Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Susie Chant.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: Today in the gallery, we have folks visiting from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, who are here in British Columbia for Emergency Preparedness Week. They’ll also be part of our Emergency Preparedness Expo here at the Parliament Buildings tomorrow, which everyone is invited to from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

[10:05 a.m.]

We have with us today Dr. Keith Porter, chief engineer; Moira Gill, director of strategy; Dan Sandlink, senior director of resilience programs; Emilia Cameron, manager of climate-resilient communities.

I’d now ask the House to make them very welcome and thank them for the important work that they do.

Hon. Lana Popham: I didn’t ask permission to wear this lovely hat, but I’m going to assume that because it’s B.C. Beef Day, today I’m going to be allowed to wear it.

All right, chamber. Can I get a yee-haw?

Interjections.

Hon. Lana Popham: Can I hear some cattle drive energy? Can I get a yee-haw?

Interjections.

Hon. Lana Popham: All right. Thank you.

Welcome to all the ranchers and support teams. Today we are so thrilled to have B.C. Beef Day. I’ve got a long list of people that have come to visit us from all areas of the province.

I think we’re familiar with each other. We’ve had a longtime relationship, so I’m going to go by first names today. We’ve got Werner, Alex, Brian, Brad, Paul, John P., Jeff, Brett, Ken, John L., Graeme, Patrick, Andrea, Kevin, Julie-Anne, Sarah, Cory, Larry, Bonnie and Jen.

Thank you for being here today. We’re all very excited to meet with you, but we’re also very excited to get into that lineup to enjoy some B.C. beef. Thank you.

Rosalyn Bird: I have several special guests joining us today. They are family and friends that have been impacted by the Highway of Tears. They have travelled from the North to participate in the Red Dress ceremony being held in the Hall of Honour today at noon.

Joining us from Prince George is Darlene McIntosh. She is the Elder and ambassador for Lheidli T’enneh Nation. Tammy Meise from the Red Dress Society. Brenda Wilson from the Highway of Tears. From Smithers, we have two MMIWG2S advocates, Jacquie Bowes and Delee Nikal. From Quesnel, we have LuAnn Montgomery. And from Terrace, we have Denise Halfyard from the Tears to Hope Society.

Can everybody in the chamber and in the House please make them feel welcome today.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Today is Darlene Wickens’s 85th birthday. She is a phenomenal mother-in-law, grandmother and mother. She has raised one amazing son that I happen to get to call my husband. She is also my in-house seamstress. I go downstairs quite often, last minute, and say: “Mom, can you please hem this for me?” And she does so graciously.

Last weekend she was awarded Beta Sigma Phi’s Woman of the Year in recognition of her outstanding commitment to the community, her volunteerism at the food bank and her love for her sorority sisters.

Can the House please join me in saying a very happy 85th birthday to my mother-in-law, my mom, Darlene Wickens.

Ward Stamer: It’s my great pleasure to welcome Doug Haughton, who is our TNRD director for electoral L, which is Grasslands, from Kamloops.

I bestowed an honorary designate on Dr. Haughton because of his opportunity to be able to prescribe medication to me, because he kept reminding me that I get very excited sometimes in these meetings.

Will the House please give a warm welcome to TNRD director Doug Haughton.

Rohini Arora: I just want to take a moment to shout out to my two CAs that are joining me here today, Jessica Wei and Dhalianna Kafunda. I would not be able to do what I do without them.

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

Steve Kooner: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome a group of students visiting from Hugh McRoberts Secondary School in Richmond. They’ll be joining us at approximately 10:40 a.m. It’s a group of 30 grade 10 students along with their teachers, led by Angelica Rost-Komiya.

[10:10 a.m.]

It’s always a pleasure to see young people here at the Legislature taking the time to witness our democratic system in motion.

Please join me in making these students and their teachers feel very welcome.

Susie Chant: This morning I have two introductions to make, if I may.

First of all, joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Jose Victor V. Chan-Gonzaga, the Ambassador of the Philippines to Canada, who is here on his first official visit to B.C. He is accompanied by Consul General Gina Jamoralin and her staff from both their offices.

I am pleased to say that they will be taking part in many meetings today with government officials, including yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Would the House make them feel truly welcome.

I’ve got one more. I’d also like to warmly welcome an amazing group of people that are joining us in the gallery, our constituency advisers from across the province, who are here this week for their conference.

There are too many to name everybody individually, but their work is at the heart of everything we do. They are the faces and voices of our work in the community — helping people, planning events and keeping our busy offices running every day. We are grateful for all that they do, and we really could not do this work without them.

Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Brennan Day: I just wanted to take a moment to introduce my friend and constituent Brad Chappell. He’s here with Vancouver Island Cattlemen’s. According to his colleagues with the B.C. Cattlemen’s, he’s the only person that can run over an unlimited phone minute plan.

Please, can the House make him feel very welcome.

Hon. Rick Glumac: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce one of my longest-serving CAs. We’ve been working together since 2021. He’s in the House today, Akshat Nagpal.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Statements

Asian Heritage Month

Teresa Wat: I rise today to recognize May as Asian Heritage Month, a time to celebrate the rich culture, history and contribution of the Asian community across British Columbia and Canada.

As an MLA of Asian descent, I’m proud to stand in this House and honour the generations who have helped shape our province through resilience, hard work and a deep commitment to community. From building our economy to enriching our cultural fabric, Asian Canadians continue to play a vital role in our shared future.

I ask all members of this House to join me in celebrating Asian Heritage Month and recognizing the many contributions of the Asian community across our province.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Josie Osborne: Behind every minister’s office is a team of very hard-working people from government communications and public engagement. They help us with media, with public affairs and with really reviewing the issues of the day and the issues, in my case, in health care throughout British Columbia. They are incredibly dedicated public servants who care deeply about the health of British Columbians and our health care system.

Today they’ve joined me here in the Legislature to understand a little bit more about how this place works, to witness question period, many of them for the very first time. They’re here in the gallery, and they are under the very able direction of our communications director, Krystal Thomson.

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

Ian Paton: I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for a great introduction of all the folks here from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association today. I especially want to point out Kevin Boon, who is the general manager, and Werner Stump, who’s president of B.C. Cattlemen’s. They’ve been coming here, year after year, for many years.

They seem to like what I have to say, Minister, so that’s a good thing.

I also want to point out that I can see, up in the gallery, a good friend, Paul Devick from Kamloops; Brad Chappell from Courtenay; and Dougie Haughton from up in Kamloops as well.

Please make them all feel very welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu: I am excited to introduce my constituency adviser Amy, here, and Caitlin is joining virtually because it takes quite the effort to make the trip here.

[10:15 a.m.]

I am very grateful to have Caitlin, Amy and Ella. They show the world how to work collaboratively in a very non-partisan…. They serve my constituents and constituents across in the neighbouring riding, whoever walks through the door, with utmost care, dedication and collaboration with our federal counterparts and others in a very non-partisan way, because it is about the people we serve, not about us.

I want to extend my thanks to you all, and I want to welcome all the CAs here.

Lorne Doerkson: It gives me excitement to be here on Beef Day.

I want to point out a couple of people myself. Kenny Ilnicki is representing a beautiful spot on earth called Cariboo-Chilcotin. He’s here today. And I want to thank Cory Lepine, who is the province’s cow cop, for the work that he does for us. I’m grateful to both those gents.

Please make them very welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yesterday my colleague from Kamloops mentioned that the Private Forest Landowners Association is in the House. I want to take the opportunity to recognize them. I think they are somewhere in the gallery, joining us for question period today.

My colleagues and I had an opportunity to be able to meet with them — their fearless leader, Megan Hanacek; Margaret Symon; Trevor Joyce; Jeff Czepil; and Mani Arnold.

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

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I want to introduce to you and to the chamber my constituency adviser Lucy Morel, a third-generation constituency adviser, following in the footsteps of her grandmother, Sharon Olsen, and Darcy Olsen, her amazing mom. Lucy is terrific. Even without that lineage, she would be terrific.

I also wanted to flag that joining us also in the gallery are Rosa and Ryan Montgomery. They are here as guests of the Agriculture Minister. Members will remember that Wayne Montgomery performed at B.C. Beef Day every year. He has passed away since last time that we gathered, so they’re here to recognize his memory.

I hope that the House will make the Montgomerys very welcome.

George Anderson: I have the great privilege and honour to introduce a constituent of Nanaimo-Lantzville, a young leader, Kayla Okada, who has recently been named a recipient of the prestigious Loran scholarship, one of Canada’s most distinguished awards for youth who demonstrate character, service and leadership.

Beyond being an excellent student, Kayla is the founder and chair of the Teen Book Club, where she has created a space for young people to come together, think critically and share a love of reading. She captains her club soccer team, volunteers at her local public library and mentors young athletes as a community soccer coach. She also shares her creative talents on stage, performing in both school and community musicals.

Kayla’s dedication to her peers and her community is truly inspiring. She represents the very best of the next generation, and we are all proud to see her accomplishments being recognized by the Loran organization.

Will the whole House please join me in congratulating Kayla on her remarkable achievements and her future journey to become an engineer.

Hon. Diana Gibson: On the precinct today we have the Rotary Club from Oak Bay.

It’s a time right now when international aid and geopolitics are being tested, and a lot of instincts are to turn inward — nations and communities. The rotary is helping us to do the opposite, to look outward, to look at lifting up the more vulnerable in our community and also internationally, to come together to build a better world together, to build young leadership and to continue to engage our community in thinking bigger and brighter.

Thank you so much.

Would everyone make them feel very welcome.

Jordan Kealy: I want to welcome the Cattlemen’s Association, as we’ve heard previously. They do an amazing job of advocating for cattle farmers across the province.

