Contents

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Jennifer Blatherwick.

Introductions by Members

Rosalyn Bird: I would like to introduce some distinguished guests today. Up in the gallery, we have Const. Ruben Vance from VicPD; Const. Pierson York from VicPD; Const. Alex Erwin from VicPD; Const. Ross Mackenzie, also from VicPD.

We also have Assistant Fire Chief Michael Holliday from Prince George along with one of his local firefighters, Carl Krause.

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

Will everybody please make them feel welcome today.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Economic and Trade
Opportunities with Singapore

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to speak about the importance of the trade relationship between Canada and Singapore and, in particular, the opportunities that exist to strengthen British Columbia’s role in that partnership for the mutual benefit of both jurisdictions.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Before I begin, I want to briefly share why this topic is personally meaningful to me. In 1976, I travelled from Singapore to Canada to study engineering. Upon graduation, I returned to Singapore and worked as an engineer. In 1988, I immigrated to Canada and settled in beautiful Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Since then, I worked in the overhead bridge crane industry in this province for more than 30 years, until I was elected as an MLA in 2024.

My life has been shaped by both Singapore and Canada. I’ve seen firsthand the strengths of each country, and I firmly believe that closer economic ties between British Columbia and Singapore represent not only an opportunity but a natural partnership built on shared values of innovation, trade openness and strategic thinking.

Singapore is one of Canada’s most important trading partners in Southeast Asia. Bilateral trade between Canada and Singapore exceeds $3 billion annually, with Singapore consistently ranking among Canada’s top export destinations in the ASEAN region. British Columbia plays a significant role in this relationship, particularly through exports of natural resources, forest products, agricultural foods, clean technology and digital services.

Singapore is a global hub. Despite its small geographic size, it is one of the world’s leading financial centres and a gateway to Southeast Asia’s 650 million people. For British Columbia, this presents a strategic advantage. Our province is Canada’s Pacific Gateway, and we are uniquely positioned to deepen ties with Singapore as a conduit to broader Asian markets.

Currently British Columbia exports a range of goods to Singapore, including wood products, minerals and agricultural commodities. There’s growing collaboration in areas such as education, where international students from Singapore contribute to our institutions; and in technology, where Canadian firms are increasingly active in Singapore’s innovative ecosystem.

However, there’s much more that can be done. One key area of opportunity is clean technology. Singapore has ambitious sustainability goals, including investments in water treatment, energy efficiency and low-carbon infrastructure. British Columbia is a leader in clean technology innovation, particularly in hydrogen, carbon capture and renewable energy systems. By creating targeted trade missions and partnerships between B.C. companies and Singaporean agencies, we can position our province as a preferred partner in helping Singapore meet its environmental objectives.

Another opportunity lies in advanced manufacturing and engineering services. Singapore’s economy is highly industrialized and technologically advanced, with strong demand for specialized equipment and expertise. British Columbian companies — particularly in sectors like industrial machinery, automation and engineering consulting — can expand their footprint by leveraging Singapore’s role as a regional headquarters for multinational firms.

We should also look at agricultural food products and exports. Singapore imports over 90 percent of its food supply, making it highly dependent on stable and trusted trade partners. British Columbia’s high-quality agricultural products — including seafood, berries and specialty foods — are well positioned to meet this demand.

[10:10 a.m.]

Tourism and education also remain key pillars. As travel continues to recover and expand, promoting British Columbia as a destination for Singaporean tourists and students can generate economic benefits while deepening people-to-people ties.

In closing, as someone who has lived and worked in both countries, I can see the potential clearly. By strengthening this partnership, we can create jobs, expand our economy and build a more connected and prosperous future for British Columbia and Canada.

International Firefighters Day
and Firefighter Health Risks

Darlene Rotchford: Today we mark a day that everyone in this House has talked about and that I think we can all support. Today marks International Firefighters Day.

I want to begin by recognizing the service of British Columbian firefighters right across our province. These are individuals who run towards danger when others must run from it. Every day they put their lives on the line to protect our communities. They save lives, safeguard property and do so at a great personal risk to their own health and safety. They deserve our unwavering support, our deepest respect and our sincere gratitude — quite frankly, not just today but every day.

The work firefighters do is inherently dangerous and can have lasting impacts on both physical and mental well-being. While most of us seek safety in times of crisis, these brave men and women move directly into harm’s way, driven by a singular purpose: to keep us all safe. At times, their selfless service comes at an ultimate cost.

That is why we must do everything in our power to support them, not only for their sake but for their families’ sakes and our communities’ sakes. That’s why in 2017, important steps were taken to better support firefighters by examining presumptive coverage under our Workers Compensation Act. At that time, a limited number of illnesses were covered. Heart injuries and diseases along with ten types of cancers were recognized.

For those who may not be familiar, “presumptive coverage” means that when a firefighter is diagnosed with one of those conditions, it is assumed to be work-related, unless proven otherwise. Now, this ensures that claims are accepted more quickly, allowing them to access the care and support they need through WorkBC without unnecessary delays — something, again, I think we can all agree with.

While this is an important start, it is not enough. Thanks to the tireless advocacy of our B.C. Fire Fighters Association, it has become clear that firefighters face elevated risk for so much broader a range of serious illness.

That’s why, in 2018, the act was amended again to include PTSD and other mental health conditions as presumptive illnesses, not only for firefighters but for our other first responders. We all can recognize the profound psychological impacts of repetitive exposure to traumatic events for the people who do that work every single day. That’s why we made further changes in 2019 to expand those protections to include wildfire fighters, fire investigators and those serving First Nations and our Indigenous communities.

In the years that followed, additional cancers were added to this presumptive list — again, something, I think, we all know needs to continue to be done. Today British Columbia recognizes 18 types of cancers along with heart injuries and diseases as conditions that firefighters face an increased risk of developing.

We are leading here in British Columbia for our firefighters. I think we should all be proud of that — both sides of the House. It’s great.

As of March 16, 2026, we’ve now also, all of us, added eight additional cancers that have been officially recognized as presumptive diseases linked to firefighting — another meaningful step forward, ensuring firefighters receive the support they deserve.

While we’ve made significant progress, our work is not done. We all can remain committed to working in partnership with our B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, our firefighter locals, our federal firefighters, our forestry and First Nation firefighters to build a compensation system that is effective, responsive and centred on workers, one that fully supports firefighters and all of our emergency responders here in British Columbia.

We need to ensure we continue to look for opportunities that strengthen protections, improve outcomes and ensure the health and well-being of those who dedicate their lives to protecting us.

With my last minute, I would like to just take a moment to thank my local firefighters — IFF Local 730 here in Victoria, Local 4264 in Esquimalt, Local 5419 in View Royal, our firefighters at CFB Esquimalt and our Local 5420 in Colwood.

You keep our communities safe. You keep my family safe. You do so at great personal risk. You spend time away from your family. You miss holidays. You miss milestones. You still give back for charity work, even when you’re off duty. You are nothing short of a class act. Thank you for everything you do to keep us safe. Thank you for everything you do to give back to your community.

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

[10:15 a.m.]

Role of Cabinet and MLAs

Lynne Block: When we are elected to this House, we are entrusted with something sacred: the public’s confidence. We are sent here to make decisions that shape the lives of families, businesses, workers and future generations — decisions on taxation, debt, regulation, health care, housing, education and the economy itself.

Those decisions are not abstract. They determine whether a senior can afford groceries, whether a young couple can buy a home, whether a business can hire and whether our children inherit prosperity or debt.

Yes, elected representatives should be accountable and supported in possessing a basic understanding of economics, of public finance and of numeracy. We should understand what a deficit is. We should understand what debt-servicing costs mean. We should understand that regulations can both protect and burden, and we should understand that every dollar that government spends first comes from the hard-working taxpayer.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

Darlene Rotchford: Order or privilege, is this not currently in front of debate in the House — the topic which this member is speaking of — in private members’ time?

