Hansard — Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 85

Kiel Giddens: I’m just finishing up my remarks from this morning. We’ve been talking about the Construction Prompt Payment Act. Where I had left off this morning was talking about the interaction between this particular bill and the Builders Lien Act that, as I’ve said, needs updating itself. It’s out of step with current realities, but that would take a whole other consultation process with industry, I would hope, and a long kind of planning to figure out how that would work. But this bill will interact with that.

As businesses are managing their cash flow and trying to sort out how they can plan their businesses…. I think where I’d left off was the progressive release of holdbacks that is really in that particular Builders Lien Act and how that interacts with this new regime here.

I think that’s something that the government really needs to answer so that industry has some certainty on how this is going to work. I want to make sure that this new system actually simplifies things for business, rather than layering another process on top of what already exists.

Under this act, there’s also the provision allowing contractors to suspend work if they’re not paid after an adjudicator’s decision. Again, I’d say this is fair in principle. Nobody should have to keep working if they haven’t been paid, but this needs to be managed quite carefully.

If you’re working on a major public infrastructure project — for example, a hospital, a bridge or a school — and a subcontractor suspends work, that can have ripple effects for the timelines, costs and, of course, for workers who depend on those paycheques.

[1:35 p.m.]

We need to know what government plans to balance those risks and whether public projects will be managed differently under these rules. That’s something I’ve been clear about. That is something we will be continuing to ask about, and the industry certainly will as well, I believe.

Now, one of my biggest frustrations is that this government has a habit of treating consultation as a check box exercise. They’ll hold meetings under NDAs, they’ll issue a press release, and then they’ll call it a day. We need continued consultation with industry on this one to make sure that it works. That’s the whole value chain.

I’ve talked about the little guy, how important it is to be talking to the small sector as well. Fortunately, there are good groups, like the construction associations, that have been involved and need to continue to be involved, making sure that it’s the large contractors right to the small contractors that are included in these discussions.

I’d like to see a commitment from the government that they will work with the construction sector to monitor implementation, to work with them very closely on all of the regulation-making, because the way this bill is designed, a lot of the details are going to be in regulation.

Let’s make sure that we learn the lessons from Ontario and Alberta by asking contractors what worked there and what didn’t. Many who work in B.C. have worked in other jurisdictions, so let’s actually make sure that that expertise is taken into account, that wide range of the construction sector. I want prompt payment to work, but it will only work if it’s built with the people it’s meant to help.

That’s really the point that I want to drive home. I’m standing here today to stand up for the small contractors, the tradespeople and the suppliers who build this province from the ground up and keep our economy moving each and every day. These are family businesses. They train apprentices. They sponsor local hockey teams, and they’re the backbone of our communities. When those companies don’t get paid, it’s not a line item on a balance sheet. It’s actually talking about groceries for families. It’s mortgage payments and jobs that are at stake here. So let’s get this right.

I know this government likes to pat itself on the back for supporting workers. The truth is that they’ve often failed to understand that workers also rely on their stable employers. They need small businesses to actually be sustainable so that they can have sustainable jobs.

We’ll be continuing to look at this as to how it applies in construction and asking some of the hard questions at the committee stage. I know that good policy isn’t about what looks nice on a press release. It’s about what works in practice, on the ground, for the people who have to live with it each and every day. I want the construction sector in our province to have a bright future, to be very successful.

As I’ve said before, I actually think we can agree that prompt payment doesn’t have to be a partisan issue here. It’s about fairness, and the construction sector has been calling for reform for quite a few years now. So I’m listening to them. I’ll be holding this government to account on what it promises.

I hope this legislation truly helps small contractors get paid faster. As I’ve said, when I’ve worked in this before, I think of the specific businesses that I had worked with that needed help in this case. There was a company that supplied portable toilets, for example. Another one, a Timber Mart in a small community. A First Nations joint-venture business that’s trying to build their capacity to work on a major project, but because of non-payment, they’re actually struggling to keep the lights on for their employees. I don’t want to see that happen.

This is legislation that we need to get right, but if it ends up buried in bureaucracy, creating more paperwork for these same businesses than progress, then we have a lot more work to do. At the end of the day, this is about respect — respect for the people who do the work, take the risks and build our province.

I will always stand up for working people in this province — the welders, the framers, the electricians, the concrete finishers, the small family firms that keep northern B.C. moving. They deserve to be paid on time. They deserve a system that works so they can put food on the table for their families, and I’ll do everything I can as a member of this House to make sure that they get exactly that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about one of the most critical issues facing the construction industry in British Columbia, the need for prompt payment legislation.

It’s been noted before, but it’s worth noting again, that B.C.’s construction industry employs 260,000 British Columbians and delivers $29 billion in annual economic activity, and 88 percent of the construction industry is reporting late payments on invoices.

For too long, B.C. has lacked specific laws to ensure timely payment in construction. In fact, we remain one of the few jurisdictions in North America without prompt payment legislation. So it’s gratifying to see that we are going to solve that gap. That’s not just an oversight. It’s a costly gap in our regulatory framework that directly undermines our construction sector and the small businesses that support it.

The B.C. Construction Association and the Vancouver Regional Construction Association, along with over 30 other industry associations, have been advocating tirelessly for implementation of prompt payment laws in B.C. These are the experts. These are the people with lived experience, and they’re telling us the same thing. The lack of prompt payment is one of the most significant and damaging issues facing the industry today.

When contractors don’t get paid on time, it doesn’t just affect them. It creates a ripple effect, placing immense financial strain on small businesses, stalling projects and blocking billions of dollars from circulating through the broader economy. Across both the public and private sectors of B.C.’s construction industry, uncertainty, delay and disputes over payment are all common, and these problems stem directly from the absence of prompt payment legislation.

In no other industry is it considered normal to wait 90 to 120 days or more for payment, yet in construction, this has become the status quo. The culture of late payment persists because, quite simply, the law allows it. Now we have an opportunity to enact law that won’t allow it.

Subcontractors, suppliers and tradespeople, those closest to the base of the construction pyramid, are the most vulnerable to these delays. It really is the little company, the little subcontractor, the little tradesperson that is directly and most impacted by late payments. With funds choked off at the top, their ability to meet payroll, purchase materials and keep businesses afloat is severely compromised.

The unique structure of the construction industry, with complex contractual layers, contingent payment clauses and power imbalances, further exacerbates the problem. Subcontractors are often forced to finance projects out of their own pockets without any guarantee of timely payment, all while bearing most of the financial risk. Prompt payment legislation addresses these structural challenges by setting clear, enforceable timelines for payment and non-payment notices at every tier of the construction pyramid.

In B.C., the cost of delayed payment is estimated to be over $4 billion due to risk premiums, interest charges, legal fees, not to mention the untold cost of shuttered businesses and lost opportunities. Addressing the prompt payment challenge will release millions of dollars into the economy, improve cash flow for every British Columbian and help the small contractors who form the backbone of our construction industry. When they can rely on being paid on time, they can pay their staff, invest in equipment and training and build stronger, more resilient businesses without taking on unnecessary debt.

We support this legislation not just in principle but in practice. We believe it is possible to implement prompt payment laws in a way that minimizes negative effects on the sector while still promoting vibrant and sustainable construction business activity.

[1:45 p.m.]

Other provinces like Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan have already implemented prompt payment and adjudication regimes with clear, positive results. Finally — it’s long overdue — the province is acting to protect contractors and subcontractors here.

Clarity is needed. The act comes into force only by regulation and can be rolled out gradually by sector, which could be a good thing, but it also could create uncertainty unless government makes clear its intent.

The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association is asking the province to confirm that all public owners — including ministries; Crown corporations, B.C. Hydro, for example; government agencies; municipal halls; school boards; and regional districts — must comply with Bill 20, that no public owner exemptions will be introduced by regulation and that implementation timelines will apply equally to public and private sectors.

I look forward to committee stage to better understand if these concerns are addressed in the bill. Speaking of committee stage, I will also be looking for clarity on the government’s intent in terms of the application of section 4(2), which says that the act does not apply in relation to prescribed improvement, contract, service or material.

I also hope and urge all of my colleagues who are in the committee stage to bear in mind that the perfect is the enemy of the good. My colleagues, like the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough, are really looking forward to a targeted discussion in committee, where we really focus on achieving, in a timely way, consideration of this legislation.

The construction industry has played a central role in helping our province rebuild in the wake of COVID-19. It continues to be one of our largest employers and economic drivers. The lack of political will to enact prompt payment laws is holding back this industry and the people who depend on it, and now is our opportunity to remedy that issue.

With the support of industry organizations and a model that’s already proven successful elsewhere, the adoption of prompt payment legislation will finally give B.C.’s construction sector the fair, transparent and reliable payment framework it needs to thrive. Nothing could be more important in the times we’re in.

Misty Van Popta: Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, is an important piece of legislation for British Columbia’s construction sector, a sector that I come from. I’m going to be going through this division by division and then talking about some personal and anecdotal perspectives coming from the industry myself.

I’d like to acknowledge the good advocacy work by organizations like the BCCA for championing this legislation forward and for other organizations like the ICBA for highlighting areas of shared concerns.

The government states that Bill 20 establishes a scheme for prompt payment and timely, accessible adjudication in the construction industry. The drivers are well known. Many contractors and subcontractors have suffered from long payment delays, months before payment, after performing work, which strains cash flows, affects small businesses disproportionately and can stall projects. Industry surveys show that 88 percent of contractors reported late payments in 2024.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it appears to be a good objective. Ensuring that those who perform the work and supply the materials are paid in a predictable time frame reduces risk, builds trust, encourages investment and helps smaller companies maintain viability. Particularly for trades and some contractors whose margins may be thin, improved cash flow certainty is a valuable benefit.

However, it is also important to test whether the proposed bill strikes the right balance. One must ask whether this intervention preserves commercial freedom, avoids excessive administration burden and accurately allocates risk rather than shifting it in unintended ways.

[1:50 p.m.]

The act’s part 2 sets out the following rules on invoicing. It establishes that a contractor must give a proper invoice monthly by default unless the contract specifies otherwise. It voids a contractual term which makes giving the proper invoice conditional on owner or certifier approval and defines what information a proper invoice must contain — contractor details, date, period or milestone, description, amount, payment terms, etc.

These rules offer clarity and standardization in an area that previously may have been ambiguous. Standardized invoicing reduces disputes about “is this invoice valid?” and thus paves the way for smoother payment timelines. In sectors where small contractors may not have sophisticated administration capacity, a clear statutory template is beneficial.

Yet one key caution is about commercial flexibility. A rule that monthly invoicing is the default may not suit every type of project — for instance, large multi-year projects with milestone billing, modular delivery or complex certification processes. Contracts should retain latitude to tailor invoice timing to the nature of the work.

While the bill does allow the contract to specify a different period of time for invoicing…. That is helpful, but we must watch how regulations interpret this. If the regulations become more prescriptive, smaller projects may struggle with monthly cycles they did not previously follow.

Another risk is that the administrative burden of ensuring invoice form compliance may fall disproportionately on small companies. A proper invoice has multiple required fields. Failing to comply may allow an owner to delay payment. While standardization is good, we must not overburden trades that have limited office capacity. We should advocate for simplified templates.

Part 3 of the bill deals with timelines for payment. Some of those key features are that if a contractor gives a proper invoice to the owner, the owner must pay within 28 days after the invoice. A person further down the chain, meaning contractor to subcontractors, must pay by the earlier of seven days after receiving payment in relation to the invoice or the person’s calculated payment date.

The calculated payment date is 28 days plus seven days times the person’s contract position in the chain. Thus, a first-tier subcontractor, meaning position 2, would have 48 days from invoice date.

These timelines inject discipline into payment flows. In jurisdictions where prompt payment laws already exist, like Ontario and Alberta, evidence suggests quicker payments reduced risk premiums and improved supply chain certainty. First of all, our trades getting paid sooner rather than waiting months means less borrowing, fewer delays and better capacity to bid on new work.

But there are trade-offs and risks.

First, the fixated 28-day timeline and seven-day downstream timeline may not align with all project types. Public procurement often involves lengthy certification through different consultants and the owner, audit and approval processes.

From contractors on big infrastructure projects, delays may be due to owner processes rather than arbitrary holdups by the owner. If the act does not sufficiently allow for legitimate certification delays, owners may be forced to pay before approvals are complete or adopt risk-averse practices, meaning over holdbacks. That, in turn, could raise costs across the board.

Second, the cascading payment requirement places a cash flow burden on contractors. A prime contractor may receive payment after 28 days but then must pay subcontractors within seven days after receipt. If the prime has not yet been paid or is still waiting for a cash release, meaning lien holds and certification, the risk of insolvency for the prime increases. In effect, the law shifts risk upstream to the contractor.

[1:55 p.m.]

Next, the potential for wannabe worst behaviour exists. Owners may become more conservative in certification, delay approving invoices deliberately or negotiate shorter payment terms to counter the quicker downstream requirements. The act must anticipate this.

While discipline is desirable, flexibility is also essential. The bill should recognize that not all contracts are identical. Small building renovation jobs differ from large, multi-year infrastructure projects.

Section 11 sets out rules on notice of non-payment. A person in the chain need not pay downstream if they give written notice specifying the amount and reasons, and if the reason is upstream non-payment, they must attach a copy of the upstream non-payment notice and undertake to refer the non-payment above it to adjudication within 21 days.

Section 10 deals with partial payments and mandates rateable distribution of partial funds to subcontractors if a contractor receives partial payment.

These provisions ensure transparency and fairness. They help prevent a prime contractor from collecting payment from the owner and then delaying payment to subcontractors without cause. The flow-through requirement of partial payments enhances fairness down the chain and may reduce the waterfall risk, where subs are left unpaid while the primes hold the funds.

Yet more regulated obligations mean more administrative oversight. Contractors must track not only payments but notices, non-payment clauses, upstream claims and obligations to refer to adjudication. These may be burdensome, especially for smaller subs without legal teams.

Also, the notice of non-payment mechanism introduces additional steps. If a contractor wants to withhold payment to a sub because of upstream non-payment, it must issue the notice and refer to adjudication. The risk of that is that some contractors may opt to pay anyway to avoid the process, passing the upstream risk to themselves. That means more carrying costs and greater budgeting risk. The law and the act therefore shift risk and cost burdens into day-to-day operations.

In terms of adjudications, a party may defer a dispute to adjudication if it relates to failure to give a proper invoice, failure to pay, notice of non-payment issues, valuation of services and materials or a change order payment dispute. A streamlined adjudication process gives a path for quicker resolution, making disputed payment claims less of a gamble and more of a practical tool. That supports the objective of keeping money flowing and reducing project delays.

However, as with any regulatory adjudication process, caution is warranted. The cost of filing and administering these adjudications must be reasonable. Otherwise, small subcontractors may still be excluded, and the process may be used primarily by larger companies.

Moreover, binding until final resolution means that decisions will carry immediate payment obligations. But what if the adjudicator makes an error? If a small subcontractor loses or a contractor is required to pay prematurely, there is risk.

Adjudication should be accessible, low-cost, predictable and consistent with commercial practice. Oversight of adjudicator quality, fee transparency and standard forms are essential. Risks of duplication, meaning court and adjudication, and litigation layering must be mitigated.

Bill 20 also makes consequential changes to the existing Builders Lien Act, although it doesn’t go into all of the areas of concern. The bill proposes to abolish the so-called Shimco lien, a separate lien against the statutory holdback, thereby removing a standalone lien right on the holdback fund.

Importantly, from my perspective as somebody who used to do this job, the bill reduces the holdback release period from 55 days to 46 days in certain circumstances. These reforms simplify the security framework, reduce administrative complexity and potentially release retention funds earlier into the working capital of business. That may improve cash flow and reduce financing costs for contractors.

[2:00 p.m.]

On the other hand, liens are a critical security device for smaller subcontractors and suppliers. Weakening lien rights or removing certain lien vehicles may reduce their bargaining power, leaving smaller companies more exposed. From a risk management perspective, shorter holdback release periods on complex projects may raise exposure to defects or claims that arise after release. A one-size approach may not suit all project types.

The bill defines its application in part 1, division 2, and allows for regulation to exclude certain improvements, services or materials. Industry commentary from people that we’ve talked to has voiced concerns about exemptions, as we do as well. If municipal, regional and school board projects were exempted, the objective of the law would be weakened.

Applying identical timelines and procedures to vastly different contracts, meaning small remodel jobs versus major infrastructure works, may invite unintended burdens.

Also, if the regulations allow carve-outs or exemptions for certain owners — meaning government bodies, Crown corporations, etc. — the uniformity and fairness may be compromised, and smaller companies may again be disadvantaged on projects outside the process. From our lens, exemptions need to be transparent and justified, and regulatory rollout must allow for scale and complexity variation.

Any major regulatory reform raises implementation and cost issues. This act comes into force by regulation. A transition period does allow industry to adjust — meaning to train staff, update systems and incorporate new contract templates — and the government has signalled outreach and education. However, the cost of compliance should not be underestimated.

Smaller companies may need to invest in invoicing systems, notice trackers, adjudication readiness and revised contract templates. There is a risk that compliance costs may offset some of the intended benefit for small subcontractors. Additionally, the regulatory infrastructure, adjudication authority, adjudication registration and fees may impose costs, either borne by the industry or passed through.

A thorough cost-benefit analysis and reasonable regulatory fee structure should be considered. Further, without a rigorous review mechanism, there is risk that the process becomes burdensome and less fit for purpose.

There is the appearance of the following benefits with this legislation: enhanced payment discipline, predictable timelines, improved reliability for contractors and subcontractors, better cash flow for smaller firms.

Reducing long receivable periods may accelerate business growth and reduce borrowing costs. Reduced dispute costs and quicker adjudication may reduce time and money spent on litigation and slow-payment holdups. Fairer chain of payment —downstream subcontractors get improved protections, less risk of funds being held by upstream parties. Simplified security holdback mechanisms for some firms, less time waiting for holdbacks, may free up working capital.

However, there are clear risks to this act if not implemented properly. There’s an administrative burden. Smaller firms may struggle to adapt systems, train staff and comply with new procedural requirements.

Cash flow mismatch. Primes may face pressure if upstream payments are delayed yet downstream payments are required quickly.

Reduced contract flexibility. Fixed timelines and standard forms may hamper small contract arrangements, especially large or complex projects.

Potential weakening of security rights. Holdback and lien reform may inadvertently reduce protections for suppliers and trades.

Finally, implementation costs and regulatory capacity infrastructure will impose costs and transition risk.

It’s well known, on this side and in our team that my background is boots-on-the-ground construction. I was both on site for years and then in management of projects for years. A big key to building anything that involves other people and other companies is relations and relationship-building.

When I made the jump from site to project management, the shift from seeing the intensity of site activities on a daily basis to the intensity of administrative activities on a daily basis was pretty overwhelming, actually.

In the spring of this past year, not knowing how far this government had gotten on development of this legislation, I briefly considered using my private member’s bill opportunity to support and create a prompt payment bill.

[2:05 p.m.]

In my early days of research, I encountered a bit of resistance from the development side of the industry. You see, construction is made up of a few different lenses, and not everybody understands that, if you’re not in the industry. There’s the owner, the developer, the builder and the trades. Yet we’re all lumped together as construction. Sometimes the owner and the developer are the same company. Sometimes the owner, developer and the builder are all the same company.

The hesitation that I experienced when making calls was due to administrative load on the upper chains of the waterfall of the payment cycle. Most of the successful big guys who build this province would not still be in business and receive repeat project bids, project after project, if they were negligent on their payment requirements. I worked for one of the good guys. I myself even experienced the load of proper payment and close-out requirements on large projects. It’s a lot of paperwork.

That said, I know firsthand the desperation of smaller subtrades, neither having the capital overhead to float materials nor the cash flow to hold off suppliers for months at a time, waiting for even a 30-day payment. Often it is smaller companies that can offer competitive project pricing, but it comes with risks that they cannot float large inventories. When procuring a project and analyzing all the bids that have come in when construction costs are so high, it becomes a managing game of where the project saves money and where it floats its risk.

One of my first big projects that I worked on, where I was still on the site daily in the dirt with my crew, I witnessed firsthand the financial collapse and bankruptcy of our third-largest trade on site — we were 80 percent complete on the project — an established, large subtrade that encountered the challenges of managing cash flow and overhead. One day, after working with these men daily for over a year, they were there, and the next day they were unemployed. These were my friends. They had families.

I then witnessed the chaos to us as the builder of trying to find a new subtrade to take over the project at the 80 percent mark, another contractor willing to take on the risk of somebody else’s work while maintaining a completion date, because lost time is lost money.

Prompt payment legislation is crucial. I know that firsthand. But the framework of this shell act, and I use the word “shell” because it is a framework, leaves it hard to understand if this legislation will be everything that it needs to be. Without seeing or knowing the regulations, once again we are left to debate a bill where the devil will be in the details. We need to support the trades, industry and contractors, but we must also support the prime contractor and developers that fund these projects. It’s a fine balance.

I don’t know how to properly analyze something without the details. If we are going to exempt this government from their own projects while being one of the known delinquent payers, it is hypocrisy. If we allow Crown corps to be exempt, it is hypocrisy. But will this government commit to holding all accountable for prompt payment? Only time will tell.

In conclusion, Bill 20 represents a significant step forward for British Columbia’s construction industry. It addresses a long-standing pain point, delayed payment, and offers the statutory regime with clear timelines, downstream protections and adjudication recourse. If implemented effectively, it promises real benefits of improved cash flow, fewer distressed subcontractors, stronger small business participation and a more transparent pay ecosystem.

However, the success of this act will not be measured purely in legislation but in how the process operates in practice. Again, the devil is in the details — the regulation, the administration burden, the cost of adjudication, the flexibility for different project types and the maintenance of security rights. We must guard against the possibility that the cure becomes a burden or that smaller contractors end up being both regulated and still at risk.

I will be okay with this bill going through second reading, but I am cautious of the structure Bill 20 currently offers. We must insist on prudence and flexibility, risk awareness, cost control and commercial freedom.

[2:10 p.m.]

I look forward to the rigorous committee stage and to working with the industry to ensure that Bill 20 serves British Columbia well for small trades and large contractors alike and for the economy as a whole.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to speak on Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. This is a piece of legislation that, at its core, aims to solve a problem that almost everyone in the construction industry has faced at some point — doing the work, sending the invoices and then waiting far too long to get paid.

Whether it’s a small paving company, a steel fabricator, an electrician or a truck hauler hauling material to a job site, delayed payment has real-world consequences. For small businesses, one late payment can mean missing payroll, putting off maintenance or struggling to pay fuel and equipment bills.

So when this government brings forward a bill that sets out to create prompt payment, I want to be clear. This is something I support in principle. It’s the right direction, and it reflects something that the construction industry has been asking for, for years.

But as I’ve gone through this bill and spoken with the people in the industry, from contractors to suppliers and independent haulers, I also see areas that need to be handled with care. While the intent is good, the implementation, the regulations and the carve-outs will decide whether this bill truly helps those most in need or whether it becomes another process that looks good on paper but leaves people behind.

What the bill aims to do…. The goal of Bill 20 is to bring fairness and predictability to payment in the construction industry. It does this by setting out specific timelines. Once a proper invoice is submitted, the owner must pay the contractor within 28 days. Then the contractor has seven days to pay the subcontractors, and so on, down the line. If a dispute arises, there’s now an adjudication process meant to resolve payment issues quickly without dragging people through the courts.

It also makes changes to the Builders Lien Act, reducing the holdback period and removing some of the outdated mechanisms that have caused confusion in the past.

In short, this bill is meant to ensure that the money moves down the chain faster and those who have done the work aren’t left endlessly waiting. Those are good goals, and for that reason, I do support the direction of this bill. But as always, the devil is in the details.

The role of regulation is in carve-outs. Bill 20 leaves much of its substance to regulations. That’s where some of the biggest questions arise. The bill gives cabinet power to decide by regulation which projects and sectors the law applies to. Will it be the ministry, or will it be others? We just don’t know yet who is included or excluded, how and when it comes into force and how the adjudication system will actually work.

In other words, the government could, through regulation, carve out certain public projects and delay the implementation in specific sectors. That’s a real concern. If the largest owners, including the province itself, end up exempt or delayed, it would undermine the very purpose of this legislation. If prompt payment is the goal, then the government must lead by example. The public sector should not be the exception. It should always be the standard, the bearer.

As we move forward, I’ll be watching closely to see how these regulations are written up — who’s in it, who’s out and how transparent that process is. This bill’s success will depend entirely on how fairly and consistently those regulations are applied.

The proper invoice requirement. One of the centrepieces of this legislation is the requirement for a proper invoice. This is what triggers the payment timelines, but it’s also an area that could easily become a loophole if not handled correctly. If an owner can reject an invoice because a date was missing or a purchase order number wasn’t formatted properly, then the 28-day payment clock never starts.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’ve talked to enough small business owners to know that the bureaucracy often finds creative ways to delay payments. I would urge the government to make sure the regulations define a proper invoice.

What is a proper invoice? In clear and simple terms, it’s that the bar isn’t set so high that it gives owners a new way to say: “Hey, we’ll get to that later.” The purpose of this bill is to speed up payments, not to give people new technical excuses to slow them down the road.

The pay-when-paid concern. Another issue buried in this legislation is the so-called pay-when-paid clause. Under Bill 20, if a contractor doesn’t get paid by the owner, they can send a notice of non-payment to their subcontractors, essentially saying: “I haven’t been paid, so I won’t pay you yet.” Now, I understand the reasoning behind this. But it also means that the smaller subcontractors — trades and truckers, people who have no control over disputes higher up the chain — could still end up waiting weeks or months on the money they’ve already earned.