As you celebrate Beef Day today, I want to remind you that for cattle farmers…. They don’t get a day to celebrate. They work all year round. They’ve got those animals. Most of the time, they don’t get to go on vacation. Right now, as I’m here, my wife is calving out cattle at home on the farm.

[10:20 a.m.]

I want to reach out and thank the Cattlemen’s for showing up here, but I also want to turn around and thank cattle farmers all across the province for putting in the hard work that they do all year round.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I would just like to introduce a constituent of mine who also happens to be my constituency adviser — Angad Purba, who’s also here with Mandy Sangha. They’re my constituency advisers and amazing young people that are really the face and heart of our offices.

I just want to say thank you to them for all the hard work they do and ask the House to please welcome them today.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I have the honour today to introduce the youngest elected official here in British Columbia. We have Hudson Campbell with us, who’s a school trustee out of SD 42. He is the youngest elected official here in the province.

Accompanying him is Makenna Carl, who also is from Maple Ridge, who happens to work in my office.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

The Speaker: Anyone else? Now is the chance.

Members’ Statements

B.C. Beef Day and
Contributions of Ranchers

Ian Paton: Happy Beef Day at the Legislature. Today we’re celebrating the hard-working ranchers who provide some of the finest feeder cow-calf operations in Canada. From the lush green pastures of the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island to the rugged hills of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the Peace, the Kootenays and the Nicola region, our ranchers in this province have built a reputation for not only producing high-quality beef but also for their deep respect for the land they depend on.

At the heart of the industry are families who have often ranched for many generations. These ranchers are more than producers; they are caretakers of vast ecosystems. Their livelihoods depend on maintaining healthy soils, clean water and sustainable forage for their cattle. As a result, many British Columbia ranchers adopt practices that support biodiversity and protect our wildlife habitats.

Hard work defines the daily life of a cattle rancher. Long hours, unpredictable weather and fluctuating market conditions are constant changes. Calving season alone depends on round-the-clock attention, often in harsh winter or early spring conditions. Despite these demands, ranchers remain committed to animal welfare and quality production.

At the same time, the industry faces increasing challenges, particularly when it comes to the rising costs of production. Feed, fuel, equipment and labour have all become significantly more expensive in recent years. In addition, ranchers must navigate market volatility and external pressures, such as supply chain disruptions.

Ultimately, the beef cattle ranching industry in B.C. represents more than food production. It reflects a way of life grounded in responsibility, hard work and respect for nature. Ranchers serve as stewards of the land, ensuring that future generations can continue to benefit from healthy ecosystems and reliable food sources. At the same time, they provide a high-quality protein that nourishes communities both locally and beyond.

Who can’t wait for the sizzle on the barbecue in upcoming days and summer months? In a time when sustainability and food security are increasingly important, British Columbia’s cattle ranchers stand as an example of how agriculture can meet these challenges. Their dedication ensures that land remains productive, animals are well cared for and the food on our tables is both nutritious and responsibly produced.

Red Dress Day and Action for
Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women, Girls and Two-Spirit Persons

Jennifer Blatherwick: Today there are red dresses hanging outside homes, outside of schools, libraries, parks, in front of businesses and non-profits. There is a red dress hanging here inside this House, because today, on May 5, we observe Red Dress Day to honour and remember missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people.

Indigenous people face disproportionately high rates of violence rooted in colonialism, systemic racism and gender-based discrimination. Red Dress Day reminds us that that violence is ongoing, not just historical. We honour the voices of families, respect their loss and commit to walking forward together.

Thank you to people who are here in this House, who are visiting today and who do this life-changing work. I raise my hands to the family members and the friends of those who are gone but never forgotten.

[10:25 a.m.]

Thank you for sharing with me, showing pictures of the beautiful Pillar of Hope memorial and the hundreds of people standing together, hand in hand, at the Highway of Tears Symposium. I knew that we had been working to complete the cell phone service. I did not know that there were red dresses hanging on the towers. I will carry that with me.

In B.C. and Canada, we will continue to do better. We will continue to work together. Through the Canada-B.C. national action plan to end gender-based violence, we will continue to support the B.C. First Nations Justice Council to advance the Indigenous women’s justice plan. We will continue to fund the First People’s Cultural Council to strengthen cultural practices as prevention.

Today let us honour those who have been lost and those who continue to take action. If you or someone you know needs support, please contact VictimLinkBC and, if it is an emergency, call 911. We will be there, and you deserve help.

Prevention of Human Trafficking

Rosalyn Bird: I rise today to speak on an issue that requires collaboration and acknowledgement from all members of this House: the growth of human trafficking activity and the vulnerabilities that allow it to continue to grow across British Columbia.

In doing so, I want to acknowledge a part of our province that carries profound significance, the corridor along Highway 16, widely known as the Highway of Tears. For decades, that region has been marked by tragedy and loss, particularly for Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people. It stands as a solemn reminder of what can happen when vulnerability, isolation and gaps in protection persist over time.

Today as we look at the emerging realities of human trafficking, there are aspects that should give us pause. We are again seeing how geography, limited transportation options and uneven access to services can create conditions where people are at risk — especially in northern and rural areas, including communities around Prince George, Smithers, Terrace and others throughout the northern region.

This is not about drawing direct comparisons. It is not about assigning blame. It is about recognizing familiar signs. It is about understanding that when vulnerabilities go unaddressed, they can be exploited in different ways. It is about ensuring that we do not allow new threats to take hold in the same places where communities have already had tremendous loss.

The legacy of that corridor calls on us to remain vigilant, to ensure that emerging risks like human trafficking are met with awareness, coordination and a clear understanding of their impact on real people and families.

The work of families, organizations, inquiries and governments has, over many years, brought forward clear findings and recommendations. Following through with those efforts consistently and with care is essential if we are to reduce risk, close the known gaps and prevent these very serious issues from persisting.

Only then can we ensure that history is not repeated in the same geographical areas that have already endured so much.

Battle of the Atlantic

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak further on the Battle of the Atlantic.

First, I acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm.

At home, I’m fortunate to live on the territories of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations. I remain grateful for their ongoing stewardship of the lands, waters, flora and fauna and for their leadership in addressing climate change across British Columbia.

The Battle of the Atlantic is commemorated annually on the first Sunday of May. This year’s services were held in several locations, including here at the precinct cenotaph and in North Vancouver at Sailors’ memorial.

I had the privilege of attending both a commemorative service and a dinner that brought together veterans, currently serving members and community supporters at Vancouver’s Naval Reserve unit, HMCS Discovery. Located on a small island off Stanley Park, Discovery has stood there since the 1940s and is closely tied to Canada’s Second World War history.

The commanding officer opened the evening by outlining the significance of the Battle of the Atlantic, a defining chapter in shaping Canada’s naval identity. The Royal Canadian Navy relied heavily on citizen sailors and reservists, connecting communities like Vancouver and Victoria to the war at sea.

[10:30 a.m.]

As the battle progressed, Discovery became a vital hub, enrolling nearly 8,000 individuals, including officers, ratings and members for the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service, known as the Wrens. Many of these people later returned through Discovery to do their out routine and demob, or demobilization, process.

Battle of the Atlantic Sunday honours all the naval sailors, airmen and merchant marine who served, supported and sacrificed. Some returned home; others did not. Thus, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Online Safety for
Children and Youth

Gavin Dew: I rise today to speak to an issue that requires our collective attention and care: the growing risks facing young people online. As we reflect this week on the lives of women, girls and Two-Spirit people who have gone missing or have been taken from their families, we are reminded that vulnerability can take many forms and that exploitation often begins where isolation, silence and gaps in protection persist.

Today some of those risks are no longer found only in isolated places or on remote roads. They can reach directly into a young person’s phone, bedroom, classroom or social circle. Online luring, trafficking, sexual exploitation and cyberbullying are not abstract dangers. They are real threats affecting real children, families and communities.

A child who is lonely, struggling, bullied or simply looking for connection can become vulnerable very quickly. This is not about blaming parents, teachers or young people. It is about recognizing patterns early. Technology has changed the way exploitation happens, but it has not changed our responsibility to protect those at risk. That means better awareness for families, better tools for schools, stronger coordination between police and service providers and clearer supports for young people before harm escalates.

The lesson before us is simple but serious. When warning signs are ignored, vulnerability can be exploited. When communities are informed and systems respond early, lives can be protected.

On days like this, we honour those who have been lost, not only with remembrance but with action. We owe it to our children and youth to make sure they are safe not just in our streets and communities but in the digital spaces where so much of their lives now unfold.

Mining Month and
Role of Mining Sector

Janet Routledge: I rise today to recognize Mining Month and to thank the people who help build British Columbia and our economy.

Across our province, more than 40,000 people work in mining. They are equipment operators, tradespeople, engineers, geologists, safety professionals and many others who keep this sector booming. They earn an average annual salary of $130,000 and help support families and communities throughout B.C.

But mining is not only about numbers. It is about the early mornings, the long shifts and the chance to build a good life close to home.

It is also about partnership. During Mining Month, we thank our union partners — like the United Steelworkers, Unifor and the International Union of Operating Engineers — for their advocacy and work to ensure that mining remains the safest heavy industry in B.C.

We also thank our Indigenous partners and First Nations, local governments, exploration teams, contractors, suppliers, small businesses and community leaders, who all play an important role in the success of our world-leading mining and critical minerals sector.

There is real momentum. In 2025, more than $750 million was spent exploring new mines in British Columbia, an historic high and a strong sign of confidence in our province and in the people who make this work possible.

Today we recognize every worker, every partner behind mining in our province. Their work helps power our economy, strengthen our communities and build B.C.’s future.

[10:35 a.m.]