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’ll ask you to continue with your statement and just to refrain from referencing other topics currently under discussion in the House.

Lynne Block: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

While that foundational understanding matters, I would argue something even more important. Ministers, the individuals entrusted with leading portfolios and departments, must have boots on the ground, expertise, experience and real-world understanding in the areas they oversee.

A minister of health could understand health care not only from briefing binders but from hospitals, clinics, conversations with doctors, nurses and patients and even have direct experience from within the field.

A minister of agriculture could know the realities of farmers, supply chains, weather risks and rising input costs — and even have a background in farming.

A minister of housing could understand what it means to navigate permits, construction delays, labour shortages and affordability crises. Experience in the workforce that is integral to housing would be an asset.

A minister of finance could understand markets, budgets, taxation and the consequences of reckless borrowing. Experience and training as an accountant would be an ideal.

A minister of labour could know what it means to run a business or sign a paycheque or navigate fair conditions for workers.

Policy made from an ivory tower often collapses when it meets reality on the ground. The best ministers are not those who merely manage a title. They are those who listen, learn and lead with practical wisdom. As President John F. Kennedy once said: “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.” That is the heart of this issue. Leadership requires learning, and learning requires humility.

No minister, no matter how intelligent or experienced, can know everything. That is why good governance demands more than expertise. It demands openness to advice from either side of the aisle. People could seek counsel from diverse voices — industry leaders or front-line workers or economists or academics, municipal leaders, Indigenous communities, non-profits and the very citizens affected by their decisions — not just the voices that agree, not just the voices that are politically convenient but a broad, diverse and honest range of perspectives.

[10:20 a.m.]

Decisions are made when more lived experience is at the table. Accountability matters. If a minister fails to understand their file, ignores expert advice or imposes policies disconnected from reality, the consequences are not theoretical. They are paid in lost jobs, in delayed surgeries, in shuttered farms, in rising rents, in higher taxes and in growing debt.

Public office is not simply a privilege. It is a duty — a duty to prepare; a duty to understand; a duty to consult; and, above all, a duty to serve. So let’s ensure all elected representatives, both sides of the aisle, have the support to understand the economic and fiscal consequences of the decisions before us. But let us especially ensure that ministers have the experience, the practical knowledge, the boots-on-the-ground perspective and the humility to listen to experts and communities alike.

British Columbians deserve more than slogans. They deserve competence, they deserve accountability, and they deserve leadership rooted in reality.

Robert Barron
and Local Journalism

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Today I want to speak about Robert Barron, a man who made a lasting contribution to the Cowichan Valley through his writing, his curiosity and his care for local history.

For many people in our community, Robert Barron’s name is connected with the Cowichan Valley Citizen and with stories that helped people better understand the place they call home. He was part of the tradition of local journalism that gives a community its memory. In that sense, his work mattered far beyond the newspaper page.

The local history coverage associated with Barron’s name in the Cowichan Valley has been remembered as an important record of the region’s past. What made Robert Barron’s work meaningful was not just that he reported on the events but that he helped preserve the character of the valley.

Local newspapers do more than share news. They capture the voices, struggles, achievements and everyday life of a community. Writers like Robert Barron help ensure that the future generations can look back and see how the Cowichan Valley changed over time and what values shaped it. This kind of work required patience, attention to detail and a genuine interest in people.

The history of Barron’s contribution is tied to the long-running local reporting in the Cowichan Leader and the Cowichan Valley publications. There is also something especially important about the local journalism in a place like Cowichan. It connects neighbours to each other. It makes civic life more visible. It gives recognition to people and the events that might otherwise be forgotten.

Robert Barron’s legacy reminds us that strong communities are better built not only by the leaders and institutes but also by the people who tell their stories honestly and carefully. His writing helped shape the way the valley saw itself and understood its own heritage.

Today we think about Robert Barron. We should be thinking about more than a newspaper byline. We should think about a community historian, a storyteller and someone who helped preserve Cowichan’s identity. The value of the contribution is lasting, because the community that remembers itself is a community that stays connected to its roots. Robert Barron’s work helped to do exactly that for the Cowichan Valley.

Thank you for your ten years at the Cowichan Valley.

I know I will miss him also sharing about our double hip surgeries and recoveries. I just wanted to let him know I’m still doing well in my recovery.

I will end by saying the Nanaimo News Bulletin is lucky to have you, and I look forward to seeing your byline and your next column in the Cowichan Valley Citizen from time to time.

[10:25 a.m.]

Action on Social Issues

David Williams: Today I rise to speak about the invisible people of British Columbia. Who are these invisible people? They are present in every community, every town and in every riding.

They are the people directly affected by government policy, taxation, service failures, health care delays and the rising cost of living. Yet, too often, their voices are absent when decisions are made.

They are not invisible because they do not matter. They are invisible because government fails to see them.

They are people on disability assistance who are expected to survive in one of the most expensive provinces in Canada on supports that do not reflect the real cost of rent, food, transportation, medication and basic daily needs. This government often speaks about compassion, but too many people with disabilities are left in a system that is not compassionate, not realistic and not fair.

They are families with children with autism and other special needs, who face uncertainty — long waits, confusing rules and constant pressure to prove their child deserves support. These parents are not asking for special treatment. They’re asking for stability, fairness and support that meets the needs of their loved ones.

They are seniors on fixed incomes who worked their entire lives, paid their taxes, raised families and built our communities. Now they find themselves squeezed between housing costs, medical costs, food costs and tax changes. Many simply want to age with dignity in the homes that they worked so hard to afford. Under this government, even that’s becoming harder.

They are low-income renters and people at risk of becoming homeless. The government says it is fighting poverty, but more than words are required. For many people, this is the difference between stability and eviction, between having a door to lock at night and sleeping in a tent, a vehicle or a shelter bed that may or may not be available.

They are people that are currently experiencing homelessness, only noticed when they are seen as a problem. They need housing, but they also may need special mental health care, addiction treatment, safety and a path back to stability.

They are people struggling with addiction and mental health challenges, too often invisible until they are in crisis. Families are desperate. First responders are overwhelmed. Communities are frustrated. Those suffering are trapped between stigma, illness, addiction and a government response that has failed to provide timely treatment, recovery or hope.

They are patients waiting for care — seniors, rural residents, struggling families and those requiring specialized treatment. They are waiting for a family doctor; waiting in emergency rooms, if those emergency rooms are even open; waiting for surgery before it’s too late; waiting for mental health supports; waiting for care that is close to home. The NDP government promised health care would get better, but too many British Columbians are still waiting for the results.

In rural communities like the North Okanagan and Shuswap, people know what being overlooked is like. They live it when services are centralized elsewhere, health care is harder to access, transportation is limited, affordable housing is scarce, broadband is unreliable and government programs are designed in Victoria without fully understanding rural life.

This is the problem. The NDP has become very good at announcements, slogans, press conferences and photo opportunities. But compassion is not measured in announcements. It is measured in outcomes. It is measured by whether people can find a doctor, afford a home, access treatment and live with dignity.

Too many invisible people are being left behind. The senior choosing between groceries and medication is not better off. A person with a disability trying to find housing is not better off. A parent with a child with autism fearing the loss of support is not better off. The low-income renter facing eviction is not better off. The patient waiting for care is not better off. The person suffering addiction who cannot access timely treatment when they are ready is not better off.

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

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

David Williams: One second.

So I say to government: listen to them, see them, because British Columbia should be a province where no one is forgotten, no one is dismissed and no one is made invisible.

[10:30 a.m.]

