Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Christine Boyle.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: On the precinct today are members of the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust and the Howe Sound Biosphere Region as well as the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region, joining us today as we celebrate B.C. UNESCO Biosphere Day today in the Hall of Honour.

I’d like to especially thank all of their members for their inspiring work in their communities as they bring together local government, researchers, community organizations and hundreds of volunteers to advance conservation, support sustainable economic development and promote education and research.

Very grateful to Ray Woroniak for all the hard work to make today’s celebration a great event for all.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here.

Peter Milobar: I was feeling a little left out of “take your family to work” week, so I thought I’d rectify that.

Will the House please make my wife, Lianne, very welcome here today.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I am so excited to welcome the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus, mayors from 16 of our largest cities, representing over 60 percent of British Columbians. In the gallery, we have…. I know people here want to introduce their own mayors. I’ve already been hearing that, but I am delighted to get to introduce them.

In the gallery, we have Mayors Marianne Alto from Victoria and Richard Stewart from Coquitlam, Mayor Tom Dyas from Kelowna and Mike Klassen representing Vancouver. Also with them is Laura Parent, who some in the House will remember as a former staff who served our members a few years ago.

They are here for a full day of meetings to share their recommendations and actions from a municipal perspective as they approach the end of their terms. We’re so grateful for them as partners and leaders in their communities.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Harman Bhangu: Once again, I have my family in the House. My daughter always gets a birthday shout-out, but my son doesn’t, having his birthday in July, so I just want to wish my son Bal an early birthday.

Once again, I want to introduce my mom, Jasvinder Bhangu. She is literally the reason why I’m here — all her sacrifices. You see me working hard, staying up late, doing all the work I do. I get that drive from my mom. She has truly been a pillar for my family, especially when my father passed away — having gotten married and five months later losing my dad. She has been there for me every step of the way.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to my friend the Minister of Housing for allowing me to introduce the mayor of New Westminster, Patrick Johnstone, who joins his colleagues here this morning.

In New Westminster, we are the second-densest city in all of western Canada. We feel that very acutely. With the leadership of Mayor Johnstone and the team at the city, we are building affordable housing, we are building student housing and we are building supportive housing. We’re getting so much done, and I’m so grateful for the work that Mayor Johnstone and his team do.

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

[10:10 a.m.]

Scott McInnis: I have three guests in the gallery who I’ll introduce briefly.

First of all, my beautiful wife, Diana, is here.

My dad, Rob McInnis, is here.

We have a friend, an absolute legend from Kimberley here — Jim Boudreau, better known as Boots. He is one of the best golfers in the area. At 69, he shot his age. At 73, he shot his age. I’m not going to say how old he is this year, but I think he’s got a shot at doing it again.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just noticed that Amelia Hill is in the House right now. Amelia used to work as part of my team at the ministry office. She had so much spirit and passion for the work that she did, and we miss her around my office.

Please make her feel welcome.

I know she loves QP, so she’s probably happy to be here.

Ian Paton: I’m so pleased to have a longtime farming family here from Delta — Les Hoggard and his wife, Marie, and their three daughters, Renee, Tanya and Amy.

Les and I go way back. He’s a farmer from Delta. They used to be over in Sea Island, the Hoggard family. When the Vancouver Airport expanded, they got expropriated and they moved to Delta. Les and I have been to Kentucky together in the thoroughbred horse-racing industry. It’s Les’s birthday today.

Please welcome the Hoggard family.

Happy birthday, Les. Good to see you, buddy.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I want to take this opportunity to do something which I don’t usually do, which is to introduce someone who has already been introduced. In this case, I think it’s worthy of it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I know — shame, shame.

That is I would just like to pay a small tribute to the mayor of Coquitlam, who is not running again. He is from Coquitlam, and I am from Port Coquitlam, and they are not the same, but Richard Stewart has served his community admirably for many, many years. He’s a former MLA in this place.

I want to say I’ve always appreciated working with him. He did a tremendous job as the mayor and for the Tri-Cities, speaking up for our particular area, and I just want to thank him for his years of service and wish him well now that he’s no longer going to be in politics come this November.

Would the House thank him for his years of service.

Lorne Doerkson: I’m certainly proud today to introduce a great friend of mine. Her name is Amber Nehring. She is a fierce advocate for all things western. She’s involved with cattle producers, but her mainstay is that she is the president of the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame.

She is joined today with some guests that are visiting the precinct from Europe, and that is Nancy Fox and Stuart Bootle. Very happy to have them here. Looking forward to a piece of pie, potentially, and a little bit of a tour of the Legislature.

Please make them feel very welcome.

Stephanie Higginson: I would like to welcome the Cuthbert family — Thomas, Catherine, Connor and Mackenzie — of Southcoast Agro Farms and Island Farmhouse Poultry to the Legislature today. They were part of the group feeding MLAs breakfast.

Thomas is a fourth-generation farmer who is working to help strengthen agriculture and local food production on Vancouver Island alongside his family. The Cuthberts have built a respected farming operation in our community, and their dedication was recently recognized when they were named the 2025 B.C. and Yukon Outstanding Young Farmer. We are proud to recognize the Cuthberts and thank them for their contributions to British Columbia’s agriculture sector.

Will everybody please help me make the Cuthberts feel very welcome today.

Bryan Tepper: Last year I stood here and told you all it could’ve been worse. A few of you probably wondered what I meant. Well, since then, my wife has been talked into running for Surrey city council. I blame a lot of you for that, for encouraging her. Now I’m married to a politician, and yes, it can always get worse, so I can empathize with a lot of your spouses.

A happy 25th anniversary to Rona Tepper, the luckiest bride in the world.

Please make her feel welcome.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I thank the member for Port Coquitlam for stealing one of my introductions.

Richard Stewart is the longtime mayor of Coquitlam. I actually don’t know him as the mayor of Coquitlam, really. I know him as Anna Rosa’s husband.

I want to thank her for sharing her husband with us all these years. Her dedication has held us up.

[10:15 a.m.]

Although Richard and I have come from different parts of the House — he sat in this House as an MLA; I’m sorry I can’t remember what year — he is an incredibly fierce advocate for mental health, and that has only benefited my community.

My real introduction today is that one of my children is here in the House today. I know I have many, and you’re all going to get confused between them. This one is also a fierce advocate for mental health and served with me as an outreach worker when we were working with the unhoused population in Coquitlam and stood by my side in some of the most difficult situations.

I am incredibly proud of them, and I would like the House to welcome them.

Sheldon Clare: Yesterday I introduced one of my staff from Quesnel. Today I’m very pleased to welcome Johnathan Raine, who is my staff in Prince George.

Johnathan will be looking after my Prince George office, which I expect to see opening in a couple of weeks. Johnathan is a very technologically savvy fellow who looks after a lot of those little things that happen to make an office go awry.

I just want everyone to make Johnathan very welcome, and here he is.

Hon. Lana Popham: It is my great pleasure to welcome the B.C. Poultry Association and their representatives here today. They treated us to breakfast in the back of the Legislature this morning. We want to thank them for that. We know they’re set up to meet with many MLAs all day to talk about all of the things that they’re concerned about as a poultry association.

The poultry association is four different types of poultry — broiler chickens, turkey, eggs and broiler hatchers. They represent $1 billion in farm-gate sales. We can’t thank them enough for being part of B.C.’s food security and, of course, our economy here.

Normally you’re not allowed to use props in the Legislature, so I’m just saying that this little chick hanging from my hand here…. This is not a prop; this is a way of life.

Brennan Day: I just want to wish my brother Ian a happy 39th birthday. I’ve committed not to discuss who in the family got the looks, the charm and the brains. He’s had a very big year welcoming another daughter. I wish him all the best.

Statements

Award Winner Jasmine Kaur Sodhi

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize an outstanding young leader from Vancouver-Langara, Jasmine Kaur Sodhi. She’s a student at J.W. Sexsmith Elementary School, and she is one of the 2025 Heritage Fair National Showcase winners — one of only four students in Canada and the only student in British Columbia.

Her award-winning project on The Militant Mothers of Raymur tells the powerful story of Vancouver mothers who fought really hard to build a safer railway crossing for their children to travel to school in 1971 in Vancouver’s Strathcona neighbourhood. Her thoughtful research and presentation won her this prestigious award, and we are all very proud of her.

The whole House congratulates you on your national award.

Thank you so much, and congratulations, Jasmine.

