Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, April 16, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 155

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Tributes

Isabel Hogg and Susan “Beth” Bennett

Scott McInnis

Joel Connelly

Hon. Adrian Dix

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Lynne Block

Jordan Kealy

Darlene Rotchford

John Rustad

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Hon. Adrian Dix

Reporting of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Nina Krieger

Rob Botterell

Tony Luck

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

Linda Hepner

Reporting of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026

Royal Assent to Bills

— Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Jeremy Valeriote

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Claire Rattée

Hon. Christine Boyle

Rob Botterell

Thursday, April 16, 2026

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Isabel Hogg

and Susan “Beth” Bennett

Scott McInnis : It’s with sadness that I express the loss of two very important constituents in Columbia

River–Revelstoke.

First of all, Mrs. Isabel Hogg passed away at the age of 94 just a few days ago. Isabel

was a neighbour of mine, two doors up. She is survived by her husband, George, who

is a famous painter of Indigenous artwork in the East Kootenay and western Alberta.

In October, they’d celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary.

I’m just at a loss with Isabel. I’ve known her since I moved to Kimberley in 2010.

It’s just very sad knowing that George survived Isabel. I know they’re very faithful

and that she’s in a very happy place now.

I have to tell a quick story. During COVID, our street was helping the Hoggs get groceries

so that they could stay comfortably at home. I received a beautiful handwritten grocery

list one day. It was the cutest thing. There were two apples, six slices of bologna

and some other items. But George and Isabel — I’ll never forget this — each had their

own flavour of ice cream I had to get. George liked chocolate sauce, and Isabel liked

butterscotch. So it was just a very cool memory that I’ll always have.

The second is the passing of Beth Bennett, a constituent of mine, on a beautiful Easter

Sunday at the age of 69, surrounded by her friends and family. Beth was just a wonderful

woman. Anybody who has had the opportunity to meet her knows just how wonderful and

kind and loyal and loving she was.

Beth is survived by her husband, Bill, who is known very well in the House here. He

served as the member for Kootenay East for 16 years, as well as a cabinet minister

— Bill Bennett. It’s a very sad loss not only for the Bennett family but for Columbia

River–Revelstoke.

My heart and prayers and thoughts are with both Isabel’s family as well as the Bennetts

at this time.

Joel Connelly

Hon. Adrian Dix : In this moment of our tributes in our Legislature, I wanted to pay tribute to a significant

figure who passed away this week in Washington state. The person’s name is Joel Connelly.

Mr. Connelly was a very significant journalist in Washington state. He wrote for the

Seattle P-I for something like 50 years. He was the leading voice — he was the voice, really

— of political analysis in Washington state. Many of us who follow both Washington

state and U.S. politics and who are interested in Washington state and U.S. politics

would have learned a lot of what we knew about Washington state and U.S. politics

from Joel Connelly.

[1:05 p.m.]

Interestingly, Mr. Connelly had an extraordinary relationship with Canada. He started

working at the Seattle P-I in early 1970, and one of his first stories — his mother was a journalist; it was

in his blood — was to come to Victoria. One of his first major front-page stories

involved former Premier Dave Barrett.

Mr. Connelly came here to British Columbia from Washington state, on behalf of the

Seattle P-I , because Premier Barrett wanted to take action and was demanding that the National

Energy Board take action on the price of the export of natural gas, which was then

a Crown corporation in B.C. Mr. Barrett was using the 1974 energy crisis — these things

repeat themselves — to pressure the National Energy Board to hike the price of natural

gas south of the border.

British Columbia was a very important source of natural gas for Washington state,

and the two very powerful U.S. senators from Washington state — Henry “Scoop” Jackson

and Warren Magnuson at the time, Democrats from Washington state — demanded that the

Canadian government intervene to stop the Premier of B.C. So Mr. Connelly came up

as a young journalist and was invited into the Premier’s office to hear the Premier’s

response in Victoria.

This is from Mr. Connelly’s words, in his obituary to Dave Barrett: “Over in Victoria,

Barrett fumed to a visiting Yank reporter that any red-blooded American worker would

want his Canadian counterpart to be paid the going rate for gas. The Premier got carried

away and offered an on-the-record response to Maggie and Scoop. Dave Barrett delivered

a Bronx cheer and raised the middle finger of both hands.”

Back at the newspaper — you can imagine a 23-year-old reporter coming home and getting

this story to the newspaper, and they were obviously looking at his notes — Mr. Connelly

explained what was happening, and the newspaper characterized Mr. Barrett’s statement

as “a gesture of defiance.” In any event, Dave Barrett, who had, as a paper-boy, delivered

the Seattle P-I — many know he went to Seattle University — had shared that in common with Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Connelly wrote a beautiful obituary of Dave Barrett.

Often in our lives and Canadians’ lives, we think we don’t have the attention of the

United States, and we pay a lot of attention to the United States. When I grew up,

the majority of the channels on cable TV were American channels — ABC, KOMO news.

We knew the American reporters on all the different local affiliates — KOMO, KING,

KIRO and, of course, KCTS.

Joel Connelly paid attention to Canada. From his first articles, he wrote articles

about Canada, and he informed Washington state residents about Canada. He loved Canada.

He travelled in Canada. When the COVID-19 pandemic ended, he wrote a beautiful column

about ten places to visit in B.C. and encouraged Americans, once the border was reopened,

to come here. He really cared about this place.

He influenced it as well. He led an American campaign to get Victoria to treat its

sewage, which was a controversial issue for a long time in this town and had a huge

impact. People will remember Mr. Floatie, I think.

Joel Connelly had a lot of influence, but he was also an admirer and a lover of Canada.

His last column was about the election of Avi Lewis as leader of the NDP. He wrote

beautifully about it, covered B.C. politics, brought B.C. people, towns, communities

and parks to Washington state people.

I think it’s important to remember, in a time when relationships between Canada and

the United States are so difficult, that the ties binding those of us who live in

British Columbia and those who live in Washington state are profound. They’re ties

of people, not just fans of the Seahawks but people of communities.

Joel Connelly, who was born in Bellingham and wrote about British Columbia and, of

course, Washington and United States politics for 50 years, had a profound influence.

He was a great contributor to American democracy and, in his own way, a great contributor

to our own.

I had the honour to know him and to admire his work, and I wish on behalf of the Legislature

to pay our best to his family.

[1:10 p.m.]

Lynne Block : I would appreciate finishing my speech on forestry.

The Speaker : No, hold it. We’re not there yet.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I call second reading on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment

Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : All right, recognizing the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Lynne Block : Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m always reminded to stand up. If nobody’s standing,

stand up quickly. So I’m standing up again. But thank you for your leniency.

I just would like to finish up on speaking to Bill 14 — just a few little points.

First of all, we cannot talk seriously about this Bill 14 without confronting the

reality of our wildfire crisis. In just eight years, British Columbia has experienced

five catastrophic fire seasons. Experts featured in documentaries point out that decades

of fire suppression without active fuel management have left our forests unnaturally

dense and laden with combustible fuel. Fire suppression without prescribed burning

or thinning has permitted surface fuels and ladder fuels to accumulate, setting the

stage for unprecedented fire behaviour.

I was hoping that this Bill 14 would address this issue more emphatically, especially

because it costs millions of dollars for these wildfires and impacts water, impacts

communities. It’s unnecessary. So I was hoping that this current model that we have

right now — which I believe is more reactive, where we wait for fires to start and

then we throw every resource at fighting them — would have more of a proactive approach

in this bill.

We know that fire science, prevention and preparedness through active fuel management,

landscape-level thinning and strategic prescribed burns work. Hopefully, that will

happen in the future.

But right now, Bill 14 places far more emphasis on administrative control rather than

on embracing science-based, preventative measures being used in other jurisdictions,

like California or any other place in North America, to build forest resiliency. I

think this is really an important part of this bill. We want forest resiliency — also

economic resiliency. So I believe that’s an important omission.

We cannot continue to behave as though wildfire risk is simply a natural disaster

that we must endure. It is as much a policy outcome as a natural phenomenon. We have

the tools to change it if we make the right choices. So I’m hoping that subsequent

amendments for this bill will address this issue.

After pointing out some of the issues I find with this bill and explaining why they

are perhaps detrimental, like always, I like to finish on a positive note. So I respectfully

add that this government could have some inclusions or some recommendations for future

amendments.

In order to rebuild this — what I call — renewable industry and protect our forests,

this government could take a very different path, and it’s a path grounded in expertise,

accountability and long-term vision; a path which would not only benefit this bill

but, ultimately, the forestry sector.

One of the issues that I think is really important…. We need to streamline the permitting

process and remove the “tougher than the law” discretionary mandates that encourage

confusion rather than compliance. Now, this would help this government to provide

a climate for the forestry industry where there are stable rules, not shifting regulatory

goal posts.

[1:15 p.m.]

Another suggestion is: enhance this bill by ensuring that we address the systematic

supply issues that are forcing mill closures, align permitting processes with allowable

cut targets and ensure fibre flows predictably to the market.

Another suggestion. In this bill, shift policy emphasis from reactive suppression

to proactive, science-based fuel management, including thinning; prescribed burns;

and other strategies that reduce wildfire intensity and protect communities, watersheds

and ecosystems.

This is an important part of this bill — embed financial transparency. Ensure that

in this bill, every dollar spent by B.C. Timber Sales is fully accountable to taxpayers,

subject to regular audits and performance evaluation.

Forestry is a renewable resource and should be a point of pride for B.C. It should

be a source of stable employment for rural communities, global export strength and

ecological resilience. It should be. But right now, Bill 14 treats our forests as

if they were a sector to be micromanaged, regulated into compliance and administered

from a distant office, rather than nurtured, understood and stewarded with both scientific

integrity and economic realism.

The reality is that while this sector faces global challenges, the declines are happening

under this government, and their specific policies have made them worse. This bill

needs, because of that, specific amendments in committee stage.

We cannot afford more turnover, more uncertainty or more mill closures. We cannot

afford to ignore expertise in favour of bureaucracy. It is time for this government

to stop adding complexity and start working with the industry and committing to policies

that recognize that a healthy, managed forest is our best defence against both economic

decline and the threat of wildfire.

I am looking forward to the committee stage of this bill. That will ensure that critical

amendments to this bill will be successful and thus, moving forward, the forestry

sector will become more robust and more successful in itself.

Jordan Kealy : I rise today on behalf of the hard-working families, loggers, truckers and millworkers

of Peace River North to speak on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

I’m not here to play political games or score points. I’m here because of my riding,

Peace River North, that is being hit hard by years of NDP mismanagement of our resource

sector. This bill is just one more of the same, tinkering around the edges while our

communities bleed jobs and opportunities.

As a farmer and millwright, I live and breathe the realities of northern British Columbia

every single day. I know what it means when the mills go quiet, when the logging contractors

have to park their equipment and when families have to consider leaving because work

is scarce.

I am one of the few MLAs that have worked in mills, and there is a good chance that

I would have been one of the ones out of a job, too, if I was still working in that

sector. In Fort Nelson, we lost mills. The pulp mill that I worked for in Taylor closed.

The sawmill in Fort St. John just previously, last year, closed. Thousands of jobs

lost.