If we’re not careful, that could create the same problem we’re trying to solve, just with more paperwork attached. The regulations need to ensure that the clause isn’t used to hold downstream workers hostage for something that isn’t their fault. Payment should flow as work is completed, and any disputes should be handled quickly through the adjudication process, not through blanket delays.

The adjudication process. Bill 20 introduces an interim adjudication system, and that’s a good thing. It’s meant to give contractors and subcontractors a fast, low-cost way to resolve disputes rather than waiting in courts for years.

Here again, the details will determine whether it works. How will adjudicators be appointed? Who pays their fees? Will small businesses actually be able to afford to use the system? If adjudication becomes too expensive or too complex, the very people this bill was supposed to protect won’t be able to access it. So the regulations must ensure that adjudication is fast, fair and affordable and the directions are enforceable without requiring a second round in court.

Timing and implementation. Another concern is that this bill does not automatically come into force. It will only take effect once the government passes the accompanying regulations. That could mean months or even years before this law actually applies on the ground.

We’ve seen that story before. The press release goes out. People think help is on the way. But the reality doesn’t change, because the regulations are lagging behind. So I urge the minister to set clear public timelines for implementation and to work closely with industry groups, unions and small businesses to get it right the first time.

Real-world lessons. The Highway 1 trucking issue…. I want to draw attention to a real-life example of why this legislation matters. Earlier this year we saw a situation on Highway 1 expansion where a number of truckers in small hauling companies weren’t being paid for the work they had done. They were caught in the middle of contract lawyers, with one company blaming another and invoices sitting in limbo.

I had to step in and help the other minister across the aisle to get those payments sorted out. Now, you would think that a prompt payment law would prevent that kind of situation. But when you closely look at Bill 20, it’s not entirely clear that it would. Depending on how the regulations define who’s included, if independent truckers, suppliers, aren’t considered part of the official chain of contracts under the project, they could still fall outside the protection of this bill.

[2:20 p.m.]

That’s why it’s important that the regulations capture everyone who contributes to a project, not just the big general contractors but the smaller subcontractors, service providers, who actually make things happen on the ground.

Enforcement and accountability. Finally, prompt payment only means something if it’s enforced. If there are no real consequences for those who delay or abuse the system, then we’ll end up right back where we started.

The bill allows for interest to accrue on late payments. That’s a good start, but the penalties must be strong to deter chronic late-payers. Government should also consider publishing data on compliance so the public can see which sectors and owners are living up to the spirit of the law and which ones are dragging their feet.

In conclusion, where I stand, I support Bill 20 because it’s the right direction. It addresses a long-standing problem that hurts small businesses, trades, workers all across this province.

I also believe that this bill is only as strong as the regulations behind it. If those regulations are fair, transparent, inclusive, cover all sectors, prevent unnecessary carve-outs and make the process accessible for everyone, then this will be a reform worth celebrating. But if they create exemptions, loopholes and more red tape, then we’ll still be hearing from the same small businesses, the same contractors and subcontractors who can’t get paid for months till after a job is done.

I’ll be watching closely as this moves forward, and I’ll continue to advocate for the people who make their living building this province —the ones who get up early, drive the trucks, pour the concrete, wire the buildings, keep our economy moving. They deserve certainty, they deserve fairness, and they deserve to be paid on time.

I would love to support this bill.

Gavin Dew: On this side, we welcome the introduction of Bill 20. For too long in British Columbia, our construction sector has suffered from cascading payment delays that create real hardship for contractors, subcontractors, small business and for the people and families who are behind each of those organizations.

As the B.C. Construction Association put it: “The introduction of prompt payment legislation in British Columbia is absolutely key for fairness and financial stability in our industry. For too long, small and mid-sized contractors have shouldered the burden of delayed payments. This legislation will help ensure that the people building our province are paid on time, every time.”

With that in mind, we support the fundamental aims of this bill: timely payment of proper invoices, improved cash flow, fewer bankruptcies and fewer project delays.

Let’s talk for a moment about what the bill does, the positives. Bill 20 introduces clear timelines so that owners must pay a contractor within 28 days of a proper invoice and that downstream contractors and subcontractors must be paid within seven days of receiving payment or by a calculated payment day. It also introduces an adjudication process for payment disputes, enabling quicker resolution rather than lengthy court proceedings.

As one commentary from Gowlings notes: “Bill 20’s central objective is to restore predictability to construction cash flow by setting clear timelines for invoice payment and effective dispute resolution.”

As the construction association puts it: “These are meaningful reforms and long overdue for B.C., given that 88 percent of the construction industry reported late payments on invoices.”

On the core objective, when people perform work, they deserve to be paid promptly — full stop. That’s really important. Having spent a lot of time in business, having dealt with delayed invoicing myself, having seen the knock-on implications down the chain of businesses, I certainly recognize the critical importance of prompt payment, and I philosophically am very much in line with the approach being taken here.

[2:25 p.m.]

That said, there are obviously some key concerns, some questions that we will be canvassing further in committee to ensure that the approach and implementation are sound and that intent is met by effect. That includes regulation-making power. The bill grants cabinet regulation-making authority to define who counts as an owner, a contractor or a subcontractor; what services or materials are captured; when a proper invoice is given; interest rates for late payments and more.

Those are all very, very significant decisions that will have material commercial consequences, depending on what decisions are made. So it is important that we have a fulsome understanding of the approach being taken to determining the answers to some of those questions and that they are suitably in line with the commercial realities on the ground.

We believe that changes of that significance should involve broad legislative consultation and clear procedural safeguards to ensure that stakeholders are duly and transparently consulted, as the progress of the bill moves into the regulation and implementation stage.

We will seek to understand the timing of regulation, transitional provisions and phased application, particularly in the public versus private sector, because, obviously, the bill allows for gradual implementation to different sectors or different ownership classes. Those are really important questions and considerations where we will want to understand the intent of government, because they could be very consequential for different industries and for different subsectors of the construction economy.

Obviously, the more clarity, predictability and stability we can provide for companies that will be affected, the more easy it will be for this material change, generally for the positive, to be digested in a timely way by the sectors affected by it.

Now, we also do have some serious concerns around exclusions and carve-outs, particularly the fact that government procurement is not bound. A major question is that section 14(2) of the Interpretation Act does not apply to this act. That means the government is explicitly excluded from being bound by this prompt payment legislation. In other words, government contracts may be exempt.

We must reasonably ask: why is government, one of the biggest payers in construction infrastructure in B.C., excluded from the regime that it says is essential? This is not a minor technicality. It contradicts the logic of the bill’s purpose. If we truly want prompt payment throughout the industry, the largest buyer, government, must play by the same rules and set a good example.

We will request clarity. Will Crown corporations, government-owned entities, ministries and public infrastructure projects be required to comply? If not, what is the policy justification for this? What analysis has been undertaken as to the implications, both on the government side and also on the market side of that equation, to understand how that arbitrary delineation could have material effects on the marketplace?

We will highlight the risk that this particular carve-out, or potential carve-out, undermines the entire chain. If government can delay payment, contractors will price in the risk. Subcontractors will suffer, and the benefit of the legislation will actually be diluted.

Specifically, there is the potential for impact on cost and bidding behaviour in that scenario. We will raise how that regime may affect bids and contract pricing. If contractors know they will be paid within 28 days and must pay their downstream contractors within seven days, then the risk of delayed payment is reduced.

If government purchasers are exempt, then contractors bidding for government work may embed additional costs or risk premiums to protect themselves from payment delays. This comes down to the intended effect of the legislation and the ways in which it will actually have effect in the marketplace.

These are the kinds of questions we think it’s crucially important are canvassed, because while it’s very easy for government to shrug and exempt itself, it may actually be creating significant aberrations in the marketplace, or it may actually be incurring significantly increased costs for the taxpayer.

Market players react to market situations; market players adjust for risk. If in fact everybody else is required to pay on time, but government is not, then inherently what is going to happen is that government procurement is going to actually see higher prices because those contractors and subcontractors are pricing in the risk of late payment.

[2:30 p.m.]

Even if government in fact pays on time, those risk premia, those delay premia, will still actually be priced into the bids that are derived in a competitive marketplace. All actors will be aware that government has the potential of not paying on time and all will price accordingly, because they’re reasonable, sensible people with an understanding of market logic.

We will interrogate the approach that government is taking to make sure that government itself also has an understanding of the ways in which the market might react to such an approach.

Again, the bill may lead to higher costs for government infrastructure projects because contractors will implicitly price in the risk of non-payment or slower payment. We will ask whether government has done any modelling on how prompt payment regimes will affect bids, pricing, risk allocation and, ultimately, cost to taxpayers. And we’ll want to have some assurance that sound research has been undertaken in that regard to inform decision-making by government. If it has not been undertaken, we’ll want to see it be undertaken, going forward.

We will want to understand whether in the case of contracts awarded by government…. If payment terms differ — for example, if they’re slower than 28 days or if they are variable — how will that impact competition or the competitive intensity from smaller firms, cash flow for subcontractors and overall project delivery?

Again, the risk here is that we’re creating a two-track market. That has a variety of different knock-on implications where to participate in government contracting may require companies to have greater debt facilities and greater willingness to stomach risk of payment delay. That may actually create a two-track marketplace that could be distortive and that could result in higher costs to the taxpayer.

We also will be looking for clarity around coverage, definitions and chain position complexity. Which contracts will be deemed improvements under the act and which will be excluded? For example, certain service contracts, maintenance, design, consulting. The bill’s definition is broad but still has exceptions for prescribed improvements, contracts, service or materials. We want to understand a little bit more about the inherent logic that is behind that approach.

We’d like to have a better understanding of how the contract position will, in fact, be calculated in complex chains where we have sub-sub-subcontractors, suppliers, materials-only contracts. The cascading deadlines formulated in the “28-day plus seven-day times contract position” formula can become quite complex in large supply chains. It’s obviously going to be important for the marketplace to understand exactly how that is to be implemented so that companies beginning to segue into this approach can make their own plans in terms of their approach and in terms of their realistic timeline for payment.

We also have questions around communications and information obligations — for example, the requirement for contractors to provide their subcontractors with information about invoices and payment upstream in that chain so that there can be predictability around whether or not and when payment will be forthcoming.

Again, these are all very nuanced and tactical but very important considerations that will be studied in depth by people in companies who are engaged in the procurement side, the accounts receivable side. The more clarity that we’re able to produce around this on a proactive basis, the more we’re going to enable people that are really working at the coal face of these issues in industry to plan accordingly and to have a really clear understanding of regulations that may be forthcoming — or even beyond regulations, just expectations and norms that will be established as this new regime is brought in.

We’ll also ask about the interplay with the lien regime, existing payment terms and holdbacks. For example, what happens to milestone payment arrangements or phased payments?

Finally, certainly, we’ll have some questions around transition and interaction with existing contracts. The bill notes that it will come into force by regulation and may only apply to new contracts or future work. So we’ll want to understand what will be the transitional regime for contracts already in place and how the regime will be managed for government and private work.

These are important considerations, again, because whenever you have a changeover, you’re going to have some periods of adjustment where different companies at different stages in the supply chain may be affected and may have to think actively about cash flow management or simply enact new practices, new norms, new relationships.

[2:35 p.m.]

While we’re obviously very supportive of the spirit of what’s happening here, we want to make sure these kinds of issues have been fully thought through and fully canvassed with the wide range of stakeholders who are affected by this legislation and that, again, the form of legislation and regulation being brought forward is not just spiritual and philosophical but is, indeed, very practical in terms of the implications for industry.

Finally, we’ll ask about enforcement and how the adjudication regime will act in practice. How will it work in terms of cost to parties, the capacity of adjudicators, timelines, enforcement of decisions, and how may this affect smaller subcontractors?

Obviously, it’s really important — and as the small business critic, I raise this — for us to understand that in procurement and construction and all these areas, we have a wide, wide variety of different companies of different levels of sophistication, from massive, major companies that are operating with a really substantial tech backbone and that are exploring the frontiers of what can be done in terms of construction, innovation and technology, to people that are doing business on Post-it Notes.

Just making sure that we’re adapting the system to make sure that companies all up and down the chain, in terms of level of technological sophistication, size, capital availability, sophistication…. We need to make sure that we’re doing a little bit of hand-holding to ensure that all manner of different companies at different levels of sophistication are able to onboard the implications of this legislation and subsequent regulation and that they’re able to exist and persist in the marketplace on that basis.

I do just want to come back for a moment to government procurement and reiterate that when the government of B.C. publishes its procurement strategy, it clearly states that government spending is to be used as a strategic lever for social, environmental and economic policy outcomes.

For example, the B.C. procurement plan of 2024 states:

“Each year the government of British Columbia spends billions of dollars procuring goods and services. We see opportunities to leverage government spending to address some of our biggest priorities, such as reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, tackling climate change, supporting jobs and training, ensuring public safety, etc.

“The decision-making process for every government purchase or procurement in British Columbia must prioritize the best interests of the people of B.C., local communities, local economies and the environment.”

To continue quoting:

“By using procurement as a strategic lever for change, this plan aligns with government priorities, including StrongerBC, CleanBC roadmap to 2030 and the implementation of DRIPA.”

What we see in this release and in other communications from government is that procurement must advance fairness, jobs, reconciliation and the environment. However, the government then puts itself outside the prompt payment law that is designed precisely to promote fairness, protect small firms and improve cash flow. That is operationally and philosophically contradictory.

We certainly have some very serious questions around this, and I would underline the following. If government is the largest buyer in the construction sector and wishes to use procurement as a strategic lever, it cannot exempt itself from the payment discipline it imposes on the rest of the industry. The message must be that the rules should apply equally. Otherwise, smaller firms will wonder why they are subject to tighter payment rules while government projects remain exempt.

The perception of unfairness undermines confidence in the system and, as I previously articulated, creates significant challenges in terms of different projects being approached in different ways with different payment terms, which again adds complexity for the little guy. It adds complexity for the small, “couple of vans, couple of people” companies that are trying to be down the supply chain, down the contract chain, in these major projects. They’re now going to be required to implement multiple systems if they are, in fact, involved in government procurement, should government exempt its own projects from prompt payment legislation.

Again, consistency is crucially important for fairness, crucially important for a competitive marketplace of contractors in the construction sector. We really do think that that’s a very important principle that needs to be discussed further as we work our way through this legislation.

Just to wrap it up here, when people perform work, they deserve to be paid promptly. That is the core of Bill 20. We certainly support ensuring that contractors and subcontractors get paid for their hard work building our province.

We do, however, have one major concern. Again, why is government not covered by this legislation? Government is one of the biggest payers of contractors and subcontractors in B.C. Those building infrastructure across B.C. should expect the same timely payment for work as any other job. Sure, government can always say they intend to pay contractors on time, but that’s exactly what every contracting party says. That’s the intent, but it’s about execution.

The real proof is in the law and in consistent application and consistent enforcement. This legislation is an important step, but only if it applies fairly across all players and only if the regulations are transparent, well designed and effectively and consistently enforced.

[2:40 p.m.]

We will be asking detailed questions in committee stage to ensure that the bill works for all stakeholders — owners, both private and public, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and, ultimately, the people of British Columbia.

Again, in closing, we commend the government for bringing forward this reform and acknowledging a long-standing industry issue. We are informed by stakeholders that there has been lots of conversation over the last number of years. It is good to see that there has been a fair degree of stakeholder engagement and consultation. We do of course want to make sure that any niggling issues are resolved and that ultimately, as we move toward regulation, we don’t end up with an incomplete execution of this.

We want to make sure this really works, because this has been the work of many hands over many years to come to fruition. We look forward to working through committee stage to ensure that the legislation is robust, enforceable and delivers on its promise of payment certainty.

With good regulations and fair application, including to government procurement, this bill has the potential to strengthen the construction sector, protect small business, support jobs and keep projects on schedule, but if government exempts itself from the rules it imposes on others, it undermines both fairness and value for taxpayers. That is not a good signal.

I look forward to engaging further as this bill moves to committee stage.

Peter Milobar: I just thought I would chime in on Bill 20, the prompt payment legislation, for a little bit today, on similar concerns to what you’ve heard from my colleagues so far on this bill.

On the premise of it, certainly you want to see subs and small contractors, small businesses, be paid promptly. To be able to move forward with their invoices in a timely way and to receive that cash flow, for any small business of any type, is critical.

I know that when I had my own small businesses, it was a daily calculation, either in your head or in a ledger, as to what your cash flow was, what your projection forward for the week would be, supplies coming in or out, staff costs and all of those things. You would do it either for a week or for a month and start projecting out and making sure you had that flow to keep people paid that work for you, first and foremost, to make sure your remittances back to the government are timely, and things of that nature.

There’s a lot that goes into this. That is where, I think, we’re hearing the concern about the government potentially exempting themselves from this legislation. You could be in a situation…. We’ve talked about the contractor working on a government job waiting for that timely payment.

I can tell you if that same contractor, for their supplies or their provisions, is owing to the PST department, funds for those materials, or if they’re owing payroll taxes to government, the government will not take as an excuse: “Well, I’m waiting for you to pay me so that I can pay you.” The government will come in and they’ll freeze your bank account on the Friday of a long weekend and say: “You owe us this money. You haven’t paid it. We need it.” That’s what they do.

That’s not based on any particular government. That’s how the Ministry of Finance operates when they’re owed funds from small businesses. So it is critically important that the government actually be part of prompt payment. There are serious consequences to those same companies that would legally and rightfully owe taxation and payroll taxes back to the provincial government, back to the federal government, on a regular basis.

Those dollars can add up quickly on a construction project, especially when you’re dealing with materials. After all, a lot of things are not exempt from PST within the business world in British Columbia. That’s a very real consequence.

Then you look at government procurement, and you ask what the government is defining…. What consultation went into this bill? Are they legislating that provincial government and provincial Crowns will be exempt, but municipalities will be bound by prompt payment? We know the government, which is running a record deficit right now, doesn’t worry about the rules for them matching the rules for municipalities.

Municipalities are not allowed by law to run a deficit in British Columbia, but the provincial government can. Right now we’re running it at a record level. What about regional districts? Those would lump into the same. Vancouver, with its own charter…. Are they all now bound by this legislation, but the provincial government is exempt? Those are questions we’re going to need to find out answers for.

[2:45 p.m.]

What about Indigenous nations? In Kamloops and surrounding areas, they do a lot of construction, which is great. Are they bound by this legislation? And if they are bound by this legislation, what consultation did this government actually do with those Indigenous nations to ensure they are in agreement with prompt payment?

Again, the government likes to talk a lot about reconciliation and working together and moving forward together. But time after time, when it comes to legislation and they get asked about it — what consultation was done, what agreements were done — a lot of times they say: “Well, we didn’t think that we needed to bother to consult on this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation.” So we don’t know the answers to that yet.

We look forward to committee stage to get better clarity on that, because those are very real consequences to the smaller contractors in the province that will hear that prompt payment legislation is coming forward and be quite excited, except to find out that they do a lot of governmental work and that maybe it doesn’t actually apply to them. That’s a big piece. It’s not an opposition just trying to fearmonger or anything like that. We’re just simply trying to say to the government that you need to come clean on this and be very clear with your language.

The interesting part is that this bill has been in front of the House now for a week and a half, ten days, two weeks, something like that. The discussion around if government is exempt or not has been out there, and there has been nothing from the government to clarify, other than silence. One would think that that means that actually they are going to be exempting themselves, which is problematic.

When you have a bill that…. On the first two-thirds of the bill, it looks like, for once, this government has really set out with great detail how exactly this legislation is going to work and operate. They’re not leaving everything to regulation. Then you flip to the regulation page, where they spell out some 30 different versions of things that they can make by regulation.

Earlier in the bill, they talk about the number of days for prompt payment. In the regulation page, two-thirds of the way through the bill, they talk about how, by regulation, they can alter that. What was the point of having it in the front end of the legislation if you’re going to actually open up a back door by way of regulation that you can actually change the number of days?

The one thing I like to do with all legislation under this NDP government is to look at when it comes into effect. You flip to the last page of the bill, and you say: “When does it come into effect?” A lot of times it’s on royal assent, on a particular date, retroactive stuff a lot of times, especially on the Finance file.

This comes into effect by order in council, by regulation signed off by cabinet, at some point in the future. We’re not really sure when. So a piece of legislation that’s supposed to provide certainty about payment is quickly turning into the “Just trust me; we’ll pay you” bill, totally counter to what the government is billing it as.

Now, the government can answer all these questions in committee stage and try to provide some certainty, but I’m old enough to remember debating a bill in this House on freedom-of-information fees, where we spent the better part of, I think, three to four days continually asking the minister what the fee was going to be to file an FOI request to try to get information out of the government — the government that has been routinely voted the most secretive government in Canada.

For three days, the minister repeatedly said the fee structure has not been figured out. “It will be done by regulation after we consult.” That was the answer, for days on end, when we kept asking and asking at committee stage. Would it be $10? Would it be $20? Would it be $30? How much will it be? “Well, we don’t know. It’ll be done by regulation, after this bill is passed and after we’ve consulted.”

Imagine our surprise when what was considered as consultation was, apparently, those three days’ back-and-forth, because literally about 15 minutes after the bill was passed, an order in council was signed in the hallway, just behind this chamber, setting out the rates for freedom-of-information requests.

[2:50 p.m.]

This is why it’s a problem, with the open-ended way that this government deals with legislation like this. When they say it will only take effect once cabinet decides to deem it will take effect, after they’ve come up with some other regulations or changes to regulations…. Again, although they spell out very prescriptive steps for the first two-thirds of this bill, they then go into a long list of contradictory things that they will then be able to enable themselves to change by regulation moving forward.

So it actually doesn’t provide any certainty, let alone a timeline for small contractors to understand how this is going to impact them or for larger generals to know, and purveyors of the smaller contractor services, what’s expected of them for prompt payment. It’s actually going to lead to confusion as to whether or not this is actually in effect. That is a problem, and it needs to be addressed by government, and it needs to be addressed at committee stage — not with evasive answers of: “Don’t worry. We haven’t worked that out yet, but we will. Just trust us.”

The whole purpose of bringing legislation to this House is so that we move through these steps, so that opposition can look at it. We’ve looked at it as an opposition. I think you’ve heard very clearly from all of our speakers that we totally agree with this in principle. We have some concerns that we need answers for, the key being that that’s the next step when we get to committee stage — seeking those answers out.

The expectation of the public, of the contractors and of the opposition is that government would actually answer those questions, not evade them. Not come up with nondescript timelines or: “We haven’t really thought about that yet. Don’t worry about it. We’ll deal with it in regulation in a closed cabinet room.”

When you ask them, “Well, can we get any minutes from that cabinet decision? Can we find out what went into that cabinet decision?” as with any government, the answer comes back: “Cabinet confidentiality. We can’t tell you that.”

This is the one chance that the public actually gets to hear from the government in an open forum what exactly is intended by this legislation. Industry would have consulted with government, and we know they did ahead of time. They, understandably, in the drafting of this legislation, had to sign off on an NDA as the final days of legislation were being crafted. We understand that, but it has been tabled now. It should have been tabled and crafted and designed with the ability to answer very basic, forthright questions.

If the answer is that government has exempted themselves, they just need to be upfront about that. They need to follow it up with exactly why — why, once again, we would have a Premier thinking that the rules should apply differently to his office and government than to the rest of the public.

If they can’t answer the why, and they can’t give a clear answer as to whether or not they’re exempt, why did they bring this forward now? It’s the certainty that industry needs to move forward. Right now, with a lot of unanswered questions and two pages of regulatory exemptions that this government can do, that’s a problem.

I’ll give one more example in my time as to why it’s a problem about that extra two pages of reasons that they can — by order in council, by regulation — make changes on things like the prescribed days and other things within this bill.

Right now we have an EV mandate in British Columbia, one that actually is at a higher standard than the federal government’s. It’s one that is set in this 2026 model year, which is already being sold in car lots across this province, and is set to be very punitive and have a direct impact to the costs of vehicles in this province and to the supply of vehicles in this province because of the tanking EV market.

Now, why I say it’s important is that that legislation when it was brought in, those benchmarks that are in place by law, needs legislation to change, not regulation. That means they need to bring the bill to this House to say and admit that they’re no longer going to get anywhere close to 26 percent of sales of EV vehicles in 2026.

[2:55 p.m.]

They need to change the thresholds or risk seeing cars literally have a $20,000 surcharge put on them. That’s what we’re faced with right now with the EV mandates because of the way the legislation was structured.

Now, I don’t take issue with the way the legislation was structured. I actually think it’s a good thing. But we haven’t seen that legislation in front of the House, and we have 4½ weeks left in this session, which means we’re going to have a world of hurt for car buyers coming up real fast. It has to be legislatively changed, and that was on purpose by the government to make it very difficult for future governments to change the thresholds of EV sales.

You get to prompt payment legislation, and they’ve done the exact opposite. They say: “Here’s the framework up front that we’re going to tell the industry — the rules you’re going to have to abide by and operate under the law. And oh, by the way, on the back end, we’re giving ourselves the ability by way of regulation to change everything in the front end. Believe us today in what we’re doing, but we might change our minds tomorrow, and we don’t have to come back to the Legislature to do it, with a construction industry that is critical to our overall economy. We can just do it.”

Those are the two fundamental problems I have with this bill that I really do want to get some clarity from this government on, moving forward. I hope I’ve laid out the real-world implications of the seriousness of why those missing pieces and components are so critical to this legislation.

I mean, I was just at a BCBC event on the state of business in British Columbia, and they had lots of national-level, very well-renowned economists talking, and a lot of the conversation in the morning was about productivity and our lack of productivity in British Columbia. It’s no wonder. I mean, this government is presiding over a housing crisis in B.C. like we’ve never seen before, and the one component of our economy that has the worst productivity is construction. They’ve been told that for years now.

A bill that will help with prompt payment and productivity is a good thing. But if this is going to layer on more bureaucracy, more red tape, more cost, more burden and more confusion and uncertainty in an industry that is literally our most underperforming segment of the economy, which should be actually one of your highest-firing sectors in a healthy economy, that is a problem.