Introductions by Members

Gavin Dew: Mayor Tom Dyas of Kelowna is in the gallery, and with that being the case, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the 106th Memorial Cup happening in Kelowna right now and all of the fantastic work done by the city, the investment made by the city to make that possible.

I got on the phone this morning with Steve Thomson and David Rush, who are the co-chairs, and they insisted I had to recognize all the folks involved in organizing the Memorial Cup and making it happen: Festivals Kelowna; the Downtown Kelowna Association; Tourism Kelowna; GSL and the whole team at Prospera Place; the Kelowna Rockets; the Canadian Hockey League for their confidence in Kelowna; and, above all, most importantly, the 500-plus volunteers who have made this amazing Memorial Cup possible.

Thank you to everyone who has made this happen.

[10:20 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In the gallery with us this morning are Shawn Pettipas, Mattie Jones and Lindsay Byers from BCAA.

Many of us in the House — with your permission, Mr. Speaker — are wearing the Fireweed Pin Day pin. These pins represent the strength, resilience and recovery efforts of British Columbians throughout our province in the wake of wildfires.

I think I can speak for all of us in recognizing our gratitude for all those that are on the ground fighting fires and also all those that are dealing with these in these communities.

Would the House please join me in thanking BCAA for their part in supporting these efforts, by wearing these pins, and welcome them in the House here today.

Kristina Loewen: Well, there are so many people visiting the Legislative Assembly today.

First of all, welcome to our mayor from Kelowna, Mayor Tom Dyas.

My daughter is also joining us again today. She’s just lighting up my entire day here — so happy to see her smiling face back there.

Last, I have some incredibly important family members here representing victims of intimate partner violence.

I’d like to welcome to the chamber today Steph Hartwig and Lauren Zolpis, both friends of Laura Gover, who was killed here in Victoria by…. I don’t know if I can say “allegedly.” We just want to honour her life and death today and honour the presence of her friends. I’m just so grateful for the advocates that they are turning into.

Also, in that, Debbie Henderson, Bailey McCourt’s aunt, is here today. I am so honoured to be here with her and to help to amplify Bailey’s voice. Bailey had a strong voice in life and even stronger in death, perhaps. I know Debbie has travelled all the way to Ottawa and has been an incredible advocate.

I just want to do my best today as a legislator to amplify that and to bring attention to their visit.

Would the House please join me in welcoming all of those wonderful humans here today.

Darlene Rotchford: I know Mayor Alto has been recognized, the mayor of Victoria, but I would like to just recognize her for her work for women in politics. Every year she makes sure she’s bringing women together on south Vancouver Island, party politics aside, to ensure that we’re electing more women in politics.

I’ve known Mayor Alto since before she was a mayor, during my time in Victoria Labour Council, and it has been an honour watching her supporting other women across south Vancouver Island. I think we can all do that in this House a lot more and at all levels of government.

Again, I’d just like the House to make her feel welcome.

Jeremy Valeriote: I haven’t had any constituents in the House for a little while, so I’m very pleased to have two today.

The first is Greig Walsh, a close friend and ski buddy. He’s one of the founders of Greenlight Innovation, a leading hydrogen equipment supplier. Greenlight has sold half a billion dollars in their history into global markets, and that represents clean tech jobs and revenue into B.C. It’s my hope that InBC will adopt some of this technology.

The second is Ruth Simons. Ruth is the powerhouse behind the Howe Sound Biosphere Region Initiative, president and executive director since 2017, previously a Lions Bay council member and recipient from the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation of a blanketing ceremony and an honorary degree from Capilano University.

Most importantly, Ruth has convened the Howe Sound Community Forum for over a decade, which is the most valuable place for me to find out what’s going on in the Howe Sound biosphere and watershed and a great service to all our communities.

Statements

Coquitlam Hockey Club

Jennifer Blatherwick: My last introduction is a shout-out to the Coquitlam Hockey Club, because this year their U17 and U18 teams won their provincial championships. The U17 also won the Prospects Cup, which is an outstanding accomplishment.

I just want to recognize the players, the organizers, the staff, the volunteers and the parents that got these kids so far, along with their own efforts.

Introductions by Members

George Anderson: I rise to introduce Dr. Pamela Shaw. Dr. Shaw is a geographer and community planner and an award-winning professor, with a 35-year career. In 2018, she was named a 3M teaching fellow. In 2019, she was inducted into the Canadian Institute of Planners College of Fellows and the Royal Society of Canada. Dr. Shaw is the research director of the UNESCO Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Research Institute and is in the Legislature today for world Biosphere Day.

[10:25 a.m.]

Dr. Shaw’s environmental stewardship has left a lasting impact on British Columbia, and her commitment to fostering meaningful connections continues to inspire students, colleagues and communities alike.

Will the whole House join me in welcoming Dr. Pamela Shaw.

Just one very quick introduction. There is a school with Mr. Kotai visiting from Nanaimo, Forest Park Elementary School.

I hope that you all have a great time here in the Legislature, and I look forward to communicating with you and having a conversation about what we do here today.

I hope to all of my colleagues that they will be extremely respectful but ensure that we all put on a great question period fight.

Speaker’s Statement

Retirement of Ray Robitaille

The Speaker: Members, I would like to make a statement, a statement about a person. That person is in the House, and I want him to stand up. His name is Ray Robitaille.

Yesterday we had an opportunity to welcome our incoming Sergeant-at-Arms, Jason Laidman. Today we have an opportunity to pay tribute to our departing Sergeant-at-Arms, Ray Robitaille.

As Speaker, I have a unique vantage point into the operations of the Legislative Assembly. Every day I see the hard work and dedication that goes into ensuring that all aspects of operations run smoothly so that members can undertake their important duties. For the past 4½ years, I have witnessed Ray’s commitment to this institution and to supporting members, and I have been amazed by his visionary leadership, commitment to continuous improvement and attentiveness to the staff he leads.

The position of Sergeant-at-Arms predates British Columbia’s entry into Confederation. Ray stepped into the historic role in October 2021 after a tumultuous period, a period that brought the position into the public spotlight in a most unfortunate way. I want to particularly commend Ray for restoring credibility, honour, integrity and trust to this position and for demonstrating exemplary leadership, a commitment to excellence and a dedication to service.

Most members did not serve in this place at the time of Ray’s appointment. It coincided with a time when security and safety needs and expectations started to shift significantly. I cannot begin to list the reforms and transformations in services and service delivery that were implemented under Ray’s leadership in response to these rapidly evolving expectations and challenges. I will summarize by saying that this transition was to the benefit of the Legislative Assembly and that we were extremely fortunate to benefit from Ray’s leadership during his tenure.

Ray, your entire adult life is a testament to a deep commitment to service, whether in the Canadian Armed Forces, the Calgary police service or the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I hope that you will spend the next chapter enjoying retirement and doing the things that bring you joy, surrounded by your loved ones.

I trust that members will take the opportunity to say a personal thank-you over the lunch hour in the Legislative Library.

In the meantime, on behalf of all of us, I want to say thank you, Ray, for everything you have done for this institution. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M247 — Crown Land and
Financial Transparency Act

Lorne Doerkson presented a bill intituled Crown Land and Financial Transparency Act.

Lorne Doerkson: I move that a bill intituled Crown Land and Financial Transparency Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

[10:30 a.m.]

I rise today to introduce the Crown Land and Financial Transparency Act, legislation designed to bring much-needed clarity, accountability and public confidence to the disposition of Crown land in British Columbia.

Residents in our province have spent the last decade watching rights regarding Crown property placed at risk, whether it be docks in Pender Harbour, guide-outfitting rights in the Tatlayoko Valley or ranchers losing tenure on Crown grazing lands. There must be a transparent process governing the transfer of these rights.

This act addresses all forms of Crown land transfers, including land beneath the water and interests in the land, such as tenures for range use, guide-outfitting, mining, logging and aquatic farming. For the first time, British Columbians will be able to see not only the financial transactions involved but also clearly understand who is transferring land interests and who is receiving them.

The act will require the minister to publicly release each year a full list of Crown land and tenure dispositions from the previous year, including sale prices and the identities of new owners and tenure holders. This is a new level of transparency that will apply to all parties, including major corporations and foreign interests.

The legislation establishes a legislative committee that may recommend the formation of an oversight authority to review land and tenure transfers. The special committee will contemplate measures to ensure fairness for all parties — for individuals; communities directly affected by Crown land decisions; and, of course, all the taxpayers of British Columbia.

