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 from 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, 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. Catherine 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. Nicholas Pocard, Mrs. Leah Michalopulos, Mr. Colin Armstrong, Ms. Catherin Becerra, Mr. Dan Brock, and — this one I practiced, so I again apologize in advance — Mr. Pranav Chandrasekar. Sorry again.

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

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 so 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. So she’s an important part of my life, and 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 Ariel Bassett.

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’m 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 Lucas Fitz and their incredible students, and of course, the dedicated parent chaperones.

[French was spoken.] 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.

fast growing community. I know they 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 Alison 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. And 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 and 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

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.

So happy birthday, 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 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 kids’ 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, 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.

And 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.

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

[1:55 p.m.]

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

all child care providers and early childhood educators throughout B.C. enough for their hard work, 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, long-time 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 HETC 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 Corporation, is a B.C.-based company that is not just talking about change, they are building it. In the Lower Mainland, they have built Canada’s first network of retail hydrogen fueling stations, connecting communities from Vancouver to Burnaby to North Vancouver.

Currently, they are 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, 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.

So 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.

[2:00 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise to draw your attention to an exceptional organization in Kelowna that

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 — a hundred 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.

And 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 would 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.

But 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, that 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 are 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 residence 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

had mistaken another residence 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. As the minister has said, B.C. Housing never contacted the family and 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 am wondering today if the Minister of Health will stand up today, 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 they’ve 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 something 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 are 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. But 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. And 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 standalone 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.

and the blame rests at the feet of this Premier. The late Premier John Horgan did the right thing. He created a standalone 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 checkmark 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 a 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. But 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’ve 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 5-11.

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. Thank you.

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 the 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

to provide British Columbians with the wraparound support they deserve?

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 are 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 to 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.

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 that we can get seniors the support they need and deserve.

Seniors income support is delivered by the

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 that 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.

But 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 helps 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 is 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 have 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 are 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 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

of 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 leave 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, 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, government 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 members asking questions, 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. 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 one, 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 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’s the largest investment in Prince George ever. It 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 that the member knows, 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, and 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 also has seen the largest investment in affordable housing in

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. And 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 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. 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 from 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 from 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.]

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.

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, Members. 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 from 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. And 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. Pease do not make any personal comments. When there is a question for the executive council members, they should be answering that, and that’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 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, 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.

And 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 will look to Courtenay-Comox for continued debate on Bill 11.

Brennan Day: I won’t relitigate. I think our member from 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

we’ll look to Courtenay-Comox for continued debate on Bill 11.

Brennan Day: I won’t relitigate. I think our member from Prince George–Mackenzie did an excellent job, sort of, 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. Because broadly — and 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 — 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 bring 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. So, 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. And 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’s 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, 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 8 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.]

So, 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. I think we can probably…. 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

and we’re being asked to stand and clap for this on behalf of workers. I think we can probably get there, and 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. But 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 touch point, 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 Columbia in 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 touch point 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 — and 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. I’m going to take a minute just to put it on the record — diversion. It’s 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 practice 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.]

So let me put it this way. We don’t have a forward-looking plan, we’re just lowering the bar, shifting the goal post, 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.

So what are we really doing here?

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 touch point 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

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 with 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, 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, to 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.

Introductions by Members

Nina Krieger: Hon. Speaker, 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: Thank you very much, Member. Indeed, welcome to everybody joining us in the chamber today.

Debate Continued

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 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. 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’s 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’s 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 in Burnaby, as well as a brand new Burnaby urgent primary care centre. This work is being done across the province, and 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 that I heard yesterday, as well as today: 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. I, as a worker from the labour movement — although I am elected here — 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, in 2024, that 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 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 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.

and 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, but 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.

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 of 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 burnt 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,

I am just going to give context a little bit, because when you are old and you’ve been a practicing physician for many years, you’ve got memories of what it used to be like. What it used to be like….

I have practiced 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 practice.

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. And sometimes it was just the flu, but sometimes it was something a little bit more serious.

Coming back to practicing…. 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 across 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.

So 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. This is not…. 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 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. So attachment doesn’t guarantee a note.

So 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.]

So 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? And 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 and it’s not…. These examples are not to scare people. They’re quite rare, but they’ve happened.

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 and 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 and this is an example close to home. Somebody who, for example, has indigestion, 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 an 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 days you don’t need a note 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.

[3:25 p.m.]

