestion, spillover parking where it shouldn’t be,

access issues for emergency vehicles and conflict in communities that are already

struggling to manage rapid growth.

At the last UBCM in September, many city leaders argued that housing targets and related

infrastructure needs are beyond their ability to control. This isn’t about opposing

density. It’s actually about smart planning, which locally elected officials are best

to decide. Density must be matched with infrastructure, with transit, with parking,

with water and sewer capacity and with respect for the local context of each community.

This bill does not provide that balance. It imposes a one-size-fits-all solution from

Victoria, regardless of whether it fits in a mountain town, a rural community or a

wildfire interface zone. This approach risks creating exactly the kind of haphazard,

ill-considered growth that communities have worked so hard to avoid.

Furthermore, the bill allows municipalities to rezone land to comply with provincial

housing mandates, even when doing so contradicts their own official community plan.

These plans are well-thought-out plans, years in the making. This clause in

section

11 explicitly states that in 2027, local governments can ignore community-consulted

OCPs and long-range planning for local needs and restrictions when rezoning to meet

provincial requirements.

This is not only the province overriding a local community. It is now encouraging

municipalities to disregard the very planning documents that were developed through

years of public consultation with their own communities. What message does this send

to residents who have invested their time and trust in community planning processes?

These are the taxpayers that we in this House serve. These are the same taxpayers

that locally elected mayors and councils serve.

British Columbians deserve a say in the future of their neighbourhoods. They deserve

to know that when they participate in public hearings and when they engage in OCP

reviews, their voices matter. This bill undermines that principle, and I would say

shame on the government for this.

Turning briefly to short-term rental accommodations amendments, Bill 25 also makes

several changes to extend regulatory powers to modern treaty First Nations.

Indigenous communities should have the tools to manage short-term rentals within their

territories. However, this bill creates potential for overlapping jurisdictions and

enforcement confusion, not clarity. It allows for coordination agreements that can

apply different rules to different geographical areas, even with the same treaty lands.

Without a clear framework and consistent enforcement standards, this could lead to

uncertainty for both property owners and platforms alike.

Additionally, the bill tightens the review process for registration decisions, limiting

the grounds for appeal and centralizing decision-making authority with the government

provincial registrar. While administrative efficiency is important, due process and

fairness must not be sacrificed in the name of speed.

I want to emphasize again that we all agree that British Columbia needs more housing.

Our mayors and councils agree. They only want to work with this government. No one

disputes that affordability and supply are pressing issues, but the way this government

is going about it raises legitimate concerns about our local democracy, accountability

and practicality.

I read this in the newspaper just the other day too. It says: “Numerous households

across the Fraser Valley were waiting for affordable housing last spring, four years

after this government promised to solve B.C.’s housing crisis.” How much longer will

they need to wait?

Bill 25 assumes that Victoria knows best — similar to Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15

— and that provincial bureaucrats, not local councils, are best equipped to decide

how every neighbourhood should grow. It assumes that parking, it assumes that infrastructure,

it assumes that livability concerns are secondary to rapid densification, and it assumes

that a uniform template for small-scale housing can work equally well in Surrey, in

Salmon Arm, in Smithers, in Abbotsford and even in Spuzzum.

[3:10 p.m.]

That assumption is absolutely wrong. We cannot plan our way out of a housing crisis

by dismantling local governance, we cannot solve affordability by ignoring infrastructure

realities, and we cannot build public trust by imposing top-down mandates that silence

community voices.

A truly effective housing strategy requires partnership, collaboration, a co-governance

relationship between the province and municipalities, First Nations and local residents.

It requires flexibility, consultation and respect for local knowledge. Unfortunately,

Bill 25 falls short on all three accounts.

While the goal of increasing housing supply is one that we all support, this legislation,

as it stands today, concentrates far too much power in the hands of the provincial

government. It undermines local autonomy and disregards the everyday realities of

families and communities across British Columbia.

Let me try to be positive and offer some constructive solutions to Bill 25, a path

forward rooted in partnership, practicality and respect.

One, table Bill 25 and replace compulsion with consultation. Engage genuinely with

UBCM, local governments, the private sector and citizens.

Two, address real barriers — land, labour and infrastructure, not ideology. Without

serviced land and skilled workforce, mandates are meaningless.

Three, adopt place-based policy. What works in Burnaby may not work in Abbotsford.