There are far-reaching implications to pieces of legislation like this that the government ought to be aware of, first off, and, most importantly, to be willing to actually speak in an open and frank manner to us when we’re asking legitimate questions, so that the public and the construction industry actually truly understand what the rules of play are. Why they need to give themselves open-ended legislation on the back end to try to change any of the rules and timelines they see fit moving forward, instead of bringing it back in an open and transparent way to this chamber….

Those are the main concerns I have. I thank you for the time, and I look forward to committee stage, where we can delve into not so much the concept of this, because I think you’re hearing that most of us are in favour of the concept, but more the nuts and bolts of how this piece of legislation is actually going to work. So thanks for the time.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kamloops Centre, I’m wondering if you could move adjournment of the debate for a moment.

Peter Milobar: Oh, sure. I move adjournment of the debate.

Peter Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025

Darlene Rotchford: Section A reports Bill 12 complete without amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved on division.

[3:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Lisa Beare: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act.

In the little House, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: We will continue with Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. This legislation aims to tackle a long-standing issue in our construction industry, the timely payment of contractors and subcontractors.

I recognize, and I support, the importance of prompt payment in our construction sector, because for too long, hard-working contractors, tradespeople and small businesses have borne the brunt of payment delays that can stretch on for months. These delays aren’t just inconvenient; they can create real hardship, particularly felt by independent and small business owners. The construction industry is already grappling with rising costs, with supply chain disruptions….

Deputy Speaker: Apologies, Surrey-Cloverdale.

Members, could we give the floor to our member for Surrey-Cloverdale, please? Thanks.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, the industry is already grappling with rising costs. We have supply chain disruptions and a sharp downturn in residential construction, and ensuring the predictability of cash flow is obviously an essential part of that.

Prompt payment protects jobs. It supports economic growth and stability for the men and women who are building this province. The intent behind Bill 20, to establish clear timelines for payments, starting with 28 days from owners to contractors and then cascading downward, is a step in the right direction. I do support the government’s acknowledgement of this problem, and I stand with the contractors who deserve to be paid for their labour without unnecessary delays.

That said, Bill 20 falls short in several key areas. Criticism of Bill 20 has already emerged from stakeholders and experts, drawing from experience in other provinces like Ontario, where similar legislation has actually been in place since 2019. One of the most glaring issues is the potential exemptions, particularly from public sector projects.

Stakeholders from organizations like the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Electrical Contractors Association of B.C. and the Mechanical Contractors Association have voiced strong concerns that this bill may carve out exemptions for municipalities, for the province itself, for regional districts and school boards, and for the very entities that procure billions of dollars in construction work and that are often the slowest payers.

In meeting with businesses and contractors in my own riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, I have to say that their most significant complaint that I get with respect to prompt payment actually comes from those who are subcontractors working on government projects, which at first surprised me because the government should be leading the way, leading the example. Unfortunately, time and again, when I have to meet with contractors who are having a struggle in this area, it usually is because of delays caused by this government’s incompetence.

If the government exempts itself from its own rules, what message is that, of course, sending? It defeats the purpose of this legislation and creates a two-tiered system where private owners have to comply but public bodies can drag their feet. As Chris Gardner of the ICBA pointed out, this would undermine the bill’s effectiveness and leave smaller subcontractors vulnerable.

We can’t allow loopholes that protect the biggest players while exposing independent and small businesses to financial risk. Why should taxpayers’ monies be used to fund delays and hurt local businesses?

[3:05 p.m.]

This bill also introduces adjudication as a mechanism for resolving disputes quickly. However, the question remains as to whether this process is truly accessible and fair. Adjudication can be an effective tool, but it does come with costs, potential legal fees, preparation time and possible imbalances where larger firms have the resources to navigate the system, but small contractors may not. Without robust support, education and funding for smaller businesses, this could actually become a barrier rather than a solution. Bill 20 must include clear provisions for training and enforcement to ensure equity in the system.

Another point of criticism is Bill 20’s handling of pay-when-paid clauses. While the legislation permits contractors to withhold payment if they haven’t been paid by the owner, this perpetuates a chain of delays that this bill is supposed to be breaking. Why not go further and truly protect subcontractors? Delays at the top will still ripple down, forcing trades to finance projects out of pocket. It’s not prompt payment; it’s deferred hardship.

The bill also lacks sufficient detail on implementation and transition periods. With multi-year projects already underway, how will existing contracts be handled?

Stakeholders are calling for a cultural shift towards payment certainty, but without a mandate, education programs, standardized invoicing rules that reflect real construction practices and strong enforcement mechanisms, the province risks creating more disputes than it resolves.

Bill 20 rightly recognizes the need for prompt payment, payment to support our contractors to build a stronger economy. However, it still has shortcomings that could limit its impact. Exemptions for public entities, potential inequities in adjudication and the persistence of pay-when-paid clauses and inadequate implementation details need to be examined further in committee stage.

I’m very supportive of supporting those who build British Columbia, and I look forward to seeing this bill go through to the committee stage because I think that together we really should deliver real protections for the businesses that build this province.

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to speak about Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act.

In my previous crane construction business for 35 years, I know how important it is for contractors and subcontractors to receive their payment promptly. This bill has a good goal. It wants to make sure people are paid on time for their work. That is fair, and that’s the right thing for any government to do.

But unfortunately, for far too long, small contractors and businesses have waited weeks and even months before they received their payment. They still have to pay their workers. They have to buy materials and keep their business running. So late payment really does hurt many companies.

I do not have a problem supporting the goal of this bill, but good ideas must be spelled out and researched carefully. We must make sure this law works in real life and not just on paper.

This bill sets clear payment timeliness, and that is good. Owners must pay contractors within 28 days of receiving a proper invoice. Contractors must then pay subcontractors within seven days of being paid, and the payment keeps flowing down the line. If there’s a dispute, there is an adjudication process instead of waiting for court.

This bill also changes the Builders Lien Act to make it easier to release money held back on projects. These are all good steps. They can make the system seem more fair and predictable. But the details will decide if it truly helps workers and small businesses.

[3:10 p.m.]

Bill 20 gives the government cabinet a lot of power to decide by regulation who is included and who is not. For example, the cabinet can set rules for which projects the law applies to, who counts as an owner, when the law takes effect and how the adjudication system works. That means a future government could carve out some public projects or delay the law of certain sectors.

This becomes a huge problem. If prompt payment is the goal, then government must lead by example. The public sector should not be an exception. It should be the standard. I will examine carefully to see how the regulations are written, because this bill’s success depends on who is covered and who is left out.

One of the key parts of this bill is the “proper invoice” found in part 2 of this bill. This is what starts the 28-day payment clock. If that rule is written poorly, it could become a loophole. If an owner can reject an invoice because of a small mistake like a wrong date, a wrong number or a wrong name and address, then payment can be delayed again. The rules for invoices must be simple and clear, so that owners cannot delay payment over small technical issues. The goal is to speed up payment, not to give people new excuses to slow it down.

There’s another part of this bill that needs care, the pay-when-paid rule. If a contractor does not get paid promptly by the owner, they can send a notice of non-payment to their subcontractors. That means smaller trades could still be left waiting even though they did their work. If a subcontractor has no control over a dispute higher up the chain, they should not be punished for it. The government must make sure this clause is not used to hold back payments to small businesses.

The new adjudication process, which is found in part 4 of the bill, is a good idea. It gives people a faster, lower-cost way to settle payment fights. But the process must be easy to understand and affordable. If it costs too much or takes too long, then small businesses will not be able to use it. Adjudicators should be neutral and be properly trained, and their decisions must be enforceable without going to court again. That’s how we make this system fair and real.

Another problem is the timing for the implementation of this bill. This bill will not start right away. It only comes into force after the government passes the regulations, but that could take months and possibly stretch out to years.

We have seen that before. A law is announced, but nothing changes, because the rules are not ready. Therefore, cabinet or government should set clear timelines now and make sure the system is in place quickly. People need prompt payment in practice, not just in promise. Prompt payment only matters if it is enforced. There must be real consequences for people who intentionally delay payment.

The bill says interest will apply to late payments. That is good, but it needs more. Government should publish payment data so that everyone can see who pays on time and who does not. Transparency will build trust and make sure that everyone follows the same rules. If the government is serious, it should prove it with public reporting.

For instance, every quarter the government can publish what the average payment time is for the various ministries, what the average payment time is for school boards and how many payments meet the 28-day rule. That is real leadership. That is what stepping up and supporting workers and small businesses really looks like. That shows that government is not just regulating others but is leading by example.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think I can support the direction of Bill 20. It is good to see government acting on something the construction industry has been asking for, for many years. But this law will only succeed if it is clear, fair and complete. There should be no carve-outs, no prior exemptions, no endless delays.

Yes, if the regulations are written right, are simple and transparent and apply to all then this will be a real win for the workers, contractors and small businesses across British Columbia. They deserve fairness, they deserve respect, and they deserve to be paid on time and at all times.

Pete Davis: You know, there’s something that has been lost in politics these days — something simple, something that used to matter a lot more than it does today — and that’s your word. When you tell someone that you’re going to do something, you do it. When you give your word, you stand on it. It’s called integrity. It’s called the foundation of trust in business, in government and in life.

When we talk about this bill, Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act, at its very core, this is what it’s supposed to be about — doing what you say you’re going to do. You sign a contract, and you get the work done. The invoice comes in, and you pay your bill. It’s integrity. It’s standing up for your word.

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen time and time again from this government opposite is that they say one thing and they do another. They make promises and then find excuses not to follow through. I have to ask. Is this bill another one of those situations, another “say one thing, do another” scenario? Or is this government actually serious this time about standing behind the people who build this province?

Make no mistake. The construction industry is the backbone of British Columbia. These are the hard-working people, contractors, subcontractors, small businesses — folks who get up every morning, load up their truck and put in an honest day’s work. They’re the ones literally building this province from the ground up for us, yet for years, too many of them have been left waiting and wondering if or when they’ll get paid, and they’ve already completed the work. It’s done. That’s not right. No one should have to chase payment for honest work.

I am in full support of the principle of prompt payment. I think we all are. I believe if someone does the work properly and delivers on their contract, they deserve to be paid. They should be paid promptly, fairly and without delay. It’s called basic respect. It’s business.

This bill, in its intent, is a great step. It seeks to ensure that when a proper invoice is received, payment must flow down the chain from owner to contractor within 28 days and then to subcontractors within seven. That kind of system would make a real difference for thousands of small businesses struggling to keep their doors open and their employees paid.

Let’s be honest. It’s hard to run a business in this province right now. Costs are through the roof. Taxes are high. Fuel is expensive. On top of that, you’ve got contractors waiting months just to get paid for work they’ve already completed.

I’ve spoken with contractors in B.C. They want to do the work, they want to hire people, and they want to build, but when payments get delayed, the stress piles up. Payroll gets tight, equipment loans still come due, and you’re forced to dip into your savings or your line of credit just to keep your employees paid, while your own invoices sit in limbo. It’s tough.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s the reality that they have on the ground. That’s why prompt payment is not just a bureaucratic detail. It’s the difference between surviving and shutting down many small and mid-sized companies in our great province of British Columbia. Yes, I support the goal of this bill, but, and this is an important “but,” I am deeply concerned about what’s hidden beneath the surface.

When you read through the fine print, you start to notice a pattern. There are so many ways to get out of this, and the question is: why? If you’re entering into an agreement, and the job gets done properly, then pay the bill. It shouldn’t be complicated. Yet this government seems to have written in exceptions, carve-outs and regulatory powers that could water this whole thing down even before it begins.

For example, the bill gives cabinet the ability to make major changes by regulation without any consultation from the Legislature. They can redefine who counts as owner, contractor or subcontractor. They can change how payment deadlines are calculated, what counts as a proper invoice or even the interest rates for late payments. It’s a lot of power concentrated behind closed doors with no legislative oversight at all.

Then there’s the biggest issue of all, government’s own exception. Somehow, despite the talk of fairness and promptness, the government has written itself a way out. Section 14(2) of the Interpretation Act does not apply to this bill. What does that mean? The government doesn’t have to be bound by its own prompt payment rules. That’s interesting.

While they stand here talking about fairness and accountability, they are quietly giving themselves permission to not follow the same rules as everybody else. That is unacceptable as far as I’m concerned, because the government itself is one of the biggest customers in this province. They contract for schools, hospitals, roads, housing, infrastructure — billions of dollars of work. Those contractors, those crews, deserve the same prompt payment that they would expect from any private client.

It’s baffling to me, frankly, for a government to introduce a bill about prompt payment and then carve themselves out of it. What’s the point? If this government truly believes in standing by its word, if they truly care about helping the construction sector, they should start by applying these same rules to themselves. Pay your bills on time. Honour your contracts. Lead by example. That’s what we should be doing here.

Right now there’s a serious trust problem we have. This is the same government that promised $1,000 affordability cheques to British Columbians before the last election. Well, we all know where that turned out. Another promise that sounded great in a press release but never made it to anybody’s bank account. So when this government stands up and says, “We’re going to ensure that contractors are paid promptly,” forgive me for being skeptical. The track record just doesn’t back it up.

I want to be clear. I’m not rooting against this. I want this to work. I want every contractor, every subtrade, every small business owner who’s waiting on payment to finally see some fairness and predictability.

I say to this government: prove it. Prove that this isn’t just another front, another photo op, another headline with no follow through. Prove that you mean what you say this time. The people, the builders, the welders, the electricians, the framers, the concrete crews are counting on you to finally get this right.

[3:25 p.m.]

They’re not looking for handouts. They’re looking for honesty, they’re looking for reliability, and they’re expecting integrity. When someone puts in the work, when they deliver on their promise, they deserve to be treated with the same respect in return. That starts with paying our bills on time.

I will be supporting the intent of this bill because I believe it is what we need to stand for, even if I’m not convinced that the government really does stand behind this. I guess time will tell. Let’s hope for once that their actions match their words, because in business and in life, your word is your bond.

If this government truly believes in that principle, then it’s time to prove it by paying their own bills promptly, by treating contractors fairly and by standing behind their word. That’s what integrity looks like, that’s what leadership looks like, and that’s what British Columbians deserve.

Sharon Hartwell: We are here today debating the Construction Prompt Payment Act, Bill 20. At first glance, this bill sounds quite simple. It’s about making sure people get paid on time for the work that they do. Well, who could argue with that? But the fact that we even need a law like this says something about how complicated and slow our systems have become.

When I first started in business, it was very straightforward. If you didn’t pay your supplier, you didn’t get your supplies next week. It was that simple. There was accountability and trust. We didn’t need a long legal document to make sure people honoured their word.

That’s what makes this debate a bit puzzling. Somewhere along the way, that basic trust, that handshake agreement, got lost. Today we seem to need more laws and more rules to make people do what used to be just common sense.

This legislation is aimed at the construction industry, but the issue it’s trying to solve is about more than just one sector. It’s about fairness, it’s about reliability, and it’s about respect for people’s time, effort and expertise.

It’s not just construction workers waiting months for their pay. I’ve heard from doctors who weren’t reimbursed for months and small businesses that do work for government but wait endlessly for payment. These aren’t isolated stories. They’re part of a larger problem, a culture of delay that hurts small businesses and working people the most.

While I support, cautiously, the intent, I have to ask whether it will really fix the problem or just add another layer of bureaucracy, because we already have a lot of those.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

People back home tell me they don’t need more forms or agencies. They just need government to get out of the way, to do what it already promised to do: pay its bills on time.

In my own community, I’ve seen small local contractors wait six months or more to get paid for work they finished long ago. These are not large corporations with cash reserves. They’re family businesses. They hire a few people, work long hours and do honest work. When the payment doesn’t come, the pressure lands right there at home. Bills pile up, equipment leases fall behind, and that uncertainty weighs heavily on them.

Many of these small operators already spend thousands of dollars just bidding on projects, buying materials, fuel and equipment to get the job done. They invest in their communities, they hire local workers, and they keep our economy moving. All they ask in return is for a fair deal — that when they finish the work, they get paid in a reasonable time.

I’ve watched these small businesses struggle, not because they did poor work but because payments were held up by processes, paperwork or budget approvals. For them, prompt payment isn’t about convenience; it’s about survival. Yet despite how much local skill and talent we have, I see government projects handed out to large companies from outside our region, sometimes even outside the province.

[3:30 p.m.]

There’s a seniors housing project in Telkwa that went to a contractor from Alberta. At first, it seemed fine. They promised to hire local subcontractors, and they did. But soon these local workers weren’t getting paid. The project stalled, months in delays. Two years, three years later, the society that sponsored the project is still dealing with warranty problems, and the building still isn’t finished. The Alberta company declared bankruptcy and walked away, leaving quite a mess behind.

That’s not just bad luck. It’s a failure of oversight and fairness. It’s also a reminder of why local contractors matter. When local people get the job, they care. They live here. They have a reputation to uphold. If something goes wrong, they’re there to fix it. They don’t skip town when things get tough.

Now, I understand that not every job can go entirely to local companies. Some projects are too large or too specialized. But local businesses should at least have a fair chance to be part of the work in their own communities. They should not be pushed aside for big firms that win bids because they have more lawyers and accountants.

While government often demands that contractors be bonded or meet specific financial conditions before bidding, shouldn’t government also meet its own standard of responsibility? If contractors must prove they can deliver on time, shouldn’t government prove it can pay on time? Fairness has to work both ways.

I’ve had my own experience with late government payments. I provided catering for a government event. It wasn’t a huge contract, but it mattered to me. I wanted to do a good job. In fairness, I wanted to be paid on time as well. Weeks passed, then months, and still no payment. In the end, I had to write again and let them know and tell them I’d double the invoice to cover the wasted time and interest. Well, not long after that, the cheque showed up in the mail, but, of course, without any interest.

That experience has stayed with me. It reminded me that too often government assumes that small businesses will simply wait. It’s not the responsibility of contractors, small business owners or anyone else to bankroll the government. These are our taxpayers. They already contribute to the financial stability of the province. They should not have to wait months to be paid for services they’ve already delivered.

That’s why the idea of prompt payment is right. It’s fair. But we must make sure the law is written in a way that actually helps the people it’s meant to protect.

A major concern is that the government can still make significant changes to this act through regulations, with no consultation within the Legislature. That means key decisions could be made behind closed doors. The rules about who is covered, what projects qualify or how the timelines are enforced could all be changed later. That is a real worry. Laws that affect thousands of workers and businesses shouldn’t be written without open debate.

We’re also concerned about carve-outs, especially, as has been mentioned before, that 14(2) of the Interpretation Act doesn’t apply to this law. That means government isn’t automatically bound by it. In plain language, the province could exempt itself from the same rules it’s setting for everyone else. That’s just not right.

You can’t tell every private company in B.C. that they must pay their contractors within 28 days and then say government doesn’t have to follow the same rules. If government is going to set the standard, it should lead by example. If we’re going to introduce a prompt payment law, it should apply to everyone, public and private alike. It should be simple, consistent and enforceable.

That brings me back to a bigger question. Is this new legislation going to fix the problem, or will it just create another layer of red tape? If it becomes another process with more forms, agencies and more approvals, then small businesses won’t be helped. They’ll be buried.

We should also think about what happens when the system fails, breaks down. We’ve seen interruptions in payment systems before, delays in government departments, computer outages, budget freezes. If that happens again, what protections will there be? Will this law guarantee that payments continue, or will people once again be left waiting while bureaucracy sorts itself out?

I don’t raise these questions to dismiss the bill. I raise them because I want it to work. The people who build our roads, bridges, schools, homes and hospitals deserve better. They deserve to be treated with respect, not as an afterthought in an endless payment chain.

Think about the contractors who show up at the job sites before sunrise; the operators out there in the mud, the rain; the electricians working late to finish a building, missing time with their families; and the truckers who keep our projects moving. These are hard-working British Columbians. They don’t want handouts. They just want fairness, to be paid on time for an honest day’s work.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s what this legislation should deliver, but it will only do that if the government holds itself to the same standard it expects of everyone else.

As this bill moves forward, I hope the government listens closely to the people who live this reality every day — the small business owners, the independent haulers, the tradespeople who keep this province running. They don’t need another promise. They need results they can count on.

If this legislation brings that, if it truly makes prompt payment the rule and not the exception, then it will be a welcome change. But if it becomes another complicated system full of exemptions, delays and loopholes, then this government will have failed the very people it was supposed to help. We owe it to them to get this right.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 20, intituled Construction Prompt Payment Act.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I call continued second reading on Bill 18.

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act
(continued)

Brennan Day: I want to begin by acknowledging the powerful and personal stories that have been shared during the previous part of this debate. They remind us that this issue is not political. It’s human. There has been a rare sense of unity in this chamber, and rightly so. When we discuss sexual violence, we speak as legislators, parents and as people who want the next generation to inherit campuses that are safe, fair and compassionate.

As a father, I don’t have to worry about my eight-year-old quite yet, but he’ll be trotting off faster than I’d like. When he does, I want to know that our post-secondary institutions are places where every student, faculty member and staff person can learn, teach and work without fear or intimidation. That’s what this bill is about — the simple right to safety and dignity in learning.

Bill 18 replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016, the first framework created after years of student advocacy. This new legislation expands protection beyond students, to include faculty, contractors and volunteers, and updates language to use “sexual violence” rather than “sexual misconduct,” recognizing that these are acts of harm, not mere infractions.

The member for Surrey-Panorama captured that well when he said that the new act recognizes that university autonomy must be balanced with public accountability. There is a careful evolution of the framework, progress built on experience rather than reaction to headlines, and I share that sentiment.

The bill requires each post-secondary institution to have a clear policy outlining procedures for disclosures, formal allegations and disciplinary action. It mandates advisory committees that include students, regular consultation and annual public reporting. These are meaningful steps towards transparency and accountability, something we certainly can use more of in government.

Just as importantly, this bill allows institutions to share outcomes of cases with survivors. That small change from secrecy to open communication restores a sense of trust that has long been missing.

As Conservatives, we also must say plainly that fairness and due process matter. The member for Surrey-Panorama noted that transparency cannot exist without fairness. He’s right. Believing survivors and supporting them must go hand in hand with ensuring that investigations are independent, evidenced-based and timely. Compassion and justice are not competing values. They are partners in credibility.

Implementation and not just announcement will decide whether this legislation succeeds. Our colleges and universities are under extraordinary financial strain currently. The abrupt end to the international student program has gutted a key revenue stream, leaving institutions large and small scrambling to fill the gap — not just the Simon Frasers but the North Island Colleges.

[3:40 p.m.]

The funding model itself was already broken, and the current transition is forcing institutions to stretch every remaining dollar just to keep basic and critical programs running. Adding new reporting and consultation requirements without corresponding support risks creating a two-tier system, one for large urban universities with compliance offices and another for smaller regional campuses where a handful of staff are asked to do it all.

The government must recognize this reality and provide the resources, guidance and shared service tools that smaller institutions need to meet the same high safety standards. Otherwise, the best intentions of this bill will be lost in the paperwork. Safety should not depend on your postal code. Students at North Island College deserve the same protections as those at UBC or SFU.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky spoke about the daily precautions that women and girls feel compelled to take, from crossing the street to carrying keys between their fingers. That image has stayed with many of us. He also said: “Any attack on somebody’s mind, body or soul is an act of violence.” I want to acknowledge that remark from the Green Party, because it captured the moral dimension of this debate.

Laws can set rules, but only culture can prevent violence. That culture begins long before students reach university. Respect, consent and accountability must be taught in our homes, reinforced in our schools and carried forward into adulthood. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

This bill wisely recognizes that sexual violence can also occur through the use of technology. That inclusion is crucial. Digital harassment, image-based abuse and deepfake exploitation are not minor offences. They are devastating violations. As AI tools make these abuses easier to commit, our laws must be equally agile in preventing them. I would urge the ministry, in its forthcoming regulations, to ensure that the training, prevention and investigation frameworks address these emerging forms of digital harm.

Transparency builds trust. The requirement for annual reporting is welcome, but it must go beyond counting policies and training sessions. Reports should include measurable outcomes — how many disclosures were made, how many investigations were completed, how long they took and whether survivors felt supported. That kind of honest reporting will show whether institutions are improving or merely complying. We do not want this to be a pencil-whipping exercise. A centralized provincial dashboard could further that goal, not to shame institutions but to let parents, students and legislators see progress over time.

This legislation moves the conversation forward. It broadens protections, modernizes language and demands greater accountability from our post-secondary institutions. But its success will depend on what happens after this vote, on follow-through, funding and leadership.

I support the principle of this bill because it reflects the kind of province we want British Columbia to be, one where compassion is matched by fairness and where justice is guided by both empathy and common sense. When our kids step onto those campuses, we want them to inherit institutions that stand for more than just degrees and credentials. We want them to reflect the values we raised them with — respect, decency and responsibility.

If Bill 18 helps my son’s generation walk into adulthood with those principles intact, in places where they can learn safely and live without fear, then every word spoken in this House will have been worth it.

Elenore Sturko: I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act, which will replace the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016.

In British Columbia, post-secondary institutions such as universities and colleges have been required to implement sexual violence and misconduct policies since legislation was introduced by the previous government nearly a decade ago. The law was enacted following advocacy from student groups like the Alliance of B.C. Students and the B.C. Federation of Students, spurred on by high-profile cases at institutions like the University of British Columbia, where survivors reported inadequate institutional responses to allegations of sexual assault.

[3:45 p.m.]

The original act mandated policies covering prevention, reporting and responses. While B.C. was a pioneer in mandating such policies, recent reviews initiated after stakeholder consultations identified gaps in enforcement and resources, prompting calls to align with evolving best practices and strengthen provincial oversight.

