Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Jessie Sunner.

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis: I’ve been wrongfully accused in the past of embarrassing my family, so I’m going to try really hard not to do that today.

My lovely niece Emily is here from UVic, where she studies museum studies and history. She’s at the aviation club. We’re really proud of her. I’m just so glad that she’s here today.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

[10:05 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In the House today, I’d like us to welcome the Family Resource Programs of B.C. board. We have Heather Jo, the chair, and the entire board — Tara, Dana, Tim, Chantille, Katrina, Casey, Aaron and Delanie.

Family Resource Programs are near and dear to my heart. They are crucial community hubs that provide support for families and play-based learning for children. I remember that when my kiddos were little, I would walk in and meet other families and just get connection and the support I needed. They’re crucial in our communities. I’m so grateful that you’re here. I’m looking forward to meeting with you later.

Will the House join me in welcoming them.

Anna Kindy: It is my honour to introduce to the House Nora and John Koury, lifelong partners who have lived and raised a family in the beautiful Cowichan Valley for over 30 years. Nora and John are well known in the Cowichan Valley for their public service to families and to the pillars of democracy.

Nora received her degree in nursing from the University of Calgary. She began her nursing career on Vancouver Island and has served as a registered nurse in B.C. for over 35 years. Tonight Island Health will award Nora with her 30-year service recognition pin, a testament to her dedication, compassion and long-standing commitment to the well-being of others. Over the decades, she has cared for thousands of families in the Cowichan Valley, first at Cowichan Lodge and since 2008 as a hospital liaison nurse at Cowichan District Hospital.

John is an integral member of our Conservative caucus staff here in the Legislature and has served in public life both locally and nationally for more than 30 years. He has run in eight elections on Vancouver Island, including twice as the federal Conservative candidate and most recently in 2024 as our candidate in Cowichan Valley.

John is a former two-term councillor for the municipality of North Cowichan.

Thank you, John and Nora.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to take a moment to welcome some new and returning guests to our Legislature, joining us all the way from Duncan today.

First is my father-in-law, Darshan, who has recently retired after serving 35 years working in the Doman Sawmill, which is now Western Forest Products. He continued a proud family legacy in forestry that began with his father, who worked in the same mill for over 50 years.

My mother-in-law, Jackie, who has had a dedicated career in the Island Savings union, is also now retired, although neither of them are really good at retirement, because they are both working again.

They are also joined by our really good family friends Cathy and Barry Waters, who have very deep roots in the Cowichan Valley and are partners in the Red Arrow Brewing Co. in Duncan. Barry also sits on the board of the Cowichan District Hospital Foundation. I know that despite all of these many accomplishments, their biggest accomplishments and excitements are their grandchildren that they get to spend so much time with. I’m so grateful that they’re here today, and they get a very special tour later today from Keith Baldrey.

If the House will join us in making them feel welcome.

Kristina Loewen: Today I would like to welcome to the gallery some amazing ladies from Starbright Children’s Development Centre. I got to speak about Starbright Children’s Development Centre last year in a two-minute statement. It is a non-profit registered charity that provides early intervention therapies and programs to children zero to school age.

They have been doing this for a very long time, 59 years in the Central Okanagan. They are highly trained and skilled. They have 60 staff, and they work with approximately 1,200 to 1,400 children a year.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Rhonda Nelson. She has been the executive director since 2013. Her career spans a diverse range of roles. She has an incredible list of her education and her roles. She brings deep appreciation for the passion and dedication that drives Starbright’s mission to make a meaningful difference. An amazing woman.

Carol Meise, as well, currently serves as the board chair and association president for Starbright, a role she has embraced with dedication and vision. She was recruited to Starbright in 2003, following years of impactful advocacy on behalf of parents and children with invisible disabilities within the school district. In addition to this work, she’s also had a thriving business in Kelowna for 33 years.

Please join me in welcoming them today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I encourage the Legislature to welcome the B.C. Road Builders to the precinct today.

Collectively, we invite you to come over lunchtime and see the RoadShow trailer that’s funded through my ministry, where we use federal money to help people that need a little bit of an extra hand to get into the job market.

The RoadShow…. You can talk with them about bringing it to your school district. They’ll bring their trailer to your high school. Young people get to test-drive what it is to be a backhoe operator or a snowplow driver, and right there they can enrol kids into trades training. It’s brilliant.

We’re grateful to the partnership, and everybody is invited to check out the B.C. Road Builders RoadShow.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act

George Anderson presented a bill intituled Professional Reliance Act.

George Anderson: I move a bill intituled Professional Reliance Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Across British Columbia, local governments, workers and professionals are working hard to build the homes, infrastructures and communities our province needs. However, good projects are delayed because qualified, provincially regulated professionals are required to have their work reviewed multiple times at the local level.

The Professional Reliance Act is a practical solution to this problem. It allows local governments to accept certified work from professionals — engineers, architects and others regulated under the Professional Governance Act — so that projects can move forward faster without sacrificing safety, quality or accountability.

This legislation strengthens local governments by freeing up their staff to focus on planning, community engagement and long-term vision, while reducing duplication and cost. For young people, it means more homes coming to market sooner. For families, it means a better chance to live in the community they love. For local governments, it means more results and more time to serve people.

At its heart, this bill is about using every tool we have to make housing more attainable. This bill is about helping build the future of this province together — faster, smarter and with hope.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

John Rustad: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

John Rustad: My guests have arrived. Being that we’re in the season of Diwali celebrations, it’s great to have guests here from the mandir in Surrey, great individuals that have come over here to celebrate Vaisakhi and to be here and to witness what’s going on here.

I also just want to, before I introduce them all, highlight in particular Satish Kumar. Satish has been a community leader, particularly in his fight against extortion. He has, himself, had extortion threats. His business has been shot at. He has been a real community leader in bringing together people in Surrey to fight against this, to raise a level of awareness about this and to fight for the changes that are needed.

Along with Satish, also, are Aman Kumar, Anish Kumar, Amit Vasudev, Madesh Loomba, Narender Singla Kumar, Raj Veauli, Munish Goel, Abnash Chandel, Sanjeev Kaushal, Vineet Aggarwal, Pardeep Mahindru, Vinay Sharma, Krishna Singla Devi, Seema Garg, Herpal Kandota Paul and Ankush Arora.

Will the House please make them all very welcome.

Thank you for coming today.

[10:15 a.m.]

Sunita Dhir: I seek leave to make an introduction as well, please.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: This morning, we are joined in the gallery by the board members of Shri Lakshmi Narayan Temple in Surrey along with their president, Mr. Satish Kumar.

I am especially happy to welcome a good friend, Mr. Vinay Sharma, managing partner at Keyways Mortgage, founder of the Times of Canada news media and a well-known community leader in Surrey. Vinay plays an active role in the management of the Shri Lakshmi Narayan Mandir and supports many local initiatives and helps new immigrants and families find their footing here in B.C.

We’re grateful for all of them to join us in the gallery, and let’s give them all a very warm welcome.

Members’ Statements

Fort Langley Cranberry Festival

Misty Van Popta: This past October 11 marked a significant milestone in the little village of Fort Langley, my hometown, the 30th anniversary of the famous Cranberry Festival. Always held on the Saturday of the Thanksgiving long weekend, it’s a community cornerstone festival.

Once a little neighbourhood event organized by local community members, in the past dozen years or so, it has exploded into a regional draw of 30,000 to 50,000 people, rain or shine. This year’s damper-than-usual weather was no exception. It was still a packed event rooted in family tradition and an undeniable draw of fresh produce, flowers, baking and other artisan goods.

My kids and myself have volunteered for the past 15 years, every morning starting at 6 a.m., doing vendor logistics and setup. But that is just a drop in the bucket of the hundreds of hours of preparation and organization done by current event lead Rachelle Cashato and past organization lead Meghan Neufeld. Now it’s a well-oiled machine of dozens of volunteers and sponsors, and the boost to the local businesses in the village is enjoyed.

I am sure it is a friendly rivalry between my Richmond colleagues and myself, representing Fort Langley, as the cranberry capital of B.C. We are very thankful to Ocean Spray for their yearly contribution and donation of 10,000 pounds of cranberries for this event.

My fiancé was a first-time attendee this year and commented on how good it was to even see the mayor volunteer for hours at this event, as he always does. This event wouldn’t be the same without the community pancake breakfast hosted by the Lions Club, featuring a once-a-year delicacy and highly coveted Freybe cranberry brat.

If you’ve never been, make sure you block out October 10, 2026, in your calendar and bring the whole family down for a fantastic day of good fall harvest fun in the township of Langley.