Sunset Community Centre

Sunita Dhir: There are very few places in life where I feel like I leave a piece of my heart behind every time I visit. In my beautiful riding of Vancouver-Langara, that place is Sunset Community Centre in the heart of South Vancouver.

For me, Sunset is not just a building. It’s part of my family’s story. It’s where I met my very first best friend after coming to Canada. It’s where my children attended preschool, played basketball, learned music and nervously stepped onto the ice for their very first skating lessons. It’s where my husband taught our boys how to swim and where my parents now spend several days each week enjoying tea, music, dancing, exercise and friendship. For my family and for so many families in South Vancouver, Sunset Community Centre has been a sanctuary.

The centre is operated through a partnership between the Vancouver park board and the Sunset Community Association, a volunteer organization that has spent decades creating programs and opportunities for the community.

The history behind this centre is remarkable. Nearly 80 years ago, South Vancouver was growing rapidly with young families after the Second World War. At a time when there were few community spaces and limited resources, local residents dreamed of creating a place where children could play safely, where families could gather and where neighbours could connect. So volunteers got to work.

In 1945, the Sunset Community Association was formed. Community members organized fundraising campaigns and events to bring their vision to life. Then in 1948, legendary singer Bing Crosby came to Vancouver for a fundraising concert that raised $26,000 in a single evening, helping turn a community dream into reality.

What makes the Sunset story so special is not just the fundraising success. This centre was built by ordinary people who believed deeply in creating opportunities for future generations. Over the decades, Sunset Community Centre became the heartbeat of South Vancouver and a welcoming place for one of the most culturally diverse communities in our province.

In 2007, the beautiful Sunset Community Centre, designed by renowned architect Bing Thom, officially opened at Main Street and 51st Avenue. Today the story continues with the opening of the new Sunset seniors centre. For many older adults, especially those who may live alone and face language barriers, community spaces are essential to physical and mental well-being.

I especially want to acknowledge the leadership and persistence of Mr. Bhalwinder Singh Waraich, who is the president of the Sunset Community Association and has championed for this project for many years. Mr. Waraich, along with other residents, continues to champion the need for a new aquatic centre in South Vancouver and in the Sunset neighbourhood.

I’m pleased to share that the grand opening of the new Sunset seniors centre will take place on Tuesday, May 12, at 10 a.m., with festivities and an open house continuing until 3 p.m. This beautiful facility includes a commercial kitchen for meal programs, multipurpose rooms, wellness and fitness spaces and welcoming gathering areas where seniors can build friendships and stay connected with their community.

This project has also been designed to meet advanced environmental and accessibility standards, such as LEED commercial interiors gold certification, Rick Hansen Foundation accessibility certification and electric HVAC systems with heat pumps.

[10:35 a.m.]

On behalf of the residents of Vancouver-Langara, I thank the dedicated board members of the Sunset Community Association for helping make these dreams possible.

I warmly invite all members of this House and all British Columbians to visit the Sunset senior centre and Sunset Community Centre in the historic Punjabi Market area of Vancouver-Langara.

Deputy Speaker: Members, according to the order paper, we will consider Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, as reported complete with amendment from the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Reporting of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer: I move that Bill M217 be instituted, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act as amended to be concurred in at report stage.

I’m very pleased to be able to stand here today and congratulate the committee on all the good work that they’ve done to bring us to this stage. We all know that the main reason why this bill was instituted in the first place was because of the improvements to road safety. I believe this is a bipartisan bill. This is an opportunity for us in the House to be able to come together and make meaningful legislation.

Dashcams promote safe driving behaviour. Over 50 percent of our commercial vehicles already have dashcams, and many businesses have already instituted it into their safe work procedures. They’ve already seen the tangible benefits of the reduction of collisions, accidents and insurance claims because of dashcams. I’m quite confident that with the ability to move this forward and having it as a bill will give us the necessary tools to be able to make sure that all our commercial vehicles over that gross vehicle weight of 8,200 kilograms will be, in the province of British Columbia and hopefully across the entire country….

Some of the benefits, of course, we talked about — safe driving habits, but there’s also the efficiency side of things as well. There are opportunities, of course, of speeding up insurance claims and investigations, reducing legal disputes and costs, and it also lowers the stress and the opportunities for people to make bad decisions.

The other thing that I’d like to talk about, if I may, is the amendments that were brought forth in the committee. I believe that those amendments strengthen this bill. Those amendments had not only the description of the commercial vehicle in question, of 8,200 kilograms, but also what the operating requirements of the dashcams would be, including night vision and forward-facing only, nothing inside the cab or any privacy issues.

That was the other thing that was brought up in committee time and time again. There were concerns about privacy. We’ve got existing laws already on the books, specifically when it comes to commercial and businesses, not only to be able to determine how that information is being used and stored but also how it’s being destroyed. I believe that we have already got significant legislation in place to make that work very effectively.

On behalf of myself, I’d like to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill, and I hope that we get unanimous support in the House.

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

I agree with pretty much everything that was just said. I also really appreciate the work of the committee on this bill. I think we are all supportive of the intention of this bill to make roads safer for all of those using them, especially commercial drivers that are such an important part of our economy, moving goods around the province interprovincially, internationally.

I do have concerns about the bill as it’s been reported back, specifically with clause 1 and the current definition of “commercial vehicle.” The definition of “commercial vehicle,” as it stands, in my opinion, is too broad and should align with commercial vehicles that also carry speed limiters. This creates clarity for all drivers who use their vehicles for commercial purposes.

As it stands right now, the current definition may unintentionally…. We think we know what it means right now, but there are some unintended consequences when things aren’t clear, and we hear that consistently from the other side. It may unintentionally apply to smaller commercial vehicles, such as delivery trucks, smaller delivery vehicles, landscaping vehicles and quite possibly anyone who insures their vehicle through a corporate or commercial means.

[10:40 a.m.]

Clarity in definition will help us avoid confusion and creates consistency among federal and provincial regulatory frameworks, which is something that, if you recall, was brought up at the beginning of debate on this bill.

Also, based on the submissions that I reviewed from the public, including feedback from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, I think the committee should be given an opportunity to review these concerns regarding clause 1, and I’m also sure that we may hear from the Minister of Transportation on this issue.

Macklin McCall: I rise briefly at report stage to reiterate my support for this legislation. This is a practical, commonsense measure that will improve safety on our roads. The core of this bill is straightforward. Better evidence leads to better outcomes for investigators, for drivers and for the public.

We’ve already spoken in this House about the real-world value of dashboard camera footage. It provides clarity where there would otherwise be uncertainty. It helps determine what actually happened, especially in serious collisions, often in rural and remote areas where there are few, if any, witnesses. Ultimately, it supports safer roads and more effective investigations.

I also want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised earlier in this process about privacy and the protection of personal information. Those are valid concerns, and they were taken seriously. What we saw at committee was a thoughtful, non-partisan effort to address those issues in a balanced way.

Members from different sides of this House engaged in constructive discussions, proposed amendments and worked through the details to ensure this legislation strikes the right balance. Those amendments strengthened the bill. They clarified how information is handled; reinforced protections around personal data; and ensured that this tool is used for its intended purpose — public safety.

The bill before us today is better because of that process. It now reflects an approach that protects public safety while also respecting individual rights and ensuring that this footage is not misused. That matters because public confidence depends on getting that balance right.

This is the kind of legislation that should bring this House together. It supports commercial drivers, it supports law enforcement, it supports families who deserve clear answers after serious incidents, and it does so in a way that is measured, reasonable and fair. At the end of the day, this bill is about improving safety, providing clarity and ensuring accountability on the roads. It’s practical, it’s effective, and it’s ready.

I encourage all members of this House to support it.

