Hansard — Monday, May 25, 2026 Morning, Issue No. 182

Propane is a vital part of British Columbia’s energy future, a reliable, low-emission fuel produced right here in Canada which helps power our farms, industries, businesses and communities — especially in rural, remote and Indigenous regions, where dependable energy access matters the most.

We appreciate the opportunity to meet with members of the Canadian Propane Association over lunch today and to discuss practical, commonsense energy solutions that support affordability, energy security and economic growth across our province.

I also want to thank the members of the Canadian Propane Association for once again hosting a fantastic food truck lunch reception behind the Legislature and for reminding all of us that propane helps keep goods moving, food on our tables and hard-working British Columbians employed.

Will the House please join me in making that delegation from the CPA most welcome.

Darlene Rotchford: I have two introductions to make this morning.

First, over the weekend in CFB Esquimalt, in my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood, we had the Korean Navy arrive for two weeks of exercises and visits to the south Vancouver Island.

I hope the House can make them feel very welcome. Some of them who you may see as well are touring the Legislature today. Yeah, make them feel welcome.

Two, and very important, it is my father-in-law’s birthday. Many people in this House hear me talk about my in-laws. I know not everyone’s relationship with their in-laws is always the same, but I’m very grateful for Joe Rotchford — to wish him a happy 76th birthday.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Youth Engagement in Future
Decision-Making for Communities

George Anderson: A few weeks ago I had the honour of giving a keynote address at the Nanaimo Model United Nations. This was an event where high school students came together to discuss global issues and engage in thoughtful debate. The topics debated during the simulation included emerging issues like artificial intelligence and warfare, as well as ongoing human rights concerns like child labour.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

It was inspiring to be among young people from my community of Nanaimo-Lantzville who were taking time out of their weekend to discuss important issues facing the world today. There is a lot to learn from how these students approach the difficult tasks in front of them. They listen closely to one another, challenge ideas with respect and work together to find common ground on complex and nuanced issues. In doing so, they were embodying the very best of what our democratic institutions strive to be.

I also recently learned about a project completed by political studies students at Vancouver Island University. They created a model city that imagined what Nanaimo might look like 60 years from now. Their work aimed to answer the question: “What kind of community do we want future generations to inherit?” It encouraged them to think about the long-term effects of policy decisions and the role they play in shaping our community’s future.

The vision for Nanaimo focused on sustainability, accessible public spaces, improved public transit and building a community that remains livable and connected for generations to come.

Learning about these initiatives fills me with a great deal of optimism. These young people demonstrated creativity, thoughtfulness and a strong sense of responsibility for the future. They are not waiting on the sidelines for the world to get better. They’re already stepping forward, engaging in their communities and thinking about practical ways to create a better future.

As members of this House, we spend a great deal of time thinking about the future. We debate legislation, discuss priorities and make decisions that will have lasting impacts on the people of this province. But it’s important to remember who will live with the outcomes of those decisions long after our time here is done.

[10:10 a.m.]

The young people in our communities will inherit the province we are shaping today. That’s why it’s so important that we continue to create space for youth to be engaged in our democratic processes, not just in the future but right now.

Whether it’s through initiatives like the Model UN, academic projects like the one at Vancouver Island University or through opportunities to work where legislation is made, young people are already finding ways to make their voices heard. Throughout this session, I’ve had the privilege of working along with five legislative interns in this building, and let me tell you, their energy, insight and fresh perspective in our institutions is stronger for it.

As this session comes to a close, we prepare to return to our communities at the end of the week, and I want to encourage all of us to spend more time listening to the young people in our communities.

Talk to your children, your grandchildren, nieces, nephews and youth in your communities. Ask them what concerns them, ask them what excites them, and ask them what they hope British Columbia can look like 20, 30, 50 years from now.

We often think about wisdom as something that comes with age and experience, but young people bring something equally important. They bring fresh perspectives — they question — that challenge our assumptions and force us to think differently. They are not afraid to imagine possibilities that break norms.

As a colleague of mine has said, sometimes with age, wisdom comes alone.

The message I’m hearing from young people, in my riding at least, is that they want to be part of the future, and they’re already ready to do so. It’s up to all of us to ensure that we are listening, that we are encouraging their participation and that we are making decisions today with the future in mind. I have to say, with confidence, that young people are already doing this work. They’re building that future, and it’s in good hands.

Often when we are looking at difficult decisions within our society, it’s young people who stand up, and they say: “This is wrong. We need to make a concerted effort to make sure that we’re leaving this place better than how we found it.” That’s the type of courage that we ought to emulate in this building — one that is fearless, one that is tireless in trying to ensure that the world that we live in is best for everyone.

Land, Water and Resource
Permit Process

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to speak about something I’m hearing with increasing frequency from across British Columbia. That’s from small business owners, tourism operators, ranchers, tenure holders, resource users and ordinary British Columbians simply trying to navigate government. That is this. The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship appears increasingly frozen in place, not because staff do not care and not because applicants are failing to do the work but because government has created a system where staff themselves seem unclear on what the rules actually are.

British Columbians are trying to renew land tenures. They’re applying for foreshore leases. They’re advancing their water licence applications. They’re moving projects forward that should be straightforward. Instead, they find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic purgatory. Months become years. Files sit untouched. Applicants receive vague responses like “more engagement required,” “further information needed,” “additional studies may be necessary.” But there’s no clear pathway to resolution, no certainty, no timelines and no actual decision-making.

Increasingly, what I hear is this. If you don’t arrive with letters of support already in hand from every potentially affected First Nation, your file will simply just sit there — not because legislation clearly says that, not because a formal decision has been made but because staff no longer seem confident in what standard applies. Is it consultation? Is it consent? Is it something else entirely? Because of that uncertainty, files are simply left to drift. That is not reconciliation, and that is not transparency. It certainly is not good governance.

Let me be clear. Meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities matters. Respectful engagement matters. Strong relationships matter. But what does not serve anyone, including First Nations, is a provincial government that refuses to provide clear direction to its own public service.

[10:15 a.m.]

What happens when government staff are left without clarity? Applicants are sent chasing their tails, more reports are commissioned, more studies are required, and more procedural hoops are created.

When frustration inevitably grows, government quietly allows the perception to form that Indigenous consultation is the cause for this delay. That is deeply unfair, because in many of these cases, the real issue is not consultation. It is provincial indecision. It is a ministry that no longer appears confident in its own authority to make decisions. We have watched this shift over time from consultation to discussions around consent and now increasingly towards a model that is true co-governance.

Whether members support that evolution or not, one thing should be obvious. Government has a responsibility to clearly define how British Columbia continues to function, how business continues, how applications move, how decisions get made and what the timelines are. Right now that clarity does not exist, and sectors are feeling it.

During estimates this year, we heard directly that stakeholders in the adventure tourism sector — operators whose livelihoods depend on access, renewal and predictable approvals — are stalled. The solution? A dedicated single-window process just for them to navigate government dysfunction.

Think about that. An entire sector now believes that the only way to survive is to create a special access point into government that goes around the regular system that no longer functions. Surprisingly, government has agreed to this. They’ve stood up the mechanisms to do just that — help one sector try to move while thousands of other applicants will remain stuck in the same broken queue.

Small operators, farmers, community groups, businesses, families, people trying to renew what they already hold…. People are simply asking for a decision — not special treatment, just a decision. This is becoming a competitiveness issue, an affordability issue and a true survival issue for small businesses in British Columbia. Uncertainty kills investment, and bureaucratic paralysis destroys trust. British Columbians should not need consultants, political intervention or insider navigation just to get a basic government file processed.

At the narrows in Sicamous, one applicant has spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars just trying to rebuild his dock that sits amongst hundreds of other docks. Its own staff doesn’t appear to have the proper training, understand the proper process, and it owes applicants clear expectations.