Cowichan Urgent and Primary
Care Centre

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: It is with great pride that I rise today to mark the opening of the new Cowichan Urgent and Primary Care Centre, located at 940 Government Street in the heart of Duncan. This facility represents a significant step forward in our commitment to improve access to health care for residents across the Cowichan region.

The Cowichan UPCC will provide timely, team-based care seven days a week, offering both urgent and primary care services, whether it’s for a high fever, a minor injury or a need for ongoing support. This centre ensures that individuals and families can receive the care they need when they need it most.

This project is the result of a strong collaboration between Ministry of Health, Island Health, the Cowichan primary care network, Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan division of family practice. Together we created a space that is culturally safe, trauma-informed and designed to meet the growing needs of the community, which I saw last week firsthand.

Once fully staffed, the centre will be home to approximately 30 full-time health professionals, including family physicians, nurse practitioners, mental health clinicians and support staff. It’s a sound investment in our region’s health and well-being and a testament of what we can achieve when we work together.

Thank you to everyone who helped bring this vision to life. The Cowichan UPCC, more than a building, is a promise of health for all.

[10:20 a.m.]

I also wanted to add a thank-you, since I have 40 seconds left on the clock, to my surgeon, Dr. Levy, and the staff at the Cowichan District Hospital. I have recovered fully from my double hip surgery on July 11. It would’ve been sooner. I’ve been suffering since I was, at 18 years old, diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis. Stubbornness kept me from getting it done until it was just too much for me.

Thank you to everyone in the health care profession.

HÍSW̱ḴE.

Small Business Week

Gavin Dew: This week we celebrate Small Business Week, a time to recognize the entrepreneurs who keep our communities and our economy moving.

More British Columbians earn their paycheques from small business than from any other employer — over 1.1 million people, representing 41 percent of our workforce. In fact, small business makes up 55 percent of all private sector jobs in our province, the highest share in Canada.

Starting a small business has always been an act of optimism, a belief that hard work, grit and risk-taking can still carve out a better life for people and families. That spirit is the Canadian dream in action, but right now that dream feels increasingly out of reach for too many.

Across the province, business owners are facing rising costs, workforce challenges and heavy regulatory burdens that make it harder to keep the lights on. The CFIB Business Barometer shows that less than half of small business owners feel confident in their immediate future.

According to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, newly introduced policies have added more than $6.5 billion in cumulative costs to B.C. businesses, everything from payroll taxes to wage mandates to new reporting requirements.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce recently reminded us that a thriving economy requires more than resilience from business owners. It requires a shared commitment to reduce costs, cut red tape and create the conditions where the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians can come alive.

That is exactly what this week is about: renewing our commitment to the people who make the spirit of enterprise real, the ones who hire young people, sponsor local teams and turn ideas into opportunity.

During Small Business Week, let’s do more than just say thank you. Let’s stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who keep our communities strong, and let’s work together to save small business and everything it represents.

If we want to keep the Canadian dream alive, we must stand with the small business people who are still out there building it every single day.

T’Sou-ke Nation Community
Complex and Health Centre

Dana Lajeunesse: One of my most memorable moments of this past summer was being invited to participate as a witness to the grand opening of the T’Sou-ke Nation’s long-awaited community complex and health centre on September 15.

This remarkable new facility is much more than a building. It’s a cornerstone of community life. The spacious hall will host large gatherings and cultural celebrations, while a fully equipped kitchen offers opportunities for both meal programs and culinary training.

With several meeting rooms and spaces for community activities, the centre supports everything from governance to family health services. It brings together the nation’s administration, children and families, health, and lands and environment departments under one roof.

The CCHC features brand new doctors’ offices, laboratory space equipped with tools needed to provide holistic health care. This centre is designed to address the physical, emotional, spiritual and mental health needs of the community, ensuring that T’Sou-ke members have a well-equipped space for healing and well-being.

The grand opening was an inspiring day, marked by cultural ceremony, art unveilings, tours and a shared meal. Among the beautiful artworks revealed was a butterfly-themed tile mosaic by T’Sou-ke artist Shelley Davies, created alongside more than 20 T’Sou-ke youth, an inspiring symbol of cultural teaching and the bright future ahead.

[10:25 a.m.]

The T’Sou-ke Nation’s new community complex health centre stands as a testament to the community’s strength, resilience and vision. It will not only serve as a place for governance and health but also will be a vibrant heart of culture, learning and connection for generations to come.

Chase De Balinhard

Macklin McCall: Earlier this year, in February 2025, 15-year-old Surrey teen Chase De Balinhard lost his life following a standoff with law enforcement.

This is an immense tragedy. A young person with a long life and bright future ahead was taken from his family and friends far too soon. I stand here to offer my deepest condolences to Chase’s parents, loved ones and the entire community affected by this heartbreaking loss.

Chase’s family recently shared a deeply moving letter expressing their gratitude that his story is being heard in this Legislature. It described Chase as kind, thoughtful and funny, “a young man with the heart of a philanthropist and the budget of a student.”

Their words remind us that behind every tragic statistic is an individual — a son, student or friend — and a family whose world has changed forever.

The family also shared their pain of being left in the dark during the ongoing investigation. While we wait for the outcome, it is vital that the IIO investigation is open, fair and comprehensive. The people of British Columbia are watching. Chase’s parents deserve maximum transparency and a clear understanding of exactly what happened to their son.

We must learn from this tragedy not to point fingers but to make sure we do everything possible to prevent such a tragic loss of life from ever happening again.

Toronto Blue Jays

Garry Begg: The crack of the bat, the roar of the crowd, the song we all know that we sing out loud. Root, root, root for your ball team. They are the $500 million man and the injured pending pre–agent shortstop awaiting his payday. They are prized free agent signings, a 41-year-old future hall-of-famer and a 22-year-old wonder kid who flew up five levels to be the star in these playoffs.

They are trade acquisitions, minor league free agents, draft picks, an international sign-up discovered by accident when we were scouting a different player and another waiver claim. Put them all together: they are Blue Jays.

The Blue Jays are heading for their first World Series since 1993. They completed an incredible comeback in more than one way last night by defeating the Seattle Mariners by a 4-3 final in game 7 of the American League Championship Series. They, the Blue Jays, will host game 1 of the World Series Friday against the mighty defending championship Dodgers.

This is a moment that is much bigger than baseball. It’s bigger than a single team. My humble submission is that this is a moment for our nation. This is for Canada. From Vancouver to St. John, from small-town diamonds to packed bars, Canadians everywhere have watched this team grow, grind and believe. We have seen our players rise to the moment. We’ve seen our flag fly high in visiting ballparks, and now we see another dream within reach.

This team didn’t just earn a title. They reminded us of who we are — a country that doesn’t back down, a people who fight hard, stay humble and never stop believing in something bigger than ourselves.

The Blue Jays may not be based here, but they represent all of us. This World Series berth isn’t just a chance to win a trophy. It’s a chance to show the world what the Canadian heart looks like.

Hold your heads high, wear the maple leaf with pride and know this: Canada is going to win the World Series. Let’s finish the job.

Go, Jays, go.

[10:30 a.m.]

[Applause.]

Oral Questions

Forest Industry Conditions
and Trade Issues

Ward Stamer: Yesterday in his speech, the Premier said that B.C. mills are slowing down. Well, I’ve got news for the Premier and the minister. Mills are closing under these broken promises.

Forest companies have simple demands. Expand the timber-harvesting land base, reduce policy red tape, improve access to fibre, mandate B.C. Timber Sales to actually achieve their targets and reset the culture of distrust created by this NDP government.

Will the minister commit to these five simple demands?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question and for his own advocacy for our forest sector as well.

There is no question in our eyes that British Columbia’s forest sector is going through many challenges right now. Mills are being squeezed. Workers’ livelihoods are on the line because of the actions that Donald Trump has taken on our forest sector, 45 percent duties and tariffs that currently exist on our lumber going down south. It is horrific.

It is absolutely absurd that there are more duties and tariffs on Canadian lumber, on British Columbian lumber, heading down south than Russian lumber. Absolutely absurd, absolutely shameful.

On this side of the House, our number one priority is to stand up for workers, to stand up for their paycheques. The Premier, on this side of the House, has been leading the national fight for forestry here in British Columbia.

As the Premier said yesterday, this is a time for unity. This is a time for all of us to come together, to stand up for forest workers, and that’s what we’re going to do on this side of the House.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Ward Stamer: The biggest challenge is this government’s incompetence.

