Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Jennifer Whiteside.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My former boss is in the House, the former MLA for Stikine, the pride of Hazelton, former Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

I remember the day Doug Donaldson was sworn in by Premier Horgan into cabinet. He was literally, within minutes of being sworn in, on his phone getting updates on wildfires, back in 2017. He served this province through a number of tough years in forestry, during wildfires, and has not stopped working.

I know that he serves on the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust and is doing some work with the University of Victoria, the Polis research group there.

I met with him yesterday. I think so highly of him. He has been a mentor to me.

I hope the House will join me in making Doug feel very welcome here today.

John Rustad: I also want to say hi to Mr. Donaldson as well.

Doug Donaldson was a critic of my ministry for a number of years. I was a critic of his ministry for a number of years. And I just want to say, you know, they do say when you leave politics you look ten years younger.

I hope the recovery is going well. You look good.

Welcome to the House.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is my pleasure to introduce members from the B.C. College of Family Physicians, including president Dr. Katherine Bell and vice-president Dr. Jennifer Lush.

The B.C. College of Family Physicians is the heart of family medicine here in British Columbia, supporting family physicians and providing equitable, culturally safe, longitudinal care for all British Columbians. The college provides support and advocacy to more than 6,800 members across the province. We’re so thankful for the work that they do, the work that all family physicians do, in delivering health care across our province.

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

Larry Neufeld: Before I start the introduction, I’m going to ask for leniency from those whose names I’ve worked through my head. I’m going to apologize in advance here, but I’ll give it my best.

I’d like to welcome to the House…. They’re not in the gallery that I can see, but I want to welcome to the precinct representatives from the Canadian Hydrogen Association, a group at the forefront of Canada’s clean energy transition, advancing innovation and sustainability across the country — Mr. Nicolas Pocard, Mrs. Leah Michalopulos, Mr. Colin Armstrong, Ms. Catherin Becerra, Mr. Dan Brock and Mr. Pranav Chandrasekar.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to an outstanding delegation that we met with today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

Emergency Alert Test

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d like to welcome to these chambers a very special and important guest who comes twice a year to visit these chambers and, indeed, visit all of British Columbia.

You may be wondering, but I am actually introducing the emergency alert test, which is going to be today at 1:55 p.m.

I want to remind members and people across the province that you’re going to be receiving an alert on your mobile device, radio and TV at 1:55 today. In order to receive that alert, you need to make sure that your settings on your cell phone are not on do not disturb or airplane mode and that you’re up to date, connected to an LTE or 5G network.

We test it to make sure that we can get information to people in case of emergency. It’s one of the ways we keep people in B.C. safe.

Please welcome the B.C. emergency alert.

Introductions by Members

Pete Davis: I have the honour today to introduce someone very special to me: my wife, Heather, who is up here in the gallery today. This week marks our 23rd wedding anniversary, and I’m super happy to have her here.

You guys, the truth is without her love and her strength, I wouldn’t be standing here in this House today. She’s an important part of my life.

Let’s make her feel welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I have three very short introductions to make today.

First, I would like to welcome, from the regional district of Central Okanagan, Loyal Wooldridge and Sally Ginter. I had two meetings with them today with Minister Kahlon. Not only is Loyal a wonderful representative but also a really dear friend of mine.

Thank you so much for being with us in the House today.

Could the House please make them feel very welcome.

I would also like to welcome — I’m not sure if they’re watching question period, but I know they’re on the precinct — the mayor of Kelowna, Tom Dyas, with his team Doug Gilchrist, Derek Edstrom and Axelle Bazett.

Can the House please make them feel very welcome. I know they have several meetings with ministers today.

Thank you for all the work that you do in Kelowna.

Lastly, it is very rare that I have a constituent in the House, so I was so grateful when I got to see Dr. Johnny Chang, who is here today from the beautiful Creston Valley. He is here with the College of Family Physicians.

Please welcome Dr. Johnny Chang and the family physicians.

Scott McInnis: I have a very special friend and guest in the gallery today, Mr. Don McCormick, who is up in the top row.

Don is past president of the Kimberley Rotary Club, past president of the Kimberley Chamber of Commerce, founding director of Tourism Kimberley, past chair of Community Futures East Kootenay and Columbia Basin Trust director, and he’s currently serving his third term as the mayor of Kimberley.

Don has transformed our town, changing from a quiet mining town that was going through a transition into a world-class resort municipality.

I just want to welcome my friend to the gallery here today. Would you help me welcome him.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Today I rise with great pride to introduce an extraordinary group of students from my riding that are visiting us from École St-Sacrement.

This school is not only a 75-year-old francophone pillar of its community; it’s also the birthplace of a remarkable global initiative called Young Citizens of the World. Last year I had the honour of being interviewed by these students, along with our Minister of Transportation. We were profoundly impressed by their curiosity, their insight and their leadership.

What began as a classroom project evolved into a global movement connecting over one million young people in 37 countries. They represent the very best of British Columbia, and I am so proud of them.

I ask that all members of this House join me in welcoming the outstanding delegation from École St-Sacrement: principal Mykyte, grade 5 teacher Marc-André Tremblay, grade 4 teacher Lukas Fitz and their incredible students and, of course, the dedicated parent chaperones.

Bienvenue à l’assemblée législative. Thank you for being here.

Gavin Dew: I would like to echo the remarks across the way and welcome Mayor Tom Dyas from the city of Kelowna, along with Doug Gilchrist, Derek Edstrom, Axelle Bazett, Kirby March and Michelle Kam.

[1:45 p.m.]

The fine folks from the city of Kelowna are great advocates for a fast-growing community. I know they’ve built great relationships on both sides of the House.

To the ministers opposite, I would say: please give them what they want, and then I won’t ask you so many tough questions.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Joining us for, I believe, the first time to witness question period is the communications team for Social Development and Poverty Reduction. We have five members: Arianna Sihota, Tereza Ticha, Hauwa Bello-Kassim, Mike Allison and a woman who has supported me both in Mental Health and Addictions Ministry and SDPR, Aygul Khalaileh.

Will the members please make them all very welcome.

Pete Davis: When I looked up in the gallery, I actually noticed somebody else from my riding. Mr. Wayne Stetski is a city councillor in Cranbrook.

I just wanted to say welcome.

Nina Krieger: I’d like to recognize students behind me in the gallery today. They’re from Reynolds Secondary’s flexible studies program, along with their dedicated teacher, Brad Cunningham. This program provides students from grades 9 to 10 with opportunities to explore ideas of their own choosing in different learning environments. They are now participating in their own model parliaments, supported by our own B.C. legislative intern students, who are also in the gallery today.

In a few weeks, these students will be sitting in this very chamber to debate their own bills and legislation. I wish them all the luck and would like to recognize their hard work and their curiosity about the democratic process and institutions.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Statements

Tod Maffin and
Nanaimo Infusion Tourism Initiative

George Anderson: I rise to commend Nanaimo resident Tod Maffin for his grassroots initiative, the Nanaimo Infusion, which took place on April 26. Sparked by a viral TikTok campaign, we invited a number of Americans to our city, resulting in hundreds of trips that were booked. For some of the people who showed up, they came for the Nanaimo bar and then asked where the menu was. They didn’t get that.

This influx provided a great boost to our local economy, fostered cross-border goodwill, and it’s a testament to how an individual’s creativity can positively impact our community. Today I am actually wearing my “Tampa loves Nanaimo” bracelet.

Thank you, Tod, for bringing all of these Americans to Nanaimo.

Introductions by Members

Bruce Banman: I apologize. I stand up right now on behalf of my leader, who I believe is doing a scrum, something about a missing cat. I’m not so sure on that. But I do stand up.

He did want to introduce…. I know that we all heard that it was his anniversary and his beloved wife’s birthday, but there is another very important birthday within the Rustad house. That is his beloved parrot Biardi’s 32nd birthday, which makes the parrot a teenager, basically.

Would the House please give a warm welcome for Biardi.

Members’ Statements

Kim Novak

Darlene Rotchford: Today marks what would have been the 40th birthday of a beautiful soul who was taken far too soon. Kim Novak was a passionate leader, a fierce advocate for workers, a proud union sister, a proud New Democrat, a loving wife and a devoted mother of two boys.

Many of us on this side of the House were blessed with a chance to work with her in one capacity or another. As my friend the Minister of Labour has noted, Kim was a joyful warrior. Her tireless advocacy for respect, safety and dignity for front-line workers during the pandemic was nothing but extraordinary.

Kim gave her all, 100 percent, to the people she served through her union. Her journey as a labour activist began as a summer student as a working clerk at Safeway. After graduating from the University of British Columbia, she gave her career to UFCW 1518. She served in various roles. But in 2019, Kim actually made history as the youngest and first female president in UFCW 1518.

[1:50 p.m.]

She was a truly authentic leader. She was one of a kind. She had nothing but empathy that made people feel they were all that mattered when she spoke to them. Her ability to connect with people through social media to relay the importance of being respectful to grocery store workers and the safety of poultry workers was unparalleled.

Even after her passing, Kim continued to be recognized. She was actually recognized and awarded the King Charles III Medal by the former Minister of Labour, in her honour, for her service and her union, within her community.

Kim’s smile was actually quite infectious for anyone who knew her. She never stopped talking about how we could make lives better for her members and for all British Columbians.

Today you’ll notice many of us are wearing blue to remember Kim. This was her signature colour and is the proud colour of UFCW 1518, which she wore with honour whenever you saw her.

Happy 40th birthday, sister. Solidarity forever. Until we meet again.

Mother’s Day

Misty Van Popta: This coming Sunday, May 11, is Mother’s Day, a day of celebration for most, a day of sadness for some, a day of trauma for others.

Not all women want to be mothers, while some women yearn for an opportunity to be a mother that never happened. Some of us have the best mothers in the world, while some of us have the worst mothers in the world. Some of us have lost our mothers, and others of us have lost a child. Some of us are de facto mothers, and some of us have the immense pleasure of being stepmothers.

Regardless of the type of mother you are, if you are a mother of any kind, we honour you in this chamber today.

One type of mother I want to highlight is the single mother. If you know one, you know what I’m about to say is true. Single moms are fierce. They are driven to survive, they are resourceful, and they are fighters.

To the single mom who comes home after back-to-back jobs to catch the last 15 minutes of their kid’s game, to help with science projects, throw in two loads of laundry, then meal prep all lunch and dinners the next day: we stand with you.

To the single mom who holds three jobs while going back to school, who does their own homework at midnight, who gets on ladders and mows lawns in the dark: we stand with you.

To the single moms who have watched their child cry on your birthday because they were sad they had no present to give you: we stand with you.

On this side of the House, we celebrate new moms who show up for work and still perform their job. But on this side of the House, we don’t question any mother’s ability. We do not question their ability to manage multiple jobs. We do not question a woman’s integrity to follow through on promises made to her community.

On this side of the House, we fought for tax breaks to support single mothers. I encourage everyone in this House to do the same thing, because words in this chamber have not always reflected that sentiment.

As we go into this coming weekend, may we reflect on all types of moms that exist. May we honour them, and may we support them.

Child Care Provider
Appreciation Day

Rohini Arora: I’m delighted to stand to recognize and celebrate Child Care Provider Appreciation Day in B.C. I want to say a huge thank you to all of B.C.’s child care professionals and workforce.

Early childhood educators are the heart of the child care sector. They are dedicated professionals that help nurture and teach the youngest members of communities throughout B.C. at some of the most important times in their lives. We know that helping children learn through play, caring for their well-being and supporting their development of social and emotional skills will have long-term positive outcomes throughout their lives.

More broadly, ECEs and the teams that run child care sites are critical to making our communities thrive as a whole. By doing this important job every day, they play a vital role in giving working parents and caregivers, especially women and single parents — who we honour too, on this side of the House, I might mention — who take on so much care and work within families, the opportunity to work or go to school, knowing their children are cared for and safe.

The work they do is absolutely critical, and the ChildCareBC plan cannot succeed without them. That’s why we’ve supported them by implementing an ECE wage enhancement of up to $6 an hour, bringing the median wage up to $29 an hour; developing and testing a wage grid for ECEs, which is now being tested at more than 70 centres throughout B.C.; and supporting more student spaces at public post-secondary ECE programs.

We are focused on growing and retaining the number of qualified child care providers in B.C. We know there is still more good work to do, and we are continuing this work.

[1:55 p.m.]

I cannot thank all child care providers and early childhood educators throughout B.C. enough for their hard work, their dedication and their compassion.

I invite all British Columbians to join me on Friday during Child Care Provider Appreciation Day and all this child care appreciation month to celebrate the integral role child care professionals play in the lives of children and the immense value of child care in helping us build a core service that families can rely on for a stronger economy and a brighter future for everyone in B.C.

Northview Golf and
Country Club

Linda Hepner: I rise to talk about an incredible destination in my riding, founded by the late longtime Surrey residents Chick and Marilyn Stewart. The Northview Golf and Country Club stands as a premier golf destination. It was built in collaboration with golf legend Arnold Palmer. It consists of two distinct signature design courses, the Ridge and the Canal.

The Ridge is characterized by tree-lined fairways; elevation changes, a lot of them; and scenic lakes. It gained prominence by hosting first the PGA tour’s Greater Vancouver Open and later the Air Canada Championship. A highlight in Canadian golf history occurred in 1999, when Canadian Mike Weir secured his first PGA victory, becoming the first Canadian to win a PGA event on home soil in more than 45 years.

The other course, the Canal, offers up Palmer’s risk-reward design philosophy with expansive fairways and abundant water features. Who among the best of golfers hasn’t enjoyed the occasional splash? It’s a lost-ball paradise.

Both Northview courses are open to the public, reflecting Chick and Marilyn Stewart’s commitment to providing a first-class, exceptional golf experience without any membership requirements. With its blend of world-class golf, rich history and outstanding amenities and culinary options, Northview Golf and Country Club remains a cherished destination for golfers and visitors alike.

I invite all of those in the House to visit this very special place in my riding of Surrey–Serpentine River.

Hydrogen Energy and HTEC Operations

George Anderson: I rise to share a story not of far-off innovation but of a bold clean energy future being built right here in British Columbia.

HTEC, the Hydrogen Technologies and Energy Corp., is a B.C.-based company that’s not just talking about change; they are building it. In the Lower Mainland, they’ve built Canada’s first network of retail hydrogen fuelling stations, connecting communities from Vancouver to Burnaby to North Vancouver.

Currently they’re working towards the establishment of a hydrogen liquefaction facility that will provide hundreds of jobs. In Nanaimo, HTEC is advancing a clean hydrogen production facility that will help power everything from heavy-duty commercial trucking to transit fleets right here on Vancouver Island.

Across the globe, Germany runs hydrogen trains, Japan is building hydrogen cities, and California is rolling out hydrogen-powered transport trucks. The global hydrogen market is projected to hit $500 billion by 2050, and B.C. has what it takes: talent, technology and tenacity to lead.

Hydrogen is more than just energy. It’s a jobs plan, it’s a rural development plan, and it’s a made-in-B.C. opportunity. Just imagine what this means for rural and urban communities across British Columbia: welders and pipefitters building new infrastructure, technicians maintaining clean fleets, engineers and tradespeople powering a zero-emission economy.

Hydrogen is a symbol of what’s possible when we dare to lead, especially as we develop our connections with Asia-Pacific, such as through the Port of Prince Rupert. Thanks to companies like HTEC, that path runs through Nanaimo, the Lower Mainland and every community ready to believe in what’s next.

[2:00 p.m.]

Let’s seize this moment and fuel a future made in B.C. by supporting innovation, supporting entrepreneurs and leading in a way that will keep British Columbia as the best place on earth.

Kelowna Historical Society

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise to draw your attention to an exceptional organization in Kelowna that plays a crucial role in preserving and sharing the rich history of our community, the Okanagan Historical Society. It was founded in 1925, 100 years ago. The Kelowna branch was founded in 1948, and has been a pillar of our community for decades.

With a mission to keep the people and natural history of the Okanagan alive, the society is powered by dedicated volunteers who are passionate about preserving and celebrating our local heritage. Some of the remarkable work done by KHS includes weekly stories in the Daily Courier, with over a thousand articles highlighting the vibrant history of our area.

Rewriting and publishing the third edition of the Kelowna Street Names book, which tells the stories of the individuals behind the names of our streets. This book is available for purchase, by the way, through the Kelowna branch.

Restoration and signage work at the Kelowna Memorial Cemetery, where volunteers have been recording historical information and restoring neglected graves, allowing visitors to learn about our early pioneers in our area.

Social events like the summer picnic and the fall social offer a chance for members to gather and share stories about the founding days of Kelowna.

A yearly calendar features old photographs of Kelowna, which not only helps raise funds for the society but also preserves visual memories of our community.

Finally, the Father Pandosy Mission site also benefits from the society’s work, including a yearly cleanup to maintain this important historical site.

The Kelowna historical society’s efforts help us connect with our roots and ensure that the stories of those who came before us continue to inspire future generations.

I commend their dedication and encourage others to support their work as well.

I’d like to thank the dedicated volunteers, some of whom I know personally and count as friends.

Oral Questions

Government Response to
Overdose Death in Surrey
Supportive Housing Facility

John Rustad: Diane Chandler was a 60-year-old mother, a Canucks fan and someone who had spent years trying to find safety while living with addiction and mental health illness. In 2023, she moved into the Foxglove supportive housing facility in Surrey, a site this Premier once celebrated as a model for complex care.

Last April she died of an overdose alone in her room, and it took 11 days before anybody noticed she was missing. Staff had mistakenly assigned another residence and falsely signed off on a wellness check that never happened.

How did this government allow this to happen?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My heart goes out to this family. It’s unacceptable for someone to pass away and the family not to be notified in that extended time frame. I appreciate that the people that work in supportive housing work in very complex environments, and it comes with great challenges. But it’s vitally important that when this type of incident happens, families are notified and B.C. Housing is notified.

I appreciate the question from the member. I can share with the member that when this came forward, we issued a notice to the not-for-profit provider that they are now required to notify us within 24 hours if someone does pass away. I can share with the member that we also changed the RTB rules to allow supportive housing sites to do wellness checks.

We issued guidelines to all of the not-for-profit providers that they’re now required to do wellness checks every 48 hours and required every day to do a verbal assessment and a checklist to see who is coming in and who is coming out. All those changes were made in response to this specific issue and concerns that we heard from our not-for-profit providers last year.

Again, my heart goes out to this family. The goal of supportive housing is to support people with mental health and addictions, and we’re going to continue to try to do our best in all of our communities to save lives.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

John Rustad: Once again, staff had mistaken another resident and falsely signed off on the wellness checks. But this story gets worse. Diane’s children were devastated to learn the truth only after she was cremated. And as the minister has said, B.C. Housing never contacted the family — reached out to them, I should say.

This was not just a tragic oversight. It was a complete failure of care, a failure of oversight and a failure of basic human dignity.

Although this is an issue, obviously, on housing, this is a failure of our health system. The official opposition has been asking and calling out the Minister of Health on many, many issues.

I’m wondering today if the Minister of Health will stand up, accept responsibility for this and resign for the dismal state of health care in British Columbia.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I shared with the member our concern about what happened in this individual case. I’ve shared with the member the actions that we’ve taken to ensure that all supportive housing sites have practices put in place that ensure that the residents are safe and taken care of.

I can share with the member that we’ve had debates in this building around having safe spaces in buildings where people can use and have health care professionals near them. I know it’s been heated debates, but the reason why these spaces are created is so that people don’t die alone. We know from the data that, overwhelmingly, people are dying alone. Even in this space, there was space dedicated to this, but because of stigma associated with drug use, this individual was alone.

That again being said, we have seen some positive results of supportive housing in our communities, but I know that’s cold comfort for this particular family. Again, my heart goes out for them. I understand they’re frustrated, and I would be, as well, if I lost a loved one in this situation.

We have changed practices across the province because of this incident. It all started last year, and we’re going to continue to do what we can to support every single individual that finds themselves in either supportive housing or complex care.

Death at Supportive Housing
Facility and Oversight Issues

Claire Rattée: The story of Diane Chandler that the Leader of the Opposition just spoke about is not new to the opposition or this government. We have been bringing these issues to this chamber for weeks. All we’ve heard are platitudes and excuses from the other side. I don’t doubt their sincerity, but the fact is that they aren’t getting the job done.

If the Health Minister and the Housing Minister are not willing to take responsibility for this failure, then I would ask: is the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions willing to take responsibility for this problem?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I have laid out the immediate steps that were taken to address this situation to the member. The member and I canvassed this at great lengths in estimates as well.

It’s vitally important that we continue to have opportunities for people to get into housing, to get the supports they need. But we also have to work together to lower the stigma associated with using drugs. Because even in this situation, where there was the space available for someone to use in a safe space with staff, it wasn’t taken up.

We have a lot of work to do, but we are doing that. We’re expanding opportunities in our communities for more people to come off.

Surely the member would agree with me that if we want to save lives, the best way we can do that is to get people indoors, get them with supports that they desperately need in our communities. We are seeing results, because we are seeing people having less interaction with the health care system, less interaction with the corrections and police systems by having them in supportive housing.

Again, it doesn’t help this family. I appreciate that. I share in their sadness, but I can never imagine the pain that they feel.

That being said, we want to make sure we continue to expand this type of support in all of our communities so we can help every single individual.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Management of Supportive
Housing and Mental Health
and Addiction Services

Claire Rattée: This isn’t an issue of stigma; this is an issue of incompetence. The minister is correct. We did canvass this in estimates already, and I can’t help but notice that this specific facility, the Foxglove facility, wasn’t mentioned, probably because this government knew about this and was trying to keep it quiet for over a year. It took 11 days to find this woman’s body. Ten days later another person overdosed there.

Her daughter said that when she went to visit her there, she saw open signs of drug use everywhere.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mental health and addictions care is in chaos, and the blame rests at the feet of this Premier. The late Premier John Horgan did the right thing. He created a stand-alone Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. He clearly saw the urgency in this crisis. This Premier axed this ministry and demoted its relevance to a parliamentary secretary, who is utterly failing.

Will the Premier swallow his pride and recreate a ministry of mental health and addictions and an actual mandate with measurable outcomes to finally solve the crisis that B.C. is facing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Every question that the member asked in estimates, I answered. To suggest that we were hiding something is utterly false.

In this situation, I’ve laid out pretty clearly that the staff that were working there believed they saw the individual and put a check mark beside their name when, in fact, it was someone else. It was a mistake made by staff — an unacceptable mistake, in my opinion. That being said, we’ve taken considerable steps to address that. I laid those things out in detail.

We heard from supportive housing providers that they weren’t able to do wellness checks because they were limited by the rental tenancy branch. We changed that to allow them to do wellness checks when they felt it was appropriate and also put in policies to be able to monitor who goes in and out of these facilities, not only for the safety of the people who work there but for the safety of the residents that live there.

I shared with the member that we issued guidance to all supportive housing after this situation to say that they are required to do a wellness check on every individual every 48 hours and keep a log daily of who they see come in and who goes.

I fully appreciate that this is cold comfort for this family. I understand that.

What we’re trying to do here is ensure that we lower the stigma around mental health and addiction and create opportunities for people to get into safe housing and to get the supports they need. It’s been successful for many, and I do acknowledge that for some, it’s just not enough. But we’ll continue to do what we can to support everyone.

Mental Health Services
and Stigma Reduction

Jeremy Valeriote: As we have noted already, stigma around mental health support is a growing concern in our province. People experiencing mental health challenges are not receiving the support they need and are discouraged from seeking help out of fear of repercussion and judgment.

There has been an undermining of trust in mental health support which deters people from asking for the help they need. It’s the role of our government to create conditions in society where people feel able and willing to seek help without fear of stigmatization and further barriers.

My question is for the Minister of Health. What steps is the ministry taking to combat the growing stigma of mental health support and increase public awareness of services so that those suffering don’t feel helpless and alone?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and again raising the incredibly important topic of mental health and mental health supports during this week, Mental Health Week, May 5 to 11.

This government remains committed to building out a continuum of care that fully integrates and acknowledges that mental health is part of everybody’s health — physical, spiritual, cultural, mental. That includes working in schools and working through public education campaigns to help reduce stigma, increasing access for youth through programs like the Foundry and integrating child and youth care teams right into schools, and increasing access to counsellors for just the average person living in British Columbia.

Over the last year, over 29,000 people have accessed free or low-cost counselling, over half of them for the first time ever. It is so important that we have this conversation about ending the stigma around being your true self, about talking about the challenges that people face, about preventing small problems from snowballing into larger problems.

I am wholly dedicated to this work. I appreciate the member’s question.

The Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister for that response.

Addressing stigma is only useful if the continuum of care being provided is effective, evidence-based and person-centred. I appreciate the mention of youth and Foundry.

As we know, implementing an early intervention system of care for those experiencing mental health challenges is a critical step that our health care system has historically neglected. Reactive spending on more policing and a reliance on crisis-level response have taken attention away from addressing the root causes of mental health challenges. Intervention should be in place at multiple levels of an individual’s mental health journey, before they reach crisis.

For the Minister of Health, again, how is this government investing in preventative and proactive mental health care to provide British Columbians with the wraparound support they deserve?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

This year’s budget includes $500 million of new funding to support mental health and substance use issues. I’ve already spoken about some of the programs that this government has undertaken, and we’re going to continue to do this.

We’re going to continue to build out the continuum of care, to work with children and youth all the way through adulthood, doing everything that we can to normalize the conversations that we need to have to support children and youth, to support adults, to help prevent small problems from becoming big problems, because we see all too often, as we’ve canvassed in this House, that these problems are serious and have absolutely devastating results for people and for their families.

This government remains committed to this work. We’re going to continue to do that. By integrating the mental health and addictions ministry back into Health, we acknowledge that this is about holistic approaches to health care. We’re going to continue to do that work.

Safety of Seniors and
Government Action on Issues

Korky Neufeld: Safety of seniors is a real concern. Seniors also deserve to walk safely down their own neighbourhood streets. However, under this government, of all crimes reported to police against seniors, two-thirds were physical assaults.

Why has this soft-on-crime Premier left seniors to fend for themselves on the dangerous streets of British Columbia?

Hon. Garry Begg: To the member opposite, it’s important that we believe that all citizens in British Columbia should feel safe. As a matter of fact, the incidence of crimes against senior citizens is no greater than against other people.

Our repeat violent offender program is a good example of an intervention program that we have to make a difference and to help people to break the cycle of offending. This crime that you talk about is largely perpetrated by people who are part of a system. If we involve them — in this case, the ReVOII hub — then we get to monitor them, and we get to curb their behaviour.

That’s a program that works. That’s a program that speaks well of the system, and we will continue that program.

Lawrence Mok: I have seen seniors being abused. I witnessed firsthand a man verbally abuse his own mother, and according to the seniors advocate, reports of abuse and neglect of seniors rose 21 percent between 2019 and 2023.

Can the minister provide updated figures today so we can understand the full scale and scope of senior abuse in B.C.?

Hon. Garry Begg: To the member opposite, again I say that British Columbians deserve to feel safe all across the province. There is no greater an incidence of crimes against seniors than there is against any other group.

We’re building, we’re strengthening policing in this province, also rebuilding the critical services that make people feel safe. The old government, the opposition leader’s old government, cut funding for programs like this for crime prevention and victim services.

They ended the prolific offender management program that reduced offending by 40 percent overall. They cut $360 million from health care. Mental health and addiction services were lost or seriously reduced.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Garry Begg: What we have to do is deal with the problem, and we’re doing it.

Government Action on
Poverty Among Seniors

Ian Paton: Just yesterday a 73-year-old constituent came into my Ladner office in tears. Her pension is $1,800 a month. Her rent is $1,800 a month. Now she’s broke and facing eviction in nine days from now.

Her belongings are about to be auctioned off because she can’t afford the $1,200 storage bill, and the Ministry of Poverty Reduction denied her crisis help because she’s not already a client.

Is this what we’ve come to in British Columbia, seniors left homeless and humiliated?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: That sounds like a very hard story. I would appreciate working with the member so that we can find out what happened and we can get seniors the support that they need and deserve.

Seniors income support is delivered by the federal government once somebody turns 65, but that has not stopped our government from investing in seniors — expanding the SAFER grant to help them with rent; building affordable housing targeted especially at seniors; we have doubled the senior supplement that goes on top of federal income supports; and of course, building out more affordable long-term care and other supports.

I look forward to working with the member to navigate the system and get this individual the support that they need.

Government Action on
Seniors Care and Availability
of Long-Term-Care Beds

Jody Toor: Before the election, the Premier promised 4,000 new long-term-care beds, yet months later not a single shovel is in the ground. Meanwhile, seniors are stuck in 60-year-old buildings, hospitals are jammed and this government quietly killed the EquipCare, a low-cost program that actually helped seniors. No beds. No equipment. No urgency.

If seniors care is a real priority, why does this government keep treating it like an afterthought?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is so important to make sure that seniors have all the care that they deserve. They have helped build this province, and it’s incumbent on all of us to do everything that we can to support people in this stage of their life.

That’s why we are taking action across government, across many ministries, to support seniors. That includes adding more than 5,400 new and replacement beds at 33 different long-term-care facilities.

It includes hiring more home care workers and expanding programs that help seniors stay in their own homes, because we know that when a senior is able to stay at home, they can live a healthier life at home, surrounded by their family and in contact with their community, getting the supports that they need. We’ve piloted a long-term care at home program for seniors, a program that is having real results.

We are not going to back down from the support that we know seniors deserve. We’re going to keep doing this work.

Government Action on
Affordable Housing for Seniors

Teresa Wat: This government fast-tracks low barrier, unsupervised supportive housing in Richmond without consulting the community. Meanwhile, Richmond’s elders are stuck on the wait-list for years without affordable, safe options.

Why does the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness allow vulnerable seniors in Richmond always — always — to come second under this NDP government?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: You’ve heard clearly from this side of the House that we realize the importance of supporting seniors.

The member talks about fast-tracking projects in her community, supportive housing projects. Surely the member knows that the fastest demographic of people who find themselves homeless are seniors.

The contradiction of all the questions talking about how do we support seniors and then the member stands up, criticizing the program that we’re putting out to support the seniors that live in that community. It’s shameful, absolutely shameful.

The member will also know….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the Leader of the Opposition has additional questions, I’m happy to answer them.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, continue.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is asking about housing for seniors and supporting seniors. Surely the member knows that the largest investment in affordable housing for seniors in her community has come under our government. We have invested in more affordable housing for seniors in Richmond than they have seen in the previous 30 years.

I appreciate the member is sensitive because she was the minister in the B.C. Liberal government and didn’t take action to support those seniors with affordable housing in her own community.

We believe that supporting seniors during challenging times is vitally important.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s not about the press releases. It’s about seeing the units opening up and seeing people moving in and realizing how big of an impact that makes in their lives. We’re going to continue to do that work across every single community in British Columbia.

David Williams: I hope those announcements actually turn into completed projects.

In Salmon Arm and across the Shuswap, seniors are facing an impossible choice, staying in aging homes they can no longer manage or leaving the region entirely because there are no affordable assisted-living spaces available.

What is this government going to do to ensure seniors in Salmon Arm can access safe, affordable housing with appropriate levels of care before it’s too late?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, we value the importance of supporting seniors. The member opened his question saying that he hoped to see some of those units open. Perhaps I can share with the member Birch Place, 540 3rd Street, in his community, 35 units open. Perhaps he can go and visit them.

Another 32 homes have opened up in his community at Larch Place. There are another 64 affordable rentals that are at Andover Terrace, 2110 Lakeshore Road. And there’s a project right now under construction with Habitat for Humanity.

I can assure the member that he’s not seen this type of investment in his community before. If he believes there’s more, I welcome him to raise that.

We believe in supporting seniors. We believe in supporting people in our communities. That’s why we’re making the largest investment in the history of our province in affordable housing, because for two decades, governments decided that it wasn’t a priority.

Rosalyn Bird: Affordable housing is not assisted living.

Aspen seniors housing in Prince George should be providing low-income housing for those in need. However, the Northern Health CEO has confirmed that units have been available for more than six months.

Why, during a housing crisis, when there is no availability of affordable senior housing and the UHNBC remains overcrowded, is this government letting these housing units sit empty?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member is asking the question, and I think the member knows what the answer is going to be. Also, the largest investment in the history of Prince George has come under our government investing in affordable housing.

Quebec Street House, 36 homes open. On 1919 17th Avenue, 57 units of housing open. At 679 Dagg Road, housing for folks with special needs. We have on 2541 Oak Street, Prince George, another six units that have opened. And 1975 Bowser Avenue, phase 1, 50 units open. I’ve got pages I can read through, but I know we’re limited for time.

I will continue to say to members, to the questions that are coming today, that we value the importance that our seniors have contributed to our province. We believe that seniors who have worked their entire lives deserve to be supported when they need it most.

That’s why we’ve expanded the SAFER program, so that not only can seniors get more money, but more seniors can qualify. That’s why we’re investing historic amounts of dollars to get more units open, because we believe every senior deserves to be able to live in the community that they’ve grown up in.

Kristina Loewen: That’s great that is the largest investment in Prince George ever but still doesn’t explain why those units are empty.

In Kelowna, a senior was fined $27,000 for trying to move into her own home after renting it out to long-term tenants during the pandemic. This happened while she was undergoing critical liver treatment, and she had to move in with her daughter in Alberta. She wasn’t flipping her house. She wasn’t speculating. She was trying to recover.

Why has this Premier created a system so cold and bureaucratic that even the sick get punished?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hard to answer the specific question of the member. There wasn’t enough detail provided. If there are details, the member knows that we are available to help address specific issues.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’m not sure what the question pertains to, but I would just also say to the member, in the line of housing and affordable housing, that her mayor is here today. He may even be in the chamber. I want to thank him for the amazing work he and his councillors have been doing.

But Kelowna has also seen the largest investment in affordable housing in the history of this province.

Again, the member has a question, which…. I just apologize. I don’t fully understand the context. But if there are details, I’m happy to get back to the member.

Government Response to
Issues and Concerns

Trevor Halford: Earlier in question period, my colleague from Delta South raised a pretty sad and tragic story. The response from the minister was: “Bring it to me. We’ll work on it.” It’s been brought to that minister’s office, and it’s been sitting there, sitting in the minister’s office.

Time and time again in this House, we bring questions here to question period, and what we hear is: “Bring it forward, and we’ll work with you.” We’ve done that. We’re bringing these issues forward, and we’re getting nothing. So either the ministers are unaware of it, or they’re choosing not even to answer in some cases. We’ve got the receipts.

The Premier got up, and said he is going to work with every MLA in this House — every MLA. So what do we get? Every NDP MLA has a title over there, and responsibility. There is more political staff in this building than there has ever been before. Some ministers have over eight.

The fact is that they can’t even reply to an MLA on casework. It is absolutely unacceptable.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: They can say it’s not true.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Trevor Halford: The question is a direct one, and it’s to the Premier, or to anybody….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh.

Trevor Halford: Who am I? I’m the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: Give me a break. The fact of the matter is….

The Speaker: Member, let’s get the question.

Trevor Halford: My question is to the Premier, and it’s a direct one. Does he approve of the fact that MLAs and ministers are unaware of cases that are coming into his office, or is he aware of the fact that they are not even responding?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, members across this chamber know when they come to ministers with issues, we work with all members to try to solve the issues. The member is complaining about emails. The member surely knows that he was with the B.C. Liberal government when they did not reply to the emails.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Come to order.

Minister will conclude.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They didn’t reply to the emails. They triple-deleted them. They triple-deleted the emails. In fact, they had a….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale can’t control herself, consistently heckling in this place.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members.

Member for Surrey–White Rock.

The question has been asked. Let the minister conclude it. We are almost done.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Now, my friend from Delta South asked a question about senior supports, and the member knows we have 300 affordable housing units for seniors opening up. I know he knows, because he was there with me when we put shovels in the ground.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale can’t seem to control her temper consistently in this House. I am happy to answer the question when she can.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I am glad the children have left, because that is a poor example of how to act in this place. For a hopeful future leader of the Conservative Party, certainly that is not how you want to act in this place.

We continue to make historic investments to support seniors. I appreciate the member’s concern about his email.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We will make sure we try to respond to all their emails in a timely manner.

[End of question period.]

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, please.

[2:35 p.m.]

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and
Private Members’ Bills

Amna Shah: The Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills reports Bill M202, intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, complete without amendment.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. Bill M202, Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, will proceed to report stage during the next private member’s time.

Point of Order

Harwinder Sandhu: I rise to raise a point of order regarding the member for Surrey–White Rock for saying twice, utterly falsely, accusing me of not doing my job, which I am proud to be, and I can tell how I’ve done my job and how people recognize it.

Again, I’m proud to represent the people of Vernon-Lumby by working seven days a week. I want him to withdraw his remarks.

The Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, if you have any reply.

I caution all members. When we are exchanging questions and answers, sometimes in a heated discussion, we go overboard. Please do not make any personal comments.

When there is a question for the executive council members, they should be answering that, and it’s their prerogative who stands up and who doesn’t.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions
in Section B on May 7

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I get to the main business, I’ve just been chatting with the Opposition House Leader, and I’ve also talked to the Green Party House Leader. I want to move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), any division called in Section B upon Orders of the Day on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, be deferred until 8.30 p.m.]

I want to add a caveat to that. I’m going to discuss with the Opposition House Leader that that time may change, but it will be by agreement between the two of us, because we both have the same issue we are trying to resolve.

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 11, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 7.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Employment Standards
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll ask for conversations to move to the hall as we’ve got business to conduct here.

[2:40 p.m.]

We are considering Bill 11, of course, and we’ll look to Courtenay-Comox for continued debate on Bill 11.

Brennan Day: I won’t relitigate. I think our member for Prince George–Mackenzie did an excellent job summarizing the issues around this bill. While this bill is going to see some progress — I think we can all agree with most portions of this bill — I do feel there are some things that we need to discuss in Bill 11 that are going to have some broader impacts.

I want to start with something that the minister mentioned during the introduction of this bill, which was the conversation around fees for doctor’s notes. I do have to question why we’re even paying for these at all. I’ll say it again: in a public health care system like ours in British Columbia, why are we being asked to pay out-of-pocket for these doctor notes in the first place? That’s a question, I think, that will have broad appeal on that side of the House, as well as this side of the House, when we’re facing such a large affordability crisis.

That’s effectively fee-for-access health care, and it fundamentally undermines the idea of universal care in the province of British Columbia. It’s certainly not something I think this government would support. But eight years later, we haven’t seen any progress on that whatsoever. We shouldn’t be nickel-and-diming patients for proof of being sick. Both sides of the House will agree with this.

Let’s be clear. It’s the type of jobs that require sick notes that I think we do need to discuss. I’m speaking in broad strokes here: it’s the people that can least afford to get the note, or the time off to get the note, that are generally required to get the note. Managers call in sick, they take it at face value and move on. The shift worker that’s there to sling concrete, hammer nails…. Those are the people that are getting questioned on sick notes.

There are a few other things. Let’s add the lack of a definition in this bill for what actually constitutes short term. It’s not in here. We’re told it’s coming later. I’d venture both sides of the House to agree with the five statutory sick days that are already on the books. That seems a reasonable place to start that discussion.

I’d also argue, and both sides of the House will likely agree, that if somebody is sick longer than five days, they should probably see a doctor anyways. It’s common sense. But this bill doesn’t say that. It punts it to regulation sometime later. We’re off to a bit of a murky start, but I am looking forward to that conversation as this bill proceeds through.

Look, I get it. Before this chapter in my life, I ran a mental health non-profit. Sometimes, I still think I’m working in mental health here in this House. We didn’t ask for sick notes either. We trusted people. We didn’t want to add another hoop for someone already navigating anxiety, depression, trauma or just burnout, let alone bringing them in with a cold or a flu. But that system is built on trust, flexibility and compassion. And we could do it. We were fairly small.

But there’s a difference. A small, nimble non-profit — we knew our staff. We were hands-on, We knew our staff struggled with mental health issues. We all had a mutual understanding of what that interpretation needed to look like. We could have honest conversations around it. We could offer support, not just permission.

That worked in that area. But this is provincial legislation applied to half a million employers and nearly three million workers. It’s not being introduced out of compassion. I feel that this is being introduced out of necessity. I’m going to go into that in a little more detail here today.

Here’s where it gets a little more serious: 1.1 million British Columbians don’t have access to a family doctor. That’s one in five people in this province without reliable, ongoing longitudinal care. And if you do have one, well, good luck seeing them. The average wait time for a routine visit in this province is now closing in on two weeks, and that’s assuming they haven’t left the practice or your doctor has switched on you. I know. I go when I have to. I’m not a regularly scheduled doctor person — like most people.

Try a walk-in clinic. Well, better pack a lunch. In some cases, you need to pack breakfast and dinner too. If you have kids, make sure you bring a device charger, a blanket, a folding chair, because you’re not getting out of there quickly, if you can even get in at all.

B.C. has the longest average wait times in the country, 93 minutes to access walk-in care. In the Comox Valley, that number isn’t even close to being accurate, by the way. We’re measuring it in days there, by this point. If you don’t show up by 6 a.m. to wait in line for an eight o’clock opening, you will not get a spot that day. This is the state of health care in B.C.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’ll return to where that impacts this bill. This bill removes one of the last remaining points of contact between people and the health care system. And we’re being asked to stand and clap for this on behalf of workers.

We’ll get there. We’ll all agree on the ultimate outcome of this bill. But what we have to acknowledge is we are now normalizing non-access. We’re not fixing the system with this bill. We’re rewriting the rules to pretend that the system isn’t broken.

I’m not here to defend bureaucracy for its own sake. I am standing on this side of the House, after all. We’re still firmly on the smaller government check box. Nobody wants to clog up waiting rooms just to tick a box.

But let’s be honest. Sick notes, as mundane as they are, do serve a critical purpose. They’re a touchpoint, a check point, a moment where someone who might otherwise avoid care actually gets seen.

Maybe it’s nothing. Most of the time it is. It’s a flu. You need a prescription. You need an inhaler. Really basic health care. Health care that you used to just be able to call your doctor, and he’d see you. Ten minutes later no problem, and out the door you go. That’s not the state of British Columbian health care now.

What if it turns out to be something worse? What if it’s not just a flu that needs some basic antivirals? Maybe it’s a chest pain.

We’re taking that touchpoint moment out of the equation as we deliver health. We’re throttling health care, in effect, because we do not have the capacity in this province to deliver services. We’re saying: “Don’t worry about checking in. Don’t bother getting looked at. Just stay home.”

Absolutely, in many cases, probably in most cases, that’s absolutely the right advice. You’re sick? Don’t come into work. We all understand this. We all lived through COVID. God forbid anybody come in with a cold during COVID. You’d be pilloried out in the parking lot. This is not that time now. We are talking about a broken health care system, and this is a band-aid.

The minister says this will free up doctors’ time. On paper, that sounds absolutely reasonable. The NDP proposing to move red tape is actually a breath of fresh air. The first bill that I’ve seen that does it. It’s a nice change of pace from that side of the House.

But I’m going to ask this: how much time is there to actually free up when there are no doctors to begin with? We’re still short thousands of family physicians in this province. Urgent care centres can’t stay open past lunchtime, if they’re even open at all. Walk-ins are shutting down early because nobody shows up to work the shift, if they even still exist.

In the Comox Valley, for instance — I’ll use it; it’s my local riding — four walk-in clinics have been shuttered over the last few years, leaving us with one functional clinic at Walmart. If you get there less than an hour before it opens, you will not be seen that day. I’ve been in that lineup with a sick kid, so I can attest to the frustration of having to drive to my local ER to get services that were once provided by our basic primary care system, and we cannot access those services now.

Rural ERs in places like Merritt, Lillooet and Oliver are diverting patients daily. And I’m going to take a minute just to put it on the record. Diversion is an NDP comms department euphemism for an ER closure. When you walk up to a closed ER in this province and you get told they’re on diversion, that’s simply not good enough. That is a comms team spin if I’ve ever heard it. Orwell himself would be proud of that one.

Sorry. Back to Bill 11. I suppose the other side is going to call for me to come up with solutions. What would we do differently? I’ve heard that many times in this House. We’re the opposition. It is our job to point out flaws, I’ve been told.

Getting rid of the requirement to see one in the first place. This isn’t health care reform. This bill doesn’t reform health care in any meaningful way. I look at it as simple health care surrender. We don’t see any health care innovation. I don’t see a forward-looking plan on how to attach more people to doctors, to incentivize doctors to practise walk-in care, which they used to be. It used to be reasonably lucrative for them. Four or five doctors could all share a clinic. They could all work a few extra days, speed people in and out. It was beneficial for the system.

This government promised that they’d improve urgent care and said we don’t need walk-in clinics anymore, except the urgent care never came.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let me put it this way. We don’t have a forward-looking plan. We’re just lowering the bar, shifting the goalpost and hoping people don’t notice exactly what it is.

If everyone in B.C. had timely access to a physician, this bill would be absolutely unnecessary. Individuals who were sick would get care. They’d be seen by the system, by the doctors tasked to look after them.

What are we really doing here? Here’s where it gets a bit murky. This government hasn’t said how many sick days can be taken without documentation. That’ll come by regulation later, carte blanche approval and away we go. So we’re debating a bill with no clear rules, no defined limits and no idea how this is going to be applied in practice.

If it’s like any of the other bills we’ve seen before this House during this session, we know that the government has not done fulsome consultation with all of the affected stakeholders. I’ll point to Bill 7 as another example of an oopsy and a quick backtrack once we realized the problems with the legislation and the overreach. I don’t have any faith in this government that this won’t be another case of that with Bill 11. I look forward to being surprised.

Let’s talk about the potential for abuse, because we have to do that here today and put it on the record. It’s not an esoteric discussion. Abuse does happen. We know that. We all know somebody that has taken Friday as a sick day and gone skiing. I’ve certainly done it myself. So it’s not just abuse by employers; it is abuse by employees. It cuts both ways.

Most people are honest. They take what they need, and they do not try to game the system. But policy isn’t built for the average day. It has to count for the exceptional ones too. Because when you remove checks and balances from a system and you don’t backstop it with real, accessible health care, what do you think happens? You get confusion. You get gaps. You open the door for misuse and abuse, not just by individuals but by the system itself.

I’ll give you a couple of theoretical examples to consider. Small landscaping business up in Cumberland, in the Minister of Health’s riding. Fifteen employees. Tight margins. Work very much dependent on weather. Three workers all call in sick on the same day. No notes. No follow-up. The owner is now short-staffed, behind schedule and under pressure to complete the job before it starts raining again, which never happens on Vancouver Island.

Maybe all are genuinely unwell. That is the relationship most people should have — employers with employees that they can trust. But there’s no ability to verify, no system in place to verify. He’s forced to guess, and he’s going to eat those costs either way. We need to ensure that there’s some balance here.

Or we can look at it the other way. Imagine a front-line service agency already stretched thin, where burnout is a known issue. I can’t think of any where that would apply these days, given the lack of staffing. Without any kind of physician check or support, workers may push through real, treatable conditions without ever getting the help they need.

I am sure everybody here knows exactly the person that would do that. I think we have some in our caucus — I know you have some in yours — where they will never admit that they are sick. They would lop a leg off and go full Monty Python, with no arms and no legs, into this House to deliver a smashing line.

I’d like to draw this back. That touchpoint prompts people to get back and to return to work. Whatever the timing is of this, whether we go five days or there’s a negotiated length of time, we need to consider this as it affects mental health as well. Because in mental health, isolationism is rampant, where people just say they’re sick. They go. They don’t come back.

If there’s no reason for them to go seek medical treatment, they certainly won’t. They will not go see a doctor. They will stay at home, without a framework in place to ensure that at some point they have to go see that doctor, to ensure that they get that help.

This isn’t just about fraud, although that’s certainly a case. We won’t solve that with this bill. It probably won’t get worse with this bill. We know that that’s an issue. It’s about missed care, lost productivity and a breakdown in trust between employers, employees and the health care system.

Under this bill, there’s no requirement for that medical moment to happen — no conversation, no diagnosis. Just take some time off and hope for the best. What gets lost is the opportunity to catch something serious early, whether it’s pneumonia, a mental health episode or the first signs of diabetes. A few more weeks in this chamber and, likely, many of us will need to take a few days off for those reasons ourselves.

[2:55 p.m.]

Good policy creates safety nets and accountability. This bill removes a bit of that accountability but leaves a net full of holes.

Let me be crystal clear. I support reducing red tape. We desperately need to do that in this province. I support workers, and I support common sense.

But let’s be honest. This bill really isn’t about that. It’s about relieving pressure not on people but on a health care system that is struggling, a system that is so overwhelmed, so backlogged and so short-staffed that the only answer they’ve come up with is to lower expectations.

Bill 11 does this, I suppose, but we’re now in the business of pretending that fewer appointments with your health care professionals equals progress, that fewer people seeing a doctor must mean things are getting better. No, it means that the line got so long that people gave up waiting in it. Do you know what that means? I’ll be as charitable as I can here on this. Outcomes tend to worsen the longer that people wait to see health care.

Let me offer an actual alternative. If this government is serious about reducing the need for sick notes, fix the doctor shortage and fund primary care properly so that people can actually access help in a timely manner.

Let’s start pushing out more medical professionals into the workforce to address that shortage. Let’s tear down the barriers for foreign-trained doctors to practise here in British Columbia. We have family doctors in this province seeing 2,000 to 3,000 patients each, running on fumes, while new medical graduates are stuck on the sidelines, waiting for a bureaucratic green light. We need to recruit more physicians and incentivize retention, certainly and especially in rural, remote and underserviced areas, which this caucus largely represents across this province.

Even in the Comox Valley, which has grown significantly, our primary care capacity hasn’t kept up, despite hard work from many, many groups to plug those gaps. Doctors are retiring faster than we’re replacing them. We’re going to be losing another one in July. Some 40 percent of GPs across this province are set to retire in the next four years. I’ll say that again: 40 percent, two in five GPs, will be gone from the workforce in the next five years.

Instead of solving that, instead of addressing the real issues, we see Bill 11. In essence, it says: “Don’t worry about seeing a doctor. You can’t get one anyway; just stay home.” This is a quiet admission that this government can’t deliver on its health care mandate.

So they’re rewriting the rules to make it look like they’re keeping up. Lower the demand, hide the shortage, and hope nobody notices. Move the goal line a little bit closer, and take the victory lap anyway.

But people are noticing. They notice when they have to line up at 6 a.m. for a walk-in appointment. They notice when their rural ER is closed three nights a week. We’re not fixing health care with Bill 11; we’re masking a crisis.

British Columbians deserve much better than this. They deserve care when they’re sick, they deserve a doctor they can trust and access, and they deserve a government that’s willing to fix the problem, not patch over it with band-aids.

Do I support this legislation? The unfortunate reality is that it’s absolutely impossible not to. This government has put British Columbia so far behind on health care that the only solution to deliver health care is to lower expectations, throttle availability and services and hope for the best. Bill 11 is the undiagnosed symptom of a far bigger infection — likely because it couldn’t get a sick note, or perhaps it didn’t get diagnosed early enough because it didn’t have to see the doctor first.

I will stand up and vote aye when the time comes, because we don’t have a choice. This government doesn’t have a choice, in fact, because this government hasn’t left us a choice. I don’t want to further burden doctors that are already stretched to the ragged limits and considering walking away from their calling. We know that if asked, doctors want to see these patients and would be happy to write the notes, to treat their symptoms and to deliver help.

We’ve taken that off the table in this province, because this government has broken the system, and now band-aids like Bill 11 are all this government has left.

Nina Krieger: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Nina Krieger: I would like to introduce a group of students from École St-Sacrement, Blessed Sacrament School, in Victoria.

[3:00 p.m.]

These are grades 4 and 5 students, as well as their teacher, Terry Brennan, and parents who are visiting us today.

I’d like the House to please make them feel very welcome at this time.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed, welcome to everybody joining us in the chamber today.

Debate Continued

Rohini Arora: I rise to speak in complete support of Bill 11 today, the Employment Standards Amendment Act. I’m thankful this bill is before us and that I get the opportunity to share my support for it.

I’m grateful to the Minister of Labour for keeping our promise to workers who, when sick, will now have the ability to stay home and rest when they need to, not run around on the day they are supposed to be resting, trying to get a hold of a sick note, which is not only expensive but adds unnecessary stress.

It’s important to understand why we’re introducing this legislation. I heard the member speaking before me talk about the issue and the challenge with doctors, and the reality is…. Also, I should say, calling it a band-aid solution — I guess, pun intended — is interesting to me, because we have to meet the challenges of the moment while we work to address the issues systemically.

We also know that there are ongoing administrative burdens and that these have been a concern for many health care providers in B.C. In fact, I think the member before me said that it sounds good on paper. Well, we met with the College of Family Physicians today.

I spoke to Dr. Johnny Chang, who is from Creston, and one of the first things he mentioned to me is that workers are being forced to get return-to-work notes. Here we are talking about sick notes, but this is a doctor who is concerned about another piece and, by the way, expressed his deep gratitude and support for this bill.

I would like to also mention that in Burnaby, there are three primary care networks supporting team-based health care, as well as a brand new Burnaby urgent and primary care centre. This work is being done across the province. The list is incredibly long, but I’m going to, of course, speak to my riding and to the city of the folks that I represent.

I want to address a continuous comment I heard yesterday, as well as today, that leave should be legitimate and honest. I really want to ask the members to consider: is that somehow not an option now? For people who want to take advantage, as the other side keeps saying…. He also admitted himself that most people are honest; most people don’t take advantage of the system. As a worker from the labour movement, although I am elected here, I know firsthand that people are very hard-working, they are very honest, and they take leave or short-term absences when they need it.

It’s also important to note that there was another comment made about there not being any doctors. Well, that’s really interesting because in 2024, over 250,000 people were matched with a doctor under this government.

The Canadian Medical Association estimates that in 2024, doctors wrote approximately 1.6 million sick notes. That’s a lot of appointments and a lot of time taken away from people who may truly actually need an appointment at that very moment — not to force a sick worker to have to go and line up at a walk-in clinic or make an appointment with their family doctor to be able to get that sick note.

There’s another piece that I think is so common sense, and I’m not sure why we’re missing this. Of course, with enabling legislation such as Bill 11, there will be regulatory measures that will need to be ironed out. That is standard practice. That’s not something new, and that’s not something different.

Of course, we’re going to talk to folks, consult with everyone involved, all of the interest holders that would be impacted, about what constitutes a short-term leave. For many of us, we know that it’s usually between three to five sick days, and I can tell you from my own collective bargaining agreement.

[3:05 p.m.]

This legislation is going to apply to all employers under the B.C. Employment Standards Act in the public and private sector. This is really important because the private sector is the area where most folks don’t have a collective bargaining agreement. If I remember correctly, the last time I checked the statistics, I think only 12 percent of workers within the private sector are unionized. That’s a pretty low number. Whereas in the public sector, it’s much higher. That means that those people have those protections that they need.

Sick notes are not only costly, this demand from an employer means that much of their time is not spent resting and recuperating but is spent under stress — first, booking an appointment with their family doctor or, as I mentioned, going to a walk-in clinic. But that also means that they stand in line and put others at risk.

That’s not to mention: how are they getting there? If they’re privileged and they have access to a vehicle, that’s wonderful. They can keep themselves isolated. For most people…. This particular amendment act speaks to the most vulnerable workers, those who use transit as their main method of transportation, those who often work in the private sector and don’t have a collective bargaining agreement to outline the process for a short-term absence or a sick leave.

For many workers who do have a collective bargaining agreement in the public sector, they have good sick leave and absence provisions that already don’t require a doctor’s note — as I mentioned, often between three and five days. And they have short-term disability and long-term disability provisions.

For example, my mom worked as a care aide her entire life, proud member of the Hospital Employees Union — shout-out HEU — and has had access to sick leave and short-term absences for a very long time. She hasn’t required a doctor’s note for short-term sickness in many years.

For the worker who is not protected by a CBA and doesn’t have a union to support them, they are left to fulfil any and all requests of the employer. Many times the requests, particularly for a doctor’s note, unfairly impact their healing process, whether it be due to illness or injury.

Prior to being elected, I was the director of organizing and campaigns at the B.C. Federation of Labour. I remember countless workers reaching out to me about doctors notes. These were not organized workers; these were unorganized workers. They just needed support and help, so they came to us to find out what their options were.

One worker shared a particularly egregious story with me. He worked in a warehouse where they made furniture, and he got injured really badly one day. Something had happened to his hand as well as his shoulder. He went to the hospital, and he was told that he had to rest until he got better. Normal — we all know that.

The hospital had provided him with a note, some paperwork. Unfortunately, within 24 hours, the employer said: “Get a doctor’s note.” The wild thing about that is the manager who asked for that doctor’s note was on site and actually saw the injury take place. Make that make sense.

By the way, that hospital document was free. That was just documentation. But forcing that worker to then go and get a doctor’s note meant that not only did he not get to rest, but he had to also go and get that doctor’s note, which cost about $40.

The manager who made the request tried to force the worker back to work. The worker was so injured but had no choice because he had to pay the bills, so he went back to work. But the way that it works, in that warehouse in particular, is you’re measured by speed. You’re supposed to complete furniture sets at a certain pace. He wasn’t able to keep up, of course. He had an injury. He got fired.

What did that doctor’s note do for him, other than add stress and force him to go and get a doctor’s note when he was already in pain and injured? Then he was forced back to work anyway, and because he couldn’t keep up, he was fired.

These are real stories of real workers in this province, people that I’ve spoken to firsthand.

[3:10 p.m.]

I remember the worker telling me: “I felt punished for getting injured in the workplace, and I felt punished to go and get a doctor’s note.” It was like a punishment.