A bit of dizziness could be a cerebellar stroke. We all know about cough that continues, right? Again, you don’t have a doctor. I mean, I’ve seen members here coughing. We’re talking, you know, 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 throat’s getting worse. You’re starting to have trouble swallowing. Could be a peritonsillar abscess. That’s a medical emergency. Real story.

Bad headache. Bad headache. Temporal arteritis. You could go blind.

So my point with all this is connection

Real story. Bad headache. Bad headache. Temporal arteritis. You could go blind.

So my point with all this is that connection with your family doctor is important. When I was practicing, 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. You know, that extra income balance, that complex patient you saw that took 45 minutes…. You get paid the same.

So that doctor’s note, great. Doctor’s note, compensate. Now, no more, because they’re so busy. They say: “Most of what we see…” And I want people to realize all the kind of examples I gave…. They’re 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…. And someone mentioned mental health issues. So 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. And that doctor’s note can maybe prevent something worse from happening.

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

Bruce Banman: I want to thank the good doctor from Island North 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. And 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 10, 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.” And 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.

[3:30 p.m.]

Interjection.

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

But it was so overworked — and this is how stressed the system is — at about hour 10, she asked for a glass of

foot down, I do as I’m told.

Interjection.

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 10, 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…. And 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 this is…. Going to the doctor for a note is an absolute pain in the butt. And 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 something…. It’s 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 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. And 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 written, or I’ve done a quick search rather, 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. So, serious and Siri…. Also, if you say Surrey, by the way, she’ll do the same thing.

So, 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 often time: one death is too many; one life is important. I am just going to read off a few serious diseases with flu-like symptoms.

[3:35 p.m.]

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 in there. There’s the avian influenza. We all remember the bird flu, SARS, MERS. 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.

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 yet it was here to deal with the rodents.

So 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 got headaches.” Then you start to turn yellow. It’s actually hepatitis A.

Here’s the problem with Doctor 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, and it’s rare, or they’re going to get injured.

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. Again, is it rare? Yes.

pass the bottle around the campfire, which happens on occasion. I think I’m just hung over.” “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. And 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…. And she went and saw a medical doctor on top of this, he said: “Oh, it’s nothing. Don’t worry about it.” And she said: “No, there’s something wrong with my son.” And she took him down to Children’s, and Children’s said: “You are lucky that you brought him in.” Because 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. And 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.

Where you get this, it can present in many different ways. You just don’t feel well, so you self-diagnose. 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 is…. 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, but….

where they’re misdiagnosed. I know the other side of the House thinks it’s kind of 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 an 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 family physician to have the time to be able to write something as simple as a note that may potentially save their life.

province deserve to see a health care doctor, they deserve to have a family physician and they deserve that that family physician has 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, and I don’t see him often enough because I don’t go very often, but when we 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 employees’ 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. So 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

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 1 ½ hours, according to Medimap Canada — 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 at 93 years old for hours 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

It 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 that “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 — 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. We are going to vote for this,” but we want the public to know that we are completely aware of what the real issue is. Our health care system is broken.

That is why the doctors are supporting this. They are 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.

And that is about all I’ve got to say about this.

Deputy Speaker: Members, seeing no further speakers, 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.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I move the second reading on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[4:10 p.m.]

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act 2025

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

on 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 on 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 modeled 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, applies 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.

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 Forest, 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 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.

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.

[4:20 p.m.]

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

I 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

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 be able to bring forward and introduce legislation like this. Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Now we’ll call on Boundary-Similkameen.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 the 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 in-stream 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

governments remain unclear. 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 lawmaking must be tightly scoped and only used with 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, record-keeping 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 practice 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

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.

But 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 is 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. Thank you.

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 when 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 here around regional districts so that they can meet the provincially mandated requirements under the Fire Safety Act.

asked for some minor changes to be able to allow them the ability to be able to respond in a more effective way, so that’s reflected in that section of the change.

There’s another section 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. And of course, the exception from the service establishing bylaw requirements is that it’s narrow in scope and modeled 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.

Elements, for example…. 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. And 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 canvas 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, and 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 if they made a commitment of $250 million, that 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

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. And 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 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 for 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 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

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 is 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

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, forced legislation that ignores reality on the ground.

Now let’s examine the economic implications of the wildfire changes. Yes, those who start fires should not be held accountable, but extended liability windows may force ranchers, forestry operators and/or private land owners 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

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. And 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 timeframe 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.

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 muscle 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 muscle 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.

to help keep us all safe and to help keep invasive species out of our waterways.