Let’s be clear about what this bill actually does. The NDP government wants to expand

the role of B.C. Timber Sales, their own government-run timber sales program. They’re

creating new contract logging authorizations so that the province can directly hire

contractors to cut down timber without giving anyone real tenure.

They’re broadening the BCTS stewardship role and giving themselves more flexibility

to spend money from the timber sales account. They’re calling it a win for fibre supply,

wildfire risk reduction and First Nations partnerships.

[1:20 p.m.]

If this was the bold action our industry needed after 31 mills closed in the last

five years, I’d be the first one cheering. But it isn’t. This is the classic NDP progression

— more government control, more red tape, more uncertainty, dressed up as progress.

For the people I represent in the Peace, it falls horribly short. In Peace River North,

our region depends on forestry as a foundational industry. The combined timber supply

area for the Peace has an allowable annual cut of around 4.7 million cubic metres,

but we’ve watched the Canfor sawmill in Fort St. John shut down, costing over 220

direct jobs and thousands more in the supply chains.

Truckers, fallers, equipment operators and small contractors in Taylor, Fort St. John,

Fort Nelson, Hudson’s Hope and up the Alaska Highway are the backbone of our economy.

When fibre doesn’t reach the mills, those families feel it first. Yet this bill does

not fix the real problems choking our sector — chronically low harvest levels, endless

permitting delays, old-growth deferrals that lock up viable timber and investment

chill created by this government’s own policies.

Bill 14 entrenches more bureaucratic oversight through BCTS. Why should the government

be getting bigger in the logging business when private operators and tenure holders

are the ones who actually know how to run a sustainable, private, profitable operation?

Northern operators already face sky-high transportation costs, harsh winters and thin

it’s extra environmental standards, more consultation requirements or compliance with

outside standard bodies — only drives up costs and drives away investment. That’s

not helping wildfire risk reduction. That’s layering on more red tape that makes it

harder to get work done.

Let’s talk about what this bill conveniently ignores. It says nothing about keeping

logs in British Columbia for local processing. While our mills starve, raw logs still

head offshore. It does nothing to meaningfully raise the provincial harvest target

or slash the regulatory burden that has addled so much of our industry. Worst of all,

it does nothing to address the elephant in the room, the uncertainty created by the

NDP’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, also known as DRIPA.

I know this file well. Last year I stood in this House, and I introduced my own private

member’s bill to repeal and reset DRIPA, because this government has turned what it

was supposed to be — a path to unity — into a tool for division and delay.

In Treaty 8 territory, right in my riding, cumulative effects of rulings, overlapping

consultations and unclear jurisdictions have created a veto-like chill on resource

projects. Bill 14 talks about partnerships with First Nations, but without clear rules,

faster timelines and respect for existing treaties, those partnerships become just

more process, more lawyers and more uncertainties for contractors and workers on the

ground.

The people of Peace River North want fair, transparent relationships built on respect,

not endless red tape that shuts down various projects that create shared prosperity.

This bill also quietly expands ministerial powers over fees and spending from the

BCTS account. British Columbians want accountability, not blank cheques for more government

programs. Taxpayers and industries alike deserve to know exactly where the money is

going and whether it is actually creating jobs or just growing the bureaucracy in

Victoria.

The NDP love to talk about sustainable forestry and climate leadership, but the results

in northern British Columbia tell me a different story. Investment and confidence

is in the toilet. Mills are closing. Young people are leaving, and families who have

worked in the bush for generations are wondering if there is a future here at all.

[1:25 p.m.]

I attended the COFI forestry conference recently. The room was packed with people

desperate for solutions, real solutions, not more government-managed salvage programs

while the core allowable cut stays suppressed and the rule book keeps growing.

What Peace River North needs, what all British Columbians need is a government that

trusts the private sector, cuts the red tape, raises sustainable harvest levels where

science supports it, prioritizes local processing and provides regulatory certainty

instead of ideological experiments.

We need to repeal DRIPA and replace it with legislation that actually works for all

British Columbians. We need faster approvals, not more ministerial discretion, and

we need to stop treating our resource workers like they’re the problem and start treating

them like the solution that they are.

Bill 14 is not the real answer. It is a modest administrative tweak that entrenches

more government involvement without delivering the fibre, the jobs or the confidence

of our industry that northern communities desperately need. The loggers, the truck

drivers, the mill families in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and across the Peace deserve

better than another half-measure from a government that has already decimated this

sector.

Let’s stop tinkering, and let’s start the real work of restoring forestry as the economic

backbone of this province and think about a future of forestry where instead of just

looking at it as forestry management, we can actually look at it as farming our forests.

It really is the only sustainable resource we have.

Farmers, on a regular basis, harvest crops annually in my region. We do it sustainably.

We do it respectfully of the environment, and we do it very efficiently. We can do

the same with our forests. It’s just a longer turnover for the crop.

I look forward to seeing what this bill brings in the committee stage. I want to thank

the Forests Minister for coming up to my riding and being able to meet with me to

discuss some of the concerns about this.

I went to school to become a millwright. I hear the government praise how they’re

promoting apprenticeships. It took me a while to get my apprenticeship ticket to be

able to work in these mills, and they’re disappearing. I took the time to get a second

trades ticket to make myself more valuable, and it would make it even harder now to

get into some of these mills, because so many tradespeople are having to go to other

provinces to be able to find jobs.

Darlene Rotchford : Good afternoon. It’s a privilege to rise in this House in strong support of Bill

14, the B.C. Timber Sales legislative amendments.

I’d like to thank the minister for bringing this forward and being a champion for

this sector.

For many of you who may not know, I’m actually not originally from British Columbia.

I’ve said in this House that I’m from a very small town in Nova Scotia, which was

a mill town. We’re an industry-based town. I’ve seen firsthand how a mill closing

of 650 people overnight can actually affect your community, how an industry that dies

can affect your community.

For those who don’t know, that’s also where the Westray mine disaster happened. So

I take industry and all that comes with it very seriously when we’re talking about

community, jobs and what we’re doing within them.

At its core, this legislation is about people. It is about men and women, people,

working in the bush, often in challenging conditions, who rely on the steady opportunities

to support their families. It is about the workers on mill floors who depend on a

consistent, predictable supply of fibre. And it’s about the communities across British

Columbia whose economies are built on forestry and whose futures depend on us getting

it right.

For anyone who has ever taken a tour of the Legislature and you go up in the rotunda

and you look, one of the key people standing there is in forestry, because we were

built on the forestry industry here in British Columbia. Bill 14 recognizes that reality.

It responds with practical, meaningful action.

[1:30 p.m.]

But one of the most important aspects of this legislation is that it expands timber

sales options in a way that directly supports good-paying jobs, something I think

we can all agree on in this House. By creating a wider range of contract opportunities

through B.C. Timber Sales, we are opening the door for more contractors, including

small and medium-sized operators, to participate in this sector.

These are not abstract policy changes. They are real opportunities for people to bid

on work, to grow their business, to invest their equipment and to hire and train workers.

For many contractors who do not hold long-term tenures and rely on access to fibre

through the open market, these changes represent a significant and long-overdue improvement.

They mean better access to market-priced fibre. They mean great participation in the

forestry economy. They mean more stability in an industry that has experienced too

much uncertainty over the years.

We’ve heard clearly from stakeholders across the sector that access to fibre is one

of the most pressing challenges they face. Without reliable access, mills cannot operate

at capacity. Without capacity, jobs are at risk. Without jobs, communities suffer.

Bill 14 addresses this challenging but improving fibre flow across the province. By

expanding the types of timber sale licences available and increasing the flexibility

of B.C. Timber Sales, we are ensuring that the right log gets the right mill at the

right time.

This is particularly important for value-added manufacturers, who often depend on

specific types of fibre and have historically faced barriers to accessing it. In fact,

these changes are expected to significantly increase the amount of fibre available

to the sector. This includes not only the overall increase in supply that has already

been discussed but also targeted improvements that will help ensure that fibre is

distributed more efficiently and equitably.

Another key component of this legislation is the focus on salvage logging and the

recovery of damaged timber. In recent years, British Columbia has experienced devastating

wildfires and other natural disasters that have left significant volumes of timber

damaged but still usable.

Without timely action, that fibre is lost, representing both an economic loss and

a missed opportunity to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health. Bill 14 addresses

this by streamlining access to salvage opportunities, something people have been asking

for.

These new approaches will allow for faster recovery of damaged timber, increasing

the amount of usable fibre that can be brought forward to market. They will support

mills, particularly in the pulp sector, that rely on that type of material. They will

create additional work for contractors who are ready and able to take on these projects.

Importantly, this work also contributes to building a more wildfire-resilient landscape,

something I think we can also all agree on. By removing damaged and high-risk material,

we are taking proactive steps to reduce future fire risk and protect communities.

This legislation is also about strengthening long-term forest outcomes. For too long,

aspects of our system have been focused primarily on short-term harvest cycles. While

that approach has delivered benefits in the past, it is not sufficient to meet the

challenges we face today. Bill 14 supports a shift toward full-rotation forest management.

This means looking at the entire life cycle of a forest, from initial harvest through

replanting and ongoing stewardship, all the way to future harvest.

By empowering B.C. Timber Sales to play a strong role across that full cycle, we are

improving our ability to plan for the long term. We are shaping future forests for

resilience, for health and for high-quality timber. We are providing greater certainty

for workers, for communities and for investors who are dependent on a stable, predictable

supply of fibre. This long-term approach also reinforces B.C.’s position as a global

leader in sustainable forestry practices.

I also want to highlight the importance of partnership in this Legislature. We know

that the future of forestry in B.C. must be built on collaboration. This includes

collaboration with First Nations, with our local communities, with industry and with

workers.

Bill 14 enables more flexible and meaningful partnerships by giving B.C. Timber Sales

the tools it needs to work differently than in the past. It allows for approaches

that are tailored to our local priorities and that support shared stewardship outcomes.

[1:35 p.m.]

We’ve already seen encouraging results in this direction. The comments before me about

repealing UNDRIP and prioritizing different things…. I want to remember that it’s

about partnerships with First Nations, having helped bring additional fibre to the

market, while supporting capacity-building and economic participation. Because again,

it’s about collaboration and working together. These are the kinds of outcomes we

need to continue to build on.

The support for these changes extends across the forestry sector, industry associations,

labour organizations. As someone who has represented many labour organizations in

my time, including being the president of Victoria Labour Council and representing

the Island and the Sunshine Coast in the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Pacific

region for the Canadian Labour Congress, it’s an area I’m very familiar with.

Representatives of value-added manufacturers have all recognized the importance of

improving fibre access and creating more flexible opportunities with B.C. Timber Sales.

They’ve spoken about the need for stability so that contractors can invest in their

workforce and modernize their equipment. They’ve emphasized the importance of ensuring

that mills have access to cost-effective logs so they can continue to operate and

support families, support jobs — good jobs, good jobs in our community, good jobs

in the province. They’ve highlighted the role that increased fibre availability plays

in strengthening the communities across our province.

This broad support reflects a shared understanding that we need to act. Bill 14 is

a meaningful step in the right direction.