It reminds me about what Dr. Johnny Chang said earlier this morning: “Get a return-to-work letter.” He said that the patient had had a flu and was better for one week already and just wanted to return to work, and the employer wouldn’t let him. Another punishment simply for even taking sick leave when this worker was obviously sick and had the flu.

It’s really rich when I hear the other side say: “Well, you know, of course an employer is going to say yes and let them stay home when they’re sick.” That’s just not true. That’s why government does the work that it does, because we have to support workers that need it. We’re here for the most vulnerable workers, the workers that slip through the cracks. That’s our job.

There’s another reality. There are members on that side that say that they’re union members, but when it comes down to it, I’ve seen the focus be so much more on the employer and not the most vulnerable person in that power dynamic. One can fire; the other can’t. I mean, it’s not rocket science.

We want fairness for both parties, of course, the employer and the workers, and we advocate for it. As union members, we have been blessed with many employers understanding the need to not worry about a doctor’s note, which is why the language in Bill 11 is worked into many of our collective agreements already, including mine.

See, I’m a proud Steelworker, and a real Steelworker does not associate with CLAC. I encourage the members on the other side to read existing collective agreements from Steel — use my union as an example — and see what the sick leave provisions are and what short-term absences look like. They’re already worked in. We’re just bringing the standard up. That’s the reality. This bill is bringing the standard in line for all workers with what is already standard practice for union members.

Yesterday the member mentioned the health care system, and yes, we should absolutely talk about that. I heard that many times from the member across from me before I spoke.

Let’s talk about the pharmacists who are stepping in to support patients with basic testing for strep, RSV, influenza and COVID.

Let’s talk about the doctors who are burned-out and have been working in overdrive because of a global pandemic, and they haven’t had time to rest three years later. It is very busy. The doctors I met with today, they are in complete support of Bill 11.

Let’s talk about the aging population that deserves dignity and health care and support and the many youth who face complex issues.

Is it fair to take up a doctor’s time with an appointment in the name of a doctor’s note for short-term sickness? Make that make sense.

To conclude, I’d like to share my heartfelt gratitude to this government for standing up for worker rights and to the Minister of Labour for her work to advance and fulfil this important piece of fairness for the most vulnerable workers.

I urge all members to support Bill 11. I know I will.

Anna Kindy: Bill 11, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025. This bill proposes to eliminate the need for a sick note when an employee needs to leave for medical reasons. It says that it frees up time for our health care practitioners by cutting down on paperwork.

When I’m looking at this bill, superficially, it makes sense. Doctors are busy, and a doctor’s note is often for what seems to be just the flu. It’s a waste of time for both the doctor and the patient. But like everything else, every bill, you have to look a little bit deeper and what can sometimes be unintended consequences. The reason we might have unintended consequences is that we have a health care crisis in our midst.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m just going to give context a little bit. When you’re old, and you’ve been a practising physician for many years, you’ve got memories of what it used to be like. What it used to be like…. I have practised in different provinces, but in B.C. for most of my career, spending 38 years. When I settled down, finally, in Campbell River, not only were 20 percent of the houses for sale, super cheap, but there were too many family doctors. They were competing against each other.

What did that do? The level of competence, in a sense, came up, because that’s what happens. You’re trying to give your best to every patient.

You saw walk-in clinics open up. The reason walk-in clinics opened up was because doctors were competing against each other: “Let’s extend our hours. Let’s provide better service.”

Amazingly, if you didn’t like your doctor, you could just switch. If you didn’t like the second one, you could switch again until you found one that was compatible with you.

It was a pleasure, as well, to practise.

I’ll just go back to the doctor’s note, because it’s an important thing to talk about when we’re talking about this bill. Occasionally, people would come in for a doctor’s note. It was a way of sort of connecting with the patient. Sometimes it was just the flu, but sometimes it was something a little bit more serious.

Coming back to practising…. Sometimes when people came in with a doctor’s note, it was something serious. I would just pick up the phone and call the specialists, if they were in town. We had quite a few specialists, different specialties like orthopedics, plastic surgery, urology a few or 50 kilometres away, internal medicine. They would answer the phone, and that patient would be seen shortly thereafter. If that patient was sick enough to be admitted, there was a bed waiting. Not a problem.

I kind of always want to give context, because sometimes something becomes a new normal, and this is not normal, what we’re going through right now. The reason we’re actually bringing this bill forward is because there’s a health care crisis, and doctors are overworked, and we’re trying to free up time. I think it’s important to remember that.

When we’re talking about a solution to this crisis, unfortunately…. There needs to be short-term and long-term planning. There’s been some improvement with bringing in some doctors, but when you look at the net connection, meaning people being attached to primary care providers, the net probably isn’t that high because people are still retiring. People are still losing their family doctor. So it would be interesting to talk…. Rather than how many have come in, how many are actually attached?

The other thing, as well, is we have to remember that even the family doctors that we have now…. The doctor that used to work 80 hours a week and do it all is becoming a rarer breed for, potentially, the right reason. People want to have a life, you know, physicians as well. So they tend to sometimes work less hours because they have families, or they specialize and do just emergency, or sometimes people specialize in addiction medicine, or they even do just dermatology.

The doctor that used to do it all isn’t as common. We have to remember that as well. As many as we bring some in, some will specialize in something different. They won’t be providing primary care.

The other thing that’s happening is…. Even if you’re attached and you need a doctor’s note, if you phone your doctor, well, your doctor often is busy, and you can’t get seen for a couple weeks unless it’s a real emergency. Attachment doesn’t guarantee a note.

What do you do when you don’t have a family doctor? Right now you can always go to emergency, right? We’ve all heard of what happens in emergency with a 12-, 14-, 18-hour wait.

[3:20 p.m.]

If you’re sitting at home going, “I need a doctor’s note; I’m not feeling very well,” are you going to take the time? That’s the question, right? Unfortunately, sometimes a flu is not just a flu. Sometimes a flu is not what it seems.

These are just a few examples I’m going to give. These examples are not to scare people. They’re quite rare, but they’ve happened.

Somebody who, for example, is a construction worker has a history of gout, and his toe gets all inflamed and red. Well, sometimes gout isn’t gout. Sometimes gout is what’s called necrotizing fasciitis.

What is necrotizing fasciitis? Well, it’s flesh-eating disease, and that’s a medical emergency. Because you didn’t go see your doctor for your swollen toe, by the time you see your doctor, you need an amputation. Depending on how long you waited to go see your doctor, you might get a toe amputated, or you might get a below knee amputation. That’s how fast it progresses. A rare but real story.

Another example. This is an example close to home. Somebody who, for example, has indigestion and really doesn’t feel well calls to work, and work says: “Stay home, but we don’t need a note anymore.” Okay, great. You don’t have a family doctor. You don’t want to go to emergency because you’ve got indigestion. You don’t want to bother anybody. It doesn’t quite feel like indigestion, but you just don’t feel good.

Well, that indigestion could be pericarditis or angina. It can present as indigestion. Is that common, in terms of presenting that way? It can. Like a previous member sometimes said, sometimes people are tough, and they decide: “I can handle this at home.”

You worked out the night before. Again, you’re a worker. You’re really sore. You’re allowed five sick days — five sick days you don’t need a note for. And because you’re a construction worker, your shoulder is super sore and even your neck is sore. Well, you could be having a heart attack, right? But you’re tough. You’re not going to go see your doctor. You don’t need that note.

My point being…. I can go on and on. I will go on and on, because I want people to kind of understand how important it is to connect with your doctor and to have that easy accessibility, because when it’s hard, sometimes you don’t show up. That’s why in emergency right now, we’re diagnosing stage 4 cancers, because people couldn’t go see their family doctor. They couldn’t access primary care. By the time they show up in the emergency, they’ve got stage 4 cancer.

Neck stiffness could be a meningitis. You fell at work the day before, and you call your employer, and you say: “Well, I’ve got a bit of a headache, and I think I’m starting a flu because my nose is runny.” Well, it could be cerebrospinal fluid leaking. It could be leaking from your brain down your nose. Rare? Yes, but possible.

Pink eye. Who hasn’t gotten pink eye? You don’t notice a little rash beside it. Well, it’s shingles. Sometimes shingles around the eye can blind you. A bit of dizziness could be a cerebellar stroke.

We all know about a cough that continues, right? Again, you don’t have a doctor. I mean, I’ve seen members here coughing. We’re talking about MLAs that cannot find a doctor in Victoria, and they’re coughing for two or three weeks. Well, two or three weeks — maybe you’ve got a pneumonia.

Your sore throat is getting worse. You’re starting to have trouble swallowing. It could be a peritonsillar abscess. That’s a medical emergency. Real story.

[3:25 p.m.]

Bad headache. Temporal arteritis. You could go blind.

My point with all this is that connection with your family doctor is important.

When I was practising, I have to say, we used to like to have people come in for their flu, for the note they needed for work, because it was fast, and we got paid for it. That’s the reality of it. But now doctors are so busy, over-the-top busy, so that extra income means nothing to them. That extra income balanced that complex patient you saw that took 45 minutes…. You get paid the same.

So that doctor’s note is great. Doctor’s note — compensate. Now no more, because they’re so busy. They say: “Most of what we see….”

I want people to realize that all the kind of examples I gave are rare. But in a time of medical crisis, when you’re actually, like I said, diagnosing cancer in emergency, maybe it’s time to start looking at why.

I’ll probably be supporting this bill, because the family doctors are supporting this bill. They need to free up time. But I want to support it with caution, because people that have issues….

Someone mentioned mental health issues. If you’ve had some bad weeks at work and you’re isolating and you decide to take a day off, but you’re actually pretty depressed, that doctor’s note can maybe prevent something worse from happening.

I’m going to support it, but with caution. I think maybe when we re-address the health care crisis and it improves, we should maybe revisit this bill.

Bruce Banman: I want to thank the good doctor from North Island for her very insightful words. Now, she and I are a couple of rare individuals in this House that actually had the privilege of being able to write a note for our patients to excuse them from work. It is a privilege, and it’s an honour. I think when the good doctor speaks, that this side, the opposite side of the House, should listen loud and clear.

I, too, will begrudgingly hold my nose and vote in favour of this particular bill, Bill 11, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, which really, in my opinion, should be called the health care failure act. This government has had eight years to fix the problem, and sadly, the problem has not only not been fixed, but it’s actually getting worse.

Members have heard me talk about my own family’s personal stories, one of which was on the day I was sworn in. My wife tripped and actually fractured her arm and was bounced between two emergency rooms in two different hospitals and spent over 12 hours waiting to be seen. On about hour ten, she asked for a glass of water, and she told me: “No, no, you go. I’m going to be fine. You go, get sworn in.”

I said: “No, I can come back any time and be sworn.” She said: “I am not having this. You are going.” For those of you that know my wife, when she puts her foot down….

I may not do as you tell me, Mr. Speaker, I may put up a fight for that, but when my wife puts her foot down, I do as I’m told.

Interjection.

[3:30 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: Well, I don’t know whether I’m smart, but I’ve got a good survival instinct, I’ll tell you that.

It was so overworked, and this is how stressed the system is. At about hour ten, she asked for a glass of water, and the response was: “Do we look like a restaurant to you?”

Now, I don’t say that to embarrass those that are in the health care system. I say that is a call of desperation, that you are so overworked and the system is that collapsed that you would respond in that manner, because those that go into…. I know I have health care professionals just having shivers go up and down their spine that one of their own would say that, but those that are on the front lines can understand it.

The fact that we are going to a note is an act of desperation. Now, for those that don’t understand medicine, I get it. For those that don’t understand health care, those that have never had to go through the years of training, I understand how….

Going to the doctor for a note is an absolute pain in the bubkes. The doctors are now so overworked with paperwork that they’re just saying: “Look, we’ve got…. Come on, most of the time it’s like just a flu or a headache. We’ve got better things to do with our time, because we cannot see…. There are about a million patients in British Columbia that don’t even have a family doctor, and you’re making me do this stupid note.”

However, if you were to ask them: say, in an ideal world, where you had the time to limit how many patients and there were more than enough doctors to go around, would you ever deny a patient a note? Because what if…? In Harrison’s medical textbook of internal medicine, it talks about what’s called a differential diagnosis. What is that? A differential diagnosis says you take the symptoms, you do a history of your patient, and you say: could it be this, could it be that, could it be this? There are multiple things that it could be.

We heard my colleague talk about a few items. Now, I’ve done a quick search of common things. Most of the time, you’re going to have flu-like symptoms. Most of the time, it’s exactly that — it’s the flu. The flu is also one of the number one killers, every year. I just did a quick, sort of, thing on serious diseases.

[Interruption.]

Deputy Speaker: This might be a good time to remind people….

Bruce Banman: Clearly, I owe my own caucus a bottle, because Siri thinks I’m talking to her, and that’s not good. We’re going to put that under there. Wow. Serious and Siri…. Also, if you say Surrey, by the way, she’ll do the same thing.

Serious diseases with flu-like symptoms. The result of this bill, actually, I believe is going to cost people their life, or serious injury. It’s going to be rare, but we hear oftentimes: one death is too many; one life is important. I am just going to read off a few serious diseases with flu-like symptoms.

Well, we went through COVID. If you don’t get early intervention with COVID, it can permanently damage you or you can die from it. I mentioned the influenza itself. And then there’s a bunch of them. There’s the avian influenza. We all remember the bird flu, SARS, MERS.

[3:35 p.m.]

For those that like to go camping and exploring, there’s the hantavirus, which is from rodent exposure. It starts off with a fever and a cough, and you get muscle aches. You can have shortness of breath, and you pass it off.

We just recently heard of Gene Hackman’s wife, who died from hantavirus, and then Gene Hackman himself, because he had dementia, died. That can be exposure to rodent droppings. Around this building, they’re pretty common. There seemed to be much ado about a cat that disappeared, but it was here to deal with the rodents.

A mosquito bite. Well, a mosquito bite could be dengue fever. Now, is that local here? No, but we live in a world where everyone travels. Someone gets a simple mosquito bite, and then they get dengue fever. It’s fever, flu-like symptoms, joint pain and headaches.

Remember the Zika virus? If you’re a pregnant woman…. We’ve all seen the pictures of babies that were born because of the Zika virus. For those that don’t know, they see a bat on a lawn in the daylight. A kid goes up and touches the bat, or you go to take the bat away from your child…. Or you even get into an attack with a raccoon. That raccoon could have rabies. It’s also flu-like symptoms, fever, headaches and muscle spasms.

You can actually be away on holidays. Actually, you don’t even have to be away on holidays. It can happen right here in a restaurant. You’d go: “Jeez, you know, I just don’t feel well, and I’ve got headaches.” Then you start to turn yellow. It’s actually hepatitis A.

Here’s the problem with Dr. Google and self-diagnosing, which is what this note inevitably is going to make people do, return to self-diagnosing themselves. It comes with a risk.

Is it rare? Yes. But as I see some of the smiles on the other side, I would be careful of that indignation and that moral high road that you’re on, because you will end up damaging people and costing them lives because we do not have enough health care professionals in this province right now to see people on a timely basis.

You know how I know that? My wife is one of them. She does not have a medical doctor. Having to sit in an emergency room or a walk-in clinic to ask for a note…. Absolutely, currently, it is an absolutely miserable experience to go through. But in the real world, where they actually have health care figured out, where they do have access to a medical doctor….

If you get these family doctors aside and say: “You know what? If you weren’t overworked, would you be asking for this?” They would go: “No, I remember my training. I remember the boredom of having to go through Harrison’s medical textbook. I was there.” It’s a mistake, and it’s going to cost people lives, or they’re going to get injured. It’s rare.

There’s a whole bunch more that I’ll go through. We’ve got hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, pneumonia, Legionnaires’ disease, tuberculosis, leptospirosis, Lyme disease, typhoid fever and Q fever. We’ve got Marburg virus disease and Ebola. We’ve got, also, Rocky Mountain spotted fever. We have the plague. We have malaria. We have toxoplasmosis. We have babesiosis. We have African type…. I won’t even go into that one. Histoplasmosis, blastocystis, sepsis and meningitis.

[3:40 p.m.]

Meningitis. Meningitis starts off as a headache and fever-like thing, and it can happen. You know what? I went out drinking with a bunch of friends. We passed the bottle around the campfire, which happens on occasion. I think I’m just hungover. “No, you’re not. You have meningitis and it can be fatal if it is not treated. It can be fatal.” Again, is it rare? Yes.

But do you really want to be responsible for that because we can’t figure out how to get enough frigging doctors for people in this province? Because this government has had eight years to fix the problem and failed miserably at it?

You can have toxic shock syndrome.

Then actually one that’s personal to me is Kawasaki disease. My grandson, when he was an infant, had Kawasaki disease. It presents very similar to measles, and had my daughter not taken him in….

She went and saw a medical doctor on top of this, and he said: “Oh, it’s nothing. Don’t worry about it.” She said, “No, there’s something wrong with my son,” and she took him down to Children’s. Children’s said: “You are lucky that you brought him in.”

One of the things with Kawasaki the syndrome, although rare, is aneurysms of the heart, and they can be playing soccer and have a heart attack because they have an aneurysm in their heart or other places.

That’s just fever. Flu-like symptoms.

Let’s go on to headaches. Headaches are a common thing. Everybody gets them. People can get this sudden severe headache, and we call it thunderclap. It’s often described as “the worst headache of my life.” Well, it’s a subarachnoid hemorrhage. And it can be life changing and fatal. A simple visit to go get a note from a doctor in a timely manner can save that person’s life.

There could be an intracranial hemorrhage, which is a sudden and severe headache. That can also be severely debilitating.

Quite frankly, I listened to the nonsense on the other side about this being somehow employers being evil and mean or whatever it was. And these simple visits to a doctor, especially….

I’ve got to speak on behalf of being a male. We don’t get health care real well, most of us. Go talk to our wives. Having to be sent in to get a medical note can generally mean that the doctor will look at you and go, “Wait a minute, do your blood pressure or do some other simple things,” which should happen in a normal doctor’s visit when they are not pressed to the max.

This note, this amendment is not built on what the system should be. It is being pushed through because the system is in a free fall. It is collapsing, and it is basically what’s called triage, where we are just trying to deal with the most severe things first.

But in an ideal world, there is no way this bill would ever be required. This is absolute failure and free fall of our health care system. I would encourage the other side of the House to listen to those of us that actually were able to write notes once in a while for real, that have the ability to diagnose, and listen to what we’re trying to tell you.

We will vote for this, but do not be proud on that side of the House that it has come to this. Do not be proud, and don’t you dare do a victory lap, because this is not a victory. This is a failure lap. It is a stopgap measure to try and stop the bleeding of a system that is dying.

[3:45 p.m.]

Other things with a headache. Actually, it can be a stroke. You can get what’s called a temporary ischemic attack, a TIA, where you get this…. It can present in many different ways. You just don’t feel well, so you self-diagnose and then it disappears, and you go, “Okay, I’m fine,” when in fact, that is a dire warning that you are most likely going to have a stroke.

Other headaches that can present, as we heard, are tumours in the head, some of which are cancerous, some of which are not. The result of not seeking early treatment can be life-altering, if not causing death.

I mentioned meningitis. The other one you can have…. There are many, many vascular problems that can cause that. There is also a thing called an aneurysm, which can start to…. You think of it like a balloon in an artery where the balloon gets weak. We all, as kids, have played with those long balloons, and it gets a bubble on it. Well, that can pop and cause a stroke.

Sometimes there are signs and symptoms that a simple doctor’s note can go: “Wait a minute, this is not a normal headache. This is something far more. I’m going to send you off to get this imagery done or this test done.” It can save a person’s life. It can stop them from having a stroke where they’re left debilitated in a chair or unable to speak. It depends on where the stroke in the brain is. Sometimes the stroke can cause a clot.

This is not a bill that should have ever come before this House. It saddens me that it’s here. It saddens me that our health care system has come to this. It saddens me that this side of the House has not been able to fix the problems that lie before it. Are they difficult? Yes, they are.

You can wake up in the morning with a headache, Mr. Speaker. “Hey, you know what, I’m going out drinking with the boys and woke up with a headache.” It’s actually not a headache at all. It can actually be the signs of hypertension. It can actually be the signs that you have high blood pressure.

The problem with high blood pressure is it’s like pumping a bunch of pressure through a little pipe. That pipe can blow. It’s also a form of a stroke. It depends on where the pipe bursts. If it happens to be an abdominal aneurysm, and it blows, well, you’ve got about five seconds. A simple doctor’s note, in some cases, where you’ve got back pain….

An abdominal aneurysm can often present itself as low back pain, because the aorta goes down along the spine, and it pumps along the spine. You’re working, and you think: “You know what? Hey, I just lifted that one piece of equipment I shouldn’t have, but I’ll know better next time,” and it really isn’t. It’s actually a sign of what they call a “triple-A,” an abdominal aortic aneurysm. It can end up bursting, as happened to my friend Jean at his son’s birthday. He literally just fell over and expired.

There’s the potential that had that been caught, there’s intervention of surgery that can actually fix that, and his life might have been saved. Is that going to happen all the time? No, it’s not. As the previous speaker was just mentioning, these are rare. But you add up all the rarities, this is where we get these tragedies where they’re misdiagnosed.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know the other side of the House thinks it’s funny, because I can watch them laughing and making fun as I’m talking about very real conditions that happen every day. I think that this side of the House probably thinks that it’s some kind of a joke. What’s a joke is that we have got to this point in this province where we’ve reached a point where a note is required.

There are some other ones that can cause…. You can have a brain abscess as a headache. You can have carbon monoxide poisoning, where you’re driving on a long drive in your car, and you don’t know that you actually have carbon monoxide coming into the car. Or you have carbon monoxide in your house from your furnace. Or you have gone out camping and you’ve had something, and it wakes…. There are things that need to be done that perhaps could help. Sadly, with carbon monoxide poisoning, it can often result in actual death.

For those that are pregnant, it can be pre-eclampsia. Pre-eclampsia starts off with a severe headache. You get some visual changes, and basically you get high blood pressure and swelling as well. These are just a couple of symptoms that are common that an employer would say: “Hey, you know what? I’d like a note.”

There was mention of a return-back-to-work note. Well, that’s really not part of this bill. A return-to-work note actually is more to do with the bureaucracy of WorkSafe and a few other things that have been put in place that employers are now forced to do. Because if that employee hurts themselves at work as a result of that…. It really wasn’t relevant to this bill, but I’m glad one of the members brought that up. It is also some red tape that we perhaps should look at. The devil is always in the details.

One of the wisest individuals I ever had the privilege to work with was the former city manager of the city of Abbotsford. His name was George Murray. George taught me an important lesson. He said: “In your passion, your desire to fix a problem, the devil is always in the details, and if you are not careful, you will create unintentional consequences.”

The unintentional consequence of this particular bill, if it becomes the norm, will be injuring people, putting them at risk, and then sometimes a death that is preventable by going to a doctor to ask for a simple doctor’s note. Yes, it’s a pain in the butt. Most of the time it’s just to check off a box. But there are times that it could save a life.

I will vote in favour of this, but it saddens my heart that the health care system of this province has reached a low of this kind that it requires this kind of intervention to attempt to keep it going. Our health care system literally is on life support, and this is a symptom of the problem of how sick our health care system is. It is not an answer. It is a last-ditch effort to just try and keep the system moving in any way, shape or form.

The citizens of this province deserve a hell of a lot better than what they have gotten over the last eight years of inability to actually get to the root of the problem and fix the problem.

[3:55 p.m.]

Citizens of this province deserve to see a health care doctor, they deserve to have a family physician, and they deserve that that family physician have the time to be able to write something as simple as a note that may potentially save their life.

Korky Neufeld: Well, here we are again, and the question that comes to my mind is: “Would Bill 11 be even necessary if we had enough doctors?” In other words, there’s no way a doctor wants to see less of their patients.

I know I have a great doctor. I don’t see him often enough because I don’t go very often, but when I do, and it might be for this or that or the next thing, he opens my file up. He looks at it: “Oh, maybe we should check your blood pressure; maybe we should check this.”

Across the aisle, we keep hearing a lot about the previous government. Well, it has been eight long years to fix things. I think that eight years is getting kind of old.

Speaking to Bill 11, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025, I rise today not out of routine but actually out of deep concern, first of all, for the integrity of our health care system, for the working people of British Columbia and for the future we’re building with every piece of legislation that we pass in this House.

At first glance, Bill 11 may appear benign, even compassionate. The government presents it as a practical fix, allowing workers to take short-term medical leave without requiring a doctor’s note. However, by removing this requirement, we may inadvertently create a system where employees can take advantage of leave without proper accountability, leading to increased absenteeism and potential disruptions to the workplace. How can we be sure that an employee’s absence is genuinely due to illness and not a tactic to avoid worker responsibilities?

I heard the member across the aisle talk about unions and how the unions have put a lot of things in place. But here’s the thing. Many, many British Columbians don’t work for a union. I’ve talked to small and medium-sized businesses, and they are carrying an extra burden with just the five days of sick leave that they’re requiring their workers to have. Many of them now have to cut their workforce because of that. They have to work longer hours because of that. It’s tough on small and medium-sized businesses across this province.

On the surface, this bill seems reasonable. Who would argue that a sick individual should be forced out of bed to obtain a piece of paper to justify their absence? Who would argue that a doctor, who is already overwhelmed, should be burdened with unnecessary paperwork? But that is the reason why we have this bill, because the system and the doctors are overwhelmed. This bill, though, opens up Pandora’s box of uncertainties that could have far-reaching consequences for both workers and employers alike.

But let’s not be fooled. This bill is not a gesture of compassion. It’s not a sign of progress. It’s actually a concession of defeat. It’s not a solution. It’s a symptom — a symptom of a health care system buckling under pressure. Doctors know it, and that is why they have aligned themselves with this bill. It’s not because they want it. They have no choice. A quiet admission of a much larger failure.

Bill 11 is not a sign of progress. It’s a signal of surrender. Why does this bill even need to exist? Why must we even debate the necessity of waiving sick notes? Because in the year 2025, in a province as wealthy and resourceful as ours, over one million British Columbians — that’s one out of every five — do not have access to a doctor.

I have children who have no family doctor. They’re unattached from primary care. They’re forced to scramble through a broken patchwork of clinics, of online services, of overburdened emergency rooms.

[4:00 p.m.]

These are not just stats. These are people. They’re your children. They’re my children. They’re your parents. They’re my parents. They’re your neighbours. They’re my neighbours. They’re seniors in rural towns, young families in suburbs, workers in our cities, navigating the broken maze of walk-in clinics, overburdened ERs and virtual platforms that promise care but too often deliver delays.

In many ridings, in many communities, emergency rooms are shuttering overnight. Patients are forced to drive many, many hours for just basic care. Clinics close early. Lineups begin before dawn. People are being turned away at the doors, not because of lack of need — there’s much need — but for lack of doctors. British Columbia has the longest walk-in clinic wait times in Canada. It’s 93 minutes — that’s 1½ hours — according to Medimap Canada, and a lot longer in Abbotsford, I can tell you.

I was the caregiver for my mom in the last ten years of her life. She passed away in 2022. Her family doctor retired, and she was dumped into the health care system. I navigated that system with her. I stood in lineups with her for hours, at 93 years old, just to have the door locked because they’ve reached their quota or the doctor wasn’t available. Then I’d put her in my car, and we’d drive to the ER, where we sat, and we sat, and we sat. This is not a minor inconvenience. For many, it’s a health crisis.

In the North, in the Interior, in our Indigenous and remote communities, those numbers climb even higher. The barriers are even steeper, and the consequences are even more severe. They push the two-week mark to see a doctor. Those fortunate enough to even have a family physician are often left waiting weeks for an appointment. Can you imagine waiting weeks to find out what’s wrong? If you’re sick today, you may be told: “Come next Wednesday.” What good is a sick note when you can’t even find a doctor to see?

What is this government’s answer? What do they do? Instead of confronting the health care crisis, they lower the bar. Instead of investing in access, they rewrite the expectations. They offer this bill, a legislative workaround designed not to strengthen our system but to excuse its shortcomings.

Let’s be clear. This bill doesn’t eliminate sick notes altogether. It merely punts the issue down the road to regulation. It creates a vague, murky standard. No clear limit on how many days can be taken without documentation. No certainty for the employer — again, another thing that the small and medium-sized businesses are going to have to face with already an overburdened amount of things that they are dealing with each and every day with their employees. No safeguards for workers, just ambiguity wrapped in bureaucracy. This is not clarity. This is not accountability. It’s abdication.

Let’s talk about what’s really at stake. A sick note isn’t just a piece of paper. I think that’s what I want to get across to the other side. It’s not just a piece of paper. It’s a point of contact with a person, with a health care provider. It’s a checkpoint of care, an opportunity, sometimes the only opportunity, to catch something early, possibly to discuss some symptoms they’re having, maybe to adjust some medications, to uncover something more serious lurking beneath the surface.

I want to ask the people across the aisle, the members: how often does this happen to you, as a member, going to your doctor? You go in for one reason, and all of a sudden discover: “Oh, actually, you know what? He actually changed something else in my health process.”

[4:05 p.m.]

I know somebody very close who had a mole. And I don’t know about you, but when you look at yourself in the mirror every day, you don’t see things changing. But this person just happened to go to the doctor. And the doctor noticed: “Ah, that mole. It got bigger.” This person is a big football player, and they took a chunk of meat — melanoma — out of his back. He had meat to give away.

But had he not gone to his doctor, where would that have ended? See, by removing this step, we risk missing those moments. And they’re real. They happen. Maybe not often enough, but they happen to British Columbians each and every day.

We normalize detachment from health care. We reinforce the message: “Doctors aren’t accessible, so don’t bother trying.” I’m telling you, if we had enough doctors in B.C., they would not be asking for this. They’re asking for this because the system is broken, and that is why.

This bill also risks being misused. Without clear rules, employers may tighten their own policies. Workers may feel pressure to overexplain or overwork. The system becomes more uncertain, not less. So let’s not pretend this is about trust alone.

Yes, we must believe workers when they say they’re unwell. But we also, more importantly, must build a system — a system that supports recovery of patients, that promotes connection with health care workers, that reinforces, not erodes, the relationship between individuals and their health care provider.

We all know we are facing a profound challenge in our health care system. Here are some solutions that I wish the government, in the last eight years, would have thought of.

They needed to act boldly, and they never did, to train and retain doctors, to expand primary care networks, to rebuild access in rural communities, to restore trust in a crumbling system. All that has eroded in the last eight years. Instead, what do we get? We get a band-aid — a band-aid that covers up the wound but does nothing to stop the bleeding.

What British Columbians need is not less paperwork. They need more care. They need more access, more time with professionals who can help them stay healthy, not just justify their absences. They deserve a government that sees the crisis for what it is and has the courage to confront it. Bill 11 doesn’t confront anything. It sidesteps responsibility, and it lowers expectations.

For that reason, despite the glossy presentation, it is difficult to support this, because British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a health care system that is actually functioning. Doctors know it. Patients know it. A government that leads and laws that heal rather than hide the truth. When being sick doesn’t mean facing a system that’s just as broken as your own body….

Bill 11 does not solve these problems. It sidesteps it. And as the members on our side of the aisle said: “You know what? We’re going to hold our nose, and we’re going to vote for this, but we want the public to know that we’re completely aware of what the real issue is.”

Our health care system is broken, and that’s why the doctors are supporting this. They’re not supporting this because they don’t want to see their patients more often. They’re overwhelmed. There are just not enough of them and too many patients and too much need. That’s why this bill is here. And this government is sidestepping the real need in our province.

That is about all I’ve got to say about this.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question will be second reading of Bill 11, intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I call second reading of Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I move that Bill 13 be now read a second time.

This bill, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, Bill 13, amends a number of statutes.

I’m pleased to be able to provide second reading response on behalf of the Attorney General, who is otherwise preoccupied with another piece of legislation.

This bill, as I said, amends a number of statutes. The amendment to the Housing Supply Act is necessary to correct a minor drafting omission to ensure that government can apply compliance measures to the city of Vancouver as and if needed, consistent with all other municipalities subject to housing target orders.

As the act is currently written, reference is made to the charter regarding permitting. However, corresponding references are not made to the charter regarding land use bylaws.

There will be several amendments to the Local Government Act. First, they establish a new requirement on municipalities to provide a pre–tax sale notice to property owners. The notice will serve as an individual advance warning to a property owner that their property will be offered at the annual municipal tax sale auction unless delinquent property taxes are paid.

The proposed amendments will protect property owners by closely implementing recommendations of the Ombudsperson, while at the same time maintaining certainty and ensuring that municipalities follow the standard of behaviour during the notification process.

Amendments under the Local Government Act will also ensure regional districts can meet new provincially mandated requirements under the Fire Safety Act, by providing statutory authority for regional districts to designate fire inspectors and fire investigators and to recover incidental costs related to these services without a service-establishing bylaw.

The legislation supports greater fire safety in unincorporated areas of the province. The exception from the service-establishing bylaw requirement is narrow in scope and modelled on already existing similar exceptions in the LGA.

Amendments to the Local Government Act, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, Island Trusts Act and the School Act relate to local elections, including those for school boards and local trust committees, and support administrative efficiency for election officials, improved fairness, accessibility and privacy in election proceedings for all election participants.

They are being brought forward based on feedback received after the 2022 general local elections from local election administrators and election partners. The amendments are proposed for spring 2025 to be able to provide enough sufficient time for all election partners to finalize all of their materials of guidance ahead of what is going to be a busy 2026, with the election period for the local government, local mayors, councils, school boards, regional directors, so on and so forth.

Changes to the Local Government Act and an act to incorporate the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district will extend instream protection on Metro Vancouver regional district development charges for certain development applications from 12 to 24 months.

This amendment enables an agreement between the federal and provincial government to secure $250 million in federal support for phase 1 of the Iona Island wastewater treatment plan upgrade. The expansion to the instream protections from 12 to 24 months will apply retroactively and save the development community in the Metro Vancouver area up to $220 million in development charges, that will make a significant contribution to the financial viability of many projects throughout the region.

Proposed changes to the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter will give clarity to local governments and the development industry on how density benefits frameworks, amended in April of 2024, apply to individual, site-specific zones. The changes will ensure that local governments can continue to use their existing density benefits programs while they update and transition to the new system. This supports the wide range of actions we are taking to create more homes that are within reach for people and are addressing the housing crisis in British Columbia.

Additional proposed amendments to the Vancouver Charter provide that the city of Vancouver can regulate, with the same sphere as the province, if a bylaw is not inconsistent with provincial enactment. This is equivalent to the authority provided for other B.C. municipalities under section 10 of the Community Charter and establishes a default rule regarding the relationship between municipal bylaws and provincial laws.

[4:15 p.m.]

The amendment also clarifies that they are very specific to restrictions about regulating passenger-directed vehicles and do not limit authorities provided in the Vancouver Charter. The legislation is expected to clarify the city of Vancouver’s regulatory authorities and ensure Vancouver has the authority it needs to regulate matters that are part of the everyday work of a large and modern municipality.

I’m sure the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs will be able to touch on this during his remarks in second reading and certainly later, when we reach Committee of the Whole as well.

Moving on, the bill amends the Professional Governance Act. These amendments clarify the regulation-making powers under the act, which specify that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations related to job titles, while the act provides the regulation-making power to say what professional titles are reserved only for certain professionals. These amendments will provide the clear ability to determine what titles are not reserved.

Clear regulation-making powers are important to give government the option to respond to concerns around industry-standard job titles that are restricted under the Professional Governance Act regulations.

Today as we are discussing and debating Bill 13, this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, in the Ministry of Forests, as the minister, I am proud to be bringing forward proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act limitation period.

Before I touch on that, I just wanted to…. It’s been a busy number of weeks for the B.C. wildfire service. We’ve had boot camps all across the province, hard-working men and women who put everything on the line, run into fires, don’t ask questions. This was acknowledged by members on the other side of the House just prior to question period this week. Just incredible heroicness, not just from our wildland firefighters that make up the B.C. wildfire service but also firefighters in communities all across the province.

I think of the firefighters in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, who, again, don’t ask questions. They go out, help protect communities, help protect livelihoods and then wake up and do it again and again. I’ve just got so much respect for all these individuals.

I know it’s going to be a busy wildfire season. We’re taking every step we can to ensure we’re prepared for the worst-case scenario. I want to thank all the hard-working men and women of the B.C. wildfire service, our interagency agreements, for all the support that they’re providing.

I’m bringing forward proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act limitation period, which governs how long the minister has to make orders against parties found to have caused or contributed to the start of a wildfire or to have contravened the act or the wildfire regulation.

Currently government may not have enough time to pursue fire control costs, damages or administrative penalties, and parties may not have adequate time to prepare a response. This is really important. As we see the severity of wildfires increase here in our province, it’s important to bring forward these amendments at this time.

The proposed amendments will provide that the limitation period ends with giving notice of an order and an opportunity to be heard, rather than issuing the determination order. It will also provide a new authority for the minister to extend the limitation period as well.

This will provide more time for the government, for the B.C. wildfire service, the Natural Resource Online Service to investigate and calculate costs and damages and assess facts and for parties to have meaningful opportunity to respond. It will also make the Wildfire Act more consistent with other natural resource statutes, like the Forest and Range Practices Act.

I want to thank the hard-working team in the forest service for the work that they’ve been doing on this legislation. I know there’s so much more that we look forward to discussing in the committee stage, as well as discussing in the weeks and months ahead, as it relates to the Wildfire Act.

Amendments to the Wildlife Act being brought forward by my colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship will proactively prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species and whirling disease across the province by requiring that drain plugs be pulled from watercraft when travelling over land and that persons transporting boats, aircraft designed to land on water and water-related equipment must stop at open watercraft inspection stations along their route.

These amendments strengthen authorities for officers to post signs to stop drivers; request and collect information; and inspect boats, vehicles, aircraft designed to land on water, water equipment like boat trailers, items used for fishing and water-related infrastructure like rafts or docks being transported. Related offences for non-compliance are included in the proposed bill as well.

Finally, the bill also makes transitional provisions and consequential and related amendments to other statutes as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’ll just conclude by saying I’m looking forward to hearing the discussion this afternoon on this very important bill and different aspects of it. I know that my colleague the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs will get an opportunity to dive more deeply into the pieces that pertain to his ministry. I’m sure other colleagues will get an opportunity as well.

We look forward to hearing the feedback from the members opposite on the pieces that they’re interested in chatting about, and I look forward to engaging in a more fulsome way when we get to committee stage.

I just also wanted to take an opportunity to thank the hard-working public service in all of our ministries. They really put in the work to be able to allow us to bring forward and introduce legislation like this.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister, for opening debate on Bill 13.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This is primarily a housekeeping bill but serves an important function in maintaining the currency and consistency of British Columbia’s laws.

These bills allow for updates, corrections and procedural refinements that might not warrant a stand-alone bill in principle, but they help us modernize legislation, align overlapping provisions and fix unintended gaps or inconsistencies across ministries.

It is exactly because of this sweeping and technical nature that we must be diligent. A clause may look minor, but buried in a single paragraph may be a fundamental shift in how rights are administered, how accountability is enforced or how government powers are exercised. It is our job on this side of the House not to oppose for opposition’s sake but to scrutinize, to question and to ensure that the intent behind each provision matches its real-world consequences.

While my primary focus in my role is on part 4 and the amendments to the Wildlife Act under clauses 78 to 86, I believe it is important to walk through the bill in full, starting with the forest amendments in part 1, then continuing through the housing and local government changes in part 2, the professional governance amendments in part 3 and concluding with the aquatic and invasive species enforcement provisions in part 4.

Let’s begin with part 1. These changes primarily focus on orders issued under the Wildfire Act, particularly for individuals alleged to have caused or contributed to a fire. Clause 1 introduces a new section, 24.1, to the act, which formalizes a requirement to provide written notice and an opportunity to be heard before such orders are made.

This seems like a positive move until you consider clause 3, which removes the guaranteed 30-day window for a response that previously existed. While there is still a duty to give notice and opportunity to be heard, there is no longer a specific, defined response window. That reduces certainty and shifts the discretion heavily towards government officials.

Clause 6 repeals the original limitation period in section 33 and instead gives officials more discretion by tying the timeline to when an official becomes aware of the facts, not when the incident occurred. That could significantly extend the period of uncertainty for landowners, contractors and forestry operators. In rural areas, especially in interface zones like my region of Boundary-Similkameen, these changes could matter.

A single spark can lead to devastating wildfire, but responsibility is not always straightforward. Machinery failures, dry lightning, neglected slash piles and improperly extinguished recreational fires all present risk.

Just this week I met with FortisBC, which is looking to impose pre-emptive blackouts to prevent wildfires caused by electrical lines. It’s essential that people who act in good faith are not subjected to an open-ended process without clear notice, fair hearing and the ability to respond.

We all agree that B.C. must improve wildfire preparedness and cost recovery, but in doing so, we cannot sacrifice procedural fairness. The government must ensure that stronger enforcement tools do not come at the expense of due process.

Part 2 is broad in scope and dense in impact. At its core, it addresses development costs, electoral procedures, candidate registration, campaign finance rules and the governance of local councils and boards.

Clause 8 is particularly notable. It locks in pre–March 2024 cost charge rates for instream subdivision applications in Metro Vancouver. This is being done to accommodate projects caught in transition, but the fiscal implications for taxpayers and local governments remain unclear.

[4:25 p.m.]

Who makes up the funding shortfalls for infrastructure tied to projects that are exempted from updated charges? Will it be local taxpayers, provincial transfers or delayed capital projects?

This may also include large projects like the wastewater treatment facility in North Vancouver, which has been plagued by cost escalations. Projects like this underscore the importance of fiscal clarity.

Clauses 13 through 17 give the Chief Electoral Officer authority to de-register organizations not using their full legal name unless they update their registration within 60 days. On paper, it sounds technical, but the consequences are real.

Smaller grassroots organizations may not have legal teams watching these administrative changes. This could result in organizations being shut out of elections over branding issues or represent a significant change that could disrupt the electoral rights of smaller and less resourced groups.

Elsewhere in this part, we see new powers for ministers to retroactively amend election processes under special circumstances. These orders can be applied up to 80 days before voting day. While flexibility may be needed in emergencies, the bar for such discretion must be very high. Retroactive law-making must be tightly scoped and only used with a clear public interest rationale, particularly when it touches democratic processes.

We also see changes that affect local representation. Clause 36 allows for the appointment of acting directors and alternates to regional district boards when no election is held or when someone resigns. It’s framed as a practical solution, and I understand the motivation. But again, it speaks to the slow erosion of direct representation, especially in rural areas where democratic participation already faces many challenges and we often have acclamations or low turnout.

Finally, buried throughout these clauses are numerous changes to transparency, recordkeeping and the handling of nomination documents. Candidates’ places of residence must now be disclosed, and public access to nomination papers is being made more flexible. While adding new privacy protections, these are welcome updates in a digital age, but the cumulative impact of all these changes deserves a more thorough debate than a single miscellaneous bill might allow.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Part 3 amends the Professional Governance Act and related regulations. Some of these changes are editorial, switching practice with a “c” to practise with an “s,” but others are more substantial.

Clause 75 gives the government power to designate or remove reserved professional titles. While the bill does not name specific examples, it opens the door for broader use of regulated terms in evolving fields.

For instance, it raises the possibility that titles like “software engineer” could be used outside current regulatory frameworks. This raises valid concerns about the dilution of regulated designations, allowing individuals who are not registered professionals to use protected titles like “engineer” or “biologist.” This could cause confusion, particularly in fields tied to safety, science or infrastructure.

British Columbians rely on these titles to carry meaning. If someone is working on a bridge, a flood mitigation plan or a mine reclamation strategy, they want to know that the person has the qualifications to back up their plan. A title isn’t just a name; it’s a signal of trust, competence and accountability. We must be careful not to undermine the trust in the name of administrative efficiencies.

Our critic for Advanced Education will delve deeper into these implications, but I want to flag this as yet another area where incremental legislative change could lead to a broader systematic effect, especially in a province already navigating labour shortages and shifting skills demands.

Finally, I turn to the section of Bill 13 that falls within my critic responsibilities, and that is the amendments to the Wildlife Act. This section introduces sweeping new powers to combat the spread of aquatic invasive species. It defines aquatic invasives as a subset of controlled alien species and gives officers the power to stop, inspect and enforce regulations on any vehicle, trailer, boat, floatplane or equipment that is suspected of transporting these species.

[4:30 p.m.]

Clause 84 is particularly notable. It lays out the authority for uniformed officers to perform inspections, require documentation and enforce penalties. Non-compliance will become an offence. These are significant expansions of authority and should not be taken lightly.

I support the goal of what we’re trying to achieve with these amendments. Aquatic invasive species are among the most pressing ecological threats in this province. Zebra and quagga mussels, in particular, could devastate our lakes, reservoirs and water infrastructure. If they were to establish in the Okanagan or Similkameen watersheds, the economic and environmental damage could be irreversible.

I want to highlight that regulation without funding is not protection. We cannot legislate our way out of this crisis without resourcing the tools that enforcement requires. We need inspection stations that are open and staffed during high season. We need educational campaigns in multiple languages at every boat launch, marina and campground. We need collaboration with Indigenous governments, regional districts and volunteer stewards, who are already doing some of this work on the ground.

We also need transparency. How many boats are being stopped at the border? How many violations are found? Are we tracking hot spots? Are we funding innovation in decontamination or detection? These questions remain unanswered, and Bill 13 doesn’t appear to address them.

If we’re serious about preventing the spread of invasive species, then boaters must be stopped, they must be inspected, and they must be decontaminated. The excuses for underfunding front-line efforts have to stop. I’m asking this government to pair these legislative tools in Bill 13 with the fiscal tools that will make the difference.

In Boundary-Similkameen, this issue is deeply personal. Osoyoos Lake, Christina Lake, the Similkameen and Kettle rivers — these are not just water bodies. They are engines of tourism, pillars of agriculture and ecosystems vital to Indigenous and all communities. Let us not wait for the damage to be done. Let us act now not just with words in Hansard but with inspectors on the ground, programs in place and budgets to match the ambition.

Bill 13 may be titled miscellaneous, but there’s nothing miscellaneous about the impacts it will have. From wildfire enforcement to housing development charges, from professional title governance to invasive species control, each clause of this bill reflects decisions about how we balance government authority with public accountability.

As an opposition MLA and critic, my role is not to simply accept these changes at face value. It is to question their purpose, challenge their implications and ensure that the people of British Columbia, especially those in rural and resource-based communities, are not left behind in the fine print. I look forward to the committee stage, where we can get into the work clause by clause.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to be able to speak briefly to Bill 13 and some of the elements in this. There are a lot of the elements that my colleague the Minister of Forests ably walked through.

I just want to touch on a few of the measures that are connected to housing. Of course, my colleague here would have touched on the amendment to the Housing Supply Act. It’s obviously necessary to be able to correct some minor drafting omissions in the act to ensure that there are compliance measures for the city of Vancouver. That is one piece of it.

There’s a second piece, which is some changes to the Local Government Act that establish new requirements for municipalities to provide pre–tax sale notice to property owners. This may be familiar to some members here in the House.

There was a significant case in Penticton a couple of years ago where there was an individual who had their property put up for sale. There was, I guess, some discrepancy around notification being provided to the family. We made some changes to ensure that local governments had the tools to be able to respond.

[4:35 p.m.]

In addition to that, there were a lot of local governments that had some unique challenges and unique feedback for us and asked for some minor changes to be able to allow them the ability to be able to respond in a more effective way. That’s reflected in that section of the change.

There’s another section in here around regional districts so that they can meet the provincially mandated requirements under the Fire Safety Act. It’s essentially providing statutory authority for regional districts to designate fire inspectors or fire investigators and to recover incidental costs related to these services without service establishing a bylaw. This legislation supports greater fire safety in unincorporated areas of the province. Of course, the exception from the service establishing bylaw requirements is that it’s narrow in scope and modelled on something that already exists, similar to exceptions in the LGA.

The third piece is some work…. I have to give credit to UBCM. UBCM has really been leading work on how we can support our local governments, our school boards to ensure that those that run can do so in a very safe way. These recommendations are coming directly from UBCM. The changes reflect what they heard from their members. We’ll be able to go through a lot more information in committee stage if it gets to that point, but it’s really to help make sure our democratic process of local elections is strong.

We heard from a lot of people that were wanting to run in local government, especially in environments where it’s a little more hostile…. We know there are a lot of areas it’s tougher to run in. In fact, I would argue that it’s tough to run in any community right now, in any level of politics. But it’s tough in particular in smaller communities, where everyone kind of knows who you are.

We heard from a lot of women, in particular, who were running, that when their addresses were published, it came with additional challenges for them. One of the changes we’re making here is coming directly from UBCM. It’s to ensure that those addresses are not made public so that people have the safety in knowing that when they put their name forward for public office, it won’t come with the threat of someone knowing where their home is and the elements that come with that.

All of these changes that are in this section are pretty commonsense. They will help address challenges. We heard from a lot of local governments who say…. Smaller communities where nobody ran, nobody put their name forward — it’s difficult to find somebody within the community. We heard from a lot of local governments who say: “Is there an ability for us to look outside of our community to find somebody in the case that nobody wants to run?” That provision, of course, is available here if no one does run.

There are a couple of elements in here, but it’s about improving fairness in our election process, more accessibility and making sure that people have a level of protection and privacy. Those elements, again, are coming directly from UBCM, from local governments who wanted to see these changes.

The third piece is a little bit bigger, and it’s a bigger topic when it comes to housing. We’ve had an opportunity to canvass this issue in the House. In fact, my opposition critic and I discussed at length about cost of building. One of the discussions we’ve been having with the federal government was around their community housing infrastructure fund. How do we leverage those dollars to support local governments to advance housing?

I should give some credit to the previous Minister of Housing federally, who worked closely with us to try to get some of those dollars to flow to British Columbia. Our role from British Columbia was more of a facilitation, a conversation, in particular with Metro Vancouver, where they were wanting to move forward with Iona wastewater facility.

The province made a $250 million contribution, and the federal government wanted to make a contribution, but the conversation was about how we can lower costs for those that are building homes, given that Metro Vancouver has made some significant increases to their cost structure, to support them with infrastructure that they need. Part of that conversation was Metro Vancouver stressing the need for them to have more dollars to support their infrastructure, the federal government stressing the need for them to ensure that those dollars flow and support housing to be actually built in Metro Vancouver.

[4:40 p.m.]

We were able to propose this solution to them, which was that if they made a commitment of $250 million, we would ensure, with Metro Vancouver, and support them in extending in-stream protections from 12 months to 24 months. Of course, that’s welcome news by the development community, by the home-building community, because they see better protections, and they see some lowering of costs in this challenging time that they’re in.

Beyond that, there was an understanding from Metro Vancouver. They went through their governance process to get support for this measure. So Metro Vancouver gets $250 million. The home-building community sees about $220 million of savings from their projects, and there’s about a $30 million difference that Metro Vancouver gets to put directly towards some of the work that they’re doing.

This change, again, is something that was supported to us by Metro Vancouver and, again, not controversial in nature. It’s supported. I think you may hear from some local governments, who say, “Well, it should be three years, four years,” but that’s not the motion that they passed. If Metro Vancouver wants to have those conversations, I certainly leave it up to them. But this change was something that Metro Vancouver had asked us to make.

I think it touches on the need for us to ensure that any dollars that flow from the federal government and the provincial government towards infrastructure help enable more homes to be built. It is a major challenge that I know the federal government is dealing with across the board.

Again, I shared with my critic in estimates debate that the new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Carney, has made a commitment to significant infrastructure dollars. The details of how those dollars will flow to communities are not there yet. But I think that there’s certainly an agreement from us here in British Columbia that any dollars that come from either the province or the federal government ensure that we have strong, livable communities that have the infrastructure that they need to support that growth in their community but also enable housing to be built.

This change reflects, I think, a path forward for us to ensure that we can have both. I think that the federal government was looking for similar measures from other provinces and wasn’t able to successfully get that. So hats off to the mayors at Metro Vancouver, who grappled with this for some time, but we were able to find a resolution.

The last change is around the Vancouver Charter. It’s essentially allowing them to regulate the same way that other communities are able to do in the Community Charter. This provides the city of Vancouver to regulate within the same sphere as the province if a bylaw is not inconsistent with the provincial enactment. It’s the equivalent authority provided to B.C. municipalities under section 10 of the Community Charter, and it establishes the default rule regarding the relationship between municipal bylaws and provincial laws.

The amendment also clarified that very specific restrictions about regulating passenger-directed vehicles do not limit other authorities provided in the Vancouver Charter. The legislation is expected to clarify the city of Vancouver’s regulatory authority and ensure Vancouver has the authority it needs to regulate matters that are part of the everyday work of large, modern municipalities.

These changes are minor in the large scope of things but, I think, still make some significant impacts on our democracy, make some significant impacts on our community in Vancouver in particular and help us ensure that we can continue to have safety in many parts of our community.

I’m happy to hear the debate today and hopefully looking forward to having a deeper discussion if this piece of legislation continues to move forward.

[4:45 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: I rise today on behalf of the official opposition, the Conservative caucus of British Columbia, to voice our strongest objections to Bill 13, 2025, in its current amended form.

This legislation, innocuously titled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, may sound harmless, but make no mistake, Bill 13 is a sweeping omnibus bill that conceals serious threats to good governance, local autonomy and public trust. It touches on everything from wildfire liability to housing development changes, from municipal powers to school board elections, and in each of these areas, it raises significant legal, economic, social, educational and political concerns.

Today we expose those flaws. We will not mince words because British Columbians deserve to know how this government is rewriting the rules and accumulating power at their expense. Our message is clear. Bill 13, even in its amended form, remains fundamentally flawed. It undermines our legal frameworks and economic stability. It disrespects our communities and our schools, and it offends core democratic principles.

We are here not simply to criticize but to demand accountability, advocate for transparency and insist that this government stop bulldozing through legislation without consultation or consent. To the people of British Columbia, especially those in our municipalities, classrooms and small businesses, we want you to know we stand with you in opposing this overreaching legislation.

Over the next 15 minutes, I will present our critique across five key fronts — legal, economic, social, educational, political — and I will demonstrate how this bill fails you on each. We, in the opposition, are not here just to tear down. We are here to propose a better path forward. We urge the government to either make significant revisions or withdraw Bill 13 entirely in favour of a more balanced and consultative process.

Bill 13 might be miscellaneous in name, but its consequences are anything but minor. It amends a laundry list of statutes: the Wildfire Act, the Local Government Act, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Housing Supply Act, the Local Elections and School Acts, the Vancouver Charter, the Professional Governance Act and the Wildlife Act, just to name a few.

This grab-bag of major policy changes has been lumped together and rushed forward with minimal consultation and even less scrutiny. That alone is a disservice to democracy. This government has chosen to use an omnibus bill to quietly push through major reforms, reforms that would draw sharp criticism if they were presented and debated on their own.

British Columbians expect better. They expect major policy shifts to be presented openly, debated honestly and implemented fairly, not buried deep in a catch-all bill and hustled through the House. That is why our official opposition is bringing this bill into the light, and it is why I will begin today by addressing perhaps the most glaring flaw — how Bill 13 undermines emergency preparedness, weakens wildfire response and centralizes power at the expense of local knowledge and public safety.

I must raise a serious legal concern with a specific amendment proposed in Bill 13, an amendment to the Wildfire Act that would allow the government to extend the timeline for investigating the origin and cause of a wildfire by an additional 1.5 years beyond the existing three-year window.

Currently the government has three full years to conduct its investigation, determine responsibility and pursue recovery against a citizen or entity it deems liable for a wildfire. That is already a substantial period. But now this bill would allow the minister to unilaterally extend that window by another 18 months. That is a total of 4.5 years in which a British Columbian would be kept in limbo, under investigation, with potential civil liability hanging over their head.

I have personally conducted fire investigations as a certified fire and explosion investigator accredited by the National Association of Fire Investigators. I have seen firsthand the complexities involved in wildfire investigations. However, that does not justify extending the investigative timeline without proper oversight.

We must ask: what are the guardrails around this extraordinary extension of power? Who decides if the time extension is warranted? The very minister responsible for the investigation — not a judge, not an independent body. The same executive that’s pursuing liability is now also the arbiter of how long they get to build their case.

[4:50 p.m.]

That is a profound conflict of interest and a dangerous erosion of procedural fairness.

Consider this: under Canadian criminal law, where the jeopardy is not money but liberty, the state has strict timelines. The Supreme Court’s Jordan decision makes it clear that unreasonable delays in prosecution violate an accused person’s Charter rights. If the government can’t get its act together within a reasonable time, the case is thrown out. And those are complex criminal investigations, sometimes involving international evidence, digital forensics or wiretaps.

Yet here, in a civil matter, where the stakes may be severe, thousands or even millions of dollars in liability, we’re being told the government can move the goalposts whenever it likes without oversight. That’s unacceptable.

What about the Limitation Act? The basic limitation period for civil matters in British Columbia is two years. If a private citizen misses a deadline to bring a claim, their case is dismissed. Why, then, should the province be allowed to extend its own clock indefinitely, with no independent review? Where is the fairness in that?

I am not denying that wildfire investigations can be complex, but complexity is no excuse for unchecked power. If an extension is truly needed, let the minister present its case before a judge. A provincial court judge could review the facts, hear arguments and determine whether an additional 18 months is warranted. That’s how justice works: through transparency, checks and balances and independent judicial oversight, not through unchecked decisions made behind closed doors by a single minister.

I am deeply concerned about the precedent this sets. Today it’s wildfires. Tomorrow it could be another area of law where the government grants itself the ability to rewrite timelines, extend its investigative reach and expose citizens to prolonged legal risk, all without review, without accountability and without balance. This Legislature should never give one office unchecked authority to decide how long a citizen remains under investigation. That is not how a fair democratic system should operate.

We call on the government to amend this section of Bill 13 to require judicial authorization for any extension of wildfire investigation timelines. We further call for clear limits on the minister’s discretion and for the publication of any data justifying such extensions. Because justice delayed is justice denied. And power without accountability is not just bad governance; it’s dangerous.