Oral Questions

Foreign Interference Concerns of
Former Vancouver Mayor
and Government Awareness

Trevor Halford: Yesterday the former mayor of Vancouver, former NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, made some startling accusations.

He said: “It has come to my attention that I’ve reported it and, in fact, was interviewed for about four hours by lawyers working for the federal government about a B.C. cabinet minister under investigation for collaborating with the Chinese government, something that, myself, I reported to senior B.C. NDP officials. I know that the Premier is aware of it. I know that many members of his cabinet are aware of this. This is an ongoing RCMP investigation.”

Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of Kennedy Stewart, as I said, a former NDP MP and a mayor of Vancouver who, actually, the Premier went and door-knocked for in his last failing campaign.

My question to the Premier is simple. When did he learn about these accusations that Kennedy Stewart has put forward?

Hon. David Eby: The Leader of the Opposition will be aware that I have taken significant efforts in order to be able to be briefed by both CSIS and the federal RCMP on issues of national security that relate to the government of British Columbia. That could be about a member of the public, an organization, a company, an individual but, certainly, a member of the government caucus.

I have had multiple briefings with CSIS and with the RCMP since obtaining top-secret clearance. In addition, following amendments to the federal law relating to CSIS, that allows them to share more information with the B.C. government and treat us as a client, something that was previously a barrier to us accessing information.

I can advise the Leader of the Opposition and every member of this House that I have never once been briefed by either the RCMP or CSIS about concerns related to any government caucus member or cabinet member — period. If I had been, members of the public should be aware, should know that I would not hesitate to act. At a minimum, if there was concern about a cabinet member, given the sensitive information that cabinet has access to, I would remove that person from cabinet.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: I want to read again the quote from Mr. Stewart. He says: “Something that, myself, I reported to senior B.C. NDP officials. I know the Premier is aware of it.”

I heard the Premier’s answer there. My direct question to the Premier, to the Attorney General, anybody in cabinet is: did Mr. Stewart make any of them aware or any NDP officials aware of the accusations that he put forward on CKNW yesterday?

Hon. David Eby: The former mayor of Vancouver, on losing the last municipal election, alleged that the Chinese government was collaborating with the candidate who ran against him and caused him to lose the election.

The member is right. I did door-knock with Kennedy during the municipal election, and I can assure this House that he did not lose the election because of the Chinese government. He has made these allegations previously. I am aware of those allegations.

I can also tell this House that I took significant steps, including significant personal disclosure to the federal government, in order to obtain top-secret clearance from the federal government, in order to access top-secret briefings from CSIS and the RCMP. I have had multiple such briefings.

At every briefing, I ask, “Is there any individual, any company, any information at all that you need to share with me that would influence government’s decisions about access to information, contracts or anything else?” because we want to be a good partner in national security. And I can advise this House that never once has CSIS or the RCMP shared any concerns at all about any member of government caucus.

The Speaker: Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford: I think I got a bit of an answer from the Premier there. I asked the Premier specifically if Mr. Stewart had raised those accusations to either himself, any member of cabinet or senior NDP officials, like he outlined in his interview yesterday on CKNW.

This is a direct question. Was the Premier aware of the accusations made by Mr. Stewart, yes or no?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I don’t believe I’ve spoken to Mr. Stewart for probably about three years. I’m not sure if that is of assistance to the member.

But I can say, in those three years, I have spoken with representatives of CSIS and the senior RCMP on multiple occasions. Not once have any of them raised any concerns about any members of the government caucus, in cabinet or otherwise.

Macklin McCall: The allegations raised by Mr. Stewart are serious, and his comments are not protected by privilege on radio, but the Attorney General is.

What information can the Attorney General tell this House on the allegations raised by Kennedy Stewart that a cabinet minister is under investigation for working with the government of China?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Premier has answered this quite thoroughly, and I can say for my part, as Attorney General, I have no information at all about any of the allegations put forward by the former mayor of Vancouver.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Macklin McCall: Now, collusion with foreign governments are serious allegations. They should be taken with the utmost importance. What actions has this government taken to ensure there are no other cabinet ministers involved with inappropriate relations with foreign governments?

Hon. David Eby: The actions this government has taken include the following: multiple members of our administration obtaining top-secret clearance in order to be able to access critical information from national security services including CSIS and the RCMP; lobbying the federal government on multiple occasions, ultimately successfully, to change the CSIS Act to enable Canada’s spy service to share direct information with the B.C. government if there is any threat to national security that we are required to act on; multiple top-secret briefings with that agency and with the RCMP related to issues of foreign interference, asking specifically if there are any individuals the government should be advised about that we should take action on to ensure that we are protecting information in British Columbia, protecting government processes.

The member stands in this place after I’ve given multiple answers outlining that I have asked those questions, that I have received not one concern from any of the federal agencies that require that top-secret clearance about any member of government caucus or the cabinet. Yet he continues to rise and slander the government caucus with false allegations, with zero information aside from a radio interview and….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby: If the member has information to bring forward, we would be happy to look at it.

Regional Transit Services
for Sea to Sky Corridor

Jeremy Valeriote: With regards to regional public transit in the Sea to Sky corridor, I asked the minister yesterday about directions to B.C. Transit. The minister said: “In terms of B.C. Transit, we work with them in terms of what they’re looking at, in terms of plans for the coming years, much of which is determined at the local level. We’ve had a number of meetings. The member knows what the issues are.”

The issue is that after a year of meetings to hear from the local level, the ministry came up with an artificial governance obstacle in December to slow this down.

But what I really object to is the minister throwing out the figure of 18 cents a litre of gas tax yesterday. This is irresponsible considering the discussions have been mirroring the Victoria model at 5.5 cents a litre. The only time 18 cents has been discussed is in the context of the TransLink levy and how Sea to Sky motorists are paying the equivalent of that levy because prices are a single market with the Lower Mainland, meaning residents have been paying extra without the transit to show for it for the last ten years.

What was the minister’s intention in using an inflammatory high gas tax figure in this time of high gas prices when he replied yesterday?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I guess I appreciate the question from the member, because this is now day 3 on the same topic. He has now asked me a very specific topic about the question of where the 18 cents came from. That was presented to me by the Sea to Sky communities who want a transit system in place. That’s where that number came from.

[10:45 a.m.]

I said to them that there are two options that we gave them: (1) the Nanaimo model, (2) the Victoria model. They don’t like that. What they wanted was the one that put 18 cents a litre on. That’s the context.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s good to get some explanations for this. It’s better an explanation than this government can’t organize a two-bus parade.

Contrary to the minister’s statement yesterday, we believe the government does instruct B.C. Transit to plan for services. Otherwise, this government wouldn’t have put that commitment into a cooperation agreement. B.C. Transit has been helping local governments and First Nations off the corner of its desk because they understand the imperative, but they’ve had no support from the ministry.

Considering that it takes two years from the point of ordering a bus to delivery, why has this minister not engaged B.C. Transit in anticipation of this service that we all know is needed?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before you order the buses, which take a couple of years to build and get, what we want to have is a mechanism in place that runs the system. That’s what we’ve been working with the communities on.

That’s where you have been in on a number of meetings, hon. Member. My staff have met regularly with Squamish-Lillooet regional district over the past year to discuss interregional transit on the Sea to Sky Highway. I met with you in February. I met with you in October to discuss the commitments.

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We have met with the SLRD again on the 15th of May.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: These are all through the Chair.

I just happened to be looking at the notes here to make sure that I’m accurate, that I’m not missing anything, that the member has been part and parcel of those meetings, and he knows full well what the position of the government has been.

We want, through the Chair, to get a transit system on that route, but we also wanted to do it in a way that brings together the communities there. We have been working with them on what those options could look like. They don’t like that. I get that. We’ve said we’re willing to work on another option. But to say putting 18 cents a litre of gas tax on is the only option we’ll consider is simply not on.

Review of Mental Health Act
and Role of Family Members
in Mental Health Crisis Services

Claire Rattée: Jesse Flowerdew’s wife, Daisy, told me that he was a staunch advocate for men’s mental health. He had a documented history of prior suicide attempts, so when he was struggling again, he self-admitted to the hospital and made it clear that he was struggling with suicidal ideation again.

He was released from hospital shortly thereafter, and within an hour of his release, he was gone. His family was never notified — not when he was admitted, not when he was discharged.

To the minister, will she implement the changes to release procedures under the Mental Health Act that could prevent this from happening again?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the hon. member for the question. While I know that the member understands I cannot speak about a specific case, I know that it’s not inappropriate in any way to express our sincere condolences and sympathies to any family facing this situation.

It’s so vitally important that families be engaged and involved in the care of their loved ones. That’s why our government has made commitments around a review of the Mental Health Act and ensuring that it is modernized and updated and accomplishes the goals that many families have. Soon we will be releasing new guidance to the Mental Health Act that will address some of the issues that the member is raising here.

Again, it’s so incredibly important that families, people with lived and living experience be engaged, be involved and that those people who are held under the Mental Health Act, according to the criteria that the act lays out very clearly and under the clinical assessment of specialists, receive the care and the treatment they need to do.

At the same time, we are continuing to work to build out the system of care for people with early intervention, as we’ve already heard in the House today with a really powerful statement by one of the members opposite in intervening and preventing these things from happening.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

Claire Rattée: Respectfully, to the minister: Jesse’s wife and sisters are in the gallery today, and I don’t think that they want your condolences. I think what they want is some action.

We’ve been promised that these changes were going to come. We’ve been promised that a review of the Mental Health Act is coming — still no dates, still no timelines. A simple phone call to any one of them could’ve made the difference, and Jesse could still be here today. This government had the ability to make those changes, and they chose not to act.