George Anderson: Let me begin by saying this. Road safety is not a partisan issue. Every member of this House wants safer highways, safer commercial transportation and fewer families receiving the kind of phone call that no family should ever receive. But our responsibility is not simply to support a bill because its purpose sounds worthwhile. Our responsibility is to make sure the law we pass is clear, targeted, enforceable and fair.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Transit, I relay some messages from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit that initially the bill, as drafted, was too broad. It would have captured vehicles that were never the real focus of this legislation — smaller delivery vehicles, landscaping trucks, contractors’ vehicles and other small business operators that are not the same as the heaviest commercial trucks operating across the province and international borders.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit believes that the bill should be amended so that it can address certain questions, such as who can access the footage, how long it’ll be retained and other enforcement mechanisms. As we are going about trying to draft better legislation, I believe it is important that we vote against this particular bill and send it back to committee in order for these questions to be addressed.

At the end of the day, it’s responsible for us as legislators to be putting forth the best legislation possible. I’m sure the member agrees that where we can ensure that there’s clarity, we will be providing a better bill.

[10:45 a.m.]

For that reason, I believe this bill needs further work. I believe it needs stronger safeguards and clearer rules. As it stands, at report stage, I cannot support it. I will be voting against sending it to report stage.

Trevor Halford: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Trevor Halford: So grateful to have Star of the Sea White Rock grade 5 class who all were so patient as they crammed into my office this morning.

I want to say thank you to the parents and the students who got up at what I’m told is 4 a.m., in some cases, this morning to catch the ferry. So thank you.

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

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

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

Debate Continued

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

One thing I want to clarify is…. On the weight stage that the member from Ladysmith-Oceanside had brought up, that was actually agreed upon, and there was an amendment made that covered that aspect about gross weight.

Being someone that came from the trucking industry, this bill will help. It will help with ICBC if there are any accidents, and it helps with safety in a lot of ways. As a trucker, you’d be driving straight ahead, and a lot of cars do drive erratically. They would cut right in front of you. Most of the time, that would always be: “Hey, blame the trucker” — every single time.

This would bring clarity. This would actually help the process of ICBC and everything else that way. I feel this bill does cover a lot of issues and a lot of erratic driving. It does make people more honest when they’re driving.

I had a dashcam in mine, and it always reminded you that you need to be a professional as a trucker. This bill does bring professionalism to trucking and to the process that it is if there was any accident to happen. So I strongly speak in support of this bill. As someone that comes from the industry, someone that’s lived the life of a trucker, this bill helps.

I think all members in this House should be supporting a bill like this that actually brings transparency if issues arise. It helps trucker safety and, most importantly, helps all British Columbians’ safety. That is the missing piece here that I would like to highlight. This would bring a lot of clarity if anything was to go wrong.

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

Bryan Tepper: Just sitting here, I was a little confused at hearing some of the debate that we had. As I’m aware, we do have an 8,200-kilogram gross vehicle weight in there, if that answers that.

Most of the other items that have been brought up are items that are generally dealt with through regulation. Pushing this back to committee…. I will talk about how when police bodycams came in, we dealt with all of these issues through regulation. The bill is there and lays out the guidelines, but regulation is what we deal with on a basis for any of these things that are being brought as what I see as roadblocks to what’s being pushed forward as a very cost-effective method of road safety.

If we look at vision zero, which I think is an admirable program, it’s been in for, I think, 15 years now, and we’re looking to bring down deaths and serious injuries in this province. If we can place cameras in vehicles, first of all, it brings self-accountability to the drivers of these vehicles, knowing that their actions are covered or recorded by these dashcams.

[10:50 a.m.]

Again, financially nowadays it is extremely, extremely inexpensive to put a camera in your vehicle, and we will go from there. But really, at that point, I don’t see the argument against passing this on, on items like this.

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

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I was under the belief that this had already gone through in discussion, through committee, on all these concerns that were brought forth, very specific on what vehicles were going to be mandated — with 8,200 kilograms. It wasn’t small vehicles or landscaping trucks or anything like that. The privacy concerns that the member across brought up have already been dealt with, not only in committee but also on the reason why those amendments were done.

In closing, I believe that this should be able to go to third reading, and we should be able to have a vote in this House. We shouldn’t have to be going through this process in the first place. I think all those questions have come up through committee, and I believe that it’s meaningful legislation. It’s bipartisan. It’s something that we all agree on is necessary for making our roads safer in British Columbia.

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

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

The question is that Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, division is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Kiel Giddens: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Kiel Giddens: I’d like to introduce in the gallery Mary Mytting, who’s here with the Northern Innovation Network — we met this morning — and doing great things for supporting entrepreneurs in northern B.C.

Would the House please make her very welcome this morning.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will consider Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act, as reported complete without amendment from the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Bill M231 — Veterans and
First Responders Month Act

Rosalyn Bird: I move that Bill M231, intituled Veterans and First Responders Month Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is that Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will now proceed to third reading of Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M231 — Veterans and
First Responders Month Act

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

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

Over the course of this bill’s progress through the House, members have spoken thoughtfully about the service, professionalism and dedication of veterans and first responders across British Columbia.

I want to begin by acknowledging again the uniformed guests in the gallery today and expressing my sincere thanks to the committee for its careful consideration of this legislation and to all members of this House who spoke in favour of the bill and contributed to its advancement.

This legislation at its core is about recognition, but it has been discussed that it is not only about recognition. It is about understanding the full reality of service. It is about acknowledging not only what veterans and first responders do each day but also what they carry, with their injuries and cumulative stress, and the lasting impacts that come with that duty.

It is about creating space for greater public awareness so that British Columbians understand the challenges of service, including the transition to new careers when that service is cut short, and the resilience required to continue forward.

[10:55 a.m.]

Importantly, it is also about ensuring that future generations see the professions clearly, as honourable and essential and, also, demanding and deserving of respect.

By designating November as Veterans and First Responders Month, this Legislature creates an opportunity for education, for reflection and for community engagement across the province. It creates spaces not only to honour service but to support advocacy for safer, more resilient communities. It affirms that those who serve — veterans, RCMP officers, Coast Guard members, city police, firefighters, search and rescue technicians, 911 operators and ambulance attendants — are not only recognized for what they do but acknowledged for what they endure.

This is a modest bill, but it reflects something significant. It reflects a shared understanding in this House that service matters, that recognition must be grounded in honesty, respect and accountability.

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

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

Motion approved.

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

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will proceed with debate on amendment to Motion M205. I’ll just note that we have approximately three minutes for debate on the amendment before I look to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to close debate.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation
Course for MLAs

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

On the amendment (continued).

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

Frankly, this amendment is exactly the problem this motion is trying to address. The motion before this House is simple. It says elected officials who make billion-dollar decisions on behalf of British Columbians should have a basic understanding of economics, public finance, debt, deficits, inflation, productivity and the cost of government decisions. That should not be controversial to this House.

But instead of debating that reasonable proposition, the government has done what it so often does in this place. It has tried to turn a practical debate into a wedge issue. It has tried to change the channel. It has tried to make out a basic motion to be something far darker than it really is — the absolute horror of basic economics education. But this motion is not about ideology. This is about competence.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in health care. This government has spent years announcing inputs — more money, more plans, more strategies, more press releases, more ribbon cuttings. But the outputs tell a very different story.

Emergency rooms are still closing in rural British Columbia. Seniors are still stuck in hospital beds because long-term-care capacity doesn’t exist. According to the seniors advocate, more than 7,000 British Columbians were waiting for long-term care in 2025. It is now 7,800 this year, an average wait time of over a year.

This is what happens when government confuses spending with results. A government can spend more and deliver less. It can announce more and build less. It can hire more administrators and still leave patients waiting, seniors stranded and families desperate.