This bill ensures that decisions about our shared Crown land are open, accountable and considerate of the people and communities who depend upon it.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Lorne Doerkson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Action on Gender-Based Violence
and Remembrance of Victims

Kristina Loewen: Eleven months ago Bailey McCourt was savagely beaten to death with a hammer by her ex-partner. This gruesome attack was carried out midday in the beginning of summer and in the heart of Kelowna. Bailey was a vibrant and beautiful young mom on her lunch break with a friend. She was 32, and she left behind two daughters.

Just that morning her ex was convicted of choking and uttering threats. He was found guilty, and he was released. His next move was to leave Bailey for dead in a parking lot. Bailey was never notified of his release.

The fact that he had choked her was not taken into account as a massive predictor of escalation. Stats say that an intimate partner is 750 times more likely to be killed by a partner that has choked them in the past. In fact, non-fatal strangulation is frequently referred to as a dress rehearsal for homicide.

Bailey had documented and reported everything. She had written a victim impact statement that she will never give. Bailey knew she wasn’t safe. She was right. Bailey lived a life of impact, and that impact continues today. Almost half of all women experience intimate-partner violence; 80 percent do not report it.

The Kim Stanton review says these stats should be shocking, yet the review found that there’s a normalizing of gender-based violence in Canada that devalues it as a crime. Bailey did everything right, and despite the significant risks, she received no protection and no meaningful alerts — and he wasn’t monitored.

Bailey’s family has been to Ottawa, and now they are here. They have turned into incredible advocates, but no family should be handed this burden in place of their daughter, their niece.

Laura Gover was killed here in Victoria. Her daughters are, essentially, orphaned. Her friends, here today — will they also take up this burden?

It’s too late for some — Bailey, Laura, Tatjana, Pamela and dozens more — but will we let this continue?

It’s my goal that we bring good changes for all British Columbians. Their lived experiences are paramount. We have the reviews. We need the action. We gain nothing by governing out of fear. So I declare today: may we in this House leave fear behind and find the political will to implement real change.

[10:35 a.m.]

Deafblind Advocate Penny Leclair
and Guide Dog Jefferson

Janet Routledge: I’d like to introduce you to Penny Leclair. Penny is deaf and blind, but she doesn’t let herself be defined by either sensory challenge. Penny is a tireless advocate for the rights and needs of the deafblind. In fact, that’s how I met her.

For nine years, Penny had a guide dog who helped her navigate the world and kept her safe, both privately and in public. He was a golden Lab, and his name was Jefferson.

According to Penny, Jefferson was more than a guide dog. She describes him as an extraordinary being and their relationship as complicated. Over the years, Penny got to know the inner workings of Jefferson’s mind, whose thoughts might best be revealed when he was doing something one might consider wrong.

Jefferson could multi-task and set aside his canine instincts. For example, he made a conscious decision to overcome his fear of escalators so he wouldn’t jump and throw her off balance. He figured out how to help pick up his toys every night so their robotic vacuum could clean up excessive amounts of his dog hair. He learned how to find her reserved seat on a train.

Penny remembers him as having remarkable self-control. She recalls him being taunted by a bunch of cats, but he knew he was on duty and couldn’t engage with them. Jefferson was very self-disciplined. He had a plan for managing his food and water intake and control of his bodily functions. Penny remembers how strategic he was in his fluid management during a cross-Canada train trip.

After Jefferson’s recent passing, Penny and her husband Paul felt compelled to share his story with the world, so they wrote a book. It’s called Life with Jefferson. I’ve read it, I enjoyed it, and I learned lots about interspecies relationships. I hope you will too.

West Vancouver Lawn Bowling Club

Lynne Block: Imagine it is a gorgeous summer’s day with the sun shining down on exquisite flowers dotted around lovely gardens, pristine greens, graceful trees and all overlooked by a gracious heritage clubhouse with a wide veranda filled with onlookers, laughing and having fun — children as young as nine years old and seniors in their 90s all sharing the same greens, all enjoying the simple pleasures of lawn bowling together.

The West Vancouver Lawn Bowling Club has been a cherished part of the West Vancouver community for generations. Since the early 20th century, it has grown alongside West Vancouver itself, not just as a sporting club but as a gathering place where friendships are formed, neighbours connect and people of all ages feel welcome.

What makes this club so special is not only its history but its spirit of inclusion. Through lessons, tournaments, open houses and youth programs, it has kept a proud tradition alive while making it accessible to new generations. It is a place where young people learn from seniors, where seniors remain active and engaged and where everyone feels a sense of belonging.

In a fast-changing world, the West Vancouver Lawn Bowling Club reminds us of the importance of community, of connection and of healthy living. It enriches West Vancouver not simply as a place to play a sport but as a place where people truly come together, where friendships are born, stories are shared, laughter echoes across the greens and generations connect with one another. It is a welcoming home away from home, where everyone is greeted with kindness, everyone is valued and everyone belongs.

BCAA Fireweed Pin and Support for
Wildfire Preparedness and Recovery

Steve Morissette: Across British Columbia, we have seen firsthand the devastating impact wildfires can have on families, homes and entire communities. In my riding of Kootenay-Monashee and many others, it is a reality and concern we face every summer. Yet in the face of these challenges, we continue to see neighbours helping neighbours; communities coming together; and people showing incredible strength, compassion and resilience.

That spirit is beautifully reflected in the fireweed flower. Fireweed is often one of the first plants to bloom after a wildfire, bringing colour and life back to the landscape. Its vibrant purple blossoms have become a symbol of renewal, hope and recovery.

[10:40 a.m.]

Much like fireweed, the people of British Columbia continue to stand strong, support one another and rebuild together after difficult times.

Today many of us are proudly wearing the BCAA Fireweed Pin featuring artwork by Coast Salish artist Charlene Johnny. These pins help raise awareness and support organizations working to strengthen wildfire preparedness, protect communities and assist people recovering from disasters.

I am pleased that tomorrow, May 27, has been proclaimed BCAA Fireweed Pin Day. The Fireweed Pin is available for a $5 donation at BCAA service locations and auto service centres, Kal Tire locations and London Drugs stores across British Columbia, with all proceeds supporting wildfire resilience initiatives. I encourage everyone to wear their pin with pride, support this important initiative and continue sharing the message of resilience and community care throughout our province.

To learn more, please visit BCAA’s Ours to Protect campaign.

Airport Workers Day

Teresa Wat: I rise today ahead of Airport Workers Day on June 25 to recognize and thank the thousands of dedicated airport workers who keep British Columbia connected to Canada and the world.

As MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport, I am especially proud to represent Vancouver International Airport and the many hard-working people on Sea Island who make YVR one of the best airports in the world.

For many residents in Richmond, YVR is more than an airport. It is part of our community. It is where people work, where families reunite, where visitors arrive and where goods that support our economy move in and out of our province every single day.

Last year YVR welcomed a record 26.9 million passengers and handled more than 365,000 tonnes of cargo. It was once again recognized as the best airport in North America, an achievement made possible by the extraordinary people working behind the scenes every single day. From engineers and ground crews to security personnel, emergency responders, airline staff, logistics teams and customer service workers, airport workers play a vital role in keeping travellers safe and ensuring our economy continues to move.

This recognition extends beyond YVR. Across British Columbia, from Victoria to Kelowna, Prince George and communities throughout our province, airport workers serve with professionalism, dedication and pride.

On Airport Workers Day, I urge all members of this Legislature to join me in recognizing and thanking the remarkable airport workers for everything they do for our communities and our province.

UNESCO Biosphere Region Day

Stephanie Higginson: Today is the inaugural B.C. UNESCO Biosphere Region Day here in the Legislature. This event brings together B.C.’s three UNESCO-designated biosphere regions to share their role in supporting the province’s environmental and economic future and in fostering healthy ecosystems and resilient communities.

UNESCO biosphere regions are internationally recognized areas serving as living laboratories for sustainable development, inspiring a positive future for all living species. I have to tell you, being an MLA for a biosphere region is, without a doubt, one of the best parts of my job.

B.C.’s three biosphere regions are:

Átl’ka7tsem, the Howe Sound Biosphere Region, designated in 2021. It’s recognized for its environmental recovery, including marine glass sponge reefs and diverse mountain-to-ocean habitats.