Last year our caucus brought forward amendments to the Mental Health Act to require reasonable efforts to contact family and notify them prior to discharge, and the minister said that this work was already being done to implement that. That was a year ago, and nothing has been done.

Will this government commit today, give a timeline today, to mandatory family notification on discharge under the Mental Health Act, or will they continue to delay while more families pay the price?

Hon. Josie Osborne: This work is underway, and it’s important that we get it right and that we do it with the due care and attention and consideration to the complexities of this and the experiences that people have.

I give my commitment to the member that indeed the work is underway, and we will have more to say about it soon.

Korky Neufeld: Well, this is not a one-off. On February 9, 2023, James Zimmer took his own life within hours of being discharged from Royal Columbian Hospital here in Victoria.

His sister, who had been supporting her brother during his mental health challenges, had been receiving updates from doctors on a regular basis. However, she was not informed of his release and only learned he was out of care when police showed up at his door to tell her that her brother had taken his own life.

Does the minister think it’s acceptable for family members to find out their loved ones were discharged from care only after they’ve taken their own lives?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Again, as we’re discussing here today, these are incredibly tragic circumstances. No family ever wants to face this. Nobody ever wants to see a fellow, a friend or a work colleague face these kinds of situations.

That is why our government remains focused on building out a full continuum of mental health and substance use supports. A system that can intervene and identify earlier can help people before problems become worse, but as I have explained, we have committed to a review of the Mental Health Act.

It is so vitally important that people are engaged in this act, that we encompass the full perspectives and experience and expertise that is out there. That includes people with lived and living experience, people who work with families, with Indigenous people. That work is underway, and we will have more to say about it soon.

Larry Neufeld: While it may be considered inappropriate to ask this question with respect to the massive failure of the Mental Health Act with respect to the incredible tragedy of Tumbler Ridge, unfortunately, there are far too many other examples to choose from.

The one that I will speak to is that of Aaron Sanio. Aaron was admitted to Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, struggling with mental illness and a history of suicide attempts.

His family called the hospital repeatedly, desperate to share what they knew, but were not able to speak to anyone one directly involved in his care. His father said: “He was fully aware of how ill he was, and he shared that with me. He used to say: ‘Dad, I would rather you know everything.’” His family were not notified when he was released, and shortly after, Aaron took his own life.

Will the minister commit to making the changes to the Mental Health Act today to ensure that no family ever has to go through this pain again?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Every family who has a member who is experiencing mental illness, who is suffering from symptoms or ideation, wants their family member to get the help they need. And that is the commitment of this government: to build out a system of care that is there for people, that is there for people as early as we can be.

[10:55 a.m.]

That is why, since 2017, we have been building out everything from early intervention, prevention and education, working with youth, developing a suicide prevention framework, an early psychosis initiative that helps identify those youth who are struggling.

This work must continue through in the development of all of these services and supports for people, as well as changes to the Mental Health Act to make it clearer, to make it easier, to make it more supportive of people who need the services.

These situations are tragic, and I appreciate the members bringing them forward. I want to assure them that this government is committed to doing this work.

Kristina Loewen: Respectfully, the system will always fail. The system will always have gaps. That’s why it’s so important that family members are included. And that is not even remotely the first thing that any hospital or any system asks the family members.

In Vernon, Ezra Cool self-admitted under the Mental Health Act and was placed in a hallway bed, despite being in what was supposed to be supervised care. Ezra did the right thing — he asked for help — but this government system failed him. He was somehow able to leave the unit, and within hours he was dead.

To the minister, when Ezra left the unit, did the hospital even know he was gone, and if they did, why was his family not immediately notified?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I want to thank the member for raising the question. I think we can see how deeply emotional this is and how much people care. That includes all of the people working in our health care system, who are there for people every day. I think it’s appropriate to pause for a moment and just express our gratitude for what people are doing to be there for people who are in crisis and who are in need.

As we talk about this, I want to say to everybody in the gallery, to people who might be watching, that it’s okay to ask for help, and you should reach out.

I think it’s important to say this. It’s important for people to understand that these are very challenging topics to talk about and that reaching out for help…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …can be the difference between life and death.

Our government is going to continue this work of building out a system of care, of providing the interventions and the programs to support people. We know there’s more work to be done, and this government is committed to doing that work.

Access to Psychiatric Care Services

Sharon Hartwell: A constituent of mine has been on a wait-list for a psychiatrist since 2023. I think if the minister keeps promising help, she’s going to have to hire a psychiatrist for that help, because we’re not seeing it. Across the province and especially in the North, health care is lacking everywhere.

She was diagnosed with a mental illness and had been sober for 20 years, but without access to proper psychiatric care, she relapsed. Since then, she has attempted to take her own life, cycled through emergency care. Today there is no psychiatrist in Houston or Smithers.

To the minister, how does this government expect people to maintain recovery when they cannot even access psychiatric care that they need to stay well?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Access to psychiatric care is one part of the continuum of supports that need to be available for people. This government has been building out psychiatric beds across the hospitals in 77 different designated mental health facilities, adding tertiary, quaternary and acute care psychiatric beds as hospitals are updated, renovated and as new hospitals are built.

We know how important this is. That’s why we have the advice of Dr. Daniel Vigo, specifically as a psychiatrist, helping us to identify vulnerable populations within groups of people to make sure that the supports are there. Through his work advising government on where gaps are, we are building out that system. We are hiring more psychiatrists.

We understand that Northern Health, just like every other place in this province, deserves the same access to care. That’s why Dr. Vigo and government are working together to establish new sites in Surrey and in Prince George so that care can be found closer to home.

[11:00 a.m.]

Role of Family Members in
Mental Health Crisis Services and
Response to Recommendations

Á’a:líya Warbus: Across British Columbia, we are seeing the same pattern. People are in crisis, they interact with a system where families are shut out, and tragedies occur shortly after discharge.

My nephew was 25 years old when he took his own life alone in his car at a park in downtown Chilliwack. We as a family were not notified when he was struggling with his medications, when he was in and out of psychiatric care. At his lowest points, of course, he did not reach out because he was already broken by a system that forgot him.

Coroners’ inquests and the Ombudsperson’s Committed to Change report have repeatedly called for better communication with families. We saw that brought before this House last session.

To the minister, why has this government failed to act on these recommendations? When will we see them before this House? A date, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: To the member, I am so sorry to hear about the loss in her family. It clearly has touched her, as this has touched too many people across British Columbia.

That’s, again, why our government remains committed to building out a system of care that can be there for people when it is needed. We acknowledge that part of that work is understanding how communication can best flow between families and care providers and the mental health system writ large.

That, in part, is why we are going to undertake a review of the Mental Health Act. As I mentioned already today, we will be coming out shortly with new guidance to the Mental Health Act. It is there to help provide direction and support to clinicians, to health authorities and to others as the Mental Health Act is applied. We hear clearly through the questions here today just how important this work is. We share that sense of urgency, and our commitment here is to do that work.

Review of Mental Health Act
and Role of Family Members
in Mental Health Crisis Services

Steve Kooner: We’ve heard a lot of words, but we haven’t seen much action. Some specific action items were requested last year in terms of legislative changes to notify families, but we haven’t seen those changes. Why haven’t they happened?

Last year, following the tragedy at Lapu-Lapu, the Premier stood in this House and committed to reviewing British Columbia’s Mental Health Act. Now the review has been put on hold, with the government claiming they must wait for a constitutional challenge to conclude for a case that was filed in 2016, that was already before the courts when the Premier made that promise.

To the Premier, why did he commit to reform when he knew this case was already underway?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. The work to determine the scope and the terms of reference of the Mental Health Act review is underway. As the member notes, we are waiting for the decision of the constitutional challenge because we know that we want to get this work right. We don’t want to have to go back and revisit it pending the results of the court case.

That’s why we’ll continue to focus on how…. Families, people with lived and living experience, experts, people who work with Indigenous peoples, who work with youth, who are Indigenous themselves will be engaged and involved in this review. The review has not been put on hold, and I want to be very clear about that.

I also want to take the opportunity…. We are talking about a very, very serious topic, and we do have youth and children in our audience today. We have people who are watching. It is so vitally important to know that people are here to help you if you are experiencing crisis and if you are in need. I urge anybody to use British Columbia’s crisis line, 988, or to call 310-6789 to reach out and ask for help.

Anna Kindy: These solutions are not theoretical. They already have been studied, recommended and even brought forward in legislation by our caucus.

[11:05 a.m.]

It has been over a year, and we have a duty in this House to move forward with legislation that makes sense for families waiting for change. These families and their loved ones are not theoretical. They’re real. Every day that passes is a day of missed opportunity. At some point in this House, we need to learn to move forward on legislation that makes sense. Empty words are meaningless when a parent loses a child.

The minister promised immediate action last year, and we’ve seen nothing. Families continue to lose loved ones because of this government inaction. At some point, our duty is to the British Columbians. This is why we are elected, to move things forward. That makes sense.

The Speaker: Question now.

Anna Kindy: Families deserve to know. Families deserve communications. When somebody passes away, when a child passes away, and it could have been prevented by simple legislation, by simple communication, this is no longer acceptable.

The Speaker: Question.

Anna Kindy: What I will ask the minister: will she commit to a timeline for when these recommendations…? I’m talking a timeline, and this is recorded. I’m talking about a timeline for when these recommendations will be fully implemented.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for asking the question. The Mental Health Act review — the work behind the scenes is underway so that when we are able to launch it, we can do so fulsomely and we can do it with the care and attention that is needed. It’s vitally important to families, to communities, to British Columbians to get this work right.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh, Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We have made amendments to the Mental Health Act already, in the provision of independent rights advice to people.