While the minister plays dress-up, I bleed for this forest industry. Complex regulations and policy chaos are killing this industry.

Why are the government’s broken promises…? Why are they going to continue to start strangling the B.C. forest sector under their own red tape?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s a shame to see the member across the way not do what the Premier did yesterday, and that was condemn Donald Trump. In fact, not once….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In fact, the Premier has condemned Donald Trump for the actions he’s taken.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was given the same opportunity to stand up in this House and to condemn the actions of the President of the United States, but instead….

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh. Members, take it easy.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: But instead we have a Leader of the Opposition….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, you can raise your point of order later on.

Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: But instead….

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister will conclude.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m trying to, Mr. Speaker.

Instead, we had a Leader of the Opposition that stood up in the House yesterday, and instead of condemning Donald Trump, he defended Donald Trump throughout his speech.

On this side of the House, we know whose side we’re on. We’re on the side of Canadians.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re on the side of British Columbians. We’re on the side of forestry workers here in British Columbia. We’re going to fight like hell for their paycheques every single day.

John Rustad: It’s a shame to see that lying has now become commonplace in this House by this government.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members, both sides. Let’s behave. It’s a question period only for 30 minutes.

There’s no need to get personal. Just stick to the point. Let’s talk about the issues. There’s no need to talk about personal issues.

Thank you so much.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, just listen to what the Chair has said.

Both sides, please.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

John Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

“Standing up for forest workers.” Those were the words just used. Those were the words that were used by this Premier yesterday in his statement.

[10:35 a.m.]

Rather than apologizing for a decade of destroying our forest sector, rather than offering a reset, he deflects and blames Donald Trump and the Canadian government.

Yes, I condemn Donald Trump’s actions. I did yesterday, and I will continue to do that.

But the reality is this. Mills are closing. Workers are being laid off. Families are being devastated. Families don’t know if they’re going to be able to put presents under a tree for Christmas. Communities are being devastated. That is the record of this government on forestry, and they’re trying to deflect and blame.

Shame on you. Shame on this government.

A simple question: will this Premier admit that under his watch, this government has overseen a more than 60 percent reduction in the forest sector, the greatest demise of our forest sector in B.C.’s history?

Hon. David Eby: Our government will always stand up for forest workers, stand up for workers across this province.

How quickly the member across the way forgets his time in government — 45 mills closed, 70,000 forestry jobs lost, the removal of the requirement that trees close to the mill go to support local jobs, the mass privatization of our forest lands, sold off to corporate donors to his party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: It puts us in a difficult position responding to pine beetle kill, forest fire and the understandable desire of the majority of British Columbians to protect our precious old-growth forests, of what’s left. These are not easy issues. These are hard challenges the government’s grappling with.

On top of that, to face 45 percent duties on wood going to our biggest market, the United States, with worse access to the United States than Russia has….

The member can deny it, but it’s true. It’s on the record. When we’re fighting these things, members in the opposition are saying that Donald Trump’s requests to us are simple neighbourly requests, that we should just do what he says. These are literal quotes from the opposition.

The member for Langley–Walnut Grove: “It’s a simple neighbourly request to make. Fix the border. It doesn’t need to be tariffs.”

Then the member for Langley-Willowbrook….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: I know it’s uncomfortable. But when we cut off the liquor from the United States, they said it was a mistake. When we took action against Trump and the Americans, they said it was a mistake. When we stood up for British Columbians and Canadians, they said it was a mistake. They welcomed bloggers in here who called the proposal to cut off electricity to the U.S. a war crime.

Well, I’ll tell you this. We’ll stand up for Canadians and British Columbians every single time.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, the Premier’s idea of standing up for British Columbians is to see 70,000 of them leave last year, to see the worst economic conditions this forest sector has ever seen since 1981-82 devastation. That is his record on this.

He likes to talk about the past? From 2009 through to 2017, when they took power, more than 30,000 jobs were added to this sector. All of those and much, much more have now been lost.

I can tell you something. This government stood in a place like Merritt and said: “Mills like this will never close.” Yet they’ve closed. This government has done everything it can to oppose the idea of help for the forest sector.

The forest sector itself has come in and said, “Please, just do this. Stop with changes. You’re killing us,” year after year, and zero response from this government, except for more problems, more delays. They can’t get permits. They can’t get through a process.

This government says he’s standing up for forest workers. Well, I tell you what the Steelworkers have actually said about this: “We are sick and tired of bridges to retirement. We want jobs. We want our mills open.” That’s what they want.

Last year before the election, we warned this government, and we brought forward policies, because we saw these additional duties and anti-dumping were coming, which is going to take to 35 percent.

[10:40 a.m.]

What did this government do? Nothing, zero. Matter of fact, they did worse than zero; they compounded the problem. Yes, there’s an additional 10 percent tariff that’s come on with Donald Trump. But the reality is that this softwood lumber problem has gone on under their entire time, and they’ve done nothing — except for one thing I will say about this.

They did go and talk to the forest workers. They did go and talk to the union down in the United States and brought home a $650,000 cheque that I’m sure they’re embarrassed to have given them, given the devastation they’ve delivered on that money that went to the NDP.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

John Rustad: My question, quite frankly, is simply to the Premier, the same question as I just asked. Will the Premier admit that this is a challenge that has been now created under his government, and will he commit to a reset?

He’s promised 45 million cubic metres. We’re not even going to be able to cut 30 million this year. Why is he misleading this forest sector? Actually come true with them and offer some hope instead of blaming others.

Hon. David Eby: We’ve been taking action since forming government to ensure that we’re responding to the major challenges that the forest sector faced.

I mean, 45 mills closed, 70,000 jobs lost. Apparently, it’s a record that the other side celebrates. I think that’s a tough record. This is an industry that has faced major challenges and faces them now. It requires creative solutions and finding a path forward. We’ve taken those.

We’ve created over 2,100 jobs. We’ve protected 2,700 more through the manufacturing jobs fund. It’s giving mills additional tools to add value to our timber, something that could’ve easily been done before. We’re expanding our offices overseas to sell timber products to markets other than the U.S.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Order, Members. Order.

Hon. David Eby: It’s work that has to happen.

The member mentioned salvage logging permits out of wildfire-damaged woods. We’ve cut the time for approval of that from 40 days to 25 days.

When the member was in government in 2017, the leader of the forest sector said that the previous government had been asleep at the wheel when it came to softwood lumber duties. We’ve been fighting since day one to get a deal on softwood lumber.

At the same time, we’ve had to endure the other side saying things like Canada’s western provinces should be a protectorate of the United States. That’s the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap.

The member for Chilliwack North: “Eby needs to comply with Trump for the greater good.”

The member for Langley–Walnut Grove: “A simple, neighbourly request to make from Donald Trump.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby: Abbotsford West: “I agree with Trump.”

Langley-Willowbrook: “We must take urgent action on Trump’s requests.”

On and on and on.

We’re fighting for Canadian workers. We’re fighting for British Columbians. We’re getting more value from our wood products. We’re expanding markets overseas. At the same time, the opposition is calling for us to kiss the ring of the man who is attacking our foundational industry in the province.

The Speaker: Members, let’s be a little bit courteous. When a question is asked, no one should be interrupting. When the answer is provided, equally, no one should be interrupting.

Education Funding and Staffing

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to try and bring the temperature down a bit by asking about education, something I think we can all agree on.

It’s clear we’re in a period of austerity leading to broken election promises. I won’t list them all, but one of the most concerning is this government’s broken promise to educators.

School districts are cutting staff. Education assistants and teachers are stretched to their limits, and every year the share of our provincial budget that goes to K-to-12 education gets smaller and smaller.

We’re in the midst of a youth mental health crisis, but the counsellors this government promised in every school last election are still missing. So are the education assistants who support students with learning needs.

Teachers have been without a contract since June, and based on the current situation with the BCGEU and PEA, British Columbians should prepare for a teacher strike.

As I said, reliability…. A reliable government invests in the future, especially in setting up the next generation for success. Instead, this government continues to make decisions reactively.

To the Minister of Education, will this government keep its promises to our province’s educators?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know he’s a fierce advocate for public education, as we are on this side of the House.

We’ve had many conversations about the values of public education in supporting the system, which is why we as a government protected education funding in our budget. In light of very difficult times fiscally around the globe and here in Canada, we made the choice here in British Columbia to not only protect our education budget but also to increase it by $319 million. This is in light of the challenges that we’re facing globally.

I want to assure the member that we’re working closely with all of our partners in the K-to-12 sector to meet our promises to educators. We have the K-to-12 workforce table, which is actively working on these commitments, like counsellors in schools.

