The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued supply debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, to be followed by the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, and if that is completed, the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

In the Birch Room, I call continued committee on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Public Safety and Solicitor General
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this House back to order.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,121,960,000 (continued).

[1:35 p.m.]

The Chair: As you’ve heard, we’re going to be considering the budget estimates of Public Safety and Solicitor General this afternoon.

Elenore Sturko: In a bid to protect its workers and to reduce what Loblaws calls “violent incidents,” the number of stores in British Columbia that have employees wearing body-worn cameras is increasing. Loblaws, which owns properties like Superstore and Shoppers Drug Mart, confirmed to media on March 25 of this year that the number of stores now participating in this program is going up to 11, where only two stores were previously taking part.

First, can the minister share some thoughts on retail employees having to wear body cameras to work in a shop? And what provincial programs and funding are being allocated to reduce the risk that retail employees in British Columbia are increasingly facing because of this government’s inability to manage public safety?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Importantly, I think it is for us to consider, first of all, that we are committed with businesses, with business groups, to doing what can be done to ensure that those on the front line and facing customers each day, whether they be stocking shelves or working in the aisles, are safe and have the tools that are available for them to do their job. It’s important that they feel safe, that they surround themselves with other workers and devices that allow that to happen.

We’ve met with business groups. They’ve voiced their concern directly to us. On an ongoing basis, we have cooperated with our policing partners, with the federal government, so that businesses directly, on SITE, can take advantage of the opportunities that are allowed to them to protect themselves when they’re doing their job.

We, of course, fund police throughout the province. We have SITE-funded operations which have directly impacted the outcomes of their group by targeting a high volume of repeat offenders and holding them accountable, reducing public exposure to violent crime and disrupting cycles of violence.

For example, since May 2023, the program SITE has supported 113 operations across 33 communities with approved funding of over $10 million and facilitated investigations of over 2,900 individuals, with 1,900 recommended charges for 965 individuals with substantial seizures of illegal weapons, drugs and criminal assets.

Elenore Sturko: In August of 2024, the Wildlife Thrift Store on Granville said it spent $300,000 over the last three years in costs related to crime in the neighbourhood. They reported the money had gone to repairs and security.

Does the minister believe that retailers should pay, in some cases, as I mentioned, $100,000 a year for extra security and repairs because of the government’s failure to manage public safety? What is the ministry doing to address the rising cost to businesses as a result of the government’s failure to manage public safety?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: We, the government of British Columbia, have been actively supporting businesses when they encounter problems. It’s important that they look to us, and they do, as partners in their fight, fighting retail crime. We funded them to the tune of $10½ million for money that they use to protect their business.

CSTEP, for example, has been a valued program. It’s very supportive. It’s been a success from a criminal point of view. And we’re continuing, as we move forward, to ensure that businesses know that they should come to us to seek support as they continue to fight retail crime.

Elenore Sturko: Again at the Wildlife Thrift Store in Vancouver, the security guard there, Japinder Pal Singh, told Global News last summer that he’s been spat on at least 20 times in the eight months that he’s worked at the store and has frequently had things thrown at him.

He said, “To be honest, all the time I’m afraid doing my job here,” adding that he frequently finds weapons on people. “Knives are normal — bear spray, pepper spray, batons, all sorts of weapons.” He ends up, he said, having to handcuff someone at least twice a day.

Yesterday the minister agreed that security officers who are licensed by the province are not trained to intervene with weapons. If that is the case and there is active violence inside retail settings, what does he believe security officers are supposed to do?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s important that we not confuse the work of a paid security guard hired by a corporation with that of a police officer. There is no expectation that they act like a police officer. We always caution, and they are trained, that they cannot act beyond the scope of their duties. They are an important part of deterrence, and in many cases, that’s the sole job that they have to do.

There are cases where there are regrettable incidents that force a security guard to involve himself, perhaps. But I think it’s important that, in the context of all of this violence, we are continuing to underfund CSTEP, for example, which is an important program, and the barrage program in Vancouver, which had fully and highly trained policemen on the street doing their job every day.

My key points I’d say are that security guards, acting within the scope of their duty, have a limited range of operations, and they must think first about their own personal safety. They liaise on a daily basis with the police in their neighbourhood, and there is an ability to continue to curb that kind of violence by the presence of police.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: I just want to welcome the students from St. Mary’s School who are visiting us here and are up in the gallery.

It’s so nice to have you here.

I understand that they had a tour with Minister Dix or got to meet with Minister Dix earlier.

I’m glad to have you here for estimates, which is an important part of our budget process, where we have these sorts of questions and answers and discussions.

Will the House join me in welcoming students from St. Mary’s School and their teacher, Mirna Lewis.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Kids, that minister is generally referred to as the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions in this room.

Debate Continued

Elenore Sturko: In his response, the minister said that security guards need to act within the scope of their training and their duties. We’re talking about people who are licensed, for example, by this ministry to be advanced security guards, which allows them to put handcuffs on people.

As the minister will remember from his more-than-three-decades-long policing career, and I remember from my much shorter policing career, if you put handcuffs on people, you go hands-on. When you go hands-on with people, the chance of encountering a weapon or even strikes from a person goes up.

The minister also said in his previous answer that sometimes there are situations where people may be forced to intervene. Could the minister please explain what he means by forced to intervene?

Hon. Garry Begg: When I say that the security guard may be forced to intervene, I don’t mean that there was physical force attached to him. Under the circumstances, he or she decided that the most appropriate course of action would be to intervene.

[1:55 p.m.]

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister.

I’ll give you a couple of examples here of some rising concern that, as critic for Public Safety, I have with the scope of what’s happening and the reliance upon, increasingly, security services to be brought into retail, to be brought into…. Almost every place you go now, they’re hiring security guards.

I think it’s heartwarming to see how many people want to step up to be deterrence, as the minister says, to try in their own way to protect their fellow community members. We’re talking about a scope of work that is increasingly high risk in situations. We’ve already heard from Mr. Pal Singh that they get assaulted and they’re being exposed multiple times a day to things like weapons.

On April 10, outside of Granville Square — and this is in 2025 — near Granville and West Cordova Street, a 62-year-old security guard had his fingertip bitten off. The victim was on shift when he encountered a suspect in an outdoor plaza, police said. Going back in time in March of 2022, Harmandeep Kaur, 24, died after she was attacked during her shift as a security guard at the Kelowna campus of UBC Okanagan.

Lots of security guards are newcomers. Many of them are elderly. Many are adapting to speaking English in their new country, in their new work environments. As more businesses are relying on security guards, we have the potential for more injuries and even deaths.

Does the minister believe that security guards that his ministry is licensing are qualified to deal with the level of danger that they are being exposed to?

Hon. Garry Begg: I think we’re veering into hypothetical situations. The situation itself is not hypothetical, but we’re being hyperbolic about occurrences that do happen.

I know through my own personal training, I know through the Justice Institute of B.C. that there are a variety of options that security guards face. Of course, one of the options is that they can withdraw from a situation that they judge could be dangerous.

It’s excessively hyperbolic to use examples of the rare occasions when something does happen that could perhaps have involved another method by the security guard so that they withdraw from that dangerous situation, which is not to say that there cannot be unexpected results of contact with a person. But to concentrate on that alone, I think, presents the perception that there is always danger there.

I believe that the Justice Institute provides a level of training that if the member works within the scope of their duties, they should be in a better situation. And it’s always an option to withdraw from a situation.

Elenore Sturko: I find it really disturbing to hear the minister categorize talking about…. These are just three, within the last half an hour, of multiple incidents happening across the province where we have…. Even from my own community, the minister’s own community in Surrey, we see multiple incidents where it doesn’t have to necessarily be having your thumb bitten off like this poor 62-year-old, but getting spit on, shoved.

I mean, this isn’t hyperbole. This isn’t me exaggerating. These are real risks. In fact, we had the Minister of Health standing in here. We discussed this. We canvassed it yesterday in response to rising stabbings, uttering threats with weapons, things like machetes, crossbows, these types of risks being in places like hospitals.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now we have people…. And from my own experience dealing with people in the security services while I was taking files as a police officer, many are newcomers — many. Many have language challenges. We’re expecting a lot, and people are getting hurt.

To stand up in this place and say that it’s an exaggeration, that it’s hyperbolic, that I’m making a mountain out of a molehill…. We had a security guard, a young woman who was actually working that job to save money for tuition to go to UBC Okanagan She was killed trying to protect people on her campus. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we engage in a discussion, perhaps, on the circumstances that we currently have going on in the province.

With an increase in people with brain injuries, severe substance use disorders, untreated mental illness to the extent where we’re putting designated beds into pretrial and other places so that we can try and get a handle on the rampant violence that we have, random repeat attacks that we would be expecting that…. Businesses and people are fearing for their safety. They’re bringing these individuals into their space.

There is an expectation there. When the public sees a security guard, there is an unspoken expectation that comes with wearing a uniform, even if that uniform only has a flashlight on it. I think that some thought needs to go into looking at what expectation is being placed on security guards in this province, as a result of an epidemic of retail crime that’s absolutely gotten out of control.

Some headway has been made with things like ReVOII, but it hasn’t solved the problem. And we see increasingly even retail employees wearing things like stab vests and cameras. We need to understand and collect data on what type of risk that poses, then, on people who are now wearing security equipment. What is the expectation being placed on them? What type of risk may they then place themselves in inadvertently?

Retailers are also closing. A vintage consignment store in Vancouver’s downtown core packed up and moved, after nearly a decade in the area, because of rising crime rates in the neighbourhood. “The downtown neighbourhood has unfortunately declined over time. Factors like injection sites across the street from the store and an overarching unsafe feel has become the norm. Numerous shop owners have experienced an increased rate of crime and break-ins in the area as well.”

It’s not only retailers who are feeling less safe. At a public forum in Victoria, area residents discussed a new housing project that included drug consumption services. “When SOLID started at North Park, we saw a notable uptake in the amount of drug paraphernalia that children were bringing into the school at recess. What are you going to do for the children in this community to keep them safe?”

A teacher at George Jay Elementary, located less than a kilometre away from the proposed housing project, voiced worries for her students’ safety. “When I look at the other places in town, it doesn’t matter where they are, whether it’s North Park or Ellice or the 900 block of Pandora, they are disaster zones. I believe that we’re on a road that is going to get worse and worse and worse.”

The reality is that people can see it with their own eyes. They can see what’s happened in areas where there is a concentration of services that enable drug use. The disorder is obvious. Can the minister please provide information on how the ministry is managing public safety risks and crime associated to drug use, mental health street disorder that often accompany these services? What risk assessments are being done to protect and keep the communities safe?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: None of these places act in isolation. It is part of a community that has been built up over a number of years. Sometimes the best recorders of that information are the policing community themselves, policemen who are on the street, who identify for us areas of particular concern to them.

When you talk of incidents where someone has been spat upon or threatened with a knife or seen some other type of force applied upon them, that is not unique to that community in the sense that the policing that goes on there every day becomes aware of it.

In the provincial government, what we’ve done is concentrated our scarce policing resources on a particular area, so that the issues that are there present can be changed. The barrage program I referred to earlier, from October 1 to January 31, saw a successive drop in the rate of crime in that area, which was, no doubt, because of the police presence and their concentration on crime in that area.

Violent crime was down in that area 27 percent; break and enters, down 33 percent; assault with weapons, down 45 percent; and shoplifting itself, down 36 percent.

[2:10 p.m.]

So while you, perhaps, choose to look at other areas, I choose to look at the stats that have been established by the police: the arrests that have been made. It’s also important to understand that violent crime now is down in that area as well.

Are the police impacting the rate and the incidence of crime? I would say: “Absolutely.” Now we’re going to add CSTEP to that program as well. So we will see, I predict, a decline in overall crime as we continue to impact it by a program like CSTEP.

The Chair: Just a reminder to have all responses through the Chair.

Elenore Sturko: I’m happy to hear that the minister believes public safety resources are scarce; I agree. It’s interesting that the minister chooses to concentrate on VPD’s success. The question wasn’t about whether or not VPD was successful or whether intensive policing projects can be successful — because they can.

This question really was speaking about both the case of a retailer that shut down because of factors like a safe injection site, an overarching unsafe feeling that resulted from that, and break-ins in the area of the injection site in Vancouver.

Then here in Victoria, SOLID was opening housing that included drug use, and teachers and other community members were coming forward to say that the kids at recess were bringing in needles and drug paraphernalia from open drug use in the school grounds and in the area where the kids play.

The question wasn’t about whether VPD is being successful with project barrage, which they are. It was what risk assessments are done by the ministry, or what will be done, to protect the community.

This is a government that continues to place resources for people with addiction in areas located close to schools, housing, neighbourhoods and retail, and the results are not good. We still have six people a day dying of drug use, and in addition, we have businesses closing, community members feeling unsafe and, apparently, kids playing with drug paraphernalia.

The question was — maybe I’ll word it differently: what budget measures are allocated to mitigate the risks to public safety because of increased public drug use?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: This is becoming a circular discussion. We, as a funding agency, have created programs that I’ve outlined, like SITE and STEP, which have been amazingly successful. The police continue to work that area. They collaborate, they cooperate, they receive information, they receive intelligence, they identify risks, they shift their resources to meet the risk that is there.

It’s dangerous to connect criminal behaviour with drug behaviour sometimes. There is sometimes a connection, but there is not always a connection. To assume that someone who is abusing drugs is a different kind of criminal is dangerous. We have invested, the police have invested money to counteract criminal activity at a much higher level. For example, the CFSEU goes after much higher risk. We’re not now talking about street crimes. We’re talking about crimes at a higher level.

The discussion becomes circular when you say that we did or did not do this or that we should or should not do this. You don’t get the complete picture until you look at all of it. There is as much regard for prevention, reformation and redirection of criminal activity through policing as we move forward.

My expectation is that the police will continue to concentrate on the highest or higher risks. It’s much more effective to combat criminal activity, particularly drug activity, the higher up the chain you go. The police are looking after the street-level crimes and also the large crimes that may involve international and extraprovincial criminal activity.

Elenore Sturko: I’ll just remind the minister that even during decriminalization it remained illegal to possess drugs in a schoolyard. So if kids are finding used paraphernalia in a schoolyard, that’s evidence of a crime. It’s criminal activity. While I understand the minister might be after the cartels, as he should be, it’s also important to remember that there are people who live in these neighbourhoods.

Even something as simple to the minister, perhaps, as possession of drugs in a schoolyard, maybe that doesn’t seem like a big crime. But if you’re the parent of a kid who comes home with a hypodermic needle in their backpack or that little kid that picked up some fentanyl at a Nanaimo playground, I mean, it’s your whole world.

During VPD’s project barrage, Vancouver police dealt with a room takeover. A room takeover is a situation where a resident is forced out from their single occupancy suite by individuals who use them as bases for criminal activity. Room takeovers have been reported in the past, of course.

In 2022, the Tyee did a news story on it when a support worker reported that multiple tenants of the London Hotel SRO were threatened with violence by the people who had taken over their rooms, and if they would return, they would be threatened with violence, and some became homeless again.

[2:20 p.m.]

Based on conversations that this gentleman had with clients, he said that tenants who had been bullied out of the London continued to pay rent for their rooms, that money was deducted from their income or disability assistance cheque and that that was transferred to Atira Property Management, which is a common arrangement for people on government assistance.

The worker said: “Even though they’re still paying for the room, they’re told they’ll get beaten up or really hurt, hurt badly if they tell anyone or if they go back.” There have been multiple reports of supportive housing in hotels and other locations becoming hubs for drug trafficking and prostitution.

Can the minister please explain and provide details on any interministry work with the Ministry of Housing or Health or Poverty Reduction or funding of initiatives that go towards reducing crime at B.C. Housing projects or any policies or initiatives related to supportive housing?

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s important here that we recognize from the outset that there is tremendous cooperation across various ministries in this province. We collaborate and cooperate with each other. Most ministries do not work in isolation, one from the other.

We have situation tables across the province — 33 to be specific. Those are one-stop shops, as it were. You may be familiar with situation tables where people from the Ministry of Housing, people from the Ministry of Health, people with drug addictions, parole, probation, police all get together and map out a plan that allows for the relocation or dislocation of these people from their criminal activity.

[2:25 p.m.]

That is something that has been going on in this province for quite some time, and my expectation is that it will continue and expand. These problems and problem people do not work in isolation of each other. They have built a community around them, to their detriment. A situation table with the resources that are available all across the various ministries makes it much easier for those people to make a decision to change their lifestyle.

The direct answer to your question is: there is on an ongoing basis, every day of the week, a situation table somewhere in this province that is dealing with the problems that are peculiar to their community. That’s by design. It is working.

Information, of course, is shared back with the police. Targeting is done as a result of information that is obtained during the situation tables. That’s how we get to helping people in community, whether it’s in Campbell River or Surrey or wherever, to solve their problems.

Elenore Sturko: The decriminalization experiment in British Columbia, which began on January 31, 2023, allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 grams of certain illicit drugs — heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA — for personal use without criminal penalties.