Respect local context. Respect local geography. Respect local economies.

Four, build true fiscal partnerships. Provide predictable infrastructure funding.

End the grant lottery, where communities compete for short-term photo ops. Municipalities

need stable revenues to plan long-term growth.

Five, reform the regulatory framework. The B.C. chamber’s data shows projects’ costs

can fall by 20 percent with open procurement and reduced red tape. We can apply those

savings to actual housing supply.

Finally, six, restore local democracy. Reinstate public hearings, empower local councils

and trust citizens. Democracy takes time, but trust takes longer. Without trust, no

policy will ever succeed.

I urge this government to reconsider Bill 25 as it is — to work with local governments,

not over them, which is not too much to ask for; and to pair density with infrastructure.

A building without services is just a shed. Buildings need power, water and sewer

are costs that municipalities will need to bear on their own. Reconsider to ensure

that our collective efforts to solve the housing crisis strengthen, not weaken, the

fabric of our communities.

This side of the House looks forward to committee stage to address further questions

and debate on these serious issues and concerns. Bill 5 has far too many unintended

consequences.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I believe you meant Bill 25.

Bryan Tepper : I rise with heavy heart. I do not enjoy telling the government, colleagues I respect,

colleagues who are trying their very best and who truly mean well, that this bill,

for all its good intentions, will hurt more than it helps. I wish I could say that

yes, this is the bold stroke we need. But I cannot, because of the evidence.

The municipalities and the people I represent are telling me gently, firmly, repeatedly

that this path leads to more conflict, more cost and less trust. So please forgive

me for what I must say. I say it not to score points but because someone has to speak

for the cities, towns and neighbourhoods that feel unheard.

[3:15 p.m.]

I know the pressure is immense. I know the housing numbers are brutal. I’m sure the

government is working tirelessly and will continue to work, acting in good faith to

solve a generational crisis. But giving the province the power to override local bylaws

on parking, setbacks and density without appeal, without consultation, is a bridge

too far.

The Community Charter was written to protect municipal autonomy. It says councils

are natural persons, not branches of Victoria. They know their floodplains, their

heritage streets, their transit realities.

When 25 municipalities sued over Bill 44, it wasn’t NIMBYism. It was a cry: “Work

with us, not over us.” Bill 25 answers that cry with a regulatory hammer. That breaks

something deeper than bylaws. It breaks partnership.

I know the intent — speed. I know the government believes deeply that faster approvals

mean faster homes. The conviction is sincere. But removing public hearings for compliant

rezonings, forcing five-year OCP cycles, without local rhythm? That’s not efficiency;

that’s silencing. It’s seizing power from the local citizens and gathering it in Victoria.

The irony of that is that the city of Victoria itself has its say neutered by this

bill.

In Kitsilano, residents begged for tree protections. In Squamish, they asked for family-sized

units. Under Bill 25, their microphone is unplugged because the provincial checklist

says so.

Democracy is not a luxury we can suspend. When people feel steamrolled, they don’t

just accept it. They resist, and that resistance will delay homes far more than any

hearing ever could.

I know the government means well when it says that developers will pay. I know they

genuinely believe that market forces will absorb the cost. But mandating density without

funding infrastructure is fiscal cruelty. The UBCM says it’s $50,000 to $100,000 per

small project in sewer, road and school upgrades. That’s hundreds of millions dumped

on local taxpayers.

The city of Surrey itself has billions of infrastructure upgrades it needs. Where

are we going to get that money? Developers can’t pay it all. DCCs are capped. Markets

are soft.

Who carries the load? The senior in Maple Ridge, the young family in Kamloops, the

small business in Cranbrook. We cannot ask them to pay for Victoria’s ambition — not

without dedicated capital grants, not without shared responsibility.

I know the government truly wants to unlock supply everywhere. I know they sincerely

believe uniform standards are fair. But not every lot is the same. A 3,000-square-foot

parcel in East Vancouver is not the same as one in Crescent Beach, Fernie or Delta’s

floodplain, yet Bill 25 says: “Same parking rules, same building area, same height.”

It ignores sea level rise, wildfire corridors, heritage blocks, small-town scale.

The result is gentrification, 15 to 25 percent value spikes, longtime residents priced

out.

Density without design is not progress; it’s erasure. The people in my own riding

have homes that currently have no street parking left. That’s with bylaws that require

off-street parking. In certain neighbourhoods, I’ve had to park three to four blocks

away just to walk to a home in that neighbourhood.