Since this government was first elected in 2017, post-secondary institutions, alongside student organizations, survivors and equity advocates, have all continued to call for stronger provincial legislation to address persistent gaps in the existing framework. I’m glad to see that after eight years, this NDP government has now introduced updated legislation that will require post-secondary institutions to apply sexual violence policies to more than just students and to strengthen reporting requirements to more easily allow the province to hold schools accountable.

Additionally, this updated legislation adds objectives that must be considered by post-secondary institutions when making their sexual violence policy. It requires post-secondary institutions to establish an advisory committee. It adds consultation requirements, adds requirements in relation to annual reports, authorizes post-secondary institutions to provide more information about the outcome of a formal allegation to the person who made that allegation and requires post-secondary institutions to make training available.

While Bill 18 makes significant progress, it doesn’t fully address every concern raised by B.C. post-secondary institutions — primarily, funding. The Sexual Violence Policy Act lacks dedicated funding mandates, leaving programs and services vulnerable to annual budgets. As was made abundantly clear to members of this Legislature during the 2026 budget consultations, which I was privileged to participate in…. We heard about the dire financial situation that post-secondary institutions are in.

Major changes to Canada’s international student program in 2025, including stricter study permits requirements, have significant impacts on post-secondary budgets. Simon Fraser University, for example, expects 500 fewer international undergraduates this semester, leading to a $20 million loss in its budget. KPU, which has five campuses, including one in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, has experienced a significant decline in undergraduate and graduate international student numbers, which has tuition revenues expected to fall by $49 million.

I’m supporting this legislation, and I want to see these legislative changes succeed at creating safer campuses, but more funding will be required. I checked the news release. I checked the B.C. sexual violence action plan, but I wasn’t able to find guaranteed annual funding to accompany this legislation. There may very well be some grant money that was announced, which I might have missed, but the reality is that post-secondary institutions need certainty, which means that they need dedicated resources.

Additionally, post-secondary institutions and allies have been advocating for stand-alone provincial bodies to handle institution-level complaints and impose fines. This bill enhances ministry-led accountability but relies on existing structures which, of course, lack true independence.

Even with these limitations, I do think that this updated legislation modernizes the approach to sexual violence policies at post-secondary institutions, so I do look forward to supporting this legislation through to the committee stage, and I look forward to the continuing debate.

Deputy Speaker: Any further speakers?

Okay, seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the question. The question is second reading of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I call second reading on Bill 29.

Bill 29 — Child, Family and
Community Service
Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I am pleased to speak to amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Before I do that, I just want to quickly reflect. This is the first piece of legislation I’m introducing in my role as Minister of Children and Family Development, and I just want….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I’ll just ask you to move second reading, and then you can speak to it.

So you move second reading.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Sorry. I move second reading of Bill 29.

[3:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Yes. Thank you. Continue.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: As I mentioned, this is the first time I’m introducing legislation in the House, and I just had a moment where I really reflected on what an honour that truly is.

I take the role and the responsibility of being the Minister of Children and Families incredibly seriously. The responsibility is not lost on me, and I am really proud that we are introducing legislation and making legislation that will continually try to improve the lives of children, youth and families in this province. I will continue to do that every single day that I’m in this role, and it is the honour of a lifetime for me to be able to stand here and speak to these amendments.

These amendments align with our government’s ongoing work to improve the way in which we approach the safety and well-being of children and youth across British Columbia. Every single day, child protection workers meet families that are facing some of the toughest moments of their lives. They work diligently to support families and keep children and youth safe and thriving.

To do this work, there is a range of child protection measures that can be used to protect and support children. To determine the best approach in a specific case, child protection directors and their staff are guided by legislated principles. I think these principles are crucially important, not just to our legislation but to my entire ministry and to me as the minister. I want to share these principles. I think they’re really important.

Children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm. Indigenous families and Indigenous communities share responsibility for the upbringing and well-being of Indigenous children. If, with available support services, a family can provide a safe and nurturing environment for a child, support services should be provided.

The child’s views should be taken into account when decisions relating to a child are made. Kinship ties and a child’s attachment to the extended family should be preserved if possible. Indigenous children are entitled to learn about and practise their Indigenous traditions, customs and languages and to belong to their Indigenous communities.

Decisions relating to children should be made and implemented in a timely manner. A family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children, and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents.

Safety plans are one of the least disruptive tools a child protection worker can use to keep a child safe. They are voluntary and generally used in the early stages of a protection response. These plans are designed as a short-term, temporary tool put in place until the safety concerns are addressed or a longer-term solution is implemented. For example, if a parent struggles with substance use, a safety plan might stipulate that the parent and child stay with a third party who is sober and can supervise their interactions to keep the child safe.

Safety plans should be straightforward, transparent and include information related to safety concerns. They list the names of parties involved, their respective roles in the plan and actions to be taken to ensure a child’s safety over the duration of the plan. All is agreed upon by the parent or parents.

These amendments will also enable safety plans to involve other people to provide support, such as an extended family member who has been involved in the care of the child, when the parents agree.

[3:55 p.m.]

Earlier this year we implemented policy changes to strengthen safety planning practices. The new legislative provisions clarify and support practice by setting out what a safety plan is, when it may be used, what it may contain and how it can end.

The legislation includes clearly articulated procedural safeguards to protect parents. For example, the amendments require a child protection director to prepare and distribute a written copy of the agreement, inform parents of their ability to seek legal advice and inform parents when a safety plan ends.

It is well known, and we know in this House, that Indigenous children remain overrepresented in our child welfare system. With respect to safety planning, there can be benefits to Indigenous community involvement in the process. In designing these amendments, we have learned from the wisdom, the advocacy and the collaboration of Indigenous rights holders and partners across B.C. We know that keeping Indigenous children connected to their communities, their cultures and their languages is key to their well-being.

The amendments expressly establish that the child’s First Nation or Indigenous community may be included as a party to a safety plan agreement. This aligns with our Child, Family and Community Services Act foundational principles in cooperating and coordinating with Indigenous communities. It also aligns with the government’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous people.

These amendments are vital to our government’s ongoing work to ensure the safety and well-being of all children in British Columbia. It remains at the heart of this ministry and this government that every child in British Columbia has the opportunity to thrive, to be safe, to belong and to be connected to their family, their community and their culture.

Not only as the minister but as a mother, my highest priority will always be the safety and well-being of children and youth. I look forward to the committee process, as well as continued support for this bill.

Rosalyn Bird: It is my privilege to rise today to speak to Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

This legislation deals with one of the most serious and sensitive responsibilities we face as a province, the protection and well-being of our children. There is no higher calling for a government than ensuring that the youngest, most vulnerable members of our communities are safe, supported and given every opportunity to thrive.

I want to begin by recognizing that across this chamber, regardless of party or ideology, we share that same goal. We may have different ideas about how to achieve it, but our shared commitment to the safety and success of children in British Columbia will result in the most impactful and positive legislative results.

While the intent of this bill is one that I can support, its implementation, oversight and practical impacts raise significant concerns that must be addressed before it moves forward.

At the heart of Bill 29 is the introduction of a safety plan agreement into legislation under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. A safety plan is intended to be one of the least intrusive measures available to keep a child or youth safe.

It’s described as a voluntary, short-term and collaborative arrangement between parents and ministry staff, typically used while a protection assessment or investigation is underway or while a court order is pending. In other words, a safety plan is meant to act as a bridge, a temporary measure that allows a child to remain at home or with a trusted adult while concerns are addressed.

The bill formalizes this practice in law, outlining what a safety plan must include: the specific concerns that have been identified, the names and roles of those involved, the steps that will be taken to ensure the child’s safety, and the expectations for follow-up and review. It also clarifies that the process must support involvement with an Indigenous child’s community to maintain their connection to culture, language and identity.

[4:00 p.m.]

The bill further allows a safety plan to be made verbally or in writing. It sets out rules for how a party can withdraw and grants cabinet the authority to make regulations governing the contents and preparation of these agreements. Finally, it clarifies that entering a safety plan does not limit a court’s power to intervene when necessary.

On its surface, this all sounds sensible. The intention to keep children safe while minimizing disruption is noble and very necessary. But good intentions alone do not make good legislation. Implementation matters, oversight matters and resources matter.

Let me be clear. I and my colleagues on this side of the House support any initiative that helps keep children safe and allows them to remain connected to their families and their communities. We’ve heard too many stories of far too many children removed from their homes, placed in unfamiliar settings and losing touch with their culture, their family and their sense of belonging. We know that removal, even when necessary, can be extremely traumatic. It can create wounds that last a lifetime.

So a tool that gives parents and ministry staff the ability to work together — collaboratively, voluntarily and with shared accountability — is something that deserves our attention. Stopping danger before it occurs benefits everybody. Keeping children in their communities with proper safeguards is the best outcome for all involved.

That outcome depends entirely on how our system functions, and right now that system is deeply strained. This is where the practical realities begin to overshadow the ideal. The Ministry of Children and Family Development, the ministry tasked with implementing these safety plan agreements, is by every account understaffed, underfunded and overstretched. Front-line social workers are carrying unimaginable caseloads. Many are covering multiple regions. Turnover is high, burnout is rampant, and resources are thin.

We’ve all heard from workers who say they simply don’t have enough time to spend with each family, that cases blur together, that decisions must be made under pressure and that documentation often falls behind. So I must ask. How can a system already struggling to manage its existing responsibilities effectively implement a new process like safety plan agreements and do it so fairly and consistently across the province? That consistency is not there today.

We know that policies and procedures are not applied equitably in British Columbia. A family in the Lower Mainland may receive one kind of response and support, while a family in a rural or northern community like Prince George may face an entirely different process, even under the same legislation. The lack of equity undermines trust in the system. It creates confusion and resentment. And when the stakes involve a child’s safety or a parent’s rights, inconsistency is not acceptable.

So before we add layers of responsibility, we must first ensure that our foundation is solid. If the ministry cannot currently maintain equitable standards, adding a new complexity will only deepen the cracks.

That leads me to another fundamental concern: oversight and accountability. Under Bill 29, the director of child welfare is given sweeping authority. A director can create, amend or terminate a safety plan, even verbally, based solely on their opinion. There is no requirement for court approval, no mandatory independent review and no clear process for affected families. That is a significant concentration of power in the hands of unelected officials.

While I have tremendous respect for professionals, social workers and case managers who serve in these roles, they work under immense pressure. We must never forget that government power, no matter how well intentioned, must always be subject to checks and balances. Without oversight, even the most compassionate system can produce unfair outcomes. We’ve seen this before — families left in limbo, parents confused about their rights, communication breakdowns that lead to unnecessary escalation.

Now we are being asked to formalize a process that allows verbal agreement arrangements that can shape a child’s life without any written record. That is not good governance. That is not transparency. That is not accountability.

[4:05 p.m.]

In a ministry already struggling to maintain documentation and case management standards, allowing verbal agreements in matters this serious is deeply troubling. Every safety plan must be in writing. Every term must be clearly documented. Every family must have a copy. That is not bureaucracy; that is basic fairness.

There is another fundamental question that must be asked. How many safety plans are currently in place in British Columbia? We do not know. I have not been able to locate data showing how many children are currently covered by these informal arrangements.

We don’t know how long these plans typically last. We don’t know how often they are successful or how often they fail. We don’t know how many lead to court intervention or how many result in removal. We are being asked to legislate something we may not be able to measure. That should concern every member of this House.

Before we enshrine safety plan agreements into law, we should have clear evidence of their effectiveness. We should know whether they are keeping children safer, helping families heal or reducing the number of children entering into government care. Again, I ask, how is success defined? How will it be measured? Who will be responsible for tracking outcomes and reporting them publicly? British Columbians deserve to see data, not just intentions.

If this process truly works, if it prevents harm, reduces apprehensions and builds stronger families, then that success should be celebrated and shared transparently. But if it doesn’t work, if families are being left unsupported or if plans are failing, then we need to know that too. Evidence-based policy must be more than just a slogan. It must be a practice. Without data, we’re legislating in the dark.

We do want to recognize that this bill includes explicit provisions to ensure Indigenous communities are involved in safety planning. That is an important step and a very necessary one. For far too long, Indigenous children have been overrepresented in our child welfare system. Despite representing less than 10 percent of the child population, Indigenous children make up more than two-thirds of those in care.

That is not coincidence. That is a legacy, a legacy that has not served First Nations and Indigenous children, youth and families well — one that has not, until recently, honoured cultural connections or imposed solutions that include community involvement. So I commend the intent to include Indigenous agreements and law in the use of safety plans.

But inclusion cannot simply be symbolic. It must be meaningful, resourced and respected. If Indigenous communities are to be part of this process, they must be empowered with genuine decision-making authority, not token consultation after the fact. They must have the resources and supports necessary to participate fully, not just an invitation on paper. Reconciliation requires partnerships, not policy paperwork. While this bill moves in the right direction, it must be matched with concrete funding, training and collaboration with Indigenous child and family service agencies.

From a B.C. Conservative perspective, we approach this issue through three guiding principles: compassion, accountability and fairness. We believe that protecting children is not just a government’s duty; it is a community responsibility. Families, neighbours, schools and faith groups all play a role in keeping children safe.

We believe the government should act as a support system, not a replacement for families. We believe that every time the province expands its authority, it must also expand its accountability. That is what’s missing from this bill. There is no built-in requirement for independent review, no mechanism for families to appeal a director’s unilateral decision, no obligation for transparent reporting on outcomes or success rates.

We support the principle of safety plans, but we cannot support giving more unchecked power to a system that is already struggling to apply existing powers fairly. Good policy is about balance between protection and rights, between prevention and accountability, between compassion and control. Bill 29, as written, tilts that balance too far toward bureaucratic discretion without the safeguards families deserve.

This bill can be improved. There are practical, commonsense steps that would strengthen it and help ensure its success.

[4:10 p.m.]

First, require written documentation for every safety plan, no exceptions. If it affects a child’s life, it must be written, signed and recorded.

Second, establish independent oversight. Create a mechanism, perhaps through the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, to review how safety plans are being used, where they succeed and where they fail.

Third, publish annual data on safety plan usage and outcomes. Transparency breeds trust. If this process is working, please show the evidence.

Fourth, invest in the system. Fund the ministry adequately. Reduce caseloads. Support social workers. Ensure consistent application of policy across every region of the province.

These are not radical demands. These are basic elements of responsible governments.

Finally, we must ensure meaningful Indigenous partnerships that mean real authority, real collaboration and real accountability for outcomes.

We all want the same thing — a province where every child is safe, supported and surrounded by love and opportunity. We want a child welfare system that acts with compassion, fairness and consistency. Right now the system is struggling. It is stretched beyond capacity, it is uneven in its delivery, and it lacks transparency that British Columbians deserve.

This bill seeks to do something positive, to formalize a process meant to keep children safe and families together. Before we enshrine it in law, we must ask the hard questions. Do we know how many safety plans are already in place? Do we know if they work? Do we have staff, funding and oversight to apply them fairly? Do families understand their rights under these plans? Who will be held accountable when a safety plan fails?

These are not political questions. They are questions of basic responsibility we wish to address at committee stage. Protecting children must always be our highest priority, but protection without accountability is not safety. It’s control.

Let’s ensure that this bill achieves what it sets out to do, not just in theory but in practice. Let’s strengthen it, let’s resource it, and let’s measure it. Let’s build a child welfare system that truly lives up to its promise, one that is compassionate, one that is transparent and one that is worthy of the trust all British Columbians place in it.

Lynne Block: The Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act of 2025 is an opportunity to formalize safety plans, which are valuable tools for keeping children supported and safe within our communities. We support the principles of this legislation and its efforts to define this voluntary process, especially for Indigenous children.

However, the current drafting requires significant amendment. We must be mindful of the issues that have not been adequately addressed, particularly the centralization of unchecked power in the director’s office. The ability of a director to initiate a plan verbally and then to unilaterally terminate it based solely on subjective opinion demands greater scrutiny and mandated external checks.

The fundamental flaw in Bill 29 is the lack of independent oversight. If the government genuinely intends this to be a voluntary and collaborative process, then the rules governing the director’s discretion must be refined in committee stage. We must introduce amendments that establish checks and balances.

First, oversight of director’s opinion. We need clarity on what metrics and standards the director must use when forming the opinion that an agreement is no longer necessary or adequate. The legislation currently fails to provide these criteria. A standard of reasonableness, subject to swift review, should be required.

[4:15 p.m.]

Two, strengthening parental rights during withdrawal. While a party other than the director may withdraw from the agreement verbally or in writing, this must be done subject to informing the director in advance, as required under the agreement. However, the director may withdraw suddenly without notice if a risk is perceived.

We must ensure that parents and other relevant parties who are required to meet certain criteria, such as being able and willing to exercise parental rights, are afforded reasonable notice or an immediate opportunity for an independent review when the agreement is unilaterally terminated by the director.

Three, clarifying youth agreements. The bill notes that a safety plan agreement made by a director with a person under 19 years of age is effective as it applies to that person. Given that a parent who is under 19 years of age may make an agreement, the committee must explore how the director communicates with these young parties.

The legislation states that the director must communicate in a manner appropriate to the person’s or body’s abilities. This is a good starting point. But given the vulnerability of young parents, we need to ensure that the appropriate nature of communication is rigorously defined and consistently applied to uphold the spirit of informed consent.

Four, transition provisions. Clause 6 addresses prior safety plan agreements, those made before the new amendments come into force. It outlines how these older plans remain valid for a short transition period and how they can be withdrawn or terminated under the new rules.

The transition period for old agreements, which do not specify a term or provide a term of more than 45 days, is 45 days after the new section comes into force. We must ensure the committee scrutinizes these transition rules to prevent any existing, albeit informal, protective arrangements from being abruptly cut short, potentially putting children at risk during the handover period.

Five, regulation-making power. Clause 5 grants regulation-making powers to the cabinet, respecting the content and preparation of safety plan agreements. While regulations are necessary for implementation, the core protections of accountability and oversight must reside clearly in the legislation itself, not be delegated solely to regulatory degree. This is essential if we want to avoid further centralization of power outside of legislative scrutiny.

The Conservative caucus is committed to working constructively during the committee stage to ensure that this bill is refined, amended and strengthened, upholding both child protection and procedural fairness. The protection of children is too important to allow the creation of new systems that are vulnerable to misuse or arbitrary action.

We look forward to the clause-by-clause analysis where we will seek the necessary changes to ensure Bill 29 delivers accountability alongside safety.

Our hope is that this government doesn’t take umbrage at the positive suggestions that my esteemed colleagues state but look at them favourably and take them to heart. Why? It’s for our children.

Heather Maahs: I rise today to speak to Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act.

This bill, as we’ve already heard, introduces safety plan agreements into law, a tool meant to protect children while allowing them to remain in their homes and communities wherever possible.

[4:20 p.m.]

When used appropriately, safety plans can prevent unnecessary family separation and keep children connected to their schools, supports and communities, a critical part of fostering belonging. The intention of this bill is commendable. Early intervention, collaboration with families and minimizing trauma are principles we can all support.

However, intent alone is not enough. The details raise serious concerns about accountability, oversight and the concentration of decision-making power within the bureaucracy. Under this bill, the director is granted broad powers to create, amend and terminate safety plan agreements without court approval or external review. A plan may be made verbally, take effect immediately and be terminated solely at the director’s discretion, based on their opinion that the plan is no longer necessary or adequate. These are significant powers.

While we respect the professionalism of those working in child protection, legislation must protect families and children even when systems fail. Broad discretion without oversight carries real risks. We have seen historically the harm caused when child protection decisions lack checks and transparency. Families have been separated unnecessarily. Trust has been eroded. Lives have been deeply affected. I know that many of us who have been on this file have heard the stories and the situations that we’re talking about right now.

The centralization of authority within the bureaucracy must therefore be questioned, particularly in the section defining the parties to a safety plan. According to the bill, the director must include each parent who, in their opinion, is “apparently entitled to custody.” We must pause on that word “apparently.”

What does it mean to be apparently entitled to custody? Does it mean the parent actually has custody, or that the ministry believes they do? If that assumption is wrong, what happens to the child and the family?

Legislation is no place for ambiguity, especially when children’s welfare and parental rights are at stake. This language allows for decisions based on perception rather than legal certainty. Mistakes in child protection can have profound and lasting consequences. If a parent is excluded from a plan because they are not deemed “apparently entitled,” they may have no recourse. Decisions affecting custody, access and care could be made unilaterally, undermining transparency and fairness.

Safety plans are meant to protect children, not to concentrate authority or shield the system from accountability. The child’s best interests must remain central but so, too, must the parent’s legal rights and clear procedural safeguards. I say this with emphasis because I’ve seen these situations, as I’m sure my friend across the aisle has as well.

This legislation leaves key questions unanswered. What are the minimum standards for documentation and notice to parents? What constitutes sufficient information to determine who is party to a plan? How will independent review or appeal work if a plan is terminated? Without clear answers, this law risks enabling unilateral decision-making without accountability, precisely the outcome we must avoid.

The bill’s withdrawal provisions also need clarity. It allows the director to end a plan without notice if warning could put a child at risk. While understandable in emergencies, the bill does not define how risk is assessed or how families will be informed afterward. Clarity here is essential to maintaining trust.

[4:25 p.m.]

Our shared goals are protecting children, supporting families and preventing harm. Safety plans can help achieve that, but only if the law ensures transparency, fairness and accountability. That means written documentation should accompany every agreement. Parents must be fully informed of their rights and able to seek independent advice. Powers exercised by the director must be matched by oversight and review.

Legislation must protect children, not bureaucracy. Language like “apparently entitled to custody” undermines that principle by creating uncertainty where clarity is most needed.

I urge all members to reflect on these questions as Bill 29 proceeds. The intent is sound, but the safeguards will determine whether this law protects families or harms them through unchecked power. While I have no doubt the ministry staff all act with professionalism and good faith, laws must account for when systems fail. That is the concern here, not with safety plans themselves but where this bill locates control and how that control is checked.

When authority over agreements affecting custody and care rests entirely within the bureaucracy, without independent review, it shifts the balance away from families, away from the courts and away from transparency. Child protection must be nimble, but it must also be accountable. Accountability is not the enemy of efficiency. It is what gives our system legitimacy.

Families must have confidence that decisions are made fairly, transparently and with documentation, not by verbal agreement or individual discretion without recourse, as we’ve heard from the previous two speakers. This is why it is vital to scrutinize how these powers will be used and what safeguards will accompany them.

We are being asked to legislate a framework without knowing the rules that will guide it, to trust the regulations that will fill in the blanks later in a field as sensitive as child protection. That approach warrants caution.

Similarly, the withdrawal provisions permit the director to terminate a plan without advance notice if doing so could endanger the child. That makes sense in true emergencies, but the bill does not define how risk will be assessed or what happens once the danger has passed. Will the family be informed? Will there be review or documentation? When communication breaks down, so does trust, and trust is the cornerstone of every safety plan.

We know the relationship between families and the child protection system can be fraught, especially for those facing poverty, mental health challenges or discrimination. If safety plans can be made verbally, changed unilaterally and ended without oversight, they risk becoming instruments of control rather than collaboration. That is not the spirit in which these measures were created, nor should it be the direction of this legislation.

This bill must ensure that children remain at the centre of the system, not bureaucracy. Success should be measured by the safety and well-being of children, not by administrative convenience. That requires ensuring parents understand their rights and have access to independent advice and that written records exist for every agreement. Discretion must always be the subject to review. Oversight is not a barrier to safety. It is what keeps the system credible.

Every member of this House wants the same thing — children who are safe, families who are supported and a system that acts with integrity. Our role as legislators is not merely to endorse intent but to examine impact. The intent here is commendable. The impact will depend entirely on how these powers are used and what safeguards they accompany.

Let us keep the focus where it belongs: on the safety, dignity and future of every child in British Columbia. Good laws protect not just children in danger but also families from systems that can go wrong.

[4:30 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act.

I want to start by acknowledging the difficulties that arise when speaking about child welfare in Canada, particularly the complexities that surround the Ministry of Children and Family Development in B.C.

The provincial and federal governments of Canada have a long and fraught history with systems of so-called child welfare. Any time we discuss proposed reforms, we also must grapple with this history. These systematic processes of removal have undoubtedly influenced the creation of the modern child welfare system.

The Indian residential school system was a catalyst for fragmented families and communities. The forced removal of Indigenous children from their parents and communities was an act of violence against the First People of these lands, perpetrated by colonial governments and churches. These institutions perpetrated immense harm that communities across B.C. are still grappling with.

The Sixties Scoop, the name given to the series of government policies that forcibly removed Indigenous children from their families to non-Indigenous foster homes, was devastating. Between 1951 to the mid-’80s, over 20,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis children were taken from their homes and placed in mostly white households. The narrative told to these foster and adoptive families was that they could “do good” by adopting an Indigenous child.

Programs like AIM, adopt an Indian, started in the 1960s. Ads were placed in newspapers and department stores, with photos and captions stating: “Today’s child; brown-skinned babies for adoption; contact AIM.”

Even within the last decade, we’ve seen similar dehumanizing advertisements. In 2017, a CBC news article described advertisements published by MCFD. Children up for adoption through the ministry were searchable by age, gender, race. The article identified the concerning similarity between these advertisements and those published in newspapers during the Sixties Scoop. Indigenous communities shared their concern with MCFD, and thankfully, the searchable profiles were removed and the process changed.

From residential schools and the Sixties Scoop to the modern child welfare system, Indigenous children in B.C. have been removed from their culture, language, families and communities. This fracturing of families and culture has proven devastating, and Indigenous children are still disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. In 2021, over half of the children in foster care were Indigenous, despite only comprising 7 percent of the child population in Canada.

There are more Indigenous children in government care now than there were at the height of the Sixties Scoop. When we talk about any proposed reforms to MCFD, we must acknowledge the history of how we got here, how we got to this day.