We continue to work with the TF. We continue to work with CUPE, with BCGEU, with all of our union partners and all of our sector partners to make sure that we are meeting the demands of the K-to-12 sector and supporting our kids and our staff in that system.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Student and Family
Affordability Fund Replacement

Jeremy Valeriote: To clarify, I understand that the budget is protected, but what I was saying is that the proportion of public money we spend on education is less and less.

The government says it values public education, but the funding model for B.C. schools hasn’t been updated since 2002. Instead, life is more expensive, and families are being forced to make difficult choices about where to spend their money.

Instead of supporting them, this government quietly cut the student and family affordability fund, a program that was designed to cover basic school fees, clothing and field trips for those in need. Parents in this House know how important these are, and it was touted by school districts and this government as transformative.

The minister told the public that this three-year fund was never intended to be recurring and that a replacement was coming. Well, the school year, as we know, is well underway, and parents in need have yet to see the replacement.

To the Minister of Education, when will this government replace the student and family affordability fund?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to thank the member for highlighting the supports that we were able, as a government, to give during COVID-19.

There were significant needs all across our province, and we stepped up in a number of ways through time-limited funds, three-year funds, to support families in their affordability measures — things like school supplies, things like field trips.

We continue to invest in those things.

Just recently we announced our commitment and a partnership with the federal government for our national school food program, which combines with our Feeding the Future. We now have every single district in this province offering breakfast, lunch, or a combination of, and snacks in schools.

This not only provides parents relief for those who are facing those affordability challenges; it takes away the stigma for families who need to access those supports. And really, it makes our schools a more welcoming, caring, loving place.

We know a student can’t learn and can’t succeed if they’re going to school hungry and they’re not being supported. We’re going to keep investing in programs like that to meet those needs.

Health Worker Vaccination Policies

Tara Armstrong: Over the last four years, this government’s reckless and unscientific COVID mandates have driven more than 7,000 health care workers out of the system, gutting front-line care and putting British Columbians’ lives at risk.

Even after walking back these mandates, the government doubled down, forcing workers to disclose vaccine status, reapply for their own jobs and return to work with not a penny of back pay. And unbelievably, they’re still holding the threat of new mandates over their heads. Our health care system has crashed and burned under the weight of critical staff shortages that this government has created.

My question for the Minister of Health is this. Will she finally admit that her government’s COVID mandates damaged our health care system and that it was an unforgivable betrayal of the very people we rely on to keep us healthy and alive?

Hon. David Eby: It’s hard to think of a better example of the challenge of discussing public health care, the need to protect vulnerable kids and seniors who are in health care environments and long-term care and hospital.

[10:50 a.m.]

It’s hard to think of a better example of how hard it is to have these conversations in this House with an example of the ideology that has been brought into this House by the Conservative Party.

This anti-vax philosophy, which has no grounding in science, proposes…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. David Eby: …to send unvaccinated workers into our long-term-care facilities and hospitals with children who are fighting cancer, with seniors who are clinging to life, and expose them to COVID and the flu and measles.

It is incomprehensible. It is unforgivable, raising anxiety among British Columbians about vaccination right at the beginning of flu season, when we need people to go out and get vaccines to protect vulnerable populations, an act of service for all British Columbians. To attack that act of service, to say that it is problematic and wrong, is a betrayal.

That ideology was brought into this House by the Conservative Party, and I think they owe British Columbians an apology.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members. Thank you.

That member who asked the question belongs to OneBC, not the Conservative Party.

Please have a supplemental.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Tara Armstrong: I actually do appreciate that myself, for the distinction. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: This government, that Premier treated British Columbians like guinea pigs, forcing experimental procedures on them without their consent.

Let’s face it. The numbers don’t lie. All seven doctors in the obstetrics department in Kamloops are gone. The pediatrics unit in Kelowna, gone. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The devastation here is far and wide.

If the Health Minister and the Premier are expecting an applause for the careers wrecked and the lives upended by these unscientific mandates, they won’t be getting that from me. I stand in this House for the voice of those who don’t have a voice here, the thousands of health care workers this government cast aside.

Here’s one other question that deserves an answer. Maybe I can get it. Will the Premier himself apologize to the health care workers whose lives were derailed by this government’s punitive COVID policies?

Hon. Josie Osborne: This government will always follow scientific, evidence-based policies and the advice of experts in our medical system. This government will always put patients first. That’s why it’s so important to correct the record. There are no doctors who have left the job. Departments have not closed.

This government continues to put the long-term stabilization of our health care system, the strengthening of our health care system as a top priority. It is the job that the Premier has mandated me to take. That is why we are taking so much action to strengthen that health care system; to recruit and train more doctors and nurses; to bring them in from the U.S., a place where people feel pushed out because of the anti-science policies and rhetoric of that federal government south of the border.

We’re going to continue to do this work regardless of what members of the Fourth Party think.

Forest Industry Conditions
and Support for Forest Workers

Donegal Wilson: Interfor Grand Forks mill is now closed indefinitely, leaving hundreds of families in my community in limbo. Industry has warned this government about fibre shortages, overlapping policy chaos and the lack of progress for years.

Will the Premier go to Grand Forks, look the people in the eye and explain how they will pay for their bills and put Christmas presents under the trees this Christmas?

The Speaker: Minister of Forests.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Wow.

Just before Thanksgiving, the workers in Grand Forks got devastating news. I think we should respect that news that they got and talk about it in a respectful way while the opposition continues to heckle.

[10:55 a.m.]

Let’s talk about that news. They got the call that impacted their livelihoods. The member opposite talks about the impact on Grand Forks. I also talk about the impacts on Chase, British Columbia, with the Adams Lake division.

We’ve had conversations regularly with the mayor of Grand Forks. In fact, my colleague the minister of local government was on the ground meeting not only with the mayor but with workers and with industry as well to talk about the impact that Donald Trump’s tariffs are having on that sector.

The members opposite don’t seem to like it when we are standing up to Trump because they like to defend Trump.

Let’s hear directly from the mayor himself, Mayor Baker — who, I might add, is in Ottawa right now fighting alongside us for our forest sector. He said: “I’ve spoken to the mill manager, who said that due to the current market conditions and another 10 percent duty on softwood lumber, bringing it to 45 percent, the mill has shut down indefinitely.”

I’ll take it to another level. This is coming directly from the CEO of Interfor, and I quote Ian Fillinger: “We continue to believe that long-term industry stability cannot be achieved without a durable and fair resolution on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute.”

We are working hard on this side of the House to ensure that we can have a strong, sustainable, robust forest sector that delivers the certainty and predictability that industry and workers are looking for. But we cannot resolve that with 45 percent duties and tariffs — more duties and tariffs on British Columbia, the second-largest exporter of softwood lumber in the world, than there is on Russia.

On this side of the House, we’re going to keep standing up for our forest workers. We’re going to keep standing up for those workers in Grand Forks.

Community Safety Issues
in Prince George

Rosalyn Bird: Last week I attended a Safe Streets rally in Prince George, unlike the Premier and his ministers. Over 1,000 people packed into an arena, pleading for help as street disorder and violence crush their livelihoods. One downtown business owner broke down in tears and said: “I give up. I don’t know if I can keep going.”

Will the Premier agree to meet with the business owners of Prince George and find a solution, yes or no?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. We appreciate and understand the concerns of Prince George residents, of business owners. The Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services has spent time in Prince George with the mayor, with council and with business owners.

I know that we all have the same goal, which is to keep people, businesses and communities safe. That’s why our government is taking real action to support police in doing their vital work on our streets.

We have set up something called the ReVOII program, the repeat violent offenders intervention initiative, which consists of teams of police, of prosecutors and of probation officers. They’re actively monitoring 40 prioritized individuals who have been causing challenges on the streets of Prince George.

We’ve also stood up a program called SITE, the special investigation and targeted enforcement program. Prince George has applied for funding and received over $800,000 in funding to support targeted investigations into repeat violent offenders.

I could go on about the investments that we’re making to support police and communities. I know that there’s more work to do. We are committed to doing that work, to standing with the people of Prince George and ensuring that businesses can thrive, families can feel safe and the communities in Prince George and across the province remain strong.

Government Action on Issues

Bruce Banman: Let’s just recap today.

We have an NDP government that is destroying confidence and hope in every corner of our economy and every corner of British Columbia. We have the forestry industry, once the backbone of this province, closing mill after mill after mill. The kiss of death is that when the photo-op king shows up at your mill, I’d be very worried.

Interjections.