The Clayoquot Sound biosphere region, designated in 2000. It encompasses coastal temperate rainforests, rocky shores and marine areas, with a focus on combining conservation, sustainable development and reconciliation.

And from my own riding of Ladysmith-Oceanside, the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region. Designated in 2000, this region spans from the mountaintops to the seas and includes the entire watershed draining into the Strait of Georgia.

This September the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region will host the EuroMAB 2026 conference in Parksville. The event will gather stakeholders from over 300 biosphere regions across 53 countries to share strategies on sustainability, biodiversity and community development.

[10:45 a.m.]

I hope all my colleagues take some time over the very busy lunch today to connect with the biosphere region representatives here, learn how we can support their critical work and explore how these globally recognized regions contribute to provincial priorities.

Oral Questions

Victoria School Trustees Court Case
Costs and Document Disclosure

Misty Van Popta: Yesterday the Minister of Education admitted she cannot tell us how much taxpayers will be on the hook for legal costs because she botched a court-ordered document disclosure so badly that the Crown had to withdraw its entire case.

Nine trustees were removed from office. Eight days of court time were booked. Lawyers were hired on both sides.

To the minister: how much are B.C. taxpayers on the hook for your incompetence?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. I have been very clear, as the Minister of Education, from minute one that safety is my number one priority for students, for families and for staff in schools and for all of those who work there.

Yesterday I did say that I would be providing the information around costs. We don’t have a number today to provide the member. We’re still reconciling that information, but I am working to get the information for the member and for the media that asked yesterday.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Misty Van Popta: Well, costs are pretty important but so is autonomy. This minister…. This is major litigation within her ministry. The documents were court-ordered to be handed in, in March. They were finally released two days before trial. This is a new level of incompetence.

If the minister is incapable of such a simple administrative task like a court filing, how should we trust her overseeing our children’s education?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I take my role as minister very seriously, and the work we’ve done in government to ensure that student safety is top priority is key for all of us.

There were significant errors made that came to light over the past few days. It was a rapidly emerging situation. In light of those significant errors, we took significant action to remedy the situation. I’ve been advised by my ministry that the errors were inadvertent. It is my job as minister now to ensure that I get the full understanding of what happened so that it doesn’t happen again.

Lynne Block: Actually, I’m really appalled by what has been going on in the Education Ministry right now. This is Exhibit A of a minister who is not on top of their file, a minister who oversaw a historic era.

An apology is not good enough. This has cost taxpayers millions and shattered the trust of parents, students, staff, educators across the province. The ministry didn’t just fail to release the documents; they tried to claim they didn’t exist.

My question. Was the minister involved in withholding the court-ordered documents, yes or no?

Hon. Lisa Beare: That’s absolute nonsense. No.

In March, the ministry produced documents that were in line with a production order for the court proceeding. I was recently advised in the past few days that there was, by the ministry, an inadvertent error in that document production.

That is a significant error that resulted in a compromising of a fair and timely adjudication of this case, so we as government took significant action to remedy that error. That is the work that we have to do as the government, and it is my job as minister to take the time to understand what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. That’s work we’re doing.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental?

[10:50 a.m.]

Lynne Block: I certainly do.

Inadvertent error that came to light in the last few days. Hmm.

At the eleventh hour, the minister released the documents. This was the minister’s responsibility. As a result, government was forced to withdraw the case.

This Minister of Education no longer has the trust of British Columbians. Mistakes happen, but this level of incompetence is monumental. Was it the staff not letting the minister know that inadvertent error or they truly chose not to tell the Minister of Education? I’m confused. “Significant errors came to light.” Those are the minister’s words. And we keep hearing “inadvertent error.” Let’s not minimize it.

To the minister: either you knew beforehand this inadvertent error and tried to withhold these documents, or you didn’t know. And if so, then are you competent to oversee B.C.’s education system? Which is it?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member for the question. We take our roles as ministers and as government very seriously, and to somehow imply that isn’t happening is simply not the case here. In light of what we have said — we have not minimized — is a significant error, we took action.

I was advised by my ministry staff that there was an inadvertent error that resulted in the failure to produce documents in line with the court document production order. When that was brought to my attention, we as government took action to rectify that significant error. That is the work we’ve done.

Our focus and my focus continues to be on ensuring we understand what happened so it doesn’t happen again and that we put the focus on students and safety and ensure that kids have a safe, stable learning environment, going forward. That’s the work I’m committed to doing.

Tobacco Sales in Pharmacies and
Action on Nicotine Addiction

Rob Botterell: It has been 13 long years since British Columbia became the only province in Canada to continue to allow the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. Almost all major pharmacy chains in the province have voluntarily opted to no longer sell tobacco products, but there’s one exception. London Drugs, one of B.C.’s largest pharmacy chains, has refused to limit the product’s sale in B.C. and continues to refuse to this date. Of course, they can’t sell the product in Alberta, but B.C.? It’s wide open.

Last year I, alongside my constituent Leo Levasseur, who has been advocating for ten years on this issue, wrote to the Health Minister to address this concern. We later received the Health Minister’s response: “Nada. No. Nyet. Non, c’est impossible. We refuse to adjust this policy, but” — get this — “we’re committed to reducing tobacco- and nicotine-related harms through provincial policies.” Empty words.

My question to the Minister of Health is: why is British Columbia the only province to allow the sale of tobacco in pharmacies?

The Speaker: Members, before I recognize the Minister of Health, I want to caution again that members are not supposed to use any electronic equipment here. I have noticed some of you have been doing it, so please stop it.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, although I will take issue with the characterization of the conversations that I have had with the member over the past year, talking about a really serious issue, which is the use of tobacco by people and the known harmful health effects about that and the policy work that our ministry is undertaking to reduce tobacco use, particularly amongst youth but also amongst people of any age in this province because of those known impacts.

I’m committed to continuing to work with the member, hopefully in good faith here, around this conversation. Pharmacies also provide aids for cessation of smoking. An important part of that is the ability for a person to be able to have the contact with a pharmacist and a person in order to be able to have those conversations. Very happy to continue that work with the member.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[10:55 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: British Columbia used to be known for its bold policy decisions and innovation in helping individuals deal with addiction, from fighting legal battles with the tobacco industry to pioneering North America’s first supervised consumption sites and at one time, actually championing the decriminalization of drugs.

Approximately 6,000 people die per year from smoking. The U.K. is unafraid to lead and created the first smoke-free generation, where anyone born in 2009 or later will never be legally permitted to buy tobacco in their lifetime.

To the Minister of Health: is this government committed to doing everything possible to end tobacco and nicotine addictions?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The short answer here is yes. It’s actually the leadership of British Columbia and the policies that we have put in place that have resulted in B.C. having the lowest rates of smoking in all of Canada. Further to that, we have taken significant action against tobacco corporations, resulting in large settlements that come back here to British Columbia to be invested into health care for British Columbians, continuing to drive down those smoking rates.

I am deeply committed to this work. I am happy to work with the member to do this. This is work, I think, that all parties on all sides of the House here can get behind, and that is to drive down smoking rates to low or zero so that we know that the impacts of smoking are not felt throughout our health care system and by British Columbians today.

Government Financial Management
and Credit Rating

Kiel Giddens: British Columbians have seen five credit rating downgrades in the past four years. Taxpayer-supported debt will increase to nearly $200 billion by the end of the fiscal plan. It was less than $45 billion when this government took office.

This government doesn’t have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. British Columbians know the truth. The NDP government has created this crisis through reckless spending and zero discipline.

Will the minister admit that government has completely lost control of B.C.’s finances?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Budget 2026 takes serious action on this issue. We know that British Columbia, other provinces across Canada and jurisdictions around the world are posting record deficits. We are in an economic downturn. We are in a trade war. There is a war happening in the Middle East. These are real issues that are impacting our economy.

British Columbia benefits from a diversified economy and will remain resilient. That’s identified in all of the write-ups, actually, from the credit rating agencies.

We have to continue to take measures to bring down our spending. That is work that is contained in Budget 2026. We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people. These are hard things to do but necessary. We’re increasing, modestly, tax rates while protecting the lowest-income earners in British Columbia. We take this very seriously, and that’s the work we’re doing.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens: What should be taken seriously is that in just a few short years, British Columbians will be spending almost $10 billion per year in debt interest payments to banks, because government doesn’t know how to put the chequebook away. This is taxpayer money that could go towards health care and education.