We will be releasing new guidelines to the act shortly, but nothing could be further from the truth that there has been no action, because this government has taken action from day one to build out a seamless continuum of mental health and substance use services that all British Columbians deserve.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Lorne Doerkson: I rise, yet again, to present another petition from the South Cariboo. This one is signed by 55 of my residents. They are demanding the province of British Columbia’s Ministry of Health provide full-time access to the 100 Mile House Hospital emergency.

The Speaker: Member, you have another?

Lorne Doerkson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Lorne Doerkson: I rise to introduce a really good friend of mine, folks. His name is Doug Haughton. He was mentioned a little bit earlier today, but I didn’t see him in the House.

He is a fierce advocate for all things agriculture. He’s known in our riding as John Deere Doug. He’s an amazing guy and TNRD director to boot, so he’s a busy guy.

Would you please make him very welcome at the Legislature today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information Act.

In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

In the tiny House, the Birch Room, I call Labour estimates.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

[11:10 a.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Brent Chapman: The authoritative global right to information rating, the international gold standard measuring legal strength of access to information laws, ranks countries out of 150 points. Top of the world, Afghanistan at 139, Mexico at 136, Serbia at 135. These jurisdictions have built regimes with minimal exceptions, swift timelines, ironclad appeals and genuine proactive disclosure. Canada’s federal law sits at a mediocre 93 points, 53rd place.

British Columbia’s FOIPPA has long been among the strongest in Canada, a provincial leader that kept us competitive internationally. Bill 9 changes all that. It replaces the duty to respond “without delay” with the vague “without unreasonable delay.” It hands public bodies new powers to dismiss requests they deem abusive or burdensome. It weakens specificity rules and opens the door to longer extensions without real oversight. These are not minor tweaks; they are deliberate restrictions that critics rightly call a weakening of access.

When Mexico and Serbia, nations once dismissed as less open than ours, now outrank us on paper and when even our own federal law lags behind global best practices, this government is choosing secrecy over sunlight. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a province that leads the world in openness, not one that slides backwards into the middle of the pack. We in the opposition need to fight this bill.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026…. I want to be clear that this is not just a simple housekeeping bill. Buried inside this legislation are changes that will make it significantly harder for British Columbians to hold their government to account.

Before I get into the specifics, I want to talk about who actually uses FOI. It is not just journalists and opposition researchers. It is parents trying to understand decisions made about their children’s schools. It is families dealing with the health care system who want to understand what happened to them. It is small businesses, the owners trying to understand how a contract was awarded. It is ordinary British Columbians who simply want to know what their government is doing in their name. Freedom of information is not a political tool; it is a democratic right.

We on this side of the House believe in open, transparent and accountable government. We are not here to oppose every change in this bill. There are efficiency measures in here we can support, but this government has bundled legitimate housekeeping changes together with provisions that will fundamentally weaken public access to information, and that we cannot support.

This government has a track record when it comes to freedom of information, and it is not a good one. The last time the NDP amended the freedom-of-information system, they introduced $10 filing fees. The impact was immediate and significant. Access to information dropped sharply. Fees do not just slow things down; they price people out. The $10 fee was eventually walked back, but the message was clear. This government views freedom of information as an inconvenience to be managed, not a right to be protected.

Even before this bill, the freedom-of-information system in B.C. was failing British Columbians. From 2022 to 2023, freedom-of-information applicants waited on average 192 additional business days beyond the standard timeline to receive a response. Think about that — 192 additional business days. That is nearly a full calendar year on top of the standard response window.

Constituents come to my office frustrated and defeated by this process. They file an FOI and wait and wait. This government’s response is not to fix the wait times. Their response is to give themselves more tools to simply ignore the requests entirely.

[11:15 a.m.]

This government has been called the most secretive in Canada. That is not my characterization. It has been said by journalists, by advocates and by those who work with the freedom-of-information system every day. Now they are bringing forward legislation that expands their ability to ignore requests.

We should be moving in the opposite direction. Instead of making it harder to get information, we should be modernizing the system to make it faster and much more accessible.

I want to spend significant time on clause 13, because it is the most consequential provision in this bill. Clause 13 amends section 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It expands the grounds on which the commissioner can authorize a public body to disregard an FOI request.

Currently requests can be disregarded if they are frivolous or vexatious or excessively broad or repetitive. Those are not perfect standards, but they are, at least, somewhat defined. Clause 13 adds significant new grounds. The new grounds include that an FOI could be ignored if it is abusive, malicious or if it could unreasonably interfere with the operations of government.

Those words sound reasonable at first glance, but here’s the critical problem. Not one of those terms is defined anywhere in this legislation. The government is giving itself and public bodies the power to ignore freedom-of-information requests based on terms they get to define themselves.

Think about that, what that means in practice. What is an abusive FOI request? Is it one that asks uncomfortable questions? Is it one that comes from someone the government has labelled a troublemaker? Is it one that a minister finds politically inconvenient? There is no definition. There is no standard. There are no guardrails. The government gets to decide, case by case, what counts as abusive.

The “unreasonably interfere with operations” language is perhaps the most dangerous. Consider this. Almost any significant freedom-of-information request requires staff to fulfil. That is the nature of this system. It takes work. Under this new language, virtually any freedom of information could theoretically be characterized as interfering with operations.

Who is to say this government will not apply it to requests about the Premier’s office? Who is to say it will not be used to dismiss requests that touch on sensitive government programs? Without clear definitions, the potential for abuse is enormous.

Let me put it in terms that British Columbians can relate to. Imagine a parent who files an FOI about how a school closure decision was made in their community. The government could decide that request is abusive because it challenges their process.

Imagine a small business owner who files an FOI about a contract that went to a competitor. The government could decide that interferes with its operations.

Imagine a patient who files an FOI about a health authority decision that affected their care.

Any of these could now be dismissed under language that nobody has defined. That is not a hypothetical risk. It is a logical extension of what this bill enables, what the clause itself enables.

Now I need to raise something that makes clause 13 even more alarming. Clause 28 of this bill is a transition clause. It provides that the new grounds for disregarding requests under section 43 include that the “malicious” and “interfere with government” language will apply to FOIs filed before these changes come into force. Read that again: retroactively.

Someone who filed an FOI months ago under the old rules could now have that request dismissed under new grounds that did not exist when they filed it. That is fundamentally unfair. You do not change the rules and then apply the new rules backwards. That is not how a government that respects the rule of law behaves.

I want to turn now to the fee provisions.

[11:20 a.m.]

Proactive disclosure is information the government makes available without anyone having to ask. The whole point is that some information should simply be public. It is the government saying: “Here is what we are doing. Here is how we spent your money. Here is how decisions were made.” Proactive disclosure is one of the best tools we have for a transparent government.

Clause 21 amends section 71 of the act. It adds subsection 71(2), which allows the head of a public body to require a person to pay a fee to access records available under proactive disclosure.

Currently information that is accessible without an FOI is accessible without a fee. That is the baseline. That is how it should work. This bill breaks that baseline. It creates a new revenue stream for government, charging British Columbians to access information the government was already supposed to make available. Let us be direct about what this is. It is a tax on transparency. It is the government saying: “Yes, we will disclose this information, but you will pay for it.”

Fees create barriers. Every time a fee is introduced, some people decide it’s not worth it. This is not hypothetical. We saw it with the $10 FOI filing fee. The people most likely to be deterred are ordinary citizens that do not have deep pockets or institutional support. Journalists can often expense filing fees. Advocacy organizations can fundraise. The single parent in Kamloops who wants to understand a decision made about their child’s school may just give up. That is who it hurts the most.

Clause 2 amends section 5 of the act and makes two changes that raise concern.

First, it makes the decision of whether a request provides enough detail solely the decision of the head of the public body. Previously the opinion of the head was irrelevant to this decision. Now it is determinative.

Second, it adds that a request must provide enough detail for the record to be found in a “reasonable amount of time” — a term, again, that is not defined in the original act.

These changes are not neutral efficiency measures. They give public body heads more discretion to decide what counts as a valid FOI request before it ever gets processed.

Clause 3 changes the duty to respond without delay to a duty to respond without unreasonable delay. Adding the wording “unreasonable” may seem minor. It is not. “Without delay” is a clear standard. Respond promptly. “Without unreasonable delay” introduces a subjective test that government can use to justify slower responses. Given that applicants are already waiting nearly 200 additional business days on average, the last thing we need is a weaker response standard.

Clause 15 allows the commissioner to extend the timeline for a review in certain circumstances. Currently there is a hard limit of 90 days for an inquiry. Under this amendment, the commissioner can set a later date of their choosing as long as everyone is notified. This removes the hard deadline that was there to protect applicants from indefinite delay. Again, in a system already plagued by long wait times, removing hard timelines is moving in the wrong direction.

I said at the outset that not everything in this bill is wrong, and I want to be clear about that. There are clauses in here that represent genuine improvements. Clause 12 allows the commissioner to share information and enter into agreements with commissioners in other jurisdictions. That is a reasonable modernization. Clauses 17 and 18 formalize notification requirements for privacy impact assessments. No material harm there.

We do not oppose every clause in this bill. What we oppose is the government’s choice to bundle legitimate improvements with provisions that weaken the fundamental right of British Columbians to access information. The good parts of this bill do not justify the bad parts. They cannot be used as cover for what clause 13, clause 21 and clause 28 actually do.

Freedom of information only works if the information is actually accessible. When you expand the grounds to ignore requests, you restrict access. When you charge fees for proactive disclosure, again, you restrict access. When you apply new dismissal grounds retroactively, to requests already filed, you betray the trust of every person who used the system in good faith.

[11:25 a.m.]

This government is taking the “free” out of freedom of information. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a government that makes information accessible, not one that finds new ways to withhold it.