Let’s speak plainly about the economic impact of Bill 13, because this bill is not just a legal threat; it is also an economic one. We are in a time of strained household budgets, housing shortages, economic uncertainty. British Columbians deserve smart policy, not blunt force legislation that ignores reality on the ground.

Now let’s examine the economic implications of the wildfire changes. Yes, those who start fires should be held accountable, but extended liability windows may force ranchers, forestry operators and/or private landowners to hold reserves or legal counsel for years, just in case. That’s a hidden tax on rural B.C., and it creates risk for industries already operating on thin margins.

As someone who personally fought wildfires and investigated their origins, I can tell you speed and clarity are crucial. What we needed was more capacity to investigate quickly, not endless legal drag-out that discourages land use and investment.

British Columbians are not looking for a government that rules by stealth. They are looking for a government that listens, partners and builds with them, not over them. That is the core social failure of Bill 13. It ignores the people. It sidelines the very communities it claims to serve. It centralizes power in the hands of a few while muting the voices of many.

This government often talks about equity, about reconciliation, about inclusive governance, but how inclusive is it to override local decision-making without even knocking on the door first? How equitable is it to grant a financial grace period to developers while residents worry about infrastructure that won’t keep pace with new towers?

You cannot legislate trust. You have to earn it over time, through transparency, through humility and through meaningful dialogue. Bill 13 does the opposite. It assumes authority. It assumes correctness. It assumes consent where none was given.

Let’s not forget the symbolic weight of this bill. It amends the Vancouver Charter, a document that has stood for decades on a recognition that our largest city is unique. A city with its own DNA, its own challenges, and, yes, its own governance framework.

[4:55 p.m.]

The charter was never meant to be a doormat for provincial ambitions. Yet in Bill 13, the government is treating it just that way, stepping over it without even pretending to knock.

What message does that send to the rest of B.C. municipalities? If Vancouver, a city with a legislative charter, can be overwritten this easily, then what hope do smaller communities have to protect their planning, their infrastructure and their way of life?

The message is chilling. You’re not partners in building this province. You’re branch offices to Victoria. That is not how you foster community. That is not how you earn loyalty or legitimacy.

In conclusion, the official opposition of British Columbia stands firmly opposed to Bill 13 in its current form. We have presented a comprehensive, well-reasoned case addressing the legal, economic, social, educational and political implications. We’ll be hearing more of that through the day here.

I do not stand here today in opposition purely for opposition’s sake. This is a principled argument rooted in the Conservative caucus’s strong commitment to good governance and the public interest.

To briefly summarize, legally, Bill 13 is an egregious overreach that undermines municipal autonomy and unjustly concentrates power within the provincial executive.

Economically, it risks disastrous consequences for housing, disrupts infrastructure funding and injects unnecessary uncertainty into our markets.

Socially, it alienates communities, erodes trust and disregards the important approach we need to build solutions together.

Educationally, it offers superficial fixes that do nothing to solve the underlying issues while undermining local educational planning.

Politically, Bill 13 embodies a complete disregard for accountability, transparency and the democratic collaborative spirit.

Some may ask: “What would you do instead?” It’s easy to criticize without offering alternatives. I assure you we have a better way forward.

On legal and municipal matters, the Conservative caucus advocates for true partnerships with municipalities and towns. Let’s create a provincial-municipal working group to align provincial goals with local plans, offering support instead of imposing unilateral changes.

On housing and economic development, we support increasing housing supply but in such a way that fosters collaboration, strategic investment and supports municipalities in overcoming obstacles like permitting delays and funding shortages.

On development changes and infrastructure, we advocate for a balanced approach that compensates regional districts and ensures stable, fair infrastructure planning without placing undue burden on local communities.

When it comes to Bill 13’s stance on wildfires, we suggest a different approach that doesn’t extend the already lengthy investigation time frame and involves expanded support for prevention, community education and rural firefighting resources.

Furthermore, we call on the government to cease the use of omnibus bills as a shortcut. I stand here today to demand distinct, well-debated legislation for each policy area, ensuring transparency and accountability.

British Columbia needs checks and balances now more than ever. We have witnessed the dangers of unchecked power when government sidelines dissenting voices, dismisses alternative viewpoints and pushes through flawed policies without a chance for correction. The consequences of such actions are painful and often irreversible. We cannot afford to let this government take our province down that path.

As the official opposition, our role is to act as a check on the government, but we can’t do it alone. I urge all members, regardless of party affiliation, to listen to your constituents.

If you harbour reservations about any aspect of Bill 13, it is your duty to speak up. Your allegiance is not to the Premier’s office; it is to the people of the province who elected you. Now is the time to stand up for your constituents and demand change. It is not a betrayal to ask your government to do better. It is the very essence of public service and the democratic process.

To the Premier and his ministers, real leadership does not lie in blindly bulldozing forward when legitimate criticisms arise. It is okay to pause, reflect and amend course when necessary.

You have heard our concerns. Now it is time for the government to make a decision. Either you can substantially amend Bill 13 to remove its overreaches, or it is time to withdraw it and split this bill into manageable parts for proper consultation and debate.

In closing, the Conservative caucus of B.C., as official opposition, is committed to working constructively for the betterment of this province. We have no pleasure in opposing this bill, but we know that we must do our duty.

[5:00 p.m.]

I call on all members who value democracy, local decision-making and accountable government to do the same.

British Columbians expect us to be their watchdogs and their voice to keep this government in check. Today we reject Bill 13’s approach and instead choose to support democratic collaboration, public accountability and respect for local government.

We seek and tackle housing affordability, wildfire safety, professional standards and democratic participation without compromising our principles or our partnerships.

Let’s choose the wiser path for a better British Columbia, one that listens to the public, works together and builds a future we can all be proud of.

Hon. Randene Neill: It has been very entertaining listening to these opinions this afternoon. It’s my privilege to actually present the facts.

It’s been disappointing to politicize this legislation contained in Bill 13 that local governments have actually been advocating for. This is the job of government and provincial government: to work with local governments and make changes for the better.

So it is absolutely my privilege to speak at the second reading of Bill 13, particularly on the section of amendments to the Wildlife Act, which falls under my ministry, Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

These amendments seek to strengthen measures that prevent the entry of highly invasive mussels such as zebra and quagga mussels into this province, while also preventing the spread of a microscopic parasite that causes whirling disease in juvenile fish. These amendments are important because invasive species are recognized globally as the most significant threat to biodiversity after habitat loss. It’s not just contained to water.

Ranchers. I met with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association yesterday, and the fear of invasive species spreading through land in their tenures is something that concerns them greatly as well. Invasive species can spread rapidly and out-compete native species, dominate natural and managed areas and alter biological communities.

In addition to threats to biodiversity, invasive species can also cause significant socioeconomic impacts, including loss of productivity in agriculture, aquaculture and forestry, damage to infrastructure, hazards to human health and safety, and degradation or loss of recreational areas and activities. We know this because in 2023, the province commissioned an economic assessment called Potential Economic Impact of Zebra and Quagga Mussels in B.C., and the report found that if those mussels were introduced into B.C.’s waters, mitigation costs could be between $64 million and $129 million annually.

Costs to manage these invasive species can hit all of us hard, from small businesses to large power utility companies. That is why it is so critically important that we all work together as a province to do everything we can to keep B.C.’s lakes, rivers and waterways clean and healthy through investments like the invasive mussel defence program.

The threat of invasive species requires collaboration across government ministries and society. In B.C., we manage invasive species through a collaborative approach. It’s the Inter-Ministry Invasive Species Working Group, which includes the Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Transportation and Transit, Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Ministry of Environment and Parks.

One important example of cross-government collaboration is the invasive mussel defence program, in which we work with the Ministry of Environment and Parks conservation officer service, who actually employ a dog named Major. It is one of the most important parts of what we do to ensure that invasive mussels do not enter B.C.

We also work closely with First Nations, local and federal governments, industry, the Invasive Species Council of B.C. and other partners to provide input on policy and help manage invasive species.

I want to talk for a couple of minutes on some of the very specific components of these amendments. This is coming in on purpose just in time, before the 2025 boating season. These are things that…. We’re hoping that everybody who takes any type of watercraft out on the water this summer, whether it be a lake, a river, a stream or the ocean, works on these initiatives to help keep us all safe and to help keep invasive species out of our waterways.

[5:05 p.m.]

The first one is called “Pull the plug.” It’s a requirement with the mandate of the removal of drainage plugs in motorized and non-motorized watercraft such as boats, jet skis, canoes and paddleboards before being transported over land. It would require persons transporting watercrafts to stop at open watercraft inspection stations and authorize an officer to inspect watercrafts and watercraft equipment to search for aquatic invasive species.

In addition, the amendments will enable the requirement for inspection of watercrafts entering B.C. from another jurisdiction prior to being launched in B.C.’s waters. This authority will be brought into force through regulations following further analysis and engagement.

[The bells were rung.]

Should I keep going?

Past engagement with First Nations through the Wildlife Act review with unanimous support and consultation with external working groups and committees since January 2025….

[The bells were rung.]

There they go. They’re adding the third bell. We’re doing it again. There we go.

The introduced Wildlife Act amendments will allow our officers to take effective action for known high-risk pathways of aquatic invasive species, the overland transport of waterways and equipment, in an intentional and an efficient way. The measures we’re putting in place now have far-reaching beneficial consequences for communities that live near fresh bodies of water by protecting jobs in tourism and hospitality.

Let me be clear again. If these invasive species start entering and inhabiting our waterways, we could lose $129 billion annually. The cost of mitigating those mussels is incredibly expensive and will damage our watersheds, our B.C. hydro systems and take away the enjoyment of fresh bodies of water in tourism and hospitality as well.

The amendments will help save millions of dollars in costs for water infrastructure and utility companies that service British Columbians, support the long-term social and economic well-being of communities throughout this province. This will not only protect B.C.’s waterways and native aquatic species but also our hydro, our agricultural irrigation, water supplies and utilities, where these invasive mussels can establish and damage these vital systems.

I urge you all to vote to approve Bill 13.

Tony Luck: Today, as the official opposition critic for Municipal Affairs, I’m glad to be standing here and talking to this bill that we’ve got before us. It was nice to hear the minister speak earlier about some commonsense items in this bill. We tend to agree with that. It’s always nice to hear when the opposition says “common sense.” That’s really good.

This is a bill that truly highlights the B.C. NDP government’s love-hate relationship with local governments that we’ve seen over the last little while. On one hand, we see the desire to regulate even the smallest minutiae of municipal affairs; but on the other hand, we see occasional glimmers of common sense that even we admire.

I, standing here today, must acknowledge the work that’s been done in this bill, this omnibus bill. We recognize that. Perhaps this bill is a rare moment of reconciliation in the House, though given the vindictive way they treated our colleague from Langley–Walnut Grove with Bill M202, my hopes are perhaps misplaced, but time will tell.

Starting with clause 26, I just want to briefly go over some of the clauses just to give us a little bit of light where we want to go. We’re really looking forward to addressing some of these concerns in the committee stage. We really look forward to that. But let’s just touch on a couple of clauses that we’re a little concerned about here as we move forward.

This government seems very concerned about who precisely can represent communities on municipal councils. Indeed, requiring appointed council members to live in or immediately adjacent to the municipality makes a lot of sense — common sense.

[5:10 p.m.]

Most voters in British Columbia do not realize that you do not need to live in a community you choose to run in or represent. A lot of people don’t know that. This clause could ensure that representatives understand the local needs, challenges and opportunities of the communities they wish to serve. Yes, shockingly, this government has stumbled upon a reasonable idea.

Ensuring appointed members carry the same authority as elected ones helps to prevent governance gaps and maintain functional councils. Let me congratulate the government for solving problems they themselves help exacerbate: municipal candidate shortages due to increased pressure, red tape and the constant downloading of provincial responsibilities onto local government.

A conciliatory note: we are open to supporting these measures, and we look forward to further discussion to rationalize municipal governance during the committee stage. But let’s not get carried away.

Moving to clause 36, appointing acting directors of electoral area seats that become vacant through court order or renunciations is reasonable, even necessary. An acting director stepping in to maintain continuity makes administrative sense, but let’s not overlook the irony. The B.C. NDP often lectures us about democracy and local representation, yet here they are legislating detailed scenarios of electoral area appointments from Victoria. Clearly, local democracy only matters to this government when it suits their narrative.

Despite this micromanagement, there’s practicality here that we can cautiously support at this point. Once again, in the committee stage, we certainly hope to drill down deeper into that and see if we can find some common ground.

Another concern. The bill stipulates an acting director must appoint an alternate within 50 days or the board intervenes. I caution the government to ensure this requirement is not overly bureaucratic or biased. These appointments should prioritize local input rather than central oversight. Community engagement must always supersede Victoria-driven rules. In committee, let’s talk about ways to ensure local autonomy isn’t compromised by provincial interference again.

Now, on to clause 47, perhaps one of my favourite clauses in the whole bill simply for this spectacle of this government lecturing municipalities, especially Vancouver, about regulatory consistencies. I must say that I enjoyed seeing the NDP government explicitly reinforce provincial supremacy over municipal bylaws, even though it feels somewhat ironic. How often have we heard this government accuse others of interference and bullying, when they themselves are the masters of that?

Nonetheless, this provision makes logical sense. Clarifying that Vancouver’s municipal bylaws must not conflict with provincial legislation brings necessary consistency and ensures that businesses and individuals aren’t burdened by contradictory or overlapping regulations, regulations that already suffocate planning investment decisions and growth.

The subtle allowances for additional municipal requirements, as long as compliance with both provincial and municipal laws is possible, is balanced and fair, a sensible step for this government. But let me be clear again. While this approach is broadly acceptable, it underscores the urgent need for better provincial-municipal collaboration and consultation, something this government has not been too willing to do in the past. Hopefully, we’re going to get a change of nature when we come to the committee stage.

If the province insists on supremacy, then it has a responsibility to consult municipalities thoroughly and fairly. I look forward to raising questions about how the supremacy clause will operate in practice. I suspect the answers will be instructive if we receive any straight ones at all.

Now, clause 53 brings another commendable clarification. Transparency in elections regarding candidate residence helps voters make informed decisions about who they want to vote for. Citizens deserve clear information about who they elect to govern their communities. No argument there.

Still, I want to propose that we take this transparency further. The government, seemingly committed to fairness and clarity, could address another ongoing issue: frivolous candidates. Some municipal elections have become marathons for vanity candidates, making ballots absurdly long and overwhelming to voters.

[5:15 p.m.]

Let’s raise the bar slightly, perhaps increasing the threshold for nomination signatures, ensuring candidates demonstrate a modicum of local support before cluttering the ballot. This would streamline elections, focusing voters’ attention on serious, community-supported candidates. In committee, let’s discuss this practical solution. I believe we might find some common ground on this one as well.

Further, why not enhance local democracy by incurring civic education for potential candidates? Many individuals enter local politics unaware of governance fundamentals. Maybe we should provide accessible training of resources, perhaps online modules or optional workshops, to equip interested citizens with the knowledge they need to serve effectively, not as a barrier but as an empowering tool. Let’s debate and explore these optionals further during the committee stage.

I said my notes were going to be brief today, and they are. I think the most important thing is that we’ll have some speeches from some of the opposition here, but I think getting to committee is going to be very, very important on this particular bill here, as we work through the many changes that we want to do. I’m just sitting on the municipal affairs piece in that, but I think there’s a lot of work to do on this bill. I look forward to doing that.

In conclusion, Bill 13 is a mixed bag. There’s no question about that. These are areas we can cautiously support, acknowledging practical, necessary housekeeping changes. Yet a little bit of skepticism still remains about the government’s intention regarding local autonomy. If the B.C. NDP truly cares about municipal affairs and democratic governance, they will listen carefully, genuinely collaborate and be open to practical improvements during committee stage.

I think, at one time before, I reached out my hand over here to the opposition and said: “You know what? It’s time that we work together.” I hear that out in my riding all the time: “When are you going to work together in that House?” Maybe this is an opportunity.

I don’t think there are too many contentious clauses within this bill that we can’t get around or get our heads wrapped around. Maybe we can come up with some great ideas that we can work together on. But let’s hope for sincere debate and genuine cooperation. The people we represent, those who elected each of us to this Legislature, expect no less.

Despite our differences, good governance and sensible municipal management are ideals we all can and should be sharing. Let’s seize this rare opportunity to improve this legislation together and genuinely for the people of British Columbia.

Hon. Anne Kang: It is my pleasure to have contributed to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. I do hear from opposition loud and clear that collaboration is definitely needed, and we will look forward to debating the bill in committee stage.

As mentioned by the Attorney General, this bill amends the Professional Governance Act. People may be wondering: “What does the Professional Governance Act have to do with the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills?” Well, in addition to post-secondary education and skills-training programs, my ministry mandate includes responsibilities related to professional regulatory bodies.

I’m very proud to have the International Credentials Recognition Act in my ministry responsibilities. That act holds 18 professional regulatory authorities accountable for fairly and quickly assessing internationally trained professional credentials.

My colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, who also serves as the Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials, has been working really hard since her appointment, and I thank her for that work. The Premier has asked her to make sure the International Credentials Recognition Act is successfully implemented, and that’s exactly what she is doing.

She has been meeting with regulatory bodies, immigrant-serving organizations and people with the lived experience of immigrating to British Columbia. Many of them have faced significant hurdles having their education and experience recognized so that they can get to work in their chosen field. As immigrants to this beautiful province, the parliamentary secretary and I are both truly passionate about helping people succeed in their chosen home, in their chosen fields.

My portfolio includes legislation for a number of self-regulating professions, such as chartered professional accountants and landscape architects. It also includes the Professional Governance Act. Introduced by this government in 2018, the act is a result of independent professional reliance review. The review made recommendations to improve public confidence in professionals’ roles in regulatory regimes such as permitting processes.

[5:20 p.m.]

The review found that self-regulating professions could play a stronger role in upholding public confidence in registered professionals who provide advice and services respecting natural resource use activities. Advice and services provided by professionals in the natural resource sector can have a major impact on public and environmental safety. It is important for the public to know that professionals will be held accountable for poor practice and unethical conduct.

Allowing professions to generally regulate themselves ensures that bylaws, policies and practice standards for the profession are informed by deep technical knowledge and experience. However, there can be value in adding provincial oversight of self-regulating professions.

That was another important aspect of the professional reliance review. The public needs to have confidence that regulatory bodies are effective and accountable. The public needs to know that if they have a complaint about a professional, it will be dealt with in a fair and timely way.

Establishing provincial oversight of the regulatory bodies under the act was a key recommendation of the review and an important reason for creating the Professional Governance Act. The act provides a modernized legal framework for six regulatory bodies that collectively oversee more than 50,000 professionals in B.C. Many of the professionals under this act work in natural and built environments. They include applied biologists, applied science technicians and technologists, agrologists, architects, engineers and foresters.

The act also establishes a superintendent who is responsible for oversight of regulatory bodies under the act. The superintendent reviews bylaws, conducts performance reviews, issues standards and best practices and generally monitors regulatory body activities.

Regulatory bodies under the act have worked diligently to modernize their governance to match the high standards set under the act. The act requires them to be focused on the public interest, not the professional advantage of their registrants. In working with regulatory bodies, I am finding that they are passionate about protecting the public interest by upholding high standards for the professions they oversee.

To my knowledge, British Columbia was the first province to enact legislation like the Professional Governance Act. Our neighbours in Alberta’s Legislative Assembly are currently considering their own professional governance act. It has some key similarities to B.C.’s act. It seems that our province may be something of a trendsetter when it comes to modernizing frameworks for self-regulatory professions.

The concept of modernizing governance standards and adding professional oversight has been successful. In fact, a similar concept has been established for B.C.’s health sector, with the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

While the Professional Governance Act is still fairly new compared to some B.C. legislation, it does require periodic updates to ensure it is working effectively. In that spirit, this bill amends the act to clarify regulation-making powers. This minor clarification of an existing authority ensures that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has clear authority to make regulations related to job titles. The act already provides a regulation-making power to say what titles are reserved only for use by registered professionals.

These amendments would provide a clear ability to say what job titles are not reserved. A regulation made using this clarified power would make sure that people cannot be told by regulatory bodies to stop using certain job titles set out in a regulation.

When industry-standard job titles are similar to titles that are protected under the Professional Governance Act regulation, a lack of clarity can arise. Government has heard concerns from some sectors, such as the information technology sector, that regulatory bodies are stopping them from using industry-standard job titles due to similarities to protected titles.

[5:25 p.m.]

A common example is that the job title of software engineer is similar to the protected title of professional engineer. This clarified regulation-making power would give government the option to respond to such concerns.

It is important that government supports B.C. employers, businesses and workers. Having a tool to respond to their concern about job titles is a practical way to support a good business climate in B.C.

There would need to be a cabinet decision-making process to determine if and when to make regulations that rely on this amendment’s legislation. Out of respect for that process, I will reserve comment on potential uses for this clarified power.

I will, however, acknowledge that the information technology sector has said that not being able to use industry-standard job titles hurts their ability to recruit and retain employees. I know my colleagues the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation and the Minister of Finance have also heard these concerns.

Software development is a very international occupation with a high degree of workforce mobility. Based on the 2021 census, there were about 17,500 software engineers in B.C. in 2021. The B.C. labour market outlook forecast over 11,000 job openings for this occupation in the next ten years. There were also just over 12,000 software developers and designers in B.C. in 2021. These high-opportunity occupations provide good-paying jobs, and it is worth making sure we support growth and opportunity in this industry.

Information technology companies have also brought to our attention the amendments to Alberta’s Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. The Alberta amendments make it clear that a person can use the title of software engineer without breaking any laws governing the practice of professional engineering.

I will not presuppose any future decisions of government, but I will note that I am committed to listening to ideas for how to support a vibrant economy in B.C. I do think it’s important to consider alignment with our neighbouring provinces, especially as we are working to bolster Canada’s economy against the threats posed by American tariffs.

I value the role of B.C.’s self-regulating professions. Every day, they work to ensure professionals keep public and environmental safety at the forefront of their practice. Governments also need to consider our responsibility to nurture economic growth. I believe that we can find a healthy balance.

The act contains authority to make regulations that reserve certain titles for use by registered professionals, protected titles to help uphold public safety and provide industry clarity, respecting people’s qualifications. Each regulatory body under the act already has protected titles prescribed in legislation.

Our goal in introducing these amendments is to ensure the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the necessary flexibility to additionally clarify that certain job titles are not reserved only for registered professionals under the act — basically, to allow the possibility of using industry-standard titles that happen to bump against protected titles. The sections of the bill that amend the Professional Governance Act also make some minor editorial changes. These updates are consistent with B.C. legislative drafting practice.

With that, I look forward to further discussions of these amendments during Committee of the Whole debate. Thank you so much for allowing my time to provide remarks.

Ward Stamer: I like the opportunity. I won’t be taking much time.

I want to first say I appreciate the opportunity with the Minister of Forests and his staff to be able to be brought up to speed on these changes before they were brought to the House’s attention, just for feedback from myself and also my caucus member that spoke previously.

[5:30 p.m.]

Just a couple of things that I’d like to be able to talk about. I understand this is a housekeeping bill in the section pertaining to the Wildfire Act and the Forest Act. A couple of things that I’d like to point out in the process. I look forward to the opportunity in committee to be able to talk to this as well.

A couple of things that come to mind are when we change the ability to be heard in the process of determining if there’s fault in a fire and who is going to be paying for what. The opportunity to be heard was specifically in three or four of our sections, and now those have all been removed, and now it’s only in section 24.1.

I would like the opportunity, when we get to committee, to be able to ask some pertinent questions. In the briefing that we received on determining the opportunities for notice, it’s been changed so that instead of within one month of the order, it can be as long as three years for that opportunity to be heard. I’d like a little bit more clarification on that process, not only in being notified of what’s actually occurring but the opportunity to be heard and also the opportunity to be able to offer evidence in those proceedings.

We know that according to the other two sections…. I believe it’s sections 39 and — correct me if I’m wrong — I think it’s 35 where it ends up…. It’s not relevant to this housekeeping, but it is relevant to if an order is prosecuted by the authority of the Minister of Forests — what those appeal mechanisms are. One of those mechanisms through the commission on appeal is allowed. But then when there’s the Forest Practices Board involved, there are additional opportunities for appeal, including judicial, where that isn’t necessarily available in one of these other sections.

Obviously, when we get to committee, I’m going to have some specific questions to the minister on how that relates to the changes in language from sections 25, 26 and, I believe, 27, to be putting it all into only 24.1, so that we have a clear understanding on how that process works.

I understand through the ministry that one of the reasons why they wanted to expand the length of the time and extend the time limit of three months by an additional 18 months at the discretion of the minister is because there could be complex investigations, there could be multiple jurisdictional issues, and there needs to be more time to be able to have a more thorough way of determining not only the cause of the fire but what the ramifications are and who is ultimately responsible for that.

I appreciate that, and I look forward to those opportunities to discuss that. Previous to what my colleague had said, I will be supporting this bill. I would certainly like the opportunity to be able to work collaboratively with all sides of the House on this because I believe it’s moving forward on legislation that needs to be improved. But I would certainly like the opportunity, as we go forward, to be able to ask those pertinent questions when the time is relevant.

With that, I yield.

Kristina Loewen: Hon. Speaker, colleagues and fellow British Columbians, I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. While the name may suggest a grab-bag of small administrative changes, the bill in fact touches on some of the most critical issues we face in this province: forestry accountability, housing policy, electoral integrity and the future of our post-secondary system.

[5:35 p.m.]

As always, the devil is in the details, and the official opposition believes in getting those details right. My concerns are not with the intention of this legislation. This bill touches on a number of important sectors: forestry, housing, elections, local governance, post-secondary regulation and environmental protection. But rather than addressing these issues in a comprehensive or targeted way, the bill spreads itself thin across many areas.

In doing so, it fails to deliver meaningful action where it’s most needed, particularly on housing affordability, fire resilience and poverty reduction. These are not abstract policy concerns; these are the lived realities of people in my community. The rising cost of living, housing shortages and increasingly devastating wildfire seasons all demand urgent and coordinated responses.

I will begin with part 1, which deals with forest-related amendments, a particularly relevant issue for the Central Okanagan. Wildfires are not a theoretical problem in my riding. They are a recurring, escalating threat. Over the past decade, Kelowna and the surrounding region have seen multiple states of emergency due to the fires. We’ve witnessed the physical destruction of homes and businesses, the disruption of livelihoods and the emotional toll on families who were forced to evacuate. I can speak firsthand to that.

This is why any changes to wildfire legislation deserve careful scrutiny. Clause 1 establishes a new limitation period for ministerial orders under the Wildfire Act, along with a requirement for notice when someone is alleged to have caused or contributed to a fire. This clause also introduces a default clock for when the limitation period begins.

From an administrative standpoint, these are sensible changes. They provide clarity and consistency. But I would’ve liked to see a broader discussion about how we’re proactively managing wildfire risk. What’s missing here is any tie-in to stronger prevention strategies, such as vegetation management, emergency planning support for local governments or investments in early warning systems. These amendments clarify liability procedures, but they don’t address the root problem. We are still far too reactive in our approach to wildfire management.

Clauses 2 and 3 revise the language around ministerial orders and remove the explicit requirement that someone alleged to have caused a fire be given an opportunity to be heard. I would urge caution here. While procedural efficiency is important, the right to respond to serious allegations, particularly ones that could lead to financial penalties, should not be too easily dismissed.

I would’ve preferred to see safeguards retained that ensure individuals have a fair process to present their side of the story. In a small community, the reputational damage of such an allegation, even if unsubstantiated, can be significant. We need to be careful not to sacrifice justice in the name of speed.

Our forests are a defining part of British Columbia’s heritage and economy, but accountability in wildfire prevention must strike a balance between responsibility and fairness. This bill proposes to remove the right to be heard before being found liable for contributing to a wildfire. That’s not justice; that’s bureaucracy wielding a hammer.

We should hold bad actors accountable, yes, but due process should never be sacrificed for expediency. It is troubling that someone can be accused, penalized and left with limited recourse in what is often a complex and emotional situation. If you are going to name someone responsible for something as serious as wildfire damages, they deserve the right to speak, to defend themselves and to be heard — period.

This bill, which addresses housing and municipal affairs in this particular section, for many British Columbians, will have the greatest day-to-day impact. For people in Kelowna, housing affordability is not an abstract policy debate. It’s a crisis. It’s a young family unable to afford a first home. It’s a senior forced to downsize in a rental market with few options. It’s a front-line worker spending hours commuting because they cannot afford to live near where they work.

This part of the bill includes several administrative and governance-related changes. Some are reasonable and help clarify rules. These amendments tinker around the edges without addressing the core affordability issues that so many of our residents are struggling with.

Clause 8 deals with development cost charges, or DCCs. It extends exemptions for certain in-stream developments from newly introduced charges by Metro Vancouver.

[5:40 p.m.]

These clauses are here to ensure the Iona wastewater treatment plant does not face a funding crisis, given the fixed budgets allocated for the construction of it by senior levels of government, by freezing the DCCs applicable to it.

While I understand that these changes are necessary to get critical municipal infrastructure built, they are only needed because the broader climate of bureaucracy and red tape delays things so long that government funding timelines are constantly missed and retroactive fixes like this one are needed to get anything done.

I just hope that all the private sector developers who are risking their own money building up our beautiful province get treated with the same level of care and respect in terms of cost certainty that this government is attempting to give other government agencies both in this bill and in Bill 15.

Development costs ultimately influence home prices. When the rules around these charges change, especially midstream, they create uncertainty for builders, which can slow the pace of new housing starts. This ultimately hurts the young families trying to get into the market.

I support clear and predictable timelines for fee structures, but I’d like to see the government go further, perhaps by standardizing how DCCs are applied across jurisdictions and for long periods of time to create a stable regulatory climate and to allow broader private sector investment in the province in a range of industries.

We’ve seen how even a short delay in permitting or uncertainty around fees can derail much-needed housing projects. This clause saves a specific project in a specific place for a specific time, but it doesn’t fully solve the broader problem.

Clauses 13 through 20 mostly focus on electoral and governance housekeeping, simplifying how electoral organizations register and appear on the ballot, improving how information is disclosed online and clarifying the rules around ministerial orders during elections. These aren’t unhelpful changes. Some even reflect best practices in modern admin, such as redacting private addresses while preserving financial transparency.

One small but welcome change is found in clause 15, which balances electoral transparency with privacy. It ensures that campaign finance documents remain available when redacting sensitive personal information. This reflects a growing concern in our communities about digital privacy and the safe handling of personal data. It’s a small measure but a thoughtful one.

Where this section again falls short, however, is in its failure to connect governance improvements with outcomes that reduce poverty or improve affordability. Nowhere in these 20-plus clauses do we see any reference to the rising cost of municipal services, which are directly tied to property taxes, a major burden for seniors on fixed incomes; nor do we see any changes to how local governments can better align zoning with housing need; nor do we see any attempt to simplify the permitting process for builders who want to create affordable housing stock. Instead, these clauses ensure that bureaucracy and government can function and be funded.

Clauses 29 to 31 deal with election procedures and judicial rulings on disqualification. These are important elements of democratic process, and I support greater clarity on how such situations can be handled.

In summary, this section of the bill does some administrative cleaning, but it doesn’t touch the real problems. Kelowna continues to see high rental rates, limited housing starts and too many residents left behind. A truly ambitious housing section would have addressed affordability head-on. It would have explored how municipalities can be better equipped and better incentivized to create a range of housing options, including getting young families into home ownership.

Part 3 of Bill 13 concerns post-secondary governance and the regulation of professional titles, a topic that may not generate headlines but carries real implications for economic opportunities, skills training and access to the labour market.

Kelowna is a growing hub for tech, trades and applied sciences. As our local economy continues to diversify beyond agriculture and tourism, we are seeing more residents seek out careers in software, engineering, health care and technical services.

[5:45 p.m.]

Any changes that affect professional credentials and regulated titles should be approached with caution and clarity. Many of the clauses that primarily address updates to the Professional Governance Act include housekeeping edits, revisions to definitions and the governance authority to define and regulate reserved professional titles. One of the practical outcomes here is the clarification that certain job titles, such as software engineer, can be used without requiring a full professional engineer designation, provided it does not mislead the public.

On one hand, I understand the intent. We don’t want unnecessary barriers preventing people from entering high-demand fields, especially when talent shortages are holding back innovation. But on the other hand, title protection exists for a reason. It signals qualifications, public accountability and safety standards. I support the intent behind this portion of this bill. I look forward to having in-depth conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the House in committee stage. I urge the government not to rush this through with parliamentary trickery.

Part 4 addresses amendments related to aquatic invasive species, a growing concern in B.C. and particularly relevant in the Okanagan, where our lakes and waterways are critical to both the environment and the local economy. In Kelowna, the lake is a core part of our identity. It supports recreation, tourism and ecosystems. The introduction of invasive species like zebra mussels would have a devastating impact, clogging water systems, harming native fish and costing millions in cleanup and control.

Clauses 78 through 86 give the minister new authority to define and regulate aquatic invasive species and empower officers to stop vehicles that may be transporting them. These measures are generally reasonable. Prevention is far more effective and affordable than containment, and giving front-line officials the tools to intercept risks is a sound approach.

Still, I’d offer a word of caution. This bill provides significant discretionary authority to stop and inspect vehicles. This may be necessary, but it must be exercised fairly, with clear guidelines and transparency. We cannot afford arbitrary enforcement or actions that unfairly target specific communities or create confusion for residents and visitors.

More broadly, I’d like to see this section paired with greater public education and funding for local governments to carry out monitoring, signage and boat inspection programs. The cost of managing these threats often falls on municipal governments and volunteer groups, not the province.

In the Okanagan, local stewardship groups and First Nations have taken the lead in protecting water quality and species. Supporting them with resources, training and coordination would go a long way to building resilience. This part of the bill moves in a good direction, but again, without the resources to back it up, the impact may be limited.

As we reach the conclusion of this speech, I want to return to where I began by emphasizing that Bill 13 includes a number of detailed and well-intentioned admin changes, but it’s full of missed opportunities. British Columbians need more from their government right now. There are some measures in here that I support in principle, like clarifying election rules, modernizing the language around development cost charges and giving officials more tools to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. These are not inherently bad ideas.

But for every clause that solves a narrow administrative issue, there are broader problems that go unaddressed. In my community and across this province, people are not asking for clearer definitions of electoral organization abbreviations. They’re asking: “Where can I afford to live? How will I rebuild after wildfire season? Will my children be able to stay in the community they grew up in? What’s the plan to reduce poverty and homelessness?”

In Kelowna, we need housing approvals that are faster and more affordable, especially for non-market units. We need local government to be supported, not just regulated. We need investor and builder confidence. We need prevention-focused wildfire policies that match the scale of climate risks we face every year, and we need post-secondary strategies that help low-income and rural students access high-demand jobs.

Bill 13 is largely an exercise in legislative housekeeping. To the government’s credit, some of these updates were necessary, but for a province in crisis on multiple fronts — housing, affordability, public safety, climate resilience — I believe British Columbians were expecting more.

[5:50 p.m.]

In future, I encourage the government to bring forward legislation that focuses less on administrative realignment and more on practical, community-centred solutions that make a measurable difference in people’s lives. The people of Kelowna Centre, like all British Columbians, are counting on us to deliver more meaningful progress.

Lynne Block: It is a pleasure to be here today to speak about Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This bill represents a crucial step forward in updating and improving various pieces of legislation across British Columbia, enhancing the efficiency, fairness and effectiveness of government operations in several key areas.

Introduced by the Hon. Niki Sharma, Attorney General and Deputy Premier, this bill demonstrates our commitment to modernizing our laws to better serve the people of this province who elected us. Let’s take a look at some of the significant areas this bill addresses and the positive changes, hopefully, it brings about.

Firstly, we see important forest amendments specifically impacting the Wildfire Act. Wildfires are a critical concern for our province, and this bill makes improvements to the legal framework surrounding them. A key addition is a new provision requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before certain orders are made under the Wildfire Act.

This is a positive change that enhances procedural fairness. It ensures that individuals who may be subject to proposed orders related to causing or contributing to a fire, spreading a fire or contravening regulations are given notice and a chance to present their case.

The bill provides clarity by stating that this notice must generally be given within three years of the relevant facts coming to the knowledge of an official, with the minister having the ability to extend this period by up to 18 months. This provides both a firm timeline and necessary flexibility.

Consequential amendments streamline other sections of the act, removing redundant references to the opportunity to be heard now that it is centrally located in this new section, thereby improving readability.

The bill also updates the specific information that must be provided when the orders are issued, including details on amounts payable, reasons for the order and rights to review or appeal. These changes make the process clearer and more accountable.

Furthermore, a transitional rule is included to ensure pre-existing administrative proceedings continue under the former rules. Overall, these wildfire amendments are about ensuring due process and clarity in a critical area of public safety and environmental protection.

Next, we move to part 2 of the bill, covering housing and municipal affairs amendments. This section addresses several acts vital to local governance and housing development in our communities. Amendments are made to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act and the Housing Supply Act.

For the Housing Supply Act, the bill adds a definition for “Vancouver land use provision.” This kind of amendment helps bring clarity and precision to the language, which is so important in any bill. It does provide clarity and precision to the language used in legislation related to housing, which is essential for consistent application and understanding of housing development rules so that we can all understand them.

[5:55 p.m.]

The changes also apply to certain sections of the Local Government Act regarding development cost charge bylaws to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, standardizing processes where appropriate.

The Islands Trust Act is also amended. The bill applies a section of the Local Government Act to local trustees, allowing for the appointment of acting local trustees in specific situations. This ensures continuity and stability in local governance for the unique communities within the Islands Trust area.

A significant portion of this part involves amendments to the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter, particularly regarding local elections. These changes aim to improve the administration, integrity and accessibility of local elections.

For instance, the bill introduces changes related to elector organizations on ballots. It requires notification to the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the name, abbreviation or acronym used on a ballot and requires consultation when a shorter name is used. This helps ensure clarity for voters, and perhaps that’s what would be necessary on these very, very long lists in some of the elections.

The bill also makes important updates to the nomination process. It amends the information required in nomination documents. Notably, it removes the requirement for original nomination documents to be delivered by fax or email. While allowing public access via the internet or other electronic means, the bill prohibits the public display of the residential address of a nominated person. This is a sensible step that enhances privacy for candidates while maintaining transparency in the nomination process. A requirement for a signed statement before inspecting nomination documents is also added.

Further enhancements to this election process include clarifying the criteria for elector organization endorsement on the ballot and removing the requirement to file separate endorsement documents. The bill also updates what information must be included in a notice of election.

Crucially, for voter access, the bill amends provisions regarding mail ballots, authorizing specified locations as authorized drop-off locations for mail ballot packages and requiring the use of secrecy envelopes for mail ballots. These changes are good. These changes are designed to make voting more convenient and definitely more secure.

Other electoral amendments clarify how ballots are marked and counted as valid and streamline the process for filling vacant offices by conferring authority only on councils.

The bill also provides clarity on the status of elected candidates affected by court applications challenging their qualification or the election’s validity, ensuring legal certainty in such circumstances. The minister’s authority to make orders and regulations related to elections and assent voting is also expanded to ensure appropriate administration, which is critical.

Within the realm of municipal affairs, there are also adjustments to rules around development cost charges and amenity cost charges, including provisions to delay their application in certain circumstances related to subdivision applications and building permits. This, too, provides flexibility during transition periods, which is needed.

Changes are also made to tax sale procedures, requiring clearer notice to property owners. These amendments contribute to more transparent and predictable municipal processes, thereby helping out and supporting municipalities in our province.

[6:00 p.m.]

Bill 13 includes one specific amendment related to the School Act. For school district 39, which covers Vancouver, the bill requires the board conducting a trustee election to identify a public notice posting place that meets the requirements specified in the Local Government Act. This is a positive, albeit specific, administrative change aimed at improving transparency and accessibility of information regarding school trustee elections in Vancouver.

While this bill primarily focuses on other statutes, this amendment ensures that required public notices for Vancouver school board elections are made available in a clear and designated location consistent with practices for local government elections.

Part 3 covers post-secondary education and future skills amendments, focusing on the Professional Governance Act. The changes here are primarily technical and administrative in nature, involving housekeeping amendments and updates to the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s regulation-making powers concerning reserved titles and reserved practice under the act. These amendments do help keep the act current and functional for the oversight of various professional bodies in the province.

Finally, Part 4 addresses water, land, and resource stewardship amendments through changes to the Wildlife Act. This part of the bill is focused on strengthening our ability to protect British Columbia’s natural environment from the threat of aquatic invasive species. The bill amends definitions to clarify that aquatic invasive species are a subset of controlled alien species. It establishes clear regulation-making authority for the minister to designate species as controlled alien species or aquatic invasive species.

Furthermore, it grants additional regulation-making authority to prevent the entry into or spread of aquatic invasive species within British Columbia, which will really help continue to make British Columbia truly the best-looking province in Canada.

To ensure these regulations can be effectively enforced, the bill provides officers with the necessary authority, which is really needed, to stop and inspect vehicles, aircraft, boats and water-related equipment to check for aquatic invasive species. It defines specific offences for failing to comply with directions to stop or providing false information during inspections. These are crucial steps to prevent ecological and economic damage caused by these harmful species which impacts our tourist industry and our economy.

The bill also updates offence and penalty provisions and establishes authority for requesting records for research and data collection to better understand and combat invasive species. These amendments are a strong signal of our commitment to protecting British Columbia’s waterways, ecosystem and natural environment.

Bill 13 also includes transitional provisions and commencement details, outlining how and when different parts of the act will come into force, ensuring a smooth transition to the new rules.

In conclusion, Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, is a valuable and necessary piece of legislation. It brings about sensible, positive updates across a range of provincial statutes, from enhancing fairness and clarity in wildlife management processes, to improving the administration and integrity of local elections, to safeguarding candidate privacy, and to providing practical updates for municipal finance and governance, the bill addresses important operational aspects of government.

[6:05 p.m.]

It includes specific positive steps for transparency in local education governance for Vancouver school trustees elections. It updates the framework for professional governance and, critically, it strengthens our ability to combat the threat of aquatic invasive species protecting our environment for future generations.

These amendments, while diverse, absolutely diverse, share a common thread. They are designed to make our laws more effective, our processes fairer and more transparent and our province stronger.

Even though I have some suggestions and concerns regarding this Bill 13 today, I am looking forward to committee stage, where further consideration and collaboration can take place.

I thank you for the time today, and I thank you for listening.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Member for Abbotsford South.

Bruce Banman: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Before I begin, I believe this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in front of you since the incidents of the Lapu-Lapu. I want to give you my sincere condolences. I know we’ve had an opportunity to speak in the hallway personally, but I also want to commend you for the work that you and your office did throughout that.

My heartfelt condolences.

Today I rise to speak to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act of 2025. While it’s branded as housekeeping, a routine legislative update, this bill actually presents some sweeping changes that merit careful, clause-by-clause scrutiny.

At this moment, I do not intend to declare whether I support or oppose this bill in its final form today. Rather, I hope to raise some serious questions about the implications, its breadth and the government’s approach to using large bills — omnibus bills, omnibus legislation — to centralize power and streamline authority at the expense of public transparency, local democracy and a fair process.

As you’ve heard, there are varying points of view with regards to this bill as to its merits and its shortcomings. The Conservative Party of British Columbia believes in a limited, accountable government. We believe decisions are best made closest to the people affected by those decisions and not by unelected bureaucrats or ministers that are operating through orders in council, and many provisions in this bill challenge those basic fundamental principles.

Today I’d like to take a few minutes to review the bill carefully, clause by clause, and take a moment to reflect on whether each section truly represents the best interests of British Columbians’ rights and local governance.

Now, as many in this House know, I served in local government. I served on regional district. Actually, I served on both the Fraser Valley regional district and Metro Vancouver at the same time. It was unique with Abbotsford because of the amalgamation of Abbotsford and Matsqui. And I went back and served. I was a mayor, and then I also served for two years on council as a councillor.

Local governance and local government are very important. I’ve often said to those that are going to vote: “If you’re going to vote, the vote that matters the most is local government.” It generally has the biggest impact on your life because it’s local government that actually decides land use. It provides our parks, for the most part, our places, our schools. It has a huge impact on your local life. It’s where you work, live and play.

[6:10 p.m.]

That’s probably why mayors are generally known more so than MLAs. Everybody in the town generally knows their mayor. A lot do not know who their MLAs may be.

Let’s take a look, if we can, on some of these. I am a big proponent of “local government knows best” and consultation with local government. And we’re hearing the same, dare I say, with Indigenous governments as well. It’s been their fight that they have not been consulted enough.

Let’s take a look at some of the clauses of this bill.

Clauses 1 through 7 deal with amendments to the Wildlife Act. These provisions standardize timelines and clarify enforcement procedures. Sounds pretty simple enough on the face of it, but what they truly do is expand the province’s timeline to pursue cost recovery or penalty orders from three years up to 4½.

Clause 1 introduces a new section, 24.1, and sets out the new extended limitation periods. It grants discretion to government officials to retroactively determine when the clock starts. So it may not be 4½ years. It could be much, much longer, because it can go retroactive. It determines when the clock starts on an alleged wildfire violation. That discretion is not guided by judicial oversight. It rests entirely in the hands of bureaucrats.

Now, consider how this may impact communities such as Abbotsford, which lies on the edge of forested territory. It faces increasing risk from interface wildfires, less so than other communities, albeit, but let’s just use my hometown that I’m familiar with as an example. If an equipment sparks — and we have equipment that operates in many of these areas — either on the areas or on farmland, it could become the subject of litigation nearly five years later, long after memories and evidence have faded.

Clause 3 is particularly troubling, as it repeals the requirement that an individual accused of causing or contributing to a wildfire must be given an opportunity to be heard. It repeals that. So you’re accusing someone of something, yet they don’t get their day to be heard. This is a stunning departure from procedural fairness. There’s no right of a reply. There’s no hearing. There is simply a penalty order.

In the Fraser Valley, where rural landowners and farmers are legally, actively allowed to manage burn piles and brush clearings, these types of allegations could emerge from misunderstandings. Without a fair hearing, individuals would have no chance to explain mitigating circumstances or, perhaps, even haven’t taken steps under government advice.

Let me explain what that means. In Abbotsford, you just can’t start a burn fire if you’re a farmer. There are many good reasons why you need to burn some things, such as scorch that is in blueberries. It needs to be burned.

What they do is they carefully manage these piles. There are strict conditions on when they may burn them. They can’t burn them in the middle of the summer, for instance, when it is an extreme hazard.

[6:15 p.m.]

But the wind conditions — we live in a valley — can often change. The sparks from these fires could inadvertently get out of control, even though they have followed the book, followed the fire department and done everything humanly possible to prevent that. It can still, inadvertently, get out of control.

In spite of following all the advice, these people could now be faced with a bureaucrat that becomes the judge and jury. No chance for reply. No chance for a hearing. There’s your penalty. Pay it.

The clause….

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: I hear some chattering from the other side, and I’m sure they will get up and speak.

Clause 6 repeals the old limitation period altogether. Instead of ensuring certainty and finality in administrative proceedings, this bill opens up an undefined window of prolonged legal vulnerability. It will affect ranchers, back-country users, small operators and, in cases, even some municipalities. Anyone could be liable for years longer than previously understood. This section alone should give all MLAs on both sides of this House reason for pause.

I think we can all agree that due process matters. Government power should not be limitless. We have already heard concerns from agricultural associations that these amendments could discourage landowners from reporting minor burns or even seeking guidance. It could actually, inadvertently, make things worse rather than better, because they will fear retribution long after the fact.

Instead of improving fire resilience, clause 6 may drive risk underground. It will be the old adage of “it’s better not to raise one’s head; just go ahead and do it” rather than have all the legal trail, as an example, that would be involved in this. So it could have undetermined consequences, and I do look forward to the committee stage to be able to drill into some of these with more wholesome debate.

As we know, this is the phase where we put up the look on the whole of the bill. Here are some issues. We need some better answers. We’re not going to get them here. You get them in the committee stage, as we all know.

Part 2 is the longest section and the most consequential. It contains dozens of changes to the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Community Charter and the Housing Supply Act. These clauses taken together increase provincial control over local developmental improvements, elections administration, zoning and cost charge exemptions. So let’s review a few of those.

Clauses 8 and 40 retroactively extend the exempt period for Metro Vancouver development cost charges. Originally, DCCs, development cost charges — that protection lasted 12 months for applications that were already in stream, and that’s before any new fee bylaws. Basically, it gave certainty to those that were in the construction business, because it’s part of their cost analysis. This bill extends that window to 24 months, and it applies retroactively to March of 2024.

Now, on the face of it, it could potentially create a windfall for developers, while potentially — here’s the kicker — shortchanging municipalities and cities by tens of millions of dollars. If that is in fact accurate, which we will find out, where will that funding gap be made up from? Will it come from the provincial coffers? I doubt it. From local taxpayers? Probably. But we have no answers. The government should have offered an impact analysis alongside the clause.

[6:20 p.m.]

Take Abbotsford, for example. This is a city that’s already grappling with the costs of expanding sewer, road, drainage, infrastructure to accommodate new growth. I would add at this time that Abbotsford is the largest city by land in British Columbia — the largest.

Now, if a subdivision project avoids contributing to those upgrades due to retroactive protection, taxpayers in Clearbrook or east Abbotsford may end up footing the bill for other areas. One local planner has mentioned that this move could result in delayed school construction and park servicing in new neighbourhoods such as McKee Peak, which has been proposed in Abbotsford. Again, I look forward to pulling this into more depth as we go throughout the committee stage.

Clauses 9 to 11 bring Vancouver explicitly under the Housing Supply Act. Clause 47 inserts language into the Vancouver Charter, nullifying any local bylaw inconsistent with provincial enactments. These changes collectively consolidate authority over housing development within the executive branch. If a municipal zoning bylaw or permit condition slows down a project that meets a provincial housing target, that bylaw can now be rendered null and void.

This centralization bypasses the planning discretion of city councils. It leaves residents without a recourse if their neighbourhoods are drastically changed. The province states that goals made are there to speed up housing, but the method in which they are doing this is brute force. It’s about as subtle as a D9 cat.

The residents in the Fraser Valley are already expressing frustration. Homeowners in central Abbotsford, who spent years working with their local council to develop a neighbourhood plan that carefully balanced low-rise density with green space preservation…. Under clause 47 of Bill 13, that local plan could be nullified overnight if it conflicts with a provincial regulation. That is not local planning, and it certainly does not sound very democratic to this cowboy.

Electoral organization rules, clauses 13 to 15, 23 to 27, 53, 55 and 58. These clauses revise how electoral organizations register their names, endorsements and campaign disclosures.

Okay. Clause 13 empowers Elections B.C. to de-register groups that failed to register under their commonly used name. While intended to improve transparency, it also grants sweeping authority to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine organizational identity. That could be potentially problematic.

Clause 15 mandates redaction of residential addresses of candidates and contributors from campaign finance documents. Privacy is important, yes, but so is accountability. These changes definitely warrant further debate in the committee stage.

Consider the local Abbotsford municipal election of 2022, when confusion arose over nearly identical electoral organizational names. Under these new rules, Elections B.C. could step in with unilateral authority, even suspend a group without appeal. While intended to prevent voter confusion, the unintended consequence may be the suppression of grassroots electoral efforts in small municipalities, which is really not the intent of this. Again, I look forward to the committee stage.

Retroactive ministerial orders in elections: clauses 17, 33, 34 and 60. These clauses allow the minister to make retroactive orders to address irregularities or special circumstances in local elections or assent votes, and the orders may be backdated up to 80 days. Retroactive legislation, I believe, is always dangerous. It comes at a price, and it must be monitored closely.

[6:25 p.m.]

The fact that one minister can issue backdated orders with legal force undermines certainty and public trust in a time when the public distrusts the electoral process to begin with. The democratic processes should not be subject to post hoc intervention.

In the 2023 Abbotsford school board by-election, concerns were raised about unclear balloting procedures for mail-in votes. Had these powers existed then, the minister could have issued a retroactive order modifying voting rules weeks after the vote had occurred. That should chill us to the bone. It is very concerning.

Vacancies and appointments, clauses 12, 26, 35, 36 and 37. These clauses streamline the appointment of the local trustees, directors and alternatives where vacancies arise. Okay. They also permit appointments where insufficient candidates stand for office. All right. But here we’ve got to stop and ask: are we creating a slippery slope where councils become appointed rather than elected bodies? What criteria will govern these appointments? What transparency will exist?

Democracy cannot and should not be reduced to paperwork. It just shouldn’t. In the past, we’ve seen school trustee seats go unfulfilled in rural zones — electoral areas as well, in some cases. The usual solution was a by-election or outreach to increase participation. Now under Bill 13, clause 26 allows appointments from outside the district if no candidates are found.

This opens the door to politicized placements. A resident of one municipality could now be appointed to another council if not enough candidates come forward. Who knows what government of the day or what bureaucrat will do that and what their rationale will be. That should be concerning for us all.

Nominating and voting rules: clauses 22, 28, 32 and 54. Clauses in this group modernize nomination submission options, allowing electronic filing and standardizing ballot instructions. They also reduce the reasons a ballot could be rejected. All right.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

While these updates appear reasonable, the risk of cumulative complexity is real. Election legislation should be clear, accessible and tested through wide consultation. I believe these changes deserve more time and scrutiny.

Part 3, the post-secondary and professional governance clauses, 73 to 77. Clause 75 gives cabinet authority to regulate the use of professional titles and designate which titles are reserved. This has practical effects, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to the chair.

Under this clause, someone could use the title “software engineer” without being a licensed P.Eng. Professional regulators may lose the ability to restrict title usage. That has drastic, unforeseen consequences. It raises concerns about public trust, credential dilution and liability.

The government must tread carefully before undermining long-standing professional designations. For instance, local engineering firms, many of which in Abbotsford specialize in agricultural infrastructure and flood plain management, depend on consumer trust in titles like professional engineer. It goes along with that fancy little pinky ring they wear, Mr. Speaker.

If those titles become meaningless, how can farmers or businesses evaluate professional expertise? One civil engineer has mentioned and warned this could result in costly project errors if unqualified persons misuse their titles.

[6:30 p.m.]

Clause 76 empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to create differential regulatory regimes for different classes of peoples or entities. This broad delegation of authority should be troubling and deserves further scrutiny. Regulation should be consistent. It should not be arbitrary.

Part 4, water, land and resource stewardship, clauses 78 to 85. These clauses amend the Wildlife Act to enhance powers related to invasive species control. Clause 84 allows uniformed officers to stop vehicles suspected of transporting invasive species.

Now, this side of the House agrees on the seriousness of zebra mussels and quagga mussels. The enforcement mechanisms must be matched with resources, not just legal powers.

The province, sadly, has done this before. They have done that in the agricultural area, where the policing of what happens on agricultural land…. While it’s provincial, there are a few provincial inspectors, and it ends up falling on local governments to do the heavy lifting and the local bylaw officers to actually do it. It’s not fair. It’s a downloading to local governments with no transfer of money to pay for that.

In Abbotsford, boating access to Cultus Lake and Sumas Lake area waterways, and the Fraser, sees traffic from Alberta and Washington. Now, local marina operators, I think, would want more and agree to more inspection stations, but not arbitrary stop powers with no clarity or funding. Clause 84 gives officers new authority but no guarantee of expanded infrastructure to support police compliance.

In other words, while, on the whole, we agree with it, who is going to pay for it? Where are they going to set it up? How are they going to do this? And what’s the end result going to be? It can’t just be ad hoc and random. It needs to have further debate through the committee stage to figure out who’s actually going to pay for this and how, and where these new personnel are going to come from. Will it rely on local law enforcement officers to do this? Will it be part of the conservation officers? It needs to be more defined.

Clause 85 allows the ministers to enact regulations for research purposes. All right. Okay. Once again, who decides this scope? Where is the reporting requirement? These tools need to be scrutinized so that there is not government overreach. In a nutshell, there is an awful lot in this bill that should be concern to pause, that needs to be answered in more wholesome debate. My fear is that we are not going to get the answers, even in the committee stage.

On the whole, I think the bill has got some merit. It’s mainly, as I said, a housekeeping bill to improve the way that certain areas and governments do business. But as I said, the wisest person I ever worked for once before, who was the former city manager of Abbotsford, said: “You can have unforeseen consequences because the devil is always in the details, and you can create four more problems trying to fix one if you don’t carefully plan it through.”

I look forward to a healthy committee stage and debate, and getting answers, because there are some concerning parts of this huge omnibus bill that deserve public scrutiny and deserve answers. We need to have some legitimate reasons why government thinks that in some cases, some of the huge powers that it has put into this bill are reasonable and rational.

[6:35 p.m.]

What safeguards are in place to ensure that it does not become the whim of the government of the day, the political flavour of the government of the day? I am sure the opposite side of the House would be screaming their heads off if this side of the House were to decide that we’re going to do things the way we want to with no consultation and absolutely zero oversight.

There needs to be a balance in democracy. I look forward to finding out how we can ensure there is balance, fairness and transparency in much of what is in this big, huge bill.

I do appreciate your time, Mr. Speaker. It is always a pleasure, and I look forward to the next time I get to speak in this House.

Heather Maahs: I rise to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, a bill that reaches across multiple ministries, sectors and statutes.

While I recognize the role of omnibus bills in managing regulatory housekeeping, this particular bill touches on issues far more consequential than its miscellaneous title would suggest. The bill includes provisions that affect wildfire accountability, local governance, housing development, elections, professional credentials and invasive species management.

These are not minor matters. As the MLA for Chilliwack North, I can confidently say that every one of these subjects has a direct impact on our community, whether through development planning, emergency response or local democracy.