The three-year pilot, intended to reduce stigma, decrease criminal justice interactions and address the province’s drug crisis, was scaled back in 2024 due to public outcry related to rampant public drug use and the inability of police to respond to that problematic drug use.

From February to June 2023, B.C. saw a 76 percent drop in possession offences, as police had stopped arresting people for possession and were, during the pilot, discouraged from interactions with people using drugs. The 15 months of the pilot also coincided with the deadliest year for overdose deaths in the history of our province.

Has the ministry evaluated the impact of the decriminalization experiment on overall drug investigations?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The question is perhaps better answered by the Ministry of Health. They are doing an ongoing evaluation, and they have included in their evaluation, on an ongoing basis, the policing agencies as well. But they’re better equipped to perhaps speak more about the program than I am.

Elenore Sturko: It’s unfortunate. I’m still going to ask a series of questions related to public safety. I think that it would be actually surprising, given that this was an experiment undertaken, yes, for health reasons but that had significant impacts on the public safety landscape, especially at the street level. It had an impact on how police could conduct investigations, often that start at the street level by talking to people.

I think it’s unfortunate, if this is what the minister is confirming, that they are not doing their own Public Safety Ministry evaluation separate from Health, which would have a bias. I’m going to say it. When the evaluations were going on, while decriminalization was still in full swing, even in terms of monitoring, there was no monitoring of negative unintended consequences.

There was no monitoring of the impacts of not enforcing the law, but only trying to bolster arguments to keep going — even in the face of significant harms that were happening at the street level, in hospitals, in places like transit and in restaurants, where people were using drugs — and police were powerless to take action.

Is there information, though, about how decriminalization impacted street level enforcement and investigations? How, in the 2025 budget, are they working through some of these impacts?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: This, as I’ve mentioned, is an ongoing evaluation. The information obtained through the Health Ministry is gained by the benefit of having police input there as well.

In spring 2024, we requested a change to the section 56 CDSA exemptions from Health Canada in response to public concern about public drug use. The new exemption bans open drug use in nearly all public places. People can now only possess drugs in private residences or designated health care sites such as overdose prevention, drug-checking or addiction treatment service locations. An exception has also been made for unhoused people in legal overnight sheltering options.

The evaluation is ongoing with the cooperation and with advice from the police on an ongoing basis.

Elenore Sturko: I understand that, and I understand why, from a health care perspective, a review would be done of the decriminalization experiment. But also, there would be a need for a Ministry of Public Safety review, because from a health lens, there will be different things that they’re looking for.

For example, when they had their dashboard, the things that they were looking for about police…. They were only looking at whether or not the number of arrests for people for possession went down, which, of course, they did because they weren’t arresting people, because that part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was gone.

But what about the increase to drug use in hospitals? What about the number of incidents that they were called to where there was drug use on beaches? Fiona Wilson went to the parliamentary committee, HESA, in Ottawa and talked about a scenario where if someone was smoking crystal meth next to your family at the beach, the police couldn’t respond because it wasn’t illegal.

What about a full evaluation of how this experiment impacted safety, through a safety lens, through the minister’s lens of looking…? Yes, we wanted to do an experiment to try and see if we could deal with this issue solely looking through the health lens, and it was disastrous. What impact did that actually have?

Did we have an increase in gangs and cartels? Survey says yes, we did. We saw a doubling, actually, almost. We talked about that yesterday. The number of cartels and gangs identified operating in the province of British Columbia happened to coincide around the time that we had 15 months of not enforcing possession laws in British Columbia.

I don’t know if that’s a direct result or if it happens to be a really wild coincidence, but a review of the decriminalization experiment from the lens of public safety would be appropriate to make sure that if someone gets the wild idea that we should stop enforcing B.C. and Canada’s laws ever again, we know what the impact is going to be, because it is a matter of safety.

In May ’24, the minister is correct that the government recriminalized drug use in public. It allowed the police to arrest, seize drugs, compel individuals to leave. When the Premier went on television and did a news conference about rolling back the decrim experiment, he still stipulated that police would be encouraged to simply move people on and that, in fact, the previous Sol. Gen had said that that’s basically the last option.

[2:40 p.m.]

They didn’t want to still arrest people. They wanted to not charge people. unless it was an extenuating circumstance.

I’m wondering if the minister can please explain: has the number of charges for possession of drugs increased since the rollback of the pilot?

Hon. Garry Begg: There has been an increase in the number of charges subsequent to the change in the act. I would say, as well, that it’s important that police are given a wide use of discretion in these types of charges.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister for the response.

During project barrage, in just over a month, VPD executed 153 warrants. Those were arrest warrants. They made 204 Criminal Code arrests. As well, 200 weapons were seized in four weeks. That’s a 258 percent increase, which, as the minister earlier stated, did result in a 30 percent reduction in assaults with a weapon.

During decriminalization, police were not able to conduct the same type of street-level enforcement due to the removal of possession charges from the CDSA. How did that impact safety, and what kind of data related to warrants and weapons seizures during the decriminalization experiment exists?

Will there be a thorough review to see what impact decriminalization had on the execution of warrants and seizure of weapons at the street level during that time?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I’ll take the question under notice and get back to you with that information.

Elenore Sturko: I think this is important. I think that understanding the full scope of how we were impacted during that time…. If we make a decision to make some other kind of change to help stop the six people a day from dying, we need to not only look at the reduction of harm for people with substance use issues but what those overarching impacts to public safety as a province it will have.

I can remember, and I’m guessing the minister remembers, too, street-level enforcement, where there was, for example, the possession of drugs, often leading to the seizure of a weapon — not necessarily resulting in a charge even, but incidental to arrest or detention for investigation — and seizing things like machetes, chains, all kinds of things that do have an impact on our ability to manage the types of violence at the street level.

One of the stats that the VPD had talked about is that it’s not just that the amount of assaults overall had gone down but the assaults with weapons went down. While there may still in the Downtown Eastside during project barrage be assaults that take place, the severity of the injuries to the victims could be substantially less because they’ve had an opportunity to remove weapons, which is, of course, really a positive thing.

My last question here on the decriminalization pilot is: will the ministry commit to compiling data on decriminalization, not only to see if there were fewer arrests and then subsequently more arrests but looking at all the other aspects that these changes had on street-level enforcement, on the ability of police to conduct investigations and on sort of the drug trafficking landscape as it evolved over that period of time in British Columbia?

Hon. Garry Begg: Interesting proposition. We will do, as part of an integrated process with other partners, a review, as you suggested.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you. That’s good news, and I’d be happy to help in any capacity that the opposition can lend a hand.

I only have a few minutes left before I’m going to turn this over to the member for Surrey-Panorama. So I just want to follow up quickly on a couple of things from yesterday, related to illicit vapes, tobacco and cannabis.

We are in a financial situation in the province where we actually need to collect as much revenue as we can from all those sources. We know that the revenues from cannabis and tobacco products and nicotine products go back into our system to fund the very projects that we badly need.

Unfortunately, we know that at least for cigarettes alone, it’s a 34 percent illegal market share that is estimated by industry research. This would translate into 534 million cigarettes, which costs about $174 million annually. Over time, that’s quite a bit of money that could be injected into other programs, including law enforcement. A 1 percent, 5 percent or 10 percent reduction in illegal tobacco is worth $5 million, $25 million or even up to $50 million, respectively.

[2:50 p.m.]

For the sake of time, I’m going to ask a few of the questions, so that I don’t fall behind. When it comes to vapes, vapes in particular don’t just have these financial implications. They also have health and safety implications as well.

The industry, along with other authorities, conducts reviews of retailers in the Lower Mainland and across the province. They did a retail sweep in the Lower Mainland in June of 2024, and they inspected 60 vape product retailers. Of those, 56 out of 60 stores — that’s 93 percent — were selling non-compliant products. That’s a lot.

Those products are fraudulently packaged disposable devices that had more than the allowable amount of fluid, more than the concentration that they were allowed to have of the product inside. Because it has more vapes inside, it actually is stealing provincial sales tax and, of course, the excise tax.

There were also illegal nicotine patches in approximately 50 percent of the retailers, including Zyn. They’re not allowed here, but they’re still available, apparently, in 50 percent of the retailers that were inspected.

Let me read a few of these, for the sake of my own time here, and I would love to hear just generally what the thought here would be.

There are actually some changes to regulations that are being suggested by industry to help to take away the market share from the illicit sources. Really, looking for a commitment from the minister in terms of vaping products, they’re looking for removing the volume restrictions so that the legal retailers are able to compete and remove that market share from the illicit sources; also, removing the regulation that says that refill containers can’t have more than 30 millilitres.

They note that some of the reasons why we had these restrictions here in British Columbia were because of safety for kids, but a new federal regulation had come in and increased the amount of safety on those devices, making these redundant pieces of legislation. They feel that in removing those restrictions, it allows them to basically compete with the illicit sources and hopefully remove the market share from those other guys.

Likewise, the cannabis industry is struggling. Costs and fees are placing burdens on our B.C. cannabis growers with pressure, and licensed growers have come here and said that they’re leaving the industry because of rising costs. Again, once we lose our legal market, they can be easily displaced by illicit sources, which still make up a fairly big chunk of the market here. Illicit sources continue to take a large market share here in British Columbia.

Again, they’re asking for regulatory changes to allow, for example, cannabis tourism, kind of like winery tourism. They’re looking for regulatory change permitting responsible consumption within production retail settings. Like visiting a winery and having a glass of wine, they want you to be able to go to their cannabis production and be able to sample products.

That would generate jobs, also revenue in terms of the taxation for the government, and help reduce that market share for illicit sources, fighting organized crime. It’s a win-win. Get your money here to pay the bills and fight organized crime.

Looking for a commitment from the minister to please review, both in the cannabis act and then for the tobacco and vapes, regulations that will help reduce the market share for illicit sources and help boost tax revenues back to the province.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: I would like to welcome students, staff and parents from St. Mary’s School in Vancouver who are here visiting and having a tour of the Legislature today. We’re so glad to have you here.

We’re in the midst of estimates, which is when the opposition asks questions of the government on the budget. So glad that you could join us and that I get to welcome you on behalf of Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, who is the MLA in your school area, though I know you’re from across Vancouver, and I know some of you are also constituents of mine. I’m glad to see familiar faces and friends.

Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Elenore Sturko: Can I just add one thing? In terms of the vapes, one of the issues with non-compliance is that they were looking to see if there would be a greater appetite for enforcement. Their inspections in those are finding a high percentage of non-compliance — looking to see if there would be a further commitment for the enforcement of those regulations.

Hon. Garry Begg: I would say at the outset that, particularly, the legal cannabis industry has been and continues to be very forward-thinking in adapting and changing regulations so that it better meets the needs of the market.

In B.C., they enacted a legal and regulatory framework to govern retail sales and distribution as well as dedicated enforcement to support the transition from illicit to legal and regulated.

My ministry leads the ongoing implementation of the provincial regulatory framework as well as policy coordination across ministries and in alignment with the federal government. We’re working across ministries, with cannabis industries, Indigenous partners and local governments to identify where adjustments to the provincial framework can be made to support the legal sector, including increasing access to industry support programs and gradually enabling cannabis hospitality and tourism experiences.

Since legalization, we’ve made several adjustments to the provincial framework to support the legal sector. Examples include authorizing licensed retailers to offer online sales and delivery, developing programs for farm-gate sales and direct delivery distribution and adjusting rules around promotion of places to consume cannabis. The ministry is now looking towards enabling cannabis sales at events like craft fairs and this kind of thing.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s also important, as far as the vape goes, in this province, it is regulated not provincially but municipally. The enforcement mechanism there is usually on a bylaw basis. I’m aware that there are problems with the industry and the sale of product that is not suitable for human consumption, but the enforcement of the regulations is a municipal responsibility.

Elenore Sturko: Sorry, just one follow-up before I turn it over. In terms of the regulation provincially that stipulates how much strength or how many vapes…. I don’t know; I’m not a vape person. How many servings that are inside the vape that are allowed to have…. This is where the discrepancy is.

Even though Health Canada has also tested these samples, they’re finding that your provincial sales tax, our tax, is being stolen. I don’t know the real number, but some of them are supposed to have 50 servings, and they end up having like 250.

That’s 150 stolen servings that we could have received revenue for. And we’re allowing that, according to these industry groups. Many of these people or organizations who are selling these counterfeit and illegal vapes in British Columbia with such a huge market share are actually tied to criminal organizations.

I think that regardless of whether it is a bylaw enforcement issue municipally or whether there are ways that we can take back the market share and support enforcement, at least if the minister could commit to meeting with this industry to look at those solutions…. They also point to other provinces where they don’t have the same regulations that we do, and they actually have a lesser problem than we do with the illicit market share.

Hon. Garry Begg: I have met with members of the vaping industry. This essentially is a child, as it were, of the Ministry of Finance — the application of the fees attached to it. It’s something, certainly, that I can discuss with the Minister of Finance.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to get into a little bit of BCLC and online gaming and iGaming. Interestingly enough, I got an email with a letter actually from the British Columbia Gaming Industry Association just while we were sitting here. They have their concerns about how their business has been going since the pandemic and how they can keep revenue moving as they are losing to the online gaming that we have in this province.

I will bring up the PlayNow website, which the government does operate through BCLC. It hasn’t really been an ideal site. I’ve used it myself, and my wife sometimes, while we watch the Canucks and place a $5 or $10 bet on it. It is not as good as other websites that I’ve seen — not that I’ve used other websites. They have been out there. I’m not much of a gambler. That $5 or $10 usually lasts me for a while.

Anyway, the casino, community gaming and bingo operations generated revenues of $1.87 billion to BCLC in ’23-24. I’m to understand that they’re losing share in that now. I’m not sure how much we’ve gone down or anything else, but that’s not into the question. That’s just an idea of how much the gaming industry means to our province.

With the online gaming that we have, I believe — the BCGIA also believes — that we’re losing money, basically, to foreign markets with these websites that we’re not controlling.

[3:05 p.m.]

I would like to know if there’s an appetite to work, as a province, to maintain regulation over iGaming and allow operation to go over to an industry group like that. They have some ideas as well. Mine would be slightly different: operated as one group, one website, to control what is allowed in this province.

Has there been any thought into us just taking over regulation?

Hon. Garry Begg: The Play Now site is the only gaming site in British Columbia that is legal. There are queries being made about the liability, feasibility, acceptability through the gaming branch for other kinds of gaming as well.

Bryan Tepper: Section 63 of the Gaming Control Act states that the Lottery Corp. must take reasonable steps to prevent an individual from continuing to participate in an online gaming scheme if the Lottery Corp. has reason to believe that the individual is either unlawfully participating in the online gaming scheme, participating in the online gaming scheme for the purposes of carrying out an unlawful activity or engaging in unlawful conduct or an unlawful activity while participating online gaming scheme.

However, as I was saying, we have that multitude of sites: Bet365, Stake, Betway. There’s a multitude of them. I believe in Ontario they’re up to 70 that they allow, and most of those are actually not operated from Canada. That’s my understanding.

How is the minister going to ensure that gaming is regulated across B.C.?

Hon. Garry Begg: To the member: the gambling to which you refer is illegal. It’s treated as illegal. When the Gaming Commission becomes aware of it, that it’s prevalent and active here, they conduct an investigation, part of which may be that they send a letter to the persons involved, the company involved, and ask that they cease and desist from operations in this province. The application of the law in regard to that is a federal matter.

Bryan Tepper: I will just quickly ask: is enforcement provincial?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The application of the law is provincial. There is a federal component if the site is housed outside of the province, but there is cooperation between the provincial authority here and the federal authorities, generally.

Bryan Tepper: I will follow up on that one more time with the regulation then.

Can the minister tell us if the regulation of…. What occurs within the geographical boundaries of British Columbia on the iGaming, are we regulating that at all right now provincially?

Hon. Garry Begg: The answer is that yes, we do enforce that inside the province. The provincial gaming commission does that.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

The service plan for ’25-26 estimates spending on gaming policy and enforcement around $22.2 million. How much of that is going to go directly to online gaming enforcement?

Hon. Garry Begg: Only $3.4 million of that $22.2 million is spent on enforcement.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

I don’t know if we have the answer, but if we do, how much money is iGaming bringing into BCLC right now? If I could add, and estimate how much is total, including the illegal sites, if we have an estimate on that as well, just to total it all up in one go.

Hon. Garry Begg: That question is better directed to the Ministry of Finance.

Bryan Tepper: Has the gaming policy and enforcement branch been updated since 2010 to include online gaming? Do they currently conduct and oversee the enforcement of unlicensed gaming platforms in B.C.?

Hon. Garry Begg: Yes, we will investigate if the sites you’re talking about operate within British Columbia.

[3:15 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Just to get the answer on the…. Has the gaming policy and enforcement branch been updated since 2010 to include all of that?

Hon. Garry Begg: A new act was brought into force in 2022 and will be actually brought into force later this year.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, so I will confirm, then, that the Gaming Control Act does update that then.

Given the growth in online gaming, what protections, if any, does the ministry have in place to protect British Columbians who use online gaming platforms, particularly in relation to data privacy, fraud and addiction safeguards?

Hon. Garry Begg: Again, your question is better answered by the Ministry of Finance.