[3:20 p.m.]

Finally, the STR changes. I know the government means every word when they say that

short-term rentals must serve long-term residents. I know they’re trying their hardest

to protect housing stock.

I’ll support enforcement, but $10,000-a-day fines with no revenue sharing and abrupt

bans in tourism towns? That’s not tough love; that’s economic shock. Whistler, Tofino,

Kelowna — 20 to 30 percent of host income gone overnight.

We have several large events coming up in British Columbia. The World Cup. I believe

the estimates are that we’re 170,000 hotel rooms short. Where are we going to find

these spots for people that just want to come and enjoy and spend their money in our

province?

Seasonal jobs are lost. Bed tax revenue vanishes. The enforcement? The municipalities

are paying, and the province is collecting. This isn’t housing policy. It’s punishment

by headline.

I do not stand here to obstruct. I stand here to beg for a better way, one that honours

the government’s sincere effort and genuine care. Let’s restore partnership, provincial

guidelines and local standards; fund what we mandate; tie targets to capital grants;

and keep the public in the rooms where we have hearings for major change. We can honour

place — flexibility for flood, fire and heritage. These are all different obstacles

that different communities face.

Phase STRs fairly — 24 months, revenue sharing, tourism transitions and, perhaps I

would add, for special events.

I wish I could applaud this bill. I wish I could say: “Finally, action.” But I cannot,

because trust is the foundation of every home we build. Bill 25, as written, cracks

that foundation. Let us go back, together, and write a law that builds homes, hope

and harmony. British Columbia deserves both urgency and respect. I yield the floor

with apology and with hope.

Harman Bhangu : I rise today to speak strongly and unapologetically against Bill 25. This bill may

be wrapped in the language of housing reform and modernization, but British Columbians

deserve the truth. Bill 25 is not a partnership with communities. It is not empowerment.

Definitely, it is not responsible planning.

Bill 25 is a consolidating, heavy-handed takeover of local decision-making and a disruption

of how communities grow, function and serve the people who live in them. As the jobs

and economic development critic, I can say, without hesitation, that this bill will

not make our economic corridor or transport corridors…. This bill will make our challenges

much worse.

It will make our construction challenges worse as well. It will hurt businesses, tradesworkers,

families and municipalities. It will not build a better British Columbia. It will

build frustration in British Columbia, full of conflict and chaos. The core problem:

density without infrastructure.

Let me begin with the most basic truth of this legislation. You cannot force massive

density into communities that do not have the infrastructure to support the density.

You cannot force four, six, eight or 12 units onto lots where one stood before and

pretend the roads, the sewers, the stormwater systems, the schools, the parks, the

policing and the transit all magically expand with it.

Infrastructure planning and partnership have to come first, and none of that is present

in Bill 25. This government is pushing density and stripping municipalities of the

ability to acquire basic, practical elements, like off-street parking.

[3:25 p.m.]

They are doing it in communities that do not have reliable transit. They are doing

it in rural towns, agricultural zones, wildfire interface areas and suburban neighbourhoods

where cars are not a luxury; they are a necessity. The government knows this. The

people on the ground know this. But Bill 25 pretends the realities of daily life do

not exist.

Now we have housing without parking. It’s not housing. It is a problem that you’re

pushing down the road. One of the most glaring failures of this bill is its attempt

to strip municipalities of the ability to require off-street parking for multi-unit

developments. This is not a technical detail. This is not a minor line item. This

is not a small adjustment. For many communities, this is the difference between livability

and dysfunction.

When you remove parking requirements, you don’t remove cars. People will still own

vehicles. Tradesworkers will still own trucks. Families will still try to get their

will still need to commute to night shifts and jobs outside of the transit corridors.

All of those cars have to go somewhere. Under Bill 25, they will go onto the streets,

onto boulevards, into business parking lots and in front of homes where residents

have nowhere else to park.

You will create conflicts in neighbourhoods. You will push customers away from small

businesses. You will burden cities with enforcement costs, signage, tickets, towing

and angry residents. This is what happens when the government ignores the lived reality

of the people they claim to be building housing for.

For example, the Port Coquitlam mayor, Brad West, called this out years ago. To understand

why parking matters, we don’t need a theory. We need one real-world example. Port

Coquitlam is not a rural town, not an isolated community. It’s a fast-growing, transit-connected

city with an active downtown.