It’s also worth noting that the changes we are advancing today build on real, measurable

progress. We’ve already seen an increase in timber sale volumes, improved access to

fibre for value-added manufacturers and expanded stewardship activities here on the

ground.

We’ve seen innovative approaches, including the use of new technologies to support

forestry professionals and improve outcomes. These early results demonstrate that

when we give B.C. Timber Sales the tools they need, they can deliver.

Bill 14 takes that momentum and builds on it. It strengthens B.C. Timber Sales as

a more flexible and responsible supplier of fibre, including those without traditional

tender, and it ensures that we continue to balance economic opportunities with strong

environmental stewardship and public interest outcomes. Because again, we all need

to work together as we work together to ensure that British Columbians have everything

they’re going to need.

Forestry is not just an industry in B.C. It is a cornerstone of our economy and a

foundation of many of our communities, especially in our rural areas. The decisions

we make in this House have real consequences for people who depend on it.

We have heard of those communities who are struggling, mills closing across the province

— in the North and here on the Island. Bill 14 is protecting those communities. It’s

about supporting those workers. It’s about making sure that little kid has got what

they need to play baseball, that that parent has enough money to afford groceries,

that they can afford their mortgages and they can afford everything they’re going

to need to live a good life in their community so they can stay here in British Columbia.

I don’t want to have to look at someone who did what I had to do and left their home

province. I want to ensure whatever we do gets to keep those people here. It’s important.

We’re ensuring that our forests continue to provide economic, environmental and social

benefits for many generations to come — for me, for my daughters, for their kids and

for generations after. We’re building a forestry sector that is more resilient, more

inclusive and more sustainable. We’re doing so in a way that reflects the values of

British Columbians.

We cannot control global markets. We cannot control the policy of other countries

or stupid people in different levels of government. But we can take action here at

home to strengthen our own system, support our own workers, our own government and

to make the most of the resources we do have.

Bill 14 does exactly that. It improves access to fibre, supporting good jobs. You

will never not hear me stand up here in this House and talk about good-paying jobs

for British Columbians, because it’s at the heart of who I am. It’s not just about

my community. It’s about making sure that there are good-paying jobs, again, for generations

and generations to come. It enhances stewardship. It sets the stage for a more stable,

prosperous future for British Columbia — something, again, that I think all sides

of the House can agree on.

[1:40 p.m.]

For all of those reasons, I am proud to stand here in support of this legislation.

I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about some of those unions who are also fighting

the good fight, who unfortunately have lost their jobs. We need to get a path back

for them — our Steelworkers, our Unifor members, people who’ve stood the test of time,

long-standing union activists. I stand up here quite regularly and talk about those

workers.

I was on a labour council that was established in 1887. Guess what one of the first

unions was — forestry workers. It talks about them and the work they did. They helped

build this province and, again, the very building we’re in. We could not do it without

them today, then and in the future.

I encourage all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill 14 and supporting

workers, communities, families, the forests themselves that it will benefit — not

just today but for future generations, for those of my kids and for their little friends

and perhaps whoever they marry, because hopefully, they will stay in B.C. Hopefully,

you’re watching this one day, and you choose to stay here.

Again, I’d like to thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. I think this

bill is helping us move in the right direction to continue all the things I have stated

before.

John Rustad : Happy to get up and speak to Bill 14. I appreciate the applause, especially from

my longtime friends from the other side of the House. It’s a pleasure to get up and

share a few words.

Bill 14 is another version of forest legislation coming forward from this province

with lots of promise, as the member previous just said. You know, it’s going to be

sustainable forest management. It’s going to create jobs. It’s going to have fibre

flow. It’s going to do all these wonderful things for our forest sector.

It has been a decade of hearing these from the NDP, and I just want to go a little

bit down memory lane. Way back then, they used to talk about secondary manufacturing.

Imagine that. How did those results turn out? Well, we’ve seen secondary manufacturing

plummet after policy and policy came forward from this government.

Then they said: “Oh, it’s all about value-added. We’re going to make sure we add value

to the logs.” Well, you’ve got to actually log to actually add value, and the logging

is cut in half. There has been no value-added. All we’ve seen are jobs lost and mills

closed.

They promised they were going to get rid of log exports. Well, how has that worked

out? Yeah, they have stopped some log exports simply because they haven’t made any

wood available, but it certainly hasn’t declined the amount of wood that’s actually

being exported from this project.

Then there was the promise of more jobs per cubic metre. We’ve got to be getting our

true value and generating all those jobs. Well, how did that turn out? Clearly, we’ve

seen a massive loss of jobs in the forest sector.

We have seen policy after policy come forward from this government with no measurable

results, only negative results, to the place today where our chief forester says we

should be logging 62 million cubic metres. That’s what is sustainable in the forest

today — 62 million cubic metres. Yet in this budget that this government has brought

forward, they’re estimating that they’re going to cut 29 million.

I actually think they’re being optimistic. I don’t even think they’re going to get

to that — less than half of what is allowed to be cut sustainably, properly, under

world standards in this province — because of policies like this one that have been

brought forward. Policy after policy has driven up prices and killed our forest sector

in British Columbia.

We’ve seen….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a moment.

Misty Van Popta : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta : In the chamber today, or up in the gallery just seated now, are friends of mine from

Langley Christian School. They’re one of three groups here that’s coming through.

The first classes are from Ms. Hogg and Ms. Wessner, and they are here as grade 5.

My kids were also members of Langley Christian School, a good school focused on quality

education.

I wanted to also recognize all the parent chaperones up there as well — an old colleague

of mine, Matthew Groot, and a really good friend of mine, Dorothy Boessenkool — also

in the House today.

Will you please make them feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

John Rustad : Great to see students here learning about our democracy in British Columbia, how

the process works.

I was talking about all the job losses and the structure that we’re seeing here in

British Columbia. Imagine this. B.C. Timber Sales was set up to make available about

20 percent of the fibre in British Columbia so that we could have a proper market

pricing system. It worked for a while, but over the last ten years, what has happened?

In my area of Nechako Lakes, which I’m honoured to have the chance to get up and speak

on behalf of, there was a period of three years where there was zero volume put out

by B.C. Timber Sales — zero. They’ve got more than 20 percent of the volume and it’s

just gone, not even being put out for bid in the market.

B.C. Timber Sales has consistently undercut. They’ve consistently not met their targets

of fibre that’s available for British Columbia. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even

be surprised, and we’ll have to see in terms of the budgets when you really look at

the numbers, if B.C. Timber Sales actually loses money in terms of their cost versus

the revenue they generate on the fibre they put out on the market.

Such a great organization that is unable to put fibre out, that isn’t contributing

financially in any significant way to our forest sector…. Our Ministry of Forests

is costing more than the revenue that’s being generated today in the forest sector.

And now we have a bill that is going to give them the ability to get into logging,

to get into sorting and creating sort yards, and there’s merchanting and this whole

side of things.

I was talking with people in the forest sector. They say: “Are these guys kidding?

They haven’t got the expertise. They haven’t got anybody in the organization that

knows how to do it.” As a matter of fact, there’s only a handful, maybe ten people

in the entire province, that have some of the skills that these people say they’re

going to be able to do in B.C. Timber Sales. How’s that going to work out?

Well, let’s look at the record. The record says it has been failure after failure,

yet somehow, this is the solution for the forest sector. This will help us get the

right log to the right mill.

I’m sorry, but evidence speaks far louder than spin coming from this government and

that minister. And spin is what we’re seeing non-stop. If you listen to the speeches

from them, you would think that they’ve got this great, wonderful forest sector that’s

going. We just heard the member previous speak — not the reality of a forest sector

in crisis, a forest sector on the verge of collapse, thousands of jobs being lost,

mills being shut down all over the province.

The member previous said: “Yes, this bill will help us be able to access fire-damaged

wood.” Well, excuse me? There has been permit after permit that have gone forward

for fire-damaged wood, and they’ve been blocked by this government.

We’ve had mills that have shut down and had to lay their people off because they can’t

get the wood, and they’re in the heart of where there are millions of cubic metres

of damaged wood that could be harvested — millions. And they’ve sent their workers

home because they can’t get access to fibre. Wood that only lasts three to five years,

and then it falls down and it’s no longer salvageable…. You go to Alberta and they

can get those permits in three months, not three-plus years.

This is the forest sector that is the NDP’s version in British Columbia, and we have

another bill coming in. Oh yes, BCTS is going to ride to the salvation of the forest

sector. It’s going to make more fibre available. It’s going to get the right log to

the right mill.

Well, I find that somewhat disingenuous, for this ministry and this government to

actually believe that that is what they’re going to do. It’s just going to be yet

another layer.

Now, if they really wanted to help our forest sector, if they really wanted to actually

get more fibre, get more value from that fibre, create more jobs, get the mills open

again in this province, you know the first thing they should do? A core review of

their costs and slash all of the input costs that this government has created for

our forest sector. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy and process, time and expense.

[1:50 p.m.]

You can’t compete when you are way, way out of whack in a cost structure. No one’s

going to invest in this province when that is what is being created in British Columbia.

It’s not just the cost. We need major stumpage reform. Stumpage…. Quite frankly, I

don’t even know why we still use this system. The market pricing system is clearly

not working properly, because BCTS is not getting the volume out on the market, and

they’re certainly not getting that percentage of our forest going.

Why are we so concerned about how the Americans will respond? Excuse me? Who cares

about what they’re going to do? We need to get our forest sector working. We need

to get the people back to work. They’re going to do what they’re going to do regardless

of what we do, so let’s focus on making sure that British Columbia comes first. Let’s

change our stumpage system. Let’s make things work.

Fibre availability. This is really simple. You’ve got a chief forester, independent,

one of the most skilled people in the forest sector, with a whole division of people

who are saying that you can cut 62 million cubic metres. Get the permits out the door.

Allow that to happen. Don’t take three years to get permits; take three months to

get permits.

It’s process upon process that’s being added that prevents that wood from actually

flowing, to the place where companies like Canfor just throw up their hands and say:

“There’s no point trying to do business in British Columbia. You can’t operate here.”

When I read through this bill and looked at it, I had to chuckle a little bit. Throughout

licence to cut may set requirements or restrictions that are more stringent than the

requirements and restrictions that apply to the holder under this act.”

Think about that. We already have the most difficult jurisdiction in North America,

and likely in the world, to actually do anything in forestry, and this act is talking

about making things more stringent, more restrictive, more difficult. How exactly

does that work and match with the rhetoric that has come from the minister and others

that have spoken to this? I don’t get it. It doesn’t make any sense.

But then again, that is the definition of the NDP and this government. They don’t

make any sense.

Interjection.

John Rustad : I am being nice. Believe me, I’d love to use better words.

Interjections.

John Rustad : It’s not even getting late in the afternoon, where the usual chirping starts up,

Madam Speaker, but that’s okay. It’s always good to be able to heckle back and forth

a little.

This bill also talks a little bit about wildfire and salvage logging. Certainly, we

do need to do more. Quite frankly, we need to be doing more to access all the fibre.

But when your sawmill is shut down, the pulp mills aren’t getting chips and the pellet

plants aren’t getting residual fibre, there’s no incentive to invest in doing anything

else with the fibre that is available. It’s great to talk about salvage of this fibre,

but how does that work if there isn’t anybody to take it?