Bryan Tepper: Sorry. I’m just trying to figure out how that does relate to Ministry of Finance — data privacy, fraud and addiction safeguards. So if we have the fraud in there and data privacy, would that…? Maybe I’ll just confirm one more time. That will be Finance and not…?

Hon. Garry Begg: There is a separation between the business side of BCLC and the regulator.

Bryan Tepper: If there was fraud being committed through the iGaming platform, would it not fall under Solicitor General and Public Safety? Or say we throw in underage gambling that goes in on that as well. Would that fall into something that the ministry would take care of?

Hon. Garry Begg: That is something that would be investigated by the ministry — the underage, the fraud, that kind of thing.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. If I rephrase the question a little bit, what protections does the ministry have in place or plan to put in place for fraud, underage gambling?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: When the new regulations come into effect later this year, there are provisions for the prevention of some of the things that can be prevalent, including underage illegal activities, etc.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

Do we have any independent oversight that exists for BCLC’s online gaming platform, PlayNow.com? And what steps does the minister take to ensure there’s no conflict of interest, given that the Crown acts as a regulator and revenue generator?

Hon. Garry Begg: This might get confusing for you, but BCLC reports to the Ministry of Finance, and the gaming enforcement branch reports to the Ministry of Solicitor General, so there is a deliberate separation of the two sides.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer. Actually, it wasn’t that confusing. That was a good one.

What I will finish up on this is…. Given that there’s a lot to be gained, a lot to be lost with the criminal aspect of this, the illegal sites, can we get a commitment to move forward with the independent bodies that might be able to put this forward to be regulated by the province and operated by somebody else as an oversight group, however they want…? Sorry, the regulation would be the oversight; they would be the operating group.

If we can move towards that direction to make sure we have no conflicts, and we are assisting, bringing money in for things like the community gaming grants that…. I know I’ve applied for many of them. They’re very valuable and have been drying up, apparently, in the last little while. There have been no increases in those, so this is incredibly important to all our community groups.

I’ll let you go.

Hon. Garry Begg: There is an ongoing commitment to look at some of the issues that you have raised.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer. Thanks for that section. I’d like to move into the future of contract policing.

[3:25 p.m.]

Currently, contract policing is overseen by the provincial police service agreement from, I believe, 2012. It should be extended through March 31, 2032. At this point, we do have…. Either side can terminate the agreement with 24 months’ notice. Those are the important parts that I want to cover on that right now.

How much of the $577 million the ministry estimates spending on policing and security ’25-26 is spent on contract policing?

The Chair: Members, it’s been requested to have a quick recess, so we will sit in recess for the next seven minutes — precisely seven minutes. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order. We are considering estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. Garry Begg: The final ’24-25 delegation to the RCMP was $623 million for the B.C. RCMP as the provincial police service. That represents the 70-30 percent cost-sharing with Canada under the provincial police service agreement.

[3:40 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer. Maybe I should ask if I have the number wrong. The $577 million for spending on that — is that number wrong? Is $623 million the amount? I will just continue with the question, then.

According to the provincial police service agreement, the RCMP aids the province in the administration of justice by implementing the provincial policing objectives, priorities and goals as determined by the minister. To the minister: what policing objectives and policy goals have been developed by the ministry, and can you please table them?

Hon. Garry Begg: I’ll read directly from the note to the RCMP commissioner. In accordance with article 6.1 of the PPSA, the provincial minister sets the objectives, priorities and goals of the provincial police service. The policing priorities for B.C. are sent to the commanding officer of E division, all chiefs of municipal police departments and self-administered policing services in the province.

In the latest year, which is 2023, the commanding officer of E division was issued the following policing priorities for B.C.:

“Staff existing vacancies within the provincial police service. Address systemic racism throughout various initiatives. Implement the B.C. First Nations justice strategy, the city of Surrey’s police model transition. Address repeat and violent offending. Increase use of restorative justice.

“Collaborate with community partners on safety issues, including mental health and addictions. Target proceeds of crime for high-level organized criminals in line with the Cullen commission recommendations. Combat gangs and criminal organizations that fuel the toxic drug supply. Lastly, support service delivery recommendations identified in the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act.”

Bryan Tepper: Given that British Columbia has the largest number of contract RCMP officers in Canada, and with the uncertainty that’s been created in the past couple of years by the federal government in moving that, has there been a look at what a transition would be, given that level of uncertainty?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: In May 2024, the former federal Minister of Public Safety wrote to provincial and territorial ministers regarding the need for a stronger RCMP federal program, including a separate, distinct mandate for contract policing. This correspondence also provided a commitment that Canada and the RCMP will continue its contract policing program beyond 2032.

The province is engaged with partners from other provinces, territories, local governments in B.C. and the federal government through various committees at the staff and DM levels on work considering the future of contract policing.

Bryan Tepper: I guess that sort of answers it, but I’ll get a comment on this. Is the ministry and the government considering the creation of a provincial-wide police force at all, which was recommended by the all-party B.C. legislative committee in 2022?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The work that was done by the special committee on policing in British Columbia will continue. We as a government are committed to looking at all of the options that are available.

Bryan Tepper: I’m going to jumble my question around because of that.

Going from the estimates notes from ’24-25…. They have a quote: “Exploring this option would require extensive research, including legal, operational, financial, communications and consultation.” Does this minister support the creation of a provincial police service that moves away from the RCMP?

Hon. Garry Begg: The dynamics of policing in Canada are changing dramatically. It is something that we have to be cognizant of. As the minister responsible for Public Safety, it is an opportunity for me to look at all the options. I would say that it is a response of ours that we will examine closely all the possibilities, in consultation with the general public, to see what meets best the needs of British Columbians.

Bryan Tepper: My question to the minister is then: how much do we project that exploring these other options would cost?

Hon. Garry Begg: We will use the existing resources within the ministry, as we move forward, so that no additional funding will be required at this point.

Bryan Tepper: So perhaps I could ask then: what is the progress thus far looking into the special committee’s recommendations? Really, what are they that we’re looking into? If we could table them.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I’ll read directly so that perhaps makes logical sense to you.

Work continues on the policing and public safety modernization initiative, which was established to respond to the recommendations of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. This initiative is taking a phased approach.

Phase 1 introduced legislative amendments in April 2024 that address topics related to municipal police governance, police oversight and tiered law enforcement within the current Police Act. These amendments directly respond to recommendations of the special committee and changes requested by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Government is now building on these initial amendments, based on a significant consultation process that has been ongoing since 2023, to determine our next priorities for modernizing policing and updating the Police Act.

For all this, to do this right, we need to consider future changes carefully and in close partnership with all impacted groups. We are also continuing to work on developing regulations that will bring all the changes made to the Police Act in 2024 into force.

Bryan Tepper: Given the critical role the RCMP does play in rural and small communities, with the cost sharing with the federal government and the under 15,000 population with the 70-30 split, how will the minister ensure that the new model does not abandon the rural small towns for large, urban policing in communities?

Hon. Garry Begg: The RCMP has been the provincial police agency here in British Columbia for a great number of years and has provided tremendous service day in and day out all across the province, in big cities and in small cities. The challenge facing us today is to replicate a model that does the same thing.

[4:00 p.m.]

You’re right in the sense that small communities deserve the same quality and level of policing as do large cities. That’s one of the recommendations noted in the police reform act — that there has to be, across the province, whether it be in the largest city or in the smallest community, a quality and level of policing that best suits the needs of British Columbia.

That was the intent of the special committee. That’s my intent: to ensure that the quality and level of policing in British Columbia is the highest attainable in the country.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

Given that we know the crime rate in a lot of our northern communities…. I policed Williams Lake, and I think we were top three in the country for several of those years. I don’t think it was my fault, but it probably dropped because I did such a good job afterwards.

Have we had any of those communities that have raised concerns, any of the municipalities brought it to the ministry about the future of the RCMP contract policing in their communities?

Hon. Garry Begg: We meet, of course, with the Union of B.C. Municipalities regularly, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and solicit advice and opinion from all across the province. And you will not be surprised to know that everyone has a different perception of their problem which is peculiar to where they live.

What we have received runs the gamut of geographic locations. Smaller communities have perhaps more intense needs than some larger communities. But the dividing line or the commitment about policing, our commitment to that is that it will be the same wherever you are in the province.

There are, of course, logistical problems. There are staffing problems with the RCMP and other policing agencies, and difficulties, in some cases, in fulfilling their obligations. That’s not unique to the RCMP but is unique to policing in the most recent years. But our commitment, again, is to ensure that the quality and level of policing in British Columbia is the best possible.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer. I will just ask, maybe a yes or a no: have any municipalities actually just raised concerns purely about the RCMP leaving and being replaced with something else?

Hon. Garry Begg: In our most recent report on our municipal round table, the indication is that the majority of members of that municipal round table are supportive of the RCMP.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

Perhaps I’m going to end up switching gears here. For this one, I might as well just ask right now: how many provincial police officers, contract police officers — not municipality but the ones that the province is paying for — do we have in the province right now?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s 2,431 members, including the members at Surrey detachment.

Bryan Tepper: I would assume the ones at Surrey detachment will not be continuing on. What would we have if they aren’t a part…? Maybe you could just confirm: are they part of the regular provincial force? If they’re not, how many without them?

Hon. Garry Begg: The number of positions, without Surrey, is 1,991.

[4:10 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: If we’re continuing forward with 1,991 in moving to a different model, do we have a cost difference, without the 30 percent from the federal government, from what we would end up with if we continued with the same number of provincial police?

Hon. Garry Begg: We do not have that information.

Bryan Tepper: If it’s possible to get that in the future, that would be terrific.

I will move on. I’m trying to fit in as much as I can in my time, so I might jump around a little bit.

How would the minister be advocating for stronger bail laws? During question period, the Attorney General said the minister is making sure there are the resources on the ground to make sure the system is ready to respond. If the minister could explain the system and what resources that the Attorney General would be referring to?

Hon. Garry Begg: I will defer entirely to the Attorney General, who is our lead when it comes to the bail reform program. But I do know that the program that she was referring to is the repeat violent offending intervention initiative — we call it ReVOII — which brings together police, dedicated prosecutors and probation officers to address repeat violent offending through enhanced investigation, enforcement and monitoring of individuals in communities throughout B.C.

It’s important to understand that the position that B.C. has taken has become a subject of great discussion in Ottawa. The Premier and the Attorney General are actually amongst those who are leading these changes.

Bryan Tepper: Yes, I do appreciate that program. I think it has been fairly successful.

I’ll move on. In the fall 2024 budget — I’m going to get into some numbers here, I apologize — table 1.8 lists actual spending for ’23-24 as $1.089 billion. The forecast to finish the year was $1.084 billion.

I’m actually skipping a little bit there, because…. At one point the minister has said that we have had the largest increase in spending on policing. I don’t know if it was ever or something along those lines.

[4:15 p.m.]

The final forecast was there, but this year’s budget, we’re up to $1.137 billion and then going up, forecasted for next year at $1.139 billion. At this point, it doesn’t seem like a large increase. Perhaps you could comment on that and where the increase is.

Hon. Garry Begg: The overall budget for the ministry is $1,137,182,000, which represents a $54.054 million increase, or 5 percent, from ’24-25. Reconciliation of the budget changes is detailed elsewhere.

The overall increase since ’24-25 includes the following: $27.9 million for RCMP wage increase; $6.596 million for wage-related increases; $5.01 million for crime assistance program modernization; $5 million for body-worn cameras; $1.798 million for First Nations and Inuit policing; $1.69 million for electronic supervision to support the increased costs to monitor offenders; and $1.484 million for coroners’ operational pressures.

There’s $1.096 million for the Fire Safety Act; $606,000 for police modernization; $175,000 for minister’s office adjustments, which include the creation of the Ministry of State for Community Safety; $2.669 million primarily for the Nanaimo Correctional Centre public safety programs, corrections food services, contracts from Budget 2024 and minor incremental budgets in the 2023 decisions.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

So we have the number of provincial police officers. Do we have the total number of active police officers in B.C.? Would we have a breakdown, even provincially, for five years ago until now?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: We’re attempting to get the answer that you require and, perhaps, are able to get it in the next short while. In the interim, you should feel free to ask another question, if you wish.

Bryan Tepper: I don’t know if it’s a program or an organizational group, but it was called “future directions,” involved in this. First Nations submitted suggestions on how to improve policing. Do we have a report on what came of those?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I’ll give you, now, two answers, because there’s one that we’ve held in abeyance until we could get what we needed to know.

The Police Resources in B.C., 2023, published by the ministry…. The authorized strength of police agencies in B.C. was 10,843. That’s a report published in 2023, which is the latest report.

To answer about First Nations policing, ministry staff have directly connected with 87 First Nations and modern treaty Nations and several Indigenous leadership organizations to guide their work. Compiling and receiving the feedback, including recent submissions, is ongoing now from additional First Nations leaders.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

Perhaps I could just put this for a later answer, if we can get how many police officers there were. I’m going to say in 2018 as well — just the difference between the two, if that was the latest report.

I’ll move on. I think I have enough time for one more question and answer before it is the Third Party’s time.

I will say I happened to be listening to a radio interview, because the minister is very engaging. He did say some things I had questions about during the interview, one being talking about the RCMP and saying he wanted to make changes. I would ask what changes he would like to make. The minister did go on to say the RCMP could not make those changes. I’m curious why they wouldn’t be.

I will throw in the last here, if you can separate that into this one. The minister also said the Premier made overtures with the federal government, making success on bail reform. Can we get an update on what kind of success he did have?

Thank you, Minister.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: We’ve come up with the math that you suggested. The total authorized strength, in all of the police agencies in B.C. in 2018, was 10,312. You’ll know that that’s not a significant difference.

For your question about the Bail Reform Act, I obviously can’t speak for the Premier or the Attorney General, but they advised that they did make progress. One of the important things that they were able to stress is that people living in British Columbia are concerned about repeat and violent offending in our communities and the threat to public safety that these offenders pose.

The current situation in British Columbia requires that we take urgent action to address elements of the bail system that make it difficult to hold people who commit repeat violent offences in custody, and to ensure the bail system is functioning as intended. That, I think, adequately states the position of both the Premier and the Attorney General in their dealings with Ottawa.

Rob Botterell: I have a series of questions that I’ll raise over the next hour. Before I begin, I just wanted to express my appreciation to the minister and the minister’s staff for your efforts and work. This is a very important ministry, and I really appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions and continue the important work of this ministry. I just want to thank you for all of that.

I’d like to start with a question related to the B.C. conservation officer service. I recognize that in some cases these questions may have been canvassed. If that’s the case, I’m hoping you could summarize your answers to others for the benefit of those constituents and others watching today.

Multiple organizations in this province have raised concerns about a lack of oversight for the B.C. conservation officer service, from their police-like arming to the increasingly high number of black bears unnecessarily killed by officers to wolf culls.

How is your ministry ensuring that the conservation officer service has proper oversight mechanisms or independent bodies to improve transparency, accountability and public trust?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: First of all, I was on the Committee on Reforming the Police Act. This is one of the questions that came up there and caused us significant concern, so much so that we recommended it in the special committee.

Bringing the conservation officer service under the jurisdiction of a policing oversight agency is a significant policy change. However, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has worked with the Ministry of Environment to develop a proposal to apply independent oversight of the conservation officer service.

Direction on this proposal to be implemented is pending. In the interim, in the absence of a new policy, complaints can be made about the conduct of conservation officers. If a conservation officer commits some sort of misconduct as part of their general employment duties, this proceeds to the conservation officer service professional standards unit and to the Public Service Agency.

Complaints that relate to the improper exercise or performance of a constabulary duty or the neglect to exercise their constabulary duties can be made under the Special Provincial Constable Complaints and Discipline Regulation under the Police Act.

Rob Botterell: Could the minister give us a timeline for the independent oversight proposal being implemented?

Hon. Garry Begg: This is a very active file by the ministry, but I cannot give you a specific date upon which it will come into effect.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The lack of oversight and regulation concerning the conservation officer service has not only resulted in poor ecological management but has also raised ethical and financial concerns.

The wolf cull is one example of this. Since 2015, 2,192 wolves have been killed, often inhumanely, costing B.C. taxpayers over $10 million.

Will this government commit to ending the wolf cull and improving transparency and oversight in its upcoming proposal to prevent similar issues in the future?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Oversight regarding policy decisions with respect to wildlife management issues is under the Ministry of Environment.

Rob Botterell: I’d like to shift gears to police accountability and trust. While this budget saw a notable increase in funding towards policing, public confidence in the police remains low. The service plan forecasts for 2024 find that only 45 percent of British Columbians have a lot of confidence in the RCMP.

What is this government’s plan to promote public trust in the RCMP and local municipal police? And what funding exists in this year’s budget to do so?

Hon. Garry Begg: We’re doing a number of things to bolster the reputation of the policing community here in British Columbia. One of the things that comes to mind, for example, is police boards, right? The police boards have conduct over the performance of police in their jurisdiction, and it’s important that they receive the training so that they can be a reflection of what the community wants in their police department.

[4:45 p.m.]