For those reasons, I will be voting against this bill, and I encourage all members to reflect carefully on what they are being asked to support.

Lorne Doerkson: As always, it’s a pleasure to rise in this place and share greetings from Cariboo-Chilcotin to you.

I want to pick up where the member from Surrey left off in suggesting that I, certainly at this point, am not able to support this bill, but I am happy to offer up some comments on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

I do want to start, though, with some thanks. The reason for that is that I’m going to bring into question a couple of events that have happened with respect to freedom of information in my own riding, events that I’ve been involved with. They involve B.C. wildfire, and they certainly involve Interior Health.

Before I make those comments, I want to make it very clear that I am very grateful for all of the people working within that system. We are already experiencing fire, if you can imagine, in Cariboo-Chilcotin. It’s so dry there. I do know that the teams there are working very hard to protect all of our communities. In the case of the freedom-of-information request that I’m going to refer to, they were doing exactly that. They were trying to protect our community, and things just didn’t go perfectly that afternoon.

I’m going to leave that for just a minute. I also want to say that it’s the same thing for our health authorities that are trying hard to support us. But the unwillingness, I suppose, to share some of this information is frustrating.

Honestly, I think that often it is the case where we see people trying to access information in ways that exist currently, but it’s difficult to traverse that system. I think that it’s frustrating to many. I think that’s why we end up in this situation in the first place. We know that the government has the information. We know that particular department has the information that we’re requesting, but there’s an unwillingness to share it.

I can appreciate the complexity around that. I obviously understand that. We’re talking about, sometimes, health information that might be a proactive approach for myself. I lost my dad a few years ago. I haven’t actually been able to talk about that in this House yet. We had a lot of questions about his death — why it happened, how it occurred. Frankly, we had some challenges getting that information.

Since I’m there anyhow, I’ll talk about where the member for Surrey South was referring to clause 13 — some of the terms. When we talk about “malicious,” “abusive” or “unreasonable,” who is going to determine that definition? Who will define that?

After my father passed, we had, obviously, much to do. We tried to figure out what had ended his life. That was not clear. The next thing was an opportunity to transfer property ownership and such for my mother. The only reason I say this…. This wasn’t a matter of freedom of information, but what it was, was somebody determining how our application fit into an opportunity to transfer property ownership to her.

I can tell you that at that moment, the frustration that I felt — not as an MLA but as a taxpayer who had just lost his father, who was trying desperately to help his mother — to find out that, during COVID, we had to make a special appointment to see someone in the Lands department, I suppose it was. I might want to rethink that. It might have been a different department, but I believe it was Lands.

[11:30 a.m.]

We drove through a horrific blizzard for three hours to get to Kamloops. We presented the paperwork, and the person behind the counter determined that that paperwork was not in order. Why? Because we photocopied on both sides of the paper.

Now, I can tell you that during COVID, it was difficult to go find a photocopier, it was difficult to get another appointment, and it was difficult to get the first one. But that determination was made by someone behind a counter.

So what’s frustrating to me is that with respect to clause 13, when it does expand the category of clauses that can be applied to the OIPC, which is of course the office of the independent Privacy Commissioner, it will include terms like “malicious” and “abusive” and “unreasonably interfere” with operations of government or “repetitious.” All of those terms concern me.

This is where I guess I wanted to get to with respect to a freedom-of-information request that I helped a constituent to navigate after they had significant loss in a wildfire. Again, I had personal experiences with the people that were trying to help us navigate, frankly, that paperwork. The frustration was that the information that would come back to us was so heavily redacted that it would require another application. It would require another attempt to get the information. Then we would get another return document, and that, of course, also conjured up more questions. Not only that, again, it wasn’t complete. There was so much information redacted.

In this situation, we actually had a whistleblower, I suppose, that was helping us, within the ministry, try to navigate to get this information. In this case, this was a rancher who lost much. He lost a couple of cabins on his property. He lost much forest. Definitely a large value of timber dollars were lost. And we were trying to understand what happened in those moments and what caused this.

Now, I mean, we knew that the obvious cause was fire. The question at the time, and it was the one that needed to be answered, was: where was that fire lit? We know that people are exposed to forest fire. We know that people in the landscape have a definite exposure to some person leaving a campfire going. But we would never expect that we would be exposed to the actions of the government. So in this case, that was the question.

I am not opposed to controlled burns. I’m not at all opposed to that. All we were trying to do was really understand what happened on that afternoon when fire had jumped out of control onto private property. I can tell you that that process went on for weeks, months, in trying to get a better understanding of what happened there.

I guess I can appreciate that, potentially, there could be cost associated with that action. You know, it’s not the first time…. I mean, this was a fire that burned in Flat Lake. It was a massive fire, very quickly 70,000, 80,000, 90,000 hectares. I think B.C. wildfire was at their wits’ end trying to do everything that they could. I know because I was on the front line of that fire and watched just how ravenous it was.

When that fire was lit that afternoon…. It was lit. We did get to that determination. What we were better trying to understand was the location of where that fire started. We were told that there were certainly all kinds of plans around how that fire would start, who would light it, who would be in charge of it. There was consideration, of course, to the weather, which of course is very difficult to predict, and we’ve seen that many times. But in this case, the real question was where it was lit.

Maybe I’ll clear that up. If it’s lit on Crown land, of course, there is no real responsibility there. If it’s lit on private land, that takes up a different meaning. So what we were trying to get to that day, or during that time, was where that fire was lit.

[11:35 a.m.]

We still, to this day, are not completely clear. We think we know, but that was two or three years ago, and we went through the process of freedom of information to gain that information. It was an extremely frustrating time, not just for myself but for the constituent.

I suppose at any point during those requests, our request could’ve been deemed to be abusive. There was definitely some anger in letters that came from my constituent. Obviously, we tried to control that and tried to keep the heat down. It could’ve been deemed repetitious. I can’t even remember how many times we tried to get that information, but we tried for a number of months. So at any point under this new rule we could have been derailed completely on this topic.

I suggest that…. I can’t help but think that maybe the motive for this is cost. I understand that there’s going to be a new cost, and I’ll get to that in a moment or two. I know that there will be fees to be paid, but there are now. It was costly to do it then. It just seems like another burden, another tax, another reason not to file for our freedom of information. In so many cases, our residents want to know.

It’s not just wildfire. But I mean, I’ve talked to many people that lived on the north shore of the Shuswap Lake when, again, a controlled burn went wrong. Again, I’m completely supportive of B.C. wildfire doing their work. They have massive, unbelievably complex and challenging work to do. But when it does go wrong, I think the province really needs to own up to that and take responsibility for that.

The very last thing that this building should be doing is trying to keep information from its residents, the residents that pay us to do this work. So I am not supportive of this in any way, shape or form.

I guess in committee stage, we’ll find out what the motive is behind all of this. It just seems to me that these are issues, these are challenges that the government — any government, frankly — would want to get solved. I wouldn’t want to drag this out. I would want to better understand what happened that afternoon on the Flat Lake fire.

As I mentioned before — I didn’t quite get through it — clause 13 expands the category of clauses that can be applied to the OIPC to include terms like “malicious,” “abusive,” “unreasonably interfere” with operations of the government and “repetitious” or “excessively broad.”

This is, I guess, where I want to go next. This is, again, in no way aimed at people that we work with in Interior Health, but we’re representing a constituent right now that’s trying to get the health records of her mother, who is deceased. The reason…. Her motive, really, is to better understand the same thing I wanted to know when my father passed, which was what got us to that point.

She is unaware of why her mother passed and wants to know — not for any sort of punitive reason against Interior Health, although there are questions around that topic as well. The real reason for wanting to know is so that she might be able to protect her own self and her siblings from something that may be lurking, that might be in a position to affect them all. So she is very keen to better understand what ended her mom’s life.

Now, in typical situations, we have pursued that information through the avenues that are available to us. That is the patient quality care line; that is through the ministry; and that is through different opportunities that we all have, as MLAs and as taxpayers, to use to try to get that information.

[11:40 a.m.]

Again, this has been nearly two months, maybe even three, that we have been trying to acquire this information. I’m completely committed to helping this constituent find this information, and I know that we’re going to end up in the process of FOI.

The question that I have, and we’ll try to get this information in committee stage, is: what value would the government have in keeping that information private or secret? This person is deceased. Now, I can appreciate there might be questions around events leading to her death in the care of Interior Health. But the real question is: what might be lurking for that family? And trust me when I say this. I had the very same questions about my own father.

Again, we’ve used every available resource that we can. Freedom of information will be the next process, but we’re already at three months. I understand that people are having to wait 192 days, on average, past what is already the legislated timeline, which is appalling to me.

I suppose that any one of those definitions that have been spoken about so many times in this chamber over the last week or so, with respect to Bill 9.… Any one of those can be determined by whom? Is that the person on the phone? Is that the person that you’ve written to, that can just simply deny your access to this information?

If so, why is that? Why is that individual empowered, at that point, to deny information that has been gathered by a government paid to do so by us as taxpayers and now requested by the very taxpayer that has funded the operation of freedom of information in the first place? It’s just not appropriate.

I heard the member for Prince George–North Cariboo yesterday speaking about infrastructure. We’ve had similar questions. We’ve heard a Peace River member speak about the bridge up there. Very serious concerns around all of this infrastructure. How did we get here? Why is it not being dealt with? What is the motive behind it?

Right now in the South Cariboo — in fact, we’ll probably talk to ranchers about it today — we’ve all been trying to get information around power projects that are proposed across a very vast area of our province, and at this point, no questions have been answered. The answer is: “We’re looking for information. We’re not ready to provide any information.” I can tell you that the level of frustration on the landscape, with respect to these types of operations, is massive.