I believe that it owes First Nations a process that is respectful, transparent and not used as political cover for provincial dysfunction. Right now what we’re seeing is not leadership; it is paralysis, and British Columbians are paying the price.

Canadian Armed Forces Day
and Rim of the Pacific Exercise

Darlene Rotchford: I rise today to recognize Canadian Armed Forces Day and to speak about an event that perfectly captures the professionalism, readiness and international leadership of our Canadian Armed Forces, RIMPAC 2026.

For the people of Esquimalt-Colwood, this is deeply personal. Our community is home to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt and the headquarters of Maritime Forces Pacific and home of the Canadian Pacific fleet. Every day we see the dedication of sailors, aviators, soldiers, civilians, defence workers, veterans and military families who serve our country with pride.

During RIMPAC, this service is showcased on the world stage. RIMPAC, or the Rim of the Pacific Exercise, is the world’s largest international maritime exercise. This year marks the 30th integration of the exercise, bringing together approximately 31 nations, 40 warships, five submarines, more than 140 aircraft and over 25,000 personnel from allied and partnered nations across the Indo-Pacific region.

Canada has been part of RIMPAC since the very beginning. In fact, Canada was one of the founding participants when the exercise was first established in 1971. For more than five decades, Canada has stood shoulder to shoulder with our allied partners in the Pacific, strengthening cooperation, interoperability and collective readiness. That consistency matters. It sends a message that Canada is a reliable partner committed to international stability, the rule of law and the defence of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

This year Canada’s contribution once again reflects the strength and capacity of our Pacific fleet. Canadian soldiers and crews from Esquimalt will deploy multiple service combatants, a submarine, a support ship as part of the multiple-nation exercise. Some of those ships will then continue directly into further operations and missions throughout the Indo-Pacific region after RIMPAC concludes, supporting Canada’s ongoing presence alongside our allies.

[10:20 a.m.]

It is important, because RIMPAC is not simply about showcasing military hardware. It is about people. It’s about allied navies, armed forces and air forces learning to operate together seamlessly before a crisis even occurs.

It is about building trust between our nations. It’s about ensuring that when humanitarian disaster strikes, when maritime security is threatened or when international stability is challenged, allied countries can respond together quickly, professionally and effectively.

Exercises during RIMPAC include anti-submarine warfare, air defence, humanitarian assistance, disaster responses, maritime security operations, diving and salvage operations and complex multinational coordination at sea. That level of interoperability does not happen by accident. It is earned through years of training, discipline and cooperation. Canada should be incredibly proud of how highly respected our armed forces are in that environment, and we should be exceptionally proud here in British Columbia.

Canadian soldiers are known internationally for their professionalism, leadership, adaptability and ability to integrate seamlessly alongside allied forces. Whether operating with the U.S., Australia, Japan, United Kingdom or other Pacific partners, Canada consistently demonstrates that we are a capable, dependable ally.

Canadian Armed Forces appreciation day reminds us that behind every ship, every deployment and every international exercise are people making sacrifices for our country. It is a sailor departing Esquimalt Harbour for months away from family and community. It is the military spouse carrying extra responsibility at home.

It is a child counting down the days until a parent returns from deployment. For anyone who has ever come to Esquimalt to watch a ship come in and see the little faces and the families, it is something to be seen.

It is the veteran who served our country, and sacrifices continue long after they leave their home — and before.

As the PS for Armed Forces Development and Veterans Affairs, I’ve had the privilege of meeting many serving members, veterans and military families across the province. What always stands out to me is the humility, their resilience and their unwavering commitment to service.

In Esquimalt-Colwood, we are proud to stand with our military community. We are proud that B.C. continues to play such a vital role in Canada’s Pacific presence. We are proud that when allies from around the world gather for RIMPAC, Canadian sailors from Esquimalt will once again help demonstrate the very best of professionalism, cooperation and readiness.

To every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces, to every veteran and to every military family, thank you for your service, thank you for your sacrifice, thank you for your commitment to Canada and thank you for your commitment to B.C.

On June 7, make sure you all thank some of our Canadian Armed Forces in British Columbia — and their families.

Cariboo-Chilcotin Community
Attractions and Events

Lorne Doerkson: This is an open invitation to visit the heart of British Columbia, Cariboo-Chilcotin. I have often had the opportunity to visit communities throughout our region, and at every stop, I am reminded why I am so proud to represent Cariboo-Chilcotin. Whether it is the West Chilcotin, where neighbours still gather and stories still matter; or the incredible Savona bean dinner and fire department fundraiser, where communities come together to support one another — these events are about more than just entertainment. They are about community spirit.

In Ashcroft, people come from all over to paint the landscape and capture the beauty of this community on canvas. Artists from all over British Columbia are inspired by the rugged beauty and unique landscape at the yearly Plein Air event.

These two communities hosted the CPKC Holiday Train last year at Christmas, where the Barenaked Ladies entertained hundreds of people in Savona and Ashcroft.

Cache Creek Graffiti Days is absolutely amazing. If you’ve never stood near a drag-racing strip and literally heard the thunder echoing through the valley from the roar of these fast cars, you’re missing out. You can enjoy the burnout contest and, certainly, the sock hop too. Beautiful classic cars converge from all over, and the pride in that community is absolutely impossible to miss. Along the way, you’ll find bakeries and farm gardens like you can’t imagine — fresh produce, home baking, roadside stands, even a taco shop.

Then there’s the Fishing Highway. Now, let me tell you a secret about the Fishing Highway. The fish are huge, and they are biting. The lodges and the campgrounds are amazing, but the events are even bigger — amazing fishing derbies like Deka Lake, Sulphurous Lake, Sheridan Lake, to name a few.

Every year the Fishing Highway 24 Association hosts the legendary Outhouse Races. Yes, I said Outhouse Races. If you’ve never witnessed people in costume racing decorated outhouses on skis in the middle of winter with crowds cheering them on, then you haven’t fully experienced the Cariboo spirit.

[10:25 a.m.]

Hot July Nights in 100 Mile House is a massive car show. The Lakers Car Club does the same thing in Williams Lake. Cars come from all over western Canada and the U.S., thousands of people in attendance and hundreds of cars along so many events.

The 108 heritage site stands as a stunning reminder of years gone by, preserving the history and character for so many future generations, and now they have ghost tours as well.

We’re blessed with incredible First Nations culture. Celebrations like powwows in communities like St’uxwtéws; Esk’etemc; and, of course, Williams Lake First Nation bring together tradition, drumming, dancing, community and culture in ways that are deeply meaningful.

Let me assure you that golfing is pretty darn good too, whether that’s at Williams Lake Golf Club, the Coyote Rock Golf Course, Tobiano or the 108 Resort. They’re beautiful courses.

Since you’re coming, don’t forget your mountain bike, because we’ve got some of the best mountain bike trails in all of British Columbia.

Now, if you want rodeo action, oh my goodness is this the place for you — from Bridge Lake and the Interlakes to the Logan Parent bull riding event to Alkali Lake; from Anahim Lake and Stone to the Spring Classic Indoor Rodeo; High School Rodeo and Little Britches events; and, of course, the legendary Clinton Rodeo. This region knows rodeo, but don’t forget the Clinton Ball.

The Anahim Stampede is something to see — a wonderful parade, a barbecue. This special stampede and community knows exactly how to throw a party.

If you’re on your way to Anahim, don’t forget to stop at Tatla Lake for a nice piece of pie or potentially a farm market.

Of course, there is the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede every July long weekend. The parade is incredible. The rodeo action is some of the best you’re going to see in the entire world. It is truly one of British Columbia’s premier sporting events. So many events that weekend — pancake breakfast; steak outs; and, of course, stock car racing at the incredible Thunder Mountain Speedway.

To say I’m proud would be an understatement.Come and experience our museums, our farm markets. Come and enjoy the incredible hospitality in our lodges, our fishing resorts, spas, guest ranches, hotels and restaurants.