[11:00 a.m.]

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Bruce Banman: Small businesses are buckling, pleading for help. We just heard, in Prince George, over 1,000 people pleading for help from the chaos that this Premier caused with his “let’s hand out drugs for free” policy.

Crime is rampant. Businesses are buckling. Homeowners don’t even know if they still own their homes because this government sat on its feet and did nothing. Investors are vanishing, running for the hills, running for anywhere they can actually make a profit, because they can’t do it in British Columbia anymore due to this government’s incompetence.

Yet what does this government do? They blame everybody else but themselves. They talk about this side when we were in government. Hey, here’s a news flash. We haven’t been in government yet. But you watch. We soon will be.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Bruce Banman: We can even hear the chants.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Bruce Banman: I have a question. The chants outside every day as disgruntled BCGEU members don’t know whether they’ll be able to put Christmas gifts underneath their trees because this government sat on its hands for over six weeks…. We’ve got families begging for relief.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Bruce Banman: What do we get from this side of the government?

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Bruce Banman: Nothing but pointing fingers at everyone else. My question….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Please ask.

Bruce Banman: I’ve got all day.

The Speaker: Don’t worry about it. Just ask the question.

Bruce Banman: My question to this Premier, the Premier of inaction: Will he stop for once, today, pointing his fingers at everyone else and finally take responsibility for the close to a decade that his government has been in business…

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Bruce Banman: …destroying people’s lives? Will he actually do what’s required to get people in this province working and running again?

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question.

This is a hard time for Canadians, for British Columbians. Lots of people are struggling. The silver lining, I would say, is that the steps we’re taking here in British Columbia are showing incredible promise and are showing results.

In the last year….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. The Premier has the floor. Let him finish.

Hon. David Eby: In the last year, we led Canada in year-over-year private sector job growth, with 55,000 jobs added in British Columbia. Not only did we lead the country in private sector job growth in the last year, but we led the country in women’s job growth, with more than 15,000 jobs.

It’s a hard time out there for youth. We’re working hard for them, and our youth unemployment rate is lower than much of the country and lower than the national average.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: Crime is challenging in many communities. We’ve got this extortion challenge we’re taking on with a special task force, with special funding, in Surrey. We’ve got challenges in Prince George. We’re working with local authorities on that.

But comparing us across the country, we’re leading in crime reduction, an 11 percent reduction in the crime severity index and a 7 percent reduction in the overall crime rate. Our actions are showing results.

On housing, we’re leading the country in the reduction in rents, meaning that people are able to find a more affordable place to live.

We’re recruiting and adding hundreds of doctors which are connecting thousands of families to a family doctor. It’s something that we committed to do and that we’re delivering on.

We’re working hard for British Columbians every day. It is a challenging environment, but there is no place that I would rather be than British Columbia to face these challenges. The resources we have in this province that we are bringing to global markets, tens of billions of dollars in private sector investment.

[11:05 a.m.]

It’s not a surprise to me that in the major projects office of the federal government, 40 percent of those major projects are British Columbia projects. It could have been the whole list.

You know what the member of the opposition says, the leader of the Conservative Party? He says: “Put all the discussions with First Nations on hold.” That means putting every major project on hold, which means putting tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in prosperity not just for British Columbia but for the whole country on hold.

What is he doing? Entering private discussions with the Premier of Alberta to undermine…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. David Eby: …the oil tanker ban off the coast that enables us to do this work.

He wants our economy to fail. I don’t know why.

We’re standing up to grow our economy, create jobs for people, create prosperity for families. We are delivering.

We’ve got a lot more to do, but we will do it, and we’ll make sure British Columbia leads this country’s economy into the future we promised. And we’re going to stand on our own two feet.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Jody Toor: I rise to present a petition.

The undersigned of 1,007 community members are writing to petition for an establishment of a dedicated seniors hospital, focusing on the health care needs of individuals aged 65 and above in our community. As the population ages, it is very important that we address the unique health challenges faced by seniors, ensuring they receive the specialized care they require.

Point of Order

Hon. Mike Farnworth: This is the appropriate time to raise a point of order because as Speaker, you are aware that we don’t raise them during question period. But during question period, the Leader of the Opposition did use non-parliamentary language. The word I think used was “lie.” I would ask that he withdraw that.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. We will look into it.

Petitions

Scott McInnis: I have a petition to present today from 487 residents of Marysville, B.C., who would like to see a more robust crosswalk in a school-dedicated speed zone along Highway 95A for the child care facility as well as Marysville Elementary School.

Lorne Doerkson: I rise today, also, to present two petitions.

The first petition is regarding the state of roads in the Spout Lake Road area in Cariboo-Chilcotin. The petition concerns a high-traffic road that continues to deteriorate. I’m presenting this petition on behalf of 64 residents that are very frustrated and demanding action to make road improvements to this very busy corridor.

The second petition is also regarding roads and the state of infrastructure in the 103 Mile area of my riding. The petition concerns infrastructure within their subdivision that is in a dire state of repair. I’m presenting the petition on behalf of residents of the 103 Mile area who are calling for long-overdue repairs and proper maintenance of their roads and related infrastructure after years of what they feel is neglect. One hundred and three residents have signed this petition.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Members, before I recognize the member for Cowichan Valley, I am advised and other people have also heard that the Leader of Opposition did use the word “lying,” so the Chair would ask him to withdraw.

John Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I just wanted to acknowledge that we had the grade 5 and grade 6 students from the École Mount Prevost school here earlier witnessing question period. Along with them is their teacher Wanda Younge. They’re out having a tour of the Legislature right now.

If the House can make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 20.

In Section A of the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

[11:10 a.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: All right, we’ll resume.

Steve Kooner: I was last discussing that the intent of this legislation is good, but there are some issues that need to be dealt with.

Specifically, I was talking about the regulation section. The intent is good. We need to have prompt payment in the construction industry. We need to make sure people are getting paid. That part of that intent needs to be strongly enforced.

I’m going to come back to this, but I want to kind of go through the sections of the bill. Once I go through the sections of the bill, I’ll come back to some points that I feel need to be really addressed in this bill.

Just taking the House through this bill, Bill 20, the first section deals with the definitions, so we have many definitions from many different terms here.

Then in clause 2, you actually get into the substance of the bill. You start getting into what this applies to. It starts talking about contract positions. This bill talks about not only owners and contractors; it talks about owners, contractors and subcontractors. It not only talks about owners, contractors and subcontractors; it talks about there might be other subcontractors down the chain. So there might be a chain of people that you may have to deal with, that the owner may have to deal with, that a contractor may have to deal with, as well as a subcontractor.

The first clause is an important clause in regards to setting down positions in terms of what the positions are versus owner, contractor, subcontractor.

Clause 3 goes into substituted owners. It talks about…. If there was a contract and it involved an owner, and there was somebody else put in that place of that owner, how would this bill apply to them?

Then this bill goes further into clause 4. In clause 4, we get into division 2, the application of this particular bill. This particular clause talks about what this bill actually applies to, what this act will apply to and also what it will not apply to.

Going further, we move into part 2, which deals with regular invoicing. I briefly touched upon invoicing in my speech on yesterday’s date. In the regular invoicing, we see division 1 talking about regular invoicing in clause 5. It talks about the contractor must give proper notice to the owner monthly. So it sets up a monthly scheme of providing a proper invoice.

[11:15 a.m.]

The contractor must provide a proper invoice, so there’s some sort of regular interval, although there might be an exception in this case, as well, if there’s a specified different period of time in the contract or, say, for example, the timing of the invoice is in correlation to an actual milestone in an actual project.

Then the bill goes further into clause 6. It talks about approval and testing, and it goes further, in division 2, with proper invoices.

This section is probably an important section for this particular bill, because it talks about what needs to be included in a proper invoice. It spells out such things as names and addresses of contractors, dates of invoices, period of time that’s covered, information identifying that contract, description of quantity of services supplied or materials supplied, amounts payable for services or materials supplied, payment terms and those types of things.

Anything that you would probably imagine a proper invoice should have and that’s pertinent seems to be included in this part of the clause.

The next clause goes into revisions to invoices. There’s an opportunity to have actual revisions to invoices that have been rendered in certain circumstances.

Then we move into part 3. That deals with prompt payment. Prompt payment is, I guess, the substance of this particular bill, which talks about prompt payment.

This particular clause sets out that the owner must pay a contractor within 28 days after an invoice’s date. It specifies that period, and then it also sets out a chain.

Say, for example, if the general contractor issues the invoice, within 28 days the payment must happen.