I am troubled by what I see as a theme of expanding powers of this government in housing and municipal affairs amendments. Clause 17 states: “Expands the authority of a minister considered necessary to achieve the purposes of this act.” Again, section 99(b)(1): “Make any order the minister considers appropriate to achieve the purposes of this act.”

Clause 33, section 167, expands the authority of the minister. Clause 34 expands the authority of the minister to make regulations if the minister considers that special circumstances exist that affect or are anticipated to affect the administration or conduct of election proceedings. This is troubling, to see this government entitling themselves to more authority without checks and balances.

Regarding the mail-in ballots, rather than adding pages of redundant details, adding more bureaucracy than is actually necessary, how about this practice be changed to only allow mail-in ballots under extraordinary circumstances? Trust is waning with voters, and the use of mail-in ballots does not alleviate their confidence.

After running in nine elections, just when I think I’ve got it all sorted out, there’s a whole new batch of busywork that has been added. I was literally harangued for a year and a half for the sake of $4 — no joke — from election expenses that apparently didn’t figure into my disclosure. I’d suggest that the cost of this employee’s wage didn’t equate with any kind of cost savings.

My point is that there seems to be an appetite to continually add more and more regulations rather than give candidates and their financial agents the benefit of the doubt that they actually have common sense without the need for such onerous obligations — hours and hours of our lives we’re never getting back.

While I support some of the clarifications and modernizations in this bill, I believe it ultimately misses an opportunity to meaningfully advance the interests of British Columbians, particularly those living outside the Lower Mainland core in fast-growing communities like Chilliwack.

Now I’m going to speak to the forest amendments. I will begin with wildfire-related provisions.

[6:40 p.m.]

Bill 13 proposes to change the Wildfire Act, including new limitation periods for ministerial orders, procedural rules about notice and a narrowing of the circumstances under which a person can be held liable for causing or contributing to a fire. On paper, these are reasonable updates, but in practice, they reflect a narrow lens focused more on managing liability than building resilience.

In the Fraser Valley, wildfire season is no longer a hypothetical threat. In recent years, we’ve seen fires encroach on residential areas, damage agriculture lands and stress emergency services. The key issue is not how quickly the minister can file a notice; it’s how we prevent fires in the first place and how we equip local communities to respond when they do occur. And we have had several fires in these last two weeks in Chilliwack. It’s bizarre.

What’s missing in this part of the bill is any provision to expand fire mitigation infrastructure in interface zones, support coordination between provincial and local fire services and invest in fire-resistant construction and land use planning. If we are going to amend wildfire legislation, we should be doing so with an eye towards the next ten years, not just tidying up rules from the last ten.

Again in housing and municipal affairs, this portion is the largest section of the bill and one that should be of great interest to anyone involved in local government or housing development.

Clause 8, which modifies rules around development costs, provides certain exemptions for instream developments from recently introduced fees. While this offers clarity to developers, particularly in Metro Vancouver, it does little to address the broader question: how do we ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with growth? This is a real problem.

In Chilliwack, we’re seeing significant expansion in residential neighbourhoods, and that growth is outpacing our infrastructure. Roads are congested. Schools are full. In fact, the population of schools in Chilliwack grows by an entire school every year. Utility networks need upgrading. Local governments are doing their best, but they need predictable revenue and meaningful provincial partnership.

Rather than simply adjusting the application date of a cost charge, the province should be exploring provincewide DCC reform, co-investment programs for infrastructure tied to new housing and incentives for affordable housing linked to reduced charges.

Clauses 9 to 12 expand the authority of the Housing Supply Act, apply certain provisions to Vancouver and outpace procedures for appointing trustees when local officials are unavailable or insufficiently elected. We just heard about this from my colleague. Again, these are pragmatic changes, but they highlight a deeper issue: the growing strain on local democracy.

In some areas of the province, councils are struggling to fill their seats. People are not running for office not because they don’t care but because the job has become too complex, too political and too under-resourced. Rather than focusing only on the rules of the substitution, we should be asking: how do we make civil leadership more accessible and sustainable? And how do we honour local autonomy? That’s a big problem.

Clauses 13 through 35 cover everything from the naming of electoral organizations to campaign finance disclosure and nomination processes. On a positive note, the bill introduces privacy protections by removing candidates’ personal addresses from online disclosure, a small but important modernization.

However, I worry that the cumulative impact of these changes is a growing administrative burden on small communities, especially those without full-time election staff. Even in a city like Chilliwack, compliance with ever-expanding rules takes resources away from direct voter outreach, policy development and local engagement.

[6:45 p.m.]

These amendments should be paired with provincial funding for election officer training, standardized digital platforms for compliance and outreach to ensure these rules are understood and consistently applied.

Clauses 36 to 66 deal with acting directors, alternate appointments, voting instructions, ballot markings, disqualifications and procedural changes around court-ordered elections. Many of these are technical, but several have practical consequences, especially around clarity for voters and continuity of governance.

One particular concern is clause 60, which grants the minister retroactive authority to issue orders addressing irregularities in elections or assent votes. This is significant power. While I understand the need for flexibility, it must be used sparingly, with full transparency, preferably in consultation with affected communities — consultation.

Clauses 73 to 77. This section allows the government to regulate the use of certain professional titles such as software engineer without requiring the PEng designation. I understand the desire to modernize credentialing in fast-evolving fields like tech and software development. However, I would caution that such moves must be made in consultation — there’s that word again — with regulatory bodies and employers to avoid confusing employers and consumers about what qualifications are truly being claimed.

In addition, there is no mention of access to training programs for young people in emerging fields, supports for workers’ retraining in response to job market shifts and affordability of post-secondary education. The title of this section includes future skills, but the content doesn’t follow through. We are missing the policy muscle that actually prepares people for tomorrow’s workforce.

In clauses 78 to 86, this section deals with aquatic invasive species, including zebra and quagga mussels, which pose a serious threat to our ecosystems, infrastructure and tourism economy. I have actually cut my foot on a zebra mussel once, and it was not fun, so yay.

The bill expands the power of conservation officers to stop vehicles and enforce compliance, especially around boat launches and watercraft. These are important measures, and I support them; but again, we must ensure that officers are trained and resourced to apply these powers fairly, public awareness campaigns are funded and widespread and partnerships with local governments and Indigenous communities are built into the enforcement strategies.

In the Fraser Valley, our rivers, lakes and aquifers are not only environmental treasures; they’re economic and cultural anchors. They deserve more than a set of regulation-making authorities. They deserve a fully funded action plan.

Bill 13 does a great deal, but in many cases, it does too little of what matters and too much of what is procedural. It modernizes language and consolidates rules, but it stops short of transforming the systems that British Columbians are relying on — systems related to housing affordability, local democracy, workforce development and climate resilience.

In a community like Chilliwack north, these are not abstract policy categories. They are daily concerns of families, small businesses, municipal planners, farmers and first responders. If we are going to bring forward a bill that amends these many statutes, then we owe it to our constituents to make those changes meaningful. While this bill is far from perfect and does not fully address the pressing needs of communities like Chilliwack, I believe it does make progress in some key areas, and I hope that future legislation builds on that foundation.

[6:50 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to speak in response to Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, specifically to part 3, post-secondary education and future skills. I notice that the Minister for Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills is also in the House electronically.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just to let you know, we don’t typically refer to the location of our members when we speak in this chamber. Thank you.

Lawrence Mok: Oh, sorry. Sorry.

In this debate, I will speak only to part 3, because I am the opposition party critic for future skills and international credentials. Since this part of the bill has only five clauses, therefore my response will be a shorter one today.

The change to this legislation is that it allows the government to designate professional titles from the list of protected and reserved professional names. We have been told that the changes made to this section are in response to software engineers believing they should not be required to be registered with Engineers and Geoscientists B.C. to be designated as engineers.

Since 1999, software engineers have fallen within the definition of a professional engineer in the Professional Governance Act. Under the current statute, individuals and firms, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities wishing to practise software engineering or use the title of software engineer in British Columbia must first be registered with Engineers and Geoscientists B.C.

In B.C., 700 professional engineers and engineer-in-training members work in software engineering. As the professional landscape evolves, especially in the engineering and technology field, there is undoubtedly a case to be made for adjusting how and when protected titles like engineers apply, especially when the work does not fall under the traditional engineering fields like silver, electrical, electronics, chemical or mechanical.

If a non-registrant — that is, an individual or a firm — practises software engineering, calls themselves a software engineer or uses another title or language implying that they are a software engineer or authorized to practise software engineering in British Columbia, they are contravening sections 54 and 52 of the Professional Governance Act, and Engineers and Geoscientists B.C. will take enforcement action where warranted. These amendments will allow government to determine what titles are no longer protected under the act.

We recognize that the labour market is changing, so our approach to professional regulation must adapt. I want to make it very clear that we do not oppose the changes in Part 3 of this bill. In fact, a more flexible framework for regulating professional titles can support innovation, especially in the fast-moving sectors of applied science like engineering and technology and future skills development.

[6:55 p.m.]

That being said, flexibility must not come at the expense of public confidence or safety. While we support removing blanket restrictions on certain job titles where it is reasonable and well-defined, we urge the government to ensure that consultation with regulatory bodies remains thorough and that the distinction between a licensed professional and an unregulated individual remains clear to the public.

I understand the need to reduce barriers and modernize credentialing, but we must not erode public trust or safety. Professional titles are not just about legal compliance. They are about public trust. The right to practise a reserved profession or use a reserved title is a privilege and a responsibility.

We are satisfied that these amendments in part 3 of this housekeeping bill maintain that balance, provided they are implemented with care and oversight.

Korky Neufeld: This bill asks us to trust the amendments. But I think what we’re asking is: “Where are the parameters? Where are the guardrails? Where are the safety measures? Where is the clarity with definitions?” I think in committee stage, we’ll be able to dive deeper into Bill 13, clause by clause.

Tonight I will address an overview of some of the issues and concerns and questions that need answering. I rise in defence of the integrity of our legislative process, in the sanctity of our democratic institutions and in the trust our constituents have placed in us to act with wisdom, to act with transparency and to act with foresight.

We are told this is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, a tidy-sounding phrase suggesting technical tweaks and harmless corrections. But we must not be lulled into complacency by clever naming. This bill is anything but miscellaneous. It touches on core areas of our governance — on elections, local government, housing, wildfire liability, post-secondary standards and environmental enforcement.

Yet it does so without the depth, scrutiny or clarity these subjects deserve. Again, we are looking forward in committee stage to diving deeper and more thoroughly into these concerns.

Let me begin with part 1, forestry amendments. In a province that has experienced unprecedented wildfire seasons, which cost lives, displacing families and destroying ecosystems, it is absolutely essential that we hold individuals accountable for reckless actions. I say: “Absolutely.” British Columbians would say: “Absolutely, yes.” But we must also hold ourselves, as MLAs elected, accountable for enacting legislation that is absolutely clear, crystal clear. It needs to be enforceable, and it needs to be just.

This section empowers the government to charge individuals who assist in the spread of wildfire. The intent is understandable, like I said, but the language is dangerously vague. What does it mean to assist? Are we referring to criminal negligence only, or could this intend to individuals who are involved in legal activities that inadvertently contribute to the spread of wildfire?

I want to remind the House, the members across the aisle, of August 25, 2023, the Bush Creek East fire. It was started by lightning, but what caused it to spread? Back burn. The Bush Creek East wildfire spread, in part, due to a planned ignition called back burn, an attempt that went awry.

[7:00 p.m.]

The back burn, intended to create a firebreak and reduce fuel load, inadvertently ignited dead debris on power lines and allowed the fire to spread rapidly in a windstorm. The wind shifted, carrying the flames towards communities like Scotch Creek and Celista, exacerbating the situation.

The question I have for the members across the aisle is: does this equate to “assist” or not? That’s the problem with this bill. We do not know. Therein lies the problem.

Will Indigenous land stewards using traditional fire practice be caught in this legal net? We don’t know. The bill doesn’t define that. Will a well-meaning camper who fails to properly extinguish a fire face criminal liability despite lacking intent or awareness?

See, these are not rhetorical questions. These are real scenarios that could result in real legal consequences under this bill, without proper definition or procedural protection. This part of the bill is not clear enough. Again, we look forward to committee stage, where we will go through it clause by clause.

Part 2, housing and municipal affairs, a legislative landmine. This is where the bill becomes particularly troubling. It empowers chief electoral officers to unilaterally demand electoral organizations change their registration names based on informal observations of how these organizations brand themselves publicly.

Here’s a scenario or an illustration. If an organization is registered as People’s Progressive Front but commonly referred to as PPF, the CEO can force them to re-register under the short form, or face deregistration altogether.

This is unprecedented. Political parties and organizations build identity, community recognition and legitimacy through careful branding and legal registration. They can simply be undone because an electoral officer believes a nickname is more commonly used.

So here are the questions. Where is the democratic oversight here? Where is the right to appeal? There is nothing in this bill. Where is the line between election administration and political interference? We don’t know. It’s not in this bill.

Let us not overlook the implicit threat. If the organization does not comply within 60 days, it can face deregistration. This is coercion, not administration. This provision would give any future government or electoral officer undue power to dismantle grassroots political efforts and disqualify candidates by exploiting bureaucratic technicalities.

But it doesn’t stop there. This section also states that any candidate deemed disqualified remains so until the supreme Court of Appeal reverses the decision. Just think about that for a second. We are abandoning the presumption of eligibility. We are now declaring someone ineligible to run for office not based on conviction or legal violation but based on accusation or administrative decisions, leaving the burden on the candidate to clear their name. This isn’t just anti-democratic; it is potentially unconstitutional.

Then we come to the rules on council appointments. When vacancies emerge or not enough candidates stand for election, this bill allows for direct appointments of directors and alternates. In other words, it allows unelected individuals to hold office in our local democracies. I think what we should be asking is why people aren’t running, not bypassing the electorate altogether. If we normalize appointment in place of democratically held elections, we normalize disengagement and we degrade the very democratic values we claim to defend.

The question: are we a democracy, or are we becoming autocratic? Again, at committee stage, we will dive a little bit deeper into that.

[7:05 p.m.]

Regarding development cost charges, this bill creates exemptions for projects that are already instream before Metro Vancouver’s bylaw, March 22, 2024. But the government can’t or won’t tell us how much this will cost the public purse. Will it be millions, tens of millions? Well, we just don’t know. There are no abstract numbers. These are taxpayer dollars we’re talking about, and this government is about to give them away without fiscal impact study, without transparency and without accountability.

The provision requiring candidates to disclose where they reside in election filings is also deeply problematic. Yes, transparency is critically important in politics, but so is safety. In an era when public officials, especially women and racialized people, face targeted harassment and threats, here are some questions. Why are we making it easier to find them? Why are we putting some of their families in possible risk? This is not transparency; this is carelessness. Again, in committee stage, we will dig deeper into those.

Part 3, post-secondary and future skills. Here we see a clear undermining of professional regulation. The bill allows the government to strip protected titles of their legal protection. For example, in enabling someone to call themselves a software engineer without holding a PEng designation, professional engineer designation….

I guess I have a question. Here’s a scenario. Many of our RNs do a lot of work in the hospitals and probably pick up a lot of slack from our doctors. Are we going to put MD beside their name? I don’t think we would. But we’re asking the engineers to do that.

My son wears a ring. He is actually a software engineer with a ring. He spent years and years in study. He has earned it. If we continue to erode professional standards to chase short-term industry convenience, we risk long-term consequences in public safety, educational integrity and workplace trust. These protections exist for a reason. They represent years of regulatory oversight, safety protocols and public accountability. To throw them out with a signature or a shrug is absolutely reckless. We will dive deeper into that in committee stage.

Part 4, water, land and resource stewardship — a noble intent, concerning in practice. The fight against aquatic invasive species is serious, but so is the right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search. That’s the issue here. This bill grants government agents the power to stop and to inspect vehicles suspected of carrying invasive species. The intent is good, but again, no safeguards in place.

The questions are: where are the limitations? Where are the checks and balances? What prevents misuse or overreach? Again, this bill is unclear. If you give the state a hammer with no manual, don’t be surprised when everything starts to look like a nail. I’ll repeat that. If you give the state a hammer with no manual, don’t be surprised when everything starts to look like a nail.

Colleagues, I say this plainly. This bill is bloated. This bill is overreaching. This bill is dangerously underexamined. That’s where committee stage comes in, when we examine it clause by clause. It’s being pushed through under the guise of administrative necessity, but its consequences are far-reaching. We are being asked to pass sweeping changes to electoral law, to environmental enforcement, to housing and governance, to professional standards, all bundled into a single omnibus bill.

This is not a democratic process; this is legislative evasion. We are not here…. I did not get elected to rubber-stamp. I was elected to scrutinize, to challenge, to ensure that laws we pass serve the public interest, not bureaucratic convenience. This bill as it stands dilutes democratic rights, compromises public safety and centralizes power with vague mandates and no oversight.

You are placing more control in the hands of unelected officials while making it harder for candidates to stand for office. You are deregulating without data and spending without accounting.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not the work of good governance. This is the work of expediency. If we cannot take the time to question it here, if we cannot take the time to fight for clarity and accountability, then we are failing the most fundamental duty of our office.

[7:10 p.m.]

As it stands right now I cannot accept Bill 13, but that’s why we’re looking forward to committee stage, on this side of the House, where we can get clarifications, get definitions and make sure we know what we’re voting on.

We will demand clarity, we will demand integrity, and we will demand better.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Just pause for a moment, Member.

Sorry to interrupt you, Member.

Korky Neufeld: No, I was just wondering if we were taking a vote.

[The bells were rung.]

Korky Neufeld: Oh, here we go again.

Deputy Speaker: Maybe pause one more moment.

Korky Neufeld: Okay, so let me just finish here, and then we’ll conclude.

I cannot accept Bill 13 as it stands. But in committee stage, this side of the House will demand clarity, we will demand integrity, and we will demand better, because our democracy deserves nothing less.

I conclude my remarks until committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member. Sorry for the rocky end of that.

Seeing no further speakers to Bill 13, the question before the House will be second reading of Bill 13, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I move that the bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I call Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. Maybe we’ll call on you to say a few opening remarks to begin our debate.

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m honoured to move second reading of Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

It is, I think, a significant bill for this session of the Legislature. It’s one that is, I think, important for these times, one that facilitates the energy and the electricity we need, a bill that also, by facilitating that electricity, by bringing projects forward, by allowing projects and British Columbia to succeed, allows all of us in B.C. the opportunity to pursue our dreams in every part of the province. In short, it’s my view that this piece of legislation builds on key actions by the government to promote our province and to promote the future of our province.

I want to just describe and start briefly by describing the situation and the context of the legislation, because I think it’s important to understand that context. The legislation takes place in the period that we know, a period where the province has come through the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire world has come through a period of remarkable inflationary pressure. Our world is living in a time — in parts of the world, certainly — of war that has dramatically affected energy markets and dramatically affected all that we do together in the planet to support one another.

[7:15 p.m.]

In fact, the war in Ukraine and its implications have had a deep effect, I would argue, on energy markets around the world and force us to reflect on our need for self-sufficiency, our need for strength in those energy markets, our need to become the renewable energy superpower that we know that we can be.

On top of that, I’d argue that the period that we’re in and the impacts of what’s happening with respect to climate change are profound. We see that all around the world. We’re in a period where 16,000 homes were destroyed in Los Angeles, an experience that surely the people of Lytton and, I would argue, the people of Williams Lake understand.

When I was first appointed to the cabinet, many of the people, certainly the people living in long-term care and in communities in Williams Lake, I had to meet at the time in Prince George and in Kamloops.

We had, in Williams Lake at that time, doctors who were serving the community in Williams Lake and 100 Mile, serving their patients away from home in either Kamloops or Prince George, principally Prince George, who themselves had lost their own homes in those fires. And the impact that had on them and on all of us was deep and it was profound.

And of course now, all of these events of climate change, with the floods and the fires and the heat dome…. Building on all of those things is a change in our relationship with the United States. It’s a change that notwithstanding — and I think as Canadians, we were proud how well our new Prime Minister represented us yesterday in the Oval Office — how proud we are as a country and how we’ve come together in these times….

It’s the change and the tearing up of our agreement. It’s not an agreement, but it’s our agreement with the United States that we would work together, that our economies would work together, that we would support each other in times of peace and of war. Those questions have been put in doubt by capricious acts, economic acts and threats against our country — threats against, not least of which, our water, our economy and, significantly, our sovereignty.

When people say that the border between our countries might disappear, it tells us that we have to take action here to build a stronger economy, here to build a stronger electricity system, here to address climate change, here to diversify our economy.

At the core of it, therefore, that’s what this legislation does. We need, in British Columbia, to reinforce our historic approach to electricity, our historic approach to building our economy, which is ensuring that electricity is there and available not just for existing businesses and existing homes but for new businesses and for new homes.

We have an opportunity with respect to the development of clean energy that is as great and significant and important not just for energy, although electricity and energy are crucially important and will create thousands of jobs…. There’s a capital plan at B.C. Hydro, a ten-year capital plan, that will create between 10,000 and 12,000 jobs a year, on top of which we are taking all of the other actions we’ve described in our electricity plan.

In short, we need to drive our ability to dictate our energy future. And that ability to dictate our energy future depends at least in part on our ability to drive, to put in place and not just to announce, not just to have electricity purchase agreements, not just to go through processes but to build renewable energy in our province. This will create jobs and growth and prosperity, not least of which in the northwest of our province.

[7:20 p.m.]

One of the things that I think you hear when you go around the province is a sense of inequality at times, a sense that the major dams that were built, especially in the Peace, disproportionately serve the south and not the north.

That’s why it’s so important that we increase the access to that electricity, for example, in the northwest of our province, where, at the same time, we have some of the most exceptional and extraordinary opportunities in terms of critical minerals, in terms of energy production, in terms of the Port of Prince Rupert, in terms of all that we can do and in terms of better residential service for the people of the northwest.

In other words, we need to build renewable energy projects. We need to add to our electricity in our province, our capacity of electricity. We have to increase access through our transmission system throughout the province. And finally, we have to address climate change.

This is fundamentally the way to do it. To do what we have done in B.C., where 99 percent of our electricity is renewable — to build on that and to expand out that system, and to attract and attach more people to that system and more services to that system and more machines to that system and more energy to that system to build a stronger economy in our province.

That’s the context in which we are. We need more clean energy. We need more electricity. We need the ability, and we need to take action — not sometime in the future, but now — to leverage our incredible natural strengths, to diversify our economy, to lower our carbon emissions.

We have this piece of legislation, which is part of a broader effort by the people of B.C. and by the government of B.C. to do what I just said: to expand our economy, to diversify our economy, to strengthen our economy by building. The response to these issues is not to sit back and allow actions abroad to dictate what we do in British Columbia, but to take control — to be, as they say in Quebec, maîtres chez nous, to be masters in our own house and to take control of our policies now.

So I feel….

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Minister, could I get you to just pause for a sec?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Could that be a ring of support for the legislation, I ask myself?

Deputy Speaker: Terribly sorry, Minister.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

So what does the legislation do here? It establishes the B.C. Energy Regulator as a consolidated natural resource authorization agency for prescribed renewable energy projects and transmission lines. It removes the environmental assessment requirement for the nine wind energy projects from B.C. Hydro’s 2024 call for power, the North Coast transmission line, related transmission lines and prescribed wind power projects.

It enables a new regulatory framework for prescribed renewable energy projects. It allows for prescribed renewable energy projects and transmission lines on agricultural land. It’s consistent with the current legislation of the B.C. Energy Regulator, and it allows the B.C. Energy Regulator to recover costs of permitting and oversight from industry.

We’ll go through, just briefly, the bill and its parts. We’ll have an opportunity to discuss that at committee stage.

Part 1 deals with the interpretations and the definitions. Part 2 is a substantive section that deals with project streamlining. In part 3, the legislation deals with applications to other enactments, in particular, the Environmental Assessment Act. In part 4, the legislation deals with general applications and regulations.

It creates three levels of project streamlining. Level 1 project streamlining allows for ministries and other agencies to transfer and share powers with the B.C. Energy Regulator while regulations are developed. Level 1 streamlining will allow the B.C. Energy Regulator to immediately assume authority for early permitting requirements, such as investigative permits, without causing delay for applications already under review by other ministries.

[7:25 p.m.]

Level 2 project streamlining allows the BCER to be the single window authorization agency for a project without the requirement to regulate the construction and operation of the project, referring to B.C. Hydro transmission lines, which will be level 2 projects, as B.C. Hydro has established procedures and processes in place. Level 2 projects allow for the streamlining of the provincial authorizations for B.C. Hydro projects to be brought under the one-window model, without undermining or conflicting with other established regulatory processes.

Level 3 project streamlining, which we’ll spend the most time talking about, I’m sure, allows for the B.C. Energy Regulator to oversee the full scope of a renewable energy project over its operational life cycle, while maintaining the same efficiencies of the one-window approach.

Construction and operation of many renewable energy projects are not captured in the current regulatory framework, and this legislation will allow for the BCER to create a new streamlined regulatory framework and ensure there are no gaps in the absence of environmental assessment requirements.

The legislation also proposes to exempt the North Coast transmission line and related transmission lines, wind projects from the B.C. Hydro’s 2024 call for power and other wind projects from environmental assessment. Fundamentally, what the bill does.

Let’s talk about the regulation, because I think this will be important to members of the House. We have, over time, seen this regulation, this life-cycle regulation, in action. Where did we see it? In the B.C. Energy Regulator, in the regulation of oil and gas in the province.

The Oil and Gas Commission was established in the province. It’s been around for a long time. It’s effective, and it’s important as life-cycle regulation, single window, but also taking you from exploration through to production and then the end of the life cycle, where we require actions in terms of restoration of the land.

That’s why a one-window regulator such as the B.C. Energy Regulator makes sense. Further, it simplifies that process and develops an expertise in the subject matter, namely renewable energy, just like the B.C. Energy Regulator has established that expertise in oil and gas regulations.

Three years ago this House passed legislation that did the same thing as we’re doing here with hydrogen and the B.C. Energy Regulator. The exact same thing — created one-window regulation. It was unanimously supported in this House, as I hope this legislation will be as well. We did the same thing then; it made sense then.

Simplifying the process. There are lots of people who think simplifying the process is good for proponents, and maybe it is, because it means they don’t have to go to multiple ministries. It’s also good for interveners. Simplified, understandable processes are good for interveners. Many of us who want to intervene in issues do not have the capacity to involve ourselves in multiple ministry processes.

This is good news for those of us who don’t hire lobbyists, those of us who don’t have the same level of power — to have a single-window regulation, as has been shown in oil and gas, as has been shown with respect to hydrogen. It will be very effective here. It is not an issue of whether we say yes in a single-window regulation or no. The issue, and what makes the B.C. Energy Regulator effective, I think, is that it ensures simplicity of access and expertise in regulation.

That is good for proponents, and that is good for interveners, and it’s why the core of this legislation, which is to shift renewable energy projects under the B.C. Energy Regulator, is good for B.C., good for the timing, good for permitting, good for advancing projects, but also good for interveners who have different views on those projects.

I want to just talk a little bit, because the legislation specifically addresses issues of renewable energy and of wind projects, about wind projects in B.C. Here, in my view inexplicably, there appears to be a difference of opinion between members of the House.

Wind energy has grown by 20 times in the last 20 years. In the United States, for example, from 196,000 megawatts to 428,000 megawatts overall in renewable energy and 72,000 megawatts to 153,000 megawatts in wind energy — in other words, doubled in the last ten years in the United States.

[7:30 p.m.]

Is it because people in the United States are more interested in climate change than other jurisdictions? That may be the case; it may not be the case. In any event, generally, in private models of energy regulation in the United States, people have been choosing wind and solar energy to a dramatic degree — in ten years, a 2½ times increase in new renewable projects.

In the United States, you can see a doubling in the number of wind projects. In Canada, we’ve seen an increase in the same period of about 70 percent in the megawatts produced by wind. We are behind the rest of the world in this regard. So 97 percent of the new electricity in the world came from renewables last year, in 2024. It’s countries all over the world investing in hydro, but less in hydro these days; in solar, especially these days; and in wind.

B.C. has the ability to do this as well. Wind power, as I’m suggesting, is well established around the world. It has grown dramatically, and why is that the case? Well, we see that in the recent call for power in B.C. What happened in the recent call for power? We got prices for that power 45 percent below a similar call in 2009. We can’t think of many things that are 45 percent less expensive over that period of time.

But with respect to wind energy and the results of that call for power, we saw exactly that — an average levelized cost of $74 per megawatt hour against an average levelized cost, for example, in Quebec, in their recent call, of $80. In short, those wind projects were a good deal in B.C. They have dropped in price dramatically.

In addition to that, as members will know, across those projects, 51 percent of those projects are owned by First Nations. When we think of large energy projects, we frequently think of projects that are owned by large, multinational corporations. Well, in this case, you have the majority ownership in wind projects that are in every part of the province…. They’re in Kelowna. They’re in the north of Vancouver Island. They’re in the Peace. They’re in the central Interior. They’re near Prince George. They’re all over the province, and they’re majority owned by First Nations in those parts of the province.

In other words, as they produce energy and as they produce revenues for those First Nations, those revenues will stay in the province. It is an exceptional thing of which, I think, the people at B.C. Hydro are certainly proud and the people of B.C. should be proud. It is a unique, I think, and important change in the approach we’ve taken.

Of course, we are a bit — it should be said — late to the party in this respect. There are wind projects, and wind has been a major source of energy, around the world. The first large wind project in B.C. came to B.C. in 2009, with the opening of the Bear Mountain Wind Park.

My colleague the member for Peace River South represents that area, and he knows it well. I visited the Bear Mountain Wind Park as well. Anyone who has been to Dawson Creek really can’t miss it. If they’re visiting the new hospital we’re building in Dawson Creek, they can look up, and they can see the wind farm.

I think it’s fair to say that we have lagged behind other jurisdictions even though the opportunity, as shown in our call for power, is exceptional.

On top of that, of course, we’ve seen the dramatic increase and growth of solar power across our province, across our country and across the world, transforming the world economy, including, and especially, in the United States and in other jurisdictions like African countries that are majority run on solar power.

We had this discussion, and when the Leader of the Opposition dismisses what the world is doing — what the world is investing in, what Texas is doing, what Iowa is doing, what every country in Europe is doing — he is, I think, out of touch with where opportunity is.

[7:35 p.m.]

Why is wind power so valuable? We’ve talked about the decline in price for both wind and solar power and its cost. Of course, it’s renewable, and it’s sustainable. It’s easier to deploy than other major projects, as we’ve seen.

A project such as Site C can take a long time. I think I wrote a university paper about the project in 1986, and we’ll be opening the two final units at Site C this year, in 2025. Sometimes those projects take a long time. They certainly take a long time to build.

What we have, I would say, though, in this case, are wind projects that are relatively fast to deploy, that create jobs, that don’t create emissions, that are…. Certainly, compared to other energy industries, they use water dramatically less than other alternative energy forms. They give us a phenomenal opportunity.

We have the call to power that we put in place last year and the electricity purchase agreements that we announced in December. Then in December, we announced our intention to do what we’re doing in this bill, which is exempt those projects from environmental assessment and move forward with those projects.

This is not, I should say to the members of the House, in particular my excellent critic for Peace River South, who does a lot of work on energy issues, as do I, and who I enjoy working with…. In this, they’re not unique as wind projects in B.C.

In fact, he will know that Moose Lake wind, which I think is in his constituency, 15 megawatts near Tumbler Ridge…. The previous threshold was 50 megawatts, which exempted you from environmental assessment prior to this. Or Pennask wind farm near Westbank, or Shinish Creek wind farm near Summerland, or Sukunka wind farm near Chetwynd. In fact, two wind energy projects near Chetwynd were all put in place under the previous threshold of environmental assessment.

We have, also, very significant experience, because over time, under the current act, 11 projects…. Five projects have been constructed with environmental assessment certificates. In other words, they’ve gone through the environmental assessment process. So we know what issues are important with respect to environmental assessment and wind.

Amongst those are Bear Mountain, but also Cape Scott, the Dokie wind energy project, the Meikle wind energy project and the Quality Wind energy project. They went through those processes. So we have the experience of environmental assessment. We know what the issues are. It was raised, I should say, that those projects cumulatively spent 13.5 years in environmental assessment. So 13.5 years for those five projects in environmental assessment.

I think, and this is the point I made when we announced the electricity purchase agreements, that we need to proceed with this electricity now. We need to ensure the highest level of regulation, and that’s why the one-window life-cycle regulation provided by the B.C. Energy Regulator makes sense.

But we need to go as an economy, and this is a way to do it. It aids the comprehensive plans that we put forward as a government, the $36 billion capital plan, which addresses issues in distribution, in transmission and in generation of energy. It affects as much the member for the Peace River South riding as the member, for example, for Surrey–White Rock, who is seeking significant increases in distribution in his community.

In addition to that, we are seeking out new energy. We have these ten projects that are affected by this legislation and a new call for power. We have a call for expressions of interest for firm power, taking advantage of the opportunities that may come in hydroelectric power but also in geothermal and other forms of renewable energy. On top of that, we have all of the effort to increase connections to new people and all of the investment in First Nations energy production across our province.

[7:40 p.m.]

This is a comprehensive plan of which this legislation is a piece. This legislation, ultimately, is intended to provide the highest quality of regulation but also to increase the speed of permitting and regulation of renewable energy projects.

It establishes the B.C. Energy Regulator as the one-stop shop for certain renewable energy projects and priority transmission lines. It ensures, as I’ve noted before, that we have the opportunity to pursue what British Columbians in every region want to pursue.

We need more electricity for critical mineral development. We need more electricity for mining. We need more electricity to decarbonize. We need more electricity for EVs. We need more electricity for a population that has grown at an unprecedented rate. We need electricity to address fundamental issues of climate change while continuing to grow our wealth and grow our economy.

The president of Hydro-Québec — and they are pursuing a similar agenda to us — has talked about the noise and the signal, the noise being the actions that we’ve heard from the United States not just with respect to tariffs and the sovereignty of other countries but moving away from renewable energy. He talks about the noise and the signal.

The noise is the end of clean energy programs that the United States federal government announced or put in place, pursued by President Trump. The noise is the moving away, sometimes under pressure of financial institutions, from climate policies that they had pursued successfully over time. That’s the noise.

But the signal is what I described before. What is the United States actually doing? What are United States investors actually doing? They’re investing, as we are, in wind energy, in solar energy, in transmission, in the distribution of that energy to promote economic development, whether it be mining or whether it be data centres. They are doing that to ensure that people have access to clean electricity. That is the signal. That is what we should be following. That is what every country in the world right now…. That’s the agenda they’re pursuing.

With our gifts in British Columbia, our nationalized, 100 percent publicly owned B.C. Hydro system, put in place by a Social Credit government in the 1960s…. They nationalized B.C. Electric, built dams in British Columbia, established a hydro system that is the backbone of our economy. It ensures today, and since this government came to office, hydro rate increases 12 percent below the rate of inflation — 12 percent below the rate of inflation after they’d gone up under the previous government by 54 percent above the rate of inflation.

That hydro system has allowed us to have, with Manitoba and Hydro-Québec, two other 100 percent publicly owned hydro systems, the lowest electricity costs in North America, half the electricity costs of our neighbours in Seattle and Portland. It is an advantage to us, and we have to build on this, because that hydro system allows us to add intermittent forms of electricity like wind, add to our economic wealth.

If we ensure that everyone has access by doing what this legislation does, which is assisting us to build the North Coast transmission line, which we support, and I hope all members will end up supporting, because it ensures that the wealth of the Peace can be shared with the people in northwest B.C…. I think that’s important for our province. It’s fundamental for our province to do that. I think that this plan will help build our province into the future and create opportunities for people and small business and young people and construction workers and help us address fundamental issues of climate change in a significant way.

I encourage members of the House to support this legislation, which will help us build the electricity we need, the energy we need, the energy security we need, the clean energy we need, and help us act against climate change. That’s what this legislation seeks to do.

[7:45 p.m.]

It doesn’t make sense, and I believe this strongly, to spend more time in permitting and regulation of a project than it takes to build it. That’s what we were facing, so we are taking action here to do for renewable energy what we did for oil and gas 26 years ago, to do for renewable energy what we did for hydrogen — unanimously supported 26 years ago, unanimously supported now.

We’re doing it for renewable energies — a life-cycle regulator that will be able to regulate the construction of wind energy projects and take them right through to, perhaps, the day when they would be taken apart. Life-cycle regulation, a regulation that will give access to people to take part.

Opportunity in these projects that build wealth in First Nations communities — that’s what this bill is about. It’s about wealth for the people of B.C. It’s about prosperity for the people of B.C. It’s about building when we surely need to build. It’s about energy independence, and it’s about ensuring that we as a province fulfil our obligation to future generations to address the issue of climate change in our time, to give us the means to displace.

A lot of people talk about displacing fossil fuels. You need to have electricity to displace fossil fuels and maintain the economic and the social activity that you have. This bill does that. It’s consistent with what the opposition has supported in the past. It’s consistent with a view of British Columbia, and it’s consistent with the times we live in.

We need to act to diversify our economy. We need to act to strengthen our economy, and we need to act on climate change. This bill, which helps us build renewable energy projects and build transmission lines, does just that.

I ask all members to support this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, could I call on you to adjourn debate?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would be delighted to. I’m just moving adjournment. They’re reporting. I can’t wait for the speech. Believe me, I can’t wait.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act

George Anderson: Section C reports Bill 7 complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. Adrian Dix: At the next sitting.

I call Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, again.

In Section C, we’ll call Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act
(continued)

Trevor Halford: I want to thank the minister for the kind intro. I always appreciate that, and I always appreciate listening to his remarks in the House.

I’ll go designated speaker. I don’t know. We’ll just put it on there and see how we go.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: Why not? Am I getting doubted from my…?

Deputy Speaker: All members will have a chance to speak here today.

Trevor Halford: I know. Well, not tonight, but maybe we’ll see.

Deputy Speaker: Tonight Surrey–White Rock has got the floor.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, we’ll see how it goes. This is an important piece of legislation. The minister is right on that. We’ll get into our positions on this throughout tonight, tomorrow and into committee.

I will say this, though, because I think it’s important to point out. I always look for little Easter eggs. The minister did do some of his speech in French. I don’t know. Federal leadership race run? We don’t know. You got a little bit in French. Test driving a bit out there? I don’t know, but the rumours start now. He’s speaking in French. But when he speaks in French, we always enjoy it.

Thank you for that little treat.

Deputy Speaker: Can we get back to Bill 14? Today the Chair is terribly interested in learning about this bill this afternoon.

[7:50 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: All right. I will. But on that, because I think it’s important…. I say this because I understand how things change in this building. The people change. Sometimes the people don’t change, but their views change. That can happen, and I understand that. My views change on some things as well.

In a parallel universe, I would love for the 2013 Leader of the Opposition to be able to watch the 2025 speech that we just got from the Minister of Energy.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: He would love it? I’m not taking that bet for a couple of reasons.

Views change, and things change, but I think it’s important we talk about why we’re here and the necessities for what we need. We have a massive shortage right now in terms of our energy needs. That’s a fact. It’s a fact that we’ve outlined, the minister outlines. There’s no argument about that.

Whether it’s in different areas of the province…. We’re talking about the northwest transmission line and that, and we’ll continue to talk about that. And we’ll talk about areas that we represent too.

We’ve canvassed this before about the electricity needs or the shortfalls that we’re seeing, even in Surrey, in an area that was represented by myself. But even the former mayor of Surrey, who now represents as the MLA for Surrey–Serpentine River, and the work that she did and that previous mayors did, whether it’s the current MLA for Surrey–Serpentine River now or previous Mayor Watts or Mayor Locke that’s out there now….

You look at Campbell Valley and the growth that is happening out there — transformational. Thousands of jobs. No transit, but thousands of jobs. And the shortage that we are seeing for electricity out there — that’s a real, real struggle.

Now, the minister has talked in the past about wind energy and support, lack of support. I understand wind energy. We’ve been talking about wind energy in this place for over 16 years. In fact, when you go out to Tumbler Ridge and you go to Dawson Creek and other places, you can see them. They’re there. You can’t miss them. It’s almost incredible to see when you’re driving, going through Chetwynd, and you see them. It’s quite a thing.

We had that conversation many times. This is not a new conversation that we’ve had in this House about wind energy and support. It was actually the minister, when he was leading and, ultimately, successful to win the leadership of the NDP at the time, that called those projects redundant because of Site C — a project, by the way, which the minister, then Leader of the Opposition or candidate, opposed. That’s public record, and it’s fine. Obviously, those positions have changed.

But we are in an absolute energy crunch right now, and we’ve had people in this House, the Minister of Energy, oppose wind power. When? Well, in 2011, 2012, 2013. It was in his speeches. There was an article in the Vancouver Sun, leadership debates with John Horgan, and he called: “We didn’t need it, because that power would be redundant.” And if the article’s wrong, I can table it.

We are in an absolute race right now, because for the last eight years, we haven’t been doing much. Now Site C — great. If this government wants to go cut the ribbon on Site C, albeit, have at ’er. But how many times did they spend campaigning against that?

[7:55 p.m.]

The minister talks about the U.S., and he’s right in a lot of what he says. Prior to this election that we saw in November, they’ve been eating our lunch for eight years — a lot of our lunch. We’ve had multiple, multiple opportunities for resource development in British Columbia, and we’ve watched, multiple times, companies walk out the door because they did not believe that this was the right climate to invest in.

Why did they believe that? It wasn’t because of the resources. It wasn’t because of the people. It was because a government was in place that kept moving the goalposts in the middle of a game. The Minister of Energy is a huge sports fan. I am too. I think a lot of people are in this house. It’s really frustrating when you’re in the middle of a game and they change the goalposts.

When you go overseas and you talk to companies and you try and encourage them to invest in B.C., one of the biggest challenges they have is the shifting landscape that we’ve seen in the last eight years. Now we’re in a scenario where this government is going to pick winners and losers.

We can get into that. That doesn’t mean that we’re opposed to certain projects. We’re opposed to a lack of transparency. We’re opposed to the fact that…. Again, you look at the clawback on Bill 7, and now when you look at where we are with Bill 14 and other legislation that we’ll be talking about in this House, it’s incredibly problematic.

When corporations or proponents are coming to B.C., they want to know: are you a credible regulator? Are we going to be caught up in the political climate of B.C.? I know for a fact that we’ve lost billions and billions of dollars of investment just because of that. That’s proven out.

You talk about the U.S. and what the U.S. has done. You go to Galveston, Texas, and you look at the LNG industry that’s out there, and you look at how quickly that all came to fruition. We couldn’t even get a straight answer whether this government actually supported phase 2 with LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink. It took years to get that.

I think it’s fantastic. It’s a miracle that this minister has found religion when it comes to the resource sector and energy. And I mean that. I think that’s a good thing because we need it. But it’s also fraught with a few issues here, because we talk about certain things….

The minister mentioned Lytton. I know the minister has probably been to Lytton many times, just like everybody in this House has.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The fire in Lytton was beyond catastrophic and decimated such a proud, proud part of our province. This government’s response to Lytton was absolutely unacceptable, a complete failure on every aspect. You go have that conversation with my former colleague Jackie Tegart about Lytton, and she can clearly illustrate a lot better than me or anybody else in this House the failures that this government had for that.

The minister talked about the heat dome. He’s right. When we talk about the electrical needs that we need for the heat dome, we talk about the fact that we had seniors that were dying in their apartments because they were turning into greenhouses…. They had no air conditioning, another failure of this government. We lost over 600 people in that.

[8:00 p.m.]

It’s always a challenge when you’re looking at this legislation, and it’s almost like a trust-us moment here. “We’ve got it. Trust us. We’ll do the right thing.” Well, we’ve seen that end in absolute disaster. I think a lot of organizations, a lot of people, a lot of groups that my colleagues are going to be very familiar with, because when they go back to their constituencies, they see them and they deal with them every day…. They’re frustrated, and they’re angry, and a lot of them are scared.

There’s a massive lack of trust right now. We’ve seen it. We’ve seen the overreach that this government does consistently. They see how far they can push the line, and then they pull it back when it becomes too much — the Land Act, major parts of Bill 7. We’re going to talk about it in Bill 14, and we’ll talk about it again in Bill 15, because I think that there are some very, very serious issues that we need to delve into, and we’ll do that. I look forward to my colleagues doing that as well.

Right from the start, from the outset, there is nothing I view as streamlining when it comes to unchecked balances. Once again we see an NDP government that is using this opportunity for a power grab. It’s our job to prosecute that.

I know the minister understands that because I know the minister has done that on this side of the House. I mean that with all due respect, because he did it very effectively. I watched that. When the minister speaks, I do watch, because I think that he’s very aware of what he’s talking about. He does his homework. But we’re doing ours too, and I think there are going to be a lot of questions at committee about what’s contained in here and what this will allow.

There’s no debate in this House — at least from us, from me or anybody else — about the support for renewable energy. I haven’t seen it. There was debate previously, a decade ago. There was. We support renewable energy. They’re in our ridings. They’re not in many of the government MLAs’ ridings — maybe a few, but not many.

I think the problem is that this bill really isn’t about clean energy. It’s about granting unprecedented power to a government, sometimes unelected bureaucrats, without proper oversight or accountability. It’s almost like this is a bad sequel to Bill 7. Most sequels, except for The Godfather and maybe a couple others, are usually pretty bad.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: Die Hard 2 was really bad.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: Terminator 2 is really good. I have never watched that, The Pink Panther, but I’ll put that on my list.

Back to Bill 7. I will debate anybody on Die Hard 2 because I wouldn’t even…. That does not hold water.

Again, we are seeing sweeping powers to the cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator, powers to override environmental assessments. To be fair to the Minister of Energy — I talked about his previous statements when he was running for Leader of the Opposition — he talked about strengthening the environmental assessment.

[8:05 p.m.]

I should put that on the record, because he did do that in his campaign. That was listed out there in the articles that I’ll reference. He talked about strengthening the EAO. He should be commended for that.

This is absolutely stripping authority, and it powers to override environmental assessments, dismantle established safety standards and, worse, silence communities. Powers that not only put at risk our environment but put at risk our democratic process as well.

We’re elected to have these conversations, whether they’re on policy or whether they’re on projects. That’s a good thing. Again, this is what we do in this building. At one time, the minister opposed Trans Mountain. They opposed Site C. They did oppose wind energy. They opposed private power, and now things have changed. They opposed LNG, and things change. I get that.

Can you imagine the position that we would be in if this government came into office and actually supported the resource sector in a transparent way and actually encouraged investment?

Now, I understand that they continued on with projects, and that’s a good thing. They should be commended for that. They should be commended for continuing on with LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink and Site C. They desperately tried not to continue on with TMX, but they lost that many times in court, and that’s fine.

Can you imagine if they actually came in and said: “You know what? We are going to visualize British Columbia in 2025, and we’re going to look at areas, whether it’s Dawson Creek or Fort St. John, Prince George, Nanaimo, Surrey. We’re going to say there’s going to be tremendous growth in some of these areas. There are going to be tremendous energy needs in some of these areas.”

“We want to encourage investment in these areas. So what do we have to do? We’ve got to plan for the future. We’ve got to embrace what we have been blessed with, which is a great resource sector. We’ve got to embrace it in a way that we do that that doesn’t put our environment at risk, that doesn’t put our workers at risk.”

But that wasn’t the case. It was an internal war every day to say: “Do we support these projects or not?” or “What’s this going to cost us?” It was. That played out. It cost billions of dollars of investment, thousands and thousands of jobs.

Think of where we could have been in terms of meeting our electrical demands if we had actually done that work when we had the opportunity to. We chose not to. Well, this government chose not to. They picked winners and losers.

Now, I will say, and I mean this because I hold this person in high regard, we were actually really blessed with the fact that…. When I was a staffer in this House, one of the people that knew the energy sector the best was a guy that sat on this side of the House. His name was John Horgan, and he knew it. I didn’t agree with a lot of his stuff, and that’s just politics.

[8:10 p.m.]

I have to say that in terms of a critic and how you can learn this job and do your job well as a critic, people should actually go back and watch how he did that job. Whether you agree with what he said, you should actually watch…. Anybody that is in this building, especially if they’re in opposition, should actually go and watch how John Horgan knew his file, did his homework, specifically on energy, as an Energy critic.

Again, we’ve had the opportunity here in British Columbia to do something different. But we need to do it in a way that makes sense, not cut corners, and also not in a way that centralizes power and allows for absolute overreach.

We’ve seen the reactions to that. We’ve seen the reactions to that in Bill 7. I think the government was surprised by the reaction they got on Bill 7. But for some odd reason, I think that they’re trying to see if they can get away with it in the legislation that we’re talking about today and some of the legislation that we’ll be talking about in the coming days. It’s not good.

This is a pattern that we’ve seen before, right? The NDP creates regulatory chaos, layering on rules, barriers, discouraging investment. Then they come in and say: “Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to offer a streamlined solution. We’re going to dismantle due diligence. We’re going to override local decision-making, and we’re going to consolidate control with the cabinet and the bureaucracy.”

It’s almost like setting fire to your house and then giving yourself a pat on the back when you call the fire department. We know that this isn’t going to end well. And it doesn’t. It just ends up costing. It’s an overpromise and underdeliver, but it’s going to cost the taxpayers. It’s going to cost investment. It’s going to cost jobs. And my colleagues are going to outline why that is.

The minister claims that this bill addresses nine wind energy projects in the transmission line, and we see, because it’s buried deep in the fine print, that there are no limits in this bill. Cabinet can expand its scope, and they can do it arbitrarily. They can add projects, and they can do it without even coming back to this Legislature.

The minister talks about the nine projects. He talks about the transmission line, but if this bill goes through, they can decide, the ministers agreeing: “Here’s what we’re going to add.” Sure, maybe they’re wind projects. Maybe they’re something else. Could be anything, but we don’t know, because it’s going to be done by cabinet. It could be wind projects. It could be something else. I don’t want to take a guess.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: The minister talks about definitions, but the problem is that the minister…. The minister had his chance to talk, and if he wants, we can have that conversation. He wants to be the judge and the jury and the executioner, right? Yeah, he says they are wind projects today, and what are they tomorrow? Run of river. It could be anything. There are no limits on this.

“Trust us.” Just like they say, “Trust us” on Bill 7. That didn’t work out well. I think we’re still up there doing Bill 7 right now somewhere. I don’t think there’s a lot of trust in this province, especially when it comes to this government and energy.

[8:15 p.m.]

You know, again, the ability to add projects at any discretion, projects without community input — they could have a lack of environmental assessment oversight.

The minister will say that this is his idea and vision of streamlining. The minister could be saying one thing today, and he could be saying one thing…. We’ve seen what he said on TMX. We’ve seen what he said on LNG. We’ve seen what he says on Site C. Things change, right? That’s the minister’s prerogative. He’s obviously held a lot of different positions inside this House.

But now this is giving them the power to hold a lot of different positions and support or non-support or pick winners and losers inside of a cabinet room. I don’t think the majority of British Columbians would be comfortable with that. That’s just my opinion. Others may disagree.

This government is not good at picking winners and losers. It never has been. Most governments aren’t, right? Look at how the CBAs are going for them, picking winners and losers. “We’ll tell you who can work on these projects.” It doesn’t matter if it’s over budget or delayed by years. They’re going to tell you who’s doing the work, picking winners and losers. It doesn’t work out well for anybody.

The other thing, too, is it’s taking the decision-making out of the public view. I think that’s an important aspect that the minister didn’t really outline in his remarks. We talked a lot about other things, and they were good to hear. But in terms of the decision-making and how a community can view that, have input in that, be a part of that…. The minister referenced interveners and all that good stuff. That’s important, but we’re not really hearing that.

We’re hearing people are pretty nervous about what’s inside this. They’re actually really, really nervous about what’s not spelled out in here, the authority that this gives this cabinet. The challenge that we see in all of this is that this government has had a track record of really limiting our investment, right? We’ve seen that. We’ve seen people turn away from British Columbia. It has been because people have been nervous to invest here.

I don’t really see how this legislation helps with that. When you’re talking to corporations about making multi-billion-dollar investments, even FID, before a final investment decision, the one thing they look for is certainty, consistency. I think both those things are completely missing from this piece of legislation.

This allows the government to basically choose who and how proponents or projects are going to be successful in B.C. I don’t think that’s going to benefit a taxpayer. I don’t see how that benefits a community. I don’t even know how that benefits government, other than giving them the ability to have more control with less transparency.

[8:20 p.m.]

Another aspect…. Maybe I missed it, and I’ll check Hansard. I didn’t hear the minister talk about it, and I mean this sincerely. If he did, I apologize. It’s public safety inside this bill. Certain projects, essential safety standards under the Safety Standards Act can now simply be disregarded. The government is not required to demonstrate that projects are safe, nor are they obligated to justify their actions to those who might be affected by these projects.

The minister is asking, “What?” and seems confused. We can discuss that at committee. This is why a lack of oversight is problematic with this legislation. If the government’s strategy is clear, it’s minimal accountability and maximum authority. I don’t think many proponents or communities or any groups are going to be encouraged by that unless they’ve already got stuff lined up with this government and the projects that the minister has listed.

Again, like I highlighted a few minutes ago, it’s not just about those nine wind projects and the transmission line. It’s much more broad than that. The minister knows that. There’s no clause in this bill that just limits them to those projects. Theres’s not.

We believe in renewable energy. Renewable energy has been a part of this province for quite a time now. And it’s been opposed. It’s been opposed by the minister. It’s not debatable. I guess his position now can be. But this side of the House also believes in transparency, accountability and fairness. All those things are disregarded in this bill. It’s important that we not just debate the text of Bill 14…

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: Did I say something funny?

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: …but the troubling implications that it has for British Columbians.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: No, I’m good. I’m not…. It’s good. I thought…. We good? All right. Okay. Let me continue here.

Imagine being a small business owner whose family has guided visitors for generations, contributing not only to the local economy but also to conservation and wildlife management. With Bill 14, overnight, your business could be at risk without explanation, without compensation, without any clear avenue for appeal.

This legislation provides no statutory guarantee of compensation. If licences or permits are suspended indefinitely, licence holders across our province could face devastating financial losses. That’s not a theoretical example. Those are real families that would be facing real consequences. Those are real jobs in real communities, and they depend on us. They depend on us. Yet under this legislation they are left vulnerable to arbitrary decisions made by this government, by officials who are accountable to no one but themselves.

[8:25 p.m.]

I don’t agree with that. I think we have a duty here to be accountable to a number of people.

The minister and this government claim that they aim to streamline these processes, but in this bill, the actions indicate otherwise. They’ve introduced a bill with no clear limits, no safeguards, no protections. Licence holders aren’t just facing uncertainty. They’re facing complete exposure to this government’s whims.

This is why, and it’s no surprise to the minister, we will be calling for immediate and substantial amendments to Bill 14. I don’t think that comes as a surprise. We need clearly defined criteria, guaranteed rights to hearings and appeals and to see assured compensation if licences are suspended unfairly or revoked. We need to see, from this government, genuine accountability, not sweeping powers that undermine democratic oversight.

It’s essential to emphasize that this bill doesn’t only impact rural B.C. It actually sets a disturbing precedent that will affect every British Columbian. The unchecked authority embedded in this bill risks becoming a model for future governance, eroding public trust and investor confidence alike.

British Columbians deserve better than legislation that centralizes power and dismisses democratic norms, transparency, fairness and accountability. I’ve been listing them all throughout this debate. That wasn’t in the minister’s remarks. They’re in ours. They will be, because they’re not in this bill. They’re not. Those things, they’re not buzzwords. They’re actually fundamental to our democracy and to the trust that our constituents place in us as their representatives in this House.

Bill 14 threatens those principles. We look at part 3…. Okay. Let’s talk about some of the specifics of Bill 14, because I do truly think that the devil lies in the details here.

Let’s take, for example, the profound implications of the agricultural land reserve. This legislation would permit streamlined projects to proceed on ALR lands without adhering to the standard protective processes, under the guise that progressive farmland that generations have safeguarded to ensure food security and preserve our agricultural heritage can now be subdivided or repurposed with no real oversight. That’s what’s in this bill.

Think about that for a second. We’re not talking merely about administrative adjustments. We’re talking about, and we’ll see if…. The Minister of Agriculture, very respected. We’ll see if she gets up and speaks to Bill 14. But we’re talking about dismantling safeguards that protect British Columbia’s most fertile and critical agricultural lands.

[8:30 p.m.]

Farmers and local councils know best on how to manage their lands sustainably, and they’ve been sidelined in this. Instead, their input is replaced by a bureaucratic decree, a scenario that no British Columbians have asked for. We are shutting out…. The government is shutting out some of the most critical stakeholders with this bill. They’re silencing them. I just gave an example of that.

Further, Bill 14 provides, I think, the disturbing possibility that critical environmental regulations could be selectively applied or waived entirely at the discretion of this government.

Now, I talked in the past about what investors look for. They want to know: are you a credible regulator? Seriously, that’s what they discuss in a boardroom when they’re looking about where they’re going to put their money, where they’re going to invest.

They have options, and for eight years, we’ve been missing the boat in a lot of those boardrooms. It’s because we have not been viewed as a credible regulator. And we’re not now, especially with Bill 14, especially with what we saw this government try and do with the Land Act, especially with what we saw this government try and do with Bill 7.

It’s always: how much can we get away with? How far can we push the line? When are we going to get caught? They’re trying it again here, and they’re going to try it again on another piece of legislation that we’ll talk about. Regulations designed to protect our communities from potential hazards, could be spills, can now be arbitrarily set aside.

Again, this isn’t theoretical. It’s not “sky is falling.” It’s explicitly permitted under the broad language of this bill. This is a government that says that we stand with the environment. This bill absolutely does the opposite. Once again, there is no clear criteria, no transparent process, only unchecked discretionary power.