Come and fish our lakes, ride our trails, attend our rodeos and meet the people who make our region so incredibly special.

This is really only a small sampling of what you’re going to find in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. There’s simply so much to see and do. I hope you’ll come and visit Cariboo-Chilcotin this summer.

Parambir Singh Achievements
in Skilled Trades and
Mentorship of James Smith

Rohini Arora: It’s an honour today to recognize an extraordinary young British Columbian whose story reflects perseverance, determination, talent and the incredible value of skilled trades in Canada.

I first learned about Parambir Singh through skilled trades instructor James Smith, who reached out to me after hearing my debate in the House speaking up for workers. James wanted to share the story of a remarkable student and apprentice whose journey represents exactly why we must continue championing skilled trades and supporting the next generation of workers in our community.

Parambir Singh came to Canada in 2016 as an international student at Camosun College. Like so many newcomers to Canada, he arrived with ambition, determination and a willingness to work hard to build a better future.

During his studies, he worked as a manager at Husky while building a life here in Canada. His path later took him to P.E.I. and into long-haul trucking, but along the way, Parambir realized he wanted something more hands-on — a career where he could build, solve problems and make a difference in people’s lives every single day.

After receiving permanent residency, he decided to pursue plumbing, a trade he had always felt drawn toward. That decision has already led to remarkable success. In 2024, Parambir was awarded the Plumbing and Pipe Trades Foundation Award, recognizing both his talent and dedication.

More recently he represented British Columbia at the provincial skills competition in Abbotsford, where he won gold in plumbing, an incredible accomplishment that reflects countless hours of preparation, discipline and hard work. If this isn’t an immigrant success story, I don’t know what is.

[10:30 a.m.]

Now Parambir Singh is preparing to travel to Toronto to compete in the Skills Canada National Competition, 2026, where he will proudly represent British Columbia on the national stage. What an honour that is. He is representing not only himself but his family, his instructors, his fellow apprentices and our entire province.

I can only imagine how proud his family and his friends are. They must be incredibly proud watching his journey unfold, from arriving in Canada as an international student to now standing among the very best young plumbing competitors in the entire country.

His story also reminds us of how important skilled trades are to the future of British Columbia and Canada. Tradespeople build our homes, maintain our infrastructure and keep our communities functioning every single day.

His story is exactly why I’m incredibly proud of our government for investing $241 million in skilled-trades training, creating opportunities for the next generation of tradespeople right here at home. It means attracting talented instructors whose passion inspires apprentices like Parambir Singh and preparing our province with the knowledge and passion to build B.C.

Behind many successful apprentices stands a passionate mentor. In Parambir’s case, that mentor is James Smith, an instructor and trades advocate who cares deeply about supporting the next generation. Whether preparing students for their Red Seal or for provincial and national competitions, introducing young Indigenous workers in remote communities to the pipe trades or mentoring newcomers to Canada through hands-on workshops, James exemplifies the leadership and dedication that this province needs.

Because of instructors like James Smith, talented individuals like Parambir Singh are given the opportunity to pursue excellence and realize their full potential. Who knows? Perhaps we are watching the future greatest plumber this country has ever known.

To Parambir Singh: congratulations on your incredible accomplishments. British Columbia is proud of you. Canada is proud of you. Bring home gold, Parambir Singh. We believe in you. Good luck at the Skills Canada National Competition, 2026. We will all be cheering you on.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to members participating online to refrain from using your phone while you are onscreen.

Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic
and Preventive Dental Care

Kiel Giddens: I rise today to speak about an important community health care service in Prince George. The Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic — operated by the Prince George Native Friendship Centre, in partnership with the Prince George and District Dental Society and Northern Health — provides essential dental care to vulnerable residents in our community. Led by Dr. Richard Wilczek and supported by volunteer dentists, hygienists and community partners, this clinic helps people who would otherwise have nowhere else to turn for urgent dental care.

This clinic is in an important training partnership with the College of New Caledonia. Dental hygiene and dental assistant students provide hours of service while gaining valuable firsthand clinical experience working alongside community dentists and serving vulnerable patients. Unfortunately, this service for low-income individuals is now at risk of closing because of the government’s shortsighted decision to eliminate funding for not-for-profit dental clinics across B.C.

The need for these services is actually growing, not shrinking. Across the province, the number of not-for-profit dental clinics increased from 19 in 2021 to 25 last year. In the last year alone, these clinics provided more than 53,000 patient appointments to over 24,000 individuals, with nearly one-third of those patients living in rural and remote communities. Yet despite this growing need, every one of these clinics now has had their provincial funding pulled.

In my community of Prince George, the Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic serves approximately 15 patients each and every week during a three-hour clinic session. Over the past year, the clinic supported 223 clients, performing 331 extractions, and delivered more than $85,000 worth of essential dental care services.

All of this was achieved with just $25,000 in annual provincial grant funding. That is an incredible return on investment for the province. This is preventative health care service before patients need to seek higher levels of medical attention in our health care system.

The grant has paid the hours of work for the coordinator of the program and is important for the clinic to operate even at this modest amount. For many individuals experiencing poverty, homelessness and other barriers to care, this clinic is their only option. The location is accessible and connected to an organization that serves many of these individuals in other ways.

[10:35 a.m.]

Historically, the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction has supported B.C.’s not-for-profit dental clinics by providing year-end grants to the B.C. Dental Association, which would then disburse the funds to local clinics. The ministry wrote to the Dental Association on March 9 of this year, and the funding was not renewed for the fiscal year-end only weeks later.

The ministry cited the expansion of the Canadian dental care plan, but this neglected the fact that too many of the most vulnerable patients still fall through the cracks with this federal program. Many cannot afford the upfront cost and still face too many barriers to access.

Without preventative and urgent dental care, people are often left suffering until they end up in already overcrowded emergency rooms. In fact, low-income adults in British Columbia are six times more likely to visit emergency rooms for dental issues than other residents.

Cutting modest funding for preventative community dental care will not eliminate the need. It simply shifts costs onto other emergency departments and further strains an already overburdened health care system. That’s why I believe that supporting community-based dental care is both compassionate and fiscally responsible.

According to the B.C. Dental Association, emergency departments cannot provide definitive dental treatment. They manage pain, prescribe antibiotics and then discharge patients often only to have them return when infection or pain worsens. If just 5 percent of the 53,000 appointments delivered by not-for-profit clinics in 2025 had instead resulted in emergency room visits, the cost would have been approximately $672,000 in hospital triage costs and roughly 900 hours of ER physician time. That is physician time we cannot afford to lose in a system already facing critical shortages.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Barb Ward-Burkitt, executive director from the Prince George Native Friendship Centre, as well as Nicole King-Smith, their director of health. I want to thank them for their work. I’ve also met with Dr. Wilczek and want to thank all of the volunteer dentists, hygienists and those who support patients in Prince George. Lastly, I want to thank Quinn Mathiesen-Newcomb from the B.C. Dental Association for meeting and for the important provincewide advocacy that they have done on this file.

I urge the minister to reconsider this decision and work with not-for-profit dental clinics across British Columbia to ensure these essential services remain available to the people who need them most. I would also invite the minister to meet with the Prince George Native Friendship Centre to learn more.

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

Reporting of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act

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

This amendment was really just a housekeeping amendment to adjust the gross vehicle weight that was originally on the definition of a “commercial vehicle” from 8,200 kilograms’ gross vehicle weight to 11,793 kilograms’ gross vehicle weight.

I certainly appreciate the quick work by not only the legislative staff but the select committee to make the necessary changes and to allow this important bill to be able to move to third reading and, hopefully, pass in this session.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is that Bill M217, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will now proceed to third reading of Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act

Ward Stamer: I move third reading of Bill M217.

Again, we in B.C. have always been proactive in our quest to make our roads safer — from introducing road smart programs, graduating licences and licensing programs for new and commercial drivers; to speed limiters, electronic logs in our big rigs; and now mandatory dashcams in those commercial vehicles.