A little while back, their staff recommended reducing minimum parking requirements,

using the exact same logic this government uses in Bill 25, the idea that there is

too much parking and that lowering requirements will encourage people to abandon their

vehicles.

What did Mayor Brad West say? “What staff proposed subscribes to the same theory of

the province, in that there is an oversupply of parking” — then he delivered one of

the most down-to-earth, commonsense lines any mayor has said on this issue — “which,

I think, to believe requires you to ignore the evidence of your eyes.”

Ignore the evidence of your eyes. We’ve seen it with this government, ignoring on

crime, health care, transportation, economy. Ignore what you see every day in your

community. Ignore the realities of cars circling around neighbourhoods for space.

Ignore residents frustrated by the spillover into their neighbourhoods. This is the

same government logic being imposed on every community through Bill 25.

Brad West also warned that reducing parking requirements would hurt the cities financially,

because they rely on parking in lieu of funds to pay for infrastructure. If Port Coquitlam,

with transit, with density, with planning, cannot make ultra-low parking work, then

how will small towns, rural communities or growing suburbs?

Bill 25 is not planning. Bill 25 is wishful thinking forced onto communities that

cannot afford the consequences. Take, for example, West Vancouver. Mayor Sager saw

this pattern early. Port Coquitlam was not the only community that has raised these

concerns. Years back when the province began moving towards top-down housing and targets,

West Vancouver mayor Mark Sager said something that should have stopped this government

in its tracks.

[3:30 p.m.]

He said: “We believe municipalities should be responsible for zoning and planning.”

It is a simple truth. Local planning belongs to local communities, in partnership

with the provincial and federal help to make it happen.

Then he went further. “For the province to step in and zone all British Columbia from

Victoria, we fundamentally think that is an error.” He wasn’t speaking about Bill

25. He was speaking about the same pattern of provincial overreach that this bill

is now taking to an extreme.

When you have mayors from Port Coquitlam and West Vancouver, two very different communities

facing different pressures, saying the province is overstepping and that this is not

a coincidence, that this is a warning…. These comments are evidence of a longer and

deeper problem. Municipalities have raised the alarm for years. This government simply

does not listen.

Bill 25 is the latest example and the most extreme version yet, a Vancouver template

that’s being forced on an entire province. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill

25 is that it applies a Vancouver-style planning philosophy to an entire province

that looks nothing like Vancouver.

British Columbia is not one city. It is a patchwork of communities — urban, rural,

agricultural, coastal, interior and northern — each with different needs, different

pressures, different transportation realities and different infrastructure capacities.

What might work in Kitsilano does not work in Merritt. What might work in Mount Pleasant

does not work in Salmon Arm. What might work downtown does not work in Aldergrove,

Langley, Mission or Abbotsford or any growing suburb without full transport and transit

service.

But this bill does not acknowledge those differences. It treats all of British Columbia

as if it were two blocks on Main Street, Vancouver. That is not housing policy; that

is an ideological uniformity at the expense of real communities.

This bill is also economically irresponsible. As the jobs and economic development

critic, I have to highlight how economically reckless this bill truly is. Housing

affects jobs. It affects labour mobility. It affects the ability for employers to

hire. It affects construction timelines, supply chains and financial viability on

these projects. Bill 25 undercuts all of that.

For example, one, projects will be harder to finance. Banks know that the units with

no parking have less appeal and fewer buyers. That shrinks resale value and financial

stability.

Two, small businesses will be harmed. Spillover parking hurts storefronts. We’re seeing

it with the Broadway-Commercial line. It drives customers away. We’re seeing it with

the Pattullo Bridge project. Business cannot absorb that burden.

Three, tradesworkers are ignored. Tradesworkers cannot haul tools on bicycles. They

can’t take the SkyTrain to rural jobsites. They rely on trucks, equipment. Bill 25

does not even acknowledge them.

To get to the short-term rentals and First Nations authority, the confusion that lies

ahead…. This bill also creates overlapping enforcement regimes for short-term rentals

and coordination agreements with First Nations.

Coordination is important, but this bill is unclear on various things. Who enforces

it? Who shares the data? Who issues the penalties? Who administers the system? Confusion

is not reconciliation. Confusion is not partnership. It is simply another layer of

uncertainty for tourism operators in rural economic corridors.