There is no question in my mind that we will be heading to freedom of information over all kinds of questions, and they’re simple questions. Questions about the use of water. How are you going to use water when we are so short on it everywhere throughout the province but specifically in areas of the Cariboo-Chilcotin? How will you generate power from water as a by-product of other forms of power generation?

Again, we find ourselves asking questions that should be readily accessible. Frankly, the information should be readily accessible. We haven’t got to that point yet in Cariboo-Chilcotin, but I do know that residents are now getting ready to head towards freedom of information. Anything, frankly, that would derail that, anything that would stop that information from being presented to our residents, is wrong — full stop. It’s wrong.

I can’t believe…. Well, I think that there are some very serious challenges with this bill. It’s not just the Conservative caucus speaking against this. I have heard the Greens speak against it, independents speak against it. I think that there’s a lot of frustration with this bill. Certainly, in this legislative session, I’ve heard more about this bill from my constituents than almost anything else, and I know that they would want me to stand up and oppose this.

[11:45 a.m.]

I think clause 13…. We’ve spoken about that quite a bit. I will just say them one last time because I just can’t believe that that’s what’s going to define the potential halt on an application — terms like “malicious,” “abusive,” “unreasonable,” “unreasonably interfering with operations of government,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad.” I’m probably getting a little repetitious on that myself, so I’ll move on from that.

I do want to talk also about clause 21, which amends section 71 by adding section 71(2), which allows…. The head of a public “may require a person who asks for a copy of a record available under subsection to pay a fee to the public body.”

We have heard that before, and again, it’s concerning. I don’t think that it’s going to generate a whack of cash for the government, so I don’t see it to be some sort of a budget-saving measure or something that’s going to save us from big deficits. But then, I guess, really, the question is: why does that exist at all? Should British Columbians not be able to question this House, question this government on things that are of importance to them?

I can appreciate that likely we all do…. I do probably get into the weeds a little bit myself, but when we’re talking about losses from wildfire, serious losses in our health care system, why on earth would we not want to answer those questions? Why would we not want to clear those up? So the notion that we would charge our constituents is shocking to me about that.

We believe that we need more transparency, not less. In this day and age, certainly, I think that our voters in this province would appreciate that transparency.

I know that we’ve talked about this legislation being sold to us in this House or to the taxpayers of this province as a way to increase efficiency. The only way that I could see this increasing efficiency is that through the terms that we’ve just spoken about at length, it will deny the access to the information in the first place, therefore cutting back on the actual applications and the actual attempts to gain this information.

So I suppose, yeah, that might help efficiency. It would certainly, potentially, create less work, but I’m not sure how any other part of it would create that opportunity to create more efficiency.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We’ve seen fees before, and I am not able to support that kind of a fee structure at this time, in this bill. Again, I was just explaining my concern that those fees will certainly put up enough of a barrier that it will create less opportunity for people to ask questions on very serious matters. And I don’t think that when our taxpayers are trying to consume or acquire information on such serious matters, there should be a charge attached to that.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place to speak and would move adjournment of the debate.

Lorne Doerkson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Water, Land and Resource Stewardship

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

I will remind everybody on committee that when the minister is speaking or the member is speaking, if we could have everybody else not speaking, that would be great. In the thinking periods, that’s great.

We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

On Vote 46: ministry operations, $201,199,000.

[11:15 a.m.]

The Chair: Very good. Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Randene Neill: I just want to thank my team — Deputy Minister Lori Halls, ADM Sonja Martins and several other ADMs who will be making appearances throughout these next 7½ hours.

I just want to thank, as well, the critic opposite, who is such a passionate advocate for everything to do with water, land and resource stewardship. I know we had a really good discussion last year, and I look forward to this one.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll just do a quick opening as well.

I do appreciate the minister and their staff for allowing this opportunity to dig into the budgets and a little bit into the policy and thinking within the ministry that supports that budget. I appreciate their time today. I think it’s going to be a fun one this year.

I’m going to start a little bit with the service plan. I have some overall questions that are not necessarily specific to any one division that I would like to start with. As we move through, I know that staff may be changing.

When I look at the service plan now, there’s almost nothing left for measurements for KPIs within your service plan. Can you provide some clarity for why you no longer seem to be measuring your success through KPIs?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the first question to set us off. We are going to try to get you some hard numbers in terms of what we’re doing to see results, because we know that when we see and measure results, we can get more stuff done.

This ministry is only four years old. We are still developing a lot of the process in place for measuring KPIs, and that’s something we’re going to definitely see in upcoming service plans.

In terms of what types of funding we have for KPIs for this year, we can get you an exact number during the upcoming session, or later, after estimates are over.

Donegal Wilson: In your service plan, I think there are only seven measurements listed for how you’re meeting…. Some of those are very generic or actually listed as “to be determined.” I would like to specifically, maybe, pick a little bit on the “to be determined” on the 30 by 30, thinking that the 28 by ’29 target at this point shouldn’t be a “to be determined” if the goal is 30 by 30.

I’m wondering why there’s no forecast after this year for how you’re going to obtain that goal of 30 by 30.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for your question.

The answer is fairly simple. I asked the exact same question. Why don’t we have yearly deliverables to get us to the target for 30 by 30? Simply put, the federal government, in the tripartite agreement on nature, which gets us to 30 by 30, doesn’t have that requirement. The only requirement they have is for us to be able to achieve 30 percent of B.C.’s lands and waters protected by the year 2030.

Once again, we are on track for that, understanding that I think there is an excitement about us reaching 30 by 30 potentially earlier. That’s something that our ministry is actively working on right now, to show a map of the province with deliverables about what’s protected and where and what we need to get to and how we’re getting there.

Donegal Wilson: Can you provide a timeline for when that map will be available?

The Chair: If you could… Through the Chair, can the minister provide the timeline?

Donegal Wilson: Sorry, Chair.

Can the minister provide the timeline, then, for when that map can be expected for the public to see?

Hon. Randene Neill: I don’t have a timeline, but as soon as we do have one, I can get it to you.

The Chair: Excuse me a minute. I will remind the minister that you are providing it to the member, not to you. If we can keep talking through the Chair, the Chair will be happier. Thank you so very much. It makes me feel important.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your guidance.

Yeah, I think, again, with it being 2026 and the goal is 2030, your own documents list 19.9 percent as the forecast for this year. That is a significant land protection that is unknown in the next four years. Hearing the minister share that they felt they were going to get there sooner, I would suggest that the sooner we can get that map out, while we’re constraining resources and industry to do that, we should.

Through the Chair, one of your other performance measures is completing strategies, agreements, orders, risk assessments and water sustainability plans with First Nations and other watershed interests to improve watershed security and health. You have a goal for this year of three.

Can the minister please provide how many we’ve done to date?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Currently we’ve initiated three water sustainability plans in the Nicola, the Xwulqw’selu and the Wet’suwet’en. We’re starting initial discussions on Goat River, near Cranbrook, and hope to start discussions with others as well.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer.

The forecast for ’25-26 was three. Sounds like we achieved that.

With only one listed for the ’26-27 and a target of three, how does the ministry intend to find those other two between now and the end of the fiscal?

Hon. Randene Neill: Our goal is to officially start initiating three each year. We have many, many more that we would like to be initiated. In fact, a lot of communities — I’m sure you have many in the member’s riding — also would like to start watershed security plans.

The other two that we are actively in discussions with to find the best tools for them to do watershed protection are Liard and the Hullcar watersheds, as well, on top of Goat River in Cranbrook.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer.

Goal 3 performance measure. The ministry has stated that aquatic and riparian habitat restored, enhanced or open access to, through ministry activities…. It shows a baseline for ’21-22 fiscal of 1,167,160 square metres. I have no idea why we’re not doing that in kilometres.

What is it at for ’24-25? The ’25-26 shows a 7 percent increase, and then it kind of drops down. I’m wondering: were we behind, and that’s why we have such a big increase in ’25-26, or is there a specific project that can be named?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We will commit to get you that number from 2024-2025.

The Chair: We will commit to get the member the number.

Hon. Randene Neill: We will commit to get the member the number.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Minister.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Chair.

As well, the reason, through the Chair, that that number decreased from 7 percent to 1 percent is because the BCSRIF funding ended in 2026 — the B.C. salmon resiliency and innovation fund. We were hesitant to have the confidence to promise some good projections when we weren’t sure that we would have the funding.

However, in the last few weeks, the federal government has recommitted to a B.C. fisheries fund similar to the BCSRIF fund, so we’re now in negotiations for that funding. We will confidently be able to update and change those percentages as we understand what type of funding we will be getting.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that.

Is the minister able to share how much funding was committed? I must have missed the release on that. Is it still in discussions?

Hon. Randene Neill: We are still waiting to get the details from the federal government on the exact amount of funding. It has been suggested, but I would not like to be quoted on this, that it would be similar to the previous funding that they committed to the BCSRIF program. Those are details that we are still waiting to hear.

I just want to mention, as well, that the restoration of wild salmon stocks in British Columbia is just one part of the B.C. fisheries funding that they have committed to. It was in a news release that they put out, I’m going to guess, around a couple of weeks ago. So you can look for that as well.

Donegal Wilson: I will look for that.

Another high-level question before we get into it. The restating of the numbers for last fiscal show a $24 million drop. Can the minister just provide some clarity around what that drop includes?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, the restated estimates represent a decrease, and I’ll give the member some details about the decrease.

So $18.23 million was transferred to support Connected Services B.C., to the Ministry of Citizens’ Services; $3.86 million was a budget transfer to support the transfer of the radio and technical services branch to the Ministry of Forests; and $1.79 million was a budget transfer to support the consolidation of HR services to the Public Service Agency.