We’re glad to see a shift happening, with a trending decrease of Indigenous children in government care in B.C. in recent years. We’ve seen instrumental legislative change like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act; An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families at the federal level; and the continuing shift towards recognizing Indigenous jurisdiction in child welfare.

I just want to pause to emphasize that it is acts like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act that are creating the foundation for the important work of undoing over 150 years of horrific treatment of Indigenous children in this province and in Canada.

[4:35 p.m.]

The Representative for Children and Youth continues to shine a light on the Ministry of Children and Family Development, highlighting the serious need for comprehensive reforms across the entire system. The well-being, safety and health of children are core priorities of MCFD. We’re glad to see this government taking this responsibility seriously, as demonstrated through these proposed amendments we’re discussing today.

The amendments proposed in Bill 29 seek to clearly outline legal authority for safety plans. Safety plans are a voluntary agreement between parents and MCFD that are entered into with the intention of creating conditions for keeping a child safe. These plans are designed as a short-term transitory tool and are seen as less disruptive compared to other measures, such as removal from the home.

I can say from my past experience of representing First Nations for 25 years that removal from the home is an incredibly, incredibly disturbing approach, so these types of agreements done properly, with clarity, are an important alternative. Parents and guardians must agree to all terms and conditions in safety plans, which may include ensuring someone who poses a threat to child safety is not in contact with the child or moving the child to a safe location, such as a grandparent, when risk is present.

Safety plans have already been in use for decades in policy, but there are challenges. MCFD and advocates have seen problems with consistency. Safety plans have all too often been seen as coercive and unnecessarily restrictive. Some parents have been presented with a safety plan as a threat: “Do this or we’re taking your child.”

The Representative for Children and Youth has written several reports outlining the gaps and failures of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Most notably, the Don’t Look Away report, released in 2024, highlighted numerous systemic failures in the child welfare system in B.C. We understand that the recommendations from this report played an important role in influencing this bill.

A key message in Don’t Look Away emphasizes that confusion and ambiguity can give way to tragic circumstances. The RCY expressed that more legislative clarity would be essential to decreasing ambiguity and improving outcomes for all persons involved, especially children.

These proposed amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act create a new section on safety planning. Bill 29 seeks to clearly outline the legal authority of safety plan agreements, who is required to be involved, how decisions can be made, when safety plans can be withdrawn and notification procedures. It emphasizes that parents and guardians can seek legal advice at any time, that these procedural safeguards are extremely important. The ministry has expressed that safety plans must be clear, fair and voluntary.

This type of legislation, this bill, is exactly what we’re looking for — a step forward to provide that clarity, to remove ambiguity to ensure that safety plans can be and will be effective. We are glad to see these proposed amendments. As described by the RCY, legislative clarity will be essential to improving the systems of care within MCFD. I’m grateful to see this important step forward, and I also must emphasize that we have a long way to go.

I’d like to highlight some of the recommendations from the RCY report Don’t Look Away: How One Boy’s Story Has the Power to Shift a System of Care for Children and Youth. Don’t Look Away identified the systemic failures and gaps of child welfare in B.C. The entire system of social services in B.C. is siloed, and low-income and marginalized families are often the ones to bear the brunt of systems that fail to communicate with each other.

[4:40 p.m.]

The RCY highlights some systemic gaps, including inequities and lack of oversight in family caregiving arrangements; significant weaknesses in interagency collaboration and communication; inadequate family supports and early prevention services; blurred accountability, as jurisdiction shifts to First Nations and Indigenous governing bodies; and unaddressed violence, often intergenerational, in children’s lives.

Child welfare sector advocates have been sounding the alarm for years. Heavy workloads, difficulties with staff recruitment and retention, increasing complexity of child protection work and a chronic shortage of registered social workers have together created unsustainable conditions in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The RCY’s report No Time to Wait identified a crisis in the child welfare workforce.

Here are some statistics that I think we should all remind ourselves of and be aware of: 80 percent of social workers say they’re unable to properly do their jobs because their caseloads are too high, 77 percent of social workers lack timely access to necessary family and community supports to help the children and families they’re working with, and 90 percent of social workers report having very high stress levels.

There is consistently low compliance with a range of provincial and policy practice standards due to those excessive workloads, and previous MCFD analysis of the workforce found that meeting just 85 percent compliance with provincial standards would require hiring several hundred more social workers.

These proposed changes, outlined in Bill 29, reflect a necessary step to improving MCFD service delivery. However, we must also emphasize the need to continue improving accountability and oversight of child welfare in the province, including other key steps like the regulation of social workers.

We also hope, clearly and fervently, to see greater incorporation of cultural safety planning in collaboration with First Nations. The maintenance and incorporation of culture into every aspect of this work with First Nations and Indigenous people is hugely important.

In times of austerity at every level of government, we must also ensure that enough resources are being allocated to support these necessary changes. When the provincial deficit rises and budgets get tightened, often what gets cut first are social programs and services, which are essential to creating certainty and stability for families and children. This is an area that needs more, not less, resources.

I’d like to applaud this government for taking these steps to improve legislative clarity for safety plans, showing their commitment to implementing the recommendations from the Representative for Children and Youth. As I’ve highlighted today, the history of child welfare in this province is fraught and complex.

I hope we can make this bill another step in the continuing work to address historical injustices and present-day harms and work towards improving accountability and oversight. I hope we can build a system we can all be proud of.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I’m really pleased to be speaking today to the amendments to our Child, Family and Community Service Act. These amendments are going to continue to support our government’s ongoing work to improve the way we approach the safety and the well-being of children and youth across British Columbia.

We all know, and every single person in this House knows, that children do best when they are connected to their families, to their community and to their culture and language.

[4:45 p.m.]

We also know that despite ongoing work, our Indigenous children are overrepresented in the child welfare system. For far too long, decisions about Indigenous communities have been made without them. That is why I was glad to see that Bill 29 would enable a child’s First Nation or Indigenous community to be included as a party to a safety plan agreement.

This is significant for communities, significant for families, and is particularly significant to children. This supports our commitment to reconciliation, our goals of cooperating and coordinating with Indigenous communities whenever possible.

We know that child protection workers meet families when they are facing some of the deepest, toughest moments of their lives. We know that these workers do everything they can to work with families, to keep children safe and to help them thrive. Safety plan agreements are one tool a child protection worker might use to support the safety of a child. They’re short-term, and they’re one of the least disruptive methods available. We are bringing forward these amendments by supporting families, and we’re putting a practice of safety planning in place by clarifying when and how safety plans should be used.

We are making sure that parents are aware of their rights to seek legal advice to end the agreement, despite what the members opposite have been saying. We are also enabling the involvement of other parties when parents agree, such as extended family members who may want to be involved in the care of the child or the child’s Indigenous community.

The members opposite have had a lot to say about what these safety plans are. I want to be very clear that these plans are voluntary. They are short-term agreements developed in collaboration with parents for the care of a child to help families stay connected while awaiting the outcome of a child protection assessment or a court order.

I want to be clear that safety plans can happen on the spot. They are complex decisions and need to be made individually. This is the opposite of a centralized policy of power, which the members opposite are speaking about. These are time-limited plans reviewed in 30 days, with a plan for either a review or a renewal if safety concerns continue.

These plans are intended to mitigate the safety concerns in a way that supports the child, supports the youth, to remain safely with their parent or with another family member. These plans should be straightforward. They list the parties involved and the respective roles in the plan and the actions taken to support the child’s safety. When a plan is created, parents should also be informed of their right to seek legal advice before signing and their ability to end the plan at any time. They are considered one of the least disruptive methods a child protection worker can use to keep a child safe.

These improvements to the legislation are part of the work we are doing to strengthen how we support children, youth and their families. We want to bring greater clarity and transparency to safety plans through these amendments, particularly how they are going to be used in practice.

I am so glad to see that the members opposite have a number of questions, because I know the minister is going to be able to walk through all these concerns with them during the committee process. We have clear procedural safeguards in this bill to support parents.

For example, if the members want to know, child protection workers will be required to inform the parents of their ability to get legal advice. We’ve also included for child protection workers to inform parents when a safety plan is ending and the ability to end the plan at any time, as well as informing and distributing a written copy of the agreement.

By enshrining these requirements into law, we are making safety plans clear. We’re making it more consistent across the board for providing greater transparency to parents, for providing greater support to families, to communities, to Indigenous nations.

I’m very happy to be speaking in support of this bill. I know I’m really looking forward to the minister carrying her first bill through committee stage, because this is an important one. It’s a significant one, and it makes a difference for families.

I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Lisa Beare moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[4:50 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Susie Chant: Section A reports Bill 27 complete without amendment.

Deputy Speaker: After the committee report, when shall the bill be read for a third time?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion for third reading of Bill 27, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, is carried, and the bill has been passed.

Hon. Josie Osborne: In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage for Bill 17.

Here in the main chamber, I call continued reading on Bill 29.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Child, Family and
Community Service
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Elenore Sturko: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025. I will be speaking in favour of this bill. I don’t have my usual prepared speech, but I did want to make some comments.

I really appreciate the speech by the member for Saanich North and the Islands in bringing up the good work of the Representative for Children and Youth of British Columbia.

I won’t hold it up because that’s not permitted in the chamber, but I did bring a copy of Don’t Look Away, Colby’s story, to the chamber with me. It’s such a shattering story of what can happen when things go wrong in our child care system that we have in British Columbia.

When I was a police officer — particularly, I would say, when I served in the Northwest Territories — I had a lot of interaction with kids that were in care. It was among the most difficult work that I had to do.

It’s just so incredibly devastating for families when they have to be involved with the child welfare system, when they’re in with child and family services, when they’re with any kind of system where the custody of your child is really in jeopardy, where the safety of children is in jeopardy.

I do commend the government for wanting to bring forward amendments to legislation and to change. I have a lot of questions. Just by the very nature of safety plans and agreements, they are coercive. I appreciate that this legislation, Bill 29, seeks to create a less coercive system, but how does the government intend to do this work in a way that isn’t in any way coercive?

If there’s a concern in the home — for example, maybe a mom with a young child has a partner, that partner is a substance user, and that person is coming to the home — a safety plan is engaged after MCFD gets involved, and the safety plan will be that the partner has to stay away. If the mother doesn’t comply, she has jeopardy that the child could be taken away, or other sanctions can be put in place.

The very nature of the work that’s done by government, in trying to assist children who have needs because they could be at risk in the community, has a level of coercion. Either that mother complies immediately and says, “Yes, I’ll keep my partner away from the home,” or the risk is that the government will escalate what their response is going to be, and the child could be removed from the home.

[4:55 p.m.]

One of the questions that I have about this legislation, as it goes forward in its implementation and in the way it’s exercised in British Columbia, is: how can we make our system less coercive and more cooperative with people?

At the end of the day, the spirit of the legislation is to guide families who need help with making sure that their kids are getting the best care that they can, while at the same time recognizing that we have the absolutely fundamental responsibility of caring for every child in this province.

This also codifies that careworkers have to tell a parent or a guardian who is caring for a child, when they are entering into a safety plan, that they have the right to obtain legal counsel. One of the questions I have is: is there a duration of time in which they can obtain legal advice — say, from legal aid or if they have the ability to hire an attorney — before they would be expected to have a safety plan implemented?

For example, just going back to the policing world, if I were to arrest a person and, under the Charter of Rights, give them their section 10(a) and 10(b) rights, let them know the reason for their arrest or detention and then let them know their Charter right to obtain and instruct counsel of their choosing, if that person says that they don’t want to say anything more until they have the advice of a lawyer, you don’t ask them any more questions until they have that opportunity to seek legal advice. Is it the same when we’re talking about the MCFD programming and rules and regulations?

The things that we are proposing…. I know safety plans have been in for a long time. We’ve been doing this kind of work. One of the criticisms is the coercive nature of entering into agreements where there’s a power imbalance and, obviously, where people would be afraid to have their child removed from their home.

Is there an opportunity, then, for someone to obtain and instruct legal counsel before having to enter into an agreement, or is it continuing to be a situation where, although a careworker may offer an individual the opportunity to speak to legal counsel, there’s actually no opportunity for a pause before they have to either accept an agreement or have an escalation of what happens with MCFD?

That’s a question that I have surrounding whether or not voluntary agreements can ever truly be voluntary when the jeopardy for a parent or guardian in the province is either an escalation of action by MCFD or, potentially, even going so far as to have a child removed from their home.

That doesn’t mean that I’m against safety plans, but I do understand that it’s not only about changing legislation. It’s going to be about changing the culture of how we interact with families.

Even in the most horrific situations that I’ve ever been to, where I was actually escorting people from the ministry to go and, sadly, have to make apprehensions, I have always seen parents that love their kids — oftentimes living in extreme poverty, or they did not have the skills. They did not have the support. These are awful situations.

They’re situations that even legislation, no matter how good, isn’t going to address. Fundamentally, if we’re talking about poverty, the answer to children becoming involved with the ministry because of poverty is to address poverty. If it’s a lack of skills and support, we need to build up the skills of people who are coming into the system.

We have to increase the supports for people who might come in contact with the system. We have to have a better integration of what we learn through having calls with enforcement agencies, health care providers and the ministry, to make sure that families get supports and the ability to engage, actually, voluntarily in care plans that can help support people before it becomes emergent, before it becomes a situation where a child has to be removed.

[5:00 p.m.]

I guess that’s part of the concern that I have about the course of, nature of the safety plans. One of the things that I was wondering is even by the nature of calling it a safety plan, instead of a care intervention plan…. When we talk about a safety plan, I think many British Columbians would recognize the fact of having safety issues within a home.

Knowing that we have the challenges that we do, in having enough social workers, enough supports and enough people actually operating within the system of MCFD, given the reports that we’ve had from the Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia, do we have enough to actually make sure that kids who are subject to safety plans are safe?

I think that it’s commendable to look at reports like Don’t Look Away and make changes. We don’t only need legislative change to occur here in B.C. to make sure that we have less children from Indigenous communities represented in the system, that we have less people in poverty represented in the system, less people who are suffering from any number of challenges represented in the system.

But I do appreciate this, the changes that Bill 29 represents. I also hope that in making the changes that require families to be informed and guardians to be informed of their legal rights and the opportunities that they have to obtain and instruct legal counsel, data will be collected.

How many families already seek legal counsel? Surely they’ve always had the ability to obtain and instruct legal counsel if they were entering into an agreement. Did anyone do it? Were they actually obtaining that help?

If they weren’t, now that they are given that opportunity to understand that they have that ability to do so, will that also be accompanied by funding for legal aid? That would probably be part of what’s needed to make sure that these new changes can be fully recognized and that families have the supports that they need, that they have the legal advice that they need and that children can truly be protected in the province of British Columbia.

I am supportive of Bill 29. I will look forward to seeing it as it continues through the committee stage. I do truly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll ask the Minister of Children and Family Development to close debate.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In closing, I thank my colleagues for their perspectives on the amendments, and I look forward to having more conversations at the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 29, intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: What an afternoon of progress, hon. Speaker.

I call second reading on Bill 19, the School Amendment Act.

David Williams: I was just going to ask if we could have a recess.

Deputy Speaker: Certainly. I will grant a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:08 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: We’ll call the House back to order.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

I am so pleased to be speaking on Bill 19, the School Amendment Act, 2025. This truly is one of those great-news bills for government and for families all across British Columbia. We know that B.C. is made up of so many hard-working families, and these families need access to child care that’s not only high quality but that’s dependable, affordable and that fits in their daily lives.

Currently boards of education are limited to offering child care to school-aged students enrolled in their district only, and only before and after school and on school days, and that simply doesn’t work for families.

[5:10 p.m.]

We want to ensure that we are providing child care in schools and on school grounds for families that need it. This bill amends the School Act to allow the boards of education the flexibility to offer more types of child care on school grounds. These amendments give boards the authority to provide child care throughout the year — on pro-D days, on spring break, summer break, winter breaks, for example.

As a working parent myself, and like so many of us sitting here in this chamber right now, I know child care doesn’t end just because the school year does, and that’s why we’re recommending changes that allow schools to operate child care year-round.

We also know public schools are trusted community hubs, designed for children to learn, to play and to grow. They hold incredible potential to deliver the kinds of care and services families need, above and beyond the critical role they play during school hours. These are community hubs. They are trusted hubs. They are safe spaces.

These amendments will also authorize school districts to provide child care directly for children of all ages, including infants and toddlers. Enabling care for kids of all ages supports keeping families together through the day. It builds relationships with children at the school at a young age and supports more seamless services for working parents.

Just imagine the relief of being able to wake up, bring your kid to a school and know that they’re being cared for before school hours, able to transition into school, again cared for after hours, and you have one drop-off and one pickup in the day. That’s life-changing for so many families.

These changes are going to enable an important shift towards maximizing the use of existing spaces effectively. We get to leverage public, child-orientated buildings and spaces in broader ways, which not only expands the availability of supply of quality care but helps reduce the expenditure of public dollars to fund new child care spaces.

These amendments are something families and school boards and child care advocates and education partners have been asking for. They see the important roles that schools can play in expanding access to child care. We’ve also heard from boards that they’re eager to work with the child care sector and my ministry to expand the ability to offer care on school grounds. But to do that, they need to be able to operate sustainably.

With these changes, districts will be able to recoup reasonable fees to recover costs for providing child care services in administration and maintenance, just as non-profit centres currently go about their businesses of operation. Just like other child care providers, boards will be eligible to apply for provincial operating funding for programs. This includes the early childhood wage education enhancement and the child care fee reduction initiative, which can reduce fees by up to $900 per child per month.

Families can also qualify for the affordable child care benefit, which can reduce fees even further and, in some cases, eliminate them altogether for families who need it most.

We’ve had successful child care initiatives in districts like Chilliwack, in Vernon, Peace River North, Cowichan, Prince Rupert and Nanaimo-Ladysmith. They’ve shown us a path forward with board-operated child care. For example, in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, education assistants are supporting expanded school-age care programs to better meet community need.

Boards can employ early childhood educators in infant and toddler programs and education workers in responsible adult roles for school-age care. This isn’t just good for families. It’s an opportunity to create new jobs and open up new opportunities for people entering the workforce or those already working in the education sector and in child care.

We also recognize the unique challenges faced by families in rural and remote communities. In areas where third-party child care providers may not be available to fill these gaps, this amendment means that districts and boards of education can be available to fill those gaps. So families can have access to care no matter where they live in the province.

Speaking of third-party child care providers, I want to take a quick moment to acknowledge the critical role they play. I have so much appreciation for them. I have so much appreciation for the education assistants in the sector, all the care workers who are providing child care on school grounds or in schools. They are the backbone of school-age care and really the backbone of the entire care sector, and they continue to be essential in supporting families.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to thank so many of the education partners and districts who have helped consult on these amendments. I want to give a particular shout-out to CUPE. They have been tireless in their advocacy for these changes, and I really want to thank them for the work they’ve done towards that.

School districts themselves have been strong partners in creating new spaces. We have over 14,700 spaces in schools or on school grounds across 43 school districts. I want to be very clear. We are not requiring districts to do this.

Districts know their communities best. Each district is going to be able to determine whether and how to offer child care on school grounds. But I can tell you that I’ve met with all 60 of the districts, and they are excited. This is work they want to do, and I know their families are going to be asking for it.

We’ve done this in collaboration with local communities, with First Nations and with local providers to meet the need. Boards that do this work will continue to be held to the same standard as other providers. They’ll still need to be licensed child care providers. And importantly, any child care program offered on school ground must not interfere with K-to-12 learning activities.

Now, some districts are ready to dive right in. As I said, they are very excited. Others are going to take a little bit of time to assess their space, to assess and plan the work they need to do. But my ministry is here to support districts every step of the way, to answer questions, to provide guidance and help districts with implementation.

You know, in a time of fiscal constraint and a very difficult fiscal situation faced by all of us globally, this is a smart, efficient, community-based solution to providing child care. Growing child care availability in trusted spaces already built to serve kids is good news for families. Our government has worked towards a vision of access to affordable, quality child care for every family that needs it. Through ambitious pilot programs and over $1.2 billion in investments in new spaces across this province, we have been very successful in this work.

I think it’s important for the House to know that we have more than 54,000 new licensed spaces since 2017 when we formed government. We are subsidizing the parent fees for over 150,000 families. We are helping families save thousands of dollars every year. Since 2019, parent fees have dropped by more than half. In fact, families are saving, on average, around $7,000 a year back in their pockets in child care fees. That is more than $3 billion in the pockets of hard-working B.C. families.

We are just getting started, because these amendments align the School Act with the work that we’ve been doing to help us to continue building on sustainable child care systems that families can rely on. We’re doing it in a smart way that uses spaces that we already have and with communities who are excited to have these spaces.

As we continue, our focus does remain clear: delivering affordable, quality, inclusive child care that meets the needs of our B.C. families. Today is an example of how we’re improving access to care using every tool in our toolbox.

This legislation is another step forward. It empowers school districts to be able to take part in supporting more families in their communities, and we are building a stronger, more sustainable system of child care for everyone.

I’m really excited to hear the comments from members opposite and continue this work in committee stage alongside them. As I said when I started, this is a great-news bill for families across B.C., and I’m so excited to be bringing it in the House.

Lynne Block: Thank you to the previous speaker, the Minister of Education and Child Care.

Today we address Bill 19, the School Amendment Act, 2025. At first glance, this legislation appears to be a routine updating of language, perhaps even a benign modernization.

[5:20 p.m.]

Indeed, the stated intention to allow school districts in British Columbia to expand their capacity to provide child care on board properties — including care for all ages, such as infants and toddlers; and even on non-school days like winter, spring and summer breaks — is viewed by many as a welcome development. The legislation, if passed, would enable districts to offer care directly rather than solely relying on third-party providers and, potentially, allow them to opt into programs that reduce costs for families by up to $900 per child per month.

However, as a long-time educator at multiple levels and as a school trustee for six years, I know that in education governance, even the smallest legislative changes can have significant, quiet impacts affecting funding, oversight and the core responsibilities of our school boards. Bill 19 represents more than a routine update. It quietly introduces significant shifts in school board responsibilities concerning funding, oversight and core duties. For those of us committed to responsible governance and fiscal integrity, we must look beyond the headline and scrutinize the administrative details.

The expanded mandate for school-based child care does offer genuine benefits, which we must acknowledge. Key strengths include increased access to child care for children of all ages, including infants and toddlers on school grounds, even during non-school days and breaks.

This provides convenience for families by offering affordable, accessible care in familiar environments, which also supports smoother transitions into K-to-12 education. It is also an efficient use of existing infrastructure, leveraging existing facilities and classrooms, thereby reducing the need for new construction and promoting sustainable use of resources.

These benefits lead to opportunities such as an expanded workforce, job creation for educators and support staff, and enhanced family support, helping parents participate in the workforce and reducing financial stress.

We must not allow these admirable goals to obscure the profound governance challenges introduced by the bill’s specific amendments. We must act with foresight, integrity and care. We must ensure that in expanding this mandate, we do not compromise the foundational educational mission of our schools or saddle our districts with unfunded liabilities and unclear responsibilities.

I am here today performing the crucial task of due diligence by dissecting three specific amendments that, while seemingly innocuous, perhaps carry deeper implications for financial sustainability and governance.

Issue 1, the new licensing requirement for child care programs. The first critical change lies in section 85.2(1) of the School Act. It is amended to state: “A board may provide a child care program on board property if the board is a licensee.”

This is more than a simple clarification. Why does this matter? This amendment fundamentally alters the relationship between the school board and the child care program. Previously, boards could partner with licensed providers, often facilitating programs with relative flexibility. Now the board itself must hold the licence.

For those of us who believe in clearly defined responsibilities and accountable structures, this shift is concerning. This change places the board squarely in the role of a licensed child care operator, shifting them from a host to an owner of the liability and oversight. School boards must now meet rigorous provincial licensing standards, undergo inspections, maintain compliance records and ensure staff qualifications align with complex child care regulations.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This transition means our school boards are entering a space traditionally managed by early childhood education specialists. It introduces a significant administrative burden, licensing applications, renewals and regulatory reporting, all of which require time, specialized expertise and, critically, funding — money that must not be diverted from core K-to-12 education objectives.

[5:25 p.m.]

When school districts are already under financial pressures, resulting in the cutting of essential staff and programs, we must be cautious about imposing significant new operational duties without ensuring full, proper support.

This operational complexity — managing schedules, staff and facilities alongside K-to-12 programs — is a significant weakness of this approach. To uphold the value of preparedness and responsible implementation, the government could take some immediate and proactive steps.

First, conduct a licensing readiness assessment. We need a full audit of existing child care sites. We must determine which are currently operating under third-party licences and prepare a strategic plan for their necessary transition to board-held licences.

Two, allocate targeted budget for compliance. Licensing standards may require facility upgrades, changes to washrooms, play areas and safety features. The government must allocate non-discretionary funding specifically for these mandated compliance training and physical facility requirements, working alongside school districts.

Three, establish a dedicated ministry liaison. A clear line of accountability is essential. We need a dedicated point of contact between the Ministry of Education and Child Care and the school districts to keep and help boards navigate the complex licensing process, stay ahead of regulatory changes and advocate effectively for required support.

Issue 2, redefinition of cost terms from “direct” and “indirect” to “reasonable.” The second critical change involves sections 85.2(2) and 85.3(2), where the measurable accounting terms “direct” and “indirect” are replaced with the singular and far more subjective term of “reasonable.” This shift affects what boards may charge in fees to families and what revenue they may obtain.

Why does this matter? For those who value fiscal clarity and measurable accountability, this change is a major concern. Direct and indirect costs are objective accounting terms. We are audited. School boards are audited, and they have to balance their budgets. Direct and indirect costs are objective accounting terms. They are measurable, they are auditable, and they are defined.