Moreover — again, didn’t hear it in the minister’s remarks — this bill also presents serious threats to our cultural and heritage sites. This legislation empowers the regulator to override established heritage protections, even those vital to Indigenous communities and historically significant locations. The decision-maker in such cases isn’t a neutral or democratically accountable figure but rather an individual appointed by the very regulator giving these sweeping powers. Now, this constitutes a fundamental erosion of our collective commitment to respecting and preserving cultural and historical heritage.

Since I’ve been elected, we’ve…. You want to try and have a government that can balance economic progress with environmental and community stewardship. Bill 14 is a spectacular failure in all of that.

[8:35 p.m.]

It does not merely streamline processes; it steamrolls over protections and established democratic norms, leaving British Columbians exposed to decisions made behind closed doors. This legislation goes beyond merely regulatory adjustments. It fundamentally reshapes how critical decisions about land use, environmental safety, heritage preservation and economic activity are made in British Columbia. And it does so without meaningful accountability, transparency or public consultation.

This is not new for this government. We saw this in Bill 44. Some of that is kind of mirrored in terms of taking away voices of people that are impacted by that, right? Shutting out the public’s ability to have a say in what happens in their community.

That’s actually been kind of a common thread in the legislation that this government has put forward, not just in this session but in the past. It’s actually shutting out the community, stakeholders, the people that are going to be affected on the ground — their ability to have a say. It’s not overly democratic. In fact, they have now chosen, in many cases, to actually override local governments, regulators, regional districts. They know best, right? Don’t need to hear it.

I think part of the challenge is that nobody here knows best. You have to rely on the people that are being impacted and what their position is. You may not agree all the time, but it’s important that they’re heard. We have a lot of people here that have served in various levels of government, former mayors, and I’ll tell you, shutting out the public, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying, not allowing them to have a voice when they’re the ones impacted, is one of the most undemocratic things you can do.

It’s also one of the most stupid things you can do. And I’ll tell you why. Because you’re setting things up for failure. You are. You’re setting projects and people up for failure. Because you’re not allowing people to have input. And a lot of people will say: “Listen, I want to be heard. I know that you’re going to make a decision here. I may not agree with it, but I want to have a voice. I want to be able to contribute.” That’s a good thing. It’s democratic. I think it should be embraced. I don’t think it should be disqualified.

This is a government that has now had a pattern of doing this in their legislation, shutting it out: “We’ll make the decisions in a cabinet room, and you’ll figure it out later. We don’t want to hear from you.” It’s been interwoven in a lot of legislation, and it’s here. It’s present in Bill 14. It was there in Bill 44. It was definitely there in Bill 7. It’s here in Bill 14. And it’s in other legislation as well.

[8:40 p.m.]

It’s actually pretty scary stuff. But it’s also incredibly stupid, because…. Listen, I support renewable energy. I support projects. I challenge the minister to ever find me saying that I don’t. Won’t find it. But set them up for success. The way that you do that is by inclusion. The way that you do that is by having conversations, even if they’re difficult; by allowing engagement, not with an authoritative hammer.

I don’t understand why, for a party that has, actually, the word “democratic” in their name, this is such a hard concept for them. They’ll say: “Well, there’s panic. We’ve got to do this. We’ve got to do that.” We talked about that a little while ago.

In the last three months, this government has decided they’re going to support the energy sector in British Columbia? Now they’re understanding that we’re in an energy crunch? Can you imagine the position that we would be in if this government came into power and supported LNG?

They supported one project reluctantly. I get that. Good for them. They supported Site C eventually, reluctantly. And good for them. TMX is still a bit of a sore spot. I understand that. But we’re getting there, eventually.

Can you imagine, though, if this was a government that actually said: “We’re all in for good resource development done in the right way. And here’s what we’re going to do. We’re not going to strip the environmental assessment office. We’re going to embolden it. We’re not going to pick winners and losers. We’re going to have a clear playing field. We’re going to allow people to come and invest, and we’re not going to change the goalposts”? That makes sense to me.

I think it should be applauded that the minister has taken on this file with great energy. No pun intended.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: It wasn’t. I’m not that good.

There are some challenges with that. These projects can’t happen overnight. They can’t. But can you imagine if that actually happened in the last eight years? Can you imagine if we actually said: “You know what? We are going to get behind the energy sector and the resource sector, and we’re going to do it in an environmentally friendly way”? We would be in a much better position than we are today.

And we’re not in a good position. The minister knows that. I’ll give him props for knowing that. When you go to the city of Surrey, most people in Surrey — well, the MLA for Surrey–Serpentine River — will tell you we have some incredible energy challenges right now. The province is late to the game. Really late. They’re behind schedule on a lot of it.

What does that mean? That means we lose out in Surrey. That means we lose out on investment. That means that people don’t build out in Campbell Valley because we don’t have the power to support them. We don’t actually even have the transit to get them out there. That’s a problem. You can’t get a bus there, where we have thousands of jobs and no transit. But we actually don’t have the power to sustain it.

That affects us out in Surrey. That’s jobs that get lost. That’s a freeze of investment. That’s not fearmongering; that’s reality. There are businesses that will tell us that. That’s Surrey. But those challenges exist all over this province. If the government is surprised by that, then we’ve got way bigger problems.

[8:45 p.m.]

That would be a great…. I know, cabinet confidentiality. I’m familiar with that. But if I could attend one NDP cabinet meeting, it would be the one where they figured out they actually had to support the resource and energy sector, because that would have been great.

Where they’d actually be like: “Oh, okay. Listen. We have a problem here. We’ve been getting our lunch handed to us every single day. We’ve lost billions of dollars of investment. We have massive electrical needs all throughout this province. We have somehow got to figure out a way to pretend like we support this industry, so how are we going to do it?”

This isn’t the way to do it. It’s not. You do it by collaboration, and you do it by laying a groundwork where people know where they stand. You don’t do it in closed doors, where you pick winners and losers and you shut out the people that it impacts. Because you want to know what? That freezes up investment in other areas, areas that are really important to the economy.

Surrey–White Rock, for example. We have a lot of hunters and trappers that live in Surrey–White Rock. You wouldn’t think that, but they do. They have traplines because maybe their grandfather had a trapline and they’ve maintained that, and they go up, whether it’s to Mackenzie or other areas. Or they hunt, and they fish.

This legislation scares them. And it should. There’s nothing democratic about this. It’s shutting them and thousands of other British Columbians out of the process.

I’m not going to pretend that I can speak eloquently to some of those challenges, because I can’t. But you know who can? The people that sit around me, because they live it every day. Because they are those hunters and they are those trappers, and they are representing those areas where those wind projects are proposed to go. They are representing those areas where we have abundantly great resources.

Selfishly, you know who benefits from that? My riding. A lot of other ridings in here. Actually, the Minister of Energy’s riding. They benefit from that. We won’t talk about that. Because this is a government that has refused to have that conversation until they’ve been shamed into it. Until there’s absolute panic now, saying: “We can’t meet our needs. We won’t get investment unless we get behind some of these projects, whether they’re the northwest transmission line….”

I think wind energy works, but if this minister thinks that we’re going to meet our energy needs with these nine wind farms, he’s delusional. And he’s not delusional, I know. But he keeps referencing nine wind farms and one transmission line….

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I know, because it’s in the bill. It’s not that.

The challenge with that is that we don’t know. This government lists off their projects, but we don’t know projects this government supports. But more importantly, I think, the bigger challenge and the scarier challenge is we don’t know what projects this government does not support.

The challenge is that people will not invest because of that climate, because of the fact that there’s not a process that is clear. There’s a process where government will be the judge, the jury and the executioner. And I think investors are scared by that. I think people that have existing businesses are scared by that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Trevor Halford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and asks to leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Section C reports progress on Bill 5 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,191,816,000 (continued).

Ward Stamer: Last night, unfortunately, we ran out of time, and I had a couple more questions to the minister on the differentiation in the infrastructure amounts in the last 15 years between Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border and Highway 5 from Kamloops to the Alberta border — the same.

I have a request, if it’s possible, to the minister. There’s some data relating to Highway 5 that is being collected and has been collected, volume counts. There’s speed data. I’m wondering if there’s a list that I can provide to the minister and his vision or ability to be able to reply to that in this session, if that’s possible — you know, what’s available publicly.

At the same time, last night the minister was explaining some of the rationale between the determination on his ministry’s way of collecting data and determining where investment is needed in our highway system. There was reference to $350 million that was spent on, basically, repairs on the Coquihalla — using that as a frame of the choices between what possibly Highway 5 would require and the prioritization of that portion of Highway 5 on the Coquihalla receiving that money instead of Highway 5 from Kamloops north.

I’d like a little bit more of an explanation on how his ministry is determining the rationale between, as an example, Highway 1 with a $261 million improvement project that is eight kilometres in length….

In Tappen, I understand there’s a bridge replacement over the CPR. I understand there’s an overpass for traffic flow into Sunnybrae. But again, that represents ten times the amount of money that has been spent on Highway 5 from Kamloops to the Alberta border, a highway that is used many times of the year when Highway 1 is closed and that is the only source for commercial traffic to get to Alberta other than the Crows Nest Pass. And we all know that in the wintertime, that is not really a viable route.

I’d like a little bit more of an explanation of why, consistently, those decisions are being made, possibly only on volume data that does not take in crucial time, say, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. It’s taking a whole 24-hour period. I don’t know that too many people in this room really care how much traffic is on the highway at 3 a.m. But I’d like a little bit better of an understanding when there’s a push for four-laning to Alberta on Highway 1. We know there’s no way there are places of that section that will ever be four-laned in our lifetime. I’m going to suggest the Three Valley Gap is not going to be four-laned in the next 50 years.

I’d like a better understanding from the minister on how his ministry is rationalizing all the investment onto Highway 1 and not Highway 5 North.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thanks for the question.

I appreciate the member’s interest and concern when it comes to Highway 5. I just want to assure him that when we look at whether it’s Highway 5 or others, it’s all looked at as part of our overall transportation system.

We do assessments in terms of what’s required. The kinds of approaches we take are the same for each one. We work with the RCMP, we work with our CVS team, our engineers, to identify options for improvement on all those routes. There are many variables, including incidents, traffic volumes, future goods issues, goods movement, population growth, all those things I talked about yesterday.

The reality, at this particular time, is Highway 1 is the most used interprovincial route with use that continues to increase more than the others. Particularly since Trans Mountain has now been finished and the Kicking Horse is now done, that’s showing up even more.

For example, last year on the Kamloops to the Alberta border on Highway 1, the peak daily traffic was 25,000 vehicles a day. On Highway 5 North, from Kamloops to the Alberta border, the peak in the previous year was 6,000. Last year it was only 3,800, compared, because of the Trans Mountain being complete and the Kicking Horse being open.

Those are the kinds of factors that come into play in terms of how decisions are made. We also look at, and I know, because the member has…. We’ve spoken in the past on some of the safety issues. We look at those, and there is work being done on those safety issues as well.

So yes, I understand the issue, the concern the member has raised about money. I get that. But it’s also about other things besides money. What is going to make the most effect? What can also be effective in terms of improving safety or improvements? Sometimes the costs for those are significantly different. Some of the issues that we’ve talked about in terms of cameras and things like that are kinds of improvements that we can make. That’s what I can tell the member in response.

I just wanted to clarify. You had data that you wanted me to be able to look at and give a response. I’m happy to do that.

Ward Stamer: Yes. Thank you very much to the minister for the explanation.

I look forward to having these conversations in the future, and I look forward to the opportunity to provide that data with you today.

I’d like to pass this over to my colleague from Surrey South.

Brent Chapman: It’s kind of low-hanging fruit right now. Since at least 2023, this subject has been raised in local media and direct contact to MLAs, Swartz Bay terminal covered area. Passengers at the Swartz Bay ferry terminal are exposed to inclement weather due to insufficient shelter at the bus bay, leading to discomfort and health concerns, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

[2:55 p.m.]

Question for estimates: how are responsibilities delineated between B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit concerning infrastructure at shared terminals like Swartz Bay?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

B.C. Transit is responsible for the bus stops, but they’re on B.C. Ferries operations. So they are integrated, and they try and work together. The challenge when it comes to the bus stops, and there’s work underway in terms of resolving the issue, is the weight of the buses. So they’re exploring how a covered platform could be installed that would deal with that particular issue, obviously, given the configuration of where the bus stops are.

Brent Chapman: So would I be safe to assume that there are steps that are going to be taken? People are being encouraged to take the bus onto the ferry, yet really, in that instance, there are quite a few people that are left exposed. Is there an earnest interest in fixing that?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The answer is yes. We are already doing something similar in the case of Tsawwassen, and we’re looking to do the same based on the situation at Swartz Bay.

Brent Chapman: British Columbians are already stretched to their financial limits. Yet despite repeatedly claiming to champion affordability, this government is quietly laying the groundwork for a new tax on drivers, a vehicle levy, without having the political courage to admit it publicly.

[3:00 p.m.]

On May 5, 2025, the Premier was asked not once but three times to rule out a vehicle levy on road pricing schemes. Each time he dodged. Each time his Transportation Minister pivoted. And each time they refused to give a direct answer. If they weren’t considering a vehicle levy, they would have just said so.

Now the government is trying to take credit for a $312 million, three-year transit funding commitment, but what they’re not telling the public is what comes next. Their language is slippery. Long-term solutions. No preconceived ideas. Working with TransLink. It’s clear what that means. The levy is on the table, just not before the next election.

All signs point to a plan already in motion. Let’s be clear. The government’s own timeline ends in 2027. That’s not speculation; it’s their published schedule. Their funding commitment to TransLink runs out that year.

And 2027 also happens to be the expiry of their original ten-year child care plan and their promise to build 114,000 affordable housing units over ten years — signature promises from their 2017 platform, neither of which are anywhere near close to being delivered. That convergence of expiring promises and an unresolved funding plan make 2027 more than just a date. It marks a politically opportune window to reset the narrative before the public can hold this government accountable.

While we can’t say with certainty whether an early election will be called before 2027, the timing would be politically convenient. The government could use the campaign period to downplay what’s coming, knowing full well that a vehicle levy is in the wings, only to introduce it after voters have gone to the polls and the political risk has passed. British Columbians have seen this pattern before, and they won’t be fooled by it again.

Let’s not forget this is the same government that said there would be no early election in 2020 and then called one — the same government that said tolls would be unaffordable and is now considering something even more far-reaching under a new name. They cannot be trusted to be honest with the public unless they’re forced to answer in this House. This isn’t just about one funding decision. It’s about a pattern of strategic silence, of pushing difficult announcements beyond the reach of accountability.

If the government intends to bring in a vehicle levy, the public has the right to know before they vote. If they won’t come clean in this Legislature, then we know exactly what they’re trying to hide. If this government is even remotely considering a vehicle levy, or empowering TransLink to impose one, then they must say so now — not after the election, not after it’s been buried in a budget line and not after British Columbians are already paying the price.

Question. Will the minister provide a clear commitment that the government will not enable or authorize the introduction of a vehicle levy immediately following a potential early election in spring 2027? If such a measure is being considered, will it be brought forward prior to any election so the public can judge the plan before voting?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, which I find most fascinating.

I’d like to remind the member that this is estimates, not question period. If he wishes to engage in a political discussion, I am more than willing to engage in a political discussion with the member. I will remind.… I know what he wants. This is now going to go out on a video, or something like that. That approach, as opposed to wanting to ask a question….

We can go down what was the opposition’s position in the election campaign when it came to TransLink. We can talk about how they were going to run an $11 billion deficit without any plan whatsoever in terms of how to address the funding shortfall that TransLink is facing. We could talk about their program, which would result in cuts to health care.

We could talk about all of those things that I’m sure the member didn’t want to talk about, in the same way that we saw during the election campaign how many of their candidates refused to attend all-candidates meetings, refused to answer questions, and in the same way that his leader would hold press conferences and only answer questions once and would not take a supplemental. Talk about a lack of transparency and a lack of being upfront with the voters.

[3:05 p.m.]

I want to assure the member — and if the member had actually read, which I doubt, the TransLink agreement that we have concluded with the mayors — that we recognize that TransLink, or transit, is important to British Columbians. It’s important to growing communities right across this province. What we want to ensure is the long-term, sustainable funding for TransLink.

We know that the gas tax is declining. We know that there is a growth in electric vehicles. All of those things are putting pressure on TransLink’s finances. What we’ve committed to do is backstop TransLink with $312 million that will result in expansion of service and that will ensure the financial integrity of TransLink for the next three years. During that time, we have committed to work with local government on funding measures that can ensure the long-term, sustainable viability of TransLink.

That means more expanded bus service in the member’s own area such as Campbell Valley, for example, where the mayor of Surrey, whom I met with, has said: “Buses are our number one priority.” That takes money not just in terms of capital, but it takes money in terms of operating.

All of those things are part and parcel of a transit expansion plan, which is crucial to the livability, the affordability and the ability of the Lower Mainland, in particular, to be able to grow in a sustainable way that ensures people can move about. It’s a number one priority. It is a key priority for business. All of those things are going into why we work with TransLink.

What it means is that, yes, there do have to be some funding mechanisms for TransLink to be able to sustain their financial viability, so we are going to look at what those options might be. To suggest that there has been a decision made that it will be a vehicle levy is simply false and wrong. That may be something that’s looked at by TransLink and the province, along with other measures that we will work on with them over the next two years. We are going to work with them over the next two years.

The only thing I can draw from the comments of the member opposite, and members opposite in the House during question period, is that they are opposed to any measure that would solve TransLink’s financial challenges. Their only solution was to take $650 million and say: “Oh, we’ll do an audit.” No plan. No vision. Nothing.

It also leaves you with the only other logical conclusion that you can draw from the position of the opposition, when it comes to the funding measures required to ensure that TransLink continues to be sustainable over the long term. And that is either you cut service, which would probably mean getting rid of free transit for those under the age of 12….

It would mean no expansion into Campbell Valley. It would mean no expansion, for example, on the new SkyTrain lines that are being built, because those need servicing, those need employees. It would mean none of that.

Or what it would mean is that they would say: “You know what, local governments? You have a funding mechanism right now called the property tax.” And they would put the entire burden on local governments and tell them: “You use property taxes to fund the operations of TransLink.” That would see skyrocketing property tax bills, because you cannot have it both ways.

We understand that. That’s why we’ve committed to working with local government. That’s why we’ve committed to working with TransLink to find solutions that work. And that’s why there’s a two-year period to do that.

It doesn’t have anything to do with election timing. It doesn’t have anything to do with a desire to go to the polls. I can tell you right now, given what I’ve seen lately, that I’d be happy to go to an election today, because we’d be returned with a bigger majority.

If the member wants straight answers to straight questions, I’m more than happy to give them. I’ve been giving them to other members of his party. I’m happy to do that. But if he wants to engage in political posturing and political games, I’m more than qualified to play that game.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we are considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. That is what we’re considering today. So I would ask that discussion on estimates occur, and just on estimates.

Brent Chapman: That was a long way to go for “Yes, they are considering it.”

On Thursday, April 10, 2025, the NDP Transport Minister announced a TransLink subsidy of $104 million each year for three years, 2025 through 2027. The 2025 subsidy of $104 million is $32 million greater than TransLink’s 2025 business plan, which, just a few months ago, projected an operating deficit of $72 million.

This $104 million transit subsidy adds significantly to the total B.C. government budget deficit for the current fiscal year tabled by the Finance Minister in her budget speech in the House on March 4, 2025. The erstwhile $72 million deficit figure was to be filled in from deployment of various funding sources, including the B.C. government.

Now the B.C. government subsidy for 2025 alone — quite separate and apart from the funding contribution from the other jurisdictions, the 21 municipalities, an electoral area and a treaty First Nation — of $104 million is more than two times that of the last subsidy of $51 million. While fluctuations, rubber numbers, the 2025 annual business plan operating and capital budget summary tabled just a few months ago projected a $72 million subsidy from all funding sources, now the B.C. government subsidy alone is $104 million.

The total 2025 TransLink operating budget subsidy from all sources — B.C. government subsidy, property tax hikes from 21 municipalities, gas tax, parking tax — may be estimated at well above $200 million. That is close to three times the tabled number of $72 million. This is an example of rubber numbers assembled by TransLink management.

Unbelievably, fare increases lead to increased subsidy. Under otherwise normal conditions, that should read the opposite. Fare increases should lead to decreased subsidy. However, this is the incidence of the worst of both worlds. Fare increases are ordered into effect, and concurrently subsidy increases also occur.

I would like to request the minister…. He should be able to access the estimated numbers through his representative on TransLink board. I would like him to table before the House the estimated total subsidy amount to TransLink operating budget and all sources. The minister should be able to access the estimated numbers through his representative on the TransLink board.

I should note that this figure may, under certain circumstances, rise again, putting upward pressure on the B.C. government’s 2025 annual budget deficit. Clearly, annual B.C. government subsidy amounts to TransLink’s operating budget are not shrinking.

When can this House look forward to a downward trend in annual subsidies from the B.C. government to TransLink?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that we are in estimates, and there is no tabling within estimates.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I will inform the member that it does not add to the province’s deficit because TransLink got the money on March 31, before the fiscal.

[3:15 p.m.]

It is a one-time grant, so it’s not an ongoing thing. We do not do an annual subsidy to TransLink, so it does not add to the increased deficit for the current fiscal year.

Brent Chapman: The record is now well established. TransLink’s annual business plan numbers undergo wild fluctuations a few months after they are tabled. The fact that TransLink’s management is demanding transit subsidies every year is mainly due to two reasons.

The first reason is that TransLink management suffers from a total paralysis in planning. Their revenue and ridership projections, in particular, are almost never close to actual. This is a corporate management team that fails in its most basic function, that being to project its corporate revenue. This is a recurring failure, and the government has repeatedly looked away from addressing this key failure year after year.

The second reason is TransLink’s evident failure to cut relevant operating costs and seek operating efficiencies. TransLink is recurrently receiving a B.C. government subsidy. My constructive suggestion is that TransLink management should assemble their annual budgets following, at minimum, B.C. government Treasury Board guidelines. TransLink management are repeat offenders when it comes to assembling budget numbers that provide the reader some confidence in their robustness, reliability and integrity.

An example of lazy numbers used in the TransLink 2025 budget business plan operating and capital budget summary is in 2024. The percentage change from ’23 to ’24 in total fare revenue was 1.191 percent, from $672 million to $680 million, respectively. In 2025, the estimated percentage change in total fare revenue, itemized in TransLink’s 2025 business plan operating capital budget summary, is $761 million, up from $680 million in 2024, a positive change of $81 million. This estimated percentage change is exactly 11.91 percent.

This lazy budgeting because of the estimate change…. In 2025, total fare revenue is conveniently arrived at by adding a lazy zero, moving the decimal point in the previous year’s 2024 percentage change in total fare revenue. Because of this laziness in budgeting, the budget estimates numbers are almost never robust. This is a major contributing reason for wildly fluctuating TransLink budget numbers for the current years of many years past.

The wild fluctuations in operating budget and capital budget numbers are an example of TransLink management holding the minister down by invoking moral hazard. TransLink’s management wields the weapon of moral hazard against the minister because they, TransLink’s management, engage in risky management practices, knowing full well the minister will bear the consequences without so far holding a single member of TransLink’s senior management team accountable.

By risky management practices, it is meant that they, TransLink’s management, do not or are not capable of tabulating the risks to TransLink’s operating and capital budget and manage TransLink’s using the risk table as one among many tools guiding their day-to-day management practices.

The behaviour of TransLink’s management is a classic example of moral hazard. It has directly led to lazy budgeting, inefficiencies, poor decision-making and a lack of urgency in addressing operating challenges.

I would like to ask: which are the highest risk factors and their effect on the 2025 TransLink operating budget?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

The challenge I’m having with the member’s line of questioning is this. First off, TransLink is an independent authority. It does not report to the province. It is an independent authority with a governance structure that was set up by previous B.C. Liberal governments.

It has a mayors council, and it has a board. They make the decisions. And to characterize an organization such as TransLink saying they engage in lazy budgeting — that, in essence, they’re not doing their job — and using that term repeatedly I think is…. Well, frankly, it’s insulting to professionals within the organization and the workers in the transit system.

TransLink has buses, the SeaBus, the SkyTrain system — a remarkable, integrated, diverse transit system in the Lower Mainland that’s rapidly expanding, accommodating incredible growth that we are seeing in this province. It is doing so in a way that is, in many ways, the envy of many other transit systems in North America.

The ridership in TransLink recovered faster than almost any other system in North America after the pandemic, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge the work that TransLink is doing and try not to denigrate it. I understand the member has questions about TransLink’s budgeting. That’s not something that this ministry deals with. As I said, it’s an independent authority, and I would suggest to the member that he would put those questions about their budgeting process to the Mayors Council. His own mayor sits on that council.

The Mayors Council is very much involved in that. They’re the ones who voted on the plan that’s in place, the agreement that we’ve got with TransLink and the $312 million that the province has provided to TransLink, recognizing the challenges that it has faced. That is a one-time block of funding and then agreement to work with them on their long-term issues of financial sustainability.

That’s there, in part, because of the growth that’s required to deal with the service requirements that the public are demanding, that communities are demanding, that we’re seeing right across the region in South Surrey, in the Campbell Heights area, up the valley in terms of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, on the North Shore, throughout the whole region.

I understand what the member is trying to do, but the bulk of those questions is really best directed at TransLink where that decision is made and in particular to the Mayors Council.

Brent Chapman: There is no risk analysis table in the budget from TransLink. In the TransLink 2025 business plan operating capital summary, could they not adhere to B.C. Treasury Board standards while assembling budgets’ operating capital? Can the minister demand that from them or at least expect that from them?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: They’re not a government entity. There’s no authority for Treasury Board to demand that kind of information. There’s no authority for me as minister to demand that either.

Brent Chapman: Let’s go to B.C. Transit. B.C. Transit’s 2024 total revenue from all sources is $431 million. However, earned revenue is only $124.6 million, just 28.85 percent of total revenue. The B.C. government subsidy for 2024 alone is $195.9 million, 45.46 percent. The local government subsidy for 2024 is an additional $111.40 million, 25.79 percent. The revenue offset sum of all subsidies from various levels of government is $307.30 million. That’s 71.15 percent.

B.C. Transit is suffering from poor management that is mostly unaccountable. Increases in ridership numbers are not credible because only 17 transit systems out of 58 transit systems in 51 communities, 29.3 percent, have installed electronic fare collection systems. The ridership numbers projected in the ’23-24 annual service plan report are merely an estimate.

There’s a decrease of $2.94 million year over year in fuel costs. Numbers are not credible either when ridership numbers are estimated going up and fuel costs, unit costs — purchasing expensive RNG, renewable natural gas, and HDRD, hydrogenation-derived renewable diesel — are also going up. Administration cost increases are out of control, 11 percent over budget and a 4.85 percent increase year over year.

How much more of a B.C. government subsidy to B.C. Transit budget for 2024-25 completed and 2025 current…? How much more are you going to give them?

The Chair: Member, I’d remind you that comments are through the Chair, so it would be “to the minister.”

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The government does not provide an operating subsidy to B.C. Transit. What we do is provide an operating grant that is cost-shared with local government, and it is based on the services that local governments want in their community. This year it is increasing because local governments are prepared to pay for more service, and the province will cost-share with them on that provision of that service.

This year, for example, the budget will allow for almost 300,000 hours of increased service in communities that B.C. Transit serves in different parts of the province.

Brent Chapman: Carbon tax revenue of $34.56 million, 8 percent of total revenue in ’23-24, was in excess of ten times the budgeted amount of $3.35 million for 2023-2024. Carbon tax is now, in 2025, rescinded. What is the risk penalty amount in relation to the B.C. Transit budget?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

In fact, there is no impact to the negative. What there is, is a positive impact in the fact that fuel is cheaper for B.C. Transit. There’s no impact in a negative way on their bottom line.

Brent Chapman: Is that all fuels are cheaper or just the RNG fuel or regular fuel for vehicles, buses?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That carbon tax saving would apply to any fuel that carbon tax applies to that B.C. Transit would be using.

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit substitutes renewable natural gas for piped natural gas, by command direction of the minister, to collect carbon credits, which are redeemed for cash. That’s the upside. The downside is that the minister pays 200 to 300 percent more per unit at the time of purchase of RNG. The total net is very negative financially.

RNG and piped natural gas have approximately the same energy. Most corporations do not use RNG because it is financially net negative, but if one is looking for a high ESG rating, this is fantastic.

Is there an economic model that taxpayers are missing for using the RNG fuels?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I thank him for the question.

B.C. Transit uses a variety of fuels within the fleet that they have within the system. The fleet is diversified because there are different fuels out there, and one of the goals, of course, of transit is to meet our carbon reduction targets. Some of that is with renewable natural gas. And that’s part of, I think….

It’s something that government is supportive of. It’s clearly something that is important in terms of transportation emissions. You’re seeing changes and advances in technology. I expect the kinds of fuels that as advances happen, both in terms of the engines that buses have, for example, and the changing in fuel technologies…. You’re going to see greater diversification and differentiation of fuels. It’s part of how B.C. Transit operates in the province and the communities that it serves.

Brent Chapman: Is it cost-effective, though, for paying the bills for the taxpayer? Does that actually work out to their benefit, using these advanced fuels?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As part of a broad fleet diversification within B.C. Transit, I would say the answer to your question is yes, it does.

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit administration costs are out of control, and they increase year over year, ’22 to ’23 to ’24. What is the risk penalty amount in relation to administration costs in relation to the B.C. Transit budget?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell him that operating costs are not out of control. In fact, over the next three years, operating costs are projected to drop from 9.7 percent to 8.3 percent.

I meant admin costs.

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit salaries and wages are also out of control. Actual amounts increased 11.9 percent from 2023-2024. These increases are mainly multiples of the actual inflation rate in Canada. In 2023, Canada’s annual inflation rate was 3.9 percent, while in 2024 it dropped to 2.4 percent. What is the risk penalty amount for this expense category in relation to the B.C. Transit budget?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yeah, compensation has increased, in line with other compensations during that same period. What has also increased, which has led to an increase in salaries overall, has been the increase in service that has also taken place. More buses mean more bus drivers and more mechanics to keep the system running.

It’s obviously a combination of wages, which are negotiated, and increases in service, which means more capacity is required to keep the system running.

Brent Chapman: As wages go up ahead of what inflation is, that’s for the public sector, and I have great respect for the people who do that hard work. But what happens to the private sector, which doesn’t see those same increases, as costs go up because we’re paying more money to public sector employees?

We talk a lot about sustainability. I’m not sure if it is economically sustainable for the average person to keep up with rising fares, part of which is paying those salaries. How can this work?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’d just say this. When it comes to our transit system — which is maintained, for example, by skilled professionals, whether they be bus drivers or mechanics…. Skilled trades, whether they are in the public sector or in the private sector, have all seen significant wage increases in the last number of years, particularly during the high-inflation period that we had a couple of years ago.

[3:45 p.m.]

What we want to ensure is that we’ve got a transit system that operates efficiently. That means having the right people in it, and it means that as we expand service, you’ve got the bus drivers and mechanics required to keep the system running on a proper basis.

Brent Chapman: If I could ask the minister to clarify his comments, is he saying that there’s an overall rise in pay for private sector employees in all sectors? I’m not sure I understand that.

Do people have more money today to spend on transit than they did three years ago? I’m not sure I understand the answer.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: My comments are referring to the skilled tradespeople. You’ve got skilled tradespeople in the transit system. They are skilled tradespeople. You also have skilled tradespeople in the private sector who have been building hospitals, who built the new Pattullo Bridge, for example. Those people have seen good, significant wages. Those are skilled trades, and they are well paid, whether they are in the public system or in the private sector.

Brent Chapman: I think I understand what the minister is saying. But what I’m trying to clarify here is that though we’re talking about tradespeople, and you’re trying to keep a wage comparative or a wage equal…. So as these wages go up, and as we’re doing this, the average person paying a fare — how does that person keep up with these rising payments, costs?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question and understand where he’s coming from.

What I can tell you is that Transit recognizes the importance of fares to people. We know that many people aren’t skilled tradespeople, and they make lower wages. That’s why transit fares in this province have stayed lower than the rate of inflation for the last number of years. They have not risen at the rate of inflation, and that assists people in terms of affordability.

Brent Chapman: It is heartwarming for people who are trying to pay their way to know that the minister does…. There is a concern about them trying to keep up as things get more and more expensive. The bus becomes something that…. For many people now, it becomes their only mode of transportation. I appreciate that.

I would say, though, to the minister that the community benefit jobs are union, not private. What happens to the private sector members who are tradespeople that are excluded? What happens to them when it comes to this?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member: could you clarify?

[3:50 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: My point was that the private sector unions don’t get a chance at these high-paying jobs or these well-paid jobs. Is there any interest in the government in working on that and addressing that?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hopefully, I’m answering the member’s question. Unions, whether they are public or private, negotiate with their employer. The private sector unions are who are building the massive transit infrastructure projects that we’ve got underway in the province right now, such as the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain. You know, it’s all private sector unions building that.

I just want to come back to when we talked about employee compensation. I just refer the member to the budget and fiscal plan for Budget 2025, page 70: “Employee compensation — i.e., aggregate wages, salaries and employees’ social contribution — in B.C. increased by 6.9 percent year to date to September 2024, compared to the same period of 2023. The average hourly wage rate increased by 5.4 percent in 2024 compared to 2023. On average, wages grew faster than the consumer price index in British Columbia, which increased by 2.6 percent in 2024.”

Brent Chapman: Is there any room for private, non-union companies to bid on these projects?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That’s a question that’s more appropriately directed to the Ministry of Infrastructure, which has responsibility for the policy when it comes to what the member is asking about.

[3:55 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: B.C. Transit locations are apparently dangerous places to work. The employee lost-time injury rate was 133 percent overbudget and a 69 percent increase year over year. Can this rate of work-injury increase impact the risk of higher wage settlements?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I would say no. It’s not about wages; it’s about ensuring a safe working place. That’s one of the things WorkSafe and B.C. Transit have to ensure that takes place. If there are safety improvements, then B.C. Transit has to make investments in those safety improvements.

I can tell you that in terms of their baseline, their forecast over the next three years is targeted to be below the ’23-24 baseline in terms of the total recordable injury rate, which is currently 6.7. It is forecast, in ’24-25, to be 5.5; 5.3 in ’25-26; 5.2 in ’26-27; and 5.1 in ’27-28.

The Chair: Members, we are going to take a ten-minute break. Is that okay with you? We will return at 4:10 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Brent Chapman: I ask the minister this question. I mean it respectfully in saying that there’s a hands-off, a space between the minister and TransLink, but you are ultimately responsible. The minister is ultimately responsible for the conduct of TransLink. There’s a board, but at some point the buck stops at the minister’s desk.

What is that point, and how do you deal with that?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The way that TransLink is set up with the Mayors Council, who are elected, and the board, which has 11 members, is the province gets to appoint two members to that board, but we don’t appoint the chair. There’s not a direct ministerial link to the board having to report to me. We have two representatives on there because we are….

It’s a partnership relationship in the sense that we help fund on the capital side. Traditionally, that has been the role that the province has played. When TransLink was originally established, before it became the current formation that it has right now, the responsibility for transit was delegated to local government because they had been asking for it, saying: “Look, this really is a local government service.”

The hospital tax was removed from Metro Vancouver. That was taken over for…. The 40 percent for capital funding was taken over by the province, and then TransLink was set up and the mayors basically had responsibility.

[4:15 p.m.]

Then when Kevin Falcon was minister, he made those changes that created the Mayors Council and the board. Really, the province’s only responsibility at that point was the appointment of two appointees on the board.

Then in terms of the capital side of things, it was…. “Negotiation” is not the right word, but more the prioritizing of infrastructure projects by the mayors, by TransLink. You’re no doubt familiar, you know…. Should it go to Richmond? Should it go to the North Shore? Should it go to Surrey? The province agrees to step in with funding and works with the Mayors Council. The same with the federal government agreeing to also make financial contributions to the building of those infrastructure projects.

That’s really the relationship, as opposed to a formal ministerial — that they have to report to me directly. If I understand your question correctly, for me what’s important is that we are seeing improvements in the system, that they are being responsive to the needs of the public. When I have met with them in the past, and they have raised issues with me…. I said that one of the things that I expect and I want to see…. I will raise things I’m concerned about.

I use the term…. I don’t want to see local government parochialism. My expectation is that TransLink functions in a way that meets the needs of the region. Like, when you’re making decisions, make them in the best interests of the region. I understand that you come…. You’re from Surrey, and I’m from PoCo. We’ll come to the table wanting to make improvements in our communities. But at the same time, my expectation is that you also wear that regional hat and recognize those things around where the population growth is. Where’s the industrial growth taking place? Where are the jobs needed? Where are the needs that need to be met? And try, as much as possible, to make decisions on that basis.

I hope that helps.

Brent Chapman: So would I be safe to say, though…? Is there any time where you would audit any of the board meetings? Would you be able to sit in and find out what’s going on?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If I understood the member’s question correctly, I could show up to any public meeting. A private meeting — I could request to be invited, but I couldn’t just show up.

Brent Chapman: What would be the scenario where he would request to see a meeting? At what point would he finally say: “Okay, I have to understand what’s going on at close quarters”?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

It would be hard to speculate on under what circumstance I would say: “I want to….” I mean, I have met with the board, and I have met with the Mayors Council. I met with the Mayors Council on a number of occasions or a committee of the Mayors Council.

What I want is a good working relationship where if they have issues they want to raise, they are able to do that. That was certainly the case during the development of their investment plan and the issues around funding that they were facing.

Brent Chapman: According to the School of Cities affiliated with the University of Toronto, report in December 2024, transit infrastructure costs in Canada have soared in recent years. The report states that these cost escalations cannot solely be attributed to pandemic-induced inflation.

According to the above-referenced report, in peer countries like Italy, Spain, Turkey and South Korea, the cost per kilometre has been going down, while it has been going up sharply in Canada. When are costs per kilometre going to be trending down as they are in many other countries?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’ll say this. First, in terms of cost increases, I think ours have been in line with what you’re seeing in other parts of North America.

It also depends significantly on the kind of infrastructure that you’re building and investing in, so whether you’re building above grade, building below grade, tunnelling, building a light rail or an elevated SkyTrain system.

It depends on the conditions of the area that you’re living in. It depends on the size of the population and the population you’re having to deal with. It is one thing in a city the size of two million, such as Vancouver, compared to a city of, let’s say, 20 million, like in Istanbul. It depends on the topography. It depends on whether you’re in an earthquake zone. It depends on whether you’re on a floodplain and the kinds of soil conditions that are in place.

Sometimes it depends on what the public wants in terms of…. Sometimes you’ve got to deal with “not in my backyard,” right? There needs to be a different route. That straight line may be the cheapest one, but you get a significant public outcry, and the next thing you know, you’re putting a tunnel through somewhere or going underground.

All of those factors come into play. But in terms of North America, our costs have been pretty in line with other jurisdictions.

[4:25 p.m.]

Brent Chapman: I thank the minister for his fulsome answer.

A one-time block of funding does hit the budget for this fiscal year as part of the operating deficit for TransLink. It’s $500 million. For this one-off funding, where in the estimates pages, which line item, is this?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

We haven’t provided $500 million to TransLink. We provided $312 million to TransLink, and that came from year-end money in last year’s estimates. They got it March 31. It didn’t come out of this year’s fiscal, so it doesn’t impact the fiscal plan for this year.

Brent Chapman: Just because the time was short, I have some other questions that I can forward to the minister, if that’s possible. I thank him very much for his answers and his attention, and also the people who joined him today. Thank you very much.

I’d like to pass the time over to the member for Langley-Abbotsford.

Harman Bhangu: The George Massey Tunnel replacement has become emblematic of political inconsistency and fiscal mismanagement. In 2017, the B.C. NDP cancelled a nearly shovel-ready $3.5 billion ten-lane bridge project, citing inadequate local consultation. Yet the replacement, a $4.15 billion eight-lane immersed tunnel, was selected despite opposition from some local municipalities. It lacks provision for future SkyTrain integration, unlike the original bridge plan.

Construction of a new tunnel is delayed until 2026. With completion anticipated in 2030, the project remains without environmental approval, and the province has yet to provide a cost update since the $4.15 billion estimate was established in 2020-2021.

Compounding concerns, the federal minister, Carla Qualtrough, revealed in March 2025 that the province declined hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for the tunnel replacement, a fact not previously disclosed to the public.

The government’s rationale for cancelling the original bridge — cost and consultation — has not held up. British Columbians now face a higher expense for delayed projects, fewer lanes and a lack of rapid transit capacity. It proceeds with a legislative approach that now seeks to bypass community consultation altogether.

[4:30 p.m.]

How can the minister reconcile this decision to cancel the bridge, in the name of mayoral consultation, with the government’s recent pattern of overriding municipalities’ housing and policing and now introducing legislation that would significantly expand provincial powers over local infrastructure planning?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

The government made the decision on building the tunnel because that’s what the region wanted. The minister at the time, Minister Trevena, worked with the regional governments to determine what was in their best interest. What did they want built? It was the tunnel, and that’s what’s being built.

Harman Bhangu: If the Massey bridge was cancelled in the name of consultation, how does the minister respond to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and UBCM, which now say that the government’s new legislative approach bypasses them?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

We have been working with all 25 nations that have an interest in the project, and we are absolutely following our responsibilities that we have under DRIPA and the legislation. The fact that we are working with those 25 First Nations is an indication of that commitment.

Harman Bhangu: Well, the Tsawwassen First Nation Chief, Ken Baird, opposed the tunnel, just to clarify that.

If the NDP cancelled the bridge, citing a lack of mayoral consultation, how does the minister justify supporting a government approach that now seeks to give cabinet sweeping authority to override local governments? Also, what mayor had any engineering background?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I recently met with the Chief and the Tsawwassen First Nation, and they are supportive of the tunnel. That’s a fact.

Regarding the member’s comments about what mayor is an engineer, I’d say this. Mayors make the decisions around the kinds of projects they want to see and assess the needs in their communities. They hire the professional staff who know how to build the projects and what the right projects are to have.

There’s no requirement to be a professional engineer to be a mayor in order to make a decision whether you should build a tunnel or a bridge. In the same way, there’s no requirement to be a farmer in order to be a mayor to make a decision on ensuring that agricultural land gets protected.

Harman Bhangu: Well, common sense would tell you, if you are actually in the industry, a tunnel when there is a…. You can’t put through flammable goods. Dangerous goods can’t be transferred through a tunnel. Having farming communities in Richmond and Delta, you would think you would have access for oversized farm vehicles, instead of going down the 99, catching the 91 just to get to Richmond. There are a lot of inconsistencies there.

My question: what is the estimated cost of delay between the 2017 bridge cancellation and the projected 2030 tunnel completion, including congestion costs, emissions and lost productivity?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We are building the right project, that is approved, was requested by the region. It will be to the right heights, the right lane widths, the right everything. It will, unlike the current tunnel, be able to take the kinds of materials that the member said could not go through a tunnel. The tunnel will be built to the standards that do allow for that to take place.

Harman Bhangu: My question is: how will the ministry measure success or failure for the tunnel project, given that it costs more, takes longer and delivers less than the bridge it replaced?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I would say that success is going to be judged by a number of factors. The economic development that it will help spur in terms of being able to get goods moved to the ports faster is a success. The fact that it will be seismically safe is a success. The fact that they will be training all kinds of apprentices on its construction make it a success.

The fact that it will have dedicated transit lanes will make it a success. The fact that it has a multi-use pathway so that people can ride a bike or can walk will make it a success. The fact that it will be part of an integrated transportation network in the Lower Mainland that will result in significant improvements will make it a success.

All of those factors mean that this project will be a success.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: can the minister explain why, nearly eight years later, construction on the replacement tunnel is still not started and the environmental assessment has yet to be submitted?

Also, the minister earlier on said: “You need to know where the roads are going in order to actually build jobs, and you may have to bend and go different ways.” Then why have they started on the Steveston interchange? Right now there’s no environmental assessment that’s been approved.

So you don’t know where the tunnel’s actually going to be, the tube’s going to sit. But you’re already starting on the other. Common sense, once again, says this is not feasible for actually building the projects that you like.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for the question. I’ll make a couple of observations for the member.

First, are we working very closely with the First Nations involved, along with the environmental assessment office, on the environmental assessment? That’s underway.

Second, in terms of the interchange, the contractors are working closely with the design of the tunnel to ensure that the two, in fact, fit together. It’s by making sure those two components are working together, the tunnel and the interchange, that is ensuring that it will work the way that it’s supposed to. And that’s the right approach. That, in my view, is the commonsense approach.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, if you wouldn’t mind, Member. Thank you so much.

Harman Bhangu: I’m going on a preamble right now, so….

The Chair: No, you’re not, not without going through the Chair. Thank you.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you. Okay.

To the minister through the Chair, will the minister confirm that the federal government offered hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the Fraser River tunnel project and that his government rejected it before the 2024 provincial election?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, this ministry never received anything.

Harman Bhangu: Well, Carla Qualtrough has something different to say there.

My question to the minister: given that Metro Vancouver board endorsed the eight-lane immersed tunnel option in 2019, why did it take until August 2021 for the province to approve a business case?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The business case is on the website. Once you start in 2019, this is a very complex project. A significant amount of work goes into making that business case, and the business case is on the website for anyone to go and see.

Harman Bhangu: How much in provincial funding has now been spent on the planning, engagement, corridor improvements and pre-construction for the tunnel project since 2017?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: So $302 million has been spent today on everything.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister provide a full accounting of how much was lost or written off from the cancellation of the bridge, including compensation to bidders, land procurement, B.C. Hydro work and engineering?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ll get back to you with that number.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. I’ll be looking forward to it.

My question to the minister: what legal liabilities or cost exposures would municipalities face if the cabinet were to override the regulatory process using new provincial authorities? And will the province indemnify local governments if those intervene, lead to errors or financial risk…?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just a clarification question. Is the member referring to the new infrastructure legislation that’s currently under debate?

Harman Bhangu: Yes, I would be, actually.

The Chair: If I may, Minister, please.

For the clarification of members, discussing legislation or the need for legislation is not in the purview of the Committee of Supply. This piece is still before the House. Thank you very much.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: will the minister commit to releasing all correspondence between the province and federal government related to funding discussions for the tunnel project including the period prior to the 2024 election?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

That’s not a question that I can say yes or no to. That’s what the FOI process is for, and that’s what it would have to go through.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: how was the Fraser River tunnel project budget locked in at $4.15 billion in 2021 despite rising inflation? Has that figure been revised internally since procurement began? Will the cost rise above $5 billion or $6 billion?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

Right now what’s taking place is the design work in collaboration with the design builder and the ministry, refining the decision, and to work towards an agreed-upon price, with the design builder working closely with the ministry to look at the most efficient way of construction taking place, which will result in the best price for the province.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to pass it off to my colleague from Delta South.

Ian Paton: I’ll start with two or three questions on the George Massey Tunnel replacement.

First of all, with the original George Massey Tunnel replacement with the bridge, under the past government, there would be an exit coming out of the tunnel going into Ladner on River Road.

There was also a plan to have a second exit out of Ladner on River Road which would go under the bridge and come out by the new RiverHouse Restaurant and marina and then come out by the new casino so that people could exit Ladner from that general area and get onto Highway 99 and into the new tunnel.

[5:00 p.m.]

My question to the minister is: is this still in the plans for the tunnel replacement, to have a second exit out of Ladner?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I know the site the member is talking about because I was out there not too long ago. It’s not currently within the scope of the project, but that does not preclude it from being part of the project in the future.

The one thing I will say, though…. I’m sure the member is aware of it. I have started receiving correspondence from the residents who live along the water — I think it’s called Riverwoods — who are not happy with the idea of an exit going basically around their backyard. I’ve been receiving quite a bit of correspondence from them on that. As I said, at the current time, it’s not in the scope of the project, but that does not preclude it from being there in the future.

Ian Paton: On the topic of Riverwoods, I’ve lived there my whole life. My dad used to pull out of the visor a stub of tickets to pay a toll to go through the George Massey Tunnel when I was a kid.

As we know now, as you approach the tunnel, you have to go over a bridge over Deas Slough before you get into the tunnel. On the right-hand side is a housing development called Riverwoods, which is basically right next to the highway now as you enter the tunnel. On the other side is a farmer named Harry Hogler with Richmond Country Farms.

Now, if the new tunnel is going to be roughly 60 metres upstream from the existing tunnel to the northeast, of course, how much of the Riverwoods housing project will have to be demolished to make way for the entrance to the new tunnel, and how much farmland from Mr. Hogler is going to be displaced?

He has a complete vegetable-growing farm on the other side and a winery. He’s actually planted grapes on the other side. If you come out of the new tunnel…. Every time I go through there, I go: “This is going to wipe out a good portion of Mr. Hogler’s Richmond Country Farms.”

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

We are aware of the situation that you’re talking about. The ministry has been reaching out and meeting with Mr. Hogler as recently as April 14. We know there will be some impact, so we’re working with him on that. Much will depend on what the final design is.

Ian Paton: I appreciate that answer from the minister.

My next question will be related to the environmental assessment. Maybe we don’t need an environmental assessment anymore, based on Bill 15. I believe that’s going to get rammed through, but that’s neither here nor there.

[5:05 p.m.]

With the bridge project, all pedestals for the bridge would be on land. Nothing would be in the Fraser River. The NDP government is quite concerned about environment and marine life. I always wonder. Back when you decided to go with a tunnel instead of a bridge, why would there not be any sort of consideration for the marine-sensitive environment of the Fraser River?

Plunking a concrete tube in the bottom of the Fraser River, which might have been fine in 1958…. Nobody cared about salmon and sturgeon in 1958. What would be the rationale for a massive concrete tube in the bottom of the Fraser River in 2030, rather than a bridge?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

That’s why the environmental assessment is underway and is taking place, working closely with the two First Nations, to ensure that there is minimal impact during construction. There is also environmental impact during construction with the bridge as well. Either way, there is an impact, so the assessment is underway to understand what it is and to minimize it.

With the tunnel, once it’s in, that’s it. But with the bridge, there continues to be environmental impacts from shading on the river, which can be significant; noise; things that fall off; in particular, birds as well — all of those things. Everything has an environmental impact in that way. But the tunnel being done with the work that’s underway has minimal impact compared to the bridge.

Ian Paton: One of the reasons not to build a bridge, and I find this laughable, is shading on the people on the west side of the bridge. There’s literally hundreds, if not thousands, of bridges all over British Columbia going over our waterways, and I think there’s only one tunnel that I know of in all of British Columbia, and that’s the George Massey Tunnel.

I’m wondering why so many bridges are popular and obviously create some shading but with this particular one, the shading is going to be devastating to the people that moved into the Captain’s Cove area.

My next question would be regarding Deas Island, which is a metro park, and it’s very beloved to the people not only of Delta but people that come out to walk. There are actually horse-riding trails in Deas Island Park. There’s a Deas Island rowing club. There are barbecues. There are picnic tables.

I know that a good portion of Deas Island Park, because of the construction of this tunnel, will be devastated with clearcutting of the trees to act as a staging area for all the equipment, not to mention 40 acres of potato-growing farmland right next to the casino.

[5:10 p.m.]

The owners have been approached by the tunnel people to use that as a staging area for equipment, to cover potato-growing land with gravel to act as a staging area for huge equipment, the concrete tubes, all those different things.

My question to the minister is: how much actual farmland and Deas Island Park will be destroyed by the tunnel project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member. I appreciate the question.

The member is right. On Deas Island, there will be trees cut down. But at the same time, when it’s finished, it will be restored. That will be part and parcel of the project.

In terms of the potato farm the member talked about — I think the member said 40 acres; in fact, it is 11 acres — that, too, will be restored after the project is completed, as part of that. That will be one of the requirements.

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

If we look back at the black-and-white footage, the filming of the building of the George Massey Tunnel in 1957, it’s quite amazing. I can almost see the look on the engineers’ faces, going, “My god, we’ll never do this again,” because of freshet, because of tides going up and down, because of marine traffic in the river — which had very little marine traffic in 1957.

Now there’s massive marine traffic up and down that river. I’m not sure how you’re going to do this tunnel with the amount of marine traffic, with ships going up and down, bringing cars, lumber and grain up the Fraser River.

Maybe two more questions, if you don’t mind, Madam Chair.

In 1957, there was created an artificial dugout of a staging area on the Steveston side, which is now used as a maintenance area for B.C. Ferries. It’s a big dugout area. That was the staging area for the massive concrete tubes to be taken by barge and floated down into the river. That’s not going to be used for this tunnel project. Where will the main staging area for all the tunnel components be for this particular project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There’s a location right by Steveston Harbour.

Ian Paton: Steveston Harbour? That’s seven kilometres downstream.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just to clarify, the temporary storage is in the Steveston Harbour area, but the casting will take place at the south end of the tunnel.

[5:15 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Okay, thank you. We’re getting a few answers, which is appreciated. Perhaps one more.

I received an anonymous letter through my mail slot of my office in Ladner from a gentleman that said he was very plugged in with the Pomerleau company. That’s the main contractor for the tunnel. In his words — it’s on my phone, and I can’t look at my phone — the testing phase is causing a great deal of struggling for this company to try and figure out how they’re going to actually go ahead and put this tunnel in.

So I guess my wrap-up question, based on this, is: why would it be that…? I was elected here in 2017, and shortly after that, the bridge project was killed. The Metro Vancouver mayors…. I was there at Mr. Harvie’s task force with the Metro Vancouver mayors, where the province said: “You guys decide. Do you want a tunnel, or do you want a bridge?” And they all decided — except for Ken Baird, the Chief of Tsawwassen First Nation — that they wanted a tunnel.

My final question is: why has it taken since 2017 to move forward and get this tunnel built when nothing’s happened? I drive through there several times a week, and I don’t see an excavator. I don’t see a bulldozer. I don’t see anything happening.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I can assure the member that there is a lot of work that has been underway. The Steveston interchange, for example, is part of the overall plan on that area. I expect construction will start in 2026, in terms of what the member is looking for — bulldozers, diggers, those kinds of things.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Exactly, the good stuff. But in the meantime, there is a lot of work that is underway so that we can have construction starting in 2026.

Ian Paton: Can I get invited to the opening?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Absolutely.

Harman Bhangu: All right, let’s change things up and give the Interior a little bit of love here.

Can the minister confirm the province currently has no plans to build a second bridge over the Okanagan Lake?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. We’ve been working with the communities in the Central Okanagan, and their priority has been improving the road network and transit in the area. That’s the priority that they’ve been focusing on and that we’ve been focusing on.

Harman Bhangu: Kelowna’s population is growing rapidly. Congestion on the current bridge is worsening. A lot of freight has moved through there to connect communities, get them essential goods that they really need.

My question. Would the minister commit to paving the 201 to provide a secondary route in case of a landslide and other issues that Kelowna residents face to ensure a safe route? That’s the emergency route.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

What I can tell him at this point is that the focus has been very much on improving the stability and reliability of the Highway 97 corridor. There’s been about $120 million in geotech and stabilization at the North Beach slide; $70 million has been spent to date, and there’s another $50 million that is pending.

Once that is complete, then there’ll be further geotechnical assessment on the rest of the corridor to determine what other areas need attention. That’s been the focus of the ministry at this point.

Harman Bhangu: Just to give you a little insight, I’ve been paving for the last 15 years, very well-versed. That project, if you jumped on it right now, would cost you $10 million to $12 million. You kick that buck down the road, and it’s going to skyrocket. So just a little heads-up there.

I want to shift things over to the Keating crossing flyover, $75.6 million budgeted, with a target completion of fall 2025. Can the minister confirm this project is still on track, on budget, for completion in the fall of 2025?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: On time, on budget.

Harman Bhangu: That is great news, Minister.

Let’s jump over to the Broadway subway, a budget of $2.954 billion, with an expected completion date of fall 2027. This is two years behind schedule and $127 million over budget. Spending as of February 2025, project was at $1.8 billion. Can the minister explain why this project is two years behind schedule?

Related to the project, can the minister provide an outline of progress towards the idea of extending the line to UBC? What steps have been taken? Very preliminary budget costing, any information on that proposal that the ministry has.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

I’ll do the UBCx one first. There are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration on that. One is the complexity of the project because of all the different…. There are the interests of UBC. There are the interests of MST. All those things need to be taken….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Exactly. All of those things. As well, a project on this size and this scale is the federal government being involved in terms of…. It’s a big, expensive project. We will expect and want a big contribution from the feds to make it happen. Those are the issues around that.

[5:30 p.m.]

In terms of the Broadway extension project, the issues, in terms of delay: slower-than-expected boring through the earth and the station construction associated with that boring through the earth.

Harman Bhangu: With the impact on the budget and running several jobs, what impact has this had on workers being tied up with other projects?

For example, if there are a lot of these major infrastructure projects, then there’s only a certain amount of boring companies. There’s only a certain amount of people that can do pile driving. There’s certain limited workforce in the construction sector.

What kind of impact is running all these jobs at once, which are all incomplete as of right now….? What impact has that had on the labour workforce, especially with the community benefits agreement and also the PLA? Only certain workforces can work on these jobs. What kind of impact has that had on the inflation and cost overruns and the time that it’s taken to complete these projects?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

It has not had a significant impact on the construction projects that we’ve had underway. For example, on the Broadway extension project, the costs for the project have only increased 4 percent since 2018.

Harman Bhangu: The Broadway project. If you actually did a little bit of research…. You guys were scrambling for trucks a couple years ago. There were trips that were usually done in eight hours. The union, teams 2 and 3, had to overpay for those truckers to come to that work because everyone was working at other jobs as well. I’ve got a little bit of insight there.