That is why economic literacy matters, because debt has to be serviced. Deficits have consequences. Capital delays cost money. When government mismanages major projects, that is not government money being wasted. It is money earned by the people of British Columbia.

British Columbians do not need another amendment designed to turn a serious debate into a partisan morality play. They need a Legislature that understands the real-world consequences of the decisions it makes. That is what this motion is about, and that is why I cannot support this amendment. I fully support the original motion as written.

[11:00 a.m.]

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

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

I think it’s been really interesting listening to us go back and forth. I think sometimes we all struggle in this House to engage with the genuine intellectual and philosophical arguments behind our points.

One of the things that I was very clear about in my moving this amendment was how expensive it is when we don’t understand the laws of British Columbia. I could have debated very clearly on morality but I did not, because there are multiple instances of situations where members of all levels of government did not understand the basics of laws that protect us, the reason behind why we have laws.

I also have had the experience, as many members of this House have had, of serving in local government. My service was as a school trustee, which was six years that I truly enjoyed. One of the reasons I did enjoy it is because school trustees, the B.C. School Trustees Association every year puts on an academy. For three days, school trustees go and they learn. If you’ve been in local government, you are very familiar that there is a local government academy where members of local government — municipal, village — can go and can learn about different topics of law.

I did not choose the amendments that I put in there randomly. I chose them because they are repeated over and over in the agendas of both the local government academy and of the B.C. school trustees academy. If local government thinks those are very important topics for us to learn about, because they concern the administration of laws and the understanding of legal consequences, I don’t believe we can disregard that.

I also feel…. We all don’t know each other very well in this House. Members on this side have gotten an opportunity to know me. I am not a partisan bun fighter. If anyone in this House thinks that I would waste a bun, clearly, you haven’t been paying attention. But I genuinely value education. I think it makes us all better. And I appreciate the effort that the member opposite has put forward in making this motion. I value education. I think we should all participate in it. I think we should do it every year, and I think we should commit time and resources to making that happen.

So I am hoping that we will all support this amendment to the motion. You will notice that I did not move to remove the original intention of the motion, which was economics, which I truly believe we should all have a basic functioning, working knowledge of.

That is my little speech. I sincerely hope that this motion brings us together and does not separate us. We can all come together in learning to do better for our constituents.

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

Division is being called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member next on the list of precedence to move their item of business.

Motion M207 — Liquor Service
in Movie Theatres

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

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

I speak to a simple, practical idea that supports small businesses, strengthens community gathering spaces and reflects how people enjoy film in 2026. This motion supports the fact that we know small business is the economic engine of British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

Across British Columbia, small, independent movie theatres are more than just places to watch films. They are cultural hubs. They host local events, film festivals and school screenings and gather community together. But many of these theatres are struggling to compete in an era of streaming services and rising operating costs.

At the same time, we’ve seen a shift in how audiences experience movies. Larger corporate cinemas already offer expanded food and beverage services, including liquor in many adult-only settings. Yet small, mostly rural, independent theatres, often the most creative and community-focused, face regulatory barriers that limit their ability to diversify revenue. I learned of this challenge from my own riding, where we have two independent single-screen theatres, the Castle Theatre in Castlegar and the Royal Theatre in Trail.

By chance, last year I ran into the owners of the Royal Theatre at the airport, on their way to Victoria for the cinema industry gathering. They explained that it’s hard for independent, rural, single-screen theatres to thrive and sustain operations. They asked if I could support them in asking for changes to liquor laws to allow them to sell beer and wine in mixed-age audiences. Currently for a live performance in the same theatre, they would be allowed to serve alcohol in a mixed crowd — but for a movie, no.

This law originated in the U.K., back when film was first used commercially. Film was affordable for everyone, all classes of people. Live theatre was for the upper class. The law was instituted because you couldn’t trust the common working person to have alcohol.

An example the theatre owners shared with me was regarding the recent Taylor Swift Eras Tour. The tour came to B.C. Place. The venue was filled with 160,000 fans over three nights. The vast majority were teenage fans. Alcohol was sold there every night. When the local theatre replayed the concert for local fans that couldn’t afford the time or expense to attend the live shows, they could not sell alcohol to help sustain their operations.

This motion calls on government to modernize those rules. This change will support and help to sustain the 50-plus independent theatres across British Columbia. Allowing small, independent theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings, while maintaining strict safeguards, would give these businesses a fair chance to compete.

It would not mean unrestricted access. Responsible service requirements, age verification and clear enforcement mechanisms will remain in place.

This is about fairness. It’s about economic sustainability. It is about supporting small business in British Columbia. Most importantly, it’s about preserving the unique character of our communities. When a small theatre closes, we don’t just lose a screen; we lose a gathering place and a shared cultural experience.

This is a modest, commonsense step that supports local small business, reflects modern realities and keeps our communities vibrant. I encourage all members of this House to support this motion.

Jody Toor: It’s an honour to speak on Motion M207, liquor service and movie theatres. As mentioned by the member from across, movie theatres have been more than just places to watch films. They are gathering spaces, what many call “third places,” where people come together outside of home and work to share stories, emotions and experiences. In an increasingly digital and isolated world, these spaces matter more than ever. Yet over the past few years, movie theatres have been struggling to survive.

In 2012, the B.C. government took a step forward towards modernizing by allowing liquor services in movie theatres. However, that policy came with some limitations. Alcohol could only be served in adult-only screenings and in the lobby areas.

While well-intended, these restrictions have limited the potential impact of the change and have not gone far enough to support theatres facing ongoing financial challenges. Allowing movie theatres to serve alcohol to responsible adults during regular screenings is not a threat to society. It is a moderate, practical step that could help these important cultural spaces remain visible.

[11:10 a.m.]

Adults are already trusted to make responsible choices in a wide range of environments, and there is no compelling reason to treat movie theatres differently. Restaurants; bars; and cultural events, such as concerts, all successfully serve alcohol in settings where people of different ages are present. These establishments manage to enforce legal drinking age requirements every day without issues. The systems and practices already exist. Theatres would simply be joining a well-established framework.

Moreover, this is not an uncharted territory. Other provinces, such as Alberta, already allow movie theatres to serve alcohol more freely. These authorities have demonstrated that it can be done responsibly, without negative impacts on public safety. At its core, this is about fairness, modernization and supporting local businesses that provide to our communities.

Movie theatres are part of our cultural fabric. Giving them the flexibility to adapt to changing consumer outcomes could make a meaningful difference in their ability to survive and thrive in today’s society. If we value these shared spaces and the role they play in bringing people together, then we should be willing to be responsible to take steps to support them. Expanding responsible alcohol services in all movie theatres — not just in small, independent ones — is one of those steps. For that reason, I bring forward an amendment to the motion.

I rise to support an amendment to Motion M207. This amendment ensures that all movie theatres in British Columbia have the option to serve alcohol during mixed-age showings.

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

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

On the amendment.

Jody Toor: This is a simple and reasonable change. It does not require any theatre to serve alcohol. It only ensures that every theatre has the same opportunity to decide what works best for their business and their audience.

At its core, this is about fairness. The current wording creates an uneven playing field, allowing some theatres to offer a service that others cannot, despite operating under the same provincial regulation. Two theatres can follow the same rules, serve the same communities and meet the same safety standards, yet only one is permitted to expand its offerings. That inconsistency is difficult to justify and confusing for consumers. If we believe in equal treatment, we should not be prioritizing one business model over another.

This is also about enhancing the movie-going experience for many adults. Going to the movies is not just about watching a film. It’s also a social outing, date nights. The option to enjoy a glass of wine or a local craft beer can make that experience more enjoyable and more complete.

Larger theatres with their advanced sound systems, premium seating and established service practices are just as capable of providing safe, well-mannered environments. There is no compelling reason to exclude them from offering the same experience.