Reasonable, on the other hand, is subjective. What is considered reasonable by one school board might be deemed excessive by another, leading to inconsistent fee structures across the province. Furthermore, what a parent considers reasonable may be insufficient to cover the actual, necessary expenses of a high-quality licensed program.

This ambiguity is dangerous. It opens the door to potential disputes where parents may challenge fees, advocacy groups may question revenue models, and auditors will be left without a clear framework for justification. In an era of tight budgets, increasing demand and public skepticism regarding government expenditure, clarity is not merely a luxury. It is a necessity for maintaining public trust.

We have seen the erosion of trust when this government has failed to keep campaign promises, such as ensuring every K-to-3 classroom has an education assistant, and every school has a counsellor or psychologist. If the government cannot deliver on measurable promises, and we’re one year in, how can we trust it to manage subjective fee calculations across dozens of districts? Transparency builds trust, and trust is the foundation of community support.

Proactive step. To embed fiscal responsibility and transparency into this legislation, we require proactive action.

One, develop a standardized framework. The government must immediately develop and publish a clear framework defining reasonable costs. This must include benchmarks, mandatory documentation protocols and transparent formulas that align with provincial guidelines ensuring consistency across all school districts.

[5:30 p.m.]

Two, ensure legal defensibility. Legal counsel must be engaged to ensure that the government’s cost and fee structures are legally defensible. If challenged, school districts must be able to unequivocally show how their costs were calculated and why they meet the standardized, reasonable criterion.

Three, proactively engage families. The government must proactively and transparently communicate with families. This communication must explain precisely how fees are set, what those fees cover and demonstrate the government’s commitment to maximizing program accessibility.

Issue 3, terminology shift from “student” to “child.” The third change is perhaps the most subtle change yet carries enormous implications for the scope of the school districts’ mandate. Section 85.2(2) replaces the word “student” with “child.”

Why does this matter? While the intent may be admirable, to serve the broader community, the word “student” implies enrolment in the formal K-to-12 school system. The word “child” broadens the school districts’ mandate to serve the entire early childhood spectrum, including preschoolers, toddlers and infants. This change significantly broadens the school districts’ mandate. It means school districts are now serving children who are not yet enrolled in the school system.

While this is an opportunity to strengthen community impact, it brings critical new challenges that require different expertise and resources. We are adding children with different developmental needs, new safety protocols and demanding different staffing requirements. This highlights a key weakness — staffing and quality risks. Recruiting and retaining enough qualified early childhood educators may be difficult, especially for infant and toddler care. This immediately increases demand across the province.

This expansion places an enormous strain on district resources. Our core duty is K-to-12 education. Expanding the mandate without guaranteed, sustained and specific funding is fiscally irresponsible. This scope creep, if not managed, also introduces the threat of financial sustainability concerns.

Proactive step. To ensure this expansion is handled sustainably and responsibly, we must implement measures to manage the new resource demands.

One, mandate comprehensive intake policy reviews. Every school district must review its intake policies and assess its full capacity. This review must determine whether districts possess the necessary funds and personnel qualified to serve children with diverse developmental needs.

Two, forge strategic partnerships. Rather than relying solely on internal resources, we must encourage and fund partnerships with existing community organizations, accredited early childhood educators and local health authorities. This strategy allows school districts to meet expanded demand without diluting their focus or overextending internal resources.

Three, invest in professional development funds. As a former teacher, this is critical. The government must commit to providing dedicated funds for professional development. Additional staff, whether hired or repurposed, will need specialized training in early childhood care, trauma-informed practices and inclusive programming.

Bill 19, 2025, the School Amendment Act, may indeed fly under the radar, yet it quietly reshapes the responsibilities of our dedicated school boards. It asks them to step into new operational roles, adopt new regulatory standards and serve new populations across the province.

In summary, this new operational model presents inherent weaknesses, including operational complexity for districts and staffing and quality risks.

Furthermore, there are significant threats such as potential competition with existing non-profit and private providers and underlying financial sustainability concerns.

[5:35 p.m.]

If cost recovery mechanisms are insufficient, districts could face significant budget strain, even more than what they are facing now.

As representatives of the public, we cannot simply hope for the best. We must hold this government to the highest standards of integrity and accountability. We must insist on clarity in our legislation, transparency in our finances and competence in our implementation.

If this government acts now — thoughtfully, strategically and collaboratively by addressing the challenges of liability, funding ambiguity and scope creep — they can turn these legislative changes into genuine opportunities.

These are not mere academic concerns. They are issues of immediate, profound financial accountability. If we are asking our already resource-constrained school boards to take on licensing liability, serve infants and toddlers and manage ambiguous cost structures, we must know exactly how they will pay for it.

We must insist on immediate answers to the following essential questions regarding the implementation and financial viability of these expanded programs.

One, how will school districts fund the start-up costs for these child care programs, especially in schools with limited space?

Two, will cost recovery mechanisms ensure that programs are sustainable without reducing K-to-12 education budgets?

Three, what is the projected annual cost to districts if all schools opt in, and how will this be monitored?

Four, are there safeguards to prevent fees from exceeding what families can reasonably afford?

Five, how will the ministry ensure consistent quality standards across all districts?

Six, what monitoring and reporting mechanisms will be in place to track program effectiveness and financial accountability?

Seven, how will the government evaluate the success of these programs in terms of child development, family support and community impact?

Eight, will there be an independent review or audit to ensure that the programs are meeting their objectives?

That is key. Will there be an independent review or audit to ensure that the programs are meeting their objectives? We must not wait for complications to arise, for liability to strike or for public trust to fracture further. This government must keep its promises, rebuild trust and act with clear foresight, unwavering integrity and responsible care.

We ask where the extra money is for all of this. This government has put us into an untenable situation. The highest deficit and debt in B.C.’s history, and each day brings increasing deficit and debt because we have no robust economy to pay for raises for the striking BCGEU workers outside as well as the long lineup of other unions waiting in the wings for their quid pro quo for their loyalty to this government.

We ask that this government be transparent with our school districts, and especially our taxpayers, and clearly show where and how school districts will fund these child care spaces.

We look forward to helping and supporting this government to provide that funding; helping them with finding the money, the personnel and the oversight; working with them for the necessary, much-needed child care in our province because child care is a necessity in our province — excellent child care.

Jeremy Valeriote: I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 19, the School Amendment Act.

It’s an exciting time as we discuss these proposed changes to child care provision in our province. These changes, if passed, would allow school boards to provide child care on school grounds, including on non-instructional days, and to children not yet enrolled in the district, which would include children under the age of five. We see this as a meaningful step forward in expanding access to child care in a way that will benefit families across British Columbia.

As we reflect on this progress, I’d like to emphasize the advocacy work that has led to these changes. Advocacy groups like the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. have been calling for these changes for years. We are grateful to see this government take the important step of removing the legislative barriers that have limited the school boards’ ability to provide child care.

[5:40 p.m.]

A little bit of history. In 2018, the B.C. NDP government, in a confidence agreement with the B.C. Greens, set out a ten-year plan for child care, an ambitious yet measured roadmap for creating a child care system that works for families. The four pillars of this plan — affordability, access, inclusion and quality child care — are key measures of determining success.

Affordable and accessible child care is not just a convenience; it’s a lifeline for working parents. It gives families the ability to balance work, family life and the needs of their children without the added stress of finding care at inconvenient hours. It’s clear that for families across the province, having this child care option available on school grounds is an essential service.

We’ve heard from teachers who struggle to access child care themselves, who are unable to coordinate pickup or drop-off for their children amidst their work schedules, and from families who face difficulties in picking up and dropping off their children at school and daycare. The ability of school boards to provide before- and after-school care on school grounds could address many challenges of access that parents have been facing, and I’ve been hearing about them from many parents in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

Of course, we have to acknowledge the hard work and persistence of advocacy groups who have been calling for these changes for years. The tireless efforts of these groups and the voices of countless families have been instrumental in making these changes possible. Their advocacy is a testament to the importance of pushing for meaningful change in the child care sector.

We must continue to hold the government accountable and ensure that they stay on track to deliver on their ten-year child care plan. I will note I’ve been hearing deep concerns about $10-a-day child care of late, and I’d like to work with the minister to help resolve these.

While these proposed changes are promising, we must ensure that this is just one step. The full vision for child care in B.C. must be realized. The implementation and rollout of these changes will be handled by the school boards, and we have faith that they will meet the high standards of quality child care that families across the province deserve. But as we move forward, we must remain attentive, ensuring that high standards of care are met by all child care providers.

The perennial question still looms large, human resources. As we look to expand child care programs on school grounds, we must ask ourselves: how is the province working to ensure that there are enough early childhood educators and staff to support these changes?

I want to take this opportunity to talk about the wage grid for ECEs. I believe my colleagues will talk about its impact on affordability. It’s my firm belief that we need to pay child care providers more. They provide such an essential service, and they’re not sufficiently compensated for this. No, more than essential — transformational and foundational service.

This act as proposed is important because it eliminates legislative barriers, but it’s only part of the solution. The province has a vital role to play in ensuring that school boards and other child care providers have the support they need to deliver on the promises of affordable, accessible, inclusive and quality child care. We need the government to continue to fulfill its commitment by investing in the workforce, recruiting and retaining ECEs and supporting them in the vital work they do.

The reality is that we must see action beyond policy proposals. The government must ensure that all ECEs and other staff are well supported in their workplaces with competitive compensation, professional development opportunities and a sustainable working environment. As we work to increase the number of child care spaces, we must also ensure that the workforce is there to support it.

As we move forward with these proposed changes, let us continue to push for the support our educators need and the resources our school districts deserve. Let’s remain cautiously hopeful that the government will not only follow through with its commitments but will take the next necessary steps to make child care a priority in this province, not just as a promise but as a reality for every family.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s a pleasure to be able to rise in the House, beat the other former school trustee in getting up quicker than him, and be able to speak to this legislation. Hopefully he is just as excited as I am to be able to talk about it, Bill 19, the School Amendment Act.

I just want to begin by firstly thanking my colleague the Minister of Education and Child Care. We first met when we were school trustees way back in the day. I’m sure she spoke, during her opportunity to open up debate, about how much we as school trustees heard on the ground the importance of child care.

I come from the Sooke school district, where I was the board chair for a number of years, the fastest-growing school district per capita in the entire province. We’ve actually seen a reduction of child care because of the fact that we’ve had to take over old child care spaces — take them back and create classrooms because of the growth that we’ve been facing.

[5:45 p.m.]

It was quite surprising when I saw the piece of legislation, because it’s small. It’s only got a couple of clauses in it. But boy, is it a powerful piece of legislation.

When I was with the Sooke school district, we faced enormous challenges with being able to unlock child care on school sites. I remember the conversations.

I should add that as we faced challenges, there were so many other districts that were leading the way. I think of Nanaimo as an example from my time as a trustee, seeing the work that they did. Port Alberni, just north of us on the Island, did some incredible work as well. Prince George, I know, is a leader as well. For us, it was quite inspiring to be able to see the work that many of these school districts were doing, but facing so many hurdles with outdated legislation.

What I’m excited to see now is what work my school district, the Sooke school district, school district 62, is going to be doing with those hurdles lifted and with the ability to look at expanding child care.

I often said during the first term as an MLA for me — that was just the year after the by-election — that the number one issue I heard on the doorstep during the by-election, and subsequently when I continued knocking on doors when I became an MLA, was child care. I represent a community with a lot of young families.

Similarly, in terms of our demographics, we’re definitely the youngest in the capital regional district. I would argue that we’re probably one of the youngest demographics in the entire province — a lot of young families. I would often go and visit and knock on doors and come across a woman who was pregnant and congratulate her. She would often say that the first thing she did, besides celebrating her pregnancy, was sign her future child up for child care.

It was definitely an eye-opener for me in terms of the need that’s out there in my community, and I’m sure it continues to be the case in so many other parts of the province. It also provides me the opportunity to now recognize the role that government has to be able to create this system that allows us to be able to have more child care in every corner of the province.

The member of the opposition that spoke prior to the leader of the Green Party talked about opening doors, talked about bringing people together. I’m really proud of the work that we’ve done since we formed government in creating this brand-new social program.

There were many that said it could never be done. There were many who pointed to the costs associated with the program in Quebec and said that it’s not something that we should do here in British Columbia. There are many that have stood in the way of being able to bring more child care into place.

I’m proud to be a member of this government that has led the way in the entire country, and not only in terms of making sure that provincial investments are being made in child care. Because of the steps that we’ve taken as a government on this side of the aisle, we have seen investments in child care not just in British Columbia but all across the country.

We got Trudeau to make the record investments that were required to be able to expand child care, because of the work that was started by my friend Katrina Chen, who was the first Minister of State for Child Care. Of course, I want to give a special shout-out to Carole James who was the first B.C. NDP Prime Minister…. She would have been a fantastic Prime Minister.

Carole, if you’re thinking about being Prime Minister, that would be great.

But an incredible Finance Minister as well, who led the way in making sure that during those first sets of budgets that we introduced when we formed government, we led the way towards the creation of child care.

Again, creating this social program takes years. It takes decades, as we’re learning.

As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure in your own community, patience wears thin for many people. I can recognize their frustrations with not having easy and accessible child care, but I’m still proud of the work we’ve done to date.

When I’m out visiting communities like Happy Valley or Southpoint or Westhills in my community of Langford, even in the Highlands, and when I represented East Sooke and Otter Point and Shirley, talking about the importance of child care in relation to what it means for communities as well….

But I think the uniqueness of this legislation for me is about the power that this has in recognizing that we already have assets where we can expand child care, and that is our schools. There is huge potential for us to recognize that in relation to the work that we do as legislators.

We are making record investments in school infrastructure. In my case, in the Sooke school district, we just opened up a brand new elementary school that already has child care, SĆIȺNEW̱ SṮEȽIṮḴEȽ — a beautiful name gifted by the Sc’ianew First Nations, a 500-seat elementary school that has a neighbourhood learning centre that includes child care.

[5:50 p.m.]

How about the opportunity now for the Sooke school district not only to offer an incredible child care opportunity for infant and preschool-aged care but to be able to expand that into before- and after- school care? I don’t think that takes work away from others. I think that expands what I see in my inbox and what I see in my community as a major need in terms of the investments that need to be made.

I would also add, from my perspective as we’re building more infrastructure…. We’re building a brand-new high school in the Sooke school district, in the city of Langford, a really important investment for my community. Here is a potential for us to be able to ensure that when we are looking to build this infrastructure, we’re looking at before and after school regionally as well.

We have, in north Langford, some older schools where space is quite limited, but the high school that we’re building is located quite centrally. So is there an ability to be able to expand child care, before and after, at the high school, where space might be a little bit tight at Millstream and Lakewood, as an example? Those are the things that I hope, outside of the box, will be talked about by the Sooke school district and I expect will be talked about by school districts across the province. Again, a minor change when you look at it that has a major impact.

I also want to talk a bit about the work that the city of Langford has been doing on child care. My community has often been described as a child care desert. We don’t have a lot of child care spaces.

I should add that we once did not have a lot of child care spaces. Because of the work that my colleague has done as the Minister of Education and Child Care, just in the last couple of years, we’ve seen an investment of $14 million in Langford alone to be able to build child care. I think there’s huge potential in the work that we’ve done on preschool and infant care to be able to expand that into before-and-after on school sites as well.

I want to give a particular shout-out to the mayor and council in Langford. I remember their very first UBCM meeting where they met with the minister and raised the concern. The minister was very clear in terms of the steps that they could take and the role that local governments have in expanding child care.

I have to give a particular shout-out to my mayor, Scott Goodmanson, and his council for stepping up, developing their own plan and then going and fighting for money. It was a joy for me to be able to work with them and to see the success.

We had the Minister of Education and Child Care out not too long ago to be able to announce a pretty substantive investment. We’re going to have co-located social housing and child care in the same spot. What an opportunity to be able to see this expansion of service in my community as well.

I’ll just conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of additional thoughts, going back to school sites. Our schools are community centres in so many ways. I think of…. You have a very large electoral district. I used to have a relatively large electoral district. It shrunk because the city of Langford has grown and prospered, in height. I miss the community of Sooke, and I miss the community of Port Renfrew. I don’t miss those drives. Though who am I talking to? I’m talking to a Speaker who represents a very large area.

When I am talking about the city of Langford, and I’m not sure if this is the case for yourself or other members of the House, I often take the riding that I have and organize it based off of schools. It’s easy to do because a school is the centre of that community. As an example, I live in the Millstream neighbourhood, in my mind, because that’s Millstream Elementary School, my alma mater where I started elementary school off, in the Sooke school district.

The reason I mention that is that schools, again, are the heart of communities. If there is an ability to be able to ensure that before- and after-school care, in addition to so many other supports and services that are provided at schools, like boys and girls clubs, like breakfast programs…. These are all the steps that we’re taking as a government to ensure that these services can be embedded into those communities.

When I became a school trustee, I heard very loud and clear in my community, and I’m sure some of my colleagues may have faced this as well…. I’m looking at a former teacher. Well, I guess not a former teacher.

You may go back to teaching one day.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Once a teacher, always a teacher. Well said, Member.

One of the things…. I’m not sure if this was a similar issue in Columbia River–Revelstoke, but there was always the challenge associated with eight to four. Schools would be open from eight to four, and then — boom! — at four o’clock they’d be shut and doors locked and the hard-working custodians, CUPE employees, would be doing their work to get ready for the next day.

[5:55 p.m.]

I made it a challenge for my board when I became chair of the board of education for the Sooke school district. How can we expand those services? How can we make sure that our schools are open all day long, well into the evening, to be able to ensure that — in the case of Royal Bay that’s got a beautiful track, that’s got a beautiful high school — they can be opened up for the entire community, so that it can open up child care opportunities? I think we need to look at that in the case of all of our communities.

I know that there is a lot of work ahead. The member across the way, the member from West Vancouver, talked about the work that is going to be on the shoulders of school trustees and school districts. But I’m excited about the work that my colleague the Minister of Education is going to now get to do with this legislative change, to be able to expand that child care.

I think we often talk about the challenges associated with expanding child care in relation to personnel. That is absolutely an issue. We hear about it. In my community, I’ve been blown away by the innovation that’s been happening in child care. I have come across three examples just in the last year of people who’ve been successful in tech and innovation, and they have decided to go open up child care centres.

I was really thrown aback by that. You’re doing really well in tech and innovation. You don’t have experience in child care. Why are you going into that space? The reason they’re going into that space is because they face that challenge. They couldn’t find child care, so they now see it as a way to be able to give back to their community, to be able to take some of the earnings that they’ve made in their success and invest in that community.

I’ve got countless examples just in the city of Langford alone, and I’m sure many of my other colleagues have examples as well, of people who are stepping up. Child care workers do incredible work in our communities. They should be commended, they should be respected, and they should be acknowledged — not just on one day of the year, all year round.

I want to thank the child care workers in the city of Langford and Langford-Highlands for the work that they do with our loved ones, with our little ones. It is difficult work, it is stressful work, but it is so important, the work that they do, not just in terms of taking care of our children but in making sure that they are ready for the next stages of their life. I think we often don’t appreciate that work they do in our communities.

In particular, I think of so many newcomers that have come into the city of Langford, as well as other places, that are coming in and becoming child care workers. I had the opportunity to be the Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials, working with my colleague when she was the Minister of Advanced Education and getting the opportunity to be able to do important work to address the credential recognition issue for child care workers. Still so much more work that we have to do to be able to meet the demand that exists today.

But I’m proud, on this side of the House, to be able to stand up and provide my support for Bill 19, a piece of legislation that, again, is relatively small, a couple of clauses, but it’s going to have a significant impact on the people of Langford-Highlands and all British Columbians.

Korky Neufeld: Bill 19, the School Amendment Act, 2025, is legislation that, while modest in size, as was mentioned, has significant implications on how child care is delivered in our province and also how our education systems operate in years ahead.

At first glance, the bill seems simple. It amends the School Act to allow boards of education to provide child care programs on school properties, not only to students enrolled in their schools but to children of all ages, and to do so on any day of the week, including pro-D days, holidays and even summer months.

Beneath these technical amendments lies a broader shift, one that reflects how this government envisions the future of child care in British Columbia. So I want to acknowledge the intent. I want to begin by acknowledging the intent of this bill, because parents across B.C. are struggling to find child care. We’ve heard their stories in every community, stories of parents who cannot return to work because there are no spaces available, who wait months or even years for a spot, who are forced to juggle unpredictable schedules and unaffordable fees.

According to recent data, nearly 60 percent of families in British Columbia reported difficulty in finding child care in 2023, a sharp increase from 46 percent just four years earlier. We’ve been going backwards in child care spaces, not forward. The number represents not just statistics. It represents tens of thousands of families across the province facing daily stress, uncertainty and economic strain. If this bill can help make child care more accessible, more affordable and more integrated into our communities, then it deserves cautious support.

For those who are able, school districts to expand the use of their facilities for child care programs, especially on non-school days, is a practical step. It recognizes that schools are the community hub. They already have the infrastructure, almost all the infrastructure; the trust of parents; and often the capacity to serve families beyond regular hours of school. For working parents, this flexibility could make a meaningful difference, allowing them to balance jobs and family life more effectively.

[6:00 p.m.]

A word of caution on the role of schools and the burden of implementation. We need to proceed with caution. This bill places additional responsibilities on our boards of education. I was there for 16 years. Many times, the government comes up with a great idea and throws it our way, and we have to figure it out.

Institutions are already managing difficult pressures: learning recovery, teacher recruitment challenges, mental health needs and overcrowded classrooms. By extending their role into the child care space, we risk the blurred boundaries between early childhood education and the K-to-12 system, without clearly defining how these new expectations will be funded or supported. Where’s the money?

It’s worth remembering that school districts were never designed to be primary child caregivers. Their mandate has always been centred on education, not early-years care. Expanding that role without appropriate resources could stretch administrators and staff even thinner.

The government’s own past decisions have contributed to the shortage of child care we face today. Let’s remember that in 2021, the former Minister of State for Child Care signed a directive that excluded for-profit providers for the new spaces fund, effectively cutting off an entire segment of the sector from receiving new provincial funding. These are mom-and-pops. This is a stay-at-home mom who wants to take care of her friends’ and her neighbours’ kids, and they were cut out.

That decision may have been well-intentioned, as part of a move toward a more universal, publicly delivered system, but its practical effect has reduced the overall number of new spaces being created, at a time when demand is growing, to 60 percent today from 46 percent just four years earlier.

Now, instead of addressing that shortfall directly, the government is asking school districts, already stretched to their limits: “Hey, can you fill the gap? We messed up. There are not enough spaces. Here, the ball is in your court.” Where’s the money? That feels less like a strategic investment and more like a band-aid solution to a deeper, structural problem.

Accountability and consultation. I’m also concerned about the lack of consultation and transparency around this initiative. I was around when the pilot project was announced, of $2 million for three school districts — Nechako Lakes, Chilliwack and Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

It was framed as a learning opportunity. The province said it would gather data and evaluate how well school-based child care models function before considering expansion, but to date, there has been no public report showing what was learned from that pilot project — no data or uptake.

What about the costs, staffing challenges or parent satisfaction? No idea. They did a pilot project; the public wasn’t notified. We don’t know. Was it good, was it bad, or was it ugly? If this government is now expanding the concept provincewide, it should be doing so based on evidence, evaluation and community input. Otherwise, we risk repeating mistakes instead of learning from them.

Good policy must be data-driven. We’ve heard that from across the way. Good governance must be transparent. You’ve heard that from this side of the House. It’s not an option. They work hand in hand.

Parents, educators and child care providers deserve to know three things. One, what standards will govern these programs? Two, how will child safety, staffing and licensing be monitored? Three, most importantly, how will these programs be funded sustainably without forcing school districts to divert resources from the classroom?

Then there’s the question of equity. I want to raise a question about equity. The government’s approach has focused on public and non-profit delivery models, excluding for-profit providers for new capital funding.

While that aligns with the long-term goal of a universal, publicly delivered, child care system, the reality is that for-profit operators will provide a large share of existing spaces, especially in smaller communities and rural regions where public infrastructure may be limited. By sidelining these providers entirely, the government risks leaving many families behind, especially in areas where school districts cannot and do not have the capacity to expand child care provision.

[6:05 p.m.]

We need a balanced approach, one that maintains accountability and quality but also recognizes the contribution of all qualified providers in meeting the urgent demand for child care.

Clause by clause observations.

Clause 1 and clause 2 of the bill make the core changes. They authorize school boards to provide child care to children who are not students, broadening eligibility. They modify the language around costs and revenues, replacing “direct and indirect” with “reasonable,” a subtle but important shift that gives boards greater discretion in setting fees. That flexibility could keep costs manageable for parents. But again, it raises the question of how those fees will be determined and whether government will provide additional funding to ensure affordability.

Clause 3, which brings the bill into force upon royal assent, means changes could be in effect almost immediately. School boards need clarity, and quickly, on licensing requirements, staffing qualifications, funding streams.

A cautious path forward. There’s no question that families in British Columbia need more child care options. There’s no question that this bill could help some of those gaps, especially by better using existing community assets like schools. But I want to say at Abbotsford, we’re at 103 percent capacity. We’re squeezed out. We need more buildings. We need more classrooms. We have no space. There’s no room. And I believe there are many other districts with that same challenge.

I look forward to committee stage where we can dive into the details of the implementation. I urge the government to proceed with care and transparency, to engage the school boards meaningfully.

I want to see that report on that pilot project. How well did it go? I want to hear what those three school districts said. I want them to talk to teachers, early childhood educators and parents to evaluate the impacts of these expansions on school resources and to release the findings of that pilot program that informed this direction.

Above all, we must ensure that the quality of care is not compromised, that the education system is not overburdened and that parents can trust these programs to be safe, stable and affordable long term. This bill is not in itself the solution for the child care issue in this province. It should be accompanied by a comprehensive plan that includes long-term funding, clear standards and real accountability.