I want to move over to the expansion to UBC. There are students here, kids. Cost of living is through the roof. Even getting a post-secondary education for kids seems out of grasp.

My question: is there currently any expectation to include extension to UBC in the three-year fiscal plan?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As I mentioned in the previous question, all the different interests that are involved in this, this is also…. One of the key important players in this project is the Mayors Council. In their ten-year plan, they see this project coming in the second half, so not in the first five years but in the five years after that.

Harman Bhangu: I will switch things up to the Kicking Horse Canyon, phase 4, $151 million budget. My question: can the minister provide an explanation for the $151 million cost overrun on this project?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth:What the member is talking about is the 2016 business case. And then after that, there was the engineering design, and geotechnical work in depth took place. That came back and showed that there was a need to increase, so there was a second business case that was done in 2019 that resulted in the approved budget of $601 million.

That was the final cost of the project if it was brought in on time and on that budget that was revised after a thorough understanding of the geotechnical work that was required.

Harman Bhangu: I’ll move over to the Jumping Creek to MacDonald snowshed in procurement, currently scheduled to be complete in spring 2028. The original target was 2027.

My question to the minister. The ministry will be using a CBA for this project. It is associated with a higher cost of construction. Can the minister provide any insight to why the target of the year of completion was pushed back? Was it due to having a certain workforce that you would have to use?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Late 2027 is still our expectation.

[5:40 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: That’s great to hear. And now I’d like to…. The Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, Second Narrows Crossing. Traffic on the Ironworkers Bridge is currently a huge issue, with cars backing up for most of the day.

My question to the minister: what is the minister’s plan to address the issue?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member for the question.

We’re currently undertaking a high-level planning study of the bridge and the immediate environs of it. That will be complete later this year.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you for that.

What is the current status of the proposal to convert the through lane to Dollarton Highway into the second merge lane onto the bridge?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

We are currently working with TransLink, the district of North Vancouver and the board to come up with an option that everybody is comfortable with.

Harman Bhangu: There are also concerns about safety and escalating maintenance cost. In 2023, the prior Minister of Transportation raised the possibility of replacing the bridge.

My question to the minister: is this something the minister is considering?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. That’s why we are doing that high-level planning study. What are the long-term solutions for that crossing? I can tell you that that crossing is inspected on a regular basis to ensure its safety.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to pass it over to my colleague from Courtenay-Comox.

Brennan Day: Minister, it’s good to see you today.

I just have a couple of quick questions about my riding and some critical infrastructure that we’re struggling with. I know priorities are an issue with this current budget.

The ministry-owned 17th Street bridge in Courtenay is rapidly becoming a critical transportation concern in the Comox Valley.

[5:45 p.m.]

We’ve seen explosive growth in that area, as you are probably well aware, and it has well outpaced the design capacity of that raising bridge, not necessarily the four lanes but the interchanges on both sides of the bridge.

More concerning…. Having conversations with your amazing staff in the valley — by the way, kudos to all of them — and the road maintenance contractors, they’ve confirmed that that structure is no longer serviceable as a raising bridge and that spare parts are no longer available should they require replacement.

The use upstream has changed. That’s a federal issue, and that’s why the bridge was designed that way in the first place. So I’ll preface it with that. That probably needs some investigation from your ministry — an opportunity to collaborate — to see if we need to replace it with such an expensive structure.

Could you confirm whether funding for the bridge replacement or interchange upgrades has been allocated in the current fiscal plan? If not, could the minister outline what planning or engineering work is underway to ensure that that vital corridor doesn’t become a single point of failure in our regional system?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

I can let the member know that repairs have just taken place to the structure that he’s talking about, and we are, in fact, able to maintain that. For the longer term, we’re also in the initial stages of options for that area, for the structure and the interchange around it, in terms of what the long-term solutions are.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister. I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to….

The Chair: Remembering to speak through the Chair, please.

Brennan Day: Sorry, Chair.

To the minister: if you get the opportunity to look at the RoadRunner software view — that’s what Mainroad currently uses; I think it’s pretty standardized — of Courtenay and Comox, you’ll notice some extremely concerning ministry-maintained transportation corridors that stand out.

We have a unique situation in the Comox Valley, where we’ve got Comox, Courtenay, Cumberland, the regional district and KFN land, and we have disjointed chunks of ministry road spread out across the valley. I live on one, so I can attest to the state of the roads. Could you please confirm what’s being done to identify those roadways for upgrades? Could you confirm, in this budget, if there is any funding for upgrades on any secondary roads in the Comox Valley?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member.

I can give the names of two projects, and local staff will be happy to meet with you and brief you further on them.

One is the Nordic Drive resurfacing, Raven Lodge to Strathcona Parkway; the other is the Strathcona Parkway resurfacing, 3½ kilometres to Salt Shed Road — with a value of $3 million and $6.4 million for those two projects.

If you want an update from the local staff, we can arrange that.

Brennan Day: Mount Washington will be very pleased to hear that.

This is a more broad question to the ministry on forward planning. The highway maintenance contracts are delivered for long periods of time; I believe ten years is the current standard. You’re using the same contract template across the province for every region.

That makes sense in some cases, but there are some very glaring examples, especially here on the Island, where we have extremely different climatic and growing conditions than some of the other areas of the province, especially when it comes to the ditching budget and the culvert budget.

Those two concerns here on the Island mean that our maintenance contractors here are constantly asking for emergency funding to do those replacements. At the current budgeted rate of culverts, with what’s in those contracts, it would take 62 years for them to actually replace the full slate, just in my one riding, on ministry-maintained roads.

Can the minister advise if there is any plan, going forward, to look at more specifically tailored highway maintenance contracts that better reflect the actual conditions on the ground, rather than a blank template?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for the question.

Yes, there are template contracts, but they’re not identical template contracts. They do take local changes into account. That’s done in consultation with the communities in the service areas that the contract is for.

Specifically as it relates to culverts, there is a separate fund, now at record levels, which they are able to access to be able to deal with culvert issues, such as the kind that you are mentioning. That is a separate fund from the contract itself.

Harman Bhangu: To the minister, what mechanisms currently exist for the ministry to hold private contractors accountable for their service proposals? Does the change from highway maintenance contracts to highway maintenance agreements affect the ministry enforcement of service proposals?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Could you repeat the question?

Harman Bhangu: Yeah. What mechanisms currently exist for the ministry to hold private contractors accountable for their service proposals? Does the change from highway maintenance contracts to highway maintenance agreements affect ministry enforcement to these service proposals?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve got an extensive auditing and monitoring process to ensure that the contracts are meeting the standards and specifications required on the end contract.

Harman Bhangu: Are there any firm requirements from the ministry that private contractors regularly report on the bare-and-black status of secondary routes and school bus routes in their service area during winter conditions? And are there any firm requirements for regular work reports to be issued by private contractors to the ministry?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Contractors are required to report on their work that they complete monthly.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to switch things over to the Pattullo Bridge. The Pattullo Bridge replacement project, initially budgeted at $1.377 billion, has escalated to $1.637 billion and is now slated to open in late 2025, two years behind schedule. Despite the increased costs, the new bridge will remain the same four-lane capacity as its 1937 predecessor — that’s right, 1937 — offering no immediate expansion to six lanes. Although designed for potential widening, there is currently no commitment, timeline or funding allocated for such an upgrade.

This situation mirrors the government’s approach to the George Massey crossing. A previously planned ten-lane, SkyTrain-compatible bridge was cancelled in favour of an eight-lane, immersible tunnel lacking rail integration. The original bridge plan included provisions for future SkyTrain expansion, which the new tunnel does not accommodate.

Critics argue that these decisions reflect a pattern of underbuilding infrastructure, potentially hindering the region’s ability to meet future transportation demands. In contrast, past projects like six-lane Alex Fraser and a ten-lane Port Mann were designed with foresight to accommodate long-term growth.

My question to the minister. Can the minister confirm that the Pattullo Bridge replacement project budget has now increased from $1.377 billion to $1.637 billion and explain why this 20 percent cost increase was not disclosed sooner?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

The contract on the budget and the delay are directly related to the pandemic, but the bridge itself, the decisions around the bridge are…. That’s where, again, the region, Metro Vancouver, was wanting the four lanes and then the ability to expand later. There are a number of significant other works that would have to take place to expand it to what the member is talking about.

That being said, I would like to point out that the bridge is far bigger in its capacity than the existing Pattullo Bridge that was built in 1937, which would be the same year that my late father was born. I recently stood on the deck of the new Pattullo Bridge, and it is one impressive bridge. There are the lanes going one way, and there are the lanes going the other. I’m just standing on…. One lane on the right side is bigger than both sides of that existing bridge.

You realize just how small that existing Pattullo Bridge is and how big and how much of an improvement the new bridge will be, not only in its capacity but also in its safety and its design and the ability for pedestrians and cyclists to be able to use the bridge as well, in a way that they just can’t on the existing Pattullo Bridge.

Harman Bhangu: The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, you’re replacing a four-lane bridge with four lanes, so as massive as it is, in practicality for British Columbians, for truckers and workers and businesses, it doesn’t improve anything at all.

My question to the minister: has the minister or the cabinet been briefed on any early signs of the project that can risk pushing the final budget over $2 billion before the completion?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The answer is no. I will also tell you that motorists, truckers, everybody is going to find the new Pattullo Bridge a thousand times better than the existing Pattullo Bridge.

Harman Bhangu: I understand they’ll find it a thousand times better, but it’s still going to take them the same time to complete their trips. As a trucker, it doesn’t speed anything up just because the bridge looks nicer. It’s the feasibility of the bridge — two lanes one way, two lanes the other way. It’s not going to help truckers get to their destination sooner, bring down the cost of product and construction.

That’s another thing. That route is used for constructing other projects, goods that move from Surrey to the New West side and others.

My question: why did the government approve a replacement bridge with only four lanes despite the original bridge opening in 1937 with the same four lanes?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I answered that just a moment ago. That’s the bridge in the region.

I’ll just reiterate. This bridge: the lanes are wide; they are safer. The trucks will not be taking up two lanes like they do right now. You will not be stuck behind cars that are terrified and scared of trucks coming the other way or the fact that the lanes are too narrow. All of those things are going to disappear, which will make for a smoother flow of traffic, which will make it more efficient.

[6:05 p.m.]

As I told the member a moment ago, the bridge is designed the way it is because it fits into the road network that’s in place. That’s what Metro has wanted at this point. It has the capacity to be expanded, and I expect at some future time it will be. But it’s going to open later this year, and it’s going to be a vast improvement over what’s there now.

Harman Bhangu: Well, that actually went to my next question that I was going to ask. Can the minister confirm whether the new Pattullo Bridge is still on track to open in fall of 2025? If not, when will the revised opening date be communicated publicly? There are questions it may not.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We are confident it is the fall of this year, in 2025, and I am looking forward to the opening.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: is the minister aware of any regional or intermunicipal opposition to building the bridge with six lanes from the start?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As in every project, local governments have differing opinions, and I’m very much aware…. It’s no secret that the city of Surrey and the city of New Westminster had differing views on the bridge and have done ever since it was talked about. At the end of the day, the region made a decision.

Harman Bhangu: Were there any talks about having a different type of bridge with outside lanes? Like Golden Ears — they have the main ones, and then they have the other ones that flow over to other ways you can connect.

Right now I look at the proposal and how that bridge is built. Were there any talks about having a lane that can cut right onto Brunette instead of having to get down onto Columbia to get onto Brunette? Were there any talks of anything like that?

I’ll tell you one thing: truckers would be absolutely ecstatic if any of this, Minister….

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I can tell the member that literally every combination and option was looked at by TransLink and the region on that crossing.

I can tell you, as someone who has lived in that area since 1969 and has watched it change, that it is a very complex area. You’ve got the railway right of way. You’ve got closeness to the river. You come down Columbia, and then you do the turn, and then you’ve got all those businesses that are along there that I still sometimes wonder how….

Absolutely, they did look at all the different things, the different options and the different variations, before they settled on the current configuration.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister is: has the ministry completed any internal modelling on the traffic demand or economic loss due to the decision to not expand six lanes upon opening?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll say this in response to the member’s question. I understand why he’s asking, and I understand that there is that desire for six lanes. But the reality is that at some point in the future, the ability to expand is there. At the same time, that is going to require significant expenditure, even today, in terms of the network that would have to take place to accommodate the six lanes. This is why you know the region did the four at this point, with the ability, in the future, to expand. So that’s how that decision was arrived at.

Harman Bhangu: So now, being that when this project was going on, you had several CBA jobs that were continuously going on, and there’s only a certain amount of trucks available….

I just want to know: can the minister confirm how much additional cost has been attributed to the delivery of the project under the community benefits agreement and whether the use of that model has added delays or procurement complexity?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I don’t think we’re seeing any direct impact in costs to projects under CBA related to trucking.

The Chair: This committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:14 p.m. to 6:24 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re working on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to move over to B.C. Ferries and address that, with the growing population and the missed sailings and everything else.

I just want to talk a little bit about the senior officials first. Can the minister confirm how many senior administration officials are at B.C. Ferries, including presidents, vice-presidents and directors?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

As the member, I know, is aware, B.C. Ferries isn’t a Crown corporation. It’s an independent company, so it’s more than arm’s length from the ministry.

What I will do is endeavour to get that number for the member. I’m going to have to probably write to them to get the information back. But we’ll find a way to get it for you.

Brennan Day: As of a couple of months ago, it was 60 directors and 19 superintendents, an increase of nine directors and two superintendents since 2022. If you could get back to us on the current numbers — we’d love to see those starting to trend down — just to see where they’re going in this time of austerity.

I would like to ask a question, as well, surrounding the marketing strategies of B.C. Ferries and the cost to taxpayers. Currently there are 27 managers in the IT department at B.C. Ferries. More shockingly, because it’s a monopoly, there are six directors and nine managers of marketing at B.C. Ferries — six directors.

I’m just wondering why we’re destination marketing what is effectively a road service and what this portion of the budget for B.C. Ferries is going to be allocated to, marketing something that you don’t have the option to do any other choice.

[6:30 p.m.]

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I thank him for the question.

First, I’ll repeat…. I mean, it is a private company, so a lot of those decisions that the member is talking about are internal decisions made by that private company. It’s not a Crown corporation. But in terms of the cost to the taxpayer from the province, that has not changed in this budget. There is a fee, which we pay for, to maintain minimum service levels. That has not changed.

In terms of rates, that’s set by the ferry commissioner, which is also an independent individual.

Brennan Day: It looks like we’ll be continuing to destination market a monopoly, going forward.

I’ll just point out before I pass it to the member: there are as many directors overseeing marketing at B.C. Ferries as there are overseeing engineering. We’ve got antique boats floating around that are, quite frankly, dangerous and are being replaced.

I’m going to pass it to the member to discuss the issues surrounding the new procurement strategy. I think maybe we’ll have some better progress there.

Harman Bhangu: Before I get into that, I want to talk about some reliability issues.

Now, if you live on the North Shore, you can’t even travel to the Island without making a reservation. So what I want to know is, my question to the minister: how is the ministry addressing concerns about reliability and delays, moving forward?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Whenever there are disruptions like that, that’s not acceptable to the travelling public, and my expectation is that B.C. Ferries works to ensure that that’s not the case. I know that they are looking at that issue in terms of what we’re talking about at Swartz Bay.

But at the same time, for as much as those things are…. They should not happen. We don’t want to see them happen. My expectation is Ferries does everything they can to make sure that they don’t happen. Overall reliability has remained consistent each year, with over 98 percent of sailings delivered in the way that they’re supposed to be.

[6:35 p.m.]

Ian Paton: On B.C. Ferries, I’ve just got a couple of quick questions.

Prior to 2017, with livestock being on and off the ferries.... I’ll quote a livestock hauling company that transported a lot of horses back and forth between the Mainland and Vancouver Island. “A long time ago we would get priority loading of livestock. It didn’t matter what the parking lot looked like. If the ferry was still there, we got on. Now we’re basically just lumber.”

What I’m getting at is that we have show horses, show cattle, sheep and different types of livestock. Especially in the hot months of the year, it’s unfortunate. In the past, they had priority. No matter how full the ferry was going to be, they were able to get onto the ferry with the stock trailer, with the horses on it or the livestock. Now they’re being told to sit for two- or three-sailing waits, in the heat of the summer months, which is completely unfair to livestock.

My question to the minister: can you give any sort of assurances to the farmers and livestock owners on Vancouver Island and the Mainland who have asked me and some of my colleagues to bring this question forward?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Absolutely. I also met with the Cattlemen’s Association on Beef Day. They raised this issue with me. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has also indicated that she is concerned about this.

I know that right now B.C. Ferries does do an online booking that you can do ahead of time to schedule a particular time, but I also know that that does not necessarily work for many farmers.

I’ve committed, along with my colleague, to look into this issue and raise it with Ferries, that this is something that is of concern to farmers. That was raised with me just on Beef Day by the Cattlemen’s Association.

Ian Paton: Great. I appreciate that. We’ll hopefully move forward with that. Especially in emergencies — actually, my brother is a veterinarian; he has an emergency surgical centre in Aldergrove for equine surgery — sometimes these things just happen in an instant, where nobody has time to make reservations.

My second question — this is a bit comical — is to do with priority loading. As MLAs, we have to take B.C. Ferries quite often. I’ll pull up — I’ve got meetings over here, committees and whatever — and I’ll hand this card to the gal in the booth and say: “It’s my MLA card; I would like to get priority loading.”

Sometimes they say: “Oh yeah, no problem, I know all about that.” Ding, ding, ding, and you’re there. Many other times they say: “I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ll have to make a phone call.” This goes on and on.

I’m wondering if B.C. Ferries can instruct their ticketing agents to understand what it is to have an MLA guaranteed-loading card.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: As the member knows, as House Leader, I’m on LAMC, and I will raise that issue with LAMC, which has the ability to do many things.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to the procurement of the new ferries.

My question to the minister: is the contract put in with LMG Marin still, the Norwegian company? Is that issued and tendered? Are they working on delivering the ferries right now?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That is up to the company as a confidential commercial decision. That’s not something that I’m able to talk about. That would be up to B.C. Ferries. That would be up to the CEO to talk about. That’s what I can tell you.

[6:40 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: Well, that’s pretty interesting, because it was really well documented previously.

I got a lot of information on it, actually. Damen shipyards, a Dutch company, was actually going to be working with them. Zinus, a Norwegian company, was supplying the charging solutions. This is all open information you can find online, Minister.

Also, they’re collaborating with various other companies to make this happen. But there is nothing concrete on which company is actually going to be getting the contract, and that is something that is actually a glaring hole in this.

Can you clarify anything on that? I’ve done my research on it.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: You’re talking about the Island class ferries. They have been awarded to Damen.

Harman Bhangu: There are other ones too. I’ll send you a detailed email, and I’ll explain it to you. Maybe we can communicate that way on that.

But I want to get into what the plan is for establishing electrification of the B.C. Ferries fleet. When does the minister expect electrical connections at the ferry terminals to be built? Does the ministry have a detailed timeline or budget for these upgrades?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thanks for the question.

B.C. Ferries is engaged in an electrification program. The Island class are using the hybrid, biodiesel and electric ferries as part of their sustainability initiatives. That’s what they’re investing in as a private company, and we support that initiative that they’ve undertaken.

Harman Bhangu: I just wanted to go back to you saying that it’s a private company. Well, then why are we subsidizing and putting taxpayer dollars into this company when they’re not delivering the results? Maybe it’s something that we should be considering.

Have you considered digging into it? Why are there so many shortfalls and everything? We’re using taxpayer dollars, Minister, to fund this. That is something that glares at me. I understand it’s a private company, but it, technically, has somewhat of a Crown aspect to it. Can you clarify that a bit?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll just go back to my earlier answer. There is that service fee that we pay for minimum service levels on certain routes on the coast, and there are penalties in place if they don’t meet those minimum service requirements.

At the same time, I’ve also made it clear that I expect B.C. Ferries to ensure that that takes place and to seek ways in which they obviously improve service. That being said, as I also mentioned, 98 percent of sailings do go the way that they’re supposed to.

But I also think it’s important. This is definitely…. It is not a Crown corporation. When the structure was set up, it was specifically set up so that it would be a private company, as opposed to being a Crown corporation. That was back, I think, in the early 2000s, when that change took place.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: how many and which vessels are expected to retire once the new four vessels — it was supposed to be five, but now there are four — are brought online, when they will be active? How many of the older ones will be aging and won’t be in service?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s the Alberni, the New West, the Cowichan and the Coquitlam.

[6:50 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I guess there’s no net addition. You’ve got four vessels coming in, and you have four vessels going out. I don’t know how that solves the B.C. Ferries problems, but we’ll move on.

I want to move on to overpass strikes. Has the ministry conducted a jurisdictional comparison of overpass height standards across Canadian provinces to determine B.C.’s infrastructure is aligned with national norms?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for this question.

This is a question that I suspect is near and dear to his heart. It’s near to my heart because, quite frankly, I cannot understand the incompetence of what is taking place when it comes to our overpasses in this province and, in fact, in other jurisdictions across the country. The overpasses are not lowering themselves.

I can tell the member this is an issue that I am seized with. I am in contact with my colleagues in other parts of the country. In particular, we are raising this at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings.

I have met with Dave Earle of the association, and he’s outlined a number of things that he would like to see done. I had said yes to, I think, nearly every action, work being undertaken within my ministry, because, quite frankly, it is just not acceptable what has been taking place.

I want to make sure that there is standardization across the country. I want to make sure that there is reciprocity, too, in terms of punishment — yeah, I’ll say punishment — but also consequences, so that you don’t just cross the border into another province and think you can avoid the damage that you’ve done or the problems that you’ve caused. As you know, right now if an offence takes place, like if you do strike, the entire fleet is suspended while an investigation takes place. That can take several times…. If you’ve got a fleet of 80 trucks, that’s a pretty significant financial penalty.

So absolutely, Member, this is an issue I am seized with. It’s one that I said my ministry is working on, and it’s absolutely one that I’m raising with other provinces.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister: is the ministry keeping any data with these strikes if it’s to do with foreign temporary workers, LMIA permits? Is there anything you’ll rule out for a whistleblower avenue for some of these workers that are being extorted by their carriers, which happens?

I’m from the trucking industry. I’ve seen it firsthand. “Take this load. Otherwise, you lose your job.” Or maybe: “Hey, you’re out of this country.” This is a very real concern. It’s not just a concern for them. It’s a public safety issue that we do need to take seriously.

I would like to ask: would you be willing to actually put together a data program, moving forward, or is there one currently in place? I think this is a very important topic, and this could actually mitigate a lot of the issues that are happening. Being a driver, you go to different areas. There’s different signage in every single town and different requirements. There are bridges that are very low. You’re told to get off. One thing that I’ve seen on the 232 and 216 area is that that overheight flasher is not even active right now.

We can actually mitigate these by putting in an overheight system where it actually senses the truck, shoots out and actually alerts it, tells them to stop.

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question.

We are looking at all kinds of different options in terms of what can be done to reduce those things. In terms of the data, we do keep some data, but I’m certainly open to broadening it to the kinds of questions that the member has just been raising. I’m certainly open to looking at that. Some of it may require cooperation at the federal level, but absolutely, I’m quite open to looking at that.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you very much there.

I’m going to pass it off, Chair, to my fellow colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer: I only have one question to the minister that I didn’t have time for earlier today, and then I would like to be able to hand it over to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.

How are we coming with our mandatory dashcams? You mentioned, if I may, about data collection. We know that the Southern Interior Local Government Association and the B.C. Trucking Association supported my initiative. The UBCM was unanimous in that. We’re coming up to two years now since UBCM unanimously endorsed my motion, and I would like further clarity on when that’s actually going to happen.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There’s work that’s been done by the ministry this past fall. We’re currently working with the B.C. Trucking Association on the issue, and we will have that work finished later this spring, early summer.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.

I would like to yield my time to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: I was wondering if you could explain how companies or contractors like Emil Anderson are compensated for vehicle recoveries.

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The ministry’s maintenance contractors are required to respond to events on the highways. They will provide traffic control, but they’re not required to remove the vehicle. That’s only if there is an abandoned vehicle. The owner is required to remove their vehicle otherwise.

Rosalyn Bird: My understanding is, and I could have the wrong information, that contractors such as Emil Anderson are given a sum of money at the beginning of the fiscal year. If there is a recovery that takes place or needs to take place because it has blocked a highway and is reducing or stopping traffic — one way, partway, both ways, whatever the case may be — that contractor calls the RCMP.

The RCMP will make a call-out to a local towing company. They will show up. They will do a vehicle recovery. They will do a road cleanup, whatever happens to be necessary in order for that traffic to keep going.

I’m curious to know whether or not that is actually the case, if that money is, in fact, awarded to those contractors. If it is awarded, is that on an annual basis, or is that on a contractual basis?

Whether the contracts are one-year terms, three-year terms, five-year terms, that I don’t know. Maybe you could give some insight, also, to that. Is that more clear?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

There’s not a separate pool of money. There is the contract that the maintenance provider gets. Within that overall contract…. Let’s say you’re responsible for a particular area. If there is an accident, a vehicle has blocked the road, what they’re required to do is to keep the road open, to keep traffic flowing.

If there’s a vehicle that’s blocking, it is to just move that vehicle to the side of the road so that traffic is not impeded. If that’s not possible because, let’s say, there’s no shoulder, it’s to move the vehicle to another place where it is possible to move it over. But it is not, for example, to take it to a towing yard.

That’s what they’re required to do.

[7:05 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: I’m going to give a very specific example, and you know exactly which example I’m going to give.

Hypothetically, there was a vehicle, a B-train, that was in an accident, and it precluded traffic from going either direction on a bridge. There was an RCMP call-out. A towing company recovered that vehicle and helped to have the traffic moving.

Who covers the costs of that particular incident? How does the towing company get back the money for that vehicle recovery and keeping that highway safety at its peak and ensuring traffic continues to flow on the highway?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’m going to talk about the hypothetical, but I will also…. I know what the member is talking about. As I said, I’m more than happy to have my staff sit down with you on that particular issue. We will do that, okay?

With the hypothetical issue the member is raising, it would be…. The RCMP sometimes calls out a towing vehicle to move a vehicle, and that’s between the insurance company of the vehicle that has caused the problem and the towing company.

That’s for the hypothetical question you just asked. As I said, I’m happy to sit down with you on the other.

Rosalyn Bird: I just want to clarify. So within those contracts, there is no requirement for that contracting company to pay the towing company for any of the expenses that they may have incurred in order to clear an incident.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That’s correct.

Rosalyn Bird: Can the minister commit to consider working with, at the very least, the Alberta government? You talked earlier about reciprocity between provinces. You know where I’m going with this.

We have some huge challenges in this province. We spoke about them a little bit earlier. We have drivers coming in from out of province, or they are licensed from out of province. They have insurance issues from out of province. They’re causing tremendous damage, and they are making our highways unsafe.

Can the minister commit that this is something that you will seriously consider looking at in the next year?

There are a number of organizations or companies in this province that are struggling financially because of these types of issues, and I would hope that the minister would agree it is not the responsibility of a small mom-and-pop towing operation to pay the expenses to keep our highways safe and our traffic moving.

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I am happy to work with my provincial counterparts. I am happy to work on reciprocity issues, because what you’re describing is actually…. I mean, I know the situation that you’re talking about.

But as a province — and other provinces, I know — we have issues on a range of things. You know, insurance-related traffic tickets, for example. So I’m happy to do that because I know that there has been interest on things from other provincial governments. I’m happy to consider and to work on what you’re talking about.

Rosalyn Bird: On that note, can you explain or help me better understand and others better understand what the relationship is between the Ministry of Transportation, CVSE and ICBC? It crosses over into another ministry, the Solicitor General — road safety.

What does that look like, and what is the ministry doing to help better those relationships so some of these issues can be addressed more proactively or more quickly?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

I’d say this. Yes, there are different aspects of transportation and licensing. ICBC is with PSSG. When I was at PSSG, we had police issuing tickets. We had tables within…. Like, as ministries, we cooperate. We don’t all operate…. We don’t just operate in silos. We cooperate.

A lot of the challenges that you’re talking about, and a lot of challenges that, when I was at PSSG, I faced, are, in fact, interjurisdictional. By that, I mean interprovincial. So it’s a case of us working with our other provincial counterparts on these common jurisdictional that cross provincial boundaries. So things like ticketing, things like what you mentioned about….

You know, you’re from Alberta. Your insurance is in Alberta, or you don’t have it, and that’s where you’re from. The same with, you know, the trucking. We’ve had some progress with Alberta in terms of: “Okay, you’re coming here.” They will investigate that trucking company that’s been hitting overpasses here.

We want more of that, and that’s the kind of work that we are doing more of these days. That’s where the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meetings that happen twice a year are important — to be able to bring these issues together. They then take them into working groups from ministries’ staff within each province. They’ll take a topic, and there’ll be one, two or three provinces that get together. Then we’ll lead some work on that and report back. Then we try and push for changes that we’re all on the same page on.

We’re seeing some standardization taking place, and it is a work in progress. But it’s one of those areas that we are very much trying to ensure happens to solve the kinds of issues that you’ve raised here today.

[7:15 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to appreciate everyone that took the time out to answer these questions that British Columbians want answered. I know it clarifies a lot of things between the opposition and the government. So I want to thank everyone for their time.

I want to thank the minister for coming out here. You know, it’s been great having this conversation. I’d like to have further conversation outside of here. Maybe we can come together and help British Columbians solve some transport issues that are much needed.

Jeremy Valeriote: I thought you might want a short recess, but I’ll jump straight in.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote: Would that help?

The Chair: Sure. We will reconvene at 7:25.

The committee recessed from 7:16 p.m. to 7:27 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the minister. I specified transit and then ferries, but we’ll sandwich a quick Highway 99 question in the middle there.

I’ll start with handyDART, a service used by many residents in greater Victoria unable to access other forms of public transit. Recently many users have been left frustrated and neglected by this necessary service due to difficulties in booking and limited operating times. Users are required to book services over the phone, but some have reported hours-long waits and issues with the requirement to book two weeks in advance. Even with this, many people have been denied trips due to lack of capacity.

B.C. Transit reports that these issues are not due to budget cuts but instead are the result of an excess in hours from last year, allowing extended services at the beginning of 2025. This would suggest that an increase in services is needed, since many were finally satisfied with the level of handyDART operations available during the intervening time.

In the 2025 budget, the government estimates that $19 million is still needed to complete the construction of the new Victoria handyDART centre. This does not address the operational funding gaps currently preventing users from accessing the service. How will the provincial government address the barriers to handyDART access for users who rely on this service?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

What I can tell you, hon. Member, is that overall, in terms of handyDART for B.C. Transit, the funding is increasing by $49 million over three years.

But specifically in the case of Victoria, there will be 7½ thousand hours of new service in the next year and seven new vehicles.

Jeremy Valeriote: A bit of a preamble. Obviously, British Columbians rely on our public transportation system, yet this important service is under constant threat of privatization, budget cuts and reduced services, making it insufficient to meet the needs of the province.

Freedom of mobility is a human right protected under the Charter, and it is the responsibility of governing bodies to uphold this right. Access to our public transit has been dwindling, and British Columbians are looking to the government for answers.

What is the ministry’s plan for the long-term vision of public transportation, and how will they ensure that everyone has equitable access to safe and reliable transportation services?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’m going to ask a quick clarification question to him, but before I do that, I just want to make it…. The $49 million I was referencing was for B.C. Transit as a whole across the province, but within that are the 7,500 hours for handyDART service in Victoria.

Then I just wanted to make sure I’m hearing the member’s question correctly. When he’s talking about — the way he framed the question — public transit and how important it is, are you referring just to B.C. Transit, or are you also including TransLink in that question as well?

Jeremy Valeriote: That would include TransLink.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question because I think we are both on the same page on the importance of public transit, whether in the Lower Mainland, delivered through TransLink, or whether in other parts of the province, through B.C. Transit.

[7:35 p.m.]

We’ve invested, since 2017, more than $11 billion in capital and operating. The recent agreement we’ve reached with TransLink, for example, has seen the province put in a commitment that’s going to allow for further expansion in terms of an increase in service, working with the Mayors Council. in terms of the longer-term sustainable funding solutions for TransLink.

At the same time, recognizing that transit is far more than just the Lower Mainland, and the growth that we are seeing in communities around the province — particularly larger centres, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and smaller communities as well — and the increasing demand from Indigenous communities in terms of having access to transit services. Those are very much part and parcel of the thinking and the work that’s underway within the ministry in terms of future expansion with B.C. Transit.

As the member no doubt knows, that service expansion is cost-shared with the local governments and the province on almost a 50-50 basis, and the increase that we’ve allowed for, which is in the budget for this year, is going to result in service increases in a number of communities across the province.

Jeremy Valeriote: That’s great. Thank you.

I think the supplementary to this is maybe a little more concrete for allocating some of that extra money. If I’ve got my budget numbers correct, $187.7 million in operational budget, representing a $22.3 million increase from the previous year.

How are those additional funds allocated? Will some of it go to the service increase? Is that either through increasing the number of routes or procurement of more transit fleets?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thanks for the question.

The numbers the member was quoting…. Some of that is, obviously, for inflationary pressures. There’s about $15 million there. Some for expansion. Again, the provincial portion being $6 million for our increase in service. And then, obviously, that’s cost-shared with local government in terms of their participation as well.

[7:40 p.m.]

Of course, service expansion obviously requires capital investment. There’s $500 million of the provincial share for capital over the next three years. That will be earmarked for electric buses as well as exchanges and any manner of capital requirements that B.C. Transit and the communities have.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just make sure I heard correctly at the end. But I’ve just got a couple of questions on kind of a broader scale.

As we know, fuel taxes are declining for a number of reasons, particularly the increase in number of EVs. I know that the minister has been asked several times in the House about vehicle levies and mobility pricing.

My question, I guess, is — and that conversation may still be ongoing — if the minister can tell me anything about some of those options and plans, and if not, then maybe: what is the process to arrive at a substitute for fuel taxes that we can take going into the next few decades?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’ll start off by saying that this has been the topic of some conversation both here and in the House. I’ll start by saying that we have made it clear that mobility pricing, road pricing, is not an option. The Mayors Council has made that. We have made that. I said that’s not on the table.

That aside, what I have also said — and this is in the agreement that we have with the Mayors Council and TransLink — is that they receive the $312 million to help with their operating challenges that they’re facing, which will ensure that there are no service cuts but there’s expansion over the next three years.

During that time, we’ve committed to working with them on what alternatives to ensure the long-term operating stability of TransLink would be…. There have been a number of things thrown out there. We will work with them in terms of identifying potential revenue sources, what they would mean, what their impacts are. Are they sustainable? What would they do for TransLink?

The member is quite correct. We are seeing a decline in the fuel tax as people switch to…. You know, this province has the fastest uptake of electric vehicles in the country and one of the fastest uptakes in North America. There’s no sign of that changing.

In fact, my partner and I just got a new vehicle. It is a hybrid, and what I find absolutely amazing is that I’ve now put 1,500 kilometres on it, and I still have half a tank of gas. So it’s got me convinced. Let’s put it that way.

In answer to the question, as I said, it’s like…. Look, we’ve got to work with TransLink on what those solutions are but recognizing that there are some significant shifts taking place within the province and nationally as it relates to the decline in the gas tax and the increase in electric vehicles.

All of this has an impact on TransLink’s operating…. But at the same time, the rise in electric vehicles also means that they don’t pay the gas tax, or very little of the gas tax, yet they still have an impact on our transportation infrastructure.

Jeremy Valeriote: I apologize if it’s in the budget documents, but is it…? Am I not correct that B.C. Hydro levies a rider of some kind on residential billing that does go towards public transit, or is that my mistake?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There is $1.90 a month on all residential hydro bills. It goes to TransLink.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s good to know that EV drivers are actually contributing a small amount. It might diffuse some of that vitriol that EV drivers aren’t contributing at all. I don’t know that $1.90 a month cuts it, but it’s good to know there’s a basis there.

I’ll move on. I just have a question about the medium-term planning process for infrastructure. I believe the minister mentioned $500 million over three years in capital, I think it was. Just a question about planning ahead. I have some communities in my riding that are looking at expansion.

How are decisions about ordering buses made to ensure that routes aren’t waiting for delivery? How does this extend to other facilities, like maintenance facilities and depots, in terms of planning for future expansion?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

B.C. Transit has a planning process around service expansion, working with local communities that are seeking expansion. Part of that process, then, is obviously what’s required. What existing infrastructure is in there? What expansion would need to take place? Does expansion need to take place in terms of the existing facilities to accommodate new service expansion?

[7:50 p.m.]

One of the things that we are having to take into account has been issues around supply chains, particularly when it comes to the delivery of new buses. There has been a reduction in the number of companies that are actually making buses. That has impacted the delivery time and the supply chain issue in terms of securing new vehicles.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move on to the road questions. I’ve got a couple more than I thought, because I’ve got some from my colleague for Saanich North and the Islands. I’ll start with those.

North Saanich and the Gulf Islands have been struggling with road maintenance issues, despite these communities having lower traffic than more urban areas. Cumulative impacts of road use have caused deterioration that continues to go unaddressed, despite many requests.

Can the minister speak to any plans to maintain or fix deteriorating roads, particularly roads with lower volumes that tend to receive less maintenance? I’ll ask too: will the minister assist with funding to repair faded road lines to ensure the safety of Gulf Islands residents?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I will start with the last part of your comments first.

The line-painting is done on a three-year cycle on the Gulf Islands, and the start of the next three-year cycle is this year. They’ll be starting on Salt Spring Island.

In terms of the roads and rehabilitation, we’ve got a record level in the preservation budget — $2 billion over the next three years — and $596 million of that is for side roads, including those that access Indigenous communities in different parts of the province. So there’s a significant amount of investment, on the issue that the member is raising, underway.

[7:55 p.m.]

I failed to mention a specific project in the House Leader’s riding. That is a $22.9 million project on the Fulford-Ganges Road between Seaview and Cranberry Road. The project scope includes widening to accommodate 1.2 metres of paved shoulders on both sides of the project, installing storm drainage infrastructure. The project will be completed by the end of this year.

Jeremy Valeriote: That’s a well-timed question. I appreciate the answer. I’m sure the member will be happy to hear that.

In Saanich, the Highway 17 Keating Cross Road flyover overpass project is intended to allow vehicles to travel more safely and efficiently, set to be completed this fall, but residents have expressed concern over the lack of sufficient planning to serve all modes of transportation.

Earlier this year Central Saanich council passed a motion requesting the province provide the district with a plan for a pedestrian overpass across the highway. Transportation improvement projects need to offer complete solutions for all modes. While the current plan includes a new sidewalk on Keating Cross Road, it’s not enough to provide sufficient space for cyclists and pedestrians.

Can the minister explain how the ministry makes decisions on transportation project scope and why expensive and time-consuming development projects like the Keating Cross Road flyover do not offer solutions for all modes of transport?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

On this particular project, two observations I’ll make. There are going to be widened sidewalks on the project as well as wider shoulders. I think the member is referring to a flyover pedestrian overpass. We are working with the local community in terms of what the best options are in that area.

Jeremy Valeriote: There’s a dire need for continued development on a rapid bus system for the Saanich Peninsula that connects ferries, the airport and Uptown. Can the minister speak to how that work is progressing and what this budget offers to help advance it?

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

In order to get accurate information, I’ll get back to you with the answers to that question.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks. Appreciate that.

So a couple of questions about the Sea to Sky corridor, Highway 99, first dealing with the highway itself. The minister knows roughly $700 million was spent before the Olympics to upgrade the highway. Volume continues to increase. It’s just seeing more traffic.

The biggest concern I hear from constituents is that the highway attracts people who drive fast or joyride, including loud motorcycles. That’s another topic. But when the highway is closed for a very serious incident, it’s often closed for six or eight or ten hours, because they’re waiting for ICARS, the integrated collision analysis and reconstruction services.

Can the minister comment on whether there’s any possible solution to this? It’s obviously a difficult situation. People want to be compassionate for those who are injured or potentially, sometimes, fatalities. At the same time, people are trapped on the highway for six hours, in distress sometimes, in the heat or the cold and/or missing flights. There are many different scenarios.

Is there any discussion? I mean, the ideal would be an ICARS office in Squamish to service this from the other side. Otherwise, they’re coming from the Lower Mainland, which can be a challenge even just to get them there when the highway is closed. Is there any potential solution to this that could be implemented?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I totally get and understand the frustration that people must feel because I have experienced that firsthand. It is very…. You’re right. You have compassion for the person in the accident. But you also understand the frustration of people who are….

Well, maybe I will say it. There are people who are morons on the road. They think that they can do whatever they want and that they have a right to drive as fast as they want, particularly on that highway.

What I can tell you is that this issue is really more belonging in PSSG. It was one I dealt with when I was at PSSG. But I can tell you that my ministry works closely with them on issues such as this. This is something that does concern me. I’m happy to raise the suggestion that you raised with PSSG because I do think there needs to be some way of….

If there is going to be a closure, at least try and lengthen it. And if one of those issues that the member has identified is having to bring people in from other parts of the Lower Mainland, if there’s a way of having something there on the 99, the Sea to Sky…. Let’s see if there are some options that potentially work.

But yeah, I totally agree with the member. It can be incredibly frustrating. I’ll leave it at that.

Jeremy Valeriote: We’ll pass over the question about Sea to Sky public transit, because I notice it’s in the mandate letter, and it’s in our accord between the Third Party and the government. That kind of shorter-term solution will be very welcome, and I’m looking forward to working more on it.

The discussion around that has been buses on the highway, which is a good solution. However, the highway is sometimes congested, so longer term, I’m hoping to keep the rail option on the radar.

I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on the potential of that rail corridor currently leased to CN, very lightly used, formerly B.C. Rail, the whole story. The potential to allow…. There is actually the Rocky Mountaineer, kind of a luxury tourist service. The long-term potential to get the use of that rail for passenger services, especially since it’s…. It is used between Squamish and North Vancouver for freight but otherwise really not very much anymore.

I’m just trying to understand if the minister has any tricks up his sleeve around convincing CN to get involved and help out in that regard.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’ll just say this. Well, I’ll start off by saying that if I had the ability to convince the railway to do something, then I’m pretty sure I could probably solve all the problems of the province and half the problems of the country.

I’ve come to learn that there is the federal government, there is the provincial government, and above them both is the federal Railway Act. The federal Railway Act tends to view both levels of government as an annoyance more than anything else.

[8:10 p.m.]

That being said, I’d love to see rail on that corridor. As you rightly said, it is lightly used. One of the best services that we have out my way is the West Coast Express, which is an amazing service on the CP line. I also know how difficult it was to get that there. That being said, if there is a way or an opportunity, I’d be more than open to seeing how that could happen.

I think a commuter rail service, passenger rail service, would probably be very much a success on that line, particularly up to Whistler. I know there is also that service that goes from Pemberton to Lillooet. The First Nation has…. I’ve met with them because they have been concerned that CN apparently has a responsibility to provide that service and keeps trying to say no, they don’t, when, in fact, they do.

I take the member’s point. I’d love to see it, but I don’t have a magic wand.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just as an aside, I do believe there’s a bus that can travel on the rail tracks around Seton Portage area. That does seem to be supported. I mean, in some of the northern parts of the riding, large trains are not required. But a bus that can travel on the rail is probably appropriate to the population size.

Okay, I will recognize you’ve had some B.C. Ferries questions, and it’s a tricky one. Well, maybe I’ll just start with the structural. I just listened to the mayors of Gibsons and Bowen Island on a CBC radio interview talking about the structural difficulty of various finger-pointing between the B.C. Ferries, B.C. ferries commissioner, B.C. Ferry Authority and perhaps this ministry.

This is a problem that is actually affecting Bowen Island. Well, it’s affecting all the ferry communities. Bowen Island is the one that I hear from.

Big picture. Does the minister have any thoughts about how to increase accountability and responsiveness in this kind of multi-pronged governance structure, which seems to make accountability difficult?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, because I believe that B.C. Ferries should be accountable to the communities it serves. It’s important that they are listening to them and meeting the needs of those communities.

I also recognize, as the member rightly points out, that it is a complex organization. There is the ferry commissioner, who is independent. They are accountable, themselves, in terms of the reports that they give.

[8:15 p.m.]

But what I also want to make sure that B.C. Ferries is doing in terms of accountability is ensuring that the authority and the services board are working in a collaborative fashion and in a collaborative approach to ensure that B.C. Ferries is meeting the needs of its customers and the communities that it serves, of which there are, I think, 47 communities up and down the coast and on Haida Gwaii that that they serve.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll focus on Bowen Island, obviously — part of Metro Vancouver, very close to the Lower Mainland — becoming more and more popular for tourism, both regional and international.

Residents and business owners on Bowen are excited to share their island, but the surge in tourism brings about very challenging pressures on the transportation system. The residents have issues with accessing their home on the island or leaving the island during peak travel. You know, Easter weekend just passed, and we heard quite a bit about it.

I’m actually going to skip the question about increasing ferry services, that there’s one vessel and that the on-time performances have been dipping. But there is one simple solution that is actually fairly cost-effective that’s been proposed. Perhaps the minister has been speaking with the mayor of Bowen Island.

On the Bowen Island Snug Cove terminal, B.C. Ferries staff do not leave the ship, essentially, so the marshalling would have to be done by the municipality, and the cost of that is fairly nominal. They’re in discussions, but this seems like an easy fix.

New ships. Well, Horseshoe Bay terminal is a whole other issue. You know, low six figures to give the municipality opportunity to put a couple of people on the ground to help load and unload boats in a pretty congested harbour in the summer — it does seem reasonable. I’m just wondering whether the minister can provide any comment on the feasibility of that kind of assistance on the Snug Cove side.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If I can get details of the proposal, I’ll get staff to reach out to B.C. Ferries with the proposal and connect with the appropriate individuals in the village of Bowen Island.

Jeremy Valeriote: A question originating from Sidney.

B.C. Ferries gets annual funding from the province to subsidize ferry fares and keep them affordable. Subsidies go to support the minor and northern ferry routes, unless I’m incorrect, not the major routes.

In 2020, B.C. Ferries received $308 million in additional funding from the province and federal government related to COVID. Last year B.C. Ferries was given an additional $500 million to ensure the ferry fare increases could be kept at a reasonable level, within 3 percent. On April 1, 2025, fares increased by 3.2 percent.

Does the ministry anticipate the fare increases will be capped at 3.2 percent as planned, or will there be more taxpayer funding needed to support B.C. Ferries should they need more funding to ensure fares stay within that rate?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question.

The ferries commissioner has ruled on the fare increase, and it is for the full four years. We are not aware of anything over the 3.2 percent.

Jeremy Valeriote: The federal government currently funds B.C. Ferries a small amount each year, approximately $35 million, compared to B.C.’s approximately $195 million. Will the minister or the B.C. government be asking the federal government to increase the subsidy for B.C. Ferries?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, I’d like parity with the Maritimes.

Jeremy Valeriote: Obviously, B.C. is growing quickly as a province. From 2007 to 2022, the population increased by 25 percent, 7 percent higher than the national average.

With this increased population, as we know, comes equally intense growth in our transportation needs. Our climate change accountability report says that transportation accounts for our highest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions and has increased by 18 percent in the last number of years.

How does the ministry plan to address the carbon intensity of our transportation sector? As the population grows, how will the transportation sector look ahead at the projected emissions and actively find solutions to this problem?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I got a new vehicle, and I’m really impressed by the fact that it’s at 1,500 kilometres, and I still have half a tank of gas. Wow.

Within the ministry itself, there are a number of initiatives. Obviously, the big one is public transit and the investments that we make in that. Along with that, active transportation policies and programs get people out of the car, particularly when we’re building infrastructure; charging stations, which the ministry is involved with; and then the heavy vehicle efficiency program.

Those are all some of the responsibilities and roles that the ministry has in dealing with what the member was raising.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just one more, ferries. The minister is probably aware that a company called Greenline Ferries has been getting ready to establish, and then will actually do a trial run of a model ship, an electric passenger ferry.

When I lived on the Sunshine Coast, we worked on this. There have been several passenger ferry operations — Gibsons, Bowen Island to Vancouver — that have started and typically lasted only a year or two, but it is a potential solution to B.C. Ferries. If they can’t buy new ships, it provides alternate service and could actually supplement B.C. Ferries, rather than compete.

Even though this operation does appear quite viable, the reason why it’s challenging is because they typically try and fail. They’re unsubsidized, and especially as fuel prices have gone up, they try and then don’t succeed. People don’t find them reliable. It actually takes a year or two years to develop that full ridership. I believe that in 2016 and ’17, former Minister Trevena did some work on a shorter-term subsidy that would get them up and running, get them to full ridership — at which point, ideally, they’d be self-sufficient.

[8:25 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if this ministry has considered anything in terms of a passenger ferry. I don’t know what the situation is with Hullo ferries going from Nanaimo to Vancouver, but is there any thought of helping with those subsidies for the short term as a complement to vehicle-centric routes, like B.C. Ferries has?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

We don’t have any subsidies in the ministry at this time. That being said, we do see them as part of our transportation network. We have a good relationship with them. We meet with them, with Greenline, on a regular basis, so we are interested in the work they’re doing and their plans for the future.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister.

I’ll suppose that the minister’s car is a plug-in hybrid if he’s got 1,500 kilometres out of half a tank of gas. We have one too. But travelling the Sea to Sky Highway, the battery only goes about 30 kilometres, so they’re ideal in urban locations.

With that, thanks to the minister for his time, and to the staff. Have a lovely evening.

Jordan Kealy: I definitely don’t have a hybrid. I can think of almost about ten vehicles for my farm that are all diesel and are vital to be able to help it operate for my area, along with a lot of the region.

My question for the minister. Public transit is allocated $207.2 million in this year’s estimate, an increase over the previous year’s fiscal year.

Given that increase, how much does the ministry justify ongoing service reductions in rural transit routes? Where is the funding being redirected, and why aren’t underserved regions seeing improvement?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Local transit, B.C. Transit — that’s cost-shared between the province and the local community, the local government. And it’s the local government that decides where the routes are and what routes they want to see in place. The province doesn’t tell them what routes they should have. That’s a decision that’s made by the local government.

Jordan Kealy: Yeah, I’m curious what Greyhound would have thought about that. We kind of saw how that turned out. For rural ridings, it has left a lot of constituents pretty much without a way of getting to help, without a way of getting to a hospital, without a way of getting to family.

I’ve had several constituents reach out in my region, primarily when it comes to a service provided by Cold Shot, out of Alberta. Even though they’re Albertan, they provide rural services into my province, where those services just got cut off.

[8:30 p.m.]

Now, when I talked to the president and the vice-president of this company, their biggest issue that they had when it came to trying to provide the services was that they couldn’t because the tenures that were awarded were prioritized to companies that were large businesses out of the U.S.

My question for the minister is: are we going to take a Team Canada approach that includes B.C. and start looking at awarding contracts within our own country, primarily securing these rural routes that will help all of us seek the care that we need?

Right now these big companies come in, they get the contract, they cut back the rural routes, and they just take the money from the populated areas.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What was the name of the company?

Jordan Kealy: The company’s name is Cold Shot. They provide service throughout Alberta. Primarily, Grande Prairie is a service hub that branches into Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, as well as Fort Nelson. It’s primarily Fort Nelson that is being left out in the cold.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I think the best thing I can say to the member is if the member has contacts with the company and they want to reach out to us, we’re happy to let them know where the opportunities are in terms of providing service or what service opportunities there are, what contracts are coming up.

If the member would provide us the information on that, we’ll be happy to follow up in that way.

Jordan Kealy: I appreciate your answer, and I look forward to that discussion.

Across British Columbia as well as Canada, if we want to start supporting our own infrastructure when it comes to the tenure process and how it’s evaluated and weighted…. Right now a lot of our rural areas and the companies that want to try and service them are not being prioritized that could best service the regions.

[8:35 p.m.]

Can you please walk us through the procurement process and tendering process that could best serve British Columbia and rural areas, that’ll make it so they don’t just get left out in the cold so that then the companies can make the most money possible?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The ministry doesn’t do the tendering directly. It’s done either through B.C. Transit or for non-profits, such as the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

We’re happy to put you in touch with them, in terms of how their procurement processes work so that you’re able to assist — if there are companies in your area that want to try and take advantage of that — to be able to do what you’re wanting to accomplish. I think we all want to see Canadian companies, service providers, prosper and succeed, whether it’s in the North, the Island or every part of the province.

Jordan Kealy: Touching on that, are companies required, in their contract award, to maintain or expand rural service levels?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

In terms of service levels, they’re contracted to provide the service that the local government asks for and pays for. That’s what they are required to do.

Jordan Kealy: What weighting is given to local or provincial bidders in the tendering evaluation process?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

B.C. Transit has its procurement processes, as non-profits have their procurement processes, and they also have to follow trade law. In terms of how they make their decisions, they’ll have their procurement processes, but they also have to make sure that they’re following trade law.

Jordan Kealy: It’s great that you mentioned trade law. In the western free trade agreement, primarily, their evaluation and how they grant tenures have made it systematically, for quite a while now, that local and regional companies that could better represent the regions are not awarded contracts. Instead, it is based on a system that normally prioritizes or grades larger companies and corporations that will fulfil those contracts.

Is there a process in place to make sure that the contracts given out and awarded best serve the rural regions?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

First, I’ll say I’m not aware of any procurement processes that penalize local bidders.

[8:40 p.m.]

What’s crucial in terms of the contracts and how they’re awarded is that the local government or the non-profit that is contracting for the service spells out the terms and conditions in terms of the service that must be provided that’s laid out in the contract that the company who is successful in winning that contract is required to provide.

I would expect, in that procurement process, in those contracts, there obviously would be, my expectation is, penalties if you’re not meeting the service provisions that you’ve contracted to provide.

Jordan Kealy: When it comes to certain agreements, right now the previous company that I mentioned, Cold Shot, from Alberta, which provides service into British Columbia…. They are not through TransLink, and they are also not awarded through NDIT, which I sit on the board of, as well, when it comes to being aware of what they offer.

Right now that service that was being provided…. The disconnect between our province and Alberta is making it so that British Columbians in rural areas do not get the service that they need.

How is it that the minister is going to be able to help out the rural areas that might be in this scenario between the interprovincial process?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I can’t comment on a private company, but what I can tell you in terms of where the province is at and the funding that we are providing in terms of transit service to rural communities, particularly in B.C.’s North…. Since 2021, $13 million has been provided for B.C. North and community shuttles provided by NDIT, who have just announced eight new shuttle programs.

I met recently with the mayor of Fraser Lake, who was extolling how pleased they are with the NDIT shuttle program, and they’re now expanding that to another eight. And B.C. North…. We will continue, in terms of the investment with B.C. Transit, $49 million over the next three years, working with local governments to see service expansion in communities right across the province.

I can tell the member that I know how important that is in terms of communities in his riding but also in the northwest as well — Highway 16, how crucial that is. We are committed to ensuring that we have good transit service.

Jordan Kealy: Is there anything in this budget that protects rural services from being axed after a contract is signed?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve put the additional $49 million for the increase, in terms of transit services, in rural parts and northern parts of the province. I mean, we’ve got B.C. Bus North. There’s the funding from NDIT for the northern community shuttle program.

There’s Northern Health Connections. It’s a bus service to access medical and health services not available. It includes 11 long-distance routes in the North, including from Prince George to Vancouver, three trips a week — then, also, in other parts of the province, outside of the member’s neck of the woods.

We work with local communities to identify the service, and as I said, we enter into the cost-sharing arrangement almost 50-50 with local governments in terms of providing additional service. We are committed to continue doing that, because as I said, we recognize the importance of public transit.

I want to thank the member for raising the issues as he has, particularly as to how they affect his riding, which I know is geographically a pretty big part of the province.

Do you have any more questions?

Jordan Kealy: Yes, I do.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Okay, in which case, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned. Thank you.

The committee rose at 8:47 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, to order.

On clause 17 (continued).

Steve Kooner: All right. I was asking a line of questioning last time in regards to interpretation, and I believe I have one last question on the interpretation section. We did get to 17(2), and we talked…. The whole phrase, I’ll just state it: “The minister charged with the administration of the Transportation Act may disclose personal information for the purposes of this Part.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, we already went through charged. I was given the information for charged and what that means. I believe we went through administration as well, because we had actually addressed it in the previous subclause, 17(1), on the Transportation Act. But what comes next, something that we have not canvassed, is the word “disclose.” “The minister charged with the administration of the Transportation Act may disclose….”

Now, this is a very specific word, so I would like to know from the Attorney General’s department whether this is just an ordinary meaning or if this has a specific legal connotation to it or it’s a word that’s actually taken out of a different statute.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It doesn’t have a particular legal meaning in this bill, but the meaning of the word “disclosure” is…. It’s a well-used term in FOIPPA, so it’s clearly…. There are many provisions of FOIPPA that use the word “disclose” and talk about it in the reference of that, so the language, to be consistent, is included in this bill.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Steve Kooner: I do have questions on this. Before I start, once again, thank you to the Attorney General’s department as well as the Attorney General for answering our questions and for being patient in answering our questions. We appreciate the hard work of the staff from the Attorney General’s department.

The first question for today on clause 18 is this. What legal checks and administrative oversight mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s ability to designate portions of provincial undertakings for tolls and fees under subsection 18(2)(a) is not exercised arbitrarily or inconsistently across different regions of British Columbia?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The context that prevents arbitrariness, as the member is questioning, related to that, is actually the context of the whole bill and all of the powers and the way they are set out. They’re very clear on what they relate to and what they can’t relate to.

With respect to that, the powers to designate provincial undertakings or portions of provincial undertakings for a toll, fee or charge is actually very specific and quite necessary regulatory-making power that allows cabinet to decide which provincial undertaking they would designate, or a portion of it, to apply the toll, fee or charge. So it’s actually a pretty essential component of this whole legislative regime.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for the response. Just a follow-up question to that.