Sorry, there’s a lot of terminology in here.

Basically, if the invoice comes monthly, the payment must be made within 28 days for the contractor. If there are subcontractors, then those subsequent subcontractors need to be paid within seven days. Then if there’s a chain of subcontractors, the seven days will continue in those circumstances.

It seems a bit convoluted, but once you understand the actual numbers and the entities as well as the periods, you get a proper grasp.

Monthly invoices, must make the payment within 28 days. If there are subcontractors, first subcontractor needs to be paid within seven days. If there’s further subcontractors down the chain, that seven-day period keeps continuing.

That seems to be the substance of the prompt payment mechanism: how that prompt payment is going to work. That’s a very important section to review in this particular bill.

This particular part, part 3, “Prompt Payment,” goes further in clauses 10 and 11. It talks about partial payment, and in clause 11, it talks about the notice of non-payment. If there’s a reason for not making payment, you can serve some sort of notice in the prescribed form, setting out why that payment is not due.

Then going further, you go into division 2, “General,” which leads you to clause 12. It states that certain entities have a right to certain information. Whether that’s a contractor or a subcontractor, if they request information, how does that work?

Then further, this next clause within this division is important as well. Clause 13 deals with holdbacks under the Builders Lien Act. This clause actually states, “A requirement under this Part to pay an amount is subject to a required holdback under the Builders Lien Act,” which states that if something is being held back, a sum of money is being held back to the extent that it’s being held back pursuant to the Builders Lien Act, this prompt payment legislation would not apply to that holdback.

[11:20 a.m.]

Going further, in clause 14, it talks about how this legislation doesn’t apply to pay wages and contracts of employment and collective agreements. Then clause 15 talks about interest. Then, when we move further to clause 16 and onwards, it gets into interim adjudication.

So this process actually talks about, say, you don’t get paid. Then what do you do? Well, there’s a process of adjudication that seems to be codified in part 4, called “Interim Adjudication.” Clause 16 talks about interim adjudication.

Clause 17 refers to adjudication procedures.

Then clause 18 gets into referral to adjudication.

Then 19 and 20 talk about limitation issues. Then, as we get further, we look at consolidation, adjudication, parallel proceedings. Say if there is a court proceeding, can this happen? It gets into that.

Then we get into division 3, “Preliminary Matters,” which deals with selection of an adjudicator. How does that all work? Adjudication fees — how does that work, moving forward into this division?

Then as you go further into division 4, under this part, it talks about the powers of the adjudicator, what an adjudicator can actually do. Then, going further, it talks about any sort of objections that can be made on jurisdictional grounds.

Then this goes further, after a few sections, into division 5, which deals with enforcement of the determination, so what happens after you get adjudication and you have a result. What can you do with that?

Division 5, in clause 36, talks about…. You can file a certified copy of the determination with the Supreme Court within two years after a specified period. It also goes further to talk about interest on late payments and deals with holdbacks again and goes further, talking about circumstances of a judicial review.

After this particular division, you get into part 5, which deals with adjudication authority. The adjudication authority has jurisdiction over how adjudicators get appointed.

Then just before you get to the last part…. Well, when you do get to the last part, which is part 6, “General,” it deals with the regulations, what can be set forward in regulations.

Now, in my last few minutes here, I’d like to spend some time on where I find some significant issues out of all this stuff that I just referred to.

There’s a specified section here in this legislation that talks about the interpretation period, and it talks about how it will not apply to all parties you can imagine. It exempts the government. That seems to be a bit of an issue here.

We’re talking about this legislation being a good thing to help contractors, subcontractors, the construction industry. That’s a good thing, but we need to make sure this legislation is a very strong piece of legislation for the construction industry. We want to make sure it will actually do the good that it plans to do. So it should have broad applicability. It should apply to all parties that get involved in the construction industry. That’s one part where I see some issues that need to be canvassed.

Another area of this legislation that needs to be canvassed is in regards to the adjudication authority. There’s a part of the adjudication authority that talks about a minister can exercise that authority. So then the question prompts….

[11:25 a.m.]

Then the question prompts, like, if there is some element of government kind of involved in some sort of construction dispute in terms of payment and if the government has power over deciding who the adjudicators are going to be when a minister can exercise authority of adjudication authority, will that take away from the independence of an adjudicator? That is a live issue that I see here, as well, that needs to be canvassed at the committee stage and needs to be dealt with.

In addition, in the regulation…. The regulations seem to cover a broad spectrum of things. When you read the legislation in the earlier part, you see it seems to all line up, and it seems to be a good thing. It talks about owners, contractors. But then here in the regulations, the regulations talk about how there could be regulations made in regards to whether a person is an owner, contractor or subcontractor.

Well, if you’re already defining it in this legislation, and now you’re saying that, well, you can still redefine it, that could be a potential issue. So that really needs to be canvassed at the committee stage as well.

Also, there’s some discussion on agreements that this legislation referred to earlier. It sets out what could be the respecting contents of those agreements, respecting who may have been able to enter into that agreement.

It also talks about…. It specifies, on one side of the act, the calculation of days in terms of settling disputes, but this part here, in terms of regulation, also gets into the time periods. That brings another question. Can some time limits actually be put into question? There might be some ambiguity later on through these regulations. It’s important to note that these regulations are most likely going to be just made by cabinet, and there’s probably not going to be much consultation on this, so this would probably be a concern.

We heard earlier from the Attorney General, when the Attorney General introduced second reading, that there was a lot of consultation done on this bill. But although there was a lot of consultation done, will there be consultation done in terms of these regulations?

These regulations seem to address a lot of the good work that this legislation has put in and has talked about, but then it talks about…. Well, you can redefine certain terms. You can look at situations again. So when you get into regulations, a concern would be the amount of consultation.

The bottom line is this. This legislation has a good intent to protect the construction industry with prompt payment, but we need to make sure that it will be effective in that purpose and that this legislation will actually help in that purpose, moving forward.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As the Minister of Infrastructure, I am pleased to stand in the House here today to speak in support of Bill 20, which is the new prompt payment legislation introduced by my colleague the Attorney General.

As the minister responsible for major capital project planning and delivery, from schools and hospitals to health facilities and post-secondary student housing, I know firsthand how critical stability and trust are within the construction sector. In many ways, we are the ministry of construction, and this legislation demonstrates that we are here to support and stand up for the people who make our communities possible.

This bill represents an important step forward for British Columbia’s construction industry, one of the largest and most vital sectors in our province. Prompt payment will help ensure that cash flow is predictable, that disputes are resolved more quickly and that projects are less likely to be delayed due to payment uncertainty.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge any partners from the construction sector who may be listening to today’s debate. Your skills and dedication help build the communities that we live in.

[11:30 a.m.]

I am so grateful for all of the industry leaders who have advocated for this over the years and who have sat down with me to empower me to be their voice on this issue within government and enabled me to help work with my colleagues and help them understand why prompt payment legislation was needed.

Many industry groups have been involved in the work of advocating for changes over the years.

I think about the B.C. Construction Association, which represents thousands of contractors and plays a key role in strengthening our province’s construction industry. I think of the Electrical Contractors Association of B.C., representing more than 150 companies who know the importance of having prompt payment legislation; the Mechanical Contractors Association of British Columbia, whose members are the pipefitters and welders; HVAC techs, plumbers and more that make buildings in B.C. work by installing, servicing and retrofitting mechanical systems. They were one of the first organizations to raise the alarm about the need for prompt payment legislation.

I think of the unions that represent building tradespeople across the province and whose members bring the expertise and skills to do the physical work that is required to actually build these construction projects. When it comes to prompt payment for companies, it’s also about payment of workers and ensuring that British Columbia continues to be a truly great place to set down roots and to thrive.

Although prompt payment legislation is new to the floor of this House, the idea that you should be paid for the work that you do is not. At its foundation, this is about fairness for the construction industry, an industry that has built our province and powered our economy through difficult times. Whether you are a general contractor or a subcontractor, prompt payment legislation helps to ensure that the work you do to build a project is respected.

Smaller contracting companies in particular take on significant risk when they accept a contract. They’re the ones who have to put tradespeople to work and secure materials in advance, often months before they can be paid. Reliability of cash flow is critical to helping manage that risk.

Imagine being a medium-size subtrade and needing to purchase millions of dollars of materials in advance for a project, with the understanding that you will be installing it in several months’ time based on the project schedule. So you bid your project accordingly and take into account the carrying cost of the cash that you will need to prepurchase the materials.