Moody’s said their credit downgrade reflects “a marked deterioration in the province’s credit fundamentals. This deterioration is driven by continued growth in operating and capital spending, resulting in large structural deficits and rising leverage.”

The government is broke, and at the helm, we have a Finance Minister who has no plan. Credit agencies have given this government an F. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has given this government’s budget the lowest grade it has ever given.

Why is this Finance Minister pretending that all of this is under control?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question. On this side of the House, there is no doubt how seriously we are taking this economic circumstance.

I appreciate the member drawing a quote from Moody’s. I, too, will share an important quote from Moody’s. “British Columbia’s credit profile is supported by a resilient and diversified economy that underpins a broad tax base and limits reliance on any single sector. Exports are more diversified than those of most peers, with lower dependence on the U.S. market. The province maintains extremely strong access to domestic…

Interjections.

[11:00 a.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …and international capital, including a broad range of institutional investors.”

We are devoted to growing our economy. That is how we overcome the debt that we are facing. Of the major projects identified by the federal government, more than 50 percent are in British Columbia. We are going to continue to build our economy aggressively, and the other side should join us.

Budget Priorities
and Support for Seniors

Korky Neufeld: Growing our economy on whose backs?

Basic cable, land-line phones and yarn — what do they have in common? These are the new luxury items worthy of being taxed by this government. Seniors crocheting blankets for their grandchildren. Seniors using the only phone they have, which is a land line, now have to find money elsewhere, with the little savings they have left, in order to survive.

Why is this government pinching pennies from B.C. seniors?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: British Columbia has one of the smallest tax bases for PST, compared to other provinces. We’re making small corrections to that.

But let’s be serious. What truly matters to seniors? I’ll tell you. Health care truly matters to seniors. We know that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I can understand, while I am hearing from the peanut gallery on the other side, that when we talk about health care, it’s hard for them. Why is it hard for them? Because they don’t support the work that we’re doing, hiring more doctors…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …and more nurses into our health care sector. We know….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order, please.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We know what the other side would do were they on this side of the House. Do you know how we know it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Do you know how we know it? Because they told us. To quote the member for Fraser-Nicola…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Members will come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, wait for your turn. Members, please wait for your turn.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …who said that education and health care would have to take the brunt of these cuts. That is not the case on this side of the House. We are protecting health care.

Korky Neufeld: That’s rich. Health care for seniors? Can anybody say long-term-care homes?

This government loves to talk about how the rich need to pay their fair share and then turns around and hikes taxes on some of the lowest-income individuals in British Columbia. In addition to hiking the basic tax rate, hiking the cost of basic cable and land-line phones, which makes connecting to the outside world significantly more expensive for B.C. seniors….

Why is this government shaking down seniors because of their poor fiscal mismanagement?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked if we could say long-term care, and boy, can we. We’ve been building long-term care at record numbers — 1,100….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Love to talk about re-pacing.

It’s just so ridiculous to hear, in one breath, “So much debt. Bring down the deficit,” and in the other breath, fighting us on important measures to do exactly that.

[11:05 a.m.]

So $1.9 million for a long-term-care bed, and you folks would support that? We won’t. We are pausing to look at how to do this in a more efficient way.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That is called fiscal management.

At the same time, we continue to build 1,100 long-term-care beds in this province.

Property Tax Deferment Program
and Support for Low-Income Seniors

Teresa Wat: The minister said: “It’s a very competitive rate. It’s a better rate than many folks can get elsewhere.” A constituent of mine disagrees, saying: “This property tax deferral program was supposed to ease the pain of paying our high taxes when we are on retirement income. Yet it’s as bad as getting a loan from a bank.”

This NDP government has increased interest rates tenfold. Now low-income seniors could lose up to 70 percent of their equity.

Is this NDP government so broke that they need 70 percent equity of all our B.C. low-income seniors?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This program that we’re talking about, deferring property tax, was designed because seniors living in their homes saw housing prices grow extraordinarily and very quickly. It created a situation where they had trouble paying their property tax. So a new program came in to allow for them to do that, with zero interest.

To be clear. Taxpayers cover that. We still borrow to provide that money.

Now, where it went wrong is that people were using that money as inexpensive money to make investments. In fact, if you went onto, for example, Scotiabank to look at their private wealth management, you would see guidance on how to use this money.

That is not appropriate. It’s not appropriate for taxpayers to cover the costs for investors to get low-cost money. That’s the change we’re making.

We are making these loans available at prime plus 2. That is a reasonable rate. The senior does not have to pay any change in their monthly fees at all. If they want to defer their property tax, they can pay that at the time they sell their house. It maintains the goal of the program, and it keeps investors from taking advantage and from taxpayers paying the difference.

The Speaker: Richmond-Bridgeport, supplemental.

Teresa Wat: This is about low-income seniors who cannot afford to pay their property tax. For some seniors, this is the only way they can afford to stay in their homes. If what the minister was talking about….

Why would this minister not income tax the program to maintain it for B.C. low-income seniors?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Nothing is more important than supporting seniors in British Columbia. They’ve built this province, and we continue to support them.

We support them by hiring record numbers of doctors and nurses and health care professionals that seniors depend on. We’re currently building more than 1,000 long-term-care beds in the province. We’ve brought back the B.C. Ferries seniors travel program, a 100 percent discount for seniors. We’ve doubled the seniors supplement — the first time since 1987.

We continue to do this important work because seniors are so important to us.

Northern and Rural
Homeowner Grant Program

Rosalyn Bird: The only thing this government is doing is currently re-pacing long-term-care beds.

Along with punishing seniors, this government is so desperate for revenue they’re eliminating the northern and rural tax homeowner benefit. This means a $200 increase in property taxes for the majority of homeowners outside the Lower Mainland.

Will the Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities stand up and oppose this hike in property taxes directly impacting her and so many B.C. constituents?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: With all due respect, the member is simply wrong. This is not an efficiency-saving measure.

[11:10 a.m.]

The reality is, when the carbon tax came in, we knew it was true that it would have an outsized effect on rural homeowners because they often use fossil fuel for their home heating.

This is related to the carbon tax. When we removed the carbon tax, a $3 billion savings to British Columbians, it was no longer necessary to provide that top-up to rural homes.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rosalyn Bird: Well, I live in rural northern B.C., and there’s no savings for me.

I find it also interesting that the government doesn’t actually let a minister of state that’s female stand up and answer her questions.

Last week the North Central Local Government Association demanded the province reinstate this grant. The NCLGA resolution said: “The repeal of this benefit further diminishes the purchasing power of homeowners in accessing services and supporting daily life.” I know the Minister of State for Local Governments attended their convention last week, so I’ll address my question to her again.

Why did she, the Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities, allow this grant cut to happen in this budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The homeowner grant is one of the many ways in which the province supports people facing high costs of necessities like housing and food, and we’re going to continue to provide the support, just like we support renters and provide cost-of-living relief to those who need it most. For 2026, 92 percent of homeowners will still continue to be eligible for the grant, with an additional grant for seniors, veterans and people with a disability.

What this member is referencing is a $200 top-up that was related to the carbon tax. The carbon tax is gone, and the top-up is too.

Health Care Travel Assistance
and Family Residence Program

Peter Milobar: Governments always have choices when budgets are coming forward. So let’s see. We had the travel allowance for families with sick kids going to Children’s Hospital. But wait. The government backtracked on that and didn’t make that cut. Then, the very next week, they had to deal with the Charleigh Pollock case and, after weeks, finally relented and dealt with that.

Then we find out, oh, they’re back to cutting the travel allowance for families with sick kids around this province coming down to Children’s Hospital. Ronald McDonald House is struggling for funding from this government in this budget, and now we have Gurmoh’s family back on the front steps again, still with no relief from this government, still with no clear answer.

Why is this government trying to balance their budget and trying to find savings on the backs of families with sick children in British Columbia?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Where to begin? The member knows well that the travel assistance program hasn’t been cut. We’ve increased the amount of funding to our third-party partners, who are so integral to delivering these services to people.

The member knows that our budget has been raised for health care across British Columbia because we know that is one of the most important things that British Columbians depend on — that public, universal access to our health care system.

The member knows that we are hiring doctors and nurses at record rates, streamlining the credentialing for physicians and nurses to come to this country, building a new medical school, expanding the seats at UBC, adding nursing seats, adding physiotherapy seats.