I want to thank all the members, both on the select committee and in this chamber, for their bipartisan support on Bill M217. That will make our commercial drivers more responsible in their driving habits and make B.C. roads and the public safer.

[10:40 a.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I support this bill, and the reason why is that I came from the trucking industry. I know firsthand that this can actually help. It can actually bring people more accountability. When you know that there are going to be drivers in big trucks with dashcams, a lot of the other vehicles now will think again before they cut them off or anything.

I’ve been in situations like that, where you’re driving straight down and someone just nips in, in front of you, and everyone says: “Blame the trucker.” This will bring some clarity, and it’ll bring some guidelines.

I fully support the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and I support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, there’s the option for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to close the debate.

Okay. Members, the question is third reading of the Bill M217.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will proceed with continuing debate on Motion M205.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation
Course for MLAs
(continued)

Lynne Block: In a democracy, accountability does not end on election night. It begins there. The decisions made in this Legislature affect every family, every worker and every future generation. They shape taxes, spending, debt, health care, infrastructure and human rights. That is why it is both reasonable and responsible that newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly receive mandatory training in economics, public finance and numeracy.

These are not partisan ideas. They are essential tools for informed decision-making. We would never expect a pilot to fly without training or an engineer to design a bridge without understanding physics. Yet elected officials are asked to make enormously complex decisions involving billions of public dollars and the well-being of millions of people without being informed.

Good intentions alone are not enough. Public service requires preparation, humility and a willingness to learn. As former South African President Nelson Mandela said: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

Mandatory orientation courses would not dictate ideology or political belief. They would simply ensure that all members, regardless of background or party, possess a basic understanding of the responsibilities of governing in the public interest. At a time when misinformation and distrust are rising, strengthening the knowledge and competence of elected officials is not elitist. It is democratic. Citizens deserve leaders who are prepared not only to speak passionately but to govern responsibly.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission closes debate.

Gavin Dew: Before I close, I want to return to the words of my original motion, that the House ensures elected representatives are accountable and supported to possess a basic understanding of economics, public finance and numeracy as they make decisions on taxes, spending, debt and regulation and, therefore, request that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee institute a mandatory course in these subjects for all newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly as part of member orientation.

[10:45 a.m.]

This is far from an extreme proposition. It is common sense. It does not ask every member to become an economist or to share the same policy views. It asks something much simpler — that before newly elected members are called upon to vote on matters with billion-dollar consequences, they receive a basic grounding in how public finance works, how incentives work and how numbers should be understood in context.

Context matters. Without context, numbers can mislead. Gross figures can obscure net outcomes. Nominal increases can be mistaken for real progress. Governments can present a flattering picture that does not line up with what people actually experience in their lives.

British Columbians deserve a legislature that understands the cost of delay, the burden of debt, the effect of rising payroll costs, the importance of investment and the role incentives play in shaping behaviour. Is this sustainable? What is the net effect? What does this cost in the long term? What behaviour does this reward or discourage on the part of individuals, organizations, entrepreneurs and investors? Will it create jobs and opportunities or drive them elsewhere?

Those kinds of questions would improve scrutiny, debate, accountability and decision-making. It is fair to say that some of the weakest decisions in public life reflect a failure to think clearly about trade-offs, incentives and costs. Sometimes governments act as though spending more is the same as achieving more. Sometimes numbers are technically true but incomplete in substance. Sometimes the economic consequences of policy choices are treated as secondary, only to reappear later as higher costs, weaker growth or fewer opportunities.

That is exactly the pattern my original motion seeks, in a modest way, to improve. I will say this. Government members actually began this debate with what could have been an interesting and constructive approach, the suggestion that Conservatives could benefit from stronger economic literacy too. Fair enough. Nobody has a monopoly on economic literacy.

British Columbians would be better served if they had a government and an opposition competing to offer the best evidence-driven and economically sound policy possible. That is why it was so disappointing to see the government then decide to get cute with an amendment designed to dilute my original motion. Instead of engaging substantively with the subject of the motion on economic literacy, the government chose to fold in a broad range of other matters, including “evidence-based science, truth and reconciliation and human rights.”

At a time when B.C.’s small business confidence remains weak, when we have lost tens of thousands of jobs over the last few months and when recent court rulings have created real uncertainty around the security of fee simple property rights, you would think it would be uncontroversial for this Legislature to focus specifically on the economy.

Instead, the government seemingly will do anything to avoid that. Rather than keep this debate where it belonged, on economic literacy, they chose to stir the culture war pot and give provocative speeches in the hope of eliciting a reaction that would let them change the channel.

British Columbians do not need more channel-changing. They do not need more rhetorical fog. They do not need a style of politics that is constantly searching for wedge issues at the expense of serious and substantive debate about the fundamental operations of government and the fundamental health of our economy.

My original motion was offered in a practical and non-judgmental spirit as a tool to strengthen how members assess financial impacts and communicate decisions to the public. This side of the House will not play along with the government’s political games. We support my original motion. We will not support an amended version designed to dilute it and distract from the focused conversations on economic literacy that British Columbians deserve.

British Columbians deserve a serious, grown-up government focused on fundamentals, and that is exactly what Conservatives will give them.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

[10:50 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m really pleased to welcome the grades 4 and 5 classes from John Howitt Elementary in Port Alberni. They’re up in the gallery today, accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Dyer and Ms. Bouchard, and a number of other staff and parent chaperones.

I just want to explain. We’ve been having debate here in the House this morning around a motion that a member of the opposition has brought forward about mandatory education for MLAs. So to all of the students in the gallery, I want to say that the learning never stops. That’s what we do here in the House as well, as we discuss and debate ideas and legislation all about making life better for British Columbians.

I would ask my fellow MLAs here in the House to please welcome the grades 4 and 5 students from John Howitt Elementary.

Amna Shah: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Amna Shah: We have an incredible human being up in the gallery today. We are joined by Sam Atwal, who is here with a group of students. Sam and I go way back in terms of advocacy and service to our community. I have had the pleasure of learning so much about what really good community service means to our communities. I just want to congratulate Sam Atwal. Members on this side of the House recognize his work and his advocacy.

Will the House join me in making him feel very welcomed here today.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is Motion M205 as amended.

Division has been called.

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

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look and proceed with debate on the amendment to Motion M207.

Motion M207 — Liquor Service
in Movie Theatres
(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

Harwinder Sandhu: I stand in this House as a proud representative for Vernon-Lumby to oppose the amendment presented by the B.C. Conservative member from the opposition.

In addition to the concerns that have already been raised and discussed in the previous days, I want to share comments directly from local Vernon Towne Theatre owner, Scott John, who is also one of the strongest community pillars in our community.

Scott shared how this amendment would actively hurt them versus the current state: “Large corporate cinemas are multiplexes with many screens and already have the ability to designate one for liquor service. Small independent theatres are usually single or double screens and do not have that ability. Large chains already have major advantages, including first choice of movies, while smaller theatres are often left behind. I hope this adds some context from our point of view.” These comments highlighted why the original motion matters, without the amendments. That is why I oppose this amendment.

I want to thank the member for Kootenay-Monashee for his continued advocacy for rural communities and for bringing the original motion forward. As we know, independent theatres are more than places just to watch movies. They are gathering spaces where people connect, support local culture and share experiences together.

In Vernon, we are fortunate to have the Towne Theatre. Since opening in 1938, it has remained as an important part of our community. Today it hosts films, concerts, live music and community events while also supporting independent filmmakers and local artists.

What stands out most is how much theatres like this give back. They host fundraisers, create spaces for community groups and bring people together. They are not just businesses. They are part of the fabric of our communities.