We used to have power plants, and we still do have power plants, but they were strangled

by this government in terms of the pricing structure. Most of them are struggling

just to keep open. I visited one just last summer down in the Falkland area, I believe

it was, down in through that area. They were wondering if they could even stay open,

because they couldn’t get a proper contract to cover the cost to be able to do their

fibre recovery.

Now, think about this. If a pulp mill shuts down and you don’t have a pellet plant,

how does the sawmill stay open? Where do you send your chips? You can’t operate. Chips

are a major revenue stream for sawmills. But at the same time, if the sawmills are

shutting down, how does the pulp mill stay open? They can’t just continually be grinding

whole logs for chips. They need that residual to be able to be affordable and be competitive.

This is a huge problem that has happened in this. I actually got to a place where

I asked the forest sector. I said: “How do you restart?” If we end up with these horrible

policies, and both sides of our sector — the primary breakdown and the other components

that are using it — shut down at the same time because they can’t operate in this

province, how do you get them up and running again?

[1:55 p.m.]

Who comes first? How do you get a pulp mill without sawmills? How do you get sawmills

without a pulp mill?

The damage that has been done to this forest sector is going to take decades to reverse,

because you can’t just suddenly go and start up a new sawmill. You have to bring the

whole industry up as you go. It just doesn’t work. This bill is not going to do anything

to solve any of that side of things.

One of the big challenges, I think, in terms of this, is certainly just permitting

in general. Where is it in this bill that actually says: “Permits will get done in

three to six months. We’re going to strip out all the bureaucracy and process to get

to that place”? It’s not in here. They talk about wanting to have fibre moving faster

and that whole side of things.

I don’t want to go on too much. But I did want to say, because…. The reason I’m speaking

particularly to this bill is that forestry is near and dear to my riding, where I

have seen all of the major mills shut down in my riding, most of the major mills permanently.

There are still a number of the sawmills that are up and running, and they are significant

job creators in our communities. They’re an important fabric of my riding.

But Houston has lost both its sawmills. Fraser Lake has lost its sawmill. Vanderhoof

has lost its major sawmill. These are foundational mills for the communities that

are gone, and they’re not coming back — not coming back until we get a government

that actually respects and champions the forest sector.

That’s what is needed from this government, an actual champion — not somebody who

wants to go out and do a goodwill tour and go off and give some speeches but somebody

who fundamentally believes in the forest sector and that these are the most renewable,

the most environmentally friendly products that we could be producing for the world.

Get out there, sell the products, fix the problems, drive down the costs, and actually

have a healthy sector.

The member previous talked about members in the Steelworkers and the other unions

in this province. I’ve talked to them too, and I’ll tell you what. They keep telling

me the same thing. They are sick and tired of transition, of bridging to retirement

or retraining.

They just want to work. They want to do their jobs. They want to provide for their

families. They want to be able to carry on with the lives that they’ve had in the

past. They want their mills open. They want fibre to flow and to have access. There’s

so much that could be done to our forest sector to improve things.

Yes, we’ve got a problem with our neighbour south of the border. That’s a big issue.

We’ve got to solve that, and we’ve got to find ways to put pressure on to solve that.

But at the same time, there are things that we should be doing in British Columbia

for our forest sector.

The best thing that the minister could do, quite frankly, is not just to go out on

a tour and give some speeches but to actually put some action in place to what he

hears. Come back into this Legislature with a list of the things that the industry

is telling him — sector by sector of it, mill by mill, union and non-union, companies

coming forward saying: “Please, just please give us a break. Give us an opportunity

to actually be successful.” Come into the Legislature and read their list. Read their

list and then commit to doing it.

This government in this past budget came out and said that they’ve got an aspirational

target of 45 million cubic metres. My gosh. The industry is saying, “Hallelujah, we

might actually get to 45 million cubic metres,” while the chief forester is saying

we could be cutting 62 million. Strange — very, very strange — to think of what happened

to our forest sector.

The sad

part is that we’ve seen this before. This is what happened in the 1990s. I’ll

never forget a cartoon I saw at the end of the 1990s where the forest industry came

in to talk to the Premier of the day, begging and pleading for them to lift their

boot just at least a little bit off of their chest so that maybe they could breathe,

maybe they could operate a little bit.

The cartoon said…. The government of the day said: “No way. We are not doing anything

until you create those 30,000 jobs I promised.” The caption underneath is: “When’s

the next election?” And the response was: “Not soon enough.”

[2:00 p.m.]

We’re in that same boat today with our forest sector. We need significant changes.

We need a government that’ll actually listen to them. We need a government that actually

cares about the jobs and communities that our forest sector needs and that our forest

sector supports.

Nechako Lakes has gone through some tough times when it comes to forestry. Nechako

Lakes has come through some tough times, as well, even with wildfires. I look at Bill

14 and I think: “If this is the best the government can do, we have huge problems

ahead.”

I just want to repeat something, as well, about the B.C. Timber Sales. They do not

have the expertise to do what the minister is promising. So what will happen?

They’re going to have to hire a bunch of people. They’re going to have to set up all

kinds of protocol and process. They’re going to add huge expense. They’re going to

come out and celebrate that something gets up and running, but they’re not going to

look at the bottom line — which is actual jobs, the costs and what it actually means

for communities and operations that need fibre.

I can tell you something about sort yards and bringing in whole logs. I think it’s

a great idea to do that. Let the private sector do it if the business model is there.

Because what ends up happening is that the government is going to celebrate this,

they’re going to bring in the fibre, and they’re going to cream off the best stuff.

And yes, that’ll go off to be processed here and there.

But what happens to the rest of it? There’s no market for it. There’s no place to

send it. So what happens? It piles up, and it piles up. Then they have to apply for

permits just to burn it. Because there’s no access. There are no jobs. There is no

secondary manufacturing. There’s no need or use for it. You’ve got to create the demand

before you create that supply. And they’ve killed the demand.

What’s next? Are they going to actually start investing in that kind of operation

so that they can use the fibre as well? Does government want to try to take over the

whole operation of our forest sector?

Back in 1987, the Ministry of Forests thought it was a great idea…. Well, this is

all the way leading up to 1987. That’s when the change was. But before then, the Ministry

of Forests thought it was a great idea for governments to look after tree planting,

because they would get it right. They would make sure the forests would be reforested.

What were the stats? A 65 percent success rate and 20 to 25 years to get to free-to-grow.

After 1987, it moved to the private sector. The government of the day did the right

thing. They said: “No, no. We don’t do this well. We’ll move it to the private sector.”

When it moved to the private sector, you know what the numbers became? A 98 percent

success rate and 11 to 14 years to free-to-grow — remarkable change, remarkable improvements.

We’re getting our trees planted, higher-quality trees being planted. They’re getting

free-to-grow. They’re getting to a place, quite frankly, where they can be counted

on for the next generation of harvesting, instead of wasted time going back and replanting,

slow growth.

That’s what I’m afraid of, that we do what we used to do way back then by having government

look after doing it. The private sector are the ones that can make it work, and if

they can’t make it work, they won’t do it.

The government doesn’t have that mandate. If they can’t make it work, they’ll just

throw more money at it. Well, we’re not making money in this province. We’re running

a $13.3 billion deficit. We can’t throw more money at it. We need the private sector

to make it work so that we can generate revenue to help pay down our deficit and get

in a better place in this province.

The people in Nechako Lakes are proud of their forestry background and their forestry

history. That combined with agriculture and the mining that’s going on, the bit of

tourism and other manufacturing that goes on and the small businesses…. It’s a very

proud riding. But they are very uncomfortable and upset about what has happened to

our forest sector. They’re looking for hope.

Bill 14 is being billed like that, but I can’t see anything in here that I can go

back to my riding with and say: “This will bring you hope.”

Lorne Doerkson : I have a few brief remarks, too, that I want to make regarding Bill 14 and the Forests

Statutes Amendment Act. I certainly share a number of similar opinions with the members

for Nechako Lakes and also Peace River North.

[2:05 p.m.]

I guess I’m always happy to hear that we’re in a position to speak about forestry

in this chamber and bring comments from some of the rural ridings. But I think what

often gets forgotten in this room is that this really has an incredibly serious effect

on the entire province. You just have to fly into the Vancouver Airport one time and

look below in the Fraser River and see how much of our forestry products are sitting

in that river. This is so serious throughout the province.

While I appreciate the fact that we have a bill before the House that has a goal of

solving some of the issues with respect to BCTS, B.C. Timber Sales, I really don’t

see it as a fulsome solution to our challenges in the forest industry in general terms.

First off, BCTS is being asked to do more, certainly, at a time when they’re already

struggling to deliver on their core mandate. They’re already facing challenges delivering

existing volume. Planning, permitting, operational constraints remain unchanged. Adding

new responsibilities like wildfire and thinning…. Those types of things, frankly,

are outside of the scope of what BCTS should be doing.

Frankly, this really puts the government in the seat as a general contractor when

we’re surrounded by extremely well-outfitted loggers and mill operators through the

entire province.

Peace River North had pointed out earlier that there are 31 mills that have closed

in this province. So when we talk about this bill having some sort of potential great

impact on the province, I can’t wait to hear in committee — potentially, we’ll hear

it in closing remarks today — what kind of volume is expected here.

The member for Nechako Lakes touched on what is the mandate of the Forests Ministry

in this province — to generate 45 million cubic metres. I don’t want to throw out

a whole bunch of numbers, but the budget shows 30 for the next couple of years. I’m

very concerned about that, because that just doesn’t feel like a commitment to me.

More importantly, the chief forester has made a number of comments around that 60

million range, which should be sustainable from my understanding. I’m not a forester,

but I have to believe the people that are in those places to certainly determine those

numbers.

What I will say is this. Cariboo-Chilcotin is on pins and needles about bills like

this one.

I have to paint a bit of a picture about my riding. The reality is that it stretches

from the West Chilcotin all the way to Savona, Cherry Creek, almost to Kamloops town.

When you come to Williams Lake from Kamloops, you’ll encounter a mill in Savona. You’ll

encounter a closed mill in Chasm. You’ll encounter a closed Norbord plant in 100 Mile

House and now a closed West Fraser — which just closed, obviously, more recently,

something that we’ve shared in this chamber before. When you come to Williams Lake,

you will see seven milling operations within the boundaries of our city. We had eight,

but we just lost a pellet plant.

So when you think about the thoughts that are on the minds of Cariboo-Chilcotin, what

we are hoping for is improved processes.

I can appreciate what Bill 14 is trying to do with respect to gaining access to all

of the fibre that it proposes to get at. But I guess what I’ll be asking of the minister

and hoping to better understand is: how is this different than what we’re doing now?

If you come to Williams Lake and, certainly, tour any of our forests or some of the

forests around, you will notice that Tsi Del Del, companies like that…. The minister

has been there, and we’ve certainly shared a conversation about this. Some of the

thinning that has been done is absolutely amazing. This bill talks about doing thinning

work. That work is happening now, in my mind.

[2:10 p.m.]

But the challenge around that is, honestly, permits. Permits that are applied for

in September are still not approved in April. The Forests Minister has done incredible

work to help on that, but we had to bring it to the Forests Minister’s attention.