If implemented carefully, Bill 19 can serve as a bridge connecting families to care, schools to community, government to its promise of universal, accessible child care. But if implemented hastily, without proper planning and support, it risks simply moving the burden from one overstretched system to another.

I know the government’s goal, but we insist on the diligence to achieve it properly. That is the spirit in which I offer my remarks today, and I’m really looking forward to committee stage to dive into this a little bit deeper.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: At the end of August, August 28, I had a beautiful day that I’d like you to imagine yourself.

It’s the only place that I’m aware of in British Columbia, and maybe the only place in Canada, where a school district has built a school on First Nations reserve land, because of the leadership of Snuneymuxw First Nation and Chief Mike Wyse and his community and his council.

I was visiting the Qwam Qwum school — it’s beautiful, purpose-built, culturally infused; it’s got an outdoor basketball net but under cover for coastal kids to be able to speak to — to open their before- and after-school child care, which they call Qwam Qwum Qeq. This means “strong babies” in Snuneymuxw.

Thirty-eight new child care spaces funded by our government but operated by the school district. It’s an example of what we can do when we invest in child care. I was so happy to see what happens when we invest in people.

The Conservative leader’s party, on the other hand, cancelled the NDP’s $14-a-day child care program in 2002. When they came into government, they increased child care costs for thousands of people. So to hear my colleague’s comments, of the speech that just preceded me, doesn’t really bring any feeling of reality compared to what I’ve seen on the ground, because my school district, school district 68, Nanaimo-Ladysmith, has implemented this program.

[6:10 p.m.]

We have got results on the ground. We have got more people at work, more educational assistants. We’ve got more parents that have been able to have the great convenience of dropping their kids off early, then have them be able to leave child care, go into the regular school system and then be in child care after school.

It’s better for workers within the education system. It’s better for workers in the community. It’s better for kids. They get continuity. Sisters and brothers, kids at different ages, are able to connect together. It is the perfect example of working together in partnership. I’m so glad to speak in support of Bill 19 because it brings in legislation that makes it possible for all school districts who want to participate in before- and after-school child care to be able to benefit from what Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district learned during the implementation of the pilot.

On the same day, August 28, we were also celebrating across the province that 640 new child care spaces opened up on school grounds for before- and after-school care. One little cluster of 52 spaces at Georgia Avenue Elementary in Nanaimo had actually opened in April of that year, an on-the-ground experience benefit already. At Georgia Avenue Elementary, there are 12 spaces for under three years, 16 spaces for 2½-year-olds to school-aged and 24 for school-aged kids.

All together, in 2024-25, there were more than 5,200 child care spaces funded at 178 facilities within our school district region, but the school district itself has been a direct provider. I so appreciate their leadership. What we’ve learned from them has been built directly into this bill.

Let me list the huge number of schools within my school district that are providing before- and after-school care.

Pleasant Valley School is school district 68–operated. For the rest of them, if I don’t specify that, it means that there are other operators, but still, families are getting the benefit.

Mountain View. Randerson Ridge. Park Avenue, which is school district 68–operated. McGirr. Frank Ney. Departure Bay. Cilaire. John Barsby Secondary. Uplands Park. syuw̓én̓ct. Seaview and Rutherford, both school district–operated before- and after-school care. Rock City.

Randerson Ridge, I already named that one, but it has an asterisk beside it. It has both a not-for-profit and also school district operations on site.

Quarterway, North Oyster, Hammond Bay, Georgia Avenue and Gabriola — those four, again, are all school district–operated before- and after-school care. Forest Park.

Fairview — again, school district–operated, and a huge credit to the elected trustees who made a special effort to make sure that they could carry on and expand the operations at Fairview using the funding that the Education Ministers, both provincially and federally, brought into this program.

Cinnabar Valley, Ladysmith Primary, Pauline Haarer, Chase River, Cedar, Bayview — all of those are school district 68 schools where parents and students can access before- and after-school care.

It fits exactly with the Education Minister’s mandate instruction that she deliver cost-effective before- and after-school care that leverages existing school infrastructure and workers and expands child care spaces in a cost-effective way. It is so on point.

It is just what families and communities are asking us to do. They recognize the great abundance of space that school districts have. They asked us to make better utilization of those spaces, and this work has exactly pulled into operations the ability for families and communities to benefit from kids having that continuity of care.

We would not be here, though, at this point in the efficacy of the program and the benefits for families, were it not for the leadership of CUPE B.C. I want to particularly raise my hands to Karen Ranalletta, a very strong advocate for this program.

[6:15 p.m.]

In my own community, there are Jeff Virtanan, who’s the president of CUPE 606 in school district 68 — one of the pilot districts that, again, did this project with government — and Andrea Craddock, who’s president of CUPE 723 in school district 72. It’s not my school district, but she has really led by example around in-school child care successes.

We would not have come this far were it not for the extremely strong partnership between the union and the school district, a very strong working relationship in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, and we’ve benefited enormously from this. I hear from families in Nanaimo what a difference local and affordable child care makes in their lives.

For many years, child care was not affordable. That put parents and caregivers in a really tough spot. We know that funding before- and after-school care on school grounds just gives parents a lot more stability and peace of mind, knowing that their kids are cared for both in and out of the classroom.

I’ve heard from my school district friends directly about the very positive feedback that they have had from staff and families. One parent sent a note in saying that her child absolutely loves her teachers and is always talking about how much fun she has there. “Thank you. This is helping to make the transition to school so much easier.”

Another parent wrote and sent a thank-you note to their children’s after-school supervisor. “You can tell she is a genuinely caring and loving person, and our kids are always so happy to be with her after school.”

Of the school trustees who have particularly led this work and helped me gather some of the data and examples about outcomes, I want to thank, in particular, trustee and board chair Naomi Bailey and trustees Chantelle Morvay, Greg Keller and Tom Rokeby.

Your leadership on the board has been very important in this partnership and was also very helpful to have some of these great examples gathered in front of me.

As a result of the success of the Nanaimo-Ladysmith program and partnership, we are hearing more and more from school districts. They see the really important role that they can play in child care delivery, and they have expressed how eager they are to work with both the child care sector and also with the Education Ministry to be able to extend their care on school grounds.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We see particularly how child care on school grounds has created more opportunities for staff. We’re seeing it create new jobs for people looking to join the workforce and open up new possibilities for those working in the field — in particular, educational assistants who don’t have full-time work within the school day. For them to be able to be the providers of before- and after-school child care has been an extremely important piece of the puzzle in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, in our school district.

I know a really important part of the program is that kids get continuity and that workers get more hours that they can add together. When I knock on doors in the community, I do hear directly from educational assistants who have let us know that this is really an important part of their work.

Noting the hour, I will reserve my time.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 17 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:19 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

On clause 3 (continued).

Macklin McCall: Minister, we had a bit of a break there, and when we finished just before lunch, my colleague here was asking you some questions.

I’m going to ask another question. It’s just going to go back to…. The last question I asked you, basically, was about if the government has consulted with road safety, driver-training schools, stakeholders, industry, that type of thing. And you answered it. You gave quite a thorough answer, and I appreciate that.

I did have another question kind of pop up in my mind, out of all of that. I then asked you: can the minister provide details on the feedback and if it was incorporated in the bill? And you’ve answered that.

What I’m wondering, though, with all the information — you mentioned industry and some stakeholders — were there any stakeholders, industry, driver training, any groups like this that expressed any issues at all with the bill, and if so, what were they?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the follow-up question that builds on the discussion we had earlier.

I noted the diverse groups that were consulted during the development process. Of course, when you get diverse groups together, there are varying perspectives.

We heard from the driver-training schools about the importance of incentivizing driver training. We agreed, particularly for the 16-to-24 age group, there remains an incentive for those that participated in driver training.

For the mature pathway, there was a question of whether that should be incentivized, yet we had already reduced that timeline to such an extent that RoadSafetyBC and ICBC did not feel that the time could be reduced any further for mature drivers, that that couldn’t be incentivized further.

I think it’s also important to note that of the drivers who take advantage of the approved GLP training, only 5 percent are 25 and older. So the number of people that the driver-training industry would potentially like to incentivize is not a large number.

Also, there was a shared commitment to ensuring that there was enough time for mature drivers to get the experience needed.

The Chair: Okay. We’re still on clause 3.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

Yesterday I asked one question, and the minister promised they would get back to me.

You provided the data of crash rate comparison on age and experience but not the crash rate on novice versus full licence crash data. So do you have that today?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I understand that the data that the member may be talking about isn’t ICBC but is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study. That study confirmed what we know about new drivers and their elevated crash risk in the first few years of novice driving, and that’s eight times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a fully licensed driver. That quote refers specifically to the first six months of unsupervised driving.

Then, after six months, that ratio drops to two to three times more likely for teens to be in a fatal crash. This is why we have a graduated licensing program. Maintaining that is important, and building on the monitoring period is also important for ensuring road safety.

Hon Chan: I actually got the data from the ICBC news release, so I’m not sure if that’s actually from ICBC or the highway institute. I will put that on note. We just have some discrepancy on the data.

One of my last questions in clause 3 is…. When I checked the ICBC website…. You actually mentioned 25-year-olds will get an incentive, like a shorter period — nine months in L, 12 months in N and then another 12 months additional after class 5.

I just have an interesting question. What if the person is 24 years old and 11 months? Now, do they go through the longer GLP? When they get to 25, do they automatically get the shorter nine and 12 and 12?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

We spoke about the evidence and the rationale behind 25 being the line. In the interest of fairness, once a driver is 25, they access the mature driver pathway.

Clause 3 approved on division.

On clause 4.

Macklin McCall: I just have a question here regarding clause 4, section 32, changes of the age from 19 to 18. Unless something is changed, in British Columbia you’re an adult at 19, and 18 would be federally. My question is: what is the rationale for reducing the age of an independent licence application from 19 to 18?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

In B.C., a person can buy insurance for a vehicle when they’re 18, but they can’t apply for a driver’s licence. During our consultations, we heard that the age of consent for a driver’s licence set at 19 was a barrier for getting employment and pursuing education, especially for youth that are aging out of care and especially for those in remote and First Nations communities. This was something that was flagged to government by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

B.C. and Nova Scotia are the only two Canadian jurisdictions that have the age of consent currently set at 19, and lowering the requirement is about improving access to a driver’s licence and brings B.C. into alignment with most of Canada.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Macklin McCall: I have one question on clause 5, just pertaining to prescribed protective equipment. How will the government define prescribed protective equipment? What does that mean specifically, and will it differ for urban versus rural riders?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: There will not be any distinction in terms of protective gear required in urban versus rural areas. The details of that protective gear will be worked out in regulation, which will include a consultation process to inform those regulations.

Looking at protective gear around head, hands, feet, legs and body, helmets are currently the only required protective gear. It’s important to note, though, that the proposed change as it relates to protective gear does not impact members of the Sikh community that wear turbans. There is an existing exemption in the current Motor Vehicle Act.

Macklin McCall: Just a thought popped up as you were speaking there, Minister. So prescribed protective equipment — you mentioned that there’s no difference between urban and rural.

As you said, currently it’s just required under law to wear a helmet, but obviously, as you said, there are some changes in terms of other protection on the body. What will that look like in terms of enforcement? Will there be actual laws requiring…? A police officer could stop someone if they don’t have all of the other equipment on. Is it maybe that chest and head are required and others are extras? How will that look in terms of an enforcement perspective?

Hon. Nina Krieger: There is a transition between the period of legislation and regulation where police will be informed of the changes. Enforcement will be similar to enforcement of a helmet, and officers will be aware of what to look for.

[2:00 p.m.]

The classes of licences, whether that’s an L or an N, will be a trigger for police when it comes to enforcement.

I should note that there have been personal anecdotes from law enforcement heard about the importance of wearing protective gear — that for motorcyclists, we know it’s such an important harm reduction measure. We know striking figures — that wearing fluorescent clothing, for instance, can reduce a risk of crash by 37 percent. Protective gear improves safety, particularly in crashes, really reducing the risk of injury or death.

So further consultation will take place with industry partners to define exactly what those guidelines will look like for gloves, jackets, pants and any specific footwear.

Hon Chan: I have a question.

You talk about how L and N might be a trigger, but actually, the prescribed class includes class 8, so it includes the full motorcycle licence rider as well. So what are we looking at for the penalty? Is it going to be different between the L, N and full licence, on motorcycles?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The protective gear will be a requirement for new drivers, which is specified. Hopefully, that will become a habit of drivers who learn wearing the protective gear after this regulation comes into force.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister for the answer. As a person who actually owns a motorcycle licence, I do quite welcome the protective gear clause here.

I’ll just raise a question. When we ride, temperature is one of the things that we have to consider. I’m thinking when the temperature…. Not just in the Lower Mainland, but we have seen very high temperatures in the Interior, like up to 40s. I can’t imagine wearing a leather jacket, leather boots and leather pants going through 45 degrees Celsius.

I heard there are no changes because of the temperature, but will that be a deterrent for people who ride, or will it become a problem for people who ride in that temperature?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for raising this question. I’ve been really interested in the debate, especially second reading, how many motorcycle riders there are in the House. So I appreciate you bringing your personal experience in.

We did hear that concern during the consultations that have taken place around the impacts of high temperatures that we see increasingly around the province. That is something that we’re going to dig into further in the consultations that will inform the regulations.

Hon Chan: Also, have you guys studied whether requiring protective gear like boots and jackets imposes affordability barriers for lower-income riders?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This is also a question that we received during the consultation process. It’s also something that we’ll look at in terms of the regulation, with an eye to ensuring that any gear that is required is indeed accessible and not a barrier that will be out of reach for the people that we want to ensure have improved accessibility by Bill 12 more broadly.

Hon Chan: I just want to share another personal experience that protective gear can be expensive. A leather jacket can be $800 to $1,000, a good one. Even a cheaper one, a secondhand one, will be at least $300 to $500.

I understand you guys will be having a study on that, but will there be subsidies or partnerships with safety-gear retailers or manufacturers to make this accessible for, especially, new and L drivers?

Hon. Nina Krieger: During the consultation process to inform the regulation, that will be something that may be considered to ensure that protective gear specified is not inaccessible.

I think the important takeaway point is not necessarily to mandate a specific leather jacket but to send the message and to ensure that it is not okay to drive in a T-shirt, shorts and flip-flops. Having any covering of the body is better than just bare skin and shoes.

Just to affirm that during the consultation process, there’ll be attention given to the accessibility piece of any protective gear that is required.

Hon Chan: Is there any consideration of expanding this protective gear mandate or requirement to full motorcycle licence holders?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

We know that a number of current riders, of course, have protective gear. The focus of this legislation is ensuring that new riders of motorcycles are on the right path in ensuring that safe driving behaviour is there from the get-go. So the focus of this legislation is on the new riders.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

[2:10 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: My next questions, Minister, are related to the driver licence status and hands-free devices, specifically, here.

I’ll just ask: why were class 6L, 8L drivers added to the list of licence classes prohibited from using a hands-free device?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This piece is really about closing a gap in the existing legislation and ensuring that new motorcyclists are not permitted to use electronic devices.

Macklin McCall: Just a couple more questions to clarify that point, if I may. Does the government anticipate any enforcement challenges, given that some drivers will be exempted based on when their licence was issued?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As we touched on enforcement earlier, there will be plans, of course, to communicate with police and law enforcement about any changes and when these come into effect. When police look up a licence, the rider, they’re able to see what would apply to that rider based on the issue date of the licence.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister.

That kind of goes into my next question, but I just want to clarify. The way I understood what you said is: when an officer stops someone, whatever the offence is, and they’re interacting with this particular person, they’re going to get the driver’s licence. They’re going to have to go back to their car, run it and see, or at least maybe just look at, the date of issue, I guess, on the card itself. That’s what you’re referring to?

My question, really, is, and that might be the answer, how will they distinguish between an exempt person and a non-exempt driver during a traffic stop? In the past…. I mean, the learners we have currently have restrictions on the back. It’s very clear to know what the restrictions are.

Is it just going to be up to them to know the date, look at it and do the deduction in their mind? Will there be some kind of indication, whether on the driver’s licence or back at their computer in their police car when they run it? Will they see anything that indicates that?

Hon. Nina Krieger: They’ll be able to, by the date, assess, but the plan is to include a marking of some kind on the licence as well.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister.

You mentioned, just about two questions before, that learner and novice riders cannot use electronic devices. Can you clarify what kind of electronic devices? I mean, obviously not cell phones, which they likely cannot be operating on it.

But many riders will be doing a one-touch radio or intercom, stuff like that. Is that also included in those, and no one-touch either?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Consistent with today’s GLP program, it will be no electronic devices at all permitted.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I would raise one question, because when I was going through the learning process of motorcycling, the instructor cannot be riding with you. So in order for them to actually give you instructions, it’s through a headset.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’m just suspecting if that actually will be able to work with a learner who is learning to ride. Also, during an ICBC exam, they will be putting a headset with you. Obviously, during an exam, I think there will be an exemption because it’s an ICBC exam, but during a learning process, when we do ride-along with the instructor riding behind you, if they cannot give you instruction, that would be dangerous. I just wanted to flag that for you.

Hon. Nina Krieger: To confirm, there will be an exemption on this for the road test. This issue did come up during the consultation process, and industry…. The input was that they did not need an exception from not permitting electronic devices and that when requesting the driver pull over to the side of the road, instruction would be given. So there’s no exemption to this for the training period.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Macklin McCall: My next question here. Can the minister clarify why existing drivers will be grandfathered out of the new device-use ban?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

Applying new restrictions to an existing licence risks leaving a licence holder unaware of changes. Current class 6L riders, pre-commencement, will now have the electronic device applied retroactively.

[2:25 p.m.]

However, class 6 learners licences issued pre-commencement are valid for 12 months only, and the new electronic device requirements will apply if the 6L is renewed, and the protective gear requirements if the 6L is renewed or the class 6 road test was not passed.

Clauses 8 and 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Macklin McCall: Now, this clause provides a general power to make regulations, really, for the purposes of implementing the amendments. It gives cabinet power to make regulations. My question is: will these regulations be subject to publication and consultation before taking effect?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This provision is not unique to this regulation. It relates to the intent of Bill 12 alone. This regulation will only be used if required for unexpected issues that emerge during the transition.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister.

I think I raised this question before already. It is about the LG in Council and also the ICBC power, about giving them that power. That is something that we are concerned about.

We spent about eight hours today until now to talk about the changes, which I think is good progress. But once this bill is passed, we technically do not have that power, as an MLA or a member of this House, to talk about any further GLP change, because it will be under the cabinet power, and it will be under the ICBC power.

I also understand that the regulations will be published online, likely, and it’s required in the Regulations Act. But again, we will not have that power or time to allocate to talk about GLP change or MLP change anymore.

I’m just proposing an amendment to Bill 12 on clause 10.

[Clause 10 is amended by striking the text shown as struck and adding the text as underlined

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of implementing this Act, including, without limiting this, to remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in doing so., and the Minister responsible is required to table all regulations with the legislature at the next sitting of the house.]

On the amendment.

Hon Chan: It’s just to add that the minister responsible is required to table all regulations with the Legislature at the next sitting of the House. The reason behind that, again, is because we want to debate the changes, in case there are further GLP or MLP changes in the future.

I’ll just submit that.

The Chair: We’ll be taking a short recess to make copies of it.

You have five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:29 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I’d like to call the committee back to order.

An amendment to clause 10 has been proposed by the member for Richmond Centre.

Member, would you like to make any further comments on the amendment?

Hon Chan: No.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the floor amendment.

We’ve had an opportunity to consider it, and our view is that the purpose of the change is inconsistent with general legislative procedure. Regulations are a form of delegated legislation. It would be inconsistent with the purpose of the regulations tabled in the House.

There are also some drafting issues with the amendment, and I’ll note, again, that regulations are required to be made public. For these reasons I’m not able to support the proposed amendment.

The Chair: With no further debate, Members, we have an amendment to Bill 12, clause 10. On the amendment, the question is to amend clause 10.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 10 approved on division.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:53 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:31 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I am calling the Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

On clause 1.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for this opportunity to meet in committee again, to go over this bill, which, for the most part, is administrative in nature but does definitely pose some questions on this side of the room. Not a lot to go over it, but just a few items.

To get into a bit more of the background, could the minister please explain how many expropriations by school boards have occurred over the last five years, as a point of interest, and if we can get some background on why these changes have come into play.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I am really pleased to be here on the Miscellaneous Statutes Act.

I want to start with some general opening remarks, I’ll note that I am only here as Minister of Infrastructure for the first half of the bill, following which the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs will take my place to complete the latter half of the bill.

With me today are several members of the public service. We have Jennifer Melles, assistant deputy minister with the Ministry of Infrastructure; Jodi Dong, executive director with the Ministry of Infrastructure; Lynne Tang, director of legislation from the Ministry of Infrastructure. We will soon also be joined by Kiersten Fisher, who is the executive director from the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

I do want to thank the member opposite and the other members opposite for what I am sure will be a very productive and important conversation about the changes being presented in the statute.

[3:35 p.m.]

The member asked two questions. One was to describe the circumstances which are driving the changes that are being presented in the Miscellaneous Statutes Act and to provide, I guess, a listing of uses of expropriation by school districts over the last five years.

I’ll start with the first question, which really was the member’s second question. We’ll start there.

The Miscellaneous Statutes Act…. The sections of the bill related to the Ministry of Infrastructure are related to expropriation powers by school districts. There are two changes.

One is to require ministerial approval from any school district for the use of expropriation powers.

I will note that this is generally what already happens, because school districts require funding from the provincial government in order to execute on the vast majority of their capital plans. In doing so, they will have to state their case to the Ministry of Infrastructure and go through the government process, following which, if a purchase through the use of expropriation power is approved, a funding letter comes through.

In practice, this already happens. What we are implementing through this Miscellaneous Statutes Act is to formalize, within the School Act, that ministerial approval is required. It formalizes that accountability measure, but in practice, it already happens, because approval and the provision of funding comes from the province already, in which case there’s already a case that needs to be made.

The second change is in response to the B.C. Supreme Court’s ruling of, I believe, May 23, 2025. It indicated that because majority-language school districts currently have expropriation powers, that same power should be extended to the francophone school district as well, the CSF.

To be very clear, expropriation powers are only a tool of last resort. It has only been used by school districts twice in the last ten years. The two instances we have date back to 2018 and 2015. In 2015, school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, used expropriation powers, and in 2018, school district 36, which is Surrey, also used their expropriation powers.

Misty Van Popta: Just as a follow-up to that, to those two cases, have there been other past cases of school districts attempting to expropriate where the ministry — at the time, it would have been Education — intervened and prevented expropriation?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The ministry currently does not have the authority to intervene directly on the use of expropriation power. However, certainly there have been cases where school districts have requested funding for the purchase of land, whether or not through the use of expropriation, and had that request not granted by government.

Misty Van Popta: Referring to section 1, 96(3)(a), could the minister please address or stipulate under which conditions a school board may acquire land or improvements located in another school district? I didn’t quite understand that piece of this bill, in which a board could acquire outside of their own district.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you for the question.

It gave us a chance to sort through the technical changes in the wording. The original 96 included powers for school districts to be able to acquire and hold land or improvements or both within their school district. Makes sense.

Now, the wording change that is in the new statute basically says the same thing but reversed because it takes into account that the CSF’s geographic boundary is the entire province. So by its nature, they will overlap with another school district always, and, as such, will require ministerial approval. In addition to that, the majority-language school districts who have geographic boundaries are subject to the same requirement.

So it’s a language change that allows the provision of the powers for both the geographically restricted school boards and the provincial school board of the CSF, for that language to be the same. It’s a little bit of a rejigging.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that….

The Chair: Member, did you want to speak through the Chair?

Misty Van Popta: Thank you. I was just very excited by that answer.

Going on to section 96(5), there’s not much in this statutes amendment act to talk about the disposal of land — not only what are the requirements by the school boards or districts for that but what happens to that disposal of funds. So as much as this bill talks a lot about expropriation, subsection (5) talks about disposal of land.

Could the minister please go into not only the process of boards to dispose of land but also what happens to those funds once they do?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Just for greater clarity, under section 1, which refers to section 96 of the School Act and provides subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), of that list, subsection (5) is not new, and it has not changed whatsoever. It’s a renumbering of what was previously in section 96 of the School Act, which read, under section 96(3): “Subject to the orders of the minister, the board may dispose of land or improvements, or both.”

So it is not at all a change from the current act whatsoever. It appears under section 1 of the bill because we had to renumber the list in order for it to make sense.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that.

I understand that a lot of this is administrative, but I was hoping that the minister could still talk about the disposal piece in regards to process for school districts to dispose of land. I understand the possible need but just wondering about the technical application or requirements from the ministry to do that now that these requirements go through the Infrastructure Ministry as opposed to the board of education in the past.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m going to provide a quick answer now, which is that when a school district disposes of land, the proceeds of that sale stay within the school district. That being said, this act does not change the process whatsoever. In order for a school district to currently dispose of land, they require a permission or an order from the minister to do so, and it will remain the same afterwards.

Because so many of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act sections related to the Ministry of Infrastructure’s changes are administrative and appear because of renumbering, and so forth, without changes, I would love to offer the critic a separate briefing on any of her questions that might relate to the process of expropriation that is not being changed by the act.

The act has very limited changes, just the two that I’ve described. Everything else remains the same, but understanding the importance of the opposition critic having a greater understanding of that process as it exists now, I would love to offer an out-of-chamber briefing for those kinds of questions so that during this debate we can defer. I mean, the member can ask her questions, and if they are not changing, we can defer it to the briefing.

Misty Van Popta: I appreciate that answer. I will probably ask a bunch of questions that you can kindly, say, defer to outside conversations. I appreciate that.