When we go out to recruit those people from the United States of America, invite them here, what do they do? They oppose it. They oppose building a new medical school in Surrey. They had the opportunity. They didn’t take it. They had the opportunity to build a new hospital in Surrey, one of the fastest-growing communities in this province. Did they take that opportunity? No.

It is a B.C. NDP government that understands, believes in investment in health care and will continue to deliver this public health care system for British Columbians.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Budget Priorities and
Government Financial Management

Peter Milobar: Well, this is what five credit downgrades in a row get you from a government that doesn’t know how to manage their budget. You get punitive tax measures for seniors in a budget. You get northern homeowner grants that get yanked out, causing an extra $200 in property taxes. You get six long-term-care projects cancelled by this government — not re-paced but cancelled. You get the Burnaby Hospital cancelled by this government, not re-paced. You get the B.C. Cancer Agency, that’s supposed to be part of that, cancelled as well.

[11:15 a.m.]

That is under this government. That is what’s actually in their budget document — not a quote; an actual physical budget document. For all of that, what do we get? A record deficit on top of it and skyrocketing debt. That is this government’s track record on this budget.

Why are they taking it out on low-income seniors, on hard-working families, on families with sick children? Why is that where they are deciding to be punitive with every single tax measure in this budget, while still delivering a record deficit for British Columbians?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Budget 2026 takes measures to address the challenges we’re in for today, but I want to take issue with the posturing that somehow the other side does a better job on taxes than the B.C. NDP. This is not true, and let me describe it.

Okay. This is a comparison of 2016 to 2026. Who pays what in taxes in British Columbia? Let’s take a look. For a family member, for families making under $30,000…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …truly the most vulnerable among us, in 2016, they had to pay $177 in net provincial tax. In 2026, they get back $1,623. For a family making $60,000, 2016…. I believe the member was part of government at that time. Under $60,000….

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: If I’m incorrect about that, some members from the other side were part of government at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: They would pay, in 2016, for a family making under $60,000, $4,238, whereas now it’s $600.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This pattern continues by each category.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, let the minister conclude, please.

Please conclude.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: And it remains true. For someone making under $149,000, they pay the lowest tax in Canada here in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would like to table two reports to the House.

First, Dr. Kim Stanton’s independent systemic review of intimate-partner violence in our justice system.

And the Attorney General’s fall update on all the actions taken to address intimate-partner violence in our system.

Petitions

Reann Gasper: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 638 Mission residents who are deeply concerned about the repeated closures to the emergency department at Mission Memorial Hospital. The people of Mission are calling for reliable, around-the-clock emergency care. I am honoured to present this petition in their name.

Ward Stamer: I rise today to present a petition from 171 residents of Whitecroft, just below Sun Peaks. They are requesting the posted speed limit be reduced to 30 kilometres within their residential area. This change would only apply to their roadway and would not impact the main highway, which would remain unchanged.

Orders of the Day

Point of Order

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I do the orders, I actually want to do a point of order as well.

I noticed a couple of times, even though we do have a couple of days left, that you have remonstrated against members in this chamber for using electronic devices during question period. The fact that you have had to continue doing that says to me that members are not paying attention.

I would ask you, hon. Speaker, in future, to name those members, regardless of which side of the House they are sitting on, so that they comply with your requests and the standing orders that we don’t use electronic devices in the House.

With that said….

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. The Chair takes that under advisement. Thank you so much.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

[11:20 a.m.]

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance
(continued)

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $381,863,000 (continued).

Ward Stamer: I just wanted to pick up a little bit on my original line of questioning yesterday.

[11:25 a.m.]

We basically ran out of time, and the minister gave us, I believe, an abbreviated answer. So I just wanted to talk about a couple of things that are on the record and, maybe, the minister can clear up for me.

Now, when I asked about the Interior lumbermen’s pension plan and some of the challenges with that plan, with some of the solvency percentages that were addressed way back even in the late ’90s, early 2000s, under a previous administration, the minister talked about responsibilities.

Right off the bat, the minister says: “Well, this is a private pension plan, and the decisions on this pension plan have been made by a private entity, through the role of trustees.” Okay, that’s true. She also says: “Where this plan now is, the trustees are working on collecting solvency deficits from employers or determining if they are insolvent. Solvent employers have five years from the date of plan termination to fully fund this deficit.”

Well, the reality is that the B.C. Financial Services Authority, which is a Crown corporation of this government and previous governments, has the authority on private pension plans, and there’s a law, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which applies to private pension plans. So I’d like to ask the minister a couple of questions.

Section 45 talks about participating employers. Under subsection 45(2), it says: “Without limiting subsection (1), the participating employers in a pension plan must, in accordance with section 56, the regulations and the plan documents, remit to the pension fund the contributions that are required to meet the funding requirements applicable to the plan.”

Then further on, under funding the plan, it says, section 52(4): “For a pension plan, the plan text document of which contains a target benefit provision, the liability of a participating employer or, in the case of a jointly sponsored plan, the liability of the participating employers and the active members, for funding the benefits under the target benefit provision is limited to the amount that the participating employer is, or the participating employers and active members are, contractually required to contribute to the plan.”

Now, I’m going to hopefully have an opportunity to have a bit more time to also get into that line of questioning. In many cases, employers did not have an opportunity to decide whether they were able to be in the plan or not, because it was a requirement of employment with a licensee, whether they liked it or not, to participate in this plan.

When we talk about contributions to the plan under the same Pension Benefits Standards Act, under 56 — it was referred to on my first line — it says here, in 56(3): “If the participating employers do not remit contributions in compliance with subsection (1) within 30 days after the end of the prescribed period referred to in that subsection, the administrator or the fundholder to whom the contributions ought to have been remitted must, within 15 days, provide to the superintendent, whether or not the contributions were subsequently remitted.…”

Then there are written notices of what they’re supposed to be doing.

My question to the minister. Why, if this was identified years ago…? This plan was still in effect in 2017, when this government came into office. Why weren’t these employers that were responsible for putting this money in, on behalf of their employees…?

If they weren’t putting the money in, in the way they were supposed to, why didn’t the government act according to the law and find ways to make sure that this fund was adequately solvent — not just at the 80 percent level the minister quoted in saying, but making sure that there was enough money in here to pay the pensions in the first place?

[11:30 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re going to get under the hood a little bit on this plan. I’ll share with the member what I’m hearing from my colleagues in regards to the structure of the plan and the history of the plan and how we ended up where we are.

The original plan…. Where the rub started with this plan, we understand, is that it was always operated as if it were a targeted benefit plan. But in fact, it was registered with the BCFSA, or the previous body that then became the BCFSA, as a defined benefit plan.

A defined benefit plan makes a promise to its members of the amount that they would receive at retirement, whereas a targeted plan is what’s in the plan at the time. It was not a targeted benefit plan and was, unfortunately, treated as if it were.

I think it’s also important to highlight a couple of additional facts. When it was originally structured, in the 1970s and beyond, employers were not required to participate. It was an optional plan that was created by a group of employers, and it was designed originally to remain competitive with unionized environments, to offer something parallel and to stay non-unionized. It was a business transaction that was completely elective.

Ward Stamer: My other question that I had was that…. When it was realized back in the late ’90s and early 2000s, and then subsequently, when this government came in, in 2017, there was a responsibility by the governments to make sure that this pension plan was still going to be operational. That is a responsibility of government. Instead of steps being taken at that time to recognize some of the challenges that we’re facing today, those decisions were not made.

Again, I referenced an example with the B.C. public employees union benefit plan. Yes, it’s not apples to apples, but back in the early 2000s, there was a recognition that there wasn’t enough money going into the plan to be able to support retiring workers. So the government of the day, and continuing today with this government…. It’s continuing to make sure that there are adequate amounts of money being put in there monthly to be able to support those workers when they’re ready to retire. This didn’t happen.

Regardless of who organized this, the government is responsible for making sure that they’re following the rules.

I don’t need a lawyer to tell me that, well, there’s a way for us to get out of this. We can first ask all the trustees to step down, so now they absolve themselves of all responsibility, and then we can come up with a last-employer rule so that we can go and try to look out for some employers that may now be on the hook for employees that have not been under their full tenure over that period of employment, but maybe they have enough money that they can help top this fund up.