There are economic benefits as well. Expanding this option to all theatres would encourage advancement across this industry. It would allow theatres to offer their offerings, remain competitive and better respond to changing consumer experience. It also opens the doors for stronger partnerships with local breweries, wineries and producers, giving them more opportunities to showcase British Columbian products. That supports not just the theatres but local businesses and regional economics throughout this province.

We should also be clear about safety. Reasonable and responsible alcohol service is already governed by strict provincial regulations. Staff training, age verification and service standards are well-established and enforced in B.C. This amendment does not weaken those protections in any way. It simply ensures that all theatres operating under those rules are treated equally.

Ultimately, this amendment is about consistency, fairness and choice. It supports theatres of all sizes, regardless of if they’re small or independent; respects the ability of businesses to make reasonable and responsible decisions; and gives consumers more options in how they enjoy their experiences.

The question before us is simple. Do we maintain an unnecessary restriction, or do we create a level playing field? I urge this House to support this amendment and allow all movie theatres, allow this motion to take place and broaden the motion….

[11:15 a.m.]

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

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

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the House. We actually have our second class from Star of the Sea, who I’m told is up there right behind me.

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

I want to say thank you to Mr. Luyten.

Just so you guys know, and you can tell your parents, we’re actually debating right now the ability to potentially have liquor in movie theatres. Obviously, you need ID and all that stuff, so don’t get….

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

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Members, the amendment is being circulated. We’ll just take a short recess so everybody has the opportunity to take a look at it.

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

Steve Morissette: I’ll speak to the amendment. I appreciate the effort to make things equitable. I feel that with the original motion…. That was the point of the original motion, to support small, rural, independent, single-screen theatres.

[11:20 a.m.]

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

Larger, multi-screen theatres already have the ability to serve alcohol and to gain that income from alcohol sales. They can have separate areas. They can use one screen for a showing for 19 plus. They already have that ability, so I don’t support the amendment. While I appreciate its intent, I think it’s already covered. Really, this is to focus on small, rural, independent, single-screen theatres.

Gavin Dew: The concern about broadening the intention of the motion is ironic in light of the last vote that we just had.

The reality is that I think folks on all sides of this House want to support small business, and I do believe that the original motion is laudable. I think that it is beneficial to allow small, independent movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings. That’s a commonsense policy. I think that, broadly, we all want to enable people to have more flexibility in terms of the experience that they have when they go to the movies.

The intent of the amendment, which I think is equally laudable, is to expand that. The approach that has been taken by the member was to bring a motion rather than a bill, so, simply, to provide a general spiritual direction to be taken forward which may result in changes to be implemented by government. We think it is only appropriate that the changes be of breadth, that the changes are focused on allowing movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings.

Certainly, that would be inclusive of the member’s original intent to support small, independent movie theatres. Implicit in the motion but explicit in his speech was the reference to small, independent, rural movie theatres.

We certainly recognize that there are significant economic and commercial challenges faced by those small theatres in particular. However, broadening the motion to encompass all movie theatres would allow for a more all-encompassing approach, which would allow a balanced approach across the board.

I think, at this point, it’s relevant to speak about why this matters. What we have seen over the last number of years has been a gradual movement both within B.C. and across the country toward more commonsense liberalization of policies like this that recognize that adults are adults and can be trusted to do adult things as grown-ups. That includes being able to have a beer while you watch a movie.

There is a really important balance to be struck here, obviously. The expectation that we should have as a society is that people can comport themselves with dignity in an appropriate environment. And that is exactly what the member has brought forth, which is, again, a motion to allow movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings.

I hear some heckling from the other side about this happening with kids. I don’t understand why the member is heckling against her own member’s motion, because the same fundamental balance is there regardless. Whether it’s an independent cinema or whether it is a larger cinema, the same fundamental aspect is there. The same spirit that appears to be embodied in the intent of the original motion is there.

However, we’re simply allowing for this to happen more broadly. The reason why this is important is a couple of things. Independent cinemas, larger cinemas — no matter what they are — are actually very, very difficult facilities to adapt, as the member well knows. In many instances, once they’ve been built out, they’re not a particularly adaptable format which can easily be converted to another use. If they’re not able to remain commercially viable, that’s a real challenge, especially when they are, in many cases, a cornerstone, anchor tenant for a larger development.

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

One of the reasons why movie theatres have come under increased strain, of course, is that we saw a lot of different consumer behaviours evolving, both prior to, during and after COVID, where in many cases, when people were not able to go out to the movies, they invested in home theatre systems. They changed their behaviours, just as in many cases, they started cooking more at home. With those changes, we have seen those cinemas, again, whether they’re independent cinemas or whether they’re part of larger companies, come under real strain.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’m well aware, as the member, I think, has flagged in their original motion, that, in particular, in small communities, small cinemas have taken that pressure particularly hard. In many communities — I think of cinemas I visited, theatres I visited — there are real and smart efforts underway to make sure that we try to restore the vitality, vibrancy and economic viability of those cinemas.

Again, by broadening the motion through this amendment, we’re allowing for broader direction, we’re allowing for broader conversation and we are joining with the member in encouraging government to enable movie theatres to serve liquor during mixed-age showings.

We, obviously, think that there ought to be the right kind of balance struck around that. We, obviously, believe in people taking responsibility for their actions. We, obviously, believe that this is the kind of logical, commonsense liberalization that would allow people to go about their business in a normal way, have a great time and also keep those movie theatres alive.

Dana Lajeunesse: I can’t support this amendment for the reasons that have already been noted by my colleague. Liquor is already allowed to be served in larger theatres, and what we’re talking about here is helping to keep our small businesses and our local small community assets viable.

On its surface, we’re talking about liquor licensing, but at its heart, this is about something much larger. It’s about who we are as a society, what we value and how we support the arts as essential infrastructure for healthy individuals and healthy communities.

Independent movie theatres are not just places where films are shown. They’re cultural anchors. They’re gathering places. They’re often the last remaining shared public spaces in small towns and rural communities, places where people of all ages can come together to experience stories that reflect who we are, challenge what we believe and expand how we see the world.

When we talk about health in this House, we rightly spend a great deal of time discussing hospitals, doctors and emergency rooms. But health is also about mental well-being, connection, belonging and joy. The arts contribute profoundly to all of these.

Research and lived experience tell us that engagement with the arts reduces isolation, supports mental health, fosters empathy and strengthens social cohesion. A community with vibrant arts and culture is a community where people feel more connected, more resilient and more healthful. This is especially true in small communities where access is limited. This is not a luxury; this is a public good. Yet when we look at how public funding is distributed, it’s very clear the arts are still, too often, treated as an afterthought.

Across the province and, frankly, across the country, we invest heavily and proudly in sports infrastructure, arenas, stadiums, training facilities and event complexes. We justify those investments quite rightly by pointing to community benefit, economic spinoffs, public enjoyment and health. But when it comes to arts infrastructure, local theatres, performance spaces, galleries and cultural venues, the scale of investment is often dramatically smaller and the scrutiny far greater.

We would never question whether a hockey arena should be allowed to sell alcohol during a game attended by families. We understand that those revenues help keep the lights on, subsidize youth access and make the entire operation financially viable. Yet today small, independent movie theatres, many of which operate on razor-thin margins, are prohibited from doing exactly the same thing during mixed-age film screenings.

That disparity matters. Independent theatres are struggling. Global inflation, rising rent, increased utilities, changing distribution models and the long shadow of the pandemic have all taken their toll. In many rural communities, the local theatre is hanging on by a thread. When it closes, it won’t come back.

[11:30 a.m.]