You win the bid. You’re excited for the project. You secure the labour you need for the contract and gear up for the job. You work well with the general contractor, and you do the work to install everything on time. You submit your invoice for payment and patiently await the flow of cash that you’ve properly earned.

Only it doesn’t come at the end of the month like you counted on. It doesn’t come the next month or the month after that or even the month after that because somewhere up the line, someone didn’t pay their bill. There’s no cash to flow down to the subtrades, and you are left waiting.

In the meantime, you continue to carry the cost of the millions of dollars of materials that you’ve already paid for, as well as the costs of the payroll that you’ve paid out to your tradespeople. The interest payments start to stack up and eat into your profit margin. Eventually, it may even overtake the margin entirely. The next time that you bid on a project, you build in a much larger buffer to account for the unpredictability in the cash flow you’ve come to expect. It’s either that, or you go under as a company.

These are the kinds of situations that this legislation is intended to address. This legislation will help ensure that we can have a healthy and dynamic contracting market supporting competitive tendering processes. That ultimately means better prices for projects for British Columbians as well.

With this legislation, we are strengthening the backbone of B.C.’s economy, supporting our construction industry and helping grow the communities that we all live in and want to thrive in.

It is an important step that I am very pleased to strongly support, and of course, we know that there is more work to do.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate this morning on Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. This is a very important topic. It’s an important sector for British Columbia’s overall economy, accounting for about 10 percent of our overall GDP. So we need to support this sector as we can.

[11:35 a.m.]

I want to begin by saying this. The B.C. Construction Association deserves so much credit for working on this particular file for years now. I’ve worked with the CEO, Chris Atchison, in my past life in the private sector and can honestly say he has been nothing short of persistent.

Congratulations to Chris and his entire team for getting this to the floor. Indeed, I’ll join the Minister of Infrastructure in congratulating all of the construction sectors, all of the labour groups who have advocated for this over a period of time.

It is something that we need to get right, though. I’ve said that I’ve worked in the major projects space. I will bring some of my personal experience with this particular topic to this discussion as we get into it a little bit further. I do support the principle of prompt payment. I’ve seen firsthand the complexity of prime contracts and the layers of subcontracts.

Project owners and prime contractors have to have very stringent commercial contracts that deal with all kinds of terms and conditions and lots of complexity. They have to protect their own interest in those dealings, and there are mechanisms for legal recourse, but what’s a challenge is the recourse for the little guy. The subcontractor is down the value chain when a dispute arises between an owner and a prime, and that’s something that I have witnessed in some of my work.

I don’t think that prompt payment in the construction sector is a partisan issue. I think it’s a matter of fairness, of basic respect for the people who do the work and keep this province building. Where I do have concerns is in the delivery and making sure that this is actually done effectively as intended. As we have seen all too often from this government, there is a wide gap between a good-sounding idea and a system that actually works in the real world.

I represent, of course, the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie. It’s a region built by hard-working people — loggers and millworkers, of course, and many tradespeople and small contractors — who have spent decades building the infrastructure that drives this province. Whether it’s roads, schools, resource projects or housing, the construction sector is, as I’ve said, a massive part of our economy.

I’ll add another thanks to Nicole Bryant from the Northern Regional Construction Association, who has spoken to me about this file as well, for her work on that, and her contractor members. I’ve spoken to many of them and know the challenges in northern B.C. I’m going to get into a few of those as I get into my remarks.

The reality for many of the businesses that I talk to in my community is that getting paid for completing work can actually be an uphill battle. I’ll get into that.

I worked with the small contractors as one of their advocates when they were caught in the disputes between owners and primes. These are some of the folks who have maybe only a handful of employees. They might have just a couple of trucks, a yard full of tools, local timber marts supplying to a contractor working near their community.

All of them have told me the same thing. They do the work, send the invoice, and then they wait. Then they call me to give me the updates on their wait times. It’s something that is a real challenge when you’re a small contractor trying to make ends meet.

The problem isn’t always that people just don’t want to pay or that they’re being negligent. The money can get held up in layers of subcontracting. There could be approvals and bureaucracy, and sometimes it is caught in commercial disputes as well. The small guys at the bottom of the value chain are the ones left carrying the financing risks, often. They’re the ones impacted the most, I would say. They’re scrambling to make payroll to keep the lights on and to keep their apprentices working.

If they try to use the current legal tools — we have the Builders Lien Act, for example — it can be too blunt. It’s a cumbersome process. It can be expensive. With business relationships, people often don’t want to go that route, because it can harm their future interests. That act hasn’t been updated in many, many years now, so it is also out of step with today’s realities.

The builders lien process might make sense for a major dispute on a $100 million project, but for a small contractor, chasing $50,000 or $100,000 in overdue invoices is not always practical. With the time, the legal fees and the stress, it might not even be worth it.

Yes, the principle of prompt payment is overdue. I certainly don’t dispute that, but what matters is whether this bill, in the way the government chooses to implement it, will actually make a difference for the people it’s supposed to help.

[11:40 a.m.]

Before coming to the Legislature, the projects that I worked on were big, complex undertakings with prime contractors, construction managers, engineering firms and multiple layers of subcontractors, as I’ve said.

When you’ve been working in this world, you learn quickly how one missed payment or one administrative delay can really ripple down that value chain. There could actually be dozens of companies down below on these major, major projects. The prime contractor doesn’t get paid, so they hold back payment from their subs, who hold back, and so on.

I’ve seen good, competent businesses pushed right to the brink of insolvency because of those payment delays. I’ve tried to work through those issues with them, but the system currently as it is has allowed that inertia that is a real problem.

Let’s start with some of the concepts in the bill, and I’ll go into a few specific key areas of interest that I just want to clarify as we’re moving forward. Let’s start with the concept of a proper invoice. Under this bill, the clock on payment does not start ticking until a proper invoice is submitted, and it has to meet certain criteria. That does sound reasonable, but of course, we need consistency, transparency and all that in our documentation.

As we’re looking at what a proper invoice is, I think that is important for defining to make sure that small contractors have the ability to actually not be tripped up or not be able to fill out that type of paperwork. A large contractor with a team of accountants and lawyers can handle that paperwork, but let’s make it simple for the little guys. So will there be plain-language templates, online tools, a helpline or support desk? I think these details do matter.

Hopefully we’ll be able to hear from the Attorney General, as we get through later stages of this bill, what the government plans to do to make sure this system is simple, accessible and fair.

Another area that I want to get further clarification on before understanding further support for the bill is how this bill is going to apply to the B.C. government itself, as well as Crown agencies. I’ve heard from many companies in my area that say that organizations like B.C. Hydro are actually some of the worst offenders in prompt payment challenges. I’m not that surprised. I know that our government is quite bureaucratic, and it’s not a surprise to me that it takes a long time to get payment.

I’m looking forward at what’s in front of us right now and the need for this type of prompt payment to actually be in place. There are big projects in my region proposed, like the North Coast transmission line from Prince George to Terrace. I attended B.C. Hydro’s open house and told them that we need fair procurement that actually gives local companies a fair ability to work, that prioritizes real local contractors and not just paper joint ventures from Edmonton with no local employment attached to it and that we need to ensure that local contractors are paid on time for their work.

We also need to look at making sure that BCIB is included. I’ve personally heard from many in the trucking sector that have not been paid through CBA projects as well. I think that’s something where we need certainty that it’s going to be included and applied to all areas of the government and Crown corporations.

Is this something that we can expect carve-outs on for specific projects that suit the government or specific agencies? I think we need to get those questions answered before we can understand, for the industry, what this actually means for them.

Now I’ll turn to the adjudication process. I’d say this sounds good on paper. It could be a faster, more affordable way to resolve disputes instead of spending years in court. I think the idea has merit. The question is: will it work for everyone in this case? Who are the adjudicators? What training will they have? Will they understand construction, or will they just add another layer of bureaucracy that is challenging for folks to navigate? How much will it cost to bring a dispute forward?

[11:45 a.m.]

I think if all of these things are only prescribed in regulation, it’s hard to tell for the industry what that actually means for them.

If the government wants small contractors to use this system, it needs to be affordable and accessible not just in Vancouver but across the province, in northern B.C., in places like Prince George or Mackenzie or Burns Lake. You can’t hop on the SkyTrain to go down to an adjudication meeting. You actually need access to it, so it needs to be fair for everyone. If it’s not really with that regional access in mind, and if it’s all centralized, then, again, the little guy could be left out.