Donegal Wilson: So none of that reduction was actually a reduction in programs that the ministry is still delivering. All the funding remains stable for…. All the programs remain stable that still remain within the ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. Randene Neill: Overall, in the 2026-27 net base budget, there was a lift of $4.268 million. So $7.5 million was a budget lift to support permitting and adventure tourism. This is the adventure tourism hub that was announced just a few weeks ago that is going to benefit commercial snowmobiling and heli- and tour guides.

There was also a $3.232 million budget reduction to support government expenditure management controls, and those are all admin positions.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer.

So the funding that was the lift for the Adventure Tourism Coalition…. I’m assuming that money is dedicated strictly to policy and processing applications from that sector.

Hon. Randene Neill: I just want to correct something that I said in the previous answer. The budget decrease was for admin positions. I actually meant to say admin functions, not positions.

[11:40 a.m.]

As to the member’s question about the adventure tourism hub, that money is for transformation of permitting and to increase the capacity to undertake that permitting in the adventure tourism sector.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarity, then, is that $7 million a reallocation from within your own ministry, or is it new funding?

Hon. Randene Neill: That $7.5 million, targeted toward the adventure tourism hub, is a lift to our budget base, and it’s an example of government really recognizing the importance of permitting transformation to our economy and our tourism sector.

Donegal Wilson: Just looking at the numbers here. It wasn’t a redirect from…. The ministry wasn’t taking money from another section of their budget to put into this pot. It’s new money. I just want to be clear.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes.

Donegal Wilson: With the long employee strike that we had in the fall, I know many ministries had stated that they had some savings. I’m just wondering whether this ministry had savings and were returning them to general revenue or redirected them to other projects.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, we did have some savings because of the strike. Yes, we did put some of that money into different projects. And yes, we did give some of it back to general revenue as well.

Donegal Wilson: Could we have the total savings that were done?

Then how much was reallocated, and into where?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We are just waiting to get those exact numbers, and I propose we have the answer for the member immediately following the lunch break.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $23,672,000 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back to the budget estimates for the Ministry of Labour.

When we were finishing off yesterday, we were discussing the funded position of WorkSafe. I had just gone through the funded ratio from 2019 through the end of 2024, from 153 percent to 141 percent. I’m wondering if the minister can please let the House know what the funded ratio is today and what the projected ratio would be for the next two years going forward as well.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I first want to open our discussion with respect to this area by just reminding us that the objective of the WorkSafe board is to establish and maintain stability and predictability for the sector, for employers, when it comes to rate-setting. The board has been very successful in that regard over the last decade.

The average premium rate of $1.55 per $100 of accessible payroll has not changed in close to a decade, eight years. I just would want to go through to note that there is an effective return to employers by virtue of the board maintaining a stable and predictable premium rate that has not changed.

The average 2026 base premium rate continues to be $1.55 per $100 of accessible payroll. That is 15 percent less than what the expected cost rate would be in terms of the difference between what it actually takes to operate the system and fund the operations versus what we are able to do by maintaining the approach of smoothing the premium rate.

In 2018, effectively $195 million was retained by employers in premiums. In 2019, $228 million was retained; in 2020, $200 million; in 2021, $423 million; in 2022, $368 million; in 2023, $408 million; in 2024, $348 million; in 2025, $424 million. In 2026, it is anticipated that there will be $564 million retained by employers as a result of the board’s prudent approach to rate-setting.

This is, as the member is aware, an approach and a decision that rests with the board of directors under the Workers Compensation Act. The total of $3.2 billion of funds effectively being retained by employers since 2018, I think, is quite an achievement of the board.

With respect to the current funded position, it sat at 141 percent in 2024 and 139 percent in 2025. I think the member is aware that the target set by the board is 130 percent.

We do not have projections yet for 2026. I think, as the member is aware, that their investment returns play a significant role in the position of the fund, and those numbers are not yet clear for this year.

Kiel Giddens: I understand the rate smoothing that WorkSafe has undertaken. Well, at the same time, where we are in Canada, B.C. was the fourth-lowest premium rate in Canada. We’re now the third-highest-cost jurisdiction, despite our injury rate being down 12 percent since this government came into power.

[11:25 a.m.]

Looking at the premium rate, we’re at $1.55. Manitoba holds the lowest rate in Canada at 95 cents. New Brunswick, $1.10, and just mailed employers $53 million in refund cheques. Ontario cut to $1.30.

B.C., as the minister said, has been at $1.55 for eight years. The actual cost rose to $1.78 over that period. I do understand the numbers that the minister was given, but these are also the reserves that have been built up over many decades that we are talking about here.

The funded ratio…. The floor, of course, is at 130 percent, and we’ve just heard that it’s now at 139 percent. Again, in 2019, it was 153 percent. These were decades of reserves that were built over a very long period of time. That rate…. Roughly, each percentage point represents about $135 million of employer reserves that have been built up over a period.

We’re seeing a very large drawdown despite the fact we’ve had record windfall of market trajectory that has really buoyed the system. We’ve had over $6.8 billion more than the actuaries required from our market returns in the system. Obviously, in the absence of that, where would we be? I guess it is an important point.

I think, given that those drawdowns are so significant, I’m going to ask: will the minister direct WorkSafe to provide a transparent line-by-line accounting of what drove the surplus drawdowns, broken out by claims growth, benefit expansions, administrative cost increases and government directed policy changes?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: There’s a lot in that question, so I appreciate that the member might want to come back and ask supplementary questions to it. It is, as I appreciate the member understands, a complex area.

Just to, again, situate the context of this discussion, the way in which our workers compensation system evolved, really, across the country, was over a decade ago in what is often referred to as the great compromise, where there was legislation brought in to essentially establish a no-fault insurance scheme for workers in lieu of their ability to sue their employers for workplace injury, illness and death. This came about as a compromise in a time when their work in various industries was extraordinarily risky.

[11:35 a.m.]

The agreement has been, over time, that employers would fund the premiums, and we established an infrastructure in order to deliver both the claims process as well as all of the sort of corollary programs that need to occur in this area — education, prevention, etc.

Having said that, each jurisdiction across the country evolved their particular approach to workers compensation in slightly different ways. So it is extraordinarily challenging, in fact, to compare systems on a sort of apples-to-apples basis.

The member raised the example of Manitoba. Their workers compensation system covers 73 percent of workers in the province. B.C.’s system covers 93.6 percent. If you are going to put forward, as the member did, a comparison of how premiums are addressed, you would need to take into account the very fact that we cover 20 percent more workers than Manitoba does.

It’s critical to be ensuring that we’re comparing apples to apples when we look at different compensation systems. It’s in fact, I think, probably not all that helpful to compare. I think we need to look at what decisions we have taken in British Columbia to ensure that the workforce in British Columbia is properly protected.

I appreciate the member’s note that through our collective work, because occupational health and safety is a collective endeavour, we certainly have made progress on driving down the injury rate, in the sense of the overall rate across all sectors. There remain, however, persistently high injury rates in certain sectors, such as the issues that we canvassed in health care yesterday.

There is an experience, a trend that we are seeing with respect to mental health and psychological claims that is not just a phenomenon in British Columbia. It is across all workers compensation systems — across the continent, in fact — that we are seeing increased complexity of claims, increased psychological injury claims. I think the member is well aware that there is considerable work being undertaken by all parties to try to manage how we address this situation.

All of that has an impact on how we experience the premiums and the claims costs. It’s not so much that there’s a drawdown on the surplus. There’s a drawdown on the surplus in order to keep the rates stable for employers. That’s what the funds are being used for.

Frankly, I hear from employers that they appreciate that. They appreciate stability and predictability. That is an approach that they value highly. They understand what is happening in their workplaces, and they want to ensure that there are funds and resources available to ensure that workers are able to access the services that they need.

With respect to the funding issues, there’s a fair bit of detail in the WorkSafe annual report, which I think the member is aware of. I’m sure that the member has canvassed thoroughly the previous annual report. The current annual report will be out very shortly. That has a fairly deep dive into the areas of concern that the member has raised with respect to expenses.

I would just note that in terms of administrative costs, those numbers are consistent. They’re at about 40.42 percent of WorkSafe’s overall expenditures.

The member is correct that claims costs…. We know that claims costs and costs for rehab services are increasing. That is largely, again, due to complexity of cases, increasing complexity of cases even as we are seeing injury rates overall come down.

[11:40 a.m.]

With respect to the improvements that our government has made to better support workers, those costs are a little more challenging to tease out. We can try to do that in specific areas if the member has specific areas that he is concerned with.

I can say that, by way of example, the mental health presumptions that we have brought in to cover more occupations who are at a greater risk of experiencing psychological injury at work because of the traumatic nature of the work have added between 1½ to two cents on the base rate.

Kiel Giddens: I realize there was a lot in that question, so I appreciate the minister’s efforts to answer.

We’re trying to…. Obviously, there’s an important thing here, protecting the accident fund so it’s available for workers when they need it. There’s also an important component of this for employers to make sure that they aren’t seeing rate shock. That happens, and I can appreciate it’s been smoothed out, but WorkSafe itself has warned of upward claim pressures and a reduced surplus, potentially leading to increased premium rates in future years.

I think that’s a big risk. I think it’s something that…. I understand the history, but it is a payroll tax on employers. So I think this is also material to the Ministry of Finance in their own revenue projections. If there is a big rate shock, it actually hits the bottom line of employers.

In the construction sector in the Lower Mainland, they’re facing some significant job losses right now as it is, and a rate shock could actually hurt them quite substantially, especially small businesses in particular. I think those are the ones that are hit hardest by this.

I’m wondering if WorkSafe has provided the minister with rate increase scenarios for 2026, ’27 and ’28, and if so, will she table them?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned until after lunch.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.