The first one is called “Pull the Plug.” It’s a requirement with mandate the removal of drainage plugs in motorized and non-motorized watercrafts, such as boats, jet skis, canoes, 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?

[The bells were rung.]

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.

Interjection.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yeah, we’ll see how many people come here.

The introduced Wildlife Act amendments will allow our officers to take effective action for known high-risk pathways of aquatic invasive species, the over land or 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 are 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.

So, I urge you all to vote to approve miscellaneous 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 ominous 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.

[5:10 p.m.]

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. 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. So, yes, shockingly, this government has stumbled upon a reasonable idea.

Ensuring appointed members carry the same authority as elected ones helps to

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. So 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 exasperate — 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 Madam Speaker, 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. It 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.

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.

[5:15 p.m.]

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

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 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

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 to 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. The 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

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 just look forward to the opportunity in committee to be able to talk to this as well. A couple of things that come to mind

returning to the Wildfire Act and the Forest Act.

But just a couple of things that I’d like to point out in the process. I just 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, because in the briefing that we received on determining the opportunities for notice, it’s been changed to instead of within one month of the order, it can be as long as three years for that opportunity to be heard. So 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 a Forest Practices Board involved, there’s 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 are the ramifications 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.

So 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.

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.

[5:35 p.m.]

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

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 is 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 have 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 have liked to see a broader discussion about how we are proactively managing wildfire risk. What is 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 have 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

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. And 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 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. So any changes that affect professional credentials and regulated titles should be approached with caution and clarity.

[5:45 p.m.]

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

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 reserve 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 frontline 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 fall 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 elector 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 is 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 the 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

were expecting more. 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.

and understanding of housing development rules so that we can all understand them.

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

province.

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 reserve titles and reserve 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.

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 is 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.

And 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.

So 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. So let’s take a look, if we can, on some of these. I am a big proponent of local government

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. And 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.

So 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.

So in spite of following all the advice, these people could now be faced

on everything, followed the book, followed the fire department and done everything humanly possible to prevent that, it can still inadvertently get out of control.

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

So, 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, backcountry 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 in 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’s 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. It, basically, 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. Now, 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. Now, 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. If a subdivision project avoids contributing to those upgrades due to retroactive protection, taxpayers and clear

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 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

legal force undermines certainty and public trust in a time when the public distrusts the electoral process to begin with.

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. Welcome to the chair.

Under this clause, someone could use the title “software engineer” without being a licensed P-engineer. 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 and 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

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 regulated 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 the 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, and there are a few provincial inspectors, it ends up falling on local governments to actually 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 and police compliance.

In other words, while on the whole we agree for 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 concerned 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.”

So I look forward to a healthy committee stage and debate and getting answers, because there are some concerning parts of this huge, ominous bill that deserve public scrutiny, deserve answers.

[6:35 p.m.]

And we need to have some legitimate reasons why government thinks that in some cases, some of the huge powers that they have put into this bill are reasonable and rational — and 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 head off if this side of the House were to decide: “We’re going to do things the way we want to do with no consultation and absolutely

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 do with no consultation and absolutely zero oversight. There needs to be a balance in democracy, and 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. Thank you very much.

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, and 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.”

And 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 of 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 being 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 and 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.

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, 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, outreach to ensure these rules are understood and consistently applied

forms for compliance, 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.

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to speak in response to Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statute Amendment Act, 2025, specifically to Part 3, Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills. I also noticed that the Minister for Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills is also in the House electronically.

The Chair: 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 practice software engineering or use the title “software engineer” in British Columbia must first be registered with Engineers and Geoscientists in 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, practices software engineering, calls themselves a software engineer, or uses another title or language implying that they are a software engineer or authorized to practice 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 sector 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.

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 practice 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, without the 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, 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: 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 a

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 the communities like Scotch Creek and Celista, exacerbating the situation.

So 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 de-registration 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.

So 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 in stream 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

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’s 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 as it stands, 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.

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. 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.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. Maybe we’ll call on you to say a few opening remarks to begin our debate.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m honoured to move second reading of Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

It’s, I think, a significant bill for this session of the Legislature, 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

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 understand, and, I would argue, the people of Williams Lake, who, 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. And that’s why it’s so important

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. And 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.

And 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. And 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 products to be brought under

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

10 years in the United States. 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, in, generally, private models of energy regulation in the United States, people have been choosing wind and solar energy to a dramatic degree — in 10 years, a two and a half 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. Ninety-seven 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 — average levelized cost of $74 per megawatt hour against an average levelized cost, for example, in Quebec in their recent call of $80.