The original motion offers a practical, low-cost, commonsense tool to keep those theatres alive. We’re not talking about mandating alcohol service. We’re not talking about large corporate multiplexes. We’re talking about giving small, independent theatres the choice — the same choice that music venues, performing arts centres and sports arenas already have.

The other arts and cultural spaces rely on liquor sales to remain viable. Mixed-age concerts, theatre productions and community festivals across British Columbia serve alcohol responsibly under existing rules. They do this while prioritizing safety, compliance and community standards. There’s no reason independent movie theatres should be treated differently.

That extra income could mean the difference between closing their doors and staying open. It could mean upgrading seats, improving accessibility, paying local staff a living wage or continuing to offer affordable tickets for seniors and families.

Kiel Giddens: I want to thank the member for Langley-Willowbrook for bringing forward this amendment. I think it is common sense.

I do want to thank the member for Kootenay-Monashee for his original motion. I think both of these fit together. It’s actually an excellent motion that the member for Kootenay-Monashee brought forward, and I think the amendment we’re talking about actually strengthens it significantly.

I want to maybe use a little bit of an example from my own community as I get into my discussion on it. Over the past, I’d say, ten or 12 years, B.C. has been embarking on a journey of updating its archaic liquor laws. If we look at a country in Europe compared to what we’ve had in B.C. up to ten or 15 years ago, it’s just no comparison whatsoever.

I think what we’ve come to realize is that we need to let adults be adults, to have responsible governance and rules around these things but make sure that there is flexibility for people to live their own lives. They don’t need big government telling them what to do on everything. They can make their own decisions.

In Prince George, we only have one movie theatre. It is not an independent theatre but it is a small theatre actually. It’s a little bit of an outdated one. It’s a bit of an eyesore for folks who are used to the large-scale facilities in the Lower Mainland, but it’s ours. It’s where people go to gather to watch a movie with their family. If you want to go to view a concert with your family, say the Taylor Swift concert, they had it played in our movie theatre.

These are the types of things that I think we should have the ability for adults to choose — what to do with their own lives. At mixed-age showings, this amendment is making sure it includes theatres like the one in Prince George that would be, actually, excluded. I think this is an opportunity for us in this House right now to say: “Let’s step forward and keep modernizing our liquor laws in B.C.”

The member for Juan de Fuca–Malahat…. I appreciate his comments, but he did use the example of arenas and art centres. I just took my kids to the Prince George Spruce Kings game on Saturday night. They’re in the Coastal Conference finals against the Nanaimo Clippers right now in BCHL playoff action. I chose not to have a beer that night, but right next to us was another dad who was having a beer with his kids. That is exactly what we should be encouraging, just adults making their own choices and not having government telling everyone what to do at all times.

The example that was used, I think, is a perfect example of the fact that the sky didn’t fall when those changes came into effect for sports arenas and stadiums. Prince George had banned that in facilities for many years. They loosened that up.

[11:35 a.m.]

It allowed more revenue for these arenas that need upgrades. There are millions of dollars needed in upgrades at the CN Centre in Prince George right now. The Kopar Memorial Arena is slated for replacement.

Our cities need revenue and so do different sizes of businesses. We would love to see a little bit more redevelopment in our theatre in Prince George, but they have to be profitable for that to happen.

What this amendment is doing is making sure that the theatre in my community is also included. I appreciate the member for Kootenay-Monashee really caring about theatres in his community. I think that’s fantastic.

I also support small business, and I want that to be included, but I would like all theatres to be included because it means it’s equitable. It’s the same regulations across the board that these theatres are subject to, so we should have it across the board for all different sizes of businesses that might be included in this.

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

Paul Choi: I’m pleased to rise today in support of the original motion and oppose the amendment for the simple reason that the original motion is doing exactly what we were talking about to bring fairness and equity to the liquor in theatres, because already large theatres and multi-complexes have ability to serve liquor.

I want to thank the member for bringing the original motion forward. This is one of the motions that may sound small at first, but it speaks to something much bigger. It is about how we support local businesses, arts and culture and community spaces that people genuinely value.

Now, independent theatres are special places. They are not just buildings with screens and seats. They’re places where families gather on the weekend, where students discover film and films that you may not see on streaming platforms. From someone who enjoys that as well, sometimes being able to see something that is different and unique, especially when it’s local film, is something that we should ensure that we support and encourage.

It’s where community groups come to gather as well. In many communities, especially smaller towns, the local theatre is one of the few remaining cultural gathering places. It is part of the identity and character of the community.

I want to thank all of us in this House who understand how hard it is to become a small business and survive these days. As a former small business owner myself, I know that small businesses do not operate in unlimited margins. You worry about rent, utilities, staffing, insurance, maintenance and whether enough people can come through the door.

For independent theatres, these pressures are even greater now. They face rising costs, changing consumer habits and competition from streaming services. A theatre cannot simply move online and offer the same experience. The whole point is that people come together in person, in the community. When we talk about allowing small, independent theatres to have an additional revenue option, we’re not talking about something extravagant. We’re talking about giving them one more tool to keep their doors open.

This original motion is about fairness, as I said. And right now, as we talked about, we already allow liquor services in many mixed-age settings. People can attend concerts, sports events, art events, festivals and community events where adults may purchase liquor while families and young people are also present.

We trust those venues to follow the rules. We trust them to check ID, train their staff, follow Serving It Right requirements and serve responsibly. So why should small, independent movie theatres be treated differently? That is the reasonable question that we ask here.

Now, the original motion does not say every theatre must serve alcohol. It does not say every screen must have liquor. It does not remove public safety rules. It does not change the obligation to ensure minors are not served. This simply says that small, independent theatres should have the option to make it fair if they choose to apply for the opportunity and operate within the rules.

Now, this matters because every community is different and every theatre is different. Some may want this option, some may not, but giving them the choice is a practical and respectable approach.

It can also help cultural spaces come alive. It also matters for local economic development. When people go to local theatres, they often do more than just buy a movie ticket. They may go out for dinner. They may stop at a cafe. They may support other businesses in the area. This kind of local activity matters. Cultural venues bring foot traffic, energy and life into our neighbourhoods and town centres.

[11:40 a.m.]

If we want vibrant communities and if we want to support the actual places where arts and culture happen, independent theatres are where it brings people together. They support local filmmakers, Canadian films, documentaries, international films and community programming that may not be available in larger community venues. And they give people a reason to leave their houses, meet their neighbours and share an experience. That is worth protecting.

That is why I oppose the amendment but support the original motion, because it is practical, it is modest, it is targeted and it is respectful to both public safety and small business realities.

For this reason, I’m pleased to support the original motion but oppose the amendment.

Donegal Wilson: I definitely want to stand up in support of the motion as well as the amendment. In my riding, I only have small, independent theatres. I appreciate that the member for Kootenay-Monashee is looking to level the playing field.

In my region, I have the Gem Theatre in Grand Forks as well as the Oliver Theatre in Oliver. Honestly, they’re not competing with other large theatres, so the amendment doesn’t have a lot of impact in my riding, which is why I support it.

We should be enabling businesses in every single way we can to make businesses successful in British Columbia. If it allows liquor to be served in large theatres under certain circumstances now, why wouldn’t we just make it level so that the rules are the same for everybody?

The one thing I do want to say is that I don’t really understand why this came forward as a motion. I wish the member had brought it forward as a bill that was actually going to make change. This motion is kind of a temperature check of the House. I find it a little hard to see how this is going to impact change and why we’re arguing, necessarily, semantics around why the government themselves would be opposed to just saying “all theatres” and why there’s such strong opposition to that in a motion where we’re just checking the temperature in the room.

I believe that all businesses need equal rules. When we start trying to figure out who is small and independent…. Is it somebody who has three theatres? Are they still small and independent? What makes them become a not-independent theatre? I think just having a straight all-theatres rule makes sense to me.