That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. That’s why there’s a law that says that if you are not contributing to a plan that you’re supposed to be contributing to, there are supposed to be mechanisms in play to make sure that we force you to put into it. That means that if the employer isn’t able to do it, then the next employer above him would turn around and take that money off and pay it on their behalf. And that didn’t occur.

Can the minister provide me with information on how much money is in this fund today? How many workers are actively taking from this fund? How many workers are 100 percent vested in this fund? How many workers are taking less than 100 percent because of the fact that they weren’t fully vested at the time of them being able to apply for a pension? How many people are still on the books but are not drawing a pension?

[11:45 a.m. - 11:50 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There is quite a lot in that question, so I’m going to take a few minutes to go through the response.

The question, when it was realized in the early 1990s and early 2000s, and then us in 2017: what is the role of government and BCFSA in regards to responsibility? I’m going to be very clear that it is the responsibility of the ILPP board of trustees, referred to as the trustees. It’s their duty to administer the plan to the best interests of its members. They hold the legal and fiduciary duty, and that’s since 2020. This includes holding each employer responsible for meeting their funding requirements under the legislation.

The BCFSA is committed to supporting pension plans in the province that may have funding challenges, but it’s ultimately the responsibility of the administrator to manage the plan in the best interests of its members.

For many years, the BCFSA has directed the trustees to bring the plan’s funding into compliance with requirements of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the PBSA. This has been a challenging, multi-year process. Any decision with respect to changes in contribution rates requires a balance between the benefit security for pensioners and the plan’s long-term sustainability, which impacts both sides — both employers and pensioners.

During the period of the solvency funding relief, there has been a meaningful and steady improvement. At the time of the DB’s component termination, logging division’s solvency ratio is at 80 percent. The sawmill division is fully funded. This is a significant improvement from the logging division’s solvency ratio of 63 percent in 2019.

The trustees have reached payment arrangements with nearly all terminated employers who remained solvent, protecting the benefits of those members. Plan trustees continue to engage the small number of employers who have yet to reach an agreement with the plan trustees to fund their respective obligations. Balancing the aim to protect those members’ benefits will be mindful of the cost associated with pursuing those employers.

It’s also important to talk a little bit about the questions that the member asked. The member asked five questions: money in the plan today, how many workers are drawing, number of vested, less than 100 percent not fully vested, and how many folks are on the books who are not drawing a pension. Quick summary of those five questions.

I am going to share with the member the information that I have. All of the inactive employers that received formal withdrawal notices from the plan before the termination of the defined benefit component have either reached payment arrangements with the plan or been determined by the trustees to be insolvent.

The affected members are in the process of being or have already been paid out. Of a total of 770 members, over 350 received their full benefits. The rest had their benefits reduced by 40 percent or more as a result of their employer’s insolvency.

Member, I would direct you to the trustees directly for the more specific questions that you have in regards to the plan.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:54 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Section C reports progress on Bill 20 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 11:55 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:26 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. We are currently on the amendment to clause 13, which has been raised by the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

On the amendment (continued).

Rob Botterell: I want to begin this morning by taking a moment for all of us to thank the Hansard team who work so hard behind the scenes to keep track of everything that we say and to provide the Blues and all of it.

I’m reminded of this because this morning, far too early than should be the case, I was at a coffee shop. Who should I meet but Susan from the Hansard team, who was also getting a coffee and preparing for a day of helping us with our work in this committee and in the Legislature generally. I just wanted to note that for the record.

In terms of the amendment, where we left yesterday was that the amendment adds “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act.” My question to the minister was: can you give me an example of information that would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the ministry of the minister responsible for this act, so British Columbians can have an example or examples to work with to understand how this section would work and this particular amendment?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’ve spoken to the amendment and the justification for it and have nothing further to add. I look forward to discussing the details of the clause further when we have dealt with the amendment and get back to discussing the bill.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the question. I’m certainly happy to defer discussion of the clause until after the amendment is dealt with. I will note that my question was related directly to the amendment.

Just to assist the minister and her very capable and dedicated staff in preparation for when we get there, in 2024-25 and ’23-24, there were a total of 5,867 FOI requests that were overseen by her ministry through the centralized process, so there’s lots of material to draw on in order to provide specific answers at a later date.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to clause 13 pass?

Division has been called. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on May 19, the division on this amendment to clause 13 is deferred until the start of orders of the day of the next sitting.

Clause 13 is at this time stood down pending the division, and we will move on to clause 14.

Clause 13 stood down.

On clause 14.

Jody Toor: My concern with this clause is that it appears to operationally further expand the information-sharing framework established under clause 12 by expressly authorizing disclosure under information-sharing agreements.

I believe that this committee must clearly understand what information may, ultimately, be disclosed under these new agreements; what safeguards exist to prevent gradual expansion over time; and how government intends to maintain transparency, accountability and public confidence as interjurisdictional information-sharing authorities increase.

My question to the minister. Why was it necessary to expressly authorize disclosure under information-sharing agreements?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The purpose of this clause is to ensure consistency across the bill and to enable clause 12. Although a good question, the information-sharing limits and safeguards are consistent and addressed in clause 12 and have been thoroughly canvassed already by this committee.

Jody Toor: What categories of information may ultimately be disclosed under these agreements? Could sensitive, investigative or personal information eventually circulate through these agreements?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Limits of what kind of information can or cannot be shared under those agreements and with whom have been thoroughly canvassed under clause 12.

Jody Toor: What safeguards limit disclosure authority under this clause, and who determines what information may be disclosed?

My final question to the minister is: will citizens know when information involving them has been disclosed under an agreement?

The Chair: Can I ask members of the committee, when the minister or the member are speaking, to not be speaking, please. It’s fine while they’re thinking but not while they’re speaking.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Asked and answered.

Jody Toor: Are these disclosures subject to independent oversight or audit? Could future agreements broaden disclosure practices beyond the current intended scope?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Asked and answered.

The Chair: The member is reminded that at a certain point, it would be good to move on, please.

Jody Toor: But I have questions.

The Chair: I understand that. As long as they are to the clause and have not….

Jody Toor: They are to the clause.

The Chair: Are you arguing with the Chair at this time?

Jody Toor: No, but I’m just trying to justify why I’m asking.

The Chair: Member, I’m asking you to remain with the clause and not go back over stuff that has been previously canvassed in this committee. Thank you very much.

Jody Toor: Thank you, Chair.

Does government acknowledge concerns that clauses 12 and 14 together create broader infrastructure for information circulation and coordination?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The limits to the kinds of information that can and cannot be shared and with whom, as I have already said and am clearly on the record as saying, was thoroughly canvassed under clause 12.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Jody Toor: Clause 15, the extension of commissioner inquiry timelines. The proposed change reads as: “Clause 15 changes the timeline for inquiries under review by allowing the commissioner to extend the 90-day completion period by specifying a later date and notifying the relevant parties.”

My concern with this clause is understanding how broadly inquiry timelines may now be extended, what objective standards will guide those extensions and whether these amendments risk weakening timely oversight and accountability within the freedom-of-information process. While flexibility may sometimes be necessary, I believe that this committee must carefully examine whether these changes could gradually normalize longer delays within the review and inquiry system itself.

Why was it necessary to expand the commissioner’s ability to extend inquiry timelines?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The clause is about improving transparency for applicants and helps set realistic expectations around the timelines for conducting inquiries and reviews.

It’s important to note that this is coming from recommendations by previous FOIPPA special committees. Three previous special committees have recommended this change. It aligns FOIPPA with the existing provisions already in the personal information and protection of privacy act.

Rob Botterell: The reference that the minister makes is listed in the June 2022 report of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The report is entitled FIPPA for the Future.

[11:45 a.m.]

On page 39, partway down the left column in the last paragraph, the committee states: “Additionally, the special committee agreed that in instances where the Information and Privacy Commissioner is delayed in completing a review, they must be able to extend the review period beyond 90 days without losing jurisdiction over the matter, as they can with the Personal Information Protection Act.”

I have a number of questions. My first question is: what steps are the minister and the ministry taking to ensure that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is properly resourced in order that this does not become a routine event?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is an independent office. As such, the budget is not set by the ministry. There is a separate budget process for such deliberations.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:25 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, to order.

On clause 3 (continued).