I understand that the cabinet will decide. They will designate the provincial undertaking so that it will be limited in that scope. But what better discretion is there in terms of the cabinet deciding? What sorts of guidelines would they follow in terms of narrowing that scope even more?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Cabinet, like all, in its decision-making, is bound to act in the public interest and would be bound to operate in the context of all the laws of British Columbia, including the constitution. We talked about some of the important ones, like FOIPPA, the Financial Administration Act, any other existing laws, our commitment to DRIPA that is under…. It’s very clearly in our legislative scheme, all of those general laws cabinet would be bound by — and the constitution, which is definitely a clear one.

The overall check and balance for, like anything…. I’m sure the member knows, being a lawyer, this is a judicial review. The check of the exercise of decision-making authority would be the judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Steve Kooner: Going back to my original question, I was talking about the exercise of power, whether it would be arbitrary and inconsistent. But the last phrase that was in that question was: “across different regions of British Columbia.” We did have the critic for municipalities here yesterday, and as this committee could probably see from the concerns of my colleague the member for Fraser-Nicola, there are concerns that the rural communities might be hit a little harder.

I understand there’s a certain regulatory or a certain legal framework on how the cabinet would apply decisions and how they would narrow their decisions accordingly. But what further particular framework is there to kind of make sure that it’s an equal application across the province and certain regions are not singled out and have extra burden?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This piece of legislation, particularly this clause, is designed exactly this way to make sure that cabinet decision-making authority has the flexibility to address regional disparities, to address different impacts.

I just want to start by saying that this is a power that won’t be targeted at British Columbians, and I think we’ve talked about that quite a bit. It’s meant to retaliate, in the context of a trade war, at particular entities, but if there was a regional….

Let’s say, for example, under 18(2)(a), the province has decided to designate a certain portion of a provincial undertaking for a toll, fee and charge. The flexibility of the whole regime makes it so you can make it clear, if there are any unintended impacts or things that you want to mitigate, to the local population and British Columbians — that you would have the tools to do that. It could be by timing, who’s targeted, various things. The goal was to make it and design it in a very flexible way to take into account all of that at the time or before the regulation is made.

Steve Kooner: Just going further on this line of questioning. I get the fact that the intent from the government is not to hit British Columbians with tolls, fees and charges. I get that point. But the fact of the matter is that the tolling, fees and charges will be in British Columbia. It’s for British Columbia.

If it’s for British Columbia, we have British Columbians living in British Columbia. Even if the intent isn’t to hit British Columbians, when you have infrastructure or you have infrastructure to collect tolls, fees and charges, or if you’re doing anything, it will indirectly have some sorts of consequences. British Columbia will be impeded because you’re putting those tools on British Columbian soil.

I understand the point from the government that the intent is not to go after British Columbians. But if you indirectly look at where this application is going to take place, it’s going to be in British Columbia.

Just going to that concern. I get it. I got the answer in terms of how it’s not intended for British Columbians. But what does the Attorney General’s department have to say about these infrastructure tools that will be put on British Columbia? How will they be protected? How will these people be protected, indirectly?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to respectfully disagree with the member’s characterization of this. You actually could very effectively design a regime that doesn’t impact British Columbians at all, and that would be the intent. That’s the reason that it’s set up this way.

If you look at the powers in here, you can define the class of users. You could, for example, define the class of users that you were targeting to be American truck drivers that are licensed that way. You could define the operator or owner of the vehicle or provincial undertaking. You can define the class of users, the registration of the class of vehicle.

It’s actually, as an enabling statute, designed exactly to do what we want it to do, which is to not target British Columbians but target the places that you would want to target the power to — so the tolls, fees or charges. It’s set up to do exactly the opposite, I think, of what the member suggests.

I mean, obviously, none of us in cabinet have legal-making authority in America. We can only do the things that we have legal-making authority to do, which is anything entering our jurisdiction. So in that sense, yes, it would apply in British Columbia, but you can design it to target it to non–British Columbians.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General explain what portion of this section would preclude the imposition of road pricing on British Columbians?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We had a very extensive discussion about this and the wording of the provisions and clauses previously. There was even an amendment moved, and I explained pretty clearly in this discussion and debate why it’s not going to be used against British Columbians and why it’s not specifically worded…. We had this discussion already.

What we’re focused on with clause 18 is regulatory-making powers. If there was ever a clearer way to show, through the wording of this provision, about the way it was designed to use a regulatory-making power, to show its intended purpose, it’s the clauses that are located in 18.

The powers of cabinet are very clearly there to discriminate based on classes of people, vehicles, all the types of provincial undertakings. This is a part of a clause that is an enabling part for regulatory power to do the thing we talked about in the clauses before, which is to make sure it’s not against British Columbia, that it’s not targeting British Columbians. That is exactly the design of clause 18.

Gavin Dew: We’ve talked a lot in previous discussion around intent versus effect. As I understand and review this, I don’t see anything here that precludes the possibility of these tools being used to impose road pricing on British Columbians. I don’t see anything in here that prevents that. What I’m hearing is that there’s not an intent to do that, but I don’t see anything here that precludes road pricing.

Can the AG explain not on the basis of intent, not on the basis of purpose, but on the basis of the legal powers enumerated: if cabinet chose to impose road pricing, would these powers allow them to do so?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to put also clearly…. We’ve had this discussion before in the other clauses. Everything, every clause that we’re talking about has to be considered in context of the whole bill. We’ve had different discussions in different sections about the fact this is a tariff response bill. There are certain key purposes in it. There are certain powers that are designed there. What we’re looking at right now in clause 18 is a regulatory-making power that attaches itself to previous clauses that we’ve discussed.

So the regulatory-making power is a way to help the regulatory decision–making target the places that you want to take it. In that sense, the legislative drafting regime wouldn’t, in this stage, list the negatives, which is what the member is asking for. It wouldn’t list the negatives, saying, like, it’s clear that this would be…. It’s actually enabling regulation. It’s enabling the ability to discriminate so that British Columbians are not impacted, which is the way you would design it.

It’s enabling the ability to discriminate on vehicles, on things like that. It’s the design part of the regulation that shows that it’s meant to be targeted at certain groups of people.

Gavin Dew: I hear the Attorney General talking about the purpose and intent but, sorry, what part of the bill says that these powers can be used only in response to tariffs and cannot be used for domestic purposes? Where is that actually outlined in the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I’ve had an extensive conversation about this in this part, in clauses. There was even an amendment moved on it. This clause is regulatory. It’s regulatory powers, so I’d just ask, if there’s a question on the regulatory-making powers here, that we would focus on that. I believe I’ve extensively talked about the powers which are in clause 14 and even addressed it through an amendment that was brought by the member about the extent of the power and how it could be used. We’re now talking about the regulatory-making powers of clause 18.

[3:05 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I’m not really seeing or hearing a clear answer as to how the power to make regulations outlined in 18 in any way, shape or form is constrained to prevent it from being used to impose road pricing or a similar mechanism. I’m hearing a lot about intent, but I’m not actually hearing how that is restricted.

Given that the matter of road pricing as a concern has been raised since the first days this bill was made public and given that government has amended the bill significantly to walk back portions of the bill that were the subject of greatest concern from the public, I just want to understand: why has the government not explicitly brought amendments to limit the power of the bill to prevent the imposition of road pricing?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I’m going to ask for your guidance here.

If we just look at the Hansard debate that happened yesterday…. All of yesterday we talked about the bill. We talked about the context and that it was a tariff response bill. The members from the other side raised many ways that they were assuming it would be used, whether it was road pricing, whether it was very many different things, and I have responded to that. I’ve responded to a large extent to that.

The context of the bill, the fact that it’s called a tariff response bill, that the context of it is a tariff response and that we have another piece of legislation that exists that already allows the Minister of Transportation to put tolls and fees and charges on provincial undertakings…. There’s already a broad power to do that.

This is focused on tariff response, and I just…. I’m struggling with the repeated questions here, Chair. In the context of this particular clause 18, if we could tie it to the regulatory-making power…. I’ve even answered specifically why you wouldn’t put something about excluding British Columbia in clause 18 because it’s a regulatory-making clause. I’ve answered it even specifically to this clause. So just your guidance on figuring out how to move forward.

The Chair: Member, the question has been answered.

Interjection.

The Chair: While you might not be satisfied with her answer, the Attorney General said it has been answered. Can you please find a different line of questioning in relation to clause 18?

Gavin Dew: Sure. Outside of the title of the bill, tariff response act…. I’m sorry, but the Attorney General is relying on a statement that is very broad, to the effect that the powers enumerated are limited to tariff response, but there is no section of the bill, outside of the title, that limits the powers.

I would just like to get the Attorney General to clarify that assertion, because her argument against answering my question appears to be that it is manifestly self-evident that the powers are restricted to tariff response when there’s nothing in the bill that limits them to tariff response. If the Attorney General could please clarify which section says “only in response to tariffs.” Simple question.

The Chair: I want to just ensure that the debate is relevant to the clause.

Gavin Dew: The debate is relevant to the clause because the Attorney General is declining to answer questions about the clause, citing the idea that these powers are restricted to only responding to tariffs. I am questioning the underlying logic that the Attorney General is using to decline to answer questions on the clause. If the Attorney General can substantiate the logic that she is using to decline to answer the question about the clause, then I would consider the question to be answered. But I haven’t heard it substantiated.

The Chair: Do you have another question in regards to clause 18?

Gavin Dew: Still looking for an answer as to what prevents these regulation-making powers from being used to impose road pricing on British Columbians.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Shall clause 18 pass?

Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Great. Let’s talk about some other sections of 18.

Can the minister elaborate on exemptions from the payment of tolls, fees or charges? What are the contemplated exemptions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s an enabling statute. This will be up to cabinet when they’re making that decision, but this is exactly the type of provision that I was talking about in the debate that we were just having, and yesterday, which actually allows cabinet to make sure there were exemptions for the payment of tolls, fees and charges.

Those exemptions could be used in a way to make sure that British Columbians are not impacted by any of the tolls, fees or charges.

Gavin Dew: It sounds like we’re now talking about making sure that British Columbians are not affected by the tolls, fees or charges. But if that is the intent, then why is it not made clear that British Columbians will not be affected by the tolls, fees or charges?

I really think this is a very simple question. I’m just looking for a simple articulation that these powers will not be used to impose tolls, fees or charges on British Columbians. Can the Attorney General simply answer the yes or no question? Will this government use these powers to impose tolls, fees or charges on British Columbians?

The Chair: Although the member might not be fully satisfied with the minister’s response, the minister has advised that question has already been answered.

Gavin Dew: The question has not been answered. Will the minister…?

Interjections.

The Chair: Hey, friends. We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:12 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. Members, before we continue, I’d just like to remind everyone…. I appreciate that this is a small House. We are on top of each other, and it can get a bit heated entering debate. However, we all have to remember to be respectful to one another and the Chair.

[3:20 p.m.]

Members, before we continue, I’d like to advise that prior to the recess a line of questioning has been canvassed quite thoroughly previously and, in the Chair’s view, has become repetitive.

Although members may not fully be satisfied with the minister’s response, I strongly encourage members to find a new line of questioning.

Kiel Giddens: I would certainly agree with the Chair that this is a small room, and the temperature sometimes gets a little warm physically and also sometimes emotionally, but let’s continue the debate in a respectful way. I appreciate the Chair’s advice in that regard.

I’m going to change the line of questioning to go back to some of the discussion we had in clause 14. If the Attorney General might recall, I was asking a number of questions that ended up saying this would be something we should discuss in 18, so I do want to go back to some of that if that’s okay.

In one of those questions…. I’m wondering if the ministry conducted any distributional impact analysis to determine how tolls or fees may disproportionately affect low-income rural or remote populations. Again, I go back to when you’re making the regulatory powers granting that so it goes into implementation later…. It’s making sure I can go back to my constituents and just have a deep understanding.

Again, when I referenced this yesterday, I talked about the northeast and folks travelling to Alaska and all that kind of thing and how that would work. I’m wondering if the Attorney General could comment on that in relation to clause 18.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the question.

This is exactly the place that I think I can explain. The member had questions about how that could be set up. At the offset, it would be — if we ever get to this stage, or hopefully we won’t — at the time of regulatory-making power that you would make the considerations. I think we had a good discussion about what they might be to make sure the regional impacts were taken into account.

If you look at subsection (2), or actually all of the clause 18, it shows the tools that you can put in place to actually ensure that regional disparities or regional considerations are taken into place. First of all, you can choose the provincial undertaking or a portion of the provincial undertaking. The ability to choose portions of it is one way that you could figure out mitigating local impacts.

You could establish different amounts for tolls, fees and charges, times of the day so you could target certain times of the day. Like, if the goal is to target traffic from the States travelling through, there might be some value that you could use this regulatory power to target types of vehicles and particular classifications of vehicles or characteristics. You could get down to that very specificity of commercial vehicle if you wanted to, travelling through a certain area without B.C. licence plates, let’s just say, or something.

I mean, I’m speculating in terms of the content, and I don’t want to prejudge what cabinet might come to a decision about if this was ever used. I just wanted to use it as an example to illustrate why the regulatory-making power gives you that ability all the way through clause 18, in the very thoughtful drafting of it, to be sure that you can target it in a way that makes sure that any regional disparities or considerations that you want to take into account, you can take into account.

Kiel Giddens: Just so I have a good understanding of that, under the regulatory-making power, it technically would be possible to make differential pricing for commercial versus personal vehicles in that case. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. You can figure out the class of vehicle that you want to attach a toll or fee to. There are tons of considerations that would have to go into whether or not you would actually do it, but the ability to do it is here.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, that actually…. I appreciate that.

[3:25 p.m.]

On those classes, is there…? I guess it hasn’t been contemplated yet whether there will be differentiation between various classes of users. Is that correct? Am I understanding that correctly that it hasn’t been done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s right.

Kiel Giddens: Has there been any economic modelling on what that would look like at all, or is that still work that would have to be done, I guess, by the Ministry of Transportation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve had discussions about economic modelling before. In the context of understanding what powers and tools are needed if this was ever to happen, that’s kind of as far as we’ve gotten with the enabling statute.

In terms of what it would mean, economic modelling, for the particular thing, it really honestly depends. We talked about all the ability to enter agreements with particular third parties that might help us with it. We talked about the ability to figure out which provincial undertaking we’re attaching it to, and that would result in different…. If you did attach it to road versus something else, then of course there’s going to be different analysis that goes into it.

At this stage, there is not a detailed economic analysis because there’s nothing to attach that analysis to. There’s no contemplation of a regulation. There’s no contemplation of using this power at this time.

Kiel Giddens: I guess in designing these as retaliatory measures, there’s certainly going to be a lot of work that would be needed to go into that. In that regard…. I am just looking at subsection (1)(a) through (d) and trying to ensure that I understand the types of things that could be contemplated in that. I’m wondering if an example could be permitting something like time-of-day or peak-use pricing models.

The reason I say that is because if you’re designing specific retaliatory measures, are there ways that could…? Again, I go back to that commercial versus personal. There are ways that you could kind of design it. Is that technically possible under that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The power to have the ability for days or times is under 2(a)(i), and it says, “dates, days or times of use of the provincial undertaking or portion of a provincial undertaking,” so it gives you that ability.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for pointing that out for my benefit.

This is another one that we talked about. Can the Attorney General just point out where it would authorize dynamic or automated tolling systems? We talked about licence plate recognition. Really, if it is used, how would the technical standards for that be governed? Which ministry would be doing that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I don’t have a specific contemplation of when this power would be used, I don’t know, to answer, how it would be done, if it ever would be done. But the way that the bill is structured…. If you see 18(1)(a), it says, “respecting the system of tolls,” and “system of tolls” is a common use of language throughout. That describes the ability to figure out which system you’re going to put in place, to answer the question.

Kiel Giddens: I do think, yeah, the system of tolls is what I had tagged with that particular question in mind.

[3:30 p.m.]

But trying to figure out how the system would be implemented, how it would be in practice…. Again, this is a question I think I asked yesterday when we were back on 14. I think I might know the answer, but I just would like to get clarification.

How will that system, that type of pricing, the amount, be communicated to drivers in advance? How will they get notice of that? Just would like clarification, if that would be okay.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We answered part of that, I think, a similar question, but I’m happy to attach it to this. This regulatory power would give specifics. You could say time of day. You could say type of vehicle. There are different ways you could communicate that or would communicate it.

First of all, the regulation is public. It would be publicly available to understand what was contained in that regulation. It would be posted on public websites, like DriveBC and/or other ones that might be relevant, to spread the information.

Then depending on the circumstance, there’s also the ability to put on signage in the exact area, like roadside signs or something that would say: if you are this vehicle, here’s a notification that here’s the toll or fee that applies to you.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, I had in my head the DriveBC example. I appreciate — that’s a good example — that signage could also, of course, be used.

I guess maybe a different question. Another one we talked about yesterday was…. We talked a lot about collections. We talked a lot about how that process works. Again, I think a lot of it is…. Under the power to make regulations is how some of that is set.

One that we talked about I think that we just want to make sure we’re clear on is how interest rates would be set in the case of a fine or a charge and the determination if there would be any caps. I’m assuming that has not been set or contemplated yet, but maybe the Attorney General can just clarify that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: So 18(1)(d) gives the cabinet the power to prescribe interest rates and the manner of collecting it. In the context of the regulation, if there was an interest rate prescribed by cabinet, it would be clear in the regulation and then communicated in the various ways we talked about. But no, there’s no contemplation of that yet.

Kiel Giddens: With those interest rates and penalties for non-payment, will they align with the consumer protection legislation? I know we have new legislation, Bill 4, that just, I believe, received royal assent, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Can the Attorney General just confirm that those actually align?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just for clarity, the consumer protection — the bill that the member talked about — wouldn’t apply here. That’s for consumer contracts. This is a toll, fee or charge. But just to give more guidance on how government sets interest rates or prescribes it, of course the Treasury Board is generally the one that controls, in a governmentwide way, the perspective or analysis with respect to interest rates.

To give you an example of how it’s done, there’s an interest rate under various statutes regulation that’s in force that shows how statutes, like, look at an approach that’s taken government-wide when it comes to these things, and they’re generally pretty low.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response. I do recall some of our discussion related to the Ministry of Finance’s role in some of that, so I can refer to that discussion as well.

As we’re looking at the system of tolls, maybe one that…. I was just wondering if it would be technically feasible, if the regulations would technically permit real-time enforcement — things like mobile alerts, electronic toll violations that are kind of automatic, that type of thing.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The same with the member’s previous question. Just to make it clear, the regulatory-making power is technology-neutral. It doesn’t require or set out what would be used by that, and that would be an operational decision that would be fact-specific, depending on…. In this case, it would be the Ministry of Transport that would have the tools and would understand, to assess the best technology needs for the regime that would be put in place.

Kiel Giddens: Sometimes the clauses do blend together for me at this point, but I do recall, in the course of part 3, we talked about retroactivity a fair bit. But in respect to clause 18, I want to understand, I guess: would this clause specifically allow for retroactive regulation-making, and if not, where would that fit in the context of part 3 overall?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Every part you can kind of look at as, except for the provisions we’ll get to, generally containing its own definitions and its own things like regulatory-making power. That’s how it’s set up. The one that we were talking about previously in part 2 with the retroactivity was specific to that part. In this, you can read clause 18 as being inclusive, and no, it doesn’t contain that type of regulatory-making power.

Kiel Giddens: Going from retroactivity to looking forward…. Given that obviously we’re going to get to talk later about sunset clauses and whatnot, would there be the ability for regular updates? Is that just a cabinet decision? Or could cabinet decide if they want to make updates every six months? Obviously, we’re looking at and we’ve talked a little bit about government trying to, attempting here to respond, but the ability for updates…. We want to make sure that when things change, we can actually change with the times and continue.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s exactly why the bill is designed this way. We talked about it almost in every section — that the regulatory-making power actually allows for that really quick adaptation, depending on what’s happening on the ground or what needs to change in the trade war.

Kiel Giddens: I’m wondering. I’ll maybe just move into a different question. Will the draft regulations, once they’re contemplated by cabinet, under this clause be subject to any public consultation or prepublication under the Regulations Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it would be open to cabinet to use the provisions under the Regulations Act or whatever the consultation would be. I think the important things to remember are the few things that would likely happen in the context of these even being contemplated. We would have an escalating trade war and a Team Canada response of escalation.

In that context, if you were going to do something related to this and use the powers in here, you would likely have to have very targeted consultations, because it wouldn’t be the whole province that would be affected. It may be just like a region that you want to say, “Here’s how we’re going to target American” whatever, trucks or I don’t know what the context would be, and you’d have to do that.

It would be open to cabinet to see which powers are effective, which way the consultation would go and where it would be directed at, and it would depend on the circumstance.

Kiel Giddens: I guess the reason I’m asking is because the public consultation requirement is not explicitly required because of this. It doesn’t actually….

Because of that…. We talked quite a bit, I think it was yesterday, about border communities and their potential concern — border Indigenous communities, local governments, that type of thing.

I agree that targeted consultations would probably work, but I’m wondering if the Attorney General could commit to those targeted border community consultations to happen in the case of this regulation-making, if that’s something that can be committed to here today.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, communities like that are very key to understand the localized impacts if there would be any. Just to say that, also, the beauty of this power is that you would be able to design it after talking to them in a way that would minimize or reduce the impact.

I think the unfortunate reality is that in the trade war that we find ourselves in, those communities are already impacted in a very serious way, just from the reliance that they have on the cross-border relationship more directly than maybe some of us that live farther away from the border. That is just an unfortunate impact that we didn’t ask for. So it’s important for us to understand what those communities need at any time, especially if it was to escalate and there’s a constant of an escalating trade war.

You know what? There are ways that you could design the tolls, fees and charges in a way that might actually support, be targeted to support, those communities, right? So that could be a consideration that cabinet thinks about.

[3:45 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that commitment here from the Attorney General. I agree that border communities certainly are disproportionately impacted by a trade war, and we need to find however we can to support them through this time.

It just so happens that, yeah, the opposition does have representation in many border-area communities, so I think this is an important topic for me to be able to bring back to my colleagues. I’ll thank the Attorney General for making that confirmation on behalf of MLAs in this House.

Maybe a different question on that. Could the Attorney General just describe, under the power to make regulations here, whether cabinet could delegate its clause 18 powers further to ministry officials? And if so, how can we as MLAs track who is actually setting tolls, schedules or exemptions or anything like that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a power for cabinet, and it can’t be delegated.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the confirmation, to the Attorney General.

Obviously these are still…. I understand that the Attorney General referenced that the powers are limited to tolls, fees and charges and all of that, but it’s still pretty wide-ranging how they could be implemented or designed.

I’m wondering what role, if any, the Legislative Assembly could have in reviewing the tolls, fees and charges before they’re implemented. Or is that simply going to be cabinet deciding and then there won’t be any role for us in the Legislature?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just like regulatory-making power in every statute, it’s a cabinet-level decision. Regulations don’t go before the Legislature.

Steve Kooner: All right. There was some discussion about urban and rural — I think that’s where I left it when I was asking questions — and then how you make sure certain regions are not disproportionally affected. I believe the answer that was applied back then was: “Well, there’s a certain degree of flexibility.” It was great to receive that answer that there is some flexibility in cabinet.

What comes to mind is that there’s often a complaint amongst British Columbians that certain parties or regional or…. In politics, we see references that there’s a divide between urban and rural. That all comes down to, the microscope comes down onto flexibility, because the target from British Columbians, essentially, becomes the politicians in terms of their flexibility in how regional divides are being addressed amongst the province.

Now, going back to that question that I said…. The ask was: how do you prevent certain regions from being disproportionately affected? The answer going to flexibility…. What can the Attorney General say to alleviate the concerns of British Columbians that argue about whether there’s a divide in British Columbia between urban and rural?

Will this particular cabinet be able to restrain itself, make sure that there’s adequate protection so there aren’t politically motivated decisions?

I believe that’s a valid question based upon a common issue that we actually do see in British Columbia, and it’s often raised. If the Attorney General can elaborate on that. I know that my colleague here did talk about, I believe, the border and stuff like that, bordering communities, but this goes to the specific question about what we often hear about the divide between rural and urban communities here in British Columbia.

[3:50 p.m.]

Just something for the people that are listening and are concerned there might be decisions made in cabinet that could affect particular regions more than others through the flexibility mechanism that was introduced by the Attorney General earlier when I asked that question.

If the Attorney General can elaborate any further to just say that, well, yes, there will be flexibility, but in order to address the concerns of what certain British Columbians have voiced, maybe a division between urban and rural, this is how it’s going to address that.

Is there anything further that the Attorney General can provide in terms of that particular issue?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to take strong exception to what the member is suggesting, and that is that the cabinet doesn’t represent all of British Columbia.

The member may not know this, but I was raised in Sparwood, which is a town of 3,000 to 4,000 people in the Rocky Mountains. We are representing everybody across this province every time we make a decision. The insinuation that I think is coming from there, which is completely unfounded, is that we would only make decisions to benefit certain parts of the province. I find that not only wrong but quite a terrible thing to accuse cabinet of doing, a cabinet of British Columbia.

I’ll just put that on the record right here. The member should not prejudge where people come from in this province and what they represent.

There are, again, regulatory-making powers in this bill that allow cabinet, in their consideration, to make sure that regional perspectives are determined.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, I wasn’t trying to offend the Attorney General in any way. I was just referencing. I wasn’t making any accusatory remarks. I was clearly referencing. This is something I’ve heard.

I’ve studied political science in this province, as well, and that’s something you read about in political science books and when you’re studying politics here in this province. I’ve been brought up in the urban area — right? — but I’ve learned about this stuff. Basically, it’s not an accusation of something’s going to occur.

I guess what I was looking for is: is there a mechanism? Obviously, everybody has good intent. If you’re going into public office, you want to serve, and you want to serve to the best of your ability. But there are still concerns that we still have to have certain safeguards to make sure that people have confidence in our system.

The justice system you’re often speaking about…. You don’t want any sort of disrepute heading to the administration of justice. It’s not that the people that are working within the system are biased or anything like that, but we have to kind of have certain mechanisms that instil confidence. That was the particular question.

I don’t know if the Attorney General has anything more to say on the topic. I was not accusing the Attorney General of anything. If it came across that way, I just want to reiterate that was not my intention.

My intention was just to get to mechanisms so we can instil confidence from the public, saying: “There are these mechanisms. What you’re thinking can’t actually be taking place, because we actually have these mechanisms in place.”

Public confidence in our system, in our political system and what we do politically is very, very important. That’s where the point was going.

I don’t know if the Attorney General has any further elaboration on that. If the Attorney General doesn’t, I’m happy to move on, but I’d like to give the Attorney General the opportunity.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have answered the regulatory power and how it could be designed to make sure that it addresses the regional issues.

Steve Kooner: All right. I’ll proceed further.

There has been some discussion, I believe from my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, about the classes. I believe the Attorney General brought up…. There’s a provision here. It was 18(2)(c)(iii) that talks about classes — class of user of provincial undertaking. I think there’s another reference to it throughout the section that talks about it. So (3)(a) says: “establish or define classes of users.”

[3:55 p.m.]

Okay, so whenever we get to classes and whenever we get to differentiating certain groups, then the topic comes up. “Okay, how?” Now, I’m going to a mechanism. I’m not accusing anybody of anything. It’s going to the mechanism.

I guess what comes about when you have different classes is that people like…. Okay, well, we want to make sure people aren’t discriminated against when we have different classes. We just want to make sure we’re balanced in addressing all these different classes of groups that we have. We have human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also in the B.C. human rights code.

In regard to that, now we have classes. How did that legislation apply, and how do we protect all classes and make sure we are not discriminating or have any sort of perception that there could be discrimination? That’s the next question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Obviously, the government is bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the member suggests, and all human rights laws related to that, and we would fully expect to be challenged if we ever crossed one of those lines. But there is very careful legal review that happens, not only when an OIC or a regulation is even contemplated, to make sure we’re abiding by all of our very important obligations for the rights and the Charter.

We always are expected to act in accordance with all of our laws and act in the public interest.

Steve Kooner: Once again, with all due respect, I understand the intent is probably very good, from the government, when they’re trying to come up with policy.

It’s great to know that there was some sort of legal review done. Can the Attorney General’s department give me examples of what legal review was actually done? Maybe dish up something that I can have here that gives me assurances that proper legal review was done.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Obviously, no regulation has been made under this bill, as it’s not enforced, but I can give the member assurances about what happens when a legal regulation may be put into place.

It is analyzed through a legal review of compliance with FOIPPA; human rights; the constitution and admin law; understanding whether it’s vires, meaning the regulation fits into the powers of the enabling statute or not; and the Financial Administration Act, along with any other applicable laws that might need to be looked at, to review, before it’s considered something that we can bring forward.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for referring to these statutes and assuring us that it’s within vires of the constitution, these provisions. That’s kind of helpful, and hopefully the people that are listening at home and are hearing about the classes have some sort of assurance in terms of some accountability measures that are put in place, in terms of the legal review.

[4:00 p.m.]

Okay. I just want to kind of switch my line of questioning from classes to something else more financial in nature.

Now, the purpose of these tolls, fees and charges, as the Attorney General’s department and the Attorney General have iterated earlier, is for tariff response. It’s to denounce certain behaviour for actors south of our border. That seems to be the purpose: denouncing certain actions taken by a certain administration south of our border.

I get the point that that was the intention of the government when they were trying to bring this forward, but that leads me to the next question. Has the Attorney General’s department conducted modelling to determine whether any future scheme enabled under clause 18 would be revenue-neutral or would constitute a significant fiscal tool during deficit recovery?

I think this is a valid question because this province has reached a deficit level that it has never seen in the history of this province. I think that’s a valid question because a lot of people are worried about the finances of this province.

The other part of this question, essentially, goes to the tariff response. If this is, essentially, just to denounce and make sure the United States backs off from whatever tariffs it’s doing, would this be a revenue-neutral type of mechanism here? Just a question on the financial nature and, I guess, the financial purpose of what those funds would be used for — whatever revenue was generated as a result of tolls, charges and fees and interest, actually.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered.

Steve Kooner: All right. I guess we can take it to the next question.

In terms of the next question here, it is in regards to trade agreements, in particular. Canada has many trade agreements, and we have talked about this specific issue in regards to other previous clauses.

Now, a lot of our questions were left towards clause 18. I believe, in previous clauses, we were told to come back to certain things in clause 18. Clause 18 seems to be more of the regulatory, more of the legal framework for tolls, fees and charges.

Coming back to this clause, I think it makes sense to ask this question again in terms of trade agreements. In regards to trade agreements….

Basically, what I’m after is that we want to make sure this province is protected. We want to make sure British Columbians are protected from legal consequences. That’s the kind of narrative behind this question, and that goes to what legal advice has been had. So what legal advice has been sought or received regarding the impact of clause 18, tolling regulations under interprovincial and international commerce? If the Attorney General can provide that clarification in regards to this particular clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I won’t be able to disclose legal advice. I’m sure the member understands that. But the thing that I can offer to answer his question is something that is part of the list that we talked about last time, which was if there was a regulation that was contemplated, one of the analyses that would need to happen was how it interacts with trade laws, because it would be targeting international actors.

I think we’ve talked a few times in this debate about the law. How we’re viewing it, along with other jurisdictions, is that if there’s a bad actor, you would exclude them from…. They’re already not abiding by trade agreements, so you would respond by likely not abiding by those trade agreements with any retaliatory response, but our position is that we would uphold our obligation to other jurisdictions that we’ve signed agreements with.

[4:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just a clear response. There was a lot in that answer. All I would like to know is that trade agreements would be honoured, so there would not be any legal consequences. Is my understanding correct on that point?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have talked about this to quite some extent, about our approach to the trade agreements. I would refer the member back to the debates we’ve had almost on every section.

We also talked about an escalating trade war with the States. Canada has already filed disputes at the WTO, with the States not operating under our agreement with CUSMA, so we are in a state of legal uncertainty with respect to one actor.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that response.

I’m going to switch my line of questioning to another topic. There’s a lot to cover here, so I’m sorry if I’m kind of jumping all over the map. There’s just a lot of stuff I have here.

There was a little bit of a discussion that was brought forward by questions from my colleague here the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. That had to do with legislative oversight, and the Attorney General, I believe, provided an answer to that. But just a follow-up to that particular question.

Now, I get it that the question was answered in terms of what legislative oversight there may be, but my question goes a little bit further. Will the Legislative Assembly have some opportunities to review, amend or reject specific tolling regulations enacted by the order in council, so essentially enacted by cabinet? Would they specifically have…? Would the Legislative Assembly have any mechanism to actually review, amend or reject specific tolling regulations or not?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a regulatory power. Like many regulatory powers, it’s a decision by cabinet.

Steve Kooner: All right, and one further.

My colleague here asked about interest earlier, and I guess I’ve got a further question in regards to interest. I believe the answer was supplied that there’s a certain statutory mechanism of how you kind of calculate the interest, and the interest is fairly low. I get that point — that it’s fairly low.

Then the next question that pops in is…. It’s fairly low. But can it be brought up? Can there be a maximum rate, or is it unlimited? I know it’s currently low, in where the reference points are. But can it be brought up in this mechanism? Is there any mechanism that allows it to be brought up to unlimited? If there’s no opportunity to be bringing that interest rate to an unlimited amount, is there a maximum cap that you can go to? I guess that’s my next question.

The Chair: Member, can you help the Chair understand how the question relates to clause 18, please?

Steve Kooner: Okay. In 18(1)(d), the rules respecting administration and system tolls, fees and charges.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Steve Kooner: Did you want a clarification on my question again?

The Chair: I got the clarification, thank you, for the clause.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. Just to start, the time that the interest rates would apply is…. Essentially, you’re already targeting certain vehicles that are in response to a tariff, so they’re probably American vehicles or something associated with that. The interest rates would apply if somebody hasn’t paid. So you’re in that category or situation, and the government has a lot of policy related to what it sets for interest rates.

I’ll refer the member again to the interest rates under various statutes regulation. That helps to understand how we coordinate interest rates along with a core policy, on interest rate for monies owed that government has. Then, of course, there’s the Criminal Code, which sets an upward, which everybody has to apply to, of interest rates.

Steve Kooner: I know about the criminal rate. I believe it’s like 60 percent. What’s the exact rate under the provincial statute for interest?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Referring the member to that regulation, I’d just given a range because it depends on what regulation or framework it is. The range is around 1 to 3 percent above prime.

Steve Kooner: Does that statute also say it…? Sometimes when you’ve got 1 to 3 percent, it gets compounded, and then there’s compounding off of compounding. How does that particular statute work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, there’s a prescribing interest rate power under here that cabinet would be able to use. I was giving guidance on how interest rates are set. The interest rate under various statutes regulation is the way…. That generally is an example of how that happens. If you look at that, it’s not a compounded…. It’s in the range of what I was talking about, 1 to 3 percent above prime.

[4:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just in regard to interest, interest is different from the actual, say, toll, the fine that someone has to pay. Is there any sort of grace or if somebody says: “Look, I have these concerns. I can’t really afford it. Can I get some leniency?” Because it is an extra penalty, is there any sort of grace in terms of that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered yesterday.

Steve Kooner: Going specifically to clause 18, I know that yesterday we were in clause 17, so just on 18 now, we just want to see if the dynamics are any different on 18.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not different than my answer yesterday.

Steve Kooner: All right.

In terms of my next question here, we’ve spoken a little bit about tolls and amounts of tolls. We’ve spoken a little bit about interest. The Attorney General said she had already provided a response on whether this is revenue-neutral or whether there’ll be excess funds that will be there to kind of pay for other stuff.

Have there been any sorts of internal projections in regard to what clause 18 can generate in terms of potential revenue from clause 18? Throughout these different classifications, I know there’s a little bit of a dynamic that you can set it to dates, days, times. Is there a certain analysis that has been done to kind of see what could be the difference in terms of internal projections of revenue as a result of this provision?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, Chair.

Steve Kooner: All right. I can go on to the next question. I don’t remember hearing the response to that, but I will move on to the next question.

Okay, so we’ve talked a little bit about review mechanisms in terms of human rights codes, the charter and all that, but in the legal framework, there are different areas of law. In addition to the constitution stuff, in addition to the human rights stuff, we have the administrative law stuff.

Under the administrative law stuff, we see principles of natural justice, procedural fairness. In regard to that particular area, my next question comes about. How does this deal with that particular area of law? Are there mechanisms to have judicial review inside the federal court or to take it up to the Supreme Court? How does that apply?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would be in the Supreme Court of B.C.

Steve Kooner: Well, thanks for the answer.

That answer is a very important one, because often in the public, we do have confused lay litigants that are often trying to determine where do they go for recourse. Sometimes people don’t know what the proper jurisdiction, which proper court they’re in.

We’ve had some discussion in earlier questions about different areas or different types of courts and tribunals that are applicable in terms of this legislation, and we’ve discussed that Supreme Court now. We discussed the Provincial Court, as well as the Civil Resolution Tribunal. This would probably be helpful for the people that are watching and wondering how administrative law principles apply to clause 18.

Now, just going further to a different line of questioning here. We do have some flexibility here in terms of in this particular provision that we haven’t seen in previous clauses. The other previous clauses were pretty direct on, but as the Attorney General was mentioning, there’s a certain degree of flexibility, especially when you get down to 18(2)(c).

[4:20 p.m.]

It talks about “without limiting subsection (3), in making a regulation establishing a system of tolls, fees or charges, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following.” It goes down to (c), “establish different amounts for tolls, fees or charges based upon one or more of the following,” and then subsection (i), which was referenced earlier: “dates, days or times of use of the provincial undertaking or portion of a provincial undertaking.”

I get it, that when it’s, say, rush hour, there might be different fees than when there’s less rush hour. I understand why there’s a requirement for a certain degree of flexibility. I get that portion. But hand in hand, what flows with that is the administration of it. How labour-intensive would it be to operate those mechanisms?

What can the Attorney General’s department tell us on this side of the House about how labour-intensive those administrative mechanisms will be because there is a certain latitude of flexibility?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It really does depend. We mentioned about the fact that there’s nothing in here that prescribes how cabinet decision-making would be on the operational side, of how it would do. It doesn’t prescribe a certain…. It’s technology-neutral in how it could do so.

When you’re making a decision for regulation is when you would consider all those questions that the member asked, about how to effectively do it in a way that minimizes the labour intensity of it.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up question to that: is it fair for me to understand that the mechanism that will be used for the administration of these tolls, fees and charges will be specific to technological means and will be less focused on human resources but more focused on technology resources? Am I correct in my understanding?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. Just to be clear in my response, what I’m saying is the bill right now doesn’t set out any things that need or don’t need to be used in terms of technology. We leave it to the cabinet decision with the regulation to understand what the best use of technology or not use of technology would be for that particular regime.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that response. I understand that this is enabling legislation, and it will be up to the relevant ministries to determine which technology that they go with.

Is there any sort of indication…? There have probably been some discussions around the cabinet. There’s been some cross-ministerial collaboration. Have there been any sorts of discussions of what a human-based administration versus a technological operation would cost, or whether there are fluctuations within even the technological administration as well as the human resources?

Could I get some sort of in-depth understanding of how this would work in terms of the different resources?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have nothing to offer for the member’s question at this time.

Steve Kooner: Would it be possible for the Attorney General’s department to provide some information in writing to our side of the House at a later date if this information is available?

Hon. Niki Sharma: My role here as Attorney General is to put in place enabling statutes and legislation, and the ministers responsible will take over if they ever need to do that. I would defer any decision to answer the member’s questions at that time to the minister responsible.

Steve Kooner: Just to comment on that, it is very important. That question is very important, because that’s going to show British Columbians what the cost is. British Columbians are always worried about cost, taxpayer dollars, what they’re putting into our system. That would be highly relevant information when we’re talking about this section.

[4:25 p.m.]

It would be nice if we could actually get more information on that when the applicable time period arrives.

In regards to my next question, I’m just going to change up the line of questioning here a little bit.

We’ve heard a little bit, from previous sections, that this part…. We got an elaboration at the beginning of this part when it was introduced by the Attorney General to us. She said: “Let me give you a little bit of understanding before we get into these provisions.” The understanding that was bestowed upon us was essentially: “Look, this is kind of a last resort measure — these tolls, fees and charges. The government doesn’t want to do them, but it’s an extra tool in the toolbox to deal with the people south of the border in terms of what actions are taken upon British Columbians.”

I get that. I understand that according to the government’s intent, there may be a situation where some of these tools don’t get used or some of these regulations don’t get used. The government has indicated it’s their intent to try to refrain from using these tools if they don’t have to.

Now, this particular question goes to this particular clause 18. This is important, to understand this particular section. Can the Attorney General identify historical examples where powers similar to clause 18 were placed into legislation but were not exercised? Have we had a situation like that in the past?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I do have an example of when this has happened. In 2003, at the time, Premier Campbell introduced an act called the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. It was an act that was meant to be put in place to streamline major projects, and it was never used.

The Chair: We’re going to take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:38 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7 to order. We are on clause 18.

Steve Kooner: We were on a certain line of questioning before. I’d like to switch that line of questioning to a different topic.

Something that comes to mind…. I’ve had people kind of address this to me. When there are traffic lights, say, when you…. Some people don’t like to live close to traffic lights, and you wonder why. I’ve asked some people, and they think, “Well, when you stop your car, there’s extra exhaust, or there’s braking that happens as a result of that,” right?

That leads me to this question. Because when you’re thinking about tolls…. Say there are some pieces where you’ve got to stop and go. I know that the Attorney General did mention that, in a previous clause, there might be a mechanism where you obtain different drivers’ information by hand. If you’re going to obtain that information by hand, somebody is going to have to stop their vehicle.

[4:40 p.m.]

It’s going to be stop and go, and with that, you’ll probably see excess exhaust. You’ll probably see an excess in braking. Those issues might come up.

Then that brings me to kind of see: well, how does that correlate if we have…? I don’t know how much the tolling might happen. It might be a lot. How would this clause 18 relate to…? How does clause 18 align with British Columbia’s CleanBC climate plan or any strategic transportation policies that promote model shifts away from, say, tolling personal vehicles?

Basically, I think the logic behind that question is that we have to kind of go away from this tolling. They don’t go hand in hand. These measures don’t go hand in hand.

I would just like to put that question over to the Attorney General maybe. Maybe the Attorney General can let us know how bringing forward these tolling mechanisms will work hand in hand with any sort of provisions that deal with exhaust and braking — that kind of stuff.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s a design consideration that would likely be put into the analysis to put it there. I’ll just point the member to clause 18(d), which says you can establish rules respecting the administration of the tolls.

Steve Kooner: So 18(d)?

Interjection.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Other than 18(2)(d)…. So 18(2)(d) just says: “establish rules respecting the administration of the system of tolls, fees or charges.”

It doesn’t specifically go to address these types of measures where there might be exhaust emissions or…. I don’t know what happens as a result of brakes stopping. I think it’s dust from the brakes. That’s what the hazard is there.

How would these rules…? How would the minister have that framework? Okay, they see this type of issue. How do you fit it in with establishing rules respecting…? What would limit their discretion?

If they have this “establish rules respecting the administration of the system of tolls, fees and charges,” what will make them say: “Look, I have to do this. I have to use this tool in (2)(d) to establish rules respecting the administration of the system of tolls and fees and charges, and I have to apply them in a way that kind of respects this”?

How would that happen?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s something, again, that would be considered at the time of the design of the tolling. I know that the Ministry of Transport has many versions of…. We’ve only had tolling a few times in this province, that were removed. But just around the world, there are many examples of how you can prevent stopping and how you can….

You could also design it in a way where it’s not even close to high-traffic residential areas, where you collect the toll. Or you could do it based on an app. There are so many ways to do it that if we ever, ever have to get there, that would be part of the design. The enabling bill gives the regulatory power to be able to do that.

Steve Kooner: Okay, next question.

The intent of this legislation as per the Attorney General is to target individuals from the south. And that’s the intent. In regards to this…. Then the Attorney General said that there might be uses of technological measures or tools to kind of enforce the collecting of tolls and information.

In regards to this clause in particular…. We may have canvassed this in clause, maybe, 17 or 14. But in clause 18, in particular, when you have U.S. drivers with U.S. driver licences and plates, how do we enforce this?

[4:45 p.m.]

I know that lawyers sometimes have a problem. They are able to sue somebody because they know the plate. They’re able to get an address. But sometimes service becomes a problem, to serve those people in the United States. Or service isn’t a problem. You’re able to sue them successfully and get that remedy of judgment from British Columbia against them, but then it becomes an enforcement issue.

I know a lot of lawyers, when they’re taking a case and they see that issue and they’re like: “Hey, client. We may not want to take your case because it’s very difficult.” Although there are the mechanisms, it’s difficult to get the final result in this case because it’s a multi-jurisdictional issue in terms of enforcement.

This is an important issue because we’re doing tolls, but we’re doing tolls as a deterrent mechanism to make sure we stop; we put pressure — I guess, the government can put pressure — on the United States to say: “Hey, don’t tariff us here in British Columbia.” And in order to kind of get the attention of that particular government, if their citizens are being affected, they will take it up with their government.

But say if we have these tolls and we can find these people, but then there’s that extra layer in the United States trying to get them to actually pay these, we may have interest, but how do we get them to actually pay, when they may stop coming here?

That is a common example that lawyers see in terms of litigation cases, especially here in British Columbia because we are dealing with Washington state people all the time, dealing with maybe some people coming up from Oregon and California as well. But mostly people coming from Washington state. That is a common issue.

In regards to this particular clause 18…. This clause 18 actually involves a lot of diversity in terms of dynamic mechanisms, in terms of how you can toll people by date, time and different intervals of actually tolling people. How would that all work when you’re doing all these different intervals? You’re having a foreign jurisdiction, and then on top of it, you’re trying to get the funds. And then on top of that, you’re trying to get the interest from them.

You’ve got the legal mechanisms. You can register the judgment here in British Columbia. How are you going to go even further? Are you going to take that judgment and go and register it in Washington state? And then you’ve got to look at the conflict of laws and mechanisms, whether you can go and register that judgment in Washington state. Will that judgment be treated as a British Columbian judgment or as a Washington state judgment? How does all that work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have answered this question under the enforcement provisions, which we went over in clause 15. The Court Order Enforcement Act would be the one that would apply in the case of collecting.

Steve Kooner: I get it that we have a statute here. It’s a court-enforcement mechanism, and you can use that to kind of get recourse.

But if one studies the conflict of laws, a common theme that goes in conflict of laws is that you can get enforcement mechanisms — you can have those; they’ll be fully applicable here in British Columbia — but how do you enforce them?

Because you’re dealing with a British Columbian order from a court jurisdiction here, how do you enforce that in a different jurisdiction? Will they recognize the British Columbia court decision there, in that jurisdiction, as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, they do recognize it.

Chair, if I can get your guidance. We talked about the enforcement already in clause 15. Clause 18 is to do with regulatory power, so I don’t believe that the question has relevance to this clause.

[4:50 p.m.]

The Chair: In order to ensure that the debate does not become repetitious, we’re going to encourage the member to move on to another line of questioning.

Steve Kooner: Okay. That’s fair.

Going to clause 18, it states, as written here in 18(1): “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows.” Then subsection (b) states: “Respecting payment, collection and enforcement of tolls and fees and charges.”

My question had to deal with how that payment is going to be collected. Am I wrong in thinking that’s relevant? It has to go to…. This regulation talks about payment, collection and enforcement, and I’m talking about how payment will be collected.

The Chair: I think the member…. I was not debating the substance of the question, just the repetition.

Steve Kooner: Okay. All right.

Basically, I was supplied an answer, and the answer was that there’s a certain provision in British Columbia that deals with civil enforcement, I believe, and that would be relied upon. I understand there may be a court judgment here in British Columbia, and then the next step is to give it to them for civil enforcement. The challenge with the civil enforcement is: how does it become applicable to another state, in the United States? We’re trying to collect from another state, in the United States.

Is there some sort of law that allows you to circumvent, say, having to go through the process of filing a legal proceeding in the United States to get your Supreme Court of B.C. order registered in Washington state? Or under that civil enforcement mechanism, is there something in there that says that you can circumvent those rules of reciprocal registration of court orders? Is there something along those lines?

Am I missing something? Maybe the Attorney General has some information there. Maybe there’s agreement under the civil enforcement provision. Maybe I’m missing something here. Maybe the Attorney General can clarify.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Court Order Enforcement Act that I reference below sets out all the procedures related to that, and we also have reciprocal agreements with states like Washington in order to respect our judgments.

Steve Kooner: That’s actually a really helpful answer because that’s what I was after. How do you deal with conflict of laws? It was a bit unclear to me.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now that I’m aware that there’s a civil enforcement procedure and under that, there is a way to apply our court orders in different states as well, there isn’t something left unturned here in terms of trying to have the regulation in here be enforceable. That’s all I was looking for on that line of questioning, so I can ask another question.

Actually, my colleague here does have a question as well, so I’ll turn it to him for a second.

Gavin Dew: I’m not sure I really got an answer to my question earlier, so I did just want to circle back and seek clarification one more time on what, if anything, under this section or the bill as a whole would preclude the government from using the powers enumerated as a basis to implement road pricing on British Columbians.

The Chair: I’m sorry. The member wasn’t here earlier for this conversation, but I will remind that this line of questioning was canvassed earlier, and the Chair determined that the debate had been repetitious. I strongly encourage all members to find a new line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: While the line of questioning may have been repetitious, the answers have not been forthcoming. I do think that it’s very important that we provide British Columbians with absolute confidence and clarity. Given the volume of public discourse and debate over whether or not road pricing will be enabled by Bill 7, I thought it would be an easy answer to be provided, and I’m disappointed that it hasn’t been.

In order to seek clarity and to provide the public with absolute clarity as to whether or not the powers enumerated under Bill 7 will be used to impose road pricing, I will be bringing an amendment, which I will pass forward:

[SECTION 18, by adding the underlined text as show:

(4) In making a regulation under this part, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may not impose a toll, fee or charge on British Columbians.]

The Chair: We will take a brief recess and come back in ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:58 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment on clause 18. Section 18, by adding the underlined text as shown: “In making a regulation under this part, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may not impose a toll, fee or charge on British Columbians.”

Division has been called.

[5:10 p.m.]

Given that everyone appears to be here, is there agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment to clause 18.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
L. Neufeld	Bird	Maahs
Wilson		McCall
NAYS — 7
Wickens	Sandhu	Routledge
Sharma	Bailey	Malcolmson
	Botterell

The Chair: We will resume discussion on clause 18.

[5:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: All right. In terms of a different line of questioning…. In this province, we have different types of highways. I believe there are provincial highways and federal highways. And in terms of water, there are federal waters, and there’s provincial jurisdiction as well.

Then looking at the tolling mechanisms, as stated in clause 18, with that background in place, has the federal government been consulted to determine whether provincial tolling authority, under clause 18, may infringe or duplicate federal powers over interprovincial transportation corridors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was covered in the definition of “provincial undertaking” in 13, where we had questions related to this.

Steve Kooner: All right. Then I’ve got another question in terms of these. We’ve spoken about this already in terms of the topic. It has to do with how these tolling mechanisms are going to work. The Attorney General has actually spoken about technology, and I brought up human resources and technological resources as well. Also, in part 2, we talked about procurement directives in terms of services and stuff like that. There’s buying and selling of services.

Now, going to this part, in part 3, if we’re having technology that might be possibly involved, how does clause 18…? There’s all this flexible language in clause 18. How does it play out in terms of getting this technological infrastructure in place for setting the tolls, fees and charges? How does that work?

Would that work in correlation with part 2, which speaks about procurement procedures? Then for this technological framework for the tolls, fees and charges, would we just be going after Canadian vendors? How would that all work out?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think there are a few ways that this could happen. It depends, but really what would happen is you could actually not have to contract anything out.

[5:20 p.m.]

You could just do it internally, so there wouldn’t be a need for using any third parties. You could use the provisions that we talked about before to come up with agreements for how you would implement that.

I can’t imagine a scenario where you’re procuring to the levels that would require the procurement policies to kick in for a project like this, but if you were, then of course like any procurement directive or…. There would be the government’s own procurement policies that would apply to that. But it just would really depend.

Steve Kooner: Now I’d like to switch my questioning to questioning along the lines of interpretation. We’ve had some of it but not in the depth that this section is involved.

Okay, starting from the top, section 18(1): “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows respecting the system of tolls.” The first word that comes, “respecting”: is that ordinary meaning, is that legal interpretive, or is that pursuant to a section?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Ordinary meaning.

Rob Botterell: Is it the case that in drafting clause 18 of the act — in fact, all clauses of this legislation — experienced legislative counsel were involved in drafting these sections in accordance with established legislative drafting protocols in British Columbia, taking into account the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of acts that the legislative counsel, through their extensive experience, draw on to make the choices in terms of legislative terms?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it is true.

Steve Kooner: That was a good point brought up by the House Leader of the Third Party.

My questioning has to do with interpretation, not the actual effect of the drafting, so I will continue. There are probably people listening, and what we’ve found out by asking these questions…. I was really surprised in some of the answers too. I thought sometimes there was ordinary meaning that would be applicable, but there was actually a legal meaning to it. So I think this is a helpful exercise in terms of how to interpret this particular section.

Thank you for that response to my question earlier in regards to “respecting.” I will go further: “respecting the system of tolls, fees or charges referred to in section 14.”

Then we move on to subsection (b), and then again we see “respecting.” We have now, on the courtesy of the response from the Attorney General in terms of the previous subsection…. We can continue: “respecting the payment.” The Attorney General did supply a definition for “payment” earlier.

I don’t believe we addressed collection. In regards to collection, is that the ordinary meaning? I believe that “collection” may be used in other statutes. So just some clarification here. Is that the legal meaning, or is that just taken from another statute?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s just as an ordinary meaning, collecting of the debt.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation.

Respecting the payment, collection and enforcement of tolls, fees and charges, now “enforcement” seems to be a pretty straightforward explanation, and that goes to…. My understanding is that just goes to another word for the collecting of tolls, fees and charges. Is there a reason why we have both “collection” and “enforcement” in this phrase?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The language is consistent with clause 15, and it ties in the regulatory-making power with the powers in clause 15.

Steve Kooner: Going further with the collection and enforcement of tolls fees and charges, then we’re in the next subparagraph: “respecting exemptions from the payment of tolls, fees and charges.” The only word in that particular line that I would just like a clarification on is “exemptions.”

Hon. Niki Sharma: Ordinary meaning.

Steve Kooner: Going further, in subsection (d), “prescribing interest rates and the manner of calculating interest payable for the purpose of this part,” we’ve already covered calculating. We’ve covered interest. We’ve covered payments. The only thing that we have not covered…. We’ve covered interest. The only thing we have not covered is “rates” and the word “prescribing” — maybe just an explanation on those two.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Prescribed means, in the Interpretation Act, section 29, prescribed by regulation — interesting definitions; and rates is ordinary meaning.

Steve Kooner: Okay. In terms of this particular phrase, I think we are good with the definitions here. Actually there is one more. It’s (d), prescribing interest rates and the manner of calculating. So the word “manner” — can there be an explanation of that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s ordinary meaning, so it’s the way that you would calculate that.

Steve Kooner: All right. Now we can move on to subsection 18(2): “Without limiting subsection (3), in making a regulation establishing a system” — I believe we’ve had an extensive discussion on the previous sections about establishing a system as well — “of tolls, fees or charges, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following: (a) designate provincial undertakings….” So to designate — can there be an elaboration on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the ordinary meaning. It’s just applying that to something.

Steve Kooner: All right. Subsection (b) is pretty straightforward. We’ve covered most…. Actually, I think we covered terms and conditions, but there was something extra supplied in the previous section. I’d like a clarification on terms and conditions for this clause 18 as well, because this is a pretty lengthy section here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Ordinary meaning.

[5:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up to that.

It was my understanding that there was a further elaboration that was provided — terms and conditions — and this is how, in legal drafting, these specific words are actually used. It wasn’t exactly ordinary meaning in a previous reference. Has that changed in this situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It hasn’t changed. It’s ordinary meaning.

Steve Kooner: Onto the next clause, subsection (c), “establish.” I remember when we were discussing “to differentiate.” This is what was interesting in something previous. If you want to have some different standards, I believe the Attorney General was saying that you’ve got to differentiate.

For this word “different” here, I will ask for the meaning on this one. Is that ordinary meaning, or is this one that has the legal connotation, has actual legal significance, and you have to put it in here in order to charge different levels of amounts for different items?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the same answer as last time I was asked about this. It gives you the power to discriminate between things.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that.

That’s why I ask these questions about interpretation, because I’ve actually never heard of that answer before, and I’ve been a lawyer for approximately 18½ years. That was the first time I got that explanation. It was really helpful for me to understand that you need to have that clarification in order to actually have different classes. If you don’t differentiate, you can’t do that, according to legal drafting. Thank you for that interpretation.

“Establish different amounts for tolls, fees or charges based upon one or more of the following.” Now, we know in statutory provisions, when you’re talking about dates, days, times and use…. When you’re talking about even different court statutes and when you’re trying to calculate different periods of time, there are two clear days or they have all-inclusive days, so this could be subject to interpretation.

In terms of dates, days, times: are these words just taken directly out of the Interpretation Act, or is there any other significance in term?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As they sit here, it’s the ordinary meaning of all those words, and then the Interpretation Act offers guidance as to what a day means, like business day or not. There’s a way that the Interpretation Act sets it out. If there was a regulation under that and you needed that guidance to interpret what five days means, you could refer to the Interpretation Act.

Steve Kooner: Pursuant to the Interpretation Act, is it fair to say that when we’re talking about days in this context, it would have to be business days not calendar days?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it wouldn’t have to be.