Through conversations with theatre operators, it has become clear that the current rules create a real inconsistency. If a theatre hosts a live concert, it can serve alcohol during mixed-age events, but if it shows a film, it must either restrict the audience or eliminate alcohol service entirely. That does not reflect how these venues operate, and it creates unnecessary barriers. In most cases, it is simply about allowing somebody to responsibly enjoy a glass of wine during a movie while supporting a local theatre.

[10:55 a.m.]

Independent theatres are already facing significant challenges — rising costs, competition from large chains and continued growth of streaming services. Across Canada, many independent theatres are struggling. When these spaces disappear, we lose more than a business; we lose gathering places that help build community connection.

One of the barriers they face in British Columbia is the restriction on liquor sales during mixed-age screenings. Meanwhile, the other venues do not face the same restrictions. We saw this clearly during the Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour film. Concert venues could serve alcohol during mixed-age events while smaller theatres showing the same could not. That creates an uneven playing field. My debate opposing this amendment is about fairness, opportunity and supporting local businesses.

The motion, without the amendment, does not require theatres to serve alcohol. It simply gives them the option to do so responsibly within existing laws. For a small theatre, every revenue stream matters. This change could help them remain sustainable, continue supporting local artists and keep their doors open.

It is also worth noting that British Columbia currently is the only province in Canada that does not allow this. Passing this motion, without the amendment, would bring us in line with the rest of the country.

Ultimately, this is about community. In many smaller towns, independent theatres are among the few places where people can gather, connect and share experiences together. By us opposing the amendment, it offers a practical and balanced solution. It recognizes the challenges these theatres face and gives them a tool to adapt, to succeed.

When we support places like this, we are supporting connection, fairness and community itself. For those reasons, I am proud to support the original motion, and I encourage all members to do the same. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Korky Neufeld: I rise today to speak about bill M207 and to raise what I believe is a fundamental issue of fairness, consistency and common sense in the government’s approach to liquor policy in British Columbia. That is why removing the word “independent” levels the playing field for all movie theatres across British Columbia.

Why not let the owners decide whether they want to serve liquor or not in their theatres instead of government restricting certain theatres from doing it?

This bill proposes allowing liquor service during mixed-age movie screenings for small and independent theatres. While supporters of the bill argue this is about helping local cinemas survive, the legislation creates more questions than answers. The central issue is this. If responsible liquor service during mixed-age movie screenings is appropriate public policy, then why would the government not apply it to small and independent theatres instead of all theatres?

Why restrict it? Why create another arbitrary distinction? Why would some theatres be trusted while others are restricted under the exact same circumstances? That’s why removing the word “independent” is clear, and it is fair.

Either adults can responsibly consume alcohol while attending a movie with minors present under regulated provincial laws or not. The standard should not change based on the size of the building, the number of screens or the business model of the theatre operator. Who decides these distinctions?

Public safety rules should be based on behaviour and standards, not on square footage. Yet this bill proposes exactly that — one set of rules for some theatres, another set of rules for others. That is not fairness; that is selective policy-making. That’s why removing the word “independent” is an important legislative change.

We already allow liquor services in countless mixed-age environments across British Columbia. Adults can consume alcohol at restaurants where families dine together. Adults can drink at concerts attended by minors, at sporting events, at community festivals, at bowling alleys, at live theatre productions, at conference centres, at airports.

At all of those places, responsible adults are trusted to consume alcohol under regulated conditions while minors are present. Importantly, those venues are not divided into small or large categories before government decides whether liquor services are acceptable. The rule applies equally.

But not to allow small and independent theatres…. Why not include all theatres? Removing the word “independent” clarifies this inconsistency. Why are movie theatres treated differently? Why does bill M207 deepen the inconsistency instead of solving it? This bill risks creating an uneven, distorted playing field across British Columbia’s entertainment industry.

[11:00 a.m.]

A theatre with two or three screens may qualify for expanded liquor permission, while other theatres with four or five screens down the road remain restricted, despite serving the same community, operating under the same provincial liquor laws and employing trained staff allowing the same rules. How does that make sense? How is that fair competition?

Perhaps, most importantly, where exactly does government draw the line? If a theatre expands and becomes successful, does it lose its privilege? If a theatre has different ownership, does it lose its licence? There are problems with legislation built around arbitrary classifications rather than consistent principles across the board.

Businesses across the province are exhausted by government’s constant creative carve-outs, exceptions, pilot projects and selective rules instead of establishing one fair, transparent framework for all. This bill continues that trend. Instead of modernizing our liquor policy for all theatres in British Columbia, government proposes another narrow exemption targeting one category of business.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. You still have time.

Amna Shah: I call a point of order. The member keeps referring to the amendment to the motion as a bill. I’d just like to point that out.

Deputy Speaker: Correct. Yeah, it’s an amendment to the motion.

Thank you, Member.

Continue.

Korky Neufeld: But fairness matters. If liquor service during mixed-age screenings is considered safe and acceptable, then all theatres should be allowed to apply under the same standards. If strict conditions are needed around staff training, age verification, serving limits, security or licence requirements, then establish those rules provincewide and apply them equally. Do not create a system where some businesses are trusted while others are arbitrarily excluded.

That’s why we need to remove the word “independent” from this legislation, and I ask everyone in this House to support it.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder, we’re debating the amendment on the motion.

Darlene Rotchford: Thank you for that clarification.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here today on the traditional, unceded territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People known today as Songhees and the xʷsepsəm Nations, which my constituency office also falls on.

I’m going to speak against the amendment to the motion because I won’t be supporting the amendment to the motion — the original motion that was put forward by the member for Kootenay-Monashee which called on the government to allow small independent movie theatres the option to serve liquor at aged showings — because I believe the amendment is not going to quite do what I think the member thought that it would.

At the core of the original motion, it was about choice, fairness and stability, so I can appreciate the comments from the member of the opposition. It proposed a measured and responsible approach that would allow independent theatres, should they choose…. Rounding that up, we want to….

I think that will change the intent of what we’re looking at, because we want to continually look to strictly adhere to B.C.’s liquor laws, to Serving It Right protocols. Some of those bigger ones can already do this, so I think that amendment talks about something that can already be done.

Let me be clear. This motion, again, originally was never geared towards those corporate chains. It was very much the independent ones because of the way things can currently be done. It was about smaller, community-rooted theatres, the ones that bring character, culture and connection to places in our community, not the bigger ones. Therefore that amendment to the motion would not fall in line.

Again, because there were some comments about bills, I think it is important — because we’re being pointed at, and you talk about the order of things — that this was an amendment to a motion, not a bill. This motion would still have to go to a ministry, and the ministry ultimately would have the decision, because it’s not a bill.

Here on southern Vancouver Island, we are fortunate to have lots of independent theatres, such as the Roxy Theatre down on Quadra. Since we have people from all sides of the House that maybe sometimes get to spend some fun in this city when we’re not in this building on weekends, occasionally…. The Capitol 6 on Yates and the Vic Theatre down on Douglas. These venues are more than just a place to watch a film. They are a gathering space. That’s where families come together for untold stories, where communities find common ground.

I encourage everyone in this House, if you haven’t had the opportunity when you are in this beautiful city, to go down and check them out. The difference between big theatres, which the amendment is looking to, is that independent theatres give people an opportunity to step away from the pressures of daily life — and that shared experience, that entertainment, to inspire and connect. They play an important role in preserving our arts and culture within our community.

That’s why when we look at the amendment to do that and creating that bigger space, it would take away some of that. Like many small businesses and cultural institutions, these theatres are faced with significant challenges in recent years, something the opposition brings up to us quite regularly. So I would hope that they would support the original motion without amendment.

The pressure of global inflation is changing consumer habits, and the rise of streaming services has taken its toll. For many, the margin between success and closures becomes increasingly narrow. That’s why, again, when you look at the way that the amendment to the motion was, it was looking at bigger theatres, not smaller ones, which the intent of the original bill was.

[11:05 a.m.]