One of the members here mentioned the seasons and how things have changed. Roads get

soft in the spring. You’ve all of a sudden lost a few weeks of productivity. We’re

dealing with wildfire like we’ve never seen before in the province, but certainly,

in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Again, you lose that time. You lose that opportunity to conduct

some of this work.

The challenge is not necessarily accessing it through BCTS. We just have to be able

to access it — period. The specific permit that I’m speaking about was in a place

that was already…. It had been consumed by fire. We were trying to access that.

I just think that Bill 14, probably more than ever, really puts BCTS in a spot to

be a general contractor. Trust me when I say this, and I’ll certainly look for clarification

on that. But if the notion is that BCTS will hire someone like San Jose Logging or

Hytest logging to do that work and then retain the logs, then it would strike me that

there’s going to be another level of cost in there. Now maybe the permitting process

doesn’t improve. Maybe the permit…. I don’t know. We’ll look for clarity on that,

obviously, in committee stage.

But we have amazing contractors in our area: San Jose, I just mentioned; PHL; Hytest

Timber; AI Logging; the McNeil family in the south. We have some incredible logging

families that have been literally doing it for generations, and they’re good at it.

I’ve been to second-generation growth areas that we can absolutely log again.

I’ve seen how modernized logging has become in some areas throughout our riding. The

one that I’m just absolutely amazed by is one that the Williams Lake First Nation

did through Borland Creek Logging, where they’ve contemplated everything. They’ve

contemplated leaving blinds for the wildlife to be protected in hunting. They’ve contemplated

berry picking on the side of the road so that it’s accessible to Elders that might

not be able to get around that much.

I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that these logging companies have done

such an amazing job, but where they’re finding a pinch point is getting through some

of the paperwork.

I think the member from Vanderhoof mentioned the absolute costs that all of these

companies are dealing with. It’s not just…. We talk about stumpage. Yes, stumpage

is a challenge for sure. But it’s everything else. The cost of diesel, the cost of

everything else has risen so much, and it is having a very serious effect.

There was never a time more important than right now for us collectively as a province

that we have to be competitive. We have to engage that world market. We definitely

have to get our costs down. I don’t see how this bill will actually do that. I’ll

hope for some clarity on that.

I want to talk a little bit about wildfire as well. I know that there is some interest

in getting to some of those blocks quicker. I can appreciate that very much. I think

that it is a very important part of the process. It’s not just cleaning up what is

out there in the hinterland, but it is also a matter of getting planting, getting

on that.

I do know that in places like the Elephant Hill fire in Cache Creek…. That fire burned

in 2017. We only got to it two years ago. That is a very serious concern.

When you think of that area, Madam Speaker…. I don’t know if you’re familiar with

it, but if it pleases the House…. It would take you a couple of hours to drive across

that area. It burned in 2017, and here we are cleaning it up two years ago.

Honestly, shame on us. We talk about this being sustainable. We talk about it all

the time. And it is. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. But for us not to be motivated

to get that done is shocking to me.

[2:15 p.m.]

There are so many other things happening on the landscape. It’s not just replanting

the trees. We’re seeing weeds that we’ve never seen before. We’re seeing a landscape

that, really, is in chaos itself. I just don’t know how this bill is going to help

with that.

I speak often about permitting, and the reason I speak about it is because I know

that it is a very serious challenge. I’ve spoken many times to you about Dan Perrin,

but it really is valuable to make that comparison over and over.

Nothing happens without a permit. I’m talking about employment. I’m talking about

revenue to the province. I’m talking about all of the things that come because that

permit is approved. The second it’s approved, contractors start spending money. They

start hiring people. They start buying equipment. All of that is revenue to this province.

It’s all taxable. It’s income tax. It’s tax on equipment. It is all taxable. So we

really need to move these permits through this House.

And I just….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a minute.

Misty Van Popta : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta : In the gallery up behind me here is the second group of grade 5 students from Langley

Christian School, a great school in Langley that my kids were also a part of. We’ve

got Ms. Barkowsky’s class and part of Ms. Wessner’s class, and they’re here today

to witness democracy in action.

Now, I did tell them that they missed question period when we’d be banging on our

desks, but they are here to witness debate on Bill 14, which is the forestry bill.

So if my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin wants to bang on some desks just to add

some extra theatre to it, that would be fantastic.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Lorne Doerkson : I will get to the forestry conversation right now.

Welcome to all of our youth and everybody in the chamber.

I’m going to close with a couple of quick comments. First off, I can appreciate that

this is a different ministry, but it makes my point with respect to permitting.

This is a letter received by someone who is a placer miner. It says: “It’s highly

unlikely that your application will be reviewed and approved in time for this field

season. We have been telling placer applicants to expect processing times of up to

two years.”

Okay. That’s not something new. That is a recent letter, and we’ve been dealing with

that for a while. It’s a challenge in every part of our industry right now, and it

has to get cleaned up.

We have talked…. Many times, in this place, I’ve talked about things like making better

use of the piles that we burn. And here we are. We have a bill here that will create

access to do some of this work.

I sure hope that that is being contemplated as well, because I have shared photos

of piles that we have burned that are shockingly huge, that could have been used for

something. Frankly, it could have been used for firewood to heat people’s homes in

some areas. But we can’t seem to move the needle on so much of that. I hope that this

will help with some of that, but I just don’t see it. I don’t see it.

I appreciate the time today and look forward to hearing closing remarks from the Forests

Minister and, certainly, committee stage of the bill.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, I’ll ask the Minister of Forests to close debate.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I know some of my colleagues are eager to get on to the next piece of legislation,

which is very important, but I do want to provide an opportunity to be able to respond

to all of the comments and discussion that has occurred on Bill 14.

[2:20 p.m.]

Forestry is so much about people and place. I know that you’ve got lots of beautiful

trees in Langley. Langley is a very beautiful community, but British Columbia is a

beautiful province. Ninety-five hectares covered in forests. It’s a province that

has a sector, forestry, that built this province. Forestry paid for this building.

Forestry paid for our communities. Forestry paid for the schools that we all call

home in our communities.

I’m so very proud to be part of a government, led by our Premier, that is working

hard every single day to restore confidence in this sector.

I want to thank all of my colleagues across the way, in particular the critic for

forestry for his words and for his perspectives. It’s fair to say that we don’t agree

on many things, but I will never question his passion for the file. I say that from

all of the comments.

I had an opportunity to be able to either watch or read the transcripts of all of

the remarks, including the remarks from some of my own colleagues. In particular,

a shout-out to the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside, who has a deep, deep understanding

of forestry as it relates to her community.

I think of the member for Juan de Fuca–Malahat, who talked about the blood, sweat

and tears that he has shed working in the logging sector.

I think of my colleague for Cowichan Valley and the work that she has done in the

last number of months to support her community through some really trying times.

Forestry, like I said, is about people and place.

But let me be very clear. I was enjoying the conversation and enjoying the dialogue.

I will not be lectured by the member for Nechako Lakes. The member for Nechako Lakes,

the former leader of the official opposition, knows nothing about forestry. We have

to get the guy to show up in his community, to actually talk to forestry workers,

to actually talk to mill operators. That community has been devastated by mill closures

and curtailments.

Let’s remember that on the day that the Canfor mill in Vanderhoof closed, instead

of reaching out to the local mayor and council, instead of reaching out to the forestry

workers, what did the former leader of the opposition do?

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder. Keep remarks specific to the bill.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

What did that member do? Went and set up a podium and started giving speeches. Never

once reached out to that mayor.

Bill 14 is a very important piece of legislation. By no means does Bill 14 fix all

of the challenges that exist in the forest sector. We are talking about a sector that

needs to change, desperately, to be able to meet the needs of British Columbians today.

Bill 14 takes important steps down the road of ensuring that B.C. Timber Sales — an

organization that we can all acknowledge has not been performing these last number

of years — can perform.

I heard from my colleagues across the way that they are supportive of the desires

of our government as it relates to full-rotation forest stewardship. They’re excited

about the opportunity to see more access to fire-damaged timber. They’ve got some

reservations about contract logging, and I think it’s completely fair for them to

raise those concerns.

We have had pilots in the past — that was referenced in the members across the way’s

remarks — in the late ’80s as well as the ’90s. But the forest sector looks entirely

different today than it did in the ’90s and ’80s. For example, as we talked about

in my remarks, First Nations, in 2003, had 3 percent access to the annual allowable

cut. Today they have 22 percent access. They are going to be strong partners in this

work.

When I think of the remarks from my colleague across the way from Cariboo-Chilcotin,

who, I might add, has done an outstanding job advocating for his community…. It is

always a delight to be able to work with him. He raises concerns. He brings forward

issues.

I put that offer out to him, and I put that offer out to anyone across the way. If

you have permits that are causing difficulties, bring them forward. It’s my job to

ensure that my ministry is responding in an appropriate manner.

We’ve had those conversations, and I think, in many ways, we’ve been able to address

those challenges because permitting is not an issue from a ministry perspective. It’s

all the work that goes into developing a permit for consideration.

That’s the work that we’re doing right now, and Bill 14 is a part of that. Bill 14

is about speeding things up. Bill 14 is not about creating more jobs in the Ministry

of Forests. Bill 14 is about taking advantage of the loggers and contractors throughout

British Columbia and creating jobs and opportunities for them.

When you have a member across the way who is a former B.C. Liberal, part of a record

that lost 100,000 jobs when they sat on this side of the House…. I am sorry, but I

am not going to take any lectures from that member across the way.

[2:25 p.m.]

I am proud of a government that is seeing investments. Bill 14 sends investor confidence

in our forest sector. It’s not just me. It’s not just my colleagues on this side of

the House that have spoken to it. Let me read some quotes.

Todd Chamberlain, general manager of the Interior Logging Association, says: “The

Interior Logging Association strongly supports the BCTS review and proposed legislative

updates. These changes are critical to providing contractors with the stability they

need to invest in their workforce, modernize equipment and sustain the communities

that depend on forestry.”

Kim Haakstad, from the Council of Forest Industries, says: “This is a step forward

that builds momentum to improve wood flow and support jobs. We remain committed to

working with government on the next steps to ensure predictable and economic access

to fibre and to move toward an annual 45 million cubic metre harvest.”

Geoff Dawe, the president of PPWC, a union that has faced big challenges….

Deputy Speaker : Excuse me, Minister.

Point of Order

Larry Neufeld : With respect to the minister, I would like to raise a point of order that we are

speaking to Bill 14, and I’m not hearing that in the conversation to the point where

I think we should.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Minister, just a reminder to keep your remarks relevant to Bill 14.

Debate Continued

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’ll refer to the members opposite that there were some validator quotes provided

in support of Bill 14. I’m happy to send the link over to the member across the way.

I’ll just continue with a couple more. I think it is important for the members opposite

because they’re going to get an opportunity to vote, in a moment, on Bill 14 — whether

to send it to the next stage, and that is committee.

I want the member across the way from Peace River South to know that Geoff Dawe, the

president of the Private and Public Workers of Canada, said about Bill 14: “These

changes to B.C. Timber Sales are a positive step forward for workers across the pulp

and paper sector.”