We always talk about the visible presence of the police in the community. In order for police work to be done, it must be seen to be done, which means, in policing, that the police must be out there and be seen to be doing their job. The best ambassadors for the police are the police. Their conduct, their deportment, the way they treat the community is a reflection of their values. That’s something that has been instilled in policing since it began, historically.

We recognize, for example, in this province, a large number of Indigenous people who have come into contact with police and are unhappy with the result. We have undergone and are continuing to encourage the policing community to ensure that the Indigenous community, the BIPOC community, those who are disenfranchised or less enfranchised because of their position in society are treated equally. That’s something that we’re committed to, and we will continue to do.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The ministry’s service plan includes a target of, this year, 46 percent of British Columbians who have complete confidence or a lot of confidence in the RCMP. This is only one percentage point higher than the forecasts from last year.

The minister has outlined the importance of training of police boards, the importance of a visible presence and the approach to that in the community, the importance of tailoring, if you will, the approach to policing to better reflect the needs and interests of Indigenous people.

I guess there are really two questions. Can the minister identify any other barriers to improving public trust in police and describe the ministry’s approach to addressing those barriers, or are those the main three?

Secondly, why are the targets for public trust so low? This is only one percentage point higher than last year. What it conveys is that there is really one in two British Columbians who doesn’t have confidence in our approach to policing. Certainly the ministry is very committed to the work it does and increasing the degree of confidence, but why are we only shooting for a 1 percent increase this year?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The numbers that you picked are numbers from the Angus Reid Institute. That was conducted nationally. It is an indicator, certainly, of the confidence that some Canadians have in policing, but I think it’s important, as well, that we consider what has actually been done to help boost public confidence here in British Columbia in policing.

The police in British Columbia have chosen to involve the community in their policing. They’ve done that by setting up situation tables which involve community members, leaders in the community, leaders in business, leaders in commerce, leaders in thought in the community. They’ve set up CSTEP as a program to better integrate people. We’ve spent, in this province, more than $233 million in new policing.

What we’re trying to do to improve the image of police is to improve the quality of involvement of the community with the police. We find that if the community is involved with policing, they become more dedicated to policing; the policing members become more familiar with their groups. So enhancing the image of policing, from our point of view, is best done by the police themselves in the community doing the work that has to be done.

Now, we recognize that much of the work may not be police work — the per se police work. It may be more social work in the sense that it is responding to the needs of community members, but I think that is what is required. Policemen must be reminded that they are servants of the public. They are not free to do what they will. They are free to respond to the needs of the community.

We’re encouraging them through police boards and internal training to ensure that the work that they do is focused on making the changes in the community that are required by the community.

[4:55 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Each community will face its own challenges in terms of policing. Certainly, what we see are some communities where the challenge of policing is very high, very intense, is very difficult for the police. And it involves a much higher degree of workplace stress and impact than other communities.

A comparison that I can draw, just to illustrate the point, is…. I grew up in Oak Bay here in Victoria. Not to take anything away from the hard-working Oak Bay police, I will say that it was a pretty quiet community. It was rare there was much in the way of an exciting or dangerous event to deal with. Compare that to Victoria. Victoria police face significant work stress and challenges on an almost daily basis.

Has consideration been given by the ministry to amalgamation of police forces in the capital region to create a working environment that includes some of the quieter areas within the region and some of the more intense, in order to enable the police force to manage that degree of stress for its individual officers, on an ongoing basis, to a lower level?

Hon. Garry Begg: Harkening back to my own days as a policeman, it was fairly evident to me as a young policeman in Burnaby that not all the criminals were in Burnaby. They were elsewhere. They didn’t restrict to the boundaries that I was confined to. There is an anomaly in police work that delegates police authority to a particular area that only applies to them. It doesn’t apply to the criminal element.

In areas like Victoria, this is something that we considered on the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. There was a consistent feeling that this was a perfect place to amalgamate the police agencies. You will know that, by and large, many of the police departments here in Victoria have joint squads that operate interjurisdictionally.

Recently, there has been an effort here in Victoria to make that happen. It makes sense. It makes sense geographically. Even from a fiscal point of view, the economies of scale that can be applied are at work here. So my direct answer to your question is that it’s certainly something that is being considered.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s not something that will be led by the province. It will be led by the municipalities here in Victoria — perhaps in Kelowna and that area, too, which has a large expanded population and duplication of many police agencies.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Earlier we discussed — and you touched on, Minister — the Indigenous policing and the nature of police services provided to Indigenous communities. The service plan includes a commitment to include DRIPA in the promotion of public safety. My question to the minister is: how does your government intend to implement DRIPA with respect to its efforts to promote police accountability and public trust?

Hon. Garry Begg: This government is committed to the principles of DRIPA. I am sure you will be pleased to know that we have worked hand in hand consistently with our First Nations to ensure that we work in lockstep with them so that the principles of DRIPA are upheld. There is constant consultation between the groups involved so that that happens.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, you’ve indicated that all changes to policing have been in consultation with First Nations communities. Yet our understanding is that board members of the B.C. First Nations Justice Council say they were not consulted on any of the changes brought in Bill 17 last year.

How is this ministry, your ministry, ensuring that any reforms to policing the Police Act are done in consultation and with the participation of organizations like the B.C. First Nations Justice Council?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Phase 1 amendments were introduced in April 2024 and covered 21 topics over 170 clauses: amendments to 84 sections of the Police Act, 41 sections added to the Police Act, consequential amendments to 74 sections of 22 other acts, and the focus on municipal police governance and oversight, the law enforcement continuum and miscellaneous topics.

Coordination and consultation have occurred and continue with the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, First Nations Leadership Council, Métis Nations B.C., the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, B.C. First Nations and modern treaty Nations — all invited — and the local government police modernization roundtable and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

[5:10 p.m.]

We continue to meet with the Indigenous groups — weekly, I’m advised — as this process is continuing.

Rob Botterell: It’s helpful to have that information on the record and certainly draw that to the attention of the board members of the B.C. First Nations Justice Council.

Much has been said over the course of estimates and, certainly, in other forums about the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act and the implementation of transformative change. It’s been three years, and it would be helpful to have a fairly detailed picture of the minister’s timeline and approach to full implementation of the Police Act reforms. Where are we at? Which ones are left? How will the funding be set to complete this work? And what is the timeline for completion — 100 percent implementation?

Hon. Garry Begg: As I noted earlier, phase 1 of the policing and public safety modernization initiative introduced the Police Amendment Act, 2024, which received royal assent on April 25, 2024, as an initial legislative reform step. To date, we’ve implemented three recommendations from the special committee’s report.

For example, municipal councils now have the authority to determine who their representative will be on the police board and will allow members of the police board to elect their chair and vice-chair. Before, the mayor was automatically the representative on the board.

As well, we’ve implemented seven recommendations from the 2019 Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process. For example, the Police Complaint Commissioner can now call a public hearing earlier in misconduct investigations.

That’s now in its second phase, including regulation development from phase 1, focusing on additional policing and public safety reforms through broad consultation and cooperation with stakeholders and partners.

We’re also focused on co-development of policies and legislation with Indigenous partners and local governments, as recommended by the special committee. This work takes time to ensure meaningful in-depth consultation and engagement on proposed policies is completed, and we look forward to providing an update as appropriate.

[5:15 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: As a follow-up to the question, are there any recommendations that the government does not intend to implement?

Hon. Garry Begg: We’re committed to reviewing all of the recommendations.

Rob Botterell: The minister recently said that this government would be open to implementing a fourth option for 911, specifically for mental-health-related emergencies, as this is another example that’s consistent with the recommendations from the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act.

Can the minister describe what this plan would look like and how soon we can expect this vital change? Mental health issues are a top priority.

Hon. Garry Begg: As I committed earlier, we are reviewing the fourth line as an option.

Currently, if someone is in distress, our 911 call-takers and dispatchers will assign mental health and police teams in communities where they are available and on duty.

Rob Botterell: This government has committed itself to implementing the calls for justice developed from the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Can the minister speak in some detail to this government’s progress on the calls for justice and the funding in this year’s budget that exists for this important work?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: My ministry supports a number of initiatives to help prevent and address the violence faced by Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, including $10 million for 70 new sexual assault services programs, which commenced in 2023, which are Indigenous-focused programs; and continued operation of FILU, the family information liaison unit, which provides front-line support to families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Also, the establishment of path forward community fund in 2022, developed and administered by the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, to meet the needs for Indigenous-led capacity building and safety planning and help Indigenous communities and organizations create and implement their own culturally safe solutions. Over 750 projects funded since 2014-2015 through the civil forfeiture office grants program that focuses entirely on Indigenous women and girls.

Rob Botterell: Does the minister plan to create an independent unit or task force with oversight from Indigenous communities to ensure there is a proper and culturally sensitive review of unresolved files of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people?

Hon. Garry Begg: There has not been an independent unit formed because of our ability within the RCMP provincial police service, with specialized squads, to tackle issues like this. They’re at work, they’re existent in the RCMP as we speak, and there is no special group formed to do that work.

[5:25 p.m.]

It is work that is inclusive already in our budget, in the $233 million that we’ve expended on this project, and it is inclusive and included in that.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

We’ve canvassed this in this session. I’d like to canvass it again. Many have raised concerns about the pattern of misconduct and violence committed by the critical response units, or CRU, including from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, municipal officials, human rights organizations like Amnesty International, independent police watchdogs and First Nations groups. So this is not an isolated complaint. These are not isolated concerns. There are a range of individuals, entities, oversight organizations that have raised these concerns.

During question period earlier this session, the minister said the CRU will “do things as they’ve always done things, with fairness to all involved.”

Can the minister explain what he means by this and, given the range of concerns raised, whether, in his opinion, the CRU has always acted fairly, especially considering the range of concerns that have been raised?

[5:30 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I want to reaffirm that I expect in all cases that the critical response unit will act fairly at all times. We have taken steps to set targets to support them in their training and their outreach. This promotes within them the ability to provide direction to crew and to achieve its goals.

A principle that I work on, that we work on, is fairness. Again, the expectation is that with the training provided to them, with their targets set out, they will, in all things, act fairly.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. I just want to express my appreciation to the minister and the staff once again for the helpful answers to the questions. That’ll be the conclusion of my questioning.

Brent Chapman: We haven’t got a lot of time, so I’ll keep it pretty simple and straightforward with about three subjects.

ICBC’s no-fault insurance. Overview of ICBC’s no-fault insurance model.

In May 2021, ICBC transitioned to a no-fault insurance system known as enhanced care. This model was introduced to reduce insurance premiums and streamline the claims process by eliminating the need to establish fault in most motor vehicle accidents under the system. Individuals involved in accidents receive predetermined benefits for medical care and income replacement, but their ability to sue for damages is significantly limited.

This is from the Victoria Times Colonist:

“‘The beneficiaries of the old litigation-based ICBC system were lawyers, not victims,’ says B.C.’s Premier. No-fault insurance, or the enhanced care model, introduced in May 2021 to provide set amounts of compensation by injury type to victims regardless of fault, without a referral, eliminated most victims’ right to sue.

“The goal of the no-fault system was to ensure billions of dollars that were going to legal fees and pain and suffering and injury claims instead went to improve benefits, immediate treatment and compensation, as well as generating low basic rates and rebates for policyholders.” We’ve seen a bit of that.

“This month the Premier announced” — this was when this article came out — “a fourth rebate, to be delivered May through July to about 3.6 million policyholders, at a cost of $400 million, due to the corporation’s projected revenue of about $1.3 billion.”

But it’s a different story in practice.

“Last July Victoria lawyer Tim Schober, who was left a quadriplegic after he was hit by a vehicle while cycling August 21” — that’s 2021 — “launched a civil claim in B.C.’s Supreme Court against the province, with the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. as the second plaintiff, arguing that no-fault insurance legislation discriminated against individuals based on the cause of their disability.

“Schober has argued that ICBC’s revenue gains come at the expense of catastrophic injury victims like himself, who are compensated their full working wage and can’t sue for higher compensation for pain and suffering.

“The Premier said one of the commitments that the government made when they brought in the new system was a review at the five-year mark of the implementation.”

A lot of innocent people can fall through the cracks over five years. There are more stories in the news.

In late 2024, Maria Espedito, a caregiver and a hit-and-run accident victim, cannot receive fair compensation for her severe injuries. Last Christmas she had a GoFundMe page. That’s what she had to do to try to make ends meet at Christmas. In fact, I donated and challenged the members opposite to chip in, but I didn’t witness anyone taking up the challenge.

Then there’s retired firefighter John Wakefield. In May 2023, the Vernon man was hit while riding his bike. He had multiple broken ribs, broken scapula, broken collarbone, concussion and began to struggle mentally. In December 2023, ICBC cut him off and said his PTSD was from another incident when he was an RCMP officer. The ICBC assessor had never actually met with Mr. Wakefield.

[5:35 p.m.]

As we ponder these stories, it’s important to know that ICBC currently sits on a $19.5 billion investment fund.

Prior to implementing no-fault, ICBC used premiums paid by ratepayers to cover future contingent losses. With the implementation of no-fault, there are no future tort losses. Thus, the following question arises.

One, here’s my question to the minister: when is ICBC going to reimburse ICBC ratepayers the premiums paid in advance for future contingent losses that will never occur because of no-fault?

Hon. Garry Begg: Enhanced care, the current system that we’re under, pays for needed care when it’s needed. It does not need to pay for future costs. When the need arises for the victim of the accident, it is paid then. So that need for future losses is not required.

Under the old system, of course, there would be litigation involved, and the lawyer would take 30 percent of the payments. Under our system now, 96 percent of all payments go to the policyholder.

Brent Chapman: The NDP government took $1 billion from the ICBC coffers and put it into general revenue. There was legislation for this. However, it is really an unfair additional tax on vehicle owners.

Question two: when are they going to pay that money back?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: This is the government that passed legislation to make it impossible for the government to take capital from ICBC. In fact, it was the prior government that did that. We’ve never done that.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Member, just take a quick pause while the bells ring.

Brent Chapman: We are going to widen the scope of the impact of a no-fault insurance, putting people’s injuries into columns and deciding what they get.

The Lapu-Lapu festival incident, where a driver intentionally drove into a crowd, has highlighted concerns regarding the adequacy of the no-fault system in addressing victims’ needs and severe cases. Personal injury lawyers have pointed out that under the current model, families of deceased victims may receive a limited compensation, often significantly less than what could have been pursued under the previous tort system.

For instance, children who lost parents might only receive benefits in the tens of thousands of dollars compared to potentially higher settlements, through litigation in the past, of money that they could very well need.

While there are exceptions in the no-fault system for certain criminal code violations, the practical application of these exceptions remains uncertain, and they may not provide the level of compensation that these families require.

The question for the minister: Minister, can you provide the committee with the maximum potential compensation available under the current no-fault model to a family who has lost a primary income earner in the Lapu-Lapu incident and compare that to what might have been possible under the previous tort-based system?

[5:45 p.m. - 5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The child who lost both parents and his sister would be eligible for everyone’s death benefits. Death benefit in this case could be as much as $581,000, in addition to other benefits that he is eligible for, which includes all kinds of care and treatment that he requires — grief counselling, income loss, physio, massage, etc. And that starts on the day of the incident.

I should say that ICBC, in this particular case that you refer to, has set up a dedicated line that does nothing but deal with the victims of Lapu-Lapu.

For your interest, if we were in the old tort system, it would take years to resolve this claim. Compensation was dependent, in the old system, on how much insurance was bought by the driver, and the lawyers would take one-third of whatever they got. ICBC, in this case, expects that the amount to Lapu-Lapu will far exceed what was paid under the old system. Under the old system, lawyers were better off, but the victims got less.

Brent Chapman: That’s the best of one situation and the worst of another, but I’ll accept that as an answer.

I don’t have a lot of time, and I’d like to touch on a couple of subjects, but I hope the minister wouldn’t mind if I could…. I might come back to things if I get through what I’m going through here.

While the Premier says there could be a criminal conviction exception and that enhanced care gives coverage without waiting, the question is: will this government apologize for the fact that even in cases of criminal convictions, the government, the NDP, took away the right to sue for past and future income losses and the ability to get legal counsel to represent injured victims — that they have no alternative? Can we expect some sort of recognition of what is missing now from what is normally a legal case?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: For the record, it’s important to understand that everyone still has the right to a lawyer. Wage loss is paid in the enhanced model. This happens without the need for a lawyer.

Brent Chapman: B.C. has introduced legislation to remove the need for drivers with a novice licence to take a test to obtain their full licence. Also, new drivers over the age of 25 have a reduced N probation period. It’s gone from a year to nine months. Can the minister see any safety issues arising with this new policy, and what is being done to mitigate them?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The province has introduced legislation to improve the graduated licensing program to create a simpler, more accessible process for new drivers while improving safety standards for motorcycle drivers. As this is a matter that is before the House, it cannot be discussed in this venue, but it will be coming up in the fall, and you can discuss it then.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I was about to say the exact same thing. We would welcome questions at committee stage once that bill is before the House.

Brent Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for bringing that up.