Another area that I’ve already referenced but I’m going to turn to again is the Builders Lien Act. I’m wondering how these pieces of legislation will actually interact in practice. I think that’s an important question. Bill 20 says that the two systems will operate together, with holdbacks still required under the lien framework. Of course, 10 percent holdbacks are required under the Builders Lien Act to ensure that owners hold a financial pool for unpaid contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is something that has been in place for quite some time now, and it’s legislation that also needs to be updated. But in all layers of the value chain, cash flow is a major issue for construction. How do the timelines outlined in this new act work within the existing legislation? There are regulations already in place for the Builders Lien Act, so are those being changed because of this? I think these are questions that the government needs to answer to bring some certainty for the construction sector.

Uncertainty, of course, is challenging for investment. It’s challenging for the business community in general and for the workers that rely on these paycheques. One thing that’s been common is the progressive release of holdbacks after completing work. It’s something that’s very normalized in the construction world. What does this all mean for businesses managing their cash flow?

Noting the hour, I’ll move adjournment of the debate and reserve my time to continue at the next sitting.

Kiel Giddens moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 12 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We’re on clause 3.

On clause 3 (continued).

Macklin McCall: I’m continuing on from yesterday.

I have one question — I’ll put these questions together; I think it will work very nicely — about stakeholder consultation.

Has the government consulted with road safety experts, driver training schools and other stakeholders to gather input on the appropriate periods for requirements, restrictions or conditions, and can the minister provide details on the feedback that was received from these consultations and how it has been incorporated into the bill?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question about the engagement process.

RoadSafetyBC and ICBC played a central role in developing and planning the proposed graduated licensing program model and worked together on consultations that created two advisory working groups, bringing together key stakeholders and experts to help shape both proposed changes to the GLP and the MLP models.

The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police was a key group engaged throughout the process and, as I indicated yesterday, supports the proposed updates to the graduated licensing program.

The consultations occurred in three phases.

The first was that ICBC and RoadSafetyBC held small virtual sessions with over 20 stakeholders to understand how the GLP is working, identify challenges and explore improvements.

In a second phase, over 30 participants engaged in deeper discussions about specific GLP elements that could be changed and focused on reviewing and providing input on the proposed GLP model and also its implementation.

Then in the third phase, two advisory groups were formed, one for the GLP and one for the MLP, to provide input on the proposed models and implementations.

[11:25 a.m.]

You asked who specifically was consulted.

In addition to the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, it was the B.C. Trucking Association, the driver training industry, including ICBC-certified GLP schools and Indigenous driver training schools; First Nations communities and Indigenous organizations; health and injury prevention organizations; as well as youth advisory committees. Feedback, broadly, from these sessions showed strong support for the proposed direction.

Equity and accessibility and concerns around accessibility related to the second road test and the stresses involved were identified as barriers to getting a full class 5 licence. This results in what we touched on yesterday, which is people remaining L drivers for years or even decades.

Among the Indigenous communities that we spoke with, there was consensus that the exit road test is another barrier in obtaining a driver’s licence and that this presents challenges in terms of accessibility and affordability. There was support for eliminating the second road test if the driver had a clean driving record and if the amount of driving time required is extended. That reflects our approach, which is an extended 12-month monitoring period, which is something we heard about during the consultations.

In terms of restrictions, there was agreement with moving drivers to the class 5, keeping the alcohol and drug restrictions, considering speed restrictions and that consideration should be given to no restrictions for school or work, because these are barriers to employment.

There was agreement that the current GLP can be a hindrance for some people in relation to employment and that a shorter pathway for more mature drivers would be helpful if it’s supported by data, and indeed it is. That pathway for mature drivers is indeed supported by the data that we have.

Supervised driving practice was also still considered very important, no matter the age or maturity of the driver. Among Indigenous communities, there were older people learning to drive, and many people referenced that often the 25-year-olds have families and need to get to work — just a general support among Indigenous communities for pathways for mature drivers.

I think I’ll leave it at that. It was a long answer to your question.

Macklin McCall: Yeah, a thorough answer. Thank you. It was a long one there.

I want to go back to something you said, just so I’m clear on what you’re saying.

You listed off ICBC, the police chiefs association, trucking and other industries, but you mentioned something that I wasn’t clear on. It was the first part of what you said there. It was really, if I heard you right, that there were groups of, like, 30, and these groups that were formed kind of gave their view or opinions — before you started listing the industry and stuff.

Interjection.

Macklin McCall: Yeah, you mentioned groups. I’m just wondering who was in those groups. You mentioned groups of 30 people and a few other things after the fact. Is that industry? Is that the general public? Who was in those groups?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just to recap the specific groups that were included: the Indigenous driving schools, First Nations communities and Indigenous organizations, representatives from the driver training industry, including the ICBC-certified schools, health and injury prevention organizations, youth advisory committees and the B.C. Trucking Association.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister for the thorough answer.

Continuing my question from yesterday, we were talking about ICBC under clause 3. I can see that ICBC has the ultimate power by discretionary applying of different tests — knowledge tests, road tests, road signs or signal tests or one or more of the following.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: In the current Motor Vehicle Act, ICBC already is empowered to deliver driver licensing programs. With this bill, we’re not adding additional powers per se. We’re clarifying what those authorities are and ensuring that ICBC could administer the programs identified in this bill.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

What I understand is that right now ICBC already has that discretionary power, and you mentioned the bill clarifies it. But if they already have this power, why do we need to deliver something that they already have?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think we touched on this yesterday. I again reiterate that the new paragraph doesn’t change ICBC’s existing authority to require a knowledge test, a road test, road sign–signal tests, and so on. But the new paragraph provides clarity that ICBC can require this to support the administration of the changes to the GLP and the MLP identified in this bill. That change is required to proceed with the amendments to the programs.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

So in (b), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations and continue prescribing a minimum waiting period. My general question is: why is this bill granting the LG in Council such broad authority to make, or demanding, regulations affecting driver licensing?

The reason I need to ask this is I have great concern after this bill is passed that either ICBC or the LG in Council has full power without letting the House know of any changes. I mean, they do have the power if this bill passed to make all the changes with us not knowing anything about it. I want to know why we give this broad power to LG in Council and also ICBC.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think, again, this was a question that we did delve into yesterday. Just to refresh, the Motor Vehicle Act is an older piece of legislation that’s structured differently from more recent legislation. It doesn’t set out specifics within the act but refers to regulations. Bill 12 is drafted within the scheme of the existing Motor Vehicle Act.

The supporting regulations are developed transparently through engagement with stakeholders, such as the driver training industry, Indigenous partners, public agencies and law enforcement, and that will continue. Regulation drafting can be an iterative process, starting with initial discussions of the intent and then meetings to talk through drafts to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

We’re committed to ongoing engagements through the regulations process, and then, once finalized, all regulations are publicly posted, ensuring transparency and accountability.

I’ll just note that this delegated authority that the member refers to has been in place for 30 years. It is nothing new as a result of this act.

Hon Chan: Thank you for the answer. However, under this bill, we can see that the order in council or the cabinet actually has full power in the future after this bill is passed to make any changes.

I’m glad that you mentioned that all the changes in regulation will be or hopefully will be published. But under this bill, it actually doesn’t have to be published, because in this bill, it doesn’t say that all regulations have to be published prior to any changes.

So my question would be: what kind of safeguard will we be able to hold your words accountable, saying that all future regulations changes will be published prior to the changes?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’ll reiterate the purpose of this legislation, which is to improve accessibility and also be able to advance road safety, which I know is top of mind and critically important to everyone on all sides of the House.

I think what the member is referring to is standard government process. Regulations are developed in consultation with various stakeholders, and they’re always published before coming into effect.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon Chan: I would just blanket ask my last question on the ultimate power thing. In sections (c), (d), (f) and, well, 10.13 and 10.14, they all have ICBC and LG in Council.

Also in 10.14(a), it also allows ICBC the power to determine the class of driver licence in other jurisdictions.

Now my question is: once ICBC has this ultimate power, how do we know fairness and equality will be met? There will be no oversight by us anymore.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just adding an update to the previous answer I gave around the regulation piece and the publication of regulations. This is a requirement of the Regulations Act in section 5 that all regulations are published.

I’ll again reiterate that what is proposed in terms of ICBC’s role is nothing new. It has been in place for three decades, and the government has confidence in ICBC to administrate licensing programs.

We touched yesterday that if there is a complaint about anything related to driver licensing, there is the fairness officer who reports to the minister responsible, which is the AG. Concerns can also be raised to the Ombudsperson. So those safeguards exist as they have for this. Just to reiterate that there’s nothing new in this legislation that relates to ICBC’s authorities to administer licensing programs in B.C.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.