I could go on. There are lots of quotes. Lenny Joe from the First Nations Forestry

Council said: “The forestry council supports the current BCTS legislative amendments,

as they align with First Nations’ long-term stewardship and ensure more flexibility

with the program.”

Look, I know it’s difficult for members to come in here and debate legislation. There

are lots of questions. That’s why we’ve got committee stage. I’m looking forward to

the opportunity to participate in that committee stage.

Let me be very clear. We have a sector here that is struggling. We also have a sector

filled with thousands of workers, over 100,000 workers, that are working hard every

single day. On this side of the House, we lift those workers up. We do not talk down

to those workers. We do not talk down to this sector. Canfor — an organization, a

company here in British Columbia — shared at COFI that they have invested $900 million

in British Columbia since 2019.

Bill 14 is not going to solve all the challenges, but it is one important step. It

is one important tool, one important initiative that we are taking on in the Ministry

of Forests and in the government of British Columbia, led by our Premier, to restore

confidence in the sector and be damn sure that we’re going to fight like hell for

every forestry worker in every forestry community.

I am proud to stand and close debate on Bill 14. I’m proud to be on the side of a

government that is committed to forestry workers and committed to forestry communities.

With that, I encourage all members to support Bill 14. I look forward to the questions.

Introductions by Members

Deputy Speaker : Before we proceed to the vote, I just want to take a moment and recognize that we’ve

got friends from the Filipino Legacy Society. I hope they all enjoyed the visit: Warren

Flandez, the chair; Maj Yee, the vice-chair; Lorentz Sy, the treasurer; Christine

de Castro, secretary; Matthew Remedios, legal counsel; Allan Jiang with the legal

team; and David Decolongon, director.

Thank you for your service to the community.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is second reading of Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act,

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I call second reading on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

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

[2:30 p.m.]

This bill amends several statutes. I will begin with two amendments to the Judicial

Review Procedure Act.

First, a new

section is being added to respond to recent court decisions that risk

intruding on cabinet confidentiality by requiring government to produce a list of

cabinet materials in certain judicial review proceedings. This

section is similar

to legislation in other jurisdictions, including the Canada Evidence Act, but narrower

in scope, as it only applies to judicial review proceedings, not to all litigation.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This

section allows a designated person to certify that information is a confidence

of the executive council or Treasury Board. Once this certification is made, no one

can be compelled to disclose the information. This

section ensures that cabinet can

continue to maintain a sphere of confidentiality that the Supreme Court of Canada

has recognized is essential to good government.

Second,

section 11 of the JRPA is being repealed. This provision is being repealed

to make it clear that the timeline for bringing a judicial review should be governed

either by the common law or the governing statutory scheme. This change will bring

predictability and certainty about the applicable timelines for bringing a judicial

review.

Proposed amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency Act support the continued delivery

of the act by enabling a shift to a sustainable, industry-funded model for administration.

Since its enactment in 2019, the act has improved transparency, competitiveness and

public confidence in British Columbia’s transportation fuel market by requiring fuel

suppliers to report pricing data to the B.C. Utilities Commission, which publishes

information to help the public understand fuel price movements.

The amendments do not change the act’s core purpose. They enable the recovery of administration

costs from industry by authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations

and the B.C. Utilities Commission to set and collect fees from fuel market participants,

creating a sustainable funding model for the program.

Next, amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act increase the supply of ZEVs in

British Columbia to reduce emissions and air pollution. It will also encourage automakers

to offer more affordable and accessible ZEV options, supporting a clear transportation

transition for all British Columbians.

The province recognizes the need to recalibrate targets, considering recent market

changes. The proposed amendments lower the 2023 ZEV sales targets from 100 percent

to 75 percent and remove the 2035 prohibition on the sale of non-ZEVs to give British

Columbians more choice in finding a vehicle that best suits their needs.

The amendments also remove the 2026 and 2030 ZEV sales targets from the legislation,

keeping these targets in regulation to allow for greater flexibility to respond to

emerging federal policy and future market fluctuations.

Overall, the amendments ease short-term ZEV sales requirements while retaining a pragmatic,

long-term target that aligns with the Canada automotive strategy — balancing pressures

on automakers with the need to sustain progress towards a cleaner transportation future

in British Columbia.

The proposed amendments to the University Endowment Land Act will provide the University

Endowment Lands with a modern bylaw enforcement tool, namely municipal ticketing,

which is commonly used by local governments in British Columbia. Currently the UEL

lacks effective tools for enforcing minor bylaw contraventions, such as parking violations

or nuisances, which means that many of these offences that are routinely ticketed

across local governments are not enforced under the UEL.

The proposed amendments will allow the UEL to set out ticketing offences and penalties

up to $3,000 in a bylaw, in accordance with the municipal ticketing framework established

in the Community Charter and regulation. Fines collected via ticketing may offset

some of the operational costs of enforcement through ticketing in the UEL.

This legislation addresses a community request for improved bylaw enforcement in the

UEL and will recognize better compliance with the UEL bylaws.

Amendments are being proposed to the Local Government Act,

An Act to Incorporate the

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Vancouver Charter and the South

Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

These amendments will give the province regulatory authority to designate any additional

types of development for which local governments and TransLink could choose to waive

or reduce development cost charges. These charges are one-time fees on new development

that help pay for essential infrastructure, transportation, water, sewer and parks

so that the costs of growth are shared fairly between new development and existing

taxpayers.

[2:35 p.m.]

Advancing the amendments now ensures the province is ready to act quickly on the federal

government’s provincial and territorial stream of the build communities strong fund,

announced as part of Budget 2025, which commits funding across Canada for housing-enabling

and post-secondary infrastructure.

The proposed federal requirements are that provinces and territories must match federal

contributions, significantly reduce development charges and avoid new taxes or fees

that could hinder housing supply. The goal is to accelerate stalled housing projects

by lowering upfront costs for developers.

Currently British Columbia only allows development cost charge waivers for affordable

rental housing and green building projects. The specific criteria for future provincial

regulations under the new authority will be shaped through ongoing federal-provincial

discussions.

The bill also includes two housekeeping amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act

and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act that clarify the admissibility of evidence

in residential tenancy branch administrative penalty proceedings and replace inoperative

amendments that affect the RTB’s authority to review decisions in orders rendered

in a facilitated settlement process.

Finally, proposed amendments to the Correction Act will support the facilitation of

involuntary care for those held in custody of B.C. Corrections. In some circumstances,

clinical staff require assistance from security staff during the administration of

involuntary treatment. The proposed amendments to the Correction Act will formally

authorize corrections officers with the ability to assist health care providers when

delivering involuntary psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act.

Proposed amendments to the Correction Act will also seek to better reflect the authority

of the Attorney General’s investigations and standards office to conduct inspections

and investigations and review disciplinary hearing appeals made by B.C. Corrections,

reflect the ISO requirement to report to the Attorney General and to make reports

public, refine the inmate complaint process to make it more accessible and give the

director broader discretion about whether to investigate a complaint.

With that, those are my comments.

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

16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

I’d just like to state from the outset that when we’re dealing with miscellaneous

statutes amendments, they’re perceived as a good thing because what we are doing is

dealing with housekeeping legislation. A lot of times, things get missed or new situations

pop up and older legislation may not address those new situations. So a lot of times,

we have these housekeeping bills coming through the Legislature where many different

subject matters are taken into consideration and some loose ends are actually tied

up.

To that extent, I think most people, most members of this House, would agree that

housekeeping bills are a good thing and we should encourage more of them to come to

this House. With better legislation…. When you’re involved in the court process and

you’re involved with any sort of litigation, sometimes things come down to

interpretation,

and sometimes things come down to legislation that’s not that clear. A lot of time

in the court gets wasted upon dealing with figuring out what the meaning of the law

was and trying to interpret that law.

To the extent that we are bringing miscellaneous statutes housekeeping bills to this

House to address clarification issues, to address new situations that were not contemplated

when the original legislation was brought forward, it’s actually a good thing, because

we do have a backlog in our court system. We do have a lot of inefficiencies within

our court system. There are issues with resources as well. One thing we can do to

support the court system is make sure that we are making the process with legislation

the most efficient as possible.

[2:40 p.m.]

To that extent, whenever we see miscellaneous statutes amendment bills, it’s always

a welcome thing to see. That’s what I want to state from the outset. Miscellaneous

statutes amendment bills, when used properly, serve a legitimate purpose. They are

meant to tidy up legislation. They action items such as housekeeping, technical fixes

and minor updates that improve clarity and the administration. Like I said earlier,

that is something all sides of this House can generally support.

But there is one aspect of this bill that was very concerning, that really caught

my attention. It was

part 1 of this bill. Now,

part 1 of this bill deals with the

Attorney General amendments. It specifically deals with the Judicial Review Procedure

Act.

It’s clause 2 that actually is the meat and substance of this particular part. Clause

2 actually deals with this. It deals with disclosure of confidence of the executive

council. There are

definitions in here. It talks about the cabinet. It talks about

ministers. It talks about cabinet secretaries. It talks about deputy cabinet secretaries.

It also talks about secretaries to the Treasury Board.

Basically, what this clause does or is purporting to do is, essentially, any information

that gets certified as confidence of the executive council that’s brought forward

by, say, a minister or a cabinet secretary or a secretary to the Treasury Board….

That information can be certified as confidence.

What does that mean? That means if there is an application for judicial review in

our court — say if there is a regulatory body and there’s a decision made by that

regulatory body and one of the parties wants to make an application for judicial review

because they do not agree with the decision of that regulatory body — they would now

be dealing with this particular clause that is now being put forward.

It’s very important. When we’re dealing with regulatory bodies and we’re dealing with

mechanisms of judicial review, it’s very important to understand the aspect of administrative

law. The aspect of administrative law is a little bit different than…. Say you’re

dealing with civil litigation matters that involve trial matters, where you have a

trial and then you can appeal that trial decision to a Court of Appeal. At the Court

of Appeal level, you will look at whether the decision was properly made, and you

could even canvass and look at some of the evidence.

But when we’re dealing with applications for judicial review, we’re dealing with administrative

law measures. When we’re dealing with regulatory bodies and having an appeal mechanism

that is judicial review, the extent of appealing, the mechanism of appealing, becomes

a little limited in terms of if you’re looking at it with a legal lens. So judicial

review seems to be more of a limited amount of an appeal mechanism.

Now, if we’re looking at it from this lens, that now this clause is going to apply

to applications for judicial review that already have a limited extent of an appeal

mechanism, it’s a little bit concerning. Because what would happen in this case….

When somebody doesn’t agree with a regulatory body’s decision, they may want to rely

on evidence that came out of a cabinet decision to support their application for judicial

review.

Now, what this particular clause will do is that anyone — a minister, a cabinet minister,

a secretary to the Treasury Board, a secretary to the cabinet — can just certify information

as confidence.

[2:45 p.m.]

Certifying information as confidence will automatically limit disclosure in regards

to what can be disclosed in an application for judicial review. When a particular

party is looking to get at evidence that is in the realm of the cabinet, that is highly

relevant. That is really concerning.

Just to go a little bit further into this clause, I’ve just kind of set the premise

of this clause, but what this clause does is….