In the context, the motion offers a practical and grounded step forward. We know that arts and culture venues, particularly music venues, are already permitted to serve alcohol during mixed-age events. They do so responsibly, with appropriate safeguards in place and in full compliance with provincial regulations.

Comments made by the opposition that this can’t be done already are actually not true. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional. I’m sure you know, because I can appreciate their passion on what they’re talking about, but they can already do that. They’ve shown that it’s entirely possible to maintain a safe and welcoming environment for young audiences that allows adults to enjoy additional amenities.

The question before us is straightforward. Should independent movie theatres be given the same opportunity? The amendment that was put forward wouldn’t allow that to happen. By allowing liquor services during mixed-age showings, we provide these more independent theatres an additional tool, one that can help strengthen their financial footing, support local employment and ensure their continued presence in our community.

If that amendment that would not look to what the original intent of that motion was…. It’s not about transforming theatres into something they are not. It’s about giving them the flexibility to adapt, to evolve and to remain a resilient, rapidly changing environment. You heard from my colleague here earlier about letters that we’ve already started to receive — that if that amendment to the motion passed, it would not necessarily be getting the same results as they think it would.

Importantly, it’s about doing so while maintaining public safety and community standards. The framework already exists within the ministry. The rules are clear. That’s why the original motion, without the amendment which this member is trying to put forward, was written the way it was.

There is something enduring about the shared experience of cinema. In a world that can sometimes feel divided, these spaces remind us that people from different backgrounds and perspectives can still come together in a shared experience, and I believe you get that in the smaller, independent theatres.

Our theatres are, in many ways, steady anchors in their communities. They endure, not because it is easy, but because it matters. They are part of a broader network of local spaces that foster creativity, connecting and a sense of belonging. Again, that’s why, when we looked at the original motion, it was just that — not the broader motion that.…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member for Kelowna Centre, you’ve got two minutes.

Kristina Loewen: Two minutes — oh.

I rise today to speak to the amendment to this motion. I want to briefly recognize the member who brought it forward, the MLA for Kootenay-Monashee, for doing something that every MLA in this House should be doing — listening carefully to the people they represent and bringing those real-world concerns into this chamber. This is the heart of representative government and something that is the foundation of what we should be doing in this place.

I do appreciate the amendment, removing the word “independent” from the motion. Conservatives believe government policy should be fair and consistent for all businesses, not designed to favour one category of business over another. Governments should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

If a policy makes sense, it should apply fairly. If a regulation no longer makes sense, governments should be willing to review it openly and honestly. If businesses are being treated differently without a compelling public reason, we should ask why. That principle matters.

Too often in B.C., businesses feel like they’re navigating a maze of inconsistent rules, exemptions and special carve-outs that seem arbitrary and difficult to justify. Small businesses feel it, communities feel it, and the public feels it. Do we really want to create a scenario where the public have to ask themselves which rules apply based on whether a theatre is independent or not?

What theatres are really asking for is not special treatment. They’re asking for fairness. This motion opens the door to a broader conversation about whether our liquor policies are modern, consistent and rooted in common sense, and the amendment applies new legislation equally and across the board.

I want you all to know that all three of my daughters worked their first job at a local theatre just five minutes from our home. To each of them, it was a place where they all received real work experience, learned customer service, had co-workers for the first time and began to see what it meant to live in and serve community.

At the end of the day, people want fairness, they want consistency, they want to be heard, and they want a government willing to listen. By removing the word “independent” from this motion, we can apply the same fairness to all.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Langley-Willowbrook closes debate.

Jody Toor: Over the course of this discussion, one thing has become very clear. This motion is not simply about serving alcohol in movie theatres. It’s about how we balance modernization with responsibility, economic opportunity with community standards and consumer choice with public confidence.

[11:10 a.m.]

The amendment to Motion M207 removes the words “small” and “independent,” ensuring that all movie theatres in B.C. have the option to serve alcohol during mixed-age showings.

No one is denying that movie theatres have faced real challenges in recent years. They are important gathering spaces in our communities, and many are working hard to adapt in a rapid, changing entertainment landscape. The question before us, however, is not whether theatres matter. The question is whether expanding alcohol service into regular mixed-age screening is the right solution. Do we maintain an unnecessary restriction, or do we create a level playing field?

Throughout debate, important questions were raised about public safety, family environments, enforcement standards, economic impact and the long-term cultural shift this may create. Those questions deserve thoughtful answers, because when government expands alcohol service into mixed-age environments, it sets a standard that will certainly lead to pressure for similar changes in other public spaces.

At the same time, we also heard arguments about fairness and consistency from this side. If theatres are already operating under provincial liquor regulations, then government must clearly explain why some businesses are treated differently from others. That inconsistency has been part of this debate as well.

At its core, this is about fairness. The current wording creates an uneven playing field, allowing some theatres to offer a service that others cannot, despite operating under the same provincial regulations.

Ultimately, this discussion extends beyond movie theatres themselves. It is about how we balance economic interests with the responsibility to maintain community spaces that reflect the standards and values British Columbians expect.

There are economic benefits as well. Expanding this option to all theatres would encourage advancement across the industry. It would allow theatres to diversify their offerings, remain competitive and better respond to changing consumer experiences.

As legislators, our responsibility is not simply to follow trends or assume every expansion is automatically progression. Our responsibility is to ask careful questions, examine consequences and ensure that any change we make genuinely serves the public.

For that reason, I appreciate the discussion that has taken place here today and a few weeks ago and the thoughtful input from all members of all sides of this chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is amendment to Motion M207.

Amendment negatived on division.

Deputy Speaker: Now we’re back to the main motion.

On the main motion.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kootenay-Monashee closes debate.

Steve Morissette: Today we have the opportunity to support a simple, practical change that reflects modern realities, supports small businesses and helps keep community gathering spaces alive across British Columbia. Small businesses are the economic heartbeat of British Columbia, and in these challenging global times, we must do all we can to support small business whenever we can.

Independent movie theatres are much more than places to watch films. They are cultural hubs where neighbours gather, where local events and festivals are hosted and where families and friends share experiences together. In many rural and small communities, they are the only place that regularly gathers diverse members of the community together.

Small independent theatres struggle. Rising operating costs and competition from streaming services have made it increasingly difficult for small independent cinemas to survive. This motion offers a reasonable, commonsense way to help them remain sustainable.

[11:15 a.m.]

In my own riding, theatre owners shared with me how the current liquor regulations create an uneven playing field. A theatre can serve alcohol during a live performance with a mixed-age audience but not during a film screening in that same venue. Meanwhile, larger entertainment venues and major corporate cinemas already operate with far greater flexibility.

This motion is about fairness and modernization. It recognizes that responsible liquor service can coexist with family-friendly environments, just as it does in many other entertainment settings today. Strong safeguards, age verification and responsible service requirements will continue to apply.

Most importantly, this motion supports over 50 independent theatres across B.C., many of them small, rural businesses that contribute greatly to the character and vibrancy of their communities. This motion is targeted. It is targeted to small independent theatres because they are the theatres whose sustainability is most challenged.

Large chain theatres are great. I support their success as well. They do already receive benefits far beyond the independents. They benefit from being the first to screen new shows, from having the capital and space to add separate viewing areas to accommodate alcohol sales. They can close off one screen for alcohol sales.

This motion was kept simple to help sustain small theatres. We heard from independent theatres that they did not like the amendment. They said it really dulls the impact of the motion for small independent theatres. It does not create a level playing field but, rather, continues the dominance of large corporate theatres.

Quote from an independent theatre owner in the Okanagan, Scott John, again: “I saw that the motion was amended, and unfortunately, as amended, if it passes, it probably actively hurts us versus the current state. The large corporate cinemas are universally multiplexes with many screens. They already have the ability to designate one for liquor service. Small independent theatres are exclusively single or double screens and don’t have that ability.”

When a local theatre closes, we lose more than a screen. We lose a gathering place, a cultural space and a piece of community identity. Supporting these theatres means supporting local jobs, local economies and the shared experiences that strengthen our communities.