Many accredited collision repair shops report that electronic payments that used to land within ten to 20 business days now are taking 45 to 90 days or more. The slowdown began to bite in February, but industry media first flagged it publicly on 10 March, 2025, tying the delays to an internal work-to-rule campaign, while ICBC and unionized claim-processing staff negotiated a new contract.

Shops say that they are carrying tens of thousands of dollars in unreimbursed parts and labour, forcing some to tap bank credit lines, postpone equipment purchases or refuse lower-margin ICBC work altogether.

In northern and rural B.C., where only one or two facilities serve vast areas, there is a risk of facility closure. Prince Rupert has had no in-network shop since late 2023, leaving customers to pay up front or haul vehicles to Terrace.

Question 1: what was the total value of unpaid collision repair invoices at the month end 31 January, 2025, and the most recent month end?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Regrettably, the number that you seek is not available, but I will commit to getting it to you.

Brent Chapman: What is Treasury Board’s estimate of the aggregate interest in carrying cost that collision repair facilities have absorbed, financing ICBC receivables since February 1, 2025? Does the minister recognize that this is an unfair imposition on important small businesses in B.C.?

Hon. Garry Begg: The same thing — the information about it is not available now, but we will get back to you.

Brent Chapman: I would ask, though, just is there a recognition that there is quite a load that’s being carried by these small businesses? I would ask that to the minister. Can he recognize how difficult this is for autobody shops, really, across the province, that are footing this bill? Is there any kind of acceptance as that being a situation that should be dealt with?

Hon. Garry Begg: The members of ICBC who are here indicate to me that they’re not aware that the problem exists as you describe.

Brent Chapman: It seems it’s quite common. I’ve heard from all parts of the province. We have…. I’m just surprised.

Will the government compensate those firms, yes or no? And if not, why should small businesses continue to bankroll a Crown corporation’s cash flow failure?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: ICBC will take under advisement the questions that you asked. In the interim, you should be assured that ICBC is fully compensating their vendors and their workers. They pay fair rates. They’re also embarking on an extensive program to fund new apprentices into the body industry. If in any event it is found that there are vendors who have not been paid, ICBC, of course, will pay them quickly.

Brent Chapman: If they’re being compensated but compensated on time — I think that’s what we’re saying. It’s not that the compensation is not coming; it’s taking too long to get there.

Given that every additional day of rental expense ultimately feeds basic rate pressure, how does the minister justify this bureaucratic logjam to British Columbians, who are already paying some of the highest auto insurance premiums in Canada?

Hon. Garry Begg: The move to the enhanced-care model decreased the basic rate by 15 percent in 2021, and it has been held steady since then with no increases. The basic rate will remain the same until March 31, 2026, making it six years in a row with no increase to the basic rate — which is, contrary to what the member indicated, amongst the lowest rates in the entire country.

Brent Chapman: Just to clarify something here. The minister said that ICBC is unaware of any delay in getting payments to auto body shops and that they’re not aware that there is a concern of this, but I am aware of directly speaking with auto body shops that they have doubts. They’ve spoken to ICBC. Now, maybe they’ve spoken to another level of ICBC, but somehow the left hand isn’t talking to the right.

[6:15 p.m.]

Can we clarify that there really is no knowledge of any auto body shops in British Columbia having any struggles getting their payments on time? Is the minister saying that the people here have no idea of this occurring?

Hon. Garry Begg: The members of ICBC who are here are unaware of the situation that you described, which is not to say, I suppose, that there may be in the system some late payments. It’s not something of which they are aware. I repeat that they will take it back, and I will get back to you with what they find in their report.

Brent Chapman: I’ll take the minister at his word.

Why did the government permit bargaining to drift past ICBC’s March 31, 2025 service plan deadline without even an interim deal when the union had already signalled that overtime bans and work to rule would begin if no progress was made?

Hon. Garry Begg: The union contract that is currently in place does not expire until the 30th of June, so it’s coming up. It’s not expired, and the corporation is in dialogue with the union at this point.

Brent Chapman: I’m going to jump back to the no-fault question. Has your ministry conducted any assessments or studies since the implementation of the no-fault system specifically examining the adequacy of compensation provided in incidents involving deliberate criminal actions, such as vehicle ramming attacks? If so, will you table those findings with this committee?

[6:20 p.m. - 6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: There has been no review of compensation related to criminal convictions. The government and ICBC are reviewing benefits on an ongoing basis and recently changed care benefits, for example, to counselling, physio and that kind of thing. And by legislation, a special committee of the Legislature is going to review the enhanced care within five years of its introduction, starting in May of 2026.

Brent Chapman: I don’t have much time left here, but can the minister tell us about the steps they’ve taken with the physiotherapy and some of the other care that has been given, and the access to the records of patients and the access to the records of victims, being that it is no longer a selective access to records, but in fact it’s pretty much whatever ICBC wants to look at? Is there any recognition in that, that it’s quite an invasion of people’s privacy?

Why is there such a need for such an autocratic and tyrannical process to take place from something as simple as a physiotherapy regimen? I would like to know that.

Hon. Garry Begg: There is an agreement for direct billing. An agreement is meant to ensure it can access records related to billing, and there’s ongoing communication to clarify the limited scope. I myself met with these professional members and ICBC together, and our commitment is that we will continue to consult on an ongoing basis as this moves forward.

Brent Chapman: We spoke earlier about Mr. Schober and Mr. Wakefield and Ms. Espedido and the challenges they’re facing after car crashes and car accidents that were no fault of their own, being victims.

[6:30 p.m.]

Is ICBC or the minister aware of these people, of these cases? Are there any steps…? When these cases come through the cracks and reveal themselves, is there any motion or any initiative to help these people? How hard do they have to fight — I guess that’s my question — to get compensation?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: We’re working closely with Mr. Schober and all of these individuals to ensure their needs are taken care of. We’ve recently been to Mr. Schober’s home. His entitlement would have been limited and unresolved. The current system has paid him $1.65 million to date, and it’s still ongoing.

Brent Chapman: That’s very good news.

I’ve run out of time, the time that I’m allowed to have. So I would ask that if I could provide the minister with a series of questions, I could get answers back in writing. I’d appreciate that.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Minister, and to the people at ICBC.

The Chair: Minister, would you have closing remarks for us?

Hon. Garry Begg: I wish only to thank everyone for their appearance here. It’s a tedious process to be on this side, and all of the people who have represented me have done a very good task.

I respect, as well, the way the opposition has treated this. It’s been a very congenial and cooperative process, and I appreciate it very much. Thank you all.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,121,960,000 — approved.

Hon. Garry Begg: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:38 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I request a ten-minute recess, if we may, and then we’ll be calling Bill 5, continued debate.

The Speaker: This House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 6:39 p.m. to 6:48 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll call this House back to order. We will enjoy comments on Bill 5 — the amendment, of course — this afternoon.

On the amendment (continued).

Sharon Hartwell: I rise today to speak in favour of the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

The NDP government championed a $1,000 grocery rebate for the people in British Columbia. My riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine is one of the most beautiful, resilient and hard-working regions in this province. Year after year, budget after budget, we are getting farther behind.

Promises are made, photo ops staged, press releases are issued. But when the rubber hits the road, there’s nothing. So here’s an opportunity for this government to commit to actually doing something that they promised the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The NDP government has gone back on their word again. They are casting the blame on the U.S. President and tariffs, but last I saw, in this House, President Trump was not present.

The people in Bulkley Valley–Stikine are struggling. Our forest sector is all but shut down. Mines are waiting for permits. People are struggling with rent, mortgages, groceries and daily life. The promises of speeding up permitting for mine development…. But that’s not helping people in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. They need relief now.

[6:50 p.m.]

This amendment to Bill 5 rectifies a broken promise. It brings back the grocery rebate through reduced income taxes and makes it permanent. By delaying the reading of Bill 5 and adding this amendment, this House and indeed this government can bring much-needed relief to the people of British Columbia.

The northern ridings are continually left out. To reach a doctor, a dentist, an optometrist, people have to drive. This is an expense all too familiar in the North. Parents in some areas drive their children to school, as many days there are no bus drivers, and other activities if they’re fortunate enough to be able to afford them.

The minister can pontificate all he wants about the billion-dollar projects in the Lower Mainland, but he obviously forgets that the money that funds these projects comes from the hard-working people of the North. These are the people that are being asked to do more with less.

Well, the Premier has nine new staff in his office, $1 million for the staff of the Premier, yet in Smithers, a daycare has been denied a small grant. Please explain to me how this government expects people to go to work and then will not fund daycare spots for these people, while they continually tell us in the House that they are supporting programs in all corners of the province. Well, no evidence of that in my area. Again the North has been left out.

By discussing this amendment and hopefully passing it, this House can reflect on the importance of amending the personal income tax credit provided in section 4.3(1.1) of the Income Tax Act to $22,462, which would provide $500 tax relief for a single individual. In a two-income household, that would allow both income earners to claim this deduction, thus honouring the commitment by government.

I’ve heard it said that budgets are moral documents, that they reflect not just numbers but values. If that’s true, then this amendment is a moral test. In not passing the amendment to Bill 5, this government is telling the people of Bulkley Valley–Stikine that they do not matter. They are saying that the North doesn’t matter. Let’s be honest. Many in the North believe this already.

I will stand in this House every day and defend the people that get up and go to work in very difficult and extreme situations. This government wants and expects that the revenue from the North will flow freely to the province and they can spend it with no forethought of how that revenue is generated and the sacrifices that the families make while parents are away for extended periods to achieve these results.

Here are some quotes by the Premier: “People need help now so that they can get ahead. John Rustad would make ordinary people wait 18 months to receive any support. That’s if you believe him at all. Our tax cut for the middle class supports people now who are struggling with the high cost of groceries.”

The Speaker: Member, I don’t want you to get too far down that road. We don’t use each other’s names in this House. Thank you.

Sharon Hartwell: I forgot. Sorry.

The Premier promised “a $1,000 tax cut year after year after year.” He promised: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away. Now they won’t have to wait — no red tape, no wait-lists, nothing but relief.” If the Premier wants to honour these promises, he can support this amendment for the hard-working people of British Columbia.

My colleagues and I in the official opposition are on the side of everyday people and families. They work hard and want to get home at the end of the day, safe in the knowledge that they are a little further ahead than when they started. If the Premier agrees, as his previous statements prove he does, it should be very easy for him to vote in favour of this amendment.

By not supporting this amendment, this government is showing that they continue to not stand up for the people of British Columbia that they claim to support and work for. The people of the North, the true North who are strong and proud, are repeatedly let down by urbanized government who dismiss the value of hard-working people in the North.

What is so hard to take is the hypocrisy. This government stands in this House talking about working families, but when they have an opportunity to help, they posture and blame. Let’s not forget the Premier’s words after his slight win in the election, when asked about working with the opposition. His words were: “I will work with opposition MLAs if they meet the green-line criteria.”

People are losing faith, not in themselves, not in their neighbours, but in this institution, in this government. This amendment is not going to solve the entire affordability crisis created by the NDP, but it will help. Unlike any temporary relief programs or inflated promises, it provides consistent, long-term tax relief to every British Columbian, especially those who need it most.

[6:55 p.m.]

Residents of our province, especially in the North, can’t afford to wait. They’ve already been waiting. They don’t need red tape. They don’t need more delays. They need this government to act and to act now.

The rising cost of living isn’t just a statistic. It’s a lived reality that affects every decision we make, from the groceries we buy to the extracurricular activities families want to participate in.

The proposed amendment to Bill 5, offering $500 back annually for individuals and $1,000 for two-income families, isn’t merely a fiscal adjustment. It’s a lifeline for countless residents of our province, especially here in the North. Families across the province are grappling with skyrocketing expenses. Basic necessities like food, housing and child care have become increasingly unaffordable.

Consider the story of a single mother in Smithers, who works two jobs to support her children. Despite her relentless efforts, she struggles to cover rent, utilities and groceries. The rising costs have forced her to make difficult choices, often sacrificing her own needs to ensure her children are cared for. This isn’t a rare or uncommon occurrence. It’s a reality for countless residents of our province, especially in the North.

The working population isn’t immune to these challenges. Many individuals, despite being employed full-time, find themselves living paycheque to paycheque. The MNP consumer debt index reports that nearly half of the residents of our province, especially in the North, are $200 or less away from financial insolvency. This precarious financial situation means that unexpected expenses, be it a medical emergency or a car repair, can plunge families into debt.

Seniors, many of whom lived on fixed incomes, are particularly vulnerable. With the cost of essentials rising, their purchasing power diminishes. According to Food Banks B.C., 11 percent of food bank users are seniors, one of the highest proportions across the country.

Food insecurity is a growing concern. Food Banks B.C. reports that over 100,000 people access their member food banks every month, with one in three clients being a child. The rising cost of groceries exacerbates this issue. Food prices in B.C. have risen by 27 percent from January 2019 to July 2024. For families already stretched thin, these increases make it challenging to put nutritious food on the table.

Child poverty remains a pressing issue. The 2024 B.C. Child Poverty Report Card indicates that one in six children in the province lives in poverty. Children in lone-parent families are particularly affected, with a poverty rate of 45.5 percent.

Individuals with disabilities face compounded challenges. Many rely on food banks, with some reports indicating that the highest recorded numbers in certain areas are among this demographic. The lack of adequate support systems means that people with disabilities often must choose between essential needs such as medication and food.

The proposed amendment to Bill 5 offers a straightforward solution: provide immediate financial relief to those who need it most. By allowing individuals to retain more of their earnings, we empower them to make choices that best suit their needs, be it purchasing groceries, paying rent or covering child care expenses.

This amendment isn’t just about numbers. It’s about restoring dignity and providing hope. It’s about acknowledging the struggles of families, workers, seniors and others and taking concrete steps to alleviate their burdens.

The affordability crisis in British Columbia is multifaceted, affecting various demographics in different ways. However, the common thread is the urgent need for relief. The proposed amendment to Bill 5 addresses this need head-on, offering a practical, immediate solution. It’s time for the government to act, to fulfil its promises and to support the people of British Columbia in these challenging times.

This amendment we’ve introduced isn’t some brand-new concept pulled out of the blue. It’s the government’s own promise. It’s a policy the Premier himself campaigned on in 2024, not whispered in passing, not a footnote but a centrepiece of the NDP platform.

Residents of our province, especially in the North, were told to expect a $500 rebate for individuals and $1,000 for families. And they believed it, because in times of financial uncertainty, people cling to hope, especially when it’s delivered with such certainty from the highest office in the province.

[7:00 p.m.]

This was supposed to be the government’s answer to rising food costs. The Premier was clear, and he repeated in press conferences, campaign materials and social media posts that help was coming. The government acknowledged the affordability crisis, pointed to its grocery rebate as a major solution, and then as soon as the votes were counted, that promise was dropped.

The reason given? Tariffs. The Premier said reckless and destabilizing U.S. tariffs were to blame. Yet even as he has since admitted that British Columbia was largely unscathed with the exception of the lumber sector, that is not a justification. That’s a contradiction.

If the tariffs weren’t as damaging as feared, why cancel the very support people were promised? Let’s be honest. If tariffs had been devastating, wouldn’t that have made the rebate more urgent, not less? Either way, the need for relief has not gone away. It has grown.

Meanwhile, the government continues to introduce bills, like Bill 5, that tinker around the edges of tax policy without offering meaningful support for the people who need it the most. Bill 5 contains no tax break for families, no direct support for small business, no targeted relief for seniors, but it does contain tax changes that benefit select industries, like the film sector, while ignoring the kitchen-table struggles of everyday residents of our province, especially in the North.

That’s what makes this amendment so important. This amendment isn’t a new demand; it’s an opportunity for the government to do what it said it would do. It gives them a path to make good on their word, to restore measures of trust in their leadership and to recognize that affordability isn’t a political slogan; it’s a lived crisis.

I know many members on the other side of this House understand how hard things have become for their constituents. This amendment gives them a chance to break with the spin and reconnect with people. It’s not about scoring points; it’s about delivering the help that they were elected to deliver.

I don’t care if the rebate is delivered by a Conservative amendment or a government bill. What matters is that it’s delivered at all, that people feel it, that it makes a difference. Here’s what residents of our province, especially in the North, see: a government that promised relief and then changed the channel; a government that blamed external threats while internal pressures like rent, gas, food and heating continue to rise; and a government that claimed to stand strong for B.C. while ordinary people were being left behind.

This is about more than just broken promises; it’s about a broken trust. Trust is the currency of leadership. Once it’s lost, it’s hard to get back. But one way to begin restoring it is to keep your word. That’s what this amendment offers. It’s not about winning an argument; it’s about doing the right thing — plain and simple.

This amendment isn’t just about compassion; it’s about common sense. It’s about understanding how real economies work and who keeps them running. When people are struggling just to get through the week, when nearly half of the residents of our province, especially in the North, say they’re $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills, putting money back into their pocket isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s the smart fiscal policy.

The people we’re trying to help with this amendment, they don’t stash the $500 away in an offshore account or high-yield investment portfolio. They spend it locally, immediately, responsibly. That spending ripples through the economy.