So, 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. In other words, 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 at 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 of and the people of B.C. should be proud of. It is a unique and, I think, 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 are visiting the new hospital we are 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 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, what the world 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.

is wind power so valuable? We’ve talked about the decline in price for both wind and solar power and its cost, but, 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. And 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.

So we have the call to power that we put in place last year, the electricity purchase agreements that we announced in December, and 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 to 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 I enjoyed 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 West Bank, 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 all 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 Michael wind energy project, the Quality Wind energy project 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 agreement, 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 Peace River South riding as the member, for example, the member 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

plan of which this legislation is a piece. This legislation, ultimately, is intended to provide the highest quality of regulation and 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.

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 — 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 — then I think that this plan will help build our province into the future and create opportunities for people and small businesses 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, 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.

it doesn’t make sense to spend more time in permitting and regulation of a project than it takes to build it, and that’s what we were facing.

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 fulfill 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 amendment.

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, 2025
(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 in to committee.

But 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, and 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.

But in a parallel universe

I say this because I understand how things change in this building. The people change and 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.

But 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 — the work….

And 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’s 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 and you’re 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 he 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 the speeches. There was an article in the Vancouver Sun, leadership debates with then John Horgan, and he called: “We didn’t need it because that power would be redundant.” And if the article is wrong, I can table it.

But 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

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 goalpost 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 goalpost.

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 are coming to B.C., or proponents, 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. Took years to get that.

So, 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 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. I want 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 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.

But 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.

But 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.]

And 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.

in his campaign that was listed out there in the articles that I’ll reference. He talked about strengthening the EAO. It should be commended for that.

This is absolutely stripping authority, and it powers to override environmental assessments, dismantle established safety standards, 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 changed. And I get that.

But 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.

But can you imagine that 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’s 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 got to plan for the future. Right? We have to embrace what we have been blessed with, which is a great resource sector. And we have 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 to this, thousands and thousands of jobs.

But 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 actually hold this person in high regard, I think 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 the 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.]

But 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.

should actually go and watch how John Horgan knew his file, did his homework, specifically on energy as an energy critic.

But 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. Because 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 — that: “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.

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’re wind projects today, and what are they tomorrow? 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 lack of environmental assessment oversight, and the minister will say that this is his idea and vision of streamlining.

projects without community input. They could have lack of environmental assessment oversight.

The minister will say that this is his idea and vision of streamlining, right. 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. But public safety inside this bill

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. And 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.

But 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 the side of the House also believes in transparency, accountability and fairness. All of 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: Sorry?

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: No, I’m good. I’m not…. It’s good. I thought….

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: 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. And 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

this government, by officials who are accountable to no one but themselves. 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 there’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 our representatives in this House.

Bill 14 threatens those principles. We look at part 3, and 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.

[8:30 p.m.]

Think about that for a second. We’re not talking merely about administrative adjustments. We’re talking about — and the Minister of Agriculture is very respected; we’ll see if she gets up and speaks to Bill 14 — dismantling safeguards that protect British Columbia’s most fertile and critical agricultural lands.

Farmers and local councils — they know best how to manage your lands, sustainably

that protect British Columbia’s most fertile and critical agricultural lands. Farmers and local councils, they 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 neither 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

It steamrolls over protections and established democratic norms, leaving British Columbians exposed to decisions made behind closed doors.

And 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 that 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 I support renewable energy, I support projects, and I challenge the minister to ever find me saying that I don’t; he won’t find it. But set them up for success.

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, for a party that has, actually, the word “democratic” in their name, why 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.”

Well, 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.

But 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…. They’re late to the game, really late. They’re behind schedule on a lot of it.

So 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.

And that affects us out in Surrey. That’s jobs that get lost. That’s a freeze of investment. That’s not fear-mongering; that’s reality. There are businesses that will tell us that.

That’s Surrey, but those challenges exist all over this province. And if the government is surprised by that, then we’ve got way bigger problems.

[8:45 p.m.]

Like, I would…. 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

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. 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.

But, 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 — yeah, I know — because it’s in the bill. It’s not that.

The challenge with that is that we don’t know. We don’t know what projects…. 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 Speaker in the chair.]

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.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue debate and adjourn the debate.

Trevor Halford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[8:50 p.m.]

Jessie Sunner: Committee of Supply, section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and asks leave

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.