Starting with that in mind, I would love to understand what the process for obtaining approval from the minister is for expropriation, now that it goes to the minister first.

Understanding that the school board drives the process, now that the minister has to actually approve it first before they proceed, if you could please clarify for this purpose what that process would look like.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The school districts…. Rather, I should clarify. It’s not necessarily the school district. The expropriation authority is actually the boards of education. The boards of education must exercise their expropriation powers in accordance with the Expropriation Act. That is not changing, so we can defer that over to the briefing.

Ministerial approval will follow existing practices for other types of ministerial approval that currently exist between the minister and the school’s board of education, which is typically the issuance of a letter confirming approval.

Misty Van Popta: Is there a specific format to that letter? Is it a stock template that school boards would issue to the minister for any type of requirements under your new ministry, especially when it comes now to expropriation?

[3:55 p.m.]

Is it like a typed letter, or is there kind of a form? “This is your request. This is what we’re seeking from the minister.” Are there any types of provisions that you could outline a little bit further?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The package that the boards of education, through the school district, provide the ministry for expropriation of a plot of land will look very similar to a business case that they submit for building a school. So it’ll look like a business case.

In return, the approval letter is typically a relatively brief letter, one or two pages, just outlining what is being approved and the authority under which that approval is being made.

Misty Van Popta: Hearing the minister’s comments before about expropriation being a last resort…. It is really a heavy tool for communities. This part might be part of the brief. If the minister could please outline what the boards need to actually demonstrate for the actual need for public benefit of expropriation.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This is an example of one of the questions where this act does not make any changes to that, so happy to defer it to the briefing.

Misty Van Popta: Going down to subsection (5) under 96 again, specifically honing in on the line, “Subject to the orders of the minister,” what guarantee is there that any realized value from disposal would be reinvested in educational purposes, and, in this case, guarantee against land speculation or real estate portfolios or things like that?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Subsection (5) remains the same as the previous act. We can elaborate during our briefing.

Misty Van Popta: I mentioned this in my second reading speech yesterday, I think it was. Could the minister outline if this comes into play with Bill 15 at all, in terms of if the minister would ever exercise authority to expropriate or to dispose of land as a minister’s initiative first outside of the request of the school board or district.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Infrastructure Projects Act is an entirely separate act with no interaction with this act. Any use of expropriation powers would refer back to the Expropriation Act.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Misty Van Popta: It would be great for the record, for clause 2 — we touched on it briefly just in the intro section — if the minister could go into the history a little bit further, into the Francophone Education Authority, of why we’re making these changes now.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This legislative proposal recommends a response to address the May 23, 2025, British Columbia Supreme Court judgment, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia, 2025 BCSC 962.

I can feel the Minister of Energy’s eyes burning into me right now for my terrible pronunciation.

In that judgment, the court ordered the province to enact legislation within six months to provide for the expropriation of private property for the provision of francophone schooling by the CSF. If the province does not enact the legislation by November 24, 2025, as required under the court order, the province could be considered in contempt of court. So this act is in response to that direction.

Misty Van Popta: Could the minister clarify what spurred that court proceeding in the first place? Was there an example of the CSF requiring to expropriate land where they didn’t have provisions to do so?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, this part of the decision was one part of a much broader ruling that was issued by the B.C. Supreme Court on May 23, 2025. The general court case was related to section 23, Charter rights, which ensures that both francophone and anglophone communities are entitled to receive education in the respective official language.

[4:05 p.m.]

There is ongoing litigation relating to this court case, so I’m not able to comment further at this time, but the full ruling is available publicly through the B.C. Supreme Court website.

Misty Van Popta: Just one last question on this clause for now. Again, it might defer to the briefing, but it would be great to put the question on record.

Will the minister publish guidelines and regulations again outlining what expropriation or disposal approval will be granted or denied by a francophone school or CSF?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The CSF will be subject to the same provisions and requirements identified under the Expropriation Act as the majority school boards. The Expropriation Act outlines the legal requirements.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Misty Van Popta: Heading now into clause 3, where we’re talking specifically about the Expropriation Act changes, could the minister please help me understand a little bit better why the definition of “approving authority” for expropriation is limited to under section 96(2)(b)? I was a little bit confused trying to understand it.

Does this give more power to the minister to approve expropriation of land within its district in a section which does not require ministerial approval?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This section is a consequential amendment to the Expropriation Act, whereas section 1 and section 2 related to the School Act. The only change that it is intended to make is to identify that the board of regional trustees of the CSF is considered an approving authority.

The reason why it’s in here is, first off, to provide CSF that access to expropriation power and because majority-language school districts call their board of…. Their board is called the board of trustees and board of education, whereas for the CSF, they call it the board of regional trustees and Francophone Education Authority. They call them different things so we needed to name them in order to give them access as an approving authority.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Requesting a five-minute recess, in order to switch up the minister, as we are now heading into the Housing and Municipal Affairs sections of the bill.

The Chair: Very good. We will do a five-minute recess. It is 4:08 on my watch. I expect everybody back in their seats at 4:13, please.

The committee recessed from 4:09 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I’m calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order, and we are on clause 4.

On clause 4.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister and the staff here today for a few questions.

Section 4 here. I’m just looking at, under (a)(0.1), “‘Indigenous entity’ means an Indigenous entity that exercises governmental functions.” How would the government define which Indigenous entities exercise governmental functions?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Before I answer the question, I’d just like to introduce the following staff from my ministry who are here with me today: Teri Collins, deputy minister; Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister; and Kara Woodward, executive director. I’m grateful for them and, of course, our whole broader team.

Thank you again for the question.

A prescribed Indigenous entity — as defined, as you spoke to — is one that exercises governmental functions. That may include, but isn’t limited to, an entity that carries out various administrative, legislative and financial functions on behalf of its members and an organization authored to provide a representative function on behalf of Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous entities may be prescribed by regulation, if needed, based on the experiences and request of a local government.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate that answer from the minister.

Can I just get clarification? I think we’re used to hearing in legislation “Indigenous governing bodies.” What’s the reasoning behind changing the language to “Indigenous entities,” if there is one?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, thank you for the question. The amendment includes the term “prescribed Indigenous entity” as the term “First Nation” as currently defined in the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter may not fully capture all governance traditions engaging in government-to-government negotiations with a local government.

The term aligns with the definition under FOIPPA and supports article 3 of the UN declaration, which speaks to the right to self-determination and to freely determine political status.

Scott McInnis: I know spread out throughout various local communities in British Columbia are many Métis citizens. Will they be considered an Indigenous entity under these changes to the act?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, thanks for the question. I appreciate that these are conversations we had in the spring and that we get to continue having them.

Métis organizations, such as Métis Nation B.C., could be added, if necessary, as a prescribed Indigenous entity if requested by a local government, related to a specific set of circumstances that fall within what is captured to be within a closed meeting as per the amendments.

Scott McInnis: I do thank the minister for that answer. Just as a technicality, in those closed-door discussions with municipalities, will it officially be the Métis Nation of British Columbia who will represent Métis citizens in those discussions, or could it potentially be another organization?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It would be depending on the request that comes from the local government and the relevant body, again, that is applicable to the specific discussion that they have.

Scott McInnis: One specific example I wanted to touch on…. I mentioned it in my speech yesterday, specifically relating to the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy and whether they would be considered an Indigenous entity. I know they do have a governing office in Nelson. But it’s complicated. I think it was 1956 that they were considered extinct in Canada. They are a U.S.-based tribe.

Would they be invited, potentially, by a local municipality to participate in those closed-door discussions even though technically they don’t have traditional territory land in Canada?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member opposite rightly identifies, it’s a complicated situation.

[4:25 p.m.]

As an example, the Sn̓ʕaýckstx could be prescribed by regulation at the request of a local government, but again, I’ll just emphasize that the request would have to be related to a discussion that falls within the provisions of the legislation. So there would have to be a reason for the conversation between the local government and the Sn̓ʕaýckstx to need to be in a closed-door meeting, and then that request could be considered.

Scott McInnis: I know it is complicated with the Sn̓ʕaýckstx specifically, but I do think it’s important we just flesh this out a little bit.

Whether it’s through regulation, would there be some sort of direction from the provincial government — let’s use the municipality of Nelson, for example — to have preliminary discussions with either the Okanagan or the Ktunaxa before entering into discussions with the Sn̓ʕaýckstx? The Okanagan or the Ktunaxa having kind of overlapping traditional territory in the region. Would that be a directive from the provincial government beforehand?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I understand the question, it is outside the scope of the amendments specific to this discussion. The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs is not providing direction on that front.

We could receive a request for a certain governing entity to be considered to apply within the context of a closed meeting, but larger discussions about a local government’s relationship to various nations and entities is not contained within the amendments being proposed.

Scott McInnis: I think that answers my next question. I’m just thinking of a specific…. In my riding, in Invermere, we have both the Shuswap Band and the ʔakisq̓nuk Band, located in Invermere.

If there are discussions which are to happen in camera, would, potentially, in this legislation…? If the local municipality wouldn’t know who to have the specific discussion with, would there be any direction or support from the provincial government to guide the municipality in that direction as far as who to have those discussions with, just to avoid any potential misunderstandings, things like that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I will say, though, as previously answered, it’s beyond the scope of the specific amendments here.

The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, along with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, gets requests from local governments sometimes for guidance related to various work in relationship with nations and tries to support local governments in their relationship-building and trust-building and is certainly open to hearing from and supporting local governments in those endeavours.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

Subsection (b). I’m just wondering if the minister could highlight, for the record, as many examples as possible where confidential discussions would take place, just around some of these themes. I know sensitive cultural sites, burial sites would be one.

Could the minister, just for the record, provide a list of potential other examples of themes that would be discussed behind closed doors with subsection (b) here?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks again for the question.

General examples would include negotiations related to communication protocols, a service agreement, financial matters, as well as identified cultural land use, traditional Indigenous knowledge, sensitive cultural sites or medicinal herb gathering sites.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate that, just getting a few examples on the record. I think that’s all for me for clause 4.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Tony Luck: Just a couple of housekeeping questions, actually, some language changes and just clarification on a couple things, so I’ll keep this one really quick.

Why does the Vancouver Charter amendment mirror the Community Charter changes but define First Nations separately instead of using the same “Indigenous entity” term?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

It is a slightly quirky situation and response as a result. The different drafting approaches are really just the result of the nature of the historic drafting of the two charters, so the amendments proposed align each with the original language of each.

Tony Luck: That’s what I thought. We thought it’s probably some language changing, some culture changing, things like that. That’s great.

Just two more in that respect and vein. We’ll just get clarity. Why does the Vancouver Charter mention within the definition of First Nations “prescribed Indigenous entity that exercises governmental functions” but is not prescribed in the Community Charter? So it’s in the Vancouver Charter but not in the Community Charter.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As with my last answer, it is a drafting choice based on the different original structures of both charters. The amendments are made in a slightly different way and in slightly different places but get both the Vancouver Charter and the Community Charter to the same place, which is an identification of both First Nations and Indigenous entities.

Tony Luck: Just one last question in that vein, and we’ll have a look at that.

Is this clause intended to have the same effect to the Vancouver Charter as the amendments made to the Community Charter? You may have….

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. Thank you for the question. The answer is yes.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Scott McInnis: Just looking at the language here: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, for the purposes of section 165.2 (0.1) (b), prescribe an Indigenous entity that exercises governmental functions.” I think we canvassed this, but I just want to make sure that it’s on the record.

Cabinet will be defining who the Indigenous entity is. Could the minister perhaps just outline what criteria would be used, if different than the Vancouver Charter, for what would be considered an Indigenous entity?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. The answer is the same as discussed earlier. At the request of a local government, a prescribed Indigenous entity could be defined by cabinet if it exercises government functions that may include carrying out various administrative, legislative and financial functions on behalf of its members and/or is an organization authorized to provide a representative function on behalf of an Indigenous People.

Again, just to reiterate, it would be requested from a local government, and then that could be considered.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:39 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 5:31 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to take a moment to recognize my team. We have Darin Thompson and Tarynn McKenzie. These are the two people that know the most about this bill and this legislation in the whole world, so I’m really happy to have them here.

Steve Kooner: I do have a statement to make. I thank the Attorney General’s staff for being here on Bill 17 at committee stage. I know the staff puts a lot of work into preparing for the bills to be presented and also for the bills to be debated. So I thank the staff for being here today.

I’m looking forward to working with the Attorney General to address getting more information on this particular bill at committee stage, as well as getting some questions answered and just getting a really thorough understanding.

This bill, as we spoke about in second reading, is a very important topic: intimate images with the internet involved. These types of situations have spiralled out of control, and we need to make sure that we are protecting those that are vulnerable. They may find themselves in situations where they have intimate images and they’re being taken advantage of. So we just want to make sure this legislation is strong enough so it will address the root issue that it’s intending to address.

That’s my opening statement there. Would you like me to start my questioning, Chair?

The Chair: I thought you were going to just let clause 1 pass, if you’d like.

I’m teasing. Go ahead.

On clause 1.

Steve Kooner: To get right into it, we’re at clause 1. I see that we’re dealing with a definition section here. Under the title “Civil Resolution Tribunal Act,” clause 1 states: “Section 1 (1) of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act is amended by repealing the definition of ‘intimate image protection claim.’”

Maybe the Attorney General’s department can first enlighten me on what made the Attorney General’s department add this particular clause to this paragraph here, as a starting point.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this amendment is to make sure that it captures both applications, that definition, of section 5 and section 6. Previously the intimate images protection application was there, but the damage application was just the normal CRT process. Because of the amendments, it brings it in to make sure that the definition of “intimate image claim” includes both damages and the intimate images application.

Steve Kooner: I’m just going to change the line of questioning a little bit on this. I’m going to change it back to more of a….

I know there’s a little bit of latitude allowed on the first clause of the bill. I’m going to get to the question about consultation in terms of this whole bill. Who exactly was consulted for this bill and its preparation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear, this is a bill that amends an existing piece of legislation that I think was maybe my first piece of legislation that I brought forward as Attorney General. Because of that, the consultation was about the amendments. It wasn’t about the bigger projects.

Who we consulted was the CRT, the intimate images protection service, the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations, the Métis Nation and First Nations Leadership Council.

Steve Kooner: Since this particular bill deals with victims and potential victims…. I understand that the Attorney General mentioned that the CRT was consulted, and I believe Indigenous groups were consulted.

Were particular victim groups consulted? We have seen many high-profile stories, and I believe that the government has also made statements on a number of these stories as well, perhaps even directly to the families that were affected. Were any victims particularly consulted in this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by saying that obviously this is a very confidential process. The CRT operates independently of government, so it wouldn’t be appropriate for government to reach out to victims, especially in the context of if there were publication ban issues related to the victims.

Just to assure the member that the intimate images protection service is actually the ideal group to consult, because they were the ones that victims would call for supports. We had over 700 referrals to that program, where those people were in touch with that service, so it was a really good breadth of knowledge that they had about what the victims were facing.

Steve Kooner: In regards to this organization that had knowledge of what the sentiment was in terms of the stakeholders and affected groups, what was said from them? What did they say? What was their feedback?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a sign of what we intend to do since bringing this into force: constantly improve the system, based on feedback that we’re getting, so it could be even more effective at solving the issues.

What you see reflected in this bill is exactly what we heard from the protection service. Just to be clear, that organization, the intimate images protection service, was launched by our government with the Civil Resolution Tribunal alongside of it, and that’s under victim services at the Solicitor General’s ministry. That victim services unit that I’m calling the intimate images protection service was part of the program of government.

That service…. One of the things they said is to increase the damage claims, because we want to make sure there’s an appropriate level of damages for the harm that’s done, and make it easy under the CRT process for people to do that, rather than going to another level of court.

The other one that you’ll see reflected in an amendment that will show up further down, further along, is the collection of personal information and how the victim support services can do that in a way that respects privacy laws but still helps them serve the victim.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General just referred to the CRT. Some of these stakeholders were saying to bring intimate image claims under CRT and expand the amount.

Other than that, were there any specific mechanisms that these groups were actually interested in? For example, a lot of the CRT cases are online. Some people think that they don’t have to appear in court, and that just seems to be easier for them.

Was there anything else other than the dollar amount and just somebody saying that it’s easier to do that? What were the specific things that they liked about the CRT?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe the importance is to distinguish what is already an existing piece of legislation. These are amendments to that existing piece of legislation. The CRT was already handling the intimate images protection applications and the process. These are just amendments to make that better, based on the high-priority items that they told us needed to be improved to continually improve the program.

As has already been mentioned…. Just another thing that’s important, if people are listening to this, is that we made it, when we launched it, really user-friendly. So you can pick up your phone and make an application 24-7 to get an image taken down, which is really unprecedented. Really, why we use the CRT as the tribunal of choice is because it’s the lowest barrier, most accessible, so individuals can make an application. It’s a trauma-informed process, so they’ll be guided through how to do it in the privacy of their home or wherever they are.

We’ve had, also, the success of a really amazing turnaround time for orders. The orders have come within weeks of applications and takedown orders or orders for websites to take down content. So using the CRT has been a method that’s already in place. It’s been in place before. We’ve just made changes based on what they’ve said are high-priority items that would help the system work better.

[5:45 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Did any of the stakeholders say anything about their experience with the adjudicators in regards to the CRT?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have never received any specific feedback about the adjudicators.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the adjudications, the feedback seems to be that we already have this under CRT, and let’s make it better. There seem to be some stakeholders. Out of those stakeholders, was there any personal experience in going through the CRT? Were there any personal cases that had gone through the CRT and some people have shared a survey?

A lot of times when you’re starting a court process, there’s a questionnaire or something, and you’d say: “Well, this is effective. The court is effective. These services are good.” Was there anything such as that that directed the framework of this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to note that I answered a very similar question — maybe it’s slightly different, but very similar — earlier about the user experience.

Just to say, because of the publication ban and the sensitivity of this material, no, we didn’t. I think that’s 100 percent appropriate. We didn’t reach out to individuals nor seek personal information of individuals that were using the process.

The CRT is an independent tribunal and, as such, has its own user experience information. I don’t have that with me, and it would be up to the CRT to provide that.

What we did do is that when we had the bill…. What these bill amendments are based on is our discussions with the CRT and the intimate images protection service about what their high-priority changes were that we could incorporate to make the system better.

Steve Kooner: Moving forward, in terms of CRT, will this, essentially, just be a continuation of the online adjudication, or will there be in-person adjudications as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This bill doesn’t change anything that already existed with respect to whether somebody chooses in-person or online. Those things aren’t affected by these amendments that we’re proposing and that already exist.

Steve Kooner: The reason why I just asked that particular question is that these cases are very sensitive cases. There’s emotional trauma involved. There could be some type of psychological harm done as a result of these intimate images being shared. At times, it could be helpful, and they could facilitate even more cases coming forward, if there was a personal touch on these particular cases.

I understand that no victims were particularly consulted, other than going to some stakeholder organizations. Were any experts probed in terms of this legislation?

[5:50 p.m.]

Were there any suggestions made to those experts on whether victim experience should be taken into consideration in terms of the type of adjudication that needed to take place within the CRT moving forward, specific to these types of cases?

Hon. Niki Sharma: You know, I’m really proud of the work that this team did for this system when we launched it, and it’s really, I would argue, world-leading. It’s a trauma-informed, low-barrier, easy-access system that you can do online.

The contents of the in-person, if you want…. The CRT has a whole bunch of tools to be that low-barrier person that meets the needs of the individual, but to have a trauma-informed, victim-focused process in these types of claims is really quite impressive, the way that it’s been launched and thought of. And it’s based on us meeting with…. This was years ago, actually before we launched this — the first one, not the amendments — meeting with a lot of survivors, experts, all these things about how to design it.

Just to say, that question about personal touch…. I talked about how we launched alongside with the intimate images protection service and that, so far, in the one year it’s been running, I think it’s over 700 people that have used that service. When I think about that number, 700 or over that, it makes me so proud that those people, instead of languishing at home, leading to the consequences and some of the most dire consequences that we’ve seen with this type of abuse, got help.

It’s something that I’m really proud of and, I think, all of British Columbia can be proud of — that we are trying to prevent the tragedies that can occur when this stuff happens, and the more people know about that service, the better. The more people know how low-barrier and accessible this system is set up to be, the better.

Just to say that although in person could be an option, a lot of times when the victim comes forward, they just want the image taken down. They want that person told not to distribute it. They want a quick order. So the ability of that tribunal to move as quickly as they can is unprecedented in the legal system. To get an order in a matter of weeks, to get and to have…. Another part of this process that I’m really proud of…. The government will help enforce that.

We have an enforcement unit in the PSSG where we will help enforce that order against the social media companies so the victim doesn’t have to do it. It’s profound in so many ways. This program is something for all of us to be proud of in this province, and there are so many personal touches built into it that make it victim-informed and make it really powerful.

That number of over 700 people that have gotten those victim services instead of being at home by themselves thinking that they don’t have options is something that I…. I hold my hands up to those people that are working on that victim support services unit in government and the work that they’re doing every day.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that response. I can just see the passion, that this is an important topic for the Attorney General, and the Attorney General was involved in the first part of the legislation and now the second part.

I agree that this type of legislation is very important, and I made those submissions back in second reading. Maybe for the people at home that are actually listening…. We’ve heard a little bit about how this process is low barrier and how this new legislation even makes the process even more simple. Maybe the Attorney General can describe, from the start to finish, what potential victims will actually see when they come to CRT.

[5:55 p.m.]

How would they initiate this claim? After initiating a claim, how would these new tools help them along? How would the timeline look? What does the ending part of the case look like? So there’s a better understanding there.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the opportunity to walk through the whole process.

I’ll start by saying that it is a victim-informed process, as I mentioned, and trauma-informed. It’s really about giving that victim choice, and the whole process is designed to do that.

Just for people that want more information, you can go to takebackyourimages.gov.bc.ca, where you’ll land on a page that gives you all of the potential options.

The two main ones are the CRT, so getting an application order for stopping the distribution of that — that process. The other one is, as I mentioned, the intimate images protection service, so the victim services that are provided.

That’s the first choice or information given: “Do you need support for your mental health and what you’re experiencing?” Then you can choose that first.

If you’re ready to make an application, then you can choose that, and that puts you in different services then. Obviously, if it’s with the protection service, you’ll be connected with victim services, somebody who’s informed on how to take care of somebody, and connected to services and talk through that side of it.

If you choose to make an order, then you will be directed towards the Civil Resolution Tribunal.

Another thing that’s very unique about this process in B.C. is we have a trusted flagger relationship with all the big social media companies, where if it’s flagged through that process that it is an image to be taken down, they’ll just take it down. Then the victim may…. That may be the recourse for the person. They just want that image taken down.

[6:05 p.m.]

Then if they go through the CRT process, what they’ll land on…. On that page will be a Solutions Explorer. The Solutions Explorer is designed to be trauma/victim-informed, so it leads the person through by asking specific questions about their claim. It directs them through those questions into the right category or application.

Then they would have…. Let’s say it was an order for somebody to stop distributing an image. There would be an application, but there’s a case manager that would be assigned. The case manager is like a one-stop shop for talking to the person about how to get the application ready, what’s needed, that kind of thing, and that would be within 24 hours that somebody would contact that person, and they endeavour to do it as quick as possible.

Then there would be…. It would go to, if that’s the pathway for it, an adjudication and an order. It could be like a stop-distribution order or depending on it….

Then there’s also an interesting thing: that interplay between the victim services side and the order side where you can receive help from the intimate images protection service if you need help with service — serving it on the person. If there’s an issue that you want to keep yourself, obviously, away from somebody who’s causing you harm, then you can get help with service.

Then because sometimes through the consultations design, a lot of times the very first thing is you just want the image taken down or the harm to stop. The next part is, if at some point you want to pursue damages against the person, there’s a period of time beyond that where you can get your order and then a few months later think: “You know what? I want to pursue damages against this person.” So then there’s an opportunity at that point to do that as well.

Steve Kooner: I think the viewers at home would probably appreciate that, because sometimes when we’re talking about legal jargon or we’re talking about legal terms or a framework, it’s hard to put that into perspective. But when you get a description such as that, it helps to put things into perspective in terms of what we’re actually talking about.

The Attorney General alluded earlier to a period that you could get some order within, like, three weeks, as fast as three weeks. That seems to be a minimum. What’s the maximum that somebody could be posed to go through this procedure? Let’s start with the protective orders first.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. It’s case-dependent because, of course, in this process it depends on if the tribunal gets the information or if the person puts it on hold or something. Of course, as a victim-led process, the time period can vary, but I’m told if the stuff is in, it could be a same-day thing, where you could get a protection order on that same day or a takedown order of those images.

Also, we have to remember the trusted flagger portion that I was talking about earlier, where because of our trusted flagger relationship, if that person comes to us or to this process, they may get the image taken down from a site very quickly.

[6:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just going back to the point of the same-day order, we were talking earlier about service as well. Would that order come down without service? Is that the suggestion?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s another part of the innovation of this whole process that’s victim-informed and worth talking through.

The question, I think, was about service, and, I think as both the member opposite and I are lawyers, we think of service in a certain way — what service entails in a claim and things like that. It’s not like that in this process.

You can seek an order by naming somebody, if you want to, or not naming anybody. The request is to get a stop order for this intimate image of yourself to stop being distributed. So the order is a broad order. Then you can get help from the intimate images protection service to deliver that order to whoever is needed, like whoever you know has that image that you want to stop or the platform that you’d like to take down the image.

It’s a little bit of a different service. I think it was designed that way to make — as you know, it’s a very sensitive topic — it as low barrier as possible.

It’s about your image, so you can give it to somebody and say: “There’s an order for the stop. Stop the distribution of that. That’s me. That’s the image. You have to stop.” So it gives the power back to the victim to take back their image.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: We stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.

Contents