A $1,000 boost for a two-income household isn’t just groceries or gas. It’s a haircut at the local salon or a local barber. It’s soccer cleats for a child whose parents were about to say no. It’s dinner at a family-run restaurant or maybe a few hours of child care so a parent can pick up an extra shift. It’s dignity, and it’s local stimulus. That’s what this amendment offers.

I urge the government to support this amendment and show the people of the North that they are listening and understand their pain. I urge the government to take this lifeline that the opposition has thrown them, fulfil their promise and give British Columbians a break. They need it. They deserve it, and they deserve to have their faith in government renewed.

We can and must do better. I hope everybody supports this amendment.

Brent Chapman: Today I stand in this House to speak not only in favour of the income tax amendment act but to also speak on behalf of British Columbians and my community of Surrey South, who feel like no matter how hard they work, they just can’t get ahead.

The affordability crisis is a heavy burden to bear, one that has been relentless and continues to force British Columbians into precarious financial situations. We’ve heard it all throughout this session.

[7:05 p.m.]

People across the province are tired. They are tired of living paycheque to paycheque, tired of working full time or more and still being unable to afford rent, groceries, child care and other necessities. The anxiety of a lack of financial stability has become a debilitating reality for so many of our constituents, and I can only say for certain that they are tired of governments who cancel promises while the cost of living continues to balloon and help never seems to arrive.

Let me paint a clearer picture of the reality many British Columbians face each day. Nearly half of the people in this province are just $200 away from financial insolvency. That’s not a hypothetical statistic; it’s an alarm bell. It means one flat tire could unravel their ability to get to work. One dental emergency could wipe out their food budget. One unusually high grocery bill during a tough week could force them to choose between paying for medication or keeping the lights on.

These aren’t isolated cases. It is an everyday lived reality for working families who are doing everything right but still are falling behind, seniors stretching their pensions to the breaking point and students trying to build a future while juggling part-time jobs and full-time tuition. The stress is relentless. They’re not asking for handouts. All they’re asking for is a little break, a little breathing room and a fair chance to get by. Frankly, if we can’t offer that as a government, then we’re not doing our job.

That’s why this amendment matters. It offers real, practical and predictable relief as a recognition of the challenges our constituents face every day. It’s the kind of action that shows them that we see them, we hear them, and we’re ready to stand up for them.

To break it down clearly and simply, this amendment to the income tax amendment act proposes to raise the basic personal amount, the portion of income that an individual can earn before paying any income tax, to $22,462. That number would align with the low-income cutoff, reflecting the minimum income required to cover basic necessities in British Columbia.

What does that actually mean for everyday British Columbians? It means an extra $500 in their pocket each and every year, not as a one-time cheque, not as a short-term pilot program and not as a flashy promise rolled out before an election. It’s permanent. It’s built right into the tax system, and it’s automatic.

For a two-income household, that’s $1,000 a year, which is money that can go towards rising grocery costs, overdue bills, school supplies, transit passes or just peace of mind knowing that there’s a bit of a buffer at the end of the month. It is $1,000 in permanent and predictable relief, some breathing room and a break British Columbians deserve.

That’s not just tax policy; that’s real relief. That’s the kind of help that makes a real difference, the kind that recognizes the pressures families are under and gives them the breathing room that they deserve. That’s why this amendment is more than just a technical change. It’s a direct response to the everyday struggles people are facing across the province.

British Columbians are facing the highest grocery prices in a generation. This year alone the average family is paying an extra $800 just to put food on the table. That can very well be the final straw in an already stretched budget, and that is exactly why this amendment matters so much.

The $1,000 in tax relief for a two-income household won’t solve every problem, but it will go a long way toward offsetting those rising costs and easing the pressure on kitchen tables from Prince George to Penticton and from Vancouver to Vernon. It is relief that will actually be felt not only at the till and in the fridge but in the daily decisions families make regarding what they can afford.

Let’s be honest. When the NDP government promised a $1,000 grocery rebate, they made a clear and public commitment to working families across this province. But after the election, that promise quietly vanished — no rebate, no explanation, just more empty rhetoric.

When government abandons the people who trusted them, it becomes the responsibility of the opposition to step up, speak out and offer real solutions. This amendment is exactly that. It delivers on the relief that was promised, not with slogans but with substance.

[7:10 p.m.]

Here’s what makes it so feasible. It’s automatic, universal and built right into the tax system. There is no unnecessary, convoluted application process, no long wait times and no barriers to access. If you file your taxes, you get the benefit. It’s that simple.

No one should have to fight for basic relief. No one should have to be left behind just because they don’t have the time, resources or ability to navigate yet another bureaucratic maze. And that’s the point. This is the kind of policy working people need right now. It’s practical, reliable and real. It doesn’t insult their intelligence with half-measures or flashy announcements that never materialize. It offers what people have been asking for. It offers predictable, meaningful support that extends a helping hand and lightens their load.

Now, some of you will remember very clearly when the Premier stood in front of cameras and made a bold promise to the people of British Columbia. He promised a $1,000 grocery rebate — not once, but year after year. In fact, he said it plainly and without hesitation, and I quote: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that.”

That is what British Columbians heard, and that is what they trusted. Frankly, who could blame them? I believed it too, because when a government looks the public in the eye and makes that kind of commitment, we should be able to take them at their word. But that promise quietly disappeared, and no rebate arrived. If it weren’t for the opposition standing here today calling it out and holding this government to its word, that broken promise would have been swept under the rug like so many others.

This was not just a policy reversal. It altered the trust that British Columbians have in their government, and that trust is pretty hard to rebuild. Let’s be clear. This government tried to draw as little attention to their broken promise as possible, burying it beneath rhetoric about economic uncertainty and the global instability, hoping people wouldn’t notice or would simply forget. But British Columbians did not forget, and neither did we.

They attempted to look for a scapegoat to justify financial mismanagement. They made it seem as if there was a plan to put the money back in the pockets of British Columbians, and the second the election was over, they were looking at how to renege on those same promises.

That is exactly why we’re here today: not just to criticize a broken promise but to fix it and offer a real solution. The amendment does what the government failed to do. It delivers and makes that $1,000 promise a reality, not as a rebate that comes and goes but as a permanent, predictable and accessible tax break that people can count on year after year. There are no applications and no hoops to jump through. It is, quite frankly, just a fairer tax system that lets people keep more of what they earn.

Let me emphasize the fact that we are not doing this for a headline or to score political points. We are here to extend a helping hand to the people who need it most, whether it be the single mother trying to feed her kids, the senior choosing between groceries and prescriptions, or the young couple who can’t see a path forward in their own province. This amendment is for them. It’s about restoring trust, delivering on promises and showing British Columbians that there is still a place in politics for honesty, accountability and compassion.

This amendment is designed for everyday people, those who live month to month and pay more than their fair share. The true beneficiaries of this amendment will be our grocery clerks, our home care aides, tradespeople, seniors living on modest pensions, small business owners and parents, to name a few. These are the people who need the helping hand and who deserve some breathing room from the absolute burden of the affordability crisis.

Let’s zoom out for a moment and take a clear-eyed look at where our province stands. British Columbia now has the highest consumer debt levels in the entire country. That is not a simple statistic to gloss over. Rather, it is a flashing red light on the dashboard of our economy.

It’s not just spread evenly. In Vancouver, household debt per capita has reached levels higher than any other city in Canada. This demonstrates the fact that the average family isn’t just struggling to get by; they’re drowning in their interest payments, in their credit card balances and deferred bills, just trying to catch up.

[7:15 p.m.]

Now let’s zoom in again, get closer, and see right into the kitchen of an average family. Food prices are expected to rise another 3 to 5 percent this year alone. That is higher than the Bank of Canada’s inflation target of 1 to 3 percent.

While that may not sound too dramatic for a family of four, that translates to an additional $800 more at grocery stores for the same staples that they bought last year. That is roughly $66 for food, which does add up. That isn’t luxury or a splurge; that is the basics. Milk, bread, vegetables, rice, eggs, baby formula, meat, you name it. They’re paying more for less every single week.

In fact, over half of Canadians can’t absorb an unexpected $500 expense. Families are now one emergency away from financial disaster. Researchers from universities have sounded alarm bells, stating that they’re expecting a difficult year, unfortunately, for families. Even when you walk into any local grocery store, like Red Barn or Thrifty’s down the street, you see the effect. Prices on pantry staples and fresh produce climb steadily, while bills remain relentless and salaries are stagnant.

The number of families turning to food banks isn’t just rising; it’s becoming a new normal for households that never imagined they’d be in that position. Seniors who spent their lives building this province are now quietly rationing groceries, making one bag of produce stretch across two weeks. Students already burdened by tuition and housing costs are skipping meals just to afford rent, fuelling up on caffeine instead of calories.

These are not isolated stories. They are the daily reality for thousands across British Columbia, and all of this unfolds against a backdrop of a government that touts record-breaking surpluses and billions in capital spending. They highlight grand infrastructure projects while quietly shelving a simple, tangible promise they made to working people — a $1,000 relief that was front and centre during an election and then vanished in the fine print of the budget.

No British Columbian should be told there’s no money for a grocery rebate while watching billions flow into projects that, while important, don’t put food on the table today. When people are hungry and when they’re slipping deeper into debt just to survive, the conversation must be made about people.

This government’s inability to follow up on this promise isn’t just some budgeting problem. It is the consequence of policy failure. It is a prime example of what happens when governments overpromise and underdeliver and leave people to fend for themselves in times that they admit themselves to be uncertain.

Governments are supposed to provide certainty, yet this government uses uncertainty as a justification for every mistake they make, every promise they fail to deliver on. They also use this excuse to justify tax increases. Well, let me ask you this: should those living below the poverty line pay income tax? That is the reality of this situation, and no one deserves to be taxed into poverty. In fact, no one should be an emergency away from poverty, yet so many British Columbians are living in that reality today.

Let’s not gloss over what it really means to be one emergency away from poverty, because for many British Columbians, that emergency has already come. Many British Columbians need that $1,000 relief right now. Whether it’s a car accident, a medical diagnosis or a sudden job loss, the systems that are supposed to catch people when they fall are failing them.

Take ICBC, for example. Instead of helping victims recover, it too often inserts itself into the patient care process, delaying access to physiotherapy or mental health support and starving people of fair compensation when they need it most. It’s not just wrong. It keeps people injured, out of work and deeper in financial hardship for an accident that is often not even their fault.

Whether it is a senior reliant on handyDART or a shift worker waiting for a late-night bus that never comes, the uncertainty in transit funding leaves people stranded. There is no clear criteria, no stable investments and no accountability. No one should fall into poverty just because they got hurt or missed a bus.

[7:20 p.m.]

That scenario is a lived reality for many, yet this government rescinds the lifeline it once offered to those same British Columbians. Instead of catching people and lifting them up, this government only pushes them down. If this government won’t offer a lifeline, then we’ll do it.

This amendment does just that. It’s a lifeline. It gives the quick relief that British Columbians need and the breathing room that they deserve. To echo my colleagues, as an added benefit, the amendment cuts through the rural and urban divide. It doesn’t matter where you live. Every taxpayer in our province benefits. It is a small but powerful and much-needed signal that our rural and Interior communities matter just as much.

Now, we’ve heard some people in the opposition to this amendment primarily raising concerns about fiscal responsibility. Let me be clear. Fiscal responsibility does matter. As legislators, we have an obligation to make sure that public dollars are spent wisely and that the choices we make today don’t create hardship for future generations. That principle is valid, and I won’t stand here and diminish its importance.

I will say this. We must also be honest about how that responsibility is being exercised right now by this government. This is a government that has overseen some of the largest deficits in provincial history. It has poured billions into capital projects. And while these investments are made, working families are still waiting for the affordability measures they were promised — waiting for the grocery rebate that never came, waiting for relief that never arrived.

My question then is: what good is fiscal responsibility if it doesn’t actually translate into helping the people who need it most? That’s exactly where this amendment fits in. It’s modest, targeted and responsible. Most importantly, it returns money to the people who need it most. This is money that gets spent at the local bakery, at the farmers market or to pay bills and rent. It flows directly into our communities and fuels real economic activity.

This isn’t just a helping hand. It’s an economically sound policy. It saves each and every British Columbian $500 a year. It revitalizes a promise that this government broke, and it provides immediate relief to British Columbians. In fact, it just about covers the extra $800 that British Columbians are predicted to spend on food this year. When the working poor and the middle class are able to breathe again, everyone benefits, and that is what a healthy economy looks like.

This brings me to my final point. We were elected by our constituents to be representatives for them and therefore bear a responsibility to deliver on our promises. Trust is easy to lose and hard to earn, and that trust wears thinner with each broken promise. To put it simply, trust in this time of uncertainty is fragile. Promises like the grocery rebate that never materialized hurt faith in democracy. As opposition, we are doing our part to uphold that trust and begin repairing it, to re-extend that lifeline that British Columbians were once promised, not with slogans, not with spin, but with genuine action.

As I close, let me make one thing absolutely clear. This amendment is not about scoring political points, as I said earlier. It’s about righting a wrong. It’s about turning disappointment into progress and ensuring that when people look to this Legislature, they see more than debate; they see delivery.

What is at stake here is trust, fragile trust that our constituents have instilled in us to prioritize their well-being. What’s at stake is the daily lives of hard-working people who are doing everything they can to make ends meet and simply need us to meet them halfway.

Support for this amendment means acknowledging that government must be nimble enough to respond to rising needs and grounded enough to protect the most vulnerable among us. It means standing with the family facing impossible choices, with the students taking on extra shifts just to pay for textbooks, with the retiree who built this province and now finds themselves counting every single dollar.

These are not abstractions. These are real people across our province, whether in urban centres or rural areas, and our job, the very reason we hold these seats, is to represent them and ensure they get the helping hand that they need.

[7:25 p.m.]

Raising the basic personal amount isn’t radical. In fact, it’s responsible. It reflects the actual cost of living in today’s British Columbia and updates a system that has failed to keep pace with that reality. If you earn too little to live, you should not be taxed on that income. That is a principle as old, as fair, as governance itself.

While some may argue that it’s not the government’s role to intervene so directly in people’s lives, I respectfully disagree. In times like these, when wages stagnate, prices rise and everyday necessities become luxuries, people are not looking for a government that steps back. They’re looking for someone that steps up, and that is what this amendment does.

Let’s show British Columbians that their concerns are not lost in partisan noise. Let’s prove that when promises are broken, we do not give up. Instead, we take responsibility and we offer something better.

I urge both sides of this aisle to support this amendment, because it offers more than tax relief. It offers meals on the table, a sense of stability and a renewed faith that politics can still deliver on its most fundamental obligation — to make life better and easier for the people that we serve.

Again, I urge all members on all sides of the House to support this amendment, to raise the basic personal amount and put money back in the pockets of British Columbians in an easily accessible and impactful way. Let’s stop taxing people into poverty, and let’s continue to build a province where fairness isn’t just a talking point; it’s actually delivered.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the approval of the amendment to Bill 5.

[7:30 p.m. – 7:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members. Members, please take your seats.

Members, the motion is an amendment to Bill 5. I’ll read the motion.

[That the motion for second reading of Bills (No. 5) intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025 be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefor the following: “Bill (No. 5) not be read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax credit provided in section 4.3 (1.1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215) to $22,462.”]

[7:40 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman		McCall
NAYS — 48
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Valeriote	Botterell

On the main motion.

The Speaker: Members, we now go back to the main motion.

I see no members standing and no further speakers. The minister will close the debate.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Before we close the debate, I would just like to share a few comments.

What an astonishing collection of speeches we’ve heard from the other side of the House in regard to Bill 5. There is so much I could say, but there are a few areas that I must respond to before we close this debate.

The other side has taken issue, first, with the question of our increasing the film tax credit; and second, of the reason we expanded the interactive digital media tax credit — a rejection, full out, of the other side’s vision of our province, one that is based on a time long past and not embracing a future of what our province is and what our province can be.

First, the tax credit. My goodness, the film tax credit. This film tax credit is under attack by the opposite side. They’ve said things like: “This is an insider’s tax credit. This is only serving a few people.” I asked an organization which works closely with the film industry just to run some numbers for us, and let me share some of them with you.

All of these are from Conservative ridings. Langley East — $46 million was brought into that riding, to 661 different businesses, through film work in that riding; Maple Ridge-Mission — $12,691,078, 413 businesses; Abbotsford South — over $9 million, 236 businesses; Delta — $9 million, 347 businesses; Richmond-Queensborough — $8,000,500, 302 businesses; Surrey–White Rock — $600 million, 305 businesses; Abbotsford-Mission — over $5 million, 231 businesses; Kelowna-Mission — $350 million, 21…. I could go on and on.

When we made the decision to support more film being done in this province, it’s because we care about rural businesses. It’s because we care about small businesses. It’s because we care about filling hotel rooms and making sure that small businesses are able to sell their products, their food, that restaurants are full. This industry drives that all over our province.

[7:45 p.m.]

Just one filming, Last of Us 2 — over $200 million brought into our province, 22 different film locations. This is important to rural communities, and the fact that the other side, that claims to be the voice of rural communities, can’t see that is shocking. It’s appalling, and it’s wrong.