John Rustad: At the end of the day, after session, I asked a quick question of the staff. I’d just like to get it on record, in terms of page 36 of the treaty. There seems to have been a bit of a clerical error. I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm that and perhaps walk through the procedure in terms of how that gets corrected.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I was hoping the member would come with high dudgeon and be upset about sub 8(1) and how it did not exist, so I could tell him that it is, in fact, sub 8(l). So it is not an error. The letter L instead of the number 1 is what it refers to, and the member will see that it does link to (l), not (1).

Scott McInnis: I’m glad we got that squared away.

We left off yesterday…. We had quite a Q and A around the co-management structure, chapter 13 of the treaty itself. I want to take some time here to revert back to that specific section of the treaty, just so we have a very clear understanding of what these structures look like, what we’re talking about with the creation of co-management bodies and how they interact with the Legislature. Just dig into it a little bit more. I think it’s quite important.

We did establish, through a series of questions, the role of binding arbitration within the structure of co-management. I was really interested in that because binding arbitration is generally a final step when parties can’t reach a solution in good faith with one another. I think, generally, binding arbitration has a bit of a negative connotation to it at times. So it was really important to be able to figure out where the arbitrator would become involved in the process, either from the beginning or moving through establishing some of these co-management structures.

I’m interested in a couple of additional pieces around that before we move into some other sections around the co-management piece. With the co-management structures or agreements that are put into place, I just want to break that down a little bit, just so that we have a really good understanding of what the future benefits or restraints are on those when it comes to the Legislature.

I just wanted to clarify again with the minister. Any co-management structure that is created, and I appreciate the minister revisiting this with us quickly, whether it’s a consent-based decision-making agreement or what have you, joint decision-making agreement…. Will that specific agreement become a piece of individual legislation that is then embedded within the treaty, or is it, essentially, another branch of the treaty, a side agreement, like we have seen?

[11:30 a.m.]

I’m just hoping we can start that off with just another clarification around those co-management agreements and how they sit within the treaty structure itself, please.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The treaty speaks to the process to potentially develop shared decision-making, sharing governance, but it doesn’t speak to anything beyond that. That would be a separate piece of legislation that would have to come through the House if there were a change in the statutory decision–maker. That would not be housed in the treaty. That would be a separate piece of legislation or a separate agreement with the nation and the province.

Scott McInnis: Just so I’m crystal clear…. I’m not trying to drag this out. I just want a really good understanding of what a co-management agreement would look like. For example, if there were a joint decision-making arrangement created in regards to a forestry operation, perhaps that would be a separate piece of legislation that would not sit within the treaty itself.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, it would be a side agreement, but that would be supported through legislation, which would be a separate piece of legislation, as I’ve said a few times now.

Scott McInnis: A separate piece of legislation. Okay. I may come back to that with one other question. I’m just going to let that sink in for a minute.

With future side agreements that are separate legislation, are there any additional constitutional obligations, beyond ordinary legislation, with these co-management agreements?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, side agreements would not be constitutionally protected like the treaty is. Other constitutional obligations…. Of course, we would still have a duty to consult overlapping nations or any nation that might be impacted by such an agreement. Beyond that, I don’t see any other constitutional obligations.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that answer from the minister and the staff.

Just looking at…. I know my friend from Courtenay-Comox touched on some of the potential challenges that he had raised with a constituent around forestry tenure holders, and I do have a few additional questions I wanted to ask about that, just so it’s clear.

Any of the co-management side agreements that are created — how would those affect existing forestry tenure holders, any harvesting approvals, timber supply reviews, forest development plans, anything like that?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll try to take a stab at it. It’s a bit theoretical, because they are future agreements that could be made. They’re agreements that a future government or any government, I guess, could enter into, should this treaty pass. What we’re talking about is at least two to three years away before this would even become live.

All current policy would still apply. Current considerations around consultations and how the Forest Act and other acts impact forest tenure holders would still apply. So it’s hard to be too definitive because it really depends on what sort of an arrangement were made, what area it impacted, who it impacted, the type of land. All those kinds of things come into effect.

I can’t go into definitive answers on a theoretical project a couple of years from now, but it would be fair to say that the current processes and requirements would still be required.

Scott McInnis: Beyond the existing provincial processes, will forestry companies require any additional approvals, either from government or from the K’ómoks First Nation for any of these co-management structures that we’re talking about?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, it depends on what kind of agreement was made. I would say probably the best time to be getting fuller details on questions around these agreements would be if an agreement were brought forward to the House for further understanding. Again, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer to a hypothetical question about something that might happen in the future, which would require further legislation and likely further policy work as well.

Again, I’ll reference that if the statutory decision–maker were changed and how that process worked, that would require a legislative change, and that probably would be the most appropriate time to get further information on how that process would work, because right now we’re just dealing in hypotheticals.

Scott McInnis: I understand it’s…. We’re talking about potential future agreements to be struck. I just think it’s important to also understand if any of these had been potentially modelled out by the ministry or the treaty team and discussed with anybody that currently holds a tenure, just to give them a bit of a heads-up.

I suppose it’s also fair that because these will be individual pieces of legislation that will come forward, it will give us an opportunity to debate exactly what they are at the time that they come forward and perhaps address the specific issues at that time.

There’s, obviously, a discussion, a debate, around old-growth management and how that looks. So this could be another hypothetical, but when we’re talking about forestry co-management arrangements, are there any special provisions which aren’t listed here to address disagreements over old-growth management in these agreements?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The only shared-use decision-making agreement referenced that’s real at this time is the estuary management agreement, and as far as I know, there’s no old growth in and around the estuary that is directly impacted by that agreement.

Now, I could be corrected, but I didn’t see any when I was out there checking out the estuary. There may well be some that are small that I don’t know about, but in terms of the broader old-growth issue the member references, it’s not here in this treaty.

Scott McInnis: I understand that. I think, again, old growth sits in a bit of a specific category of its own, and I know it is a little bit controversial over the management of old growth in British Columbia and how we’re dealing with that, and there are arguments on all sides of the spectrum on that.

I just wondered if there had been any consideration, potentially, into that specific area when thinking about these co-management agreements and, potentially, who would have final say over the management of the old growth — whether it falls under the jurisdiction of the province or if that’s transferred over to the nation itself.

Again, I do understand that it probably depends on which lane of co-management agreement both parties would decide to enter into. Just highlighting that, again, old-growth management decisions are kind of held in a bit of a separate pocket, if you will.

When we’re talking about…. Whether it’s any of the potentials under this — forestry, energy and mines, environmental management, lands, parks and protected areas, wildlife, fish, water, submerged lands and foreshore areas or ocean protection management…. What certainty under any of those — let’s call them economic development opportunities, industrial opportunities, resource management opportunities, conservation opportunities — could the government provide to investors regarding timelines and approval processes under the co-management model here?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, government, across the whole of government, is looking at ways to speed up economic opportunity — to give more opportunity for people through permitting timeline reductions; more certainty around how decisions are made; and, in fact, co-management in a number of cases we’ve seen across the province that are not related to this treaty.

We have seen faster decision-making when it comes to mining, when it comes to forestry and a number of other opportunities through more consultation and more collaboration at the front end.

Certainly, I’ve heard from a number of large mining executives, for example, who said that by getting in early for discussions with local nations, understanding their interests, understanding the community interests, whether it be a city or a town nearby, they get better decision-making, and then that leads to faster timelines as well.

There’s nothing in the legislation that speaks to permitting timelines, but certainly, that is a key objective.

[11:45 a.m.]

I know, certainly in my conversations with K’ómoks Nation, one of the things they’re excited about is how they believe that through treaty they will be able to make quicker decisions in the valley that will lead to more economic benefit — whether it be housing, job opportunities, etc. — where they don’t have to wait for the federal government to give them the sign-off or get approvals, which can stretch the processes quite long.

I don’t know if that completely answers the member’s question, but there isn’t specific language which says that this permit must come through at this time. Of course, the co-governance chapter, as the member knows, is about the prospect of potentially creating agreements, but there are no agreements beyond the estuary agreement that I’ve referenced.

One more thing just handed to me as well. I want to clarify one thing. I stated, the other day, that the treaty provides K’ómoks with approximately 33.42 square kilometres. I should’ve said 34.42. I think I was speaking fast and jumbled my numbers, so apologies there.

Then the other one is that it talked about 10.4 kilometres of K’ómoks private lands. It is actually 1.04 kilometres of K’ómoks private lands. Apologies. That is quite a difference between ten and one. Clearly, either I missed the decimal point or jumped forward there, so apologies to the member. I wanted to make sure that was clear for the record.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.