[3:35 p.m.]

And there is another detail the public should know. According to a contract publicly

posted online, in June, the ministry had to hire MNP for $26,000. “Lead the short-term-rental

registry financial risk and controls review.” If this government’s short-term-rental

system was working, why did they need outside, high-priced consultants to tell them

where the financial risks are? Why didn’t the ministry already know?

The contract confirms what municipalities already see on the ground. The STR system

is sloppy, unstable, and now Bill 25 is trying to patch it again. UBCM has warned

this government. They still won’t listen. This government still won’t listen.

On October 22, UBCM publicly stated that Bill 25 creates strain on local capacity

and that many municipalities are still struggling to implement the last round of housing

laws. They said this bill will divert staff resources away from approvals and create

significant new infrastructure implications. They also said many of the problems could

have been avoided if the province had done proper consultation instead of telling

municipalities to “consult your lawyer.” Bill 25 ignores all of that

And there is more. According to the ministry’s own briefing note

summary for July,

which is publicly available online, the minister at the time signed an MOU with UBCM

on local government financial resilience. You do not sign an MOU on financial resilience

unless municipalities are already under strain.

Then just months later the government introduces Bill 25, adding more pressure, more

mandates and more downloading onto those same local governments. So what was the point

of signing that agreement? Bill 25 breaks the spirit of that on page 1.

The minister’s first reading claims do not match reality. In her first reading speech,

the minister said that only a small number of communities would be affected. UBCM

says the opposite. She said Bill 25 removes barriers. UBCM says it creates new burdens.

She said the bill clarifies the rules. The municipalities were told, “Consult your

lawyer” before.

Now this bill is here to clean up the mess the government created. She said these

amendments improve operational efficiency, but a flurry of amendments is not efficiency.

It’s repair work. The province is blaming municipalities for its own failures for

years, and it continues.

Let’s be honest. This government has failed — failed on transit expansion, failed

on infrastructure investment, failed on permitting, failed on supply chain issues,

failed on trade labour shortages, failed on housing affordability, failed on community

supports. I can go on and on.

And now, after all these failures, the government tries to blame municipalities through

Bill 25. That is not leadership. It is deflection, which we see time and time again

on that side of the aisle. It’s time for a blue-collar reality check.

I come from a working-class background. I know what families face. I know what businesses

face. I know what trade workers face. If you build housing that people cannot practically

live in because there is nowhere to park, nowhere to commute from, nowhere for trade

trucks to go, nowhere for small businesses to keep customer access, you’re not building

affordability. You’re building frustration, and the people who will suffer the most

are the people this government claims to be helping.

[3:40 p.m.]

In conclusion, I cannot and will not support Bill 25. This bill is not about homes.

It is about power, plain and simple. It ignores local acknowledgement. It ignores

municipal warnings. It ignores infrastructure reality. It ignores transportation reality.

It ignores economic reality.

It ignores the mayors and communities who have already told the province that we’re

heading down the wrong direction. Brad West said that believing there is too much

parking requires you to ignore the evidence of your eyes. Mark Sager said that zoning

of all British Columbia from Victoria is an error, and he is not wrong.

Those were warning signs issued long before Bill 25, warnings this government refused

to listen to. And today, through Bill 25, the government is doubling down on the same

mistake. For all of these reasons and economic reasons, for planning reasons, for

practical reasons and for the well-being of communities across British Columbia, I

cannot and will not support this bill.

Trevor Halford : I want to thank the members, especially on this side of the House, that have spoken

so passionately in regards to our opposition on Bill 25.

You know, we all come to this House with different backgrounds, different skill sets,

different reflections and different paths on how we got here. It amazes me because

we have, on both sides of the House, a number of people that have come here with a

municipal background. Whether it’s a school district, a regional district, parks;

whether it’s serving as mayor of the second, soon to be first, largest city in British

Columbia — we all, on each side of the House, have those backgrounds.

Now, it perplexes me why, and on Bill 25, over the last number of years, the NDP,

this government, has waged a war on the jurisdiction of those duly elected municipal

governments, bill by bill. Bill 44, which is very similar to what we’re talking about

here.

We have issues that are going before council in Surrey in 15 minutes on housing that

we can’t have public debate on. No public debate on housing projects that the government

is putting into communities. If there’s support or opposition or if there are questions….