If you want to talk about being wrong, let me point this out. I am deeply appalled about the words that were said about me by the other side on this debate. The other side accused me of giving $45 million to a past employer. That is a serious accusation. I challenge any of them to say that in this hallway — any of them.

I will tell you exactly what happened. I worked in the video game industry for a long time, and I love that industry. I love that industry because it attracts young people into technology. I think of it as the Trojan Horse of technology. It brings young people in, and then they go off and do all other kinds of things in technology in our province.

I am so gung-ho about this industry that I ended up running a trade association, a non-profit, that draws young people into this association. I believe that it’s a driver of technology in our province, technology that solves problems in forestry and in mining, helping us with clean energy and growing our tech sector across our province.

That’s why I supported us increasing our interactive digital media tax credit from 17.5. That’s why we made that increase. It has nothing to do with personal gain. It’s because of a vision of the province that sees us using technology to grow high-paying jobs for young people across this province, and I will not apologize for that.

Our tech sector, which was attacked by the other side, is such a source of strength for us. The other side might say: “Well, that’s a Vancouver issue or a Kelowna issue or something that only matters in Victoria.” That is false. Technology is our strength in this province that’s helping in so many different industries.

When you think about forestry right now, when you talk about what’s happening in terms of detecting forest fires…. They’re using sensors. They’re using all kinds of technology.

We talked to the farmers today, out on Beef Day, and I heard about how they’re using technology. These are important things.

Someone got up on the other side and said the vision of our province is pictured up here on the walls. It’s agriculture, and it’s fisheries, and it’s forestry. Yes, of course it’s those things. It always will be, but the fact that we can insert technology and become competitive around the world, leading in these industries through our powerful tech sector, is how we win. It’s how we compete. That’s the vision that we need to have for our province.

I’m proud of the decisions that we’ve made to support this growth in our province. We’re going to continue to do that.

With that, I move second reading.

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 5.

Division has been called.

[7:50 p.m. – 7:55 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, it seems like we have a full House except the three independent members. Is there an agreement to waive the time? Or should we wait for a full ten minutes?

Leave not granted.

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025.

[8:00 p.m.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting in the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Bill 11, second reading debate.

Bill 11 — Employment Standards
Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move the bill be read now a second time.

This bill amends the Employment Standards Act to support B.C.’s commitment to ease the administrative burden on doctors and other health care providers while supporting the health and well-being of workers needing to take sick leave.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I’m talking about sick notes, which some employers demand as proof that a worker is or has been in fact sick. It may seem like a small issue, but we have heard very loudly and very clearly from medical professionals that it represents a significant administrative burden for them, as well, of course, as placing an unnecessary burden on people who are sick, as well as posing risks to those around them.

Health care professional organizations and labour advocates have long raised concerns about employers requiring sick notes for workers’ short-term absences. In fact, last year, the Canadian Medical Association and B.C. Family Doctors called for the elimination of this practice of requiring sick notes altogether in order to reduce the tedious and outdated paperwork that it causes for doctors and other medical professionals. We know that business leaders have also echoed that call.

Both the Canadian Medical Association and the B.C. College of Family Physicians have expressed strong concerns about the amount of time that Canadian doctors spend on administrative tasks. In fact, they estimate that family physicians can devote as much as up to 30 percent of their time doing administrative work, including writing sick notes.

[8:05 p.m.]

This has been illustrated in Nova Scotia, where sick note restrictions were put in place in 2023, along with a suite of other measures to reduce the administrative burden on physicians. That has resulted in what they estimate to be a reduction of about 67,000 hours of paperwork. That’s 67,000 hours less spent on administrative duties and actually spent on patient care every year.

Now, here in British Columbia, doctors estimate that they sign about 1.6 million sick notes every year. It’s true that this legislation won’t eliminate all of those sick notes. In fact, there are times and circumstances where it’s appropriate and necessary to have a clinical assessment through some sort of medical reporting.

But it is really clear that removing the need for sick notes and the ability of employers to require sick notes is going to be a significant step to freeing up time for our medical professionals to do what they do best, to do what they want to do, to do what we need them to be doing, which is providing care for their patients.

The primary concern, as we have heard directly from doctors on the front lines, is that precious appointment time that they have in their practices gets taken up by individuals who have been required by their employers to go see a doctor or a nurse practitioner or a registered nurse to get a sick note, in circumstances, though, where that health care professional can’t actually provide a meaningful clinical intervention.

There is, in my circumstance today, having just a terrible head cold, nothing that a doctor is going to be able to do for me. This is a situation that is replicated many, many thousands of times across our province. Of course, with these changes, it’s not just doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses who will benefit from eliminating this requirement. It’s, very much so, the patients themselves.

Frankly, if you’re sick, the last thing you should have to do is get up, get dressed, go out and go to see your doctor or go to a medical clinic in order to get a piece of paper that says that you’re sick. It doesn’t make much sense. It doesn’t help you get better any faster, and it just doesn’t make any sense in the context of our current health care environment.

Now, we know that today many people still don’t necessarily have a family doctor, although I will say that situation, as we have seen, is improving very rapidly in our province. It is the case that sometimes getting an appointment at a walk-in clinic can be challenging.

Not only that, but there is often a fee charged for the sick note, and that is an expense that many people really can’t afford. So they are often faced with the choice of going to work sick or paying a fee to get a note. Either way, it’s the person who is ill and really needs to be at home recovering who is paying the price for that. It’s not fair, it’s not reasonable, and it’s not safe.

Further, consider the situation for somebody who has, say, a highly contagious flu bug. They’re sitting in a doctor’s office, a medical clinic or the emergency room for hours, maybe, waiting to see somebody who can sign a note for them, potentially putting other people who are around them at risk.

We’ve learned a lot, and I think some of standards and practices have changed since our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic. What we really learned during COVID-19 was that distancing from other people when you’re sick is really important, plain and simple. That is why I’m speaking to you from my office today, because I have a cold, and I don’t want to make anybody else sick.

With reference to our experience during the pandemic, at the very beginning of COVID, the Employment Standards Act was amended to specifically say that an employer could not require a sick note from a worker for a COVID-related illness, because we really understood at the beginning of COVID that this was a novel virus. We didn’t have a vaccine.

[8:10 p.m.]

We really had to go out of our way to protect each other from that potentially deadly disease — deadly in many cases, in fact, until we had a vaccine. That was a very, very important public health measure that we took at the time, but we have to reflect now.

Why should that really only apply to COVID, when we know that other types of respiratory illnesses, for example, can be just as dangerous to people with chronic health problems or compromised immune systems?

Those individuals are often those who need to see their doctor or their nurse practitioner at a medical clinic and may find themselves right next to somebody who is there for no purpose other than to get a note saying that, in fact, they’re sick.

We can do better to minimize the risks that the general population is put to. One of the ways to do that is to remove the option for employers to insist on sick notes from their employees when their employees are experiencing a short-term illness that is causing them to not be at work for a short-term period. That’s precisely what the intent of this bill is.

Currently, the Employment Standards Act states: “Workers who have been employed for at least 90 consecutive days are entitled to up to five days of employer-paid sick leave per calendar year as well as three days of unpaid job-protected sick leave per calendar year.”

The act also says that employers can require their workers to provide “reasonably sufficient proof” that they are entitled to the sick leave. However, the act does not define what is meant by reasonably sufficient proof, but it may include a note from a health care professional and often does.

As I mentioned, the act does prohibit employers from demanding sick notes from employees for COVID-related illnesses. Again, that restriction was based on advice from public health officials at the time, noting that health care professionals should be focusing on providing patient care, on caring for people who are ill, on circumstances in which they can make a meaningful clinical intervention, rather than writing sick notes. I would further just note that since that time we did not hear concerns so much from employers, from stakeholders with respect to that restriction.

With respect to how this bill will operate, this bill does not simply apply to all health care providers for all illness and injury leaves. This is a very targeted amendment. These amendments to the Employment Standards Act will ensure that employers cannot request that an employee provide a sick note written by a physician, a nurse practitioner or a registered nurse for an employee’s short-term absence.

I want to be clear that this is enabling legislation and that the next step, should this bill pass, would be a round of consultations with health care providers, employers, workers, small business groups, folks who are interested and impacted by this issue. We would conduct that consultation throughout the spring and summer, with a view to developing a set of regulations.

Using the feedback that we get, we would develop regulations to specify a number of things. One, are there other health care professionals who should be exempted from providing sick notes? There is also, secondly, the issue to be determined of what counts as a short-term absence. And should there be a limit or a specification with respect to the number of instances throughout a year for which this provision would apply?

We would expect that regulations would be developed and enforced in time for the fall 2025 respiratory illness season, which would mean easing the burden of paperwork on doctors at a time when the demand for their time and the demand for their expertise to care for British Columbians is at its highest.

[8:15 p.m.]

With these amendments, British Columbia is joining seven other Canadian jurisdictions that have statutory restrictions on the use of sick notes. The goal here is to provide a balance between easing the burden on health care professionals, supporting the well-being of sick workers and allowing the production of medical documents to continue where they are appropriate and necessary.

The restriction established under this bill is limited to sick notes that employers request to support a short-term absence from work due to an illness or injury. Employers, of course, will still be able to request documents from health care practitioners that contain useful clinical information to support a longer-term absence, to develop an appropriate return-to-work program for an ill or injured worker or to design a workplace accommodation for a worker’s medical- or health-related condition.

As well, health practitioners will continue to write medical reports and documents that are necessary for workers compensation, ICBC and other insurance purposes. This bill places no restrictions in that regard.

The recent throne speech made it clear that our government is prioritizing improved access to primary health care in our province. We want to see improved efficiency, and we want to see better conditions for working people. This bill is just one part of a much broader comprehensive strategy focused on that priority, but for both workers and health care professionals, this is a significant step in the right direction.

Kiel Giddens: I rise to speak to Bill 11, the Employment Standards Amendment Act. This is an interesting bill for the government to bring forward. It’s one of a series of changes that the NDP government has made to this act over the years, and I understand that it was included in their party’s platform in the election last fall.

I want to wish the minister a speedy recovery from her head cold, as she noted there. It’s ironic that she’s bringing this bill to second reading on a day when she’s feeling a bit unwell, but I know she’ll bounce back quickly here.

I can appreciate the words of the Minister of Labour, and I believe they’re sincere. However, I would caution the government not to get into too much bragging or claiming a victory on this issue, and I’ll get into what I mean by that in my remarks shortly here.

I have taken the time to examine this bill, and I really sincerely appreciate the technical briefing provided by staff from the Ministry of Labour. That was quite helpful, so I really appreciate their service and their work. We do understand that Bill 11 is about waiving the requirement for a doctor’s note for workers to be able to get approval from their employer to get short-term sick leave.

In this day and age, this is proving to be a burden on the sick employees, and yes, I would agree with that. It’s also a burden for doctors drowning in administration, and the minister noted some of that in her remarks. I agree with her remarks on that.

The only thing is that a lot of that administration are mandates from health authorities that are of the government’s own making, and I’ll get into that a little bit more shortly. We need to streamline our health care system. We need to cut the red tape that is making it too difficult for doctors to care for patients.

Let’s turn to what this bill is aiming to achieve with the Employment Standards Act. It isn’t solving a broken system in the employee and employer relationship. It’s not necessarily about the labour market at all.

In reality, this bill is responding to a specific practical problem. Our health care system is broken, and the NDP government is trying to put a band-aid solution on to address this problem.

Members here likely know that under the existing legislation, employers may request medical documentation to substantiate an illness. That was talked about by the minister previously.

[8:20 p.m.]

Some of these can keep an employee off the job, obviously. Typically, this is a sick note, but there are other proof points that can technically be used, like a hospital medical bracelet, for example. In principle, that requirement aims to balance workplace integrity — a functional workplace staffed with paid employees — with legitimate sick time if an employee is ill and shouldn’t actually be at work.

In practice, however, it does collide with today’s reality. British Columbians struggle, often unsuccessfully, to see a family doctor. Over 700,000 residents in our province remain unattached to any form of primary care. Rural ERs…. I represent Prince George–Mackenzie riding. These include communities that are really struggling. Mackenzie, in my riding, and many places in northern British Columbia and the interior of British Columbia face repeated diversions.

In fact, I just saw a notice right before coming into this debate that Mackenzie’s hospital is going to be closed from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. tomorrow. This has happened nearly 20 times so far in 2025. I’ll be watching to see if this diversion extends into the next day. It often does. It usually covers a 24-hour period. That’s unacceptable for rural British Columbians who are trying to access our health care system.

Walk-in clinics often close earlier than their posted hours because there’s no physician available. Of course, the urgent and primary care centres were something that the former Minister of Health talked about at length. But they’re struggling to remain staffed.

In Prince George, in my riding, it’s been a real struggle to keep that urgent and primary care centre staffed. They’ve had to completely change the way it’s administered to keep that open and save it. It’s been a real challenge for Northern Health and for the doctors and nurses who are trying to provide care to patients.

When workers can’t actually get an appointment, the simple act of obtaining a doctor’s note becomes a logistical marathon — lost wages, long drives or hours in walk-in clinics or emergency departments. Last year a report from Medimap Canada showed that B.C. had the highest average walk-in wait times in the country, at 93 minutes.

I know these are issues in my own riding. In Prince George, I was recently talking to a constituent, a single parent, who waited four hours at a walk-in clinic just to prove she had the flu. I agree that that’s an inefficient use of our health care resources and certainly an unfair burden on employees, when they’re waiting that long trying to get a doctor’s note in that case.

Even with those that have a family doctor, they can’t get in to see them for weeks sometimes. I know many people in that situation either end up going to the walk-in clinic at 6:30 in the morning to line up, or if they’re lucky, they use workarounds with people they know in the system. It’s kind of like in the former Soviet Union, to be honest.

The other problem that this bill highlights, as I mentioned, is the administrative burden on doctors. Yes, I know the minister raised that as well. I realize that B.C. Family Doctors are the ones that brought this forward, and I don’t blame them at all for doing so. They’ve said that this change can free up more time for patient care and reduce strain on the health care system. They would know about that strain because that administrative burden is one that is burying them in paperwork, and they can’t keep up.

According to the Canadian Medical Association’s 2021 national physician health survey, general practitioners are significantly more likely to say that they spend time on electronic medical records at home, that 61 percent of them say they’re doing that, and they say that’s excessive or moderately high compared to their specialist colleagues at 39 percent.

I think there is a challenge with GPs right now in making sure that they’re not burdened by red tape. The administrative burden in medicine is linked to rising rates of burnout among physicians, and primary care providers are really bearing the brunt of that.

[8:25 p.m.]

Again, I go back to the fact that we need to cut red tape. We need to make it simpler in our systems, our processes, our health authorities, to make sure that we’re not drowning our physicians and health care professionals in red tape and adding administrative burden.

Now I’ll turn to a little bit more about what Bill 11 does. Bill 11, of course, narrows the circumstances under which an employer can demand a doctor’s note. It makes, what I would say, employee attestation the default for short-term illness.

In doing so, we have to ensure that we’re also preserving an employer’s right to request further evidence in cases of pattern absenteeism. We want to make sure that’s not going to be abused, or in the case of an extended leave, we need to make sure that that’s practical.

This has to be a pragmatic and well-crafted adjustment so that we’re not creating conflict between employees and employers. We don’t want a rash of employment standards claims coming out of this. As the minister said, this is enabling legislation, so the regulations would be critical in this regard.

We don’t currently know the regulations in that enabling part, so this bill isn’t prescriptive. We don’t know how the government intends to remove the potential for conflict, so I hope we can learn a little bit more about that from the government as we go through this.

The minister has also noted publicly that consultation hasn’t occurred fulsomely yet, and hope it can be true consultation when it does occur. We heard that the plan is for much of that to happen this spring and summer, but it’s important to get the balance right.

Let me be clear. This bill does not upend the overall paid sick leave framework. Whether one believes the existing five paid days are too many, too few or just right is a debate for another day.

Today’s question is quite a bit narrower. What constitutes reasonable proof of illness in a time when access to physicians and primary care is severely constrained? On that narrower question, I will admit the legislation offers a sensible remedy. Again, I would call this a band-aid solution to a problem. We should not mistake a band-aid for a cure.

Bill 11 is needed precisely because the public health care system can’t fulfil its mandate. That’s timely, longitudinal primary care for British Columbians. If every British Columbian had a family physician or timely access to the health care system, this amendment would actually be redundant. It wouldn’t be something we’d be discussing today.

The most recent primary care report confirms that we still have nearly one in five, as I said, unattached from primary care. Those who are attached, it can be nearly 13 days for that routine appointment. In the Interior and the North where I’m from, that’s 16 to 18 days. Walk-in clinic queues, as I’ve mentioned earlier, are also an issue.

In looking at this bill, we will consider administrative load, so talking about those primary care clinics. The continuity of care is certainly a problem, and then we don’t have that equity across the province of access to our system.

Some members will interpret my remarks and this bill as an endorsement or a critique of the existing paid sick leave, and I’m not going to get into either of those debates or discussions today.

Employees should not be forced to choose between health and wages. Likewise, employers need confidence that this leave is taken honestly. Both are actually legitimate aims, and Bill 11 zeroes in on the documentation bottleneck without reopening the broader debate. I’m okay with that in this context.