Deputy Speaker : Sorry to interrupt you, Member.

Point of Order

Misty Van Popta : I’m just rising on a point of order. I don’t think we have quorum here.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. You are correct.

[The bells were rung.]

Thank you very much, Member. You were quite right.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner : As I was saying…. I was talking about clause 2 in Bill 16.

In practice, what this clause will do…. A person may not be compelled to disclose,

in an application for judicial review, information certified as confidence. That’s

information that a cabinet minister or a secretary to the cabinet or a secretary to

the Treasury Board may have labelled or certified information as confidence. A person

may not be able to use that or may not be compelled to produce that information in

an application for judicial review.

An even more concerning aspect of this particular part of the bill is in clause 3.

What clause 3 does is that it states that

section 23, which clause 2 actually puts

into the Judicial Review Procedure Act…. Clause 3 states that

section 23 of the Judicial

Review Procedure Act applies in relation to an application for judicial review commenced

before, on or after that

section comes into force.

This is a very troublesome part. A lot of times, there will be ongoing proceedings

already that are in court. There are probably already applications for judicial review.

Those proceedings are already happening, and now this law is going to get passed —

if it gets passed by this House.

If that situation happens, the people that are currently in litigation — that knew

nothing about this legislation, that are currently in litigation, that properly prepared

their cases, went to court arguing their cases, now are in active litigation — are

now going to have to deal with a new piece of legislation that is going to come their

way that they did not contemplate, that they did not get to prepare with or prepare

for. Now they’re going to get hit in the litigation process with a new piece of legislation

that is being now entered in this House.

There’s an aspect of…. In law, we talk about procedural fairness. We talk about fairness

in the justice system. We talk about natural justice in the legal realm. When you

have a law that’s being proposed now, it’s not only going to apply to future events.

It’s actually going to apply to events that already exist right now, that are ongoing,

that were happening even prior to this legislation being introduced. That, in very

essence, appears to be very problematic because it goes against the notion of natural

justice, procedural fairness. That is very problematic. How do you do that?

Litigants have gone out of their way to properly prepare the cases based upon the

existing law, and now a certain element of this legislation is going to apply to their

situations. So we have to make sure….

Deputy Speaker : Member, I’m terribly sorry to interrupt you again.

[2:50 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : Sorry to my colleague.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta : In the gallery is the third and final group from Langley Christian School, grade

5 students from the Langley area. It’s a fantastic school which my kids also went

to. This is Mr. Toy’s class and Ms. Wessner’s.

I did tell them about the bell system, I believe, when I was meeting with them earlier,

so I’m glad they got to hear one of the bells, although it’s not for a vote. It’s

because we didn’t have enough people in here.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Deputy Speaker : Indeed, welcome to our youth and everybody in our gallery this afternoon.

We are debating Bill 16, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act of 2026.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner : As I was stating, clause 3 goes against a common principle in justice that we have

in regards to natural justice — procedural fairness. There are litigants already doing

litigation. Now they’re going to have to deal with a new piece of legislation. Usually

what people have to deal with is the legislation that they relied upon when they’re

going through the process. Those things are very important to point out.

In a general sense, why this particular

part is really problematic to me is that we

are seeing a common pattern with this government in terms of transparency issues,

secrecy issues. What we are seeing with this clause is that certain evidence will

not be allowed to be compelled. When certain evidence will not be allowed to be compelled,

that goes to the very essence of transparency. When it goes to the very essence of

transparency, when the public views that, they perceive it as an element of secrecy.

That is problematic, because what happens here or whatever happens with our justice

system is supposed to be public. It’s supposed to be a public system. We are seeing

a pattern of transparency issues with this government.

Just to kind of get into the issues, just to set a context of why I am very concerned

about this particular clause, this particular government actually was awarded a Code

of Silence Award for Outstanding Achievement in Government Secrecy in 2022, by the

Canadian Association of Journalists — due to legislation that had hindered access

to public records, including charging a $10 fee for requests and reducing transparency.

This is stuff that’s out there. These are concerns that are out there — concerns coming

from journalists in terms of transparency issues with this government, secrecy issues.

Now we have this piece of legislation coming. We’re dealing with courts of justice

that are now going to be limited to what they can actually see. That is problematic

when you already have a trend and now you’re kind of interfering with the court process

by already deciding for the courts what evidence they can actually hear or not.

That mechanism of whether or what the courts can hear or not should be left to the

courts. That has been the historical precedent in terms of our justice system. That’s

why we have in-camera hearings in our justice system, where the courts decide whether

it’s certain evidence that should be looked upon in the public domain or not or whether

there should be some conditions put on that or whether there should be some publication

bans put on that, if that information is in fact sensitive.

But we now have a government that is saying: “We are going to decide what information

can be compellable in the justice system or not.”

[2:55 p.m.]

This is very concerning. It’s important to mention that this is a measure that is

being brought forward by this government when it already has a track record, when

journalists are complaining about this government’s transparency record.

There are other issues. This is just a general transparency issue. There’s a concern

in regards to this government constantly picking a fight with our judicial system.

That’s very concerning. Being a lawyer, being a legal professional, I get very concerned

when there’s some sort of interference with the independence of our justice system

here in this province.

This is another aspect of this government not liking what’s happening in the legal

realm or in the justice realm and trying to legislate themselves out of that situation

so they don’t have to deal with the courts.

There was a recent

article in Business in Vancouver dated April 8, 2026. In that article, there’s a quote. I’ll just read it. “The B.C.

government has quietly opened up another fight against what it believes is judicial

overreach, attempting to snap back judges on the issue of cabinet confidentiality

while at the same time battling the courts on the separate issue of Indigenous reconciliation.”

This

article goes further. It says: “Legislation tabled last week would allow government

to expand the types of records it exempts from disclosure during judicial reviews

and protect officials from having to speak about the information if compelled by a

judge.”

The

article goes further: “It is the second bill of the spring session designed to

correct what New Democrats believe is judicial intrusion on legislative authority.”

That’s from Business in Vancouver dated April 8, 2026. That is documented concern about what’s going on here. This

pattern that we’re seeing from this government is highly problemsome. That’s just

one example.

Going further with the transparency angle, what’s happening with this legislation

is that certain information will not be compellable, so there won’t be transparency

on that certain information. We are seeing a track record of avoiding transparency

by this government.

We’ve also seen it through the budget that was brought forward to the Legislature

this year, where the Office of the Merit Commissioner was, essentially, terminated.

I’d just like to state that part of the mandate of the Office of the Merit Commissioner

was to see if there were any complaints within the public service, government employees

and whether they were properly hired or whether they were properly fired and to make

sure there was some fairness in the process. The Merit Commissioner looked at making

sure there was fairness to employees — public service employees.

This government has now taken the Office of the Merit Commissioner away. The Office

of the Merit Commissioner allowed transparency, allowed a look at government decisions.

So that’s another aspect of what we’ve seen with this government, where transparency

is being taken away, where accountability is being taken away.

This is the overall trend. This is why I see there is a problem with clause 2. I see

this bigger trend. Now we see this clause 2 coming here, and it actually takes away

an even bigger chunk of the transparency, because now we’re dealing with the court

system, and we’re dealing with what evidence that court system can actually see or

not.

[3:00 p.m.]

The other thing I’d like to touch upon is, in the overarching transparency issue,

why clause 2 is problemsome for me. We’ve seen this government have an extensive track

record of using NDAs, non-disclosure agreements. We’re seeing it. We’ve seen the public

complain about it. We’ve seen the media complain about it. We’ve seen that the public

is feeling that they’re left in the dark when the government is dealing with issues

of reconciliation, when the government is dealing with issues of land use agreements.

The public is feeling that they’re left in the dark because there are NDAs used on

that process.

That’s just one area of what the government is dealing with. There have been NDAs

used in health care. There have been NDAs used in housing. It’s a very extensive theme

that’s being used by this particular government with using the NDAs. The discussion

of those NDAs is often talked about in the public domain.

We have the extensive use of NDAs. We have the abolishing of the Office of the Merit

Commissioner. We have general issues of transparency. All of these come into the realm.

Now we’re having to deal with clause 2 of Bill 16, which is going one step further.

It’s challenging the justice system. It’s challenging the court system. It’s saying

that…. Well, this government is saying, essentially, that it’s not trusting the courts

to make the decision on what should be compellable or not. It’s not trusting the courts

to have in-camera proceedings to see if there’s sensitive information or not.

It’s saying that the courts don’t deserve that. It wants to make the decisions for

itself. This government wants to decide what information it feels is appropriate to

provide to the justice system or the legal realm. This is highly problematic.

It’s even more problematic because we’re dealing with a miscellaneous amendments bill.

When someone sees a miscellaneous amendment, they’ll go: “Oh, this is a good thing.

We’re going to tie up a lot of loose ends. It’s a housekeeping bill.” But then we

have, somewhere buried in this bill, mechanisms of limiting evidence. This is problematic.

This is something that should be dealt with, with separate legislation or a separate

debate.

Let me be clear about what this means in terms of clause 2 — the government having

this mechanism of being able to certify information as confidence and, as a result

of that, the courts not having access to that information now.

Judicial review is one of the most fundamental accountability mechanisms in our legal

system. It allows British Columbians to challenge government decisions in court. It

is how we ensure that government acts lawfully, fairly and within its authority. Yet

this bill gives the government a new tool to withhold information from the courts

themselves — not based on an independent determination, not based on a judge’s ruling.

I did mention that there is ability to have in-camera proceedings, but this government

doesn’t trust that process of in-camera proceedings. It wants to decide which information,

which evidence gets limited.

What we are seeing is unilateral certification by government officials to decide what

information or what evidence will be available to the court system. This should concern

every member of this House, because when the government can decide what evidence can

and cannot be seen in a judicial review, it is not just managing information. It is

shaping the outcome of accountability.

[3:05 p.m.]

As we go through the process of second reading and committee stage, I will be keeping

a close eye on the debates that are being had and will be taking a big

part in the

committee stage debate, because these problematic sections, or a couple of these problematic

clauses, really deserve proper scrutiny. I’m looking forward to actually being able

to deal with this part of this bill in more detail moving forward.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I share the previous speaker’s enthusiasm for miscellaneous statute amendment acts.

I think, in this case, what that reflects…. There are

definitions as to how multiple

different acts come into one bill that legislative counsel uses, and those have been

applied in this case.

I think both at the second reading stage, where we’ll touch on some of these matters,

and then at the extensive debates I’m sure that we’re going to hold in committee stage,

I’m looking forward, in particular, to my discussions with the member for Peace River

South in committee stage on this question. We’ll have an opportunity to dig into the

details.

In the case of the two important amendments that are in the Ministry of Energy and

Climate Solutions, we’re talking about amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

— which, if you looked at them on the page, are about a third of the page or even

less, a quarter of a page, but important — and then amendments to the Fuel Price Transparency

Act, which are particularly, I think, apt for debate in a time when we’ve seen such

spikes in gas prices. The member and I had an opportunity to discuss those in question

period yesterday a little bit.

I’m going to begin with the changes to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, because they’re

cars. And people in Canada, people in North America, people in British Columbia care

about cars and are passionate about cars. In every region of the province, they have

strong ideas about them. These sections have received some attention in recent weeks.