This is a modest but meaningful step that supports small business, reflects how people enjoy entertainment today and helps preserve important community spaces for future generations. I encourage all members of this House to support this motion in support of small independent theatres.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Up in the gallery right now, we have grade 7s from…. Their teacher is Kirsten Pierce from Monterey Middle School. They’re here learning about the Legislature right now.

We have private members’ time, and we’re just about to vote on a motion, M207, alcohol sales in theatres.

Can I please have this House give a warm welcome to this class.

Lorne Doerkson: I seek leave, also, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate that this couple will probably be formally introduced a little bit later by the member for Langley-Willowbrook, but I did have the pleasure of meeting them this morning.

I’d sure like for the House to welcome Avtar and Mandy Bal to our chamber this afternoon. They are the proud mom and dad of our member for Langley-Willowbrook.

[11:20 a.m.]

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The question now is Motion M207.

Motion approved.

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

Motion M208 — Regulation of
Wastewater Utility Costs

Harwinder Sandhu: I move the Motion 208, standing in my name on the order paper:

[That this House calls on the provincial government to address the gap in price regulation from private wastewater utility companies to ensure they charge fair rates to their customers.]

As a proud MLA for Vernon-Lumby, I’m honoured to rise today to present Motion 208, because this issue speaks directly to fairness, transparency, accountability and the responsibility we have as a government to ensure that all British Columbians have equal access to essential services at reasonable and sustainable costs.

Over the past several years, I have heard from many residents in my community, from Silver Star and the area, who are deeply concerned about the growing costs of private wastewater utilities. I want to give them a huge shout-out for their tireless advocacy over the years, incredible work and persistence.

The level of public support for this motion has been significant. More than 30 constituents, and still coming my way, have written to my office and to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship appreciating this motion and asking our government to take action to create stronger protection for our communities facing excessive wastewater charges.

For decades, residents in the Silver Star community have been advocating for oversight and regulation of private sewer utilities. Their concerns are not new and, unfortunately, neither are rising costs that they continue to face. At a time when families everywhere are facing global affordability challenges, rising costs and economic uncertainty, rural residents should not be burdened by utility fees that continue to increase without meaningful accountability or oversight.

Our constituents shared with me that homeowners recently received another increase on their 2025 wastewater invoices following substantial hikes in the previous years. They described that financial strain many residents are facing as payment policies have also changed, requiring people to pay much earlier in order to receive discounted rates. For many households, coming up with thousands of dollars up front is simply not realistic.

Another resident explained that since 2023, they have experienced a nearly 36 percent increase in fixed fees, alongside major increases in consumption charges.

These are not minor adjustments. These are substantial increases that families, seniors and working people are struggling to absorb.

This highlights one of the central problems with private wastewater utilities in many rural communities. Residents often have no choice when it comes to their provider. These utilities typically operate within a single-service area, meaning homeowners cannot switch companies or seek more affordable options elsewhere. In practice, this creates monopoly conditions where customers are effectively locked into one service with very limited protection against unreasonable pricing. Without proper oversight, residents are left vulnerable to escalating costs year after year.

Research provided by the Silver Star Property Owners Association demonstrates just how serious these disparities have become. In some cases, annual wastewater costs for residents range between $1,300 to $1,500, while nearby municipalities pay close to $400 to $500 for similar services. Some homeowners are paying as much as three times more than the residents in neighbouring communities for the comparable service.

This is not simply about utility bills; this is about fairness. It’s about ensuring where a person lives does not determine whether they are forced to shoulder disproportionate financial pressure for essential service. Rural British Columbians deserve the same transparency, accountability and protections that other residents expect and receive.

[11:25 a.m.]

This issue has been raised for many years — in fact, as far back as 2005. During the Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention, the city of Vernon brought forward private sewer utilities in the same way that private water utilities are regulated. The motion was endorsed, yet 20 years later, many residents are still waiting for meaningful action.

This motion calls on government to introduce legislation that would help to ensure wastewater utility companies charge fair, reasonable rates to their customers. The goal is simple but important — to establish transparency, accountability, fairness, stronger consumer protections for the people who rely on these systems every single day.

I encourage all members to support this.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to speak to Motion M208, brought forward by the member for Vernon-Lumby, and want to thank her for her advocacy.

At its core, this motion addresses something very simple, and that’s fairness. It asks whether British Columbians who rely on private utility systems for essential services should have confidence that the rates they are charged are fair, transparent and subject to appropriate oversight.

I think that is a reasonable question, because wastewater is not optional. It’s not something that you get to opt out of. It’s not something you get to shop around. Families do not get to opt out of this infrastructure, and they do not get to look for other providers in different ways. Where service is essential and the customers are effectively captive, I believe that oversight matters.

I would suggest that if we’re having this conversation, we must be honest about the full picture, because wastewater is only half the question. The same households receiving wastewater bills are also receiving water bills and other utilities.

For most families, affordability is not separated neatly into categories depending on which pipe the service comes through. It’s all part of the same monthly cost of keeping a home functioning. There are serious affordability questions not just in privately operated systems but in municipal systems, regional district systems, improvement districts and provincially administered systems as well.

Across British Columbia, families are seeing rising utility costs driven by aging infrastructure, regulatory changes, deferred maintenance, treatment upgrades and climate resilience pressures. I believe that in rural British Columbia, like the member for Vernon-Lumby, we’re seeing it disproportionately in the South Okanagan. They’re magnified because our customer base is small and those infrastructure costs are high. This motion identifies just that specific regulatory gap.

I agree that essential utility customers deserve fairness, and that is the principle that I obviously support. In my own riding, I’ve heard from families facing bills that would shock most British Columbians, bills that are no longer an inconvenience but a genuine affordability crisis. This is creating real stress on seniors and people on fixed incomes.

For working families already managing groceries, fuel, insurance, mortgages and rising day-to-day costs, this is becoming a new line item that they’re having to make choices about. Unfortunately, they don’t get to make that choice to opt out of this.

Part of that frustration is not just simply the cost itself. It’s the lack of transparency. People are asking very reasonable questions. Why are the rates increasing? What capital work is required? How are these decisions made? Were alternatives explored? What reserves exist? Was outside funding pursued? We know…. I’ve spoken in this House frequently about how there is no outside funding for these private water systems and wastewater utilities.

When the service is essential and customers cannot simply walk away, that uncertainty becomes deeply frustrating. They’re basic public health necessities. We regulate fairness in every other sector, where consumers have more freedom of choice than they do here. We regulate cell phone providers, yet we don’t regulate wastewater treatment pricing.

The principle behind the motion is sound. I believe, for me, that has never been separated from water. It’s water and wastewater. Even the member mentioned the UBCM particular motion that they put forward and ratified, and it was water and wastewater. They deserve to know that someone is listening.

[11:30 a.m.]

With that, I’ll be proposing an amendment to this motion:

[That Motion M208 be amended by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

That this House calls on the provincial government to address the gap in price regulation fromfor private water and wastewater utility companies to ensure they charge fair rates to their customers.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you like to speak to the amendment?

We’ll take some time to get some copies and circulate that.

On the amendment.

Donegal Wilson: I want to speak specifically to the amendment that I propose to Motion M208.

At first glance, some may ask whether this amendment is necessary. I believe it is. It’s about fairness in private water and wastewater utility pricing. I believe that it needs to include both. One pipe goes in. One pipe goes out. Almost all of these systems have both. It’s a private water and a wastewater system.

You’ve heard me speak in this House about Heritage Hills. It needs $23 million. That’s for a water and a wastewater system. We’re rebuilding both. Those things need to travel together. For the households paying these bills, they’re not experiencing them in isolation. They come on the same bill. It’s the same manager, usually, of both utilities. It’s the same owner. It’s often a subdivision.