The government, the province of B.C., the NDP government has told the cities, whether

it’s the city of Prince George, the city of Surrey, the city of Victoria, the city

of White Rock, the city of Merritt — it doesn’t matter, every single city in this

province: “You do not and, more importantly, the constituents in your municipalities

do not have a right to have their voices heard at public hearings.” And that is completely

wrong. Absolutely wrong.

This bill fits that mould.

I represent areas of South Surrey where we have a development that happened just by

the truck crossing on 0 and 176. Beautiful homes have been growing in there for ten

to 15 years at Douglas crossing. A couple of thousand families are in there. There

is not one public bus that goes through there. There’s no transit, no public transit.

In fact, if you want to use public transit, you’ve got to walk all the way down 8th

Avenue, which I would never let any of my kids walk down. You’ve got to cross Highway

99, which you…. Then you’ve got to cross King George Highway. Then you’ve got to walk

along King George Highway, and you’ve got to wait for a bus that comes four times

a day. That is your access to public transit under this government in an area that

services 10,000 to 15,000 people. I don’t think that’s adequate.

[3:45 p.m.]

When the colleague previous and the colleague previous before that, and probably my

next colleague is going to speak about the fact about eliminating parking and mandating

that with the municipalities…. Where is the vision? Where is the reality?

What are you going to tell the single mom that’s living now in a basement, that’s

going to pick her kids up from school, get them to dance, get the other one to hockey,

then get to her job, and then do it all over again. There’s no parking required there.

You’re on your own. Maybe you can Uber it.

When we talk about things that this government wants to do, I would challenge the

Housing Minister and I would challenge any MLA in Surrey, for that matter, to come

over into White Rock and tell me, whether it’s on Oxford Street, Stevens Street, Stayte

Road, Buena Vista, how you are going to do this. I’ll give an answer for you. You

can’t. Then why are you doing it? You can’t. There’s not even room right now for these

people to take their garbage cans out.

We have massive infrastructure upgrades that need to happen, whether it’s Crescent

Beach, whether it’s Ocean Park, whether it’s Oxford Hill, whether it’s Centennial

Arena, whether it’s King George Highway. I keep going down the list, and I can go

into other ridings as well. I can list those off, and they’re not done. If you talk

to the city of Surrey, they’re saying that in order for us to do those infrastructure

upgrades, they’re over $800 million. Who’s paying that bill? Who’s footing that bill?

Again, this is done in strong opposition to what we are hearing from our municipal

leaders, our elected municipal leaders.

Now, I know that the Premier has probably hired a couple of high school or university

friends to help advise him in the Premier’s office when it comes to housing or whatever,

or past mayors that didn’t get elected or that share those philosophical socialist

beliefs on how we do housing in British Columbia. But it doesn’t work in all corners

of this province.

Fundamentally, it does not work. What works in White Rock may not work in Chetwynd.

It probably won’t. Again, we go through these things, and these are all things that

I’ve given this speech on before, on Bill 44. I’ve given it on Bill 47. It’s the same

stuff. It’s the same opposition. But this government believes in this one-size-fits-all

model, and it’s baffling to me. Not only is it incredibly lazy, but it’s incredibly

dangerous.

You look at this piece of legislation here, and I can explain why it will not work.

I can also explain how offensive it is to the local leaders. Where the confusion is,

is that they have to go out there and do this work — and the amount of staff time

it takes up, and things like that.

You look at cities, whether it’s White Rock or smaller cities than that…. One staff

member was telling me that they have to spend the majority of their time going back

and forth with the province at a bureaucratic level explaining why they can’t meet

these targets, why this does not work for them. That is how they’re spending their

days, not on their permitting, not on the other stuff that they’re meant to be doing,

right? They’re trying to explain to the province how their mandates and their legislation

are conflicting with the reality that’s within their jurisdiction.

I know that other members on the other side of the House are hearing the same thing.

In our caucus, we have former councillors, former city managers and former mayors,

and the government side does as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know what I’m hearing on this side on why this does not work. I’m very curious to

hear, on the other side, how they justify this. The previous speaker was right. Not

every city is Vancouver. It’s not. And I think part of the challenge we have here

is that when the government looks at things, I don’t know if they’re just throwing

darts at a board on a map of British Columbia. That’s honestly how it feels.