I think it is important to put these amendments in the context that I’ve been discussing, though, and also put these amendments in context within Canada. The minister did reference some of the other provinces that have variations of prescriptions on paid sick leave or sick leave provisions or those of doctors’ notes.

B.C., of course, is a rare example of a jurisdiction in Canada with paid sick days, so it’s important to put this legislation in that context within the country. It’s something to consider as we discuss the bill further into committee stage and when the regulations are being crafted, because B.C. is in a bit of a unique situation, I think.

[8:30 p.m.]

For the benefit of members in the House, I just want to provide some updates from other jurisdictions in Canada to highlight some of the ways other jurisdictions are looking at this topic, because there are a couple that have it before them currently. There are a few that have made changes in recent years.

In Saskatchewan, Bill 5, introduced in December of ’24 — as of now, it’s not brought into force yet. It’s still before the Legislature there. What I’ve read is they were introducing amendments to limit sick notes. It would restrict employers from asking for a sick note unless the employee had been absent for more than five consecutive working days or has been absent twice for two or more days in the preceding 12 months — different from what B.C. has, with these amendments.

In Ontario, employers are no longer allowed to ask for sick notes from a qualified health practitioner, but they’re still allowed to ask employees to provide evidence, reasonable in the circumstances, that they are entitled to leave. So an attestation is part of that, but it’s a little bit different still.

Businesses that offer paid sick days beyond the Employment Standards Act in Ontario can continue to ask employees for sick notes from doctors and other qualified health practitioners. This is a real difference from the B.C. approach, and I think it’s notable for members’ context.

I’ll go on. In Quebec, no employer can request employees to provide documentation attesting to the reasons for their absences for the first three periods of absence not exceeding three consecutive days taken over a period of 12 months. So in this case, it’s very prescriptive, a little bit different. We don’t necessarily have those prescriptions. We’ll find that out in regulation, a little bit more clearly.

In Nova Scotia, employers can still request sick notes if an employee is absent for more than five working days or has already had two absences of five or fewer working days in the previous 12-month period. The government there allows notes from any regulated health care provider — nurses, dentists, pharmacists who are providing the care. Again, that’s quite different from what we’re seeing in this amendment. It does have a little bit more leeway, I think, for the employers if there is any pattern or anything like that.

In New Brunswick, where an employee due to an illness or injury requests a leave of absence of four or more consecutive calendar days, the employer can require a medical certificate certifying that the employee is incapable of working due to illness or injury. There are no restrictions on sick notes for shorter absences from that.

P.E.I. has got some similarities to B.C., because I do believe that they have paid sick days as part of their employment standards. If the employee takes three consecutive days, the employer may ask for a medical certificate. Employers are not permitted to request medical certificates for a single day of absence though. P.E.I., again, has these paid sick days. Their employment standards, though, are different.

An employee is entitled to one paid sick day leave after 12 months of continuous employment, two days of paid sick days after 24 months of continuous employment and then three days after 36 months. So it’s quite different from B.C.’s just straight five days across the board.

I hope members will find this cross-jurisdictional review helpful, as they’re looking at the bill, so that we can understand the context of where we are at in Canada. We need to learn what’s working and what isn’t from the rest of the country.

I understand that B.C. likes to believe we are leading, but let’s not put our blinders on. We don’t always have it 100 percent correct 100 percent of the time. So let’s look at employment standards across the country and make sure that they work to protect employees, and let’s make sure that they’re manageable for employers.

There are a number of items that I’ll be flagging, several items for the minister’s consideration at committee stage, and we’ll be getting into depth at that phase. But really, we do need guidelines for reasonable evidence.

[8:35 p.m.]

Small businesses need really predictable criteria, a really clear template that could avoid needless disputes and reduce calls to the employment standards branch, which already has a backlog.

The review clause. I think it would be good to actually have a review of this in a set period of time and link that to primary care access in the province. I’d hope that the government could look at that as a suggestion, and perhaps it’s something that that could be tied to measurable improvements in family doctor attachment rates, for example. In that case, if the government meets its promises on primary care, we could revisit the need for these provisions in the first place.

As we look into any challenges to the employment standards branch, there needs to be some way to monitor this for their sake, so they can manage complaints. We don’t want a flood of complaints coming into an already stretched system. Perhaps the ministry could require some form of anonymized reporting on employer requests for documentation to ensure the system is not abused by either side.

Overall, these amendments are part of successive tweaks that the NDP government have made to employment standards. Previous to this, there were six different Employment Standards Act amendments in as many years. In each case, the goal was claimed to be modernizing protections.

It’s important that we get Employment Standards Act amendments right. Industry does require clarity and practicability to keep the good relationship with their employees. I think that’s very important.

Bill 11 does follow the same pattern of Employment Standards Act amendments. It tweaks compliance rules rather than addressing the structural challenges. This time it’s a structural challenge of the shortage of family doctors. We have to ensure that these amendments year after year do not cumulatively create uncertainty for both workers and employers.

I will admit in second reading that I will be supporting Bill 11, because it adapts our employment standards to current health care realities. That’s where we’re at right now. That’s the reality we live in, in British Columbia — that we have a crisis in our health care system. We should view this as a stopgap, not a triumph. When legislation must compensate for service gaps, the work of this House is really only half done.

In reality, we’re removing an encouraged check-in between an individual who has an illness and their physician. Getting a routine checkup should actually be a good thing. In making this amendment, we are normalizing that it is okay to skip this step.

These checkups have a purpose. Time with our primary care provider is when we might get an undiagnosed illness treated, or maybe there’s a chance for preventative health measures to be taken. If it’s an acute illness, maybe prescriptions would help the individual get healthy and return to work sooner.

We’re removing a regular checkup that has been a requirement in the past, and I don’t think that is something that we should necessarily celebrate, because we want people to have good-quality primary care in this province, and that relationship with your GP, your family doctor, is absolutely critical.

Yes, we can move this bill forward, but let’s also redouble our efforts to recruit and retain family physicians in this province, to expand team-based primary care and ensure that no British Columbian’s first thought when they fall ill is: “How on earth am I supposed to get a sick note?” Because it’s so difficult to do so right now.

The people of Prince George–Mackenzie and, indeed, all British Columbians are counting on us for a health care system that works, not workarounds that paper over its shortcomings. Band-aids are for small wounds; British Columbians deserve a health care system that heals.

I look forward to a rigorous examination in committee stage of this bill, so we’ll have a lot more chance to get into it clause by clause. I want to thank the staff from the Ministry of Labour for providing a briefing. Hopefully, we can get into some constructive discussions on how we can protect both employees’ health and employers’ need for certainty.

[8:40 p.m.]

At this time, I encourage other members to share their thoughts on this bill. I think it’s important to discuss where our health care system is at and where this bill fits into that and the relationship with employers. I do hope to hear from other members.

With that, I’ll end my time.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the minister’s introduction and the member for Prince George–Mackenzie’s thorough analysis of this bill. I won’t pretend to give it that much depth, so I will keep my comments quite brief, but I believe that these amendments are welcome news for family physicians, patients and our health care system.

It means family physicians will spend less time on unnecessary administrative tasks and more time with patients who require medical care. Patients can stay home and recover, as has been noted already, where they need to be when they’re ill, rather than travel to a doctor’s office for a sick note. The primary care system will benefit from family doctors spending more time on what matters most — providing care for existing and new patients.

For nearly ten years, B.C. Family Doctors, Doctors of B.C. and B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons have advocated for the elimination of sick notes. I would like to recognize and express some gratitude for their tireless advocacy.

As we’ve noted, the health care system is already overburdened. Requiring sick notes contradicts advice to British Columbians to use the health care system efficiently and when needed.

If I may go slightly off script here, I believe it treats people like adults when they should be treated like adults.

Sick notes take time, offer little clinical value and add pressure to our overburdened primary care system. CMA estimates B.C. doctors wrote about 1.6 million sick notes last year. Medical professionals estimate spending between ten to 19 hours each week on paperwork, some of which includes sick notes.

CMA has said removing sick notes could eliminate 12.5 million unnecessary interactions per year between patients and the health care system. That would free up doctor time, open more appointment slots for other patients and reduce administrative burdens on the health care system.

So I’m pleased to see this government listening to experts, following through on a promise from their election campaign last fall and aligning with most other Canadian jurisdictions, with some exceptions.

We are in the midst of a primary care crisis — 700,000 British Columbians without access to a family doctor — so we need physicians focusing on patients, not paperwork. This is a positive step. Every policy change that frees up doctors’ time helps us move toward better care for more British Columbians. We look forward to seeing more steps from this government to address the scale and urgency of the primary care crisis in B.C.

The Green caucus will support this in second, and I’ll commit to consideration of a reasonable number of amendments at committee stage.

Darlene Rotchford: It’s with a great pleasure that I stand before you today to offer my full support for Bill 11, amending the Employment Standards Act. As well as being the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour, I have a long-standing history of activism within the labour movement and for workers, standing up for their rights as well as working with — to be fair, I will say — some good employers in collaboration.

Anything we can do to support our health care professionals and improve the well-being of workers is really just simply a no-brainer. Most recently I heard a story, and I was shocked at how stupid it was, to be quite frank. An employee was sent home from work, because they were sick, by their employer — that was great, “Don’t want you at work. Don’t want to make people sick at work” — with three hours left of their shift.

Then they got a call from their employer: “Well, actually, I want you to go get a sick note.” You’d sent the person home because they were sick — a great thing to do; then you told them to go get a sick note. You’re now making the doctor’s office sick; potentially, the doctor sick — and anyone else you’re going to come in contact with — and then wait to come back to work, depending when you get the sick note.

[8:45 p.m.]

As the minister said, the amendments will eliminate the need for workers to get sick notes for short-term absence from work. On the face of it, it seems like a minor adjustment. But in fact, it’s an important change that will significantly ease the administrative burden for thousands of B.C. health care professionals.

The Canadian Medical Association estimates in 2024, B.C. doctors wrote about 1.6 million sick notes. That’s an incredible number. Again, 1.6 million. That’s the equivalent of 200,000 patient visits in just one year in this province. And that doesn’t include notes written by nurse practitioners or our registered nurses, who will also be covered by these amendments.

Now, you may think: “What’s the big deal? How long can it take for a doctor to write a sick note?” Well, look at it this way. Every patient coming to the doctor or health care practitioner just to get a sick note takes up an appointment spot that could have been used for a person who actually has a serious illness. It’s time that could have been spent treating the patients that need the real help, instead of doing unreasonable paperwork. Because quite frankly, it is unreasonable.

Think about it. These amendments will only cover short-term absences from work for illness or injury. And, again, very clear: short-term. If it’s an injury, say, a broken leg, well, that will be obvious when the worker gets to the job sporting a new cast.

If it’s an illness, say, about a flu that leaves them burdened for a few days, how does it make sense to force that worker to get out of bed, make an appointment, travel to a doctor, sit in a clinic surrounded by people, possibly spreading their illness — spreading their illness to people who have critical illness, low immune systems, and I could go on — just to see a doctor who will say: “Yes, you’ve got the flu. It’s a virus. Go home, get some sleep, and you’ll be fine”?

The best thing that person can do is go to bed, stay away from other people and get some rest so that they are 100 percent so they can go back to work. But then there’s just a piece of paper that says “you’re sick,” which is, quite frankly, a complete waste of time.

It doesn’t make sense, but that’s what the current employment standard allows employers to do: demand a sick note from workers who take short-term sick leaves. That’s why these legislative amendments are very much needed: to remove the unnecessary and heavy burdens on our medical practitioners and their patients.

Again, I can’t count the amount of numerous times employers, even at my past worksites, have gone in and requested sick notes for people who had the flu — again, taking up time, making them spread their illness.

I’ll actually put it one step further. Say you don’t have a car. You live in an urban setting. You have the luxury of being able to take transit. Now you’re putting that person on the bus, who’s now infecting everyone on the bus to get to said medical appointment. Again, we’re spreading the illness. We’re not making sure we’re taking care of ourselves.

To bring it back to efficiency, clarity and common sense, this is a significant part of our health care system. It’s also important to recognize the changes to the act are not unilaterally eliminating the rights of employers to manage their workers when it comes to sick leave because, also, we want to ensure that employers are supporting people when they’re sick, which is why there is other language around that to ensure we’re doing that.

The purpose of legislation is often to outline the broad strokes of a policy and the details then worked out through regulations. That is the case here. This bill says — and I’ll paraphrase here — that under specified circumstances, an employer must not request, and an employee is not required to provide, a sick note or similar documentation in relation to health-related leave taken on a short-term basis.

Those specified circumstances will be defined through the regulation. Those regulations will be developed over the next few months and will involve meaningful engagement and consultation with all stakeholders, including employers, workers and health care professionals.

You’ve heard us say other things, but this is very similar to a team approach. We have to make sure we’re working together to keep people safe, keep their health safe and make sure that they’re utilizing the services they have.

[8:50 p.m.]

The regulations will look at things like how many days are considered a short-term absence, or should there be a limit on the number of short-term leaves workers take in a year before the employer can require a sick note.

These are the kinds of practical details that we’ll set out in the regulations to remove employer requirements for unnecessary sick notes for short-term absences, while ensuring that employers have reasonable oversight and management of their workers by continuing to allow sick notes. These amendments are both supporting employers and workers — and, most importantly, our valued medical practitioners.

Doctors and nurses just want to focus on what they do best, which is caring for our patients. Nothing is more important than that. Nothing should interfere with that. We need to make sure that when the people who are really sick need to access it, they’re there, and those practitioners are not spending unnecessary time with people who have things like the flu.

As well, you can also point out that this is an affordability issue. If someone is sick one day, they have to go to the clinic and pay a significant amount of money for a sick note. They lose time from work — one, two, three days. That’s loss of the money that they need, and for some people, that is a lot of money when you’re already struggling. Any supports we can provide to help them do their jobs effectively and efficiently is well worth this.

Again, we talk about our health care system and heard both sides of this House talk about how important it is. We need to make sure we’re supporting our doctors, our practitioners, our nurses. Again, I fully support Bill 11 and commend the medical community for their perseverance in calling for these changes.

Brennan Day: I think we can all agree, most people here....

The Chair: Member, can you note the hour?

Brennan Day: Noting the hour, I move to adjourn debate and continue tomorrow. I reserve my time.

Motion approved.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

George Anderson: The Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, reports progress on the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

Nina Krieger: Section C reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

[8:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2):

Bill (No. 5)

1.All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 5) intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, be disposed of by 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, as prescribed:

a.If at 2:50 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b.Notwithstanding section 1 (a), if the committee has not considered the amendment to clause 25 of the bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance, the amendment to clause 25 shall be deemed to have passed, and clause 25, as amended, shall be deemed to have passed.

c.Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

d.Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

e.If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

Bill (No. 7)

2.The question on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 7) intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

3.All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 7) intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act be disposed of by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, as prescribed:

a.If at 3:50 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b.Notwithstanding section 3 (a),

i.if the committee has not considered clauses 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, or 26 of the bill, they shall be deemed to have been defeated;

ii.if the committee has not considered the amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Member for Saanich North and the Islands to add a new clause 28.1 to the bill, the amendment shall be deemed to have passed;

iii.if the committee has not considered the amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Member for Saanich North and the Islands to add a new clause 28.2 to the bill, the amendment shall be deemed to have passed;

iv.if the committee has not considered the amendment to clause 29 of the bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Attorney General, the amendment to clause 29 shall be deemed to have passed, and clause 29, as amended, shall be deemed to have passed.

c.Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

d.Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

e.If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

Bill (No. 11)

4.The question on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 11) intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

5. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 11) intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025, be disposed of by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, as prescribed:

a.If at 4:50 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b.Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c.Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d.If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

Bill (No. 13)

6.The question on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 13) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

7.All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 13) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, be disposed of by 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, as prescribed:

a.If at 5:50 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b.Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c.Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d.If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

Bill (No. 14)

8.The question on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 14) intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

9.All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 14) intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act be disposed of by 7 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, as prescribed:

a.If at 6:50 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b.Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c.Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d.If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

Bill (No. 15)

10.The question on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 15) intituled Infrastructure Projects Act, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 8 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

11.All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 15) intituled Infrastructure Projects Act be disposed of by 8 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, as prescribed:

a.If at 7:50 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill, without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b.Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c.Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d.If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

And further, that, for greater certainty, a committee considering a bill in Section B may rise and report progress for the purpose of receiving a report from Section A or Section C in accordance with this order.]

[9:00 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, given the length of the motion, we will be making copies and distribute to all members shortly. The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 9:00 p.m. to 9:06 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is a motion moved by the Government House Leader. I’m not going to read the whole motion again. The motion is that, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2)….

That’s the motion, of which members have a copy.

The ayes have it.

An Hon. Member: Division.

[9:10 p.m. - 9:15 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
	Lore
NAYS — 44
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Giddens	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
Luck	Stamer	Maahs
Tepper	Mok	Wilson
Clare	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Chapman
McCall	Valeriote	Botterell
Kealy		Brodie

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The House is adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:20 p.m.