Steve Kooner: “Dates, days, or times of use.” I know “use” shows up a few more times. If explanation can be provided on this particular clause for use. Is that the ordinary meaning?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That terminology is linked back to clause 14 and the setting out of the powers. It’s a regulatory-making power that’s linked to that.

[5:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for the explanation. There’s another reason why we canvass these questions. There are sometimes references to other pieces of legislation.

Going further: “Use of a provincial undertaking or portion of that provincial undertaking.” In terms of portion, would there be a degree of portion that they have to be, or it could be just any type of portion? It could be one-tenth of the size or half of the size? What constitutes a portion?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It leaves it open to the decision of the regulation. It doesn’t determine what…. It just means a portion, which is less than a whole.

Steve Kooner: In law we have this de minimis terminology that we use. There has to be a certain level or degree in order to qualify. There is no qualification on this. It could just be just a little bit, and it’s in there, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, as enabling, it doesn’t set any bounds on that. But of course, in the regulation, you would have to define it so there was a geographical region that that thing applied to.

Steve Kooner: Okay, just going forward. “Portion of a provincial undertaking.” Then the next clause, subsection (ii): “extent of use of that provincial undertaking.”

“Use” we got, but “extent”? That’s similar to “portion.” Maybe an elaboration can be provided. I know there were certain guidelines for portion, but what about for extent?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just the ordinary meaning of the word “extent.”

Steve Kooner: Going further. “Extent of use of the provincial undertaking or portion of a provincial undertaking.” Then we get into “class of a user of provincial undertaking, portion of provincial undertaking.”

This “class from a previous….” I don’t see it in any previous classification in a definition. But this is really important because we talked about classes and distinguishing between classes. There could be different tolls or different amounts for different classes of groups.

In terms of class, can the Attorney General elaborate on that particular item?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s elaborated quite extensively under 3(a), where it talks about how you can define a class of users, operators, vehicles in a provincial undertaking.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that.

“Class of user of a provincial undertaking or portion of a provincial undertaking.” Okay, now this is important. “Ownership or registration of a vehicle.” Ownership, as we have discussed in previous areas…. We talked about corporations, and ownership could be so many different things. I think the previous explanation I had in something else I asked in the previous section was that that the provincial government would try to find out whatever levels to latch on. I don’t remember the exact provision that we were looking at that time.

Ownership is actually a very important term in legal language, and ownership could be a lot different. There could be different classes of interpretation and different legal entities and all that.

When we’re looking at ownership in this context, can the Attorney General please provide me that? And then, to just speed up the process here, maybe just provide me the explanation for registration and vehicle as well.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s to differentiate the fact that you could own something but not be registered for that vehicle. You could own the vehicle but not be the one that’s registered to ICBC or whatever to drive that vehicle. It’s to make sure that that’s clear.

Steve Kooner: In vehicle ownership, we sometimes have…. Well, I guess you can’t call it ownership. But there’s lien interest, and that could be a proprietary interest as well in a vehicle. Would that apply to a lien interest as well in this situation?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We need a little bit more clarity to understand how that’s relevant to this.

Steve Kooner: Well, in regards to this particular clause, it talks about “without limiting subsection (3), in making a regulation establishing a system of tolls, fees or charges, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following.” And then we have “establish a different amount for tolls, fees and charges based upon one or more of the following…based upon ownership.”

For example, certainly, my interpretation of that is different owners can have different tolls, fees and charges. If that is the case, then ownership is relevant because if there’s a whole bunch of people with lien interest and that’s considered an ownership class, they could actually have a different fee or charge under this legislation. That’s how it would be relevant.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re unfortunately still having trouble on this side understanding how ownership of liens or liens would be relevant to this.

What would be set up is a regime that would design something to determine who’s responsible for that toll, charge or fee. And that would be either like an owner of a vehicle, for example, or the person registered, the owner of that vehicle. That would be the more relevant way that you would design it, so that’s where we’re at on this side.

Steve Kooner: I guess I can shed more light on the question.

In ownership of a vehicle, there could be somebody on paper who owns that vehicle, and you’ll see that on the registration. But there could be somebody like a bank that essentially owns that vehicle. They will get that vehicle back if some people fail to make the payments. That would kind of be like a lien interest.

What do they call that interest? There’s a word for it, for property, I think, rather than lien. There are other examples, such as if some person has an in-trust interest in that property. There are some similar provisions. Although you’ve passed on the title for the vehicle, the vehicle could actually go back to, like, whoever sold it, to the dealership or whatever. They could have a remaining interest in that vehicle. That could be in the form of a lien or something like that.

I’ve seen similar stuff like that. Yeah, and that’s called, like, a proprietary interest in the actual property. So that’s a form of ownership, but it’s not ownership by just having a name on the record. So would they avoid…?

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: Point of order. I fail to see how this line of questioning is relevant to the discussion of subclause 18(2)(c)(iv). The plain meaning of ownership is the plain meaning of ownership, and as cabinet puts together regulations, cabinet will, with the support of legal counsel and with the support of senior public servants, establish for the purposes of the regulation what ownership entails.

I don’t see “lien” listed in here. I don’t see how that line of questioning is relevant. The meaning of ownership is its ordinary meaning, and senior public servants and legal advisers to the minister will define it for the purposes of a particular regulation, and the regulations may differ. So I fail to see the relevance of this line of questioning.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Please give us a moment.

The member’s point of order is well taken. The Chair was not convinced of relevancy as well. I encourage the member to move on with his line of questioning.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: Basically, I’m getting at the meanings of the actual term “ownership” here, and the question was for the government. I wasn’t asking the Third Party House Leader for the answer. So I’m left in…. I know there are different proprietary interests with ownership. I’ll leave it for the record: I asked a question, and it wasn’t answered. I will go forward.

Moving forward, we’ve heard the government’s perspective so far on ownership and registration of a vehicle, and we’re going further into subclause (v), which deals with the characteristic of a class of vehicle. Now, in terms of characteristic, is there any further elaboration on that?

Point of Order

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I would like to raise a point of order, please. The member has stated that he asked a question that wasn’t answered. In fact, what I witnessed was the Chair directing the member that that was not an in-order question. In fact, it wasn’t answered…. There was no opportunity to answer it. The Chair had made a ruling, and I think having that down on the record does not correctly capture what just occurred.

The Chair: Thank you for stating that on the record.

Just confirming that the member is going to explore a new line of questioning.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: We’re on the next clause, clause (v), and this deals with “characteristic.” Or yeah, clause (v), sorry. And the question is for clarification of that meaning.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Ordinary meaning.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Clause (v), “characteristics or class of vehicle,” moving on to (d), “establish rules respecting the administration of system, tolls, fees and/or charges,” and then going further to subsection (3), “in making a regulation under this part, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following.”

Now, “in making a regulation” — that prompts my attention. Can I please get clarification on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It means as it says: in the making of the regulation of this part, so when you’re making the regulation.

[5:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Okay. If the Attorney General can look at the whole of subsection (3) and just have a quick glance at it, is there anything in this whole paragraph that doesn’t deal with ordinary meaning? There is actual legal meaning to it, or it’s taken from a different section or a different statute?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The definition of all of those is defined as “provincial undertaking,” which is what we talked about in a previous clause.

Steve Kooner: Okay. That concludes my line of questioning in terms of interpretation.

Now on this particular clause, there were some questions answered that I need further clarifications on. I asked a question earlier on in terms of human rights and the constitution — well, part of the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in terms of the different classifications and all that.

There are certain classes of people that…. It’s not by their trait that they’re classified, but they may be classified by their financial, socioeconomic place in society. That goes to the affordability question.

We are talking about tolls, and we have been told that there’s some degree of flexibility in how the relevant minister will implement those tolls, fees and charges. But whenever the issue comes up, some people may have different financial means of either paying for tolls, different financial means in terms of paying for some of this.

What is some extra safeguard that can help us in understanding this provision in regards to affordability and in regards to these particular tolls, fees and charges?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, Chair.

Clause 18 approved on division.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to note that I think, by agreement, and I would ask my critic to stand up if they have a question of this, we were going to pare 19 to 26 collectively, and as the tabled amendment was that these would be removed from the bill, that we would just hold a vote right now to vote them down.

I just wanted to let you know for the next clauses, from 19 to 26. That’s the agreement.

Clauses 19 to 26 inclusive negatived.

On clause 27.

Steve Kooner: We’re on clause 27 now, which deals with part 5, general provisions. I know when we started part 3, we asked the general question whether the Attorney General wanted to kind of just give us an overview of part 3.

[5:55 p.m.]

Would the Attorney General want to give her overview on part 5 as well, or should we just go to the clauses?

Okay. In terms of clause 27, it speaks of application of the Offence Act: section 5, general offence, of the Offence Act, does not apply to this act, the regulations or directives.

I guess the first question I have is: why does the Offence Act not apply to this piece of legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We just wanted to make it clear that nothing creates an offence under the Offence Act. In a lot of the provisions…. There’s one good example that we were talking about just now, which is the procurement — that a government procurement entity under 7(4) must comply with their directive. We wanted to make it clear through this clause 27 that nothing creates an offence if they don’t comply. That’s to add that clarity.

Steve Kooner: Okay. If nothing creates an offence, what enforcement mechanisms, if any, are available if a government procurement entity or a service provider or individual fails to comply with Bill 7, its regulations or directives issued, and we don’t have access to the Offence Act here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just walk through the member’s question, how it applies to each part.

With part 1, there are no “must” provisions in there, so there would be nothing to attach any enforcement or make sure to clarify there was no offence under the Offence Act. In part 2 — I spoke about that — the government procurement entities must comply. It makes it clear that that’s not an offence under the Offence Act if they fail to comply. We already talked about the consequences of enforcement on that, and we talked about the indemnity provisions and the ways that we would have compliance or enforcement under that.

Then for part 3, what clearly would be established is — through clause 15; we talked about that — a separate enforcement regime that’s related to the tolls and charges and fees if they were to come by. This also brings clarity to those provisions. There is a “must” in clause 14, too, under part 3. We wanted to make it clear it couldn’t be an offence under the Offence Act if somebody didn’t comply with it.

Steve Kooner: I get the part that the Offence Act does not apply. The question that comes to mind that…. These procurement entities are going to be handling millions of dollars. I keep mentioning an example in earlier parts of this debate, and the amount that the Attorney General highlighted was, I believe, $600 million. That amount can go even higher, although that amount was provided — $600 million. In terms of accountability measures, people handling British Columbia taxpayer funds….

[6:00 p.m.]

To get more certainty in regards to the Offence Act not applying but where these entities are still using taxpayer money, and some of the money is in the millions…. We’re looking at accountability here.

The follow-up question is: does the government believe that the civil remedies alone, that whatever’s in here alone, are sufficient to ensure compliance with important directives and regulations under this act, particularly when public funds and infrastructure are at stake?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. I think we had an opportunity to talk at length during the individual parts about all the laws and enforcement that would apply to each one of these parts.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

Okay. All right. I understand that we may have spoken at length of it, and there’s a certain degree that there are audit mechanisms, I believe. Back in that discussion, we were talking about certain things they have to do, and then there are protections for these procurement entities in terms of indemnification — in addition to indemnification, certain actions against them being statute-barred. I get that. There are protections for them, and then there are some accountability mechanisms.

But what happens if British Columbia money is lost? Other than, you know…. What exactly would happen to them under…? If you want to do something punitive to the entities that have cost millions of dollars, how do you deal with that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered. I’d refer the member to the very extensive conversation we had during part 1 about the consequences and the ways that there’s protection against corruption or actions that the member is bringing up again in this section.

Steve Kooner: Would that go to the “bad faith” qualification?

Interjection.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the House Leader for the Third Party.

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: We’ve canvassed this, all of this, very extensively under previous sections. The member is really reopening discussions that we’ve had, and we’ve covered all these points in some detail — in fact, in extensive detail — over numerous days and numerous hours. And to maybe make the point, we probably wouldn’t be having to deal with time allocation and closure if we weren’t spending so much time redoing questions that have already been addressed.

The Chair: I would remind the member to avoid repetition and remain relevant to the clause.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: To address that point, we also wouldn’t have a closure and time allocation if we didn’t have Bill 7. Just for the record.

Moving to my last question on this particular section. Are there any precedents for where offence acts have been omitted in relevant legislation such as this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are, I’m told, hundreds of examples of this, and the reason for it is that the section 5 of the Offence Act says if a legislation says you must do something and you don’t do it, then it’s an offence automatically. Many legislative regimes that are out there are designed to have their own mechanisms, but the Offence Act provides a really good legislative, I guess you would say, background for that. If you want to make a breach of a provision an offence, then you can just rely on section 5.

Clause 27 approved.

On clause 28.

[6:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Okay. So we’re on to clause 28.

In regard to clause 28, my first question here, as written: can the Attorney General explain why such broad and open-ended regulatory powers are necessary under clause 28, rather than relying on more specific authority targeted to known issues?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Section 41 of the Interpretation Act — it’s very common to have this included as a general power to reference that section, because it makes it clear. Then anything ancillary to the regulatory-making power that’s in other sections is also included in that power.

I’d just refer the member…. We can pull the statute book up to section 41(1) of the Interpretation Act, because it really makes it clear what that is.

Gavin Dew: Casting our minds back to clause 10, there was an amendment brought forth by the Attorney General which added greater definition to the matter of delegating a matter to a person, as well as conferring a discretion on a person. That was done in clause 10, and it added greater specificity to limit the scope of individuals to whom a delegation or the conferring of discretion could be undertaken.

Could the Attorney General explain why the same specificity is not being added to this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a statutory interpretation principle at play here. Generally, the specific overrides the general. So when we talk about the amendment that was in section 10…. And that’s being specific to that part. That would be the one that was read as being, clearly, the specific one for the regulatory power in that part.

[6:10 p.m.]

In this one, this is general powers respecting regulations. This is a standard clause that’s added, related to regulatory-making power, as it’s very common when any ministry does regulation that there are delegation authorities and that power to do that.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation, and while that makes logical sense, I am still just a little bit concerned here in that, under this clause, we are giving the LGIC the ability to delegate a matter or confer discretion to a person, any person. That doesn’t really strike me as being sound. That still does strike me as being a little bit concerning.

I do think that the amendment to clause 10 was brought forward in a way that did create greater specificity. I don’t think that there would be objection on this side of the House if the AG wanted to bring forward a similar amendment to this section that would create greater specificity around who could be delegated or have a discretion conferred to them. It does strike me as being something where there should be symmetry between the parts.

I’m not a lawyer, to be sufficiently informed as to the difference exactly, but it does strike me as something where an amendment has been made to a prior clause that by all appearances made sense, and it could well be made to this same clause for clarity.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a standard, general clause when there’s regulatory-making powers.

I’ll just give the member an example to help understand why it’s needed. Cabinet is not going to be the one that collects a toll, right? If it was ever put in place, it’ll be another person, so you need the ability to delegate any regulatory-making power to individuals or persons in the province. That’s the reason for this.

Again, the amendment to section 10 is very key and is direct to that part, so then that protection of who you’re going to delegate that procurement-making decision to is very clear and confined.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. So just to dumb it down for me, what you’re referring to, effectively, would be delegating the front-line collection of a toll and those kinds of areas?

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation.

Steve Kooner: In this particular section, in 28(1), it states: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.” It goes on further: “The authority to make regulations under another provision of this act does not limit subsection (1).” It talks about giving clarification that certain provisions are not limited.

I have a question in regard to this. Why was it necessary to state that the general powers in this clause, 28(1), are not limited by any other specific regulation?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This subsection (2) is there as a safety net type of provision. Section 41 of the Interpretation Act, and the member could look at it, gives this kind of residual ancillary power like procedural matters that you might need to have to have procedural fairness, setting a fee through an enactment, these types of general ancillary powers for making of regulations.

I mentioned before that, generally speaking, what you say is that the specific will override the general, but in this situation you’re flipping that, and you’re making it clear that, actually, these kind of ancillary-making powers…. It doesn’t matter what any other section says, you still have them — the regulatory-making powers in the Interpretation Act. It acts as that safety net for the types of things you need to do. I was mentioning procedural fairness or procedural mechanisms or fee setting that you might need to do through the ancillary regulatory-making power to make that clear that it still exists.

Clause 28 approved.

Rob Botterell: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add a new clause 28.1 to the bill.

[CLAUSE 28.1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Reporting

28.1 The minister responsible for the administration of a regulation that is made, amended, or repealed under this Act must, as soon as practicable, publish the following on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the ministry:

(a) a summary of the regulation

(i) that is made, or

(ii) as amended;

(b) the rationale for the enactment, amendment or repeal of the regulation;

(c) any other prescribed information.]

The clause ensures transparency and accountability of government decision-making as the government navigates these changes, and I encourage all members to support this amendment.

The Chair: The debate is now on the new clause 28.1, moved by the Third Party House Leader.

On the amendment.

[6:20 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the amendment brought forward by the member. Certainly I see a lot in here to like. We on this side of the House are certainly favourable to this kind of transparency, this kind of disclosure, and I certainly intend to support the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll be supporting this amendment. I just want to thank the member for bringing it forward, and I really appreciated the discussions we’ve had to work together, along with many members of the public, to make sure that this bill is a strong one and that it helps us in the face of the threats that we’re having. I appreciate the work.

Kiel Giddens: I will also be supporting this amendment. This is a topic that we have discussed multiple times in previous parts of the bill, if members here may recall.

This is something that should be looked at because that transparency for the public…. In the last part, we talked about some of the need of public reporting and making sure that that’s possible. But there was also that reporting to make sure that the public has knowledge of what’s actually happening, that the business community can see what’s happening. I think that’s a reason I’m supporting this amendment.

I’ll thank the House Leader for the Third Party for bringing this forward. I’m pleased to support it today.

Steve Kooner: I want to thank the Third Party House Leader for bringing this proposed clause amendment, as 28.1. Throughout this debate, we have been talking about accountability. We have been talking about transparency. We have been talking about getting information out to the public about this bill. The publishing requirements under this proposed amendment actually address some concerns that we have been highlighting.

I echo the remarks of my colleagues the members for Prince George–Mackenzie as well as Kelowna-Mission. I will also be supporting this proposed amendment.

Amendment approved.

Clause 28.1 approved.

Rob Botterell: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to add a new clause, 28.2, to the bill.

[CLAUSE 28.2, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Review of the Act

28.2 (1) In this section, “select standing committee” means the select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly that is designated for the purposes of this section.

(2) A regulation made under section 3 (4), 5, 7, 14, 18, or 28 stands referred to the select standing committee.

(3) If a regulation is made under section 3 (4), 5, 7, 14, 18, or 28, a copy of the regulation must be filed as soon as practicable with the select standing committee by the minister charged with the administration of the section under which the regulation is made.

(4) Within 30 days after the date a regulation is filed under subsection (3), the select standing committee must begin a review of the regulation.

(5) On or before September 1, 2027, the select standing committee must present a final report to the Legislative Assembly.

(6) The select standing committee may file any interim reports and the final report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.]

This amendment, should it pass, will task a select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly to be referred all regulations made under this act. The committee will have 30 days after the date a regulation is filed to begin a review of the regulation. The select standing committee will be enabled to file interim reports on the reviews of regulations and present a final report on or before September 1, 2027.

This amendment allows the committee to have the ability to receive and review regulations as soon as practicable and is a practical way to ensure legislative oversight.

I hope all members will support this amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to also show my support for this amendment. Again, I appreciate the work of the member and all of our work to get this bill across the line.

Kiel Giddens: This is an interesting amendment that’s been brought forward by the House Leader from the Third Party. I actually was considering an amendment to this myself. We as the opposition have been tabling amendments all throughout this process so far, and I had been considering an amendment that would direct this to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

[6:25 p.m.]

In considering this, I actually prefer the amendment as proposed that we’re discussing right now because I think this requires a special select standing committee. I think that would be very useful to private members, especially those private members who have taken part in this debate thus far.

I think it is important that…. I myself am not on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, but I think some of those…. I’d be happy to sit next to the member for Saanich North and the Islands as part of that committee, if appointed to do so.

I think it goes to part of why this is needed. We’ve talked a lot about the need for legislative oversight, and that’s something that throughout the course of this entire bill, as we’re now on the last part, finally, of this Bill 7…. I certainly am very glad that we were able to vote down part 4, which the public had an outcry for. I was pleased to be in the room to witness that.

We still do need oversight and transparency. We’re not going to get that, as we’ve canvassed it in this room already. We as MLAs are not going to be, on the opposition side, able to scrutinize some of these regulations as they’re brought forward. They are going to be ordered by cabinet.

In the last part that we were talking about, it was, of course, on the ability for the government to have pretty wide-ranging power in establishing, varying or revoking of toll systems. That’s something that the opposition and we as private member MLAs won’t have an opportunity to take part in, some of those discussions, even though that can actually be considered a taxation-like authority to the executive, when section 53 of the Constitution Act of 1867 reserves all money bills to the Legislature. That could be something that can be considered a money bill, so we are concerned about that.

We’re concerned about the fact that the opposition…. Whether it’s in internal, interprovincial trade, whether it’s in procurement directives or whether it’s in the tolls, fees and charges, the opposition still will not be able to take part in some of the discussions on how those are going to be implemented.

There still are broad, sweeping powers from this bill. MLAs need to be able to review those after the fact, and that’s why I think this amendment will actually give MLAs the opportunity, in a select standing committee, to make sure that we have knowledge of what’s happening. We can review it, and the public…. We can bring transparency to it, moving forward. In that case, I will be supporting this amendment.

Thank you for the time, Madam Chair.

Gavin Dew: To echo what’s been said by my colleagues, certainly we remain concerned about some of the aspects of the bill. We remain concerned about the lack of oversight, and that is precisely why we’re pleased to see this amendment brought forward and the Attorney General signalling that the government will be supporting it.

I think it’s certainly fair to say that we appreciate not only the intent of the amendment but also the structure and thought that has gone into it by the member. Certainly, I will also be supporting the amendment.

Rob Botterell: I just want to clarify one point so there’s no confusion on this. This clause establishes that it will be a select standing committee that does the work of reviewing regulations. This won’t be a special all-party committee.

I think whichever select standing committee is designated for the purposes of this clause, we will find a stampede of MLAs who are qualified to be on that committee, lobbying to be on that committee to be able to participate in this work.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to maybe take a moment to say that there’s been a real level of solidarity in this room in the last two clauses that I haven’t seen in the debate yet.

[6:30 p.m.]

I think it’s, hopefully, a sign that we all understand the threat and what we’re facing and that we need to work together as British Columbians to face that and that it leads to support of the work through this bill.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Third Party House Leader for this proposed amendment.

I echo the remarks of my colleagues the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, as well as my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission. We are still very concerned about this particular Bill 7 in terms of…. As you can see from the debate we have had, we are all for protecting British Columbians and making sure British Columbians are protected if there are threats of tariffs against British Columbians. But with the same token, we also want to see that there’s no executive overreach and British Columbians’ rights are protected in this province.

We have been asking throughout this debate for accountability, transparency. In line with that reasoning, this particular proposed amendment, brought forward by the Third Party House Leader, is an extra tool in the toolbox for accountability.

For that particular reason, I, like my colleagues from Prince George–Mackenzie and Kelowna-Mission, will be supporting this proposed amendment.

Amendment approved.

Clause 28.2 approved.

On clause 29.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to note the amendment that’s on the order paper for clause 29, and I would like to move that amendment. This is an amendment that addresses the removal of part 4.

[CLAUSE 29, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Repeal

29 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following are repealed on May 28, 20272026:

(a) Part 1;

(b) sections 6, 7, and 10 and 11;

(c) Part 3;.

(d) sections 19 to 24.

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, repeal a provision of this Act referred to in subsection (1) (a) to (d)(c) on a date earlier than May 28, 20272026.

(3) Unless earlier repealed, a regulation made under this Act is repealed on May 28, 20272026.]

Amendment approved.

On clause 29 as amended.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, there’s, I think, a healthy level of support and respect on all sides of the House for addressing matters around interprovincial trade barriers. I think it has been widely stated, publicly and in this House, that our side is, certainly, supportive of addressing interprovincial trade barriers.

We’ve also brought forward our own proposed legislation around interprovincial trade barriers. It has been a matter of extensive discussion in the business community, and I think it would be fair to say that it is the area of the bill that has the greatest approximation of consensus.

I would like to better understand why it is that the government intends to have part 1 sunset rather than having those changes around interprovincial trade barriers be ongoing?

[6:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think there was a general acknowledgement throughout this discussion that we’re in unprecedented times, and that has led us to do things — and good things — because I think individual trade barriers are one of those things to move quickly on things.

In light of the powers that were in the bill in each section, including the powers in part 1 that relate to just dropping all regulations, and for goods and services, legislation regulations for goods and services that could impact interprovincial trade barriers, it is a very broad and kind of unprecedented way to do it, and we stand by that. We think that meets the moment. It is the right thing to do.

But the checks and balances of that…. This sunset clause, with the timing, provides an opportunity for there to be a check-in with the Legislature again within the next year. So we would be able to have the flexibility of the regulatory power in part 1 and have ministers make the decisions to make things permanent that they think should be permanent, with that check and balance of having the legislative check-in and oversight that would come as we come up close to that sunset clause.

It is a way of balancing the ability to move quickly and put the powers in there to move quickly while putting in that kind of oversight that we’ve been talking about a lot in this bill.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer from the Attorney General.

We certainly have substantial concerns around this short-term approach. In particular, I would note that under this amendment brought forward by government, we’ve now actually reduced the duration of removing trade barriers down to only 13 months. I think it has been a consistent message from the business community that that would actually create quite a level of complexity and instability.

When it comes to the kinds of signals being sent to markets that will actually cause companies to make different decisions around their own commercial behaviours, what investment thrives on is stability, predictability and certainty, looking forward. What would be created, I would submit, by this 13-month removal of trade barriers is a situation where probably a significant number of decision-makers in markets would either be unable to make appropriate long-term capital planning and capital allocation decisions or would be left with uncertainty.

With the new exposure to the ability to trade between provinces, obviously people need to plan. People need to hire. People need to invest in plants, in people, in equipment, in order to be able to really actually take advantage of this. And 13 months is not a workable timeline for anything but the most incremental, relatively smaller decisions in terms of interprovincial trade barriers. If the intent truly is to break down these trade barrier walls that have constrained our country and our province for so long, it seems quite problematic to do it for only so short a period of time.

[6:40 p.m.]

With that in mind, could the Attorney General talk about any studies, analysis, white papers, quantitative economic work that might have been done by government in order to substantiate their belief that a two-year, or now a 13-month, period of removing trade barriers would actually be effective?

In particular, were there any specific unintended consequences identified from that short period?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way this is designed, actually….

I appreciate the member’s comments about certainty. We want to provide certainty. This is an economic stabilization bill, and certainly the meetings that I’ve been having with those impacted by these tariffs have been saying that we need to stabilize this way.

The balance that’s found in this bill does a few things that I think are very important to this discussion. One is that it adds to our ability to drop interprovincial barriers quicker than other pieces of legislation. We talked about this extensively in part 1. It allows us to do things through exceptions and regulations quicker than other jurisdictions, with the ability to have this broad power to drop them with one section and then make exceptions to regulation.

We’ve had discussions, quite a bit, in this debate about how you balance overriding authority or cabinet authority with the right guardrails. In that context, the sunset clause in the provision is one of those guardrails that makes it so there would be a legislative check. There would be a point where the ministers, while making these things permanent and assessing which ones are permanent over the year, would do the work of doing those legislative checks to make sure where we have debates about where the permanence will be.

It also will give us the ability to move faster in another way. The timeline that’s set out here, actually, I think does the opposite of what the member was talking about. It makes the ministers, any of the ministers responsible…. It makes it very clear to them that they have a time limit as to when all of these things can be put into place permanently.

We’re dropping the trade barriers through regulation instantly, and for all the permanent changes, there’s a timeline that they have to make them permanent. We, through that process and the minister’s communication with all stakeholders, can provide the certainty that I think the member is asking for and actually move quicker than other provinces are doing or potentially are doing because the reciprocity and the requirement for reciprocity could mean that if you’re waiting for every province to give you reciprocity before you drop a trade barrier, you’re actually stuck.

Gavin Dew: Could the Attorney General elaborate on what she referenced in terms of the timeline and help us to understand how that works? Is there a specified…? I’m not sure if the Attorney General is referring to the 13-month timeline.

A couple of things. Firstly, 13 months is a very long timeline to actually get things into place. If the intention here is to move quickly, I would think that there would be fast action. I would assume, in that instance, that if the belief was, “Hey, we need to move quickly,” then one would think that the kind of timeline being set would be a timeline to implementation rather than a timeline to repeal.

It’s brought to mind for me, again, that we still don’t have B.C.-based craft spirits on shelves some two months after that promise was made by government. I understand the logic that the Attorney General is coming from, but is there not a better way to create urgency in terms of the timeline to implementation? It strikes me that what this sunset clause is doing is creating a timeline from implementation, not a timeline to implementation.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to provide further clarity, it creates the timeline for permanency.

There is now if this is passed, the minute it’s passed, first of all, the immediate dropping of trade barriers through those exemptions. That’s a quick process right there. That provides a signal and a certainty to everybody in this province that we intend to drop these.

[6:45 p.m.]

Then there’s an absolute timeline on that, through the sunset clause, that puts that pressure on every minister who might have something in a category that is an internal trade barrier to drop that within this certain time, that we’re expecting them to do the work instantly and make, through those permanent changes.

I just want to talk a little bit about why it…. One of the reasons that it’s been so hard for interprovincial trade barriers — and I’m sure the member knows this — across the country is the complexity of all the regulatory and legislative regimes out there that show up as an interprovincial trade barrier. You may not intend it to, but it does.

The power that is in part 1 is quite exceptional because it drops it. It drops those things that are interprovincial trade barriers for goods and services. The signal that we’re sending to businesses in B.C. and the country and our partners in other provinces is that we are going to do this quickly.

Then the checks and balances, the timeline that we’ve set out in the sunset clause and the fact that the ministers have to get to work right away to make that permanent…. I think that the net result of this will be B.C.’s ability to move way quicker — there are timelines built in, and the sunset clause is part of that — than any other jurisdiction in doing that. We’re also at other tables that are working through agreements. We’ve talked about that at length. This gives us the legislative framework to drop things quickly and also have the legislative check-in that I know we’ve had lots of discussion about.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much to the Attorney General for the answer.

I do just want to go back to a prior question to pull on a thread that we didn’t quite get to. That is: what study has been undertaken to evaluate the responsiveness of the market and of investors and of decision-makers in a commercial context to the uncertainty of a 24- or, now, 13-month period?

What the Attorney General is describing is not necessarily how this is or will be perceived in markets. So creating a change that asks people, that asks markets, that asks commercial actors to be very responsive is very hard for people in the business of making business decisions to respond to if they don’t know what is forthcoming. The only certainty that is offered under this structure is that you’d better hire a good lobbyist, because you’re now going to have to lobby the minister to extend the temporary provision.

Again, it just goes back to the uncertainty created by that short window of time. Even if…. Again, on a number of occasions during the debate on this bill, I brought up the matter of intent versus effect. I think that while the Attorney General is probably accurately describing the intent, what I am concerned about is the effect of the signal that a 24- or 13-month sunset clause actually creates.

Again, was any study undertaken to understand, on the basis of just fundamental economics, what the effect of a 13- or 24-month sunset clause would be?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We mentioned earlier, when we were talking about part 1, about the study that JEDI is doing about the dropping of interprovincial trade barriers. I just would say to the member, in this discussion, ministers are communicating directly with all stakeholders about our desire to make any changes related to this permanent.

[6:50 p.m.]

But I think that what we also have to understand is that ministers will have to be responsible and charged with the fact that in their stakeholder group of who they’re working with, there may be different considerations at play, right?

For example, we were talking about this a lot in part 1. We want to open up liquor for everybody in the province. You may have to do different things through regulation to do that effectively, and we talked about the regulatory-making power of part 1.

The ministers responsible are going to be, really, charged with making sure their…. The power that is sweeping, of dropping them, is the immediate effect, and then the ministers responsible are going to have to work with their stakeholders to put that permanence in place.

It also gives the, I think, really excellent opportunity to make sure it is made in B.C. and maximizes B.C. businesses through that process. I know that Minister Gibson, the Minister for JEDI, is hard at work at those tables, figuring out what they are. This is moving quicker than this sunset clause, but it still gives that opportunity for us to have that permanent check-in with the Legislature to check that power.

Rob Botterell: In relation to this clause and the sunset nature of the clause, this change was really, certainly, identified from our perspective as being an important check on the cabinet making power in relation to each of these provisions.

Also, just for the record, in my meetings with constituents in the business community in Saanich North and the Islands, they have not expressed a concern about this sunset clause. What they see is that it facilitates moving quickly. To the extent that it lands and everybody is comfortable with it, there is the ability to move more quickly to legislation, even before the sunset clause comes into effect.

They expressed a comfort with working closely with the JEDI Ministry and others to ensure that — they’re all in different sectors — for the particular sector, it makes sense and they can lead the discussions around tariff reduction in a very expeditious way.

I think the question to the Attorney General is: have there been real concerns raised about having this sunset clause, in relation to the trade barriers? Has the Attorney General heard extensive concerns about this in terms of this particular part of the act and the sunset?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Through the work that we’ve done, and I think that’s demonstrated in the process at the committee stage, we’ve attempted to be responsive to the various perspectives about how to land this bill correctly. Since the tabling of the bill, I’ve talked about the meetings that I’ve had. We’ve gone through that quite a bit. I know JEDI has met with many reps from different industries to talk about part 1.

I think there is a level of, I guess, excitement about the fact that we’re finally moving quickly on dropping interprovincial trade barriers, that this is a thing that is being realized not only across the country but in the province and that we have the tools to do so.

Through those meetings, there’s a lot of goodwill developing and the commitment to move quickly and to get there. I think this legislation gives the tools we need to get there and puts a timeline on the permanency of it.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the various commentary.

We have heard pretty extensively from institutional stakeholders in the business community that there is a robust desire to see the sunset clause on part 1 eliminated. There’s been public commentary to that effect from a number of different organizations, groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

[6:55 p.m.]

It seems as though, as we’ve walked through the course of this bill — and we are, thankfully, coming close to the end of it — what we’ve talked about over and over again is trying to make sure that the bill accomplishes what it set out to accomplish.

We obviously don’t share some aspects of the government views about certain powers that we believe constitute overreach, particularly in subsequent sections of the bill, including in sections of the bill that the government has now walked back. But we are very supportive of removing interprovincial trade barriers. We have, again, heard loudly from stakeholders that there is a desire to see permanence, from the perspective of trying to ensure that the intent of the bill is brought to life.

I would just go back to the point that I’ve made in previous questions — that a brief period of two years, or less than two years, in which changes will be in place is really not sufficient to actually drive the kinds of investments and the kinds of commercial decision-making that would be necessary in order to really maximize the short-term and then long-term effect of these removals of interprovincial trade barriers. We very much believe that part 1 should not have a sunset clause applied to it.

I wonder if the Attorney General can illuminate for us whether there were…. What we’ve heard from institutional business voices is a strong desire to not have a sunset clause on the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. Has the Attorney General heard something different in the consultation undertaken by government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve done a review of our correspondence that we’ve received related to the bill. I would say, from the analysis that we’ve taken, that there’s not a widespread discussion about the sunset clause or concerns about it. It was part 4 that was the one that we have the correspondence on, and we of course have responded with the amendments to the bill. So that’s been our experience in the general correspondence that we’ve received.

I think we’ve gotten a wide analysis of it from everybody here that’s read that and reviewed it — that there’s a support for the dropping of interprovincial trade barriers, but there was concern about the part 4 powers related to that.

Steve Kooner: I echo the remarks of my colleague here, the member for Kelowna-Mission. We have heard a lot of concerns from the business community in regards to this provision. There needs to be some sort of consistency and predictability that businesses rely on in order to make decisions. There are issues around this sunset clause, so we on our side of the House are proposing an amendment at this stage.

The amendment, essentially, in regards to clause 29, would strike out its applicability to clause (1)(a), part 1.

I will hand up the provision.

The Chair: The committee shall take a five-minute recess. We will return at 7:05 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7 p.m. to 7:12 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act. We’re on clause 29.

The member for Richmond-Queensborough brought forward an amendment which, I will state, is not in proper form and required significant amendment and changes by the Clerk’s office. We would ask that in the future, if there are proposed amendments, members utilize the Clerk’s office.

We now have a proposed amendment, and the member has confirmed the intent of the amendment.

[CLAUSE 29 (1), as amended, is further amended by striking paragraph (a).]

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Richmond-Queensborough, if you have any remarks.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: In regard to striking out clause (a), we canvassed that in a great deal of discussion. There are a lot of concerns from the business community; they would like certainty in terms of interprovincial trade barriers being removed not only temporarily but on a long-term basis.

Having interprovincial trade barriers removed on a long-term basis would essentially allow businesses to have predictability to do business in British Columbia, to change, essentially, whatever operations they have to get into place to actually start the interprovincial trade that would allow them to go forward with that.

When you have a time period of only 13 months to make a change to your operation and then have the uncertainty that the interprovincial trade barriers will again be reapplied, that really creates a lot of uncertainty for businesses operating across the country.

[7:15 p.m.]

For that reason and many others that we have already canvassed throughout debate, I urge this House, from all sides, to support this amendment.

I will be supporting this amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can appreciate the perspective that the member is presenting with this amendment, and I have to say they can’t have it both ways.

We have had an extensive debate through this bill about the proper checks and balances that are necessary when you exercise cabinet power. They have also spoken, quite a bit, about their concerns, and we have debated about the role of the Legislature and how the Legislature’s role should be included in the discussion.

When you have sweeping powers, there always have to be checks and balances related to those powers. That is the nature of the debate that we’ve been having in this House, so I am quite surprised that they’re moving this amendment, which I think goes…. It removes a role for the Legislature, actually, in providing progress and update on the ministers and what they would present for their permanent work in dropping of the trade barriers.

To the concerns that were raised, which that I’ve said before are unwarranted, about the progress that we are able to make in terms of trade barriers, I just want to reassure the members or anybody listening that might have those: we have been speaking with JEDI in the ministry and their outreach to businesses about the interprovincial trade barriers. That’s been happening constantly, full speed ahead, related to that, and they are not expressing concerns about the sunset clause in those discussions.

They are saying that we can move towards these all being permanent and that we’re excited about the work. If what can happen is that some of those exceptions that come through regulation, the minister says, “These are exactly what we need to do. We’ve consulted with everybody. This is a permanent thing,” it will come to the Legislature for that discussion. I think that’s exactly the discussion that we’ve been having in this House.

I won’t be supporting this amendment. We are providing, at every level, the level of certainty through our discussions that are needed and still having a piece of legislation that has the right accountability in it and the ability to move quickly.

Gavin Dew: Like my colleague for Richmond-Queensborough, I will be supporting this amendment.

As I’ve previously articulated, I do, fundamentally, believe that business and investment thrive on stability, predictability and certainty. I don’t believe that having a sunset clause after 13 months creates that certainty that would drive investment, would drive commercial decision-making.

I certainly do believe that we would be better served by having clarity not only at the technical level but at a visible, symbolic level that businesses and individuals and commercial actors making decisions could have certainty that this, in fact, is a long-term, predictable, stable decision-making basis for making decisions in markets.

We’ve tried, over the course of this bill, to make amendments that we believe are constructive. We’ve tried to make amendments that we believe give clarity to British Columbians and to businesses where clarity has been absent in the bill.

We tried, a few sections ago, to bring an amendment that provided government an opportunity to make it unequivocally clear that they won’t use the powers of Bill 7 to impose road pricing, and government voted against it.

We’re now trying to afford an opportunity to make it abundantly clear that the intention is to have these changes to interprovincial trade barriers be lasting and ongoing, and what I hear from government are statements to the effect that they will be long term but an unwillingness to provide that clarity through this amendment to the bill.

Again, we want to provide clarity, stability, forward-looking investment conditions for folks making decisions on the basis of the removal of interprovincial trade barriers and, accordingly, I will be supporting this amendment.

Rob Botterell: I will not be supporting this amendment. I don’t want to repeat points that have been made, but I do want to summarize two or three key points.

[7:20 p.m.]

The first one is that throughout these committee deliberations I have appreciated the amendments that have been brought forward and, in each case where I did not support the amendment, I laid out in some detail the reasons for not supporting the amendment and addressed the concerns, to the best of my ability, that were raised by the member proposing the amendment.

In this particular case, the use of regulation as a mechanism to move quickly is an extraordinary step to deal with an extraordinary situation, and we absolutely must have sunsets for that type of broad-ranging power.

There is nothing in my consultations and discussions with my business constituents in my riding where they have raised concerns that they can’t work with this approach. In fact, to echo the Attorney General, they’ve been quite excited that this is finally getting underway. There is nothing to stop the JEDI Minister or other ministers who may be involved from moving more quickly than the sunset clause.

If, in a particular sector or a particular business area, there is a willingness and a need to move more quickly in the form of legislation, say in the fall session, that’s certainly doable. But I think the discipline of having a sunset clause for this type of extraordinary regulation-making power is absolutely fundamental to maintaining the important role of the Legislature in legislating, through acts, major changes. I think it strikes the right balance, and for that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 29 as amended.

A division has been called.

[7:25 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson		McCall
NAYS — 7
B. Anderson	Krieger	Routledge
Sharma	Arora	Phillip
	Botterell

The Chair: Shall clause 29 as amended pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

We’ll take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 7:30 p.m. to 7:32 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order. Recognizing the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

Steve Kooner: Is that clause 30?

The Chair: Sorry. My apologies. Recognizing the member for Richmond-Queensborough on clause 29.

Steve Kooner: Just a couple of clarification questions here.

What will be the legal status of the directives, toll systems, procurement decisions or other actions taken under these regulations once those regulations are repealed after May 28, 2026? Will there be a transitional provision to manage this?

The Chair: Just for confirmation, we are on clause 29, and the committee has consented to the reopening of clause 29.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The power that expires after the sunset clause is the power to make new procurement directives. The ones that have been issued under this would stay in place.

[7:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Okay. Just a clarification.

Obviously, there’ll be certain actors acting under various parts of this bill. There’ll be procurement entities. There’ll be people acting under the interprovincial trade provisions, and there might be certain systems put in place through the part 3 part of this bill.

Can the Attorney General confirm that once these parts of Bill 7 are repealed on May 28, 2026, the government will require new legislation, not just regulation, to reintroduce these powers? If the government wanted to reintroduce the powers after that, they would have to do it by new legislation, not regulation, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m just going to clarify my answer previously, which was a little bit off. The procurements that were made under the procurement directives that were existing obviously wouldn’t be stopped. They would go in accordance with whatever procurement directive that they were under. But the procurement directives are regulations under this act, so they would be sunsetted once the timeline kicks in.

To the question that you had about what would happen, yeah, once the sunset clause is kicked in, the powers of the act are gone, so then you would have to come back to the Legislature with a piece of legislation to enact similar powers.

Gavin Dew: A very quick question on this, just to understand.

Procurements made during the time of the act would not be interrupted. Just help me understand. If, for example, a procurement decision is made, and there is a long duration to the duration of the contract, how would that work in terms of long-duration contracts relative to the sunset clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Let’s say there’s a procurement directive that’s put in place through regulation, and that directs a Crown agency to do something, and then they’ve set out their procurement process, and they’ve made their bids or they’ve entered into a contract. The time that the sunset clause kicks in…. It may remove that regulation so that will remove that procurement directive. But that procurement process that was initiated, including any contracts created out there — that stands on its own.

Gavin Dew: Just for clarification, hypothetically, a procurement decision made during the duration of a directive could be a five- or ten-year procurement decision, and that procurement decision would remain in place despite the sunset provision.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Clause 29 as amended approved.

On clause 30.

Steve Kooner: In regards to clause 30, it deals with commencement of the provisions in this bill. So: “The provisions of this act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table.” And then it has a couple of items. The first item in column 1, provisions of act: “Anything not elsewhere covered by this table.” And column 2, commencement: “Date of royal assent.”

There are two commencement periods essentially. For item 1, it’s a date of royal assent, and that’s: “Anything not elsewhere covered by this table.” And then the other different commencement is for sections 1 to 5. This is part 1. It refers to part 1, sections 1 to 5. It’s by regulation of Lieutenant Governor in Council.

[7:40 p.m.]

Just a question in regards to this. Why does the Attorney General not intend sections 1 through 5 to be enacted with royal assent?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That goes back to the construction of part 1, and the thinking was the dropping with exceptions. The exceptions are by regulation, so then the dropping comes into force once the exceptions are in place by regulation, and that’s how it was designed.

Clause 30 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:41 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 7:54 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, to order.

On clause 1.

Peter Milobar: I just have a few overarching decision-making questions around the bill, and then I’ll get into the more direct clause by clause — just for the minister’s information.

Recognizing that there was the fall election, obviously, cabinet then gets sworn in, and the minister assumes her new role. What types of modelling did the minister do or were provided when the decisions around the various either tax increases or tax breaks in Bill 5 were decided upon?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The process that goes on to create this document is really a cycle of briefings, due consideration and then decisions. That is quite similar to most years, and that’s what led to the bill before us.

Peter Milobar: Well, I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the minister in her mandate letter was directed very clearly by the Premier to take some actions and try to look for some overarching themes. We’ve heard that in various budget speeches and delivery. This bill enacts essentially the only tax changes we’ll see other than the carbon tax, which was a separate bill, in this budget.

[8:00 p.m.]

I’m just trying to get a better understanding based on the mandate letter. The minister was instructed when she became the minister, recognizing it’s a year-long process, essentially — budget creation.

Was the minister, then, based on those directions from the Premier’s office to her through the mandate letter, instructing the Finance staff to find a particular target in terms of either net increase or net decrease in revenues that would be coming to government? Was the decision point a return on: if a certain tax cut is made, it will generate this much in other industry revenues; if a tax is increased, it will do the opposite.

What type of modelling was the minister relying on to get to the landing point that we’re at with Bill 5, with the various tax measures that are laid out for this year’s budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, in fact, the mandate letter does inform our budgeting process. But I will remind the member opposite that a mandate letter is for a four-year period, generally. That instruction and that guidance is to be delivered in multiple budgets, not necessarily all in one budget.

The member asked if we modelled out the implications of tax measures that we’re considering and delivering. I will point the member to part 2 of our tax measures within the budget document, on page 59, budget and fiscal plan ’25-26, if they’re interested in looking at the modelling out.

Included in the guidance provided by the Premier to me in this new role…. One of the measurements that we considered in doing this work, and will continue to consider, going forward, is the instruction to ensure that we maintain one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios in the country when compared to our peers, which did guide us in that work. We have hit that mark and will continue to do that work.

[8:05 p.m.]

We’re beginning the work on getting on the path to balance. We’ve begun that work in Budget ’25-26. There’s certainly much more to go in that work, which we’re doing now.

Peter Milobar: The minister touched on an area that I was going to be mentioning: the path to balance. That’s why I’m asking: was the instruction from the minister to the Finance staff that the tax measures in Bill 5 need to be a net revenue increase or a revenue decrease to government?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Essentially, when we’re considering particular tax measures, we’re looking at the totality of the budget alongside our whole fiscal plan and decisions that we’re making.

The member has heard me speak already about our approach to ensure that we’re protecting core services while we do the work to reduce spending and to ensure that we’re stepping down towards a balanced budget.

But I do look forward to getting into a measure-by-measure look at the clauses in this bill in front of us.

Peter Milobar: The budget measures in Bill 5 and in totality: do they add to the deficit, or do they reduce the overall deficit of the budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I would point out to the member that there is benefit in the positive in terms of the fiscal plan in regards to the tax measures included. I’ll point to page 59, part 2 in our tax measures that the taxpayer impacts ’25-26 in total at $45 million, ’26-27 at $31 million, so beginning that movement towards balance.

But again, we’re talking about the budget on the whole, not the Budget Implementation Act, which is the statute that’s before us. I look forward to having fulsome discussion. We have many hours together during the estimates debate to get into that, and now it’s the opportunity for Bill 5.

Peter Milobar: Respectfully, the minister keeps going back to the whole budget. I’m asking about the budget measures in Bill 5, and the question is whether or not the budget measures in Bill 5 add a net benefit to the overall budget or if they’ve added to the deficit.

In other words, would the deficit be, instead of $10.9 billion, $10.8 billion, or would it be $11 billion or some other number on either side of that equation with the measures in Bill 5?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The tax measures are overall net positive.

Peter Milobar: The reason I was asking those questions is it actually does tie into clause 1. Clause 1 is about extending the year that the government no longer is required by law to have a balanced budget and is enabled to run deficits. This extends it out to the 2027-2028 fiscal year, which would be the end of this fiscal plan that was presented. Why, if we are on a path to balance, is 2027-2028 cited, yet in that same fiscal plan those same years are projecting a $9.9 billion deficit?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We do expect that it will take multiple budgets for us to get back to balance.

Peter Milobar: This certain clause has been amended a few times. It went from ’21-22, then to ’25-26, as the current language says. Then it went to ’26-27, now substituting to ’27-28. Can the minister explain to the public why this needs to be extended, and what financial penalties would happen to cabinet if there was not an extension and a change to the act this way?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m happy to explain to the public why we are prioritizing core services and ensuring that we’re protecting what people in British Columbia need and expect from their government, while we do the work to ensure that we get back to a path for balance.

We’re going to do it through a number of different ways, including growing the economy. This work takes time. We’ve been through a global downturn economically. We’ve been through a pandemic. We’ve been able to protect services for British Columbians and stand up important services for them. We’re going to continue that work.

At the same time, and in parallel, we’re doing the work to make sure that our own house is in order, that every dollar is being spent well for British Columbians. We’ve put a freeze on public service hiring. We’ve initiated a very in-depth review of program spending. At the same time, we’re working to grow the economy in a number of different ways, which include bringing down trade barriers across Canada, prioritizing major projects in British Columbia and ensuring that we have the workforce necessary to continue to build a robust British Columbia.

[8:15 p.m.]

I think the public will understand when I say that it’s very important to us that we get back to balance, but that we do it in a way that’s very rational and that protects services that we know they very deeply rely on.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, I’ll shorten the question. The question was: what is the financial implication to the cabinet if this particular section is not amended to extend out when the government is legally allowed to run a deficit or not?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think that in fact there is no implication for cabinet. I think the member is referring to a collective holdback which was repealed in 2022.

Peter Milobar: Then why does section 2.2 of the balanced budget ministerial act need to be amended, let alone with years attached to it, if there’s no impetus?

[8:20 p.m.]

My understanding, and I remember the debates when this happened, is there used to be a 20 percent holdback for cabinet ministers, 10 percent on your ministerial balance and 10 percent for the overall global provincial budget balance.

That was changed the first year that the NDP realized they were going to go into a deficit. It was around the COVID years. That got changed, and a 10 percent holdback was still in place. That is when section 2.2 started getting amended, moving forward, and it has been amended almost every year since, except for the years that the government has just jumped ahead a couple of years.

Is the minister now saying that there is absolutely no holdback for any ministers, for any type of balancing of any budget, in these budgets? If so, what is the purpose of still having section 2.2 in the Budget Transparency and Ministerial Accountability Act?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I heard the member ask about cabinet holdback. To me, the collective holdback is referring to cabinet. That’s why I answered it accurately, the way that I did, that there was a repeal of that legislation in 2022.

The member, I understand, is now asking about the minister holdback, which is in fact what we’re referring to in section 1. The further question of why we would continue to have this if it’s being adjusted is that it still has resonance.

There may be a time in the future where it’s appropriate to have it in place, but that has not been the case in the past number of years — with an economic slowdown during the pandemic and, I would argue, now in light of a very significant threat of tariffs from the south.

Peter Milobar: When I read the act, section 2, “The main estimates for the fiscal year must not contain a forecast of a deficit for that fiscal year;” section 2.1 was repealed, and section 2.2 was added in: “The prohibition in section 2 [prohibition against deficit budgets] does not apply to the main estimates for the 2021-2022 to 2026-2027 fiscal years.”

Now that’s being amended further to ’27-28. The next clause within the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act is on salary holdback: “(1) The salary otherwise payable under section 4 of the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act to each member of the Executive Council must be reduced by 10%. (2) A reduction in salary, under this section, of a member of the Executive Council is to be restored, in full or in part, to the member as provided in, and subject to, section 5.”

Then individual responsibilities are in section 5. Section 4 was the cumulative, which was repealed in 2022.

Just to be clear, the reason section 2.2 needs to be amended this year is that if it were not, ministers would be facing the potential of not having their 10 percent salary holdback released to them when the final accounting happens for the fiscal year ’25-26.

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Section 2.2 is giving the ability for us to run a deficit. It is not related to ministerial holdbacks or to any specific amount related to that.

Peter Milobar: With this section, the provision is going to 2027-2028 in this change, and the current fiscal plan is forecasting a $9.9 billion deficit in that year.

Recognizing that the 2025-26 budget would have been very new into this minister’s mandate as the minister, I think the public could easily assume, taken from this, that this change is happening this year, despite the fact we could have still had a deficit this year without this change from ’25-26. In fact, we could have had one for ’26-27, based on the current wording.

By adding in the last year of this year’s fiscal plan, the minister is acknowledging that there is no intention of the government to get to a balanced budget through the life of this three-year financial plan. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We have stated many times that we expect it will take multiple budgets for us to get back to balance. We’re beginning that work now. It’s work that we’re doing very carefully, very methodically and while protecting core services for British Columbians. It’s possible that it will take longer than three fiscal years to accomplish this important work.

[8:30 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: It would be understandable if section 2 of the act had said that the main estimates for the fiscal year must not contain a forecast of deficit for that fiscal plan, but it says “for the fiscal year.” I can understand if this needed to be changed to meet the legislation around a fiscal plan, but right now this clause in the existing act has ’26-27. It actually has next year, as well, already covered off as a fiscal year, not fiscal plan.

Again, I guess we can take from “many years,” by the minister, to mean “not in the life of this fiscal plan.” Given that this isn’t extended to ’28-29, is the minister, then, saying that she’s confident that ’28-29 will be the year that the government is back in a balanced budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The legislative requirement is really for one year, but it has become legislative practice to include all three years of the fiscal plan, and you see that reflected here.

I will say to the member that I have never said that we expect to get back to balance within this mandate. I’ve always said that it’s going to be over multiple years. I think what’s really important is that we show progress, that we show that this is occurring and that our investors and the public can see that we are doing the work necessary to ensure that we’re on the pathway back to balance.

In fact, it is the work that we are engaged in now. We will have an update in September, in Q2, to reflect the beginning of this work.

I think it’s important to know that our intention is to show us stepping down towards balance over time. By doing it in that way, it provides us the ability to be very careful and strategic, to ensure that we’re protecting services for British Columbians and not doing it in a way that is rash and causes difficulties to those services that are so deeply important to us.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering if we could get some insight as to why it essentially seems to be deemed by the government to be more efficient to transfer to Treasury Board the authority to approve B.C. Assessment bylaws that set taxes and rates for land improvements, instead of remaining as an order in council through the cabinet.

I ask that because Treasury Board typically has non-cabinet-related members — in this case, there are four — that would not necessarily have the same access to some information that that cabinet might otherwise have.

[8:35 p.m.]

What was the driving reason? Is it efficiency? Is it speed? Why is this change suddenly needed?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is about those two things. Essentially, the member is correct. It’s about both efficiency and speed.

The reason for the change is that this streamlines B.C. Assessment’s budget and levy approval process from a two-step process, Treasury Board and Lieutenant Governor in Council, to a one-step process, Treasury Board only. This addresses the challenges within the current process of meeting B.C. Assessment’s legislative timelines by providing tax information to the taxing authorities.

The levy bylaw sets the tax rate by property class for taxing authorities within the tax revenue funding B.C. Assessment’s operations. Treasury Board has authority over management and capital expenditures of government bodies, and this does not materially change the B.C. Assessment funding mechanism and will not have current or future impact on the government fiscal plan.

Peter Milobar: Will the Treasury Board chair or its designate have the authority to independently deal with these issues, as other provisions have now been created for Treasury Board?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The process as such would not change, but in a circumstance like this, rather than going to the chair, it would go to the vice-chair.

Peter Milobar: I appreciate I was a little cryptic, maybe, with that first question.

The minister has said, and it makes sense if it’s having to go through both bodies, that only going through one body would be quicker. In any organization, that should be the case.

However, it’s Treasury Board, which this minister’s predecessors have characterized as slow and plodding and not being able to move quick enough and hard to get meetings and everyone in the same room, and that’s why the law was changed so that the chair and the vice-chair of Treasury Board could make unilateral decisions and proceed.

[8:40 p.m.]

Now, I’m paraphrasing slightly, but I know the staff know what I’m talking about, and that’s really what I’m getting to. It was never really clearly defined what level or order of magnitude those decisions were transferred to, in terms of what power that would involve, how much Treasury Board could be potentially cut out of decision-making or not and left in the hands of one person to override or just deal with it if they felt it was inconvenient trying to get a Treasury Board meeting together.

That’s what I’m checking to see, if these provisions under the Assessment Authority Act would qualify for that level of decision-making. Or does it have to be a regular Treasury Board meeting that these decisions are made at, involving all of Treasury Board or at least a quorum of Treasury Board as opposed to the provisions that were changed by the NDP that gave a whole lot of power to the heads of Treasury Board?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think the way that this plays out is that the vice-chair has the discretion to make a decision or to move it to Treasury Board. The considerations that a vice-chair would use in making that decision would be things like the complexity of it, perhaps the size, any particular significance related to the decision.

If it’s a relatively straightforward decision, they’re likely to make it, and if it’s a decision of significance where they would want the Treasury Board to weigh in, that’s where it would go.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:45 p.m.