Right now you have, I guarantee you, probably a couple hundred people at Surrey city

hall that are wanting to speak on something, and they can’t. That isn’t mandated by

the mayor of Surrey or anybody that sits on Surrey city council. That was mandated

by this NDP government. They silenced those people today. Nobody else did. And that’s

wrong. It’s the same thing with this bill.

I want to thank you for the time today. Obviously, I stand in solid opposition, but

I would say this in my concluding remarks. This idea that everything that goes on

in here and every legislation that is put forward here must work in every corner of

this province is not reality. It’s not.

I can tell you, whether it’s in rural British Columbia or in urban, that there seems

to be a massive disconnect in reality of what we’re facing, whether it’s in Surrey

or White Rock or whether it’s in Dawson Creek or Prince George. Nobody is happy with

what we’re getting from this government, especially when it comes to legislation that

continues to erode the powers and structures of municipalities.

We all end up paying for it because we’re not doing the work ahead of time. We’re

not doing the infrastructure upgrades. We’re not looking at the expansions. I can

tell you that in my riding, we don’t have any new schools in the last six or seven

years. We don’t.

The upgrade…. We’re getting a new ICU at Peace Arch Hospital, which is $40 million.

I want to thank the province for that. I want to thank them for the $3 million they’re

contributing, but I really want to thank the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation, who’s

contributing the other $37 million. That’s what the province is putting in. They’re

putting in less than 10 percent when it comes to the new ICU at Peace Arch Hospital.

Again, they have to be able to work with municipalities, and this hammer approach

is failing every single time, and this is no different.

Lynne Block : My fellow MLAs, to preface, we do stand united in the conviction that the housing

crisis is an emergency demanding urgent and effective action.

The Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, introduced by this

government, is intended to rapidly increase density and streamline development across

the province. However, in pursuit of this necessary goal, this legislation introduces

a fundamental rebalancing of power between the province and our local municipalities.

The sources clearly detail that these amendments demonstrate a significant expansion

of provincial authority, which we must critically examine as overreach. This centralization

raises pertinent questions about procedural fairness, local responsiveness and the

ability of communities to shape their own futures.

We must view these legislative changes, which shift control over zoning, density,

parking and administrative review from elected local councils to the provincial government

and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, albeit a shift to a central command centre,

taking over the operational controls of various local entities.

[3:55 p.m.]

The centralization of control established by this Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes

Amendment Act is likened to a central command centre taking over the operational controls

of various local ships. Now, in this scenario, our local captains — our mayors and

councils, our municipal leaders — are left responsible for the vessel’s journey. This

means they still bear the political and administrative responsibility for managing

community services, budgeting and mitigating the consequences of rapid change, such

as infrastructure strain and congestion.

However, the captains are rendered powerless to steer it according to local navigational

hazards or conditions. This powerlessness stems from the provincial government’s assumption

of critical local powers, including mandatory destination setting.

The province dictates that local governments must permit specific uses and densities

in formerly restricted zones by June 30, 2026, overriding the municipality’s traditional

control over zoning bylaws. Local leaders lose the ability to tailor density changes

to existing neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity or community preference.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council gains authority to make regulations dictating the

siting, size, dimensions, location, type, form or density of housing units. This removes

control over granular design details used to ensure new development harmonizes with

existing neighbourhoods.

The Lieutenant Governor can set an upper limit on the off-street parking spaces that

a municipality may require. This removes the captain’s power to assess and manage

local parking needs, potentially exacerbating street congestion and parking shortages.

If a local council fails to comply with these mandates, the minister, with the Lieutenant

Governor in Council’s approval, can make an order that enacts or amends the local

bylaw directly, completely bypassing the local democratic process and negating local

accountability. In essence, the provincial government has taken the helm of the ship,

leaving the local leaders with the bill for the fuel and the responsibility for the

crew, but no ability to adjust course to avoid locally specific obstacles.

The cornerstone of local governance is the power to manage land use through zoning

bylaws. This act aggressively removes this power via mandatory density mandates. The

legislation dictates that local governments and the council of Vancouver must permit

specific uses and densities in zones previously restricted primarily to detached single-family

dwellings, known as restricted zones. By June 30, 2026, zoning bylaws must be amended

to permit uses such as duplexes and single-family dwellings with one or two additional

housing units. This represents an overreach, because it overrides the local governments’

traditional power to control land use.