We’re amending the sales targets in B.C. for zero-emission vehicles, which we sometimes

call ZEVs. These amendments reduce the 2035 target from 100 percent ZEV sales to 75

percent ZEV sales, remove the 2035 prohibition on the sale of new internal combustion

engine vehicles — we’ll sometimes call them ICE cars — and shift the 2026 and 2030

sales targets to regulation.

I think it’s important in this time of change in the world of energy, in our world.

When, in our world, the adoption of ZEV vehicles and also the adoption of hybrid vehicles

everywhere, really, but in recent times in the United States…. It’s an extraordinary

thing and an advantageous thing for British Columbians, and we’ll get into that.

Here in B.C., we lead Canada in ZEV sales, lead Canada in sales of hybrids. In the

last quarter of 2025, that was 22.5 percent for ZEVs, approximately the same for hybrids.

Some people raise that and say: “Well, what about the competition between ZEVs and

hybrids?” Well, it’s going down for ICE vehicles in our province, significantly, in

fact. The rise of ZEVs, the rise of hybrids — which we think about on a year-to-year

basis, but if you look at five or six years, it has been very significant — continues.

There are in B.C. 229,000 ZEV vehicles on the road, and they make up, as we know,

a significant proportion of total vehicle sales. That’s 22.5 percent in the last quarter

of 2025. People in B.C., obviously, continue to show strong interest in ZEVs, especially

in recent weeks, given the impact the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran has had on gas prices.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know, hon. Speaker, you are filled with anticipation for the rest of this, but I

am going to reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate while we receive a

report from another House.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2026

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat :

Section C reports Bill 11 complete without amendment.

Deputy Speaker : When will the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker : The question is third reading of Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : Bill 11, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, has now passed.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I call second reading on Bill 16.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment

Amendment Act.

We don’t have anything in the Birch Room.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix : I was talking about the growing interest in ZEVs in British Columbia — particularly

now, when we’ve seen the impact on household incomes of the U.S.-Israeli war with

Iran and other circumstances, but particularly of that — and the advantage of moving

to electricity, which we produce in B.C. and which this year we’re in surplus on in

B.C., as opposed to depending strictly on fossil fuels.

A recent AutoTrader survey found that 60 percent of British Columbians who don’t currently

own a ZEV or an EV are considering one as their next purchase, an increase of 11 percent

year over year. We’re seeing this in every jurisdiction in the world. The number,

of course, is higher in different regions, and we understand that.

There are different needs of automobiles. There are some regions of the province where

trucks are a larger share of the market and ZEVs play a less important role in the

truck market, for example. We understand there’s diversity. Nonetheless, there is

growing interest in ZEVs around B.C.

The same survey also found that ZEVs are becoming more affordable. The average price

of a new ZEV has gone down by 6 percent year over year, a larger decrease than for

gas-powered cars. This matches what we’re seeing globally in the vehicle market. In

2025, 25 percent of all cars sold globally were electric vehicles, with global sales

up 25 percent from the year before — 21 million battery-electric vehicles and plug-in

hybrid vehicles worldwide, according to estimates.

The momentum and trend here are undeniable. People are increasingly drawn to ZEVs

for their performance and their lower operating costs. Upfront costs are still high,

and that’s a problem, but are trending downwards. Many parts of North America have

been laggards with EV adoption, but we are not one of them here in B.C. We have been

successful, in part due to our ZEV mandate and the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. The

act has ensured that British Columbians have access to a stable supply of ZEVs.

We all know the recent times when it was impossible, or a long waiting list for ZEVs,

in the marketplace. It’s one thing to have consumer interest, but you actually need

to have a supply of ZEVs for them to purchase. The ZEV Act has done that. It’s no

coincidence that the two jurisdictions leading Canada are B.C. and Quebec. The reason

for that is that those are the two jurisdictions with serious policies to advance

the sale of EVs to the benefit of our health, our economy and our climate.

I would say that you look at other jurisdictions — for example, the jurisdiction of

Ontario, which, strangely enough, benefits most from restrictions on the import of

ZEVs to Canada…. It has fallen behind both in its charging network, and I’ll come

to that later, but also in the sale of ZEVs. In other words, B.C. is leading here.

British Columbians want to buy ZEVs, and unlike in Ontario, they have the opportunity

to do this because of the law.

[3:15 p.m.]

They also have the opportunity with one of the most effective charging networks in

the country getting more effective and dealing with issues of range anxiety, which

are significant problems for people in the purchase of it. It’s a testament to the

work that we have done to make ZEVs available in this province.

Why is it important to do what this legislation, the ZEV Act, does to encourage ZEV

sales? Well, there are a few reasons. The first is environmental and health benefits

in having more ZEVs and fewer internal combustion engine vehicles on our roads. Transportation

makes up the largest share of B.C.’s GHG emissions, roughly 41 percent of all emissions.

Every time someone chooses a ZEV, they help bring that number down.

The over 229,000 ZEVs on B.C.’s roads have helped avert half a million tonnes of climate

pollution each year, every year. This is good for climate action, but it’s also good

for human health. It helps reduce air pollution and health care system costs linked

to the negative health impacts of internal combustion engines.

Transportation is one of the leading sources of nitrogen oxides and fine particulate

matter in B.C.’s urban airsheds. These pollutants are linked to respiratory disease,

cardiovascular illness, childhood asthma and premature death. Air pollution causes

1,900 premature deaths in B.C. each year and almost $14 billion in economic costs

such as health care, lost productivity and more. These health burdens fall disproportionately

on lower-income communities near major roads.

Areas with higher ZEV penetration have shown improvements in infant health outcomes

and asthma rates in children near high-traffic corridors. It’s a reason, and a good

reason — in addition to climate, in addition to affordability, in addition to our

economy — why it’s a good thing that people have lower-emission vehicles, both ZEVs

and hybrids, in our communities.

The revised mandate will continue to drive more ZEV models of various price ranges

to the province, helping reduce air pollution and emissions from B.C.’s largest emitting

sector while supporting health outcomes.

A second reason is cost. The upfront costs of ZEVs are coming down slightly, but there

are real and tangible savings to be had when it comes to maintenance and operating

costs when compared to ICE vehicles. Having an opportunity to buy them — which this

legislation does, an opportunity to have ZEVs here in B.C. to be purchased — is important.

Their advantage in this department has been especially evident these past few weeks

with the high cost of gas driven by world events. A recent report, from before the

war, by Clean Energy Canada found a typical EV driver in B.C. would save approximately

$3,000 a year or up to $34,000 over the course of a decade driving an EV, compared

to an equivalent gas-powered vehicle.

As Joanna Kyriazis — director of policy and strategy of Clean Energy Canada, responsible

for the report — has said, as gas prices climb past $2 a litre in many parts of B.C.,

the province’s zero-emission vehicle sales regulation is more important than ever.

EVs already cost far less than gas cars, with a typical EV driver in B.C. saving as

much as $33,000 per year compared to a similar gas car.

Encouraging greater ZEV uptake leads to lower and more predictable costs for people.

Instead of being subjected to massive swings in the price of gas, dictated by world

events, they’re able to power their vehicles with made-in-B.C. energy that is clean,

stable and affordable — building British Columbia and its economy. Of course, we want

people to use the products we make in B.C. more than the products they make elsewhere.

It’s to our broader economic benefit.

B.C. is delivering one of the best electricity systems in the world, with the lowest

electricity costs in the world. We don’t think of that when we pay our hydro bills,

that we’re better than everybody else — us, Quebec and Manitoba, the three publicly

owned hydro systems. Nonetheless, we do. B.C. Hydro rates since this government came

to office, and this is incredible, even after recent increases are 12 percent below

the rate of inflation.

Just by comparison, hydro rates under the previous government went up 54 percent above

the rate of inflation.

Alas, our important legislation is not about that issue, so I will leave that point

there, hon. Speaker, although I know you’re interested in further discussion of that.

We’ll have that during our estimates debate, no doubt. The member will hear those

statistics again as early as next week.

[3:20 p.m.]

Switching to ZEVs will protect people from the volatility of gasoline prices that

are dictated often by geopolitical events thousands of kilometres away. If we know

that from any of our recent history, we know that that has occurred just in this decade

— major spikes that were related to world events — most recently between the U.S.,

Israel and Iran; not that long ago, and continuing, between Russia and Ukraine; and,

of course, dating back to the early 1970s and all the impacts that had for our economy

and affordability at that time.

This is made in B.C. It benefits the people of B.C. It’s the value of B.C. Hydro and

our clean energy system. Having a ZEV mandate supports that.

With that being said, we’re bringing in changes to better adjust to where we are today.

We’re number one in Canada in hybrid sales and number one in Canada in ZEV sales.

The good news about number one is you can’t be better than number one, but you can

do better. You can be a better number one, and that’s what we have to collectively

do.

I believe and the government believes that targets serve an important purpose. That

is that with effort, you achieve them. They’re not theoretical notions. They shouldn’t

be theoretical notions. With effort, you achieve them. This view was reflected in

the outstanding work in our recent CleanBC review, which this legislation reflects

in important ways and which I’ll get to.

We believe that achievable targets are important. We’re adjusting B.C.’s targets to

align with federal targets and to be more flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances.

We’ve listened extensively to industry and stakeholders and the independent CleanBC

review. The revised mandate will drive more ZEV models at various prices to B.C.,

helping to reduce air pollution and emissions from B.C.’s largest emitting sector

and to drive economic growth in our province — all good news.

I think that if you look, for example, at the words of Dan Woynillowicz, one of our

reviewers from CleanBC, the independent reviewer, he says: “By broadly aligning with

the federal government while preserving made-in-B.C. policy, the B.C. government is

striking the right balance. Together, B.C. and federal policies and programs are addressing

the affordability of EVs, ensuring choice and competition in the marketplace and making

it easier to charge up at home and on the road.”

What we’ve done is put in place targets that will work for people — 75 percent by

2035 as an overall target and moving targets to regulation so they can adjust and

reflect current situations as well. The intention is to move to a target by regulation

of 26 percent, for example, in 2027, which is a target given.

The reinstatement of rebates at the federal level, the very significant investment

in charging networks in B.C. and the arrival in Canada of new models of EV — including,

as members will know, 45,000 in the coming year from China — will give people opportunity.

People in B.C. got the largest share of EV mandates in the last federal program, and

because of this, we’re going to get the largest share in this program. Money from

Ottawa coming to British Columbia to support economic and clean energy goals in British

Columbia — that’s good news.

Of course, key to our strategy, as reflected by the legislation, is our charging network.

As of January 1, 2026, there are more than 8,800 public charging ports in B.C. That’s

an increase of 86 percent from 2023. These ports provide reliable EV charging for

people in communities across B.C. and along travel corridors, with extra support in

busy urban areas.

Since its launch in September 2020, the CleanBC go electric public charger program

has provided more than $60 million for 200 public charger programs throughout B.C.,

and that continues right now. It’s a huge investment in our charging capabilities

and demonstrates our commitment to meeting EV targets.

In other words, you bet. In our integrated resource plan, which we look forward to

discussing with members of the opposition d