The member mentioned Silver Star. I’ve got Sage Mesa, Skaha Estates, Mount Baldy, Apex Resort. Many of these municipalities have water and wastewater together.

To have a motion come forward that only speaks to one-half of the combined utility doesn’t make sense for residents, and I hope that the member will accept my amendment in good faith. It’s an amendment to try to make significant change for the people in rural B.C., and it comes with the reality of what it costs to keep our taps running and our toilets flushing.

I believe that the amendment is small. It’s not an intent to try to hijack the member’s motion, though I do believe the motion could have been expanded to include regional districts, municipalities. We’re seeing this affordability crisis across British Columbia. It doesn’t matter what kind of system we’re looking at. But in respect of her motion, I’m only focusing on the private water systems.

I do wish that it had come forward as a bill that was actually going to facilitate change, that we could be debating a bill that would make the thresholds on what makes water and wastewater affordable. I have many members on this side of the House, as well as that side of the House, that are dealing with unaffordability in their private water utilities but also in their public water utilities.

We know that these are captive customers. You don’t have an option. It comes as a bill in the mail, and you have to pay it. I spoke in this House about Sage Mesa being proposed at $1,000 a month just for their water. They still need their wastewater fixed as well, which would be an additional cost. That is not affordable.

I have canvassed the minister in estimates, as much as I could, specifically about this piece. Why do we not have thresholds on what is considered affordable? Why have we not defined “affordable”? Because $12,000 a year for just your water bill, to me, is not affordable.

I support the member’s intent of trying to put some thresholds and some guidance around what we should allow private water companies and wastewater companies to charge people.

The amendment should have included municipal systems, regional districts, improvement and irrigation districts. Again, I did not want to hijack the motion and rewrite it and lose its intent, so I made the small adjustment to add water. I’m hoping that government will accept that motion, and I hope the member accepts the amendment in the spirit that it was given, in an effort to make things better for rural British Columbia.

Small systems are inherently vulnerable, and it includes aging infrastructure, the small customer bases. When I mentioned Sage Mesa, I think it’s 223 doors splitting $32 million. That is a disproportionate ability to do that. We have higher construction costs, regulatory compliance pressures, treatment upgrades, deferred maintenance. When those pressures are passed directly to a limited number of ratepayers, those impacts can be severe.

I don’t think it’s theoretical. It’s happening right now. I believe that’s why the member has brought this forward. It’s happening in her riding. I did a little bit of research this morning on private water systems to see what the impacts would be. It’s obvious that the bulk of these systems exist within the South Okanagan, Okanagan and up into Vernon and her riding.

That’s why I continue to stand on my feet in this House to bring attention to this problem, and I appreciate that the member did. I hope that accepting that small amendment to include water into her motion is accepted and that we can move forward to make things better for our constituents that are being forced to look at these bills and figure out a direction forward that they can afford.

Deputy Speaker: We’re going to take a recess. The amendment is being copied to allow it to be distributed. We’ll be in recess.

The committee recessed from 11:35 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Okay, I call the chamber back to order.

The amendment is in order. It’s being circulated. Everybody should have a copy.

Harwinder Sandhu: I want to thank the member from the opposition for speaking and sharing her thoughts. However, I just want to share that I’ve been working with this group for years and did thorough research. In British Columbia, water is already controlled by the comptroller of water rights, and, therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.

As well, the member questioned why it’s a motion, not a bill. All members of this House should know that during private members’ time, we are not supposed to propose a money bill. The original intent was to present a bill, but I wanted to do it so it’s successful. After doing my thorough research, again, the best decision was made to present it as a motion so it can succeed rather than presenting a bill and not abiding by the private members’ guidelines. Then the bill would go nowhere. I want to clarify that.

I oppose this amendment, and I appreciate all the members to hopefully support this motion.

Misty Van Popta: I appreciate hearing the response from the member across the way on this amendment, but it does speak to general concerns.

From a municipal background, I have experience in utility costs and the impacts to everybody on property taxes. One of the biggest drivers is water and utilities like wastewater. So I understand that it is important, given that this is a motion and not a bill, to still recognize that we have an extreme amount of pressures on our utility costs, also including waste removal.

We all have very few opportunities to stand in this House to present a motion or a bill, and I really do appreciate that this is something that you’ve thought significantly about and you are obviously advocating for residents in your community.

This is an opportunity where we can take a motion and encompass…. You know, open it up just a little bit more to make sure that the advocacy is for all British Columbians, just adding in that water piece.

The intent is there. This motion wasn’t meant to hijack it or make it not intended for the purpose. I do want to recognize the impact of…. There are very few of us that have had a bill or a motion on the floor, and this is a big opportunity. I just really appreciate the member coming forward with this. But I still feel like this small tweak, just adding these two words, “water and,” is something that makes it just a little bit more robust.

That is strictly because a lot of the time we don’t experience our utilities separately and, in the effort of recognizing affordability for British Columbians, just to highlight the impacts that water also has on homes.

When we were discussing the motion itself, the original motion, and bringing forward an amendment, there were conversations around: what does affordability mean in the context of this motion? There are no guidelines. I understand the cost implications when we present a motion or a bill to this House, but there was an opportunity for us, in the amendment, to make it a little bit firmer on identifying what affordability means and also encompassing more regional districts.

I live in Metro, so there are lots of conversations on the impacts of especially wastewater treatments — conversations quite a bit right now.

[11:50 a.m.]

But we can’t just stop and take people’s bills and motions and try to rework them into something else. I think the intent is still here with this amendment, highlighting the work that this member has done on advocating and doing a little bit of cross-aisle tweaks to it, just to make it a little bit more robust. That’s the intent with my colleague here from Boundary-Similkameen, and I’m really thankful that she brought this forward.

Then what is that transparency requirement in the original motion? We made a conscious effort to kind of leave it as is, just add the water piece, because the bulk amount of British Columbians, a significant part, are on private systems. So we’ll leave the amendment to highlighting private systems but just add the water piece.

I want to thank the member for the original motion, but I’ll still be supporting having water included in that.

Amna Shah: I rise to speak against the amendment to this motion. I’m a bit perplexed at the amendment in itself.

What we do know is that there is currently a gap in provincial legislation that relates to the costs of private wastewater systems. We know that. It affects people in rural areas of our province.

I think we may be missing something here, and that is that private water utilities are often regulated so that they cannot charge customers rates that are far greater than their own cost of operations, for example. That is not the case for wastewater systems.

When there’s an amendment proposed to simply open something up, which doesn’t really make sense because the prior half that is recommended for amendment, which is water utilities, is already regulated…. I fail to see the point of the amendment.

What we know is that there is already a mechanism in place to ensure fairness in pricing for water but not for wastewater. That’s what the original motion intended to do — to close that gap. So I’m not really….

I appreciate the member’s willingness to really broaden the scope of the motion. However, I just don’t think that it’s relevant, because there is that mechanism in place.

Private water utility rates are established by a rate application to the comptroller of water rights as per the Water Utility Act in this province and also as per the Utilities Commission Act. In these cases, a hearing is provided to customers, and then a decision is made on the application to the comptroller of water rights.

Again, I’m not really sure what the amendment intends to accomplish, because I don’t really think it’s relevant to open up the motion.

What we do know, for rural people across the province…. Sometimes when companies increase rates that are not regulated, people feel the brunt of that, especially in rural areas, and it can really sometimes amount to price gouging. I think in this chamber we all strive to develop — whether it be legislation or motions or bills — or advocate for fairness for everybody across this province.

While the idea of opening up this motion via an amendment sounds really good, it just doesn’t apply in this case because the regulation is already there.

Unfortunately, I will not be supporting this amendment. I really urge the members to understand that there is regulation of private water, private water utility companies, and that it really just doesn’t make any sense to broaden this motion here.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

With that, I respect and I appreciate the member’s amendment.

Noting the hour, I ask that we adjourn debate.

Amna Shah moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Contents