I wanted to share that I had a fundraising event in Vernon at the Vernon Towne Theatre many years ago. It was for the Lumby Mabel Lake Snowmobile Association. They were doing a screening of a local snowmobile movie. One of the challenges we had at that particular theatre was getting people to attend, getting the 20- to 25-year-olds to come out and participate in a fundraising event when we weren’t able to provide any alcohol at the event. We ended up having to rent the entire theatre, get a liquor licence and do it as a special event venue.

I do support the member’s motion in removing those barriers. I definitely feel like…. Like I said, I just wish it had come forward as a bill that was actually going to make an impact for my theatres in my region. Doing this temperature check, to me, feels kind of…. I wish it was more. I guess I’ll say that. I wish that we were actually making a change for my theatres.

I do appreciate that Kootenay-Monashee is probably in a similar position to mine, where he has only independent theatres. I believe that’s probably why the wording of his motion is the way it is. But I don’t see omitting “all theatres” like we have in the amendment as a negative. I think it just creates a temperature check in the room that we support small business and we support all small business and large business in British Columbia on an even playing field.

I do think that whether alcohol should be served or not is kind of a non-issue. I believe that we have laws and rules in British Columbia. We’ve had other members speak to being able to lawfully drink in hockey arenas and other venues. I know that in Oliver, regularly, in their arts theatre, they are able to serve some great Oliver, B.C., wine as part of their showing and as part of your evening out on those particular events.

[11:45 a.m.]

I believe that this isn’t about whether drinking is responsible or not. I believe that we have the laws in place and we have precedents all over the place. The fact that these independent theatres have not been able to take advantage of that, I think, is why this member has brought forward this motion.

I also think that we just want to ensure that there’s flexibility in the business model for all businesses. I agree with the other member that this gets people out. They go out for dinner. They make it an evening. They might actually do something else while they’re out.

In small towns, quite often once we get home, not much is open. We end up tending to find at-home pursuits. So I support anything that gets people outside in their community and being part of their community.

I do support the amendment and want all businesses to be on an equal playing field.

Brennan Day: I’m pleased to stand up and support the amendment from my colleague from Langley-Willowbrook. I think this side of the House should also give a round of applause to the member for Kootenay-Monashee for recognizing the struggle that the theatre industry in British Columbia is currently under, under this NDP government.

And $1.6 billion is what the theatre industry is worth in Canada; 66.6 percent of that business is all we have left after the damaging effects of COVID drove people to watch from home. Of that revenue, 38 percent hinges on the sales of food and beverages to the sector.

What this amendment is asking for is not anything extreme. This is already done in jurisdictions across this country. And I think it is extremely important that British Columbia gets out of the stone age and starts treating adults like adults in adult spaces and mixed-use spaces. We need to be pushing for family-friendly and inclusive atmospheres in all of the third places where we meet in small communities and large communities across the province.

What we should also take note of…. Currently, right now, today there are NHL stadiums that are sold out at capacity to watch the game on a screen. This should be encouraged across the province in places like small theatres, not just the tiny and small, independent, single-screen theatres, as the member mentions. Currently in British Columbia, the law already allows for alcohol consumption in theatres. But that requires adult-only showings and generally only applies to multiplex theatres.

Why? Why is this government so committed to policing every aspect of daily life in British Columbia? We can do far, far better than that here in B.C. with no major change.

I’ll speak about the Comox Valley. We had, at one point, two theatres, one of which had two screens and one that had one — the Palace and the Caprice Theatres. Anybody that’s grown up in the Comox Valley will remember these fondly. Now we only have one small multiplex. This is not a 30-screen Vancouver theatre. This is a theatre that I go to with my son to watch the latest and greatest Star Wars films, as it turns out these days.

Happy May 4th.

It’s important that we spend that time together and get people out of their houses. Too many people now are simply streaming them at home. We need to encourage British Columbians to get out into public, to support small local businesses.

When 38 percent of the revenue of theatres is based on food and beverage, why not give them a shot to remain open? We will lose these third places, whether they are small, independent screens or large screens, regardless, because the trend line since 2018 is that we’ve lost 34 percent of revenue in that industry year over year. We must put a stop to it and encourage these businesses that force people to come together in the community with their families to participate.

This amendment is not asking for anything radical. This is just asking us to allow British Columbians to take responsibility for themselves, to treat adults like adults and to allow business to flourish in British Columbia.

This side of the House will always support businesses, small and large, to be able to meaningfully participate in the economy of B.C., to try and drag ourselves out of the deficit that eight years of this NDP government has created and the impending catastrophe on the finances of this province that has now been done.

[11:50 a.m.]

This should not be controversial. This amendment is not controversial. This amendment just levels the playing field for businesses across British Columbia to participate in the economy, which we desperately, desperately need more people to participate in. People are fleeing. We need to make it easier, not harder, to conduct business in B.C.

This amendment to remove “independent” from the motion is a basic, simple equity. I would encourage all members on the other side of this House to support this amendment. It’s not controversial. It’s not hard. Let’s put B.C. businesses first.

Steve Kooner: I rise to speak in support of the amendment brought forward by the member for Langley-Willowbrook. The original motion that was brought forward, M207, limits the changes to just independent, small movie theatres.

It’s important to note the business community is struggling, and theatres are struggling right now, right across the board. We need to keep the theatre industry afloat, and we need the theatre industry to keep moving forward so the population in British Columbia has access to entertainment to its fullest extent.

If we limited the changes to only small, independent movie theatres, we would be limiting the type of entertainment that British Columbians would have access to, because the bigger movie theatres have more selection. This is an important point.

The other thing is that over the last decade, the business community has really been struggling. The choices have been narrowed down in terms of what British Columbians can actually access in terms of services. So we need to be doing more.

If the amendment was allowed, it wouldn’t limit the motion that was brought forward by the member for Kootenay-Monashee. It would allow for liquor to be served in mixed-age categories in small, independent, rural movie theatres as well as larger movie theatres that have a lot of selection. We need to be encouraging businesses right across the board to have an environment of success.

There’s an element of fairness. We shouldn’t be discriminating against any sort of business just because of their size or their quantity in this province. The law should be clear and fair right across the board.

The other thing is that we currently have a precedent. You can go watch a hockey game over at Rogers Arena. There’s alcohol served there. You could go to a restaurant; alcohol is served there. You could go to a major concert; alcohol is served there. So why stop at just small, independent movie theatres? Why not extend that also to apply to major movie theatres, as well, to its fullest extent?

We shouldn’t have restricted options. There’s already a precedent in different hospitality businesses, where we have restaurants and sports venues that are already providing alcohol service, are already providing liquor service. So with this motion, why would we be limiting the extent of businesses that could actually provide liquor services?

For that reason, I’m supporting this particular amendment that’s been brought forward by the member for Langley-Willowbrook so we can have liquor services that can be provided by all movie theatres right across the board in this province.

The other thing is that it’s just common sense. If there’s an adult population here, they should be able to decide on their choices, rather than have the government tell them where they can purchase their liquor or not in terms of, say, a small, independent movie theatre chain or a larger movie theatre chain.

[11:55 a.m.]

I know the member for Kootenay-Monashee said that the liquor services already exist for the larger chains, but he did also mention that they only exist to a limited extent.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

If we are amending the laws, it should be fair right across the board.

The member for Courtenay-Comox, with his able submissions, also mentioned that the theatre industry has been struggling and mentioned that 38 percent of the revenue for the movie theatre chains comes from food and beverage. So if 38 percent comes from food and beverage, we should be doing more to encourage these movie theatres to be supplying or having access to supplying alcohol services.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue this debate, and I move to adjourn the debate.

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned now until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.