So what’s perhaps the possible negative result of this? It is the inability of municipalities

to tailor density changes to existing neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity

or community preference, as they are compelled to comply with minimum density standards

set by the province. But one size does not fit all.

This standardization doesn’t stop at density. The Lieutenant Governor in Council is

granted broad regulation-making authority to dictate specific elements of the newly

required housing units, including “the siting, size, dimensions, location, type, form

or density of housing units.” Local governments must then exercise their zoning powers

in accordance with those provincial regulations.

[4:00 p.m.]

The last couple of weeks I spent chit-chatting with my two local mayors and councillors

and citizens in my riding, and they are aghast by the overreach of this government.

They wanted me to convey very strongly that this is not acceptable and they are totally

against it. So I’m just making it very clear, representing my riding.

This provincial control removes local ability to manage the granular details of construction

and design often used to ensure new development harmonizes with existing neighbourhoods.

The outcome risks a loss of local distinctiveness and standardized, potentially unsuitable

developments across diverse geographic and community settings.

One of the examples cited was that our municipalities know areas where possible landslides

could happen in the future and where some have already. If, indeed, they’re overridden,

then who is going to be responsible for any casualties, any loss of lives, any loss

of property? It would have to be the municipalities.

The most profound constitutional risk involves the minister’s power to directly intervene

and legislate local rules. If a local government fails to adopt a zoning bylaw or

parking bylaw that complies with the new provincial mandates within the required timeframe,

the minister may issue notice. If compliance remains absent, the minister may, with

prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or

amends the local bylaw directly.

Forget about OCPs. Forget about many, many times when all the constituents are together

and have wonderful collaboration and cooperation in what they envision in their municipality.

This allows a provincial minister to completely bypass the local democratic process

and legislate local rules. This concentrates key legislative functions within the

administrative reach of the provincial executive, resulting in the negation of local

democratic accountability for key planning decisions.

This centralized control extends to traffic and infrastructure planning. We only have

two bridges. We have people coming through the North Shore along the highway. People

now commute from Lions Bay, Squamish. They come from Bowen Island. They commute. Then

we have commuters coming from the other way, all the way across the Second Narrows

Bridge.

I can assure you, when it’s time for the change at Seaspan, for people coming in and

people going out, we are clogged. From two o’clock onwards, you have to make sure

that you are either going at least an hour and a half early to an appointment downtown

or across the Second Narrows Bridge, or you may lose out. You never know what the

traffic is like.

Heaven forbid if there’s an emergency or traffic accident, because everything is plugged.

You cannot move. I remember a few months ago there was a traffic accident, and there

was another issue on the other bridge. Traffic didn’t move for four hours. One mother

was trying to pick up her son from daycare, and she was stuck for three hours in the

same spot because nothing moved. There was no place to go.

All of this increased density…. There’s still no way to get off the North Shore. There

is no bridge planned, not even talking about it, not even a tunnel.

This centralized control extends to traffic and infrastructure planning. The act immediately

restricts municipalities and Vancouver council from requiring off-street parking or

loading spaces for specific newly required residential housing units. The Lieutenant

Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations setting an upper limit on the

number of off-street parking or loading spaces that local governments may require

for other residential uses permitted under the act.

What’s the negative result? Increased infrastructure strain. This is an overreach

because it removes the municipality’s power to assess local parking needs. By restricting

the ability to demand adequate off-street parking, the law risks exacerbating street

congestion and parking shortages in rapidly densifying areas.

[4:05 p.m.]

For regions like the North Shore, where existing infrastructure is already inadequate,

adding more residents with no parallel infrastructure built ignores the facts and

risks more gridlock, negatively impacting emergency measures and commuters.

When such extraordinary authority is centralized, including the power to impose bylaws

via order and to regulate design specifications, the system becomes structurally vulnerable

to unintended negative outcomes if that power is exercised without complete impartiality.

The risk is clear. When power is centralized and local checks are eliminated, the

system becomes vulnerable to personal motive and bias. What are three risks stemming

from potential bias or potential motive?

Politically motivated override and selective enforcement. For example, the minister’s

power to enact or amend bylaws and the authority to grant extensions only in “extraordinary

circumstances” carries the risk of being applied unevenly.

If the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council is influenced by personal relationships

or partisan leverage, a non-compliant municipality that is politically aligned might

receive extensive extensions, while an opposition-led municipality might face immediate

and aggressive imposition of provincially