Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Pete Davis.

[1:35 p.m.]

Tributes

Rita Dorner

Bryan Tepper: I would like to send out my love to my aunt Rita Dorner and all her family.

She has passed away today, and I’d just like to recognize her for the work she did keeping the farm running all those years and raising three wonderful children and all the grandchildren involved.

If I could just ask everybody for a round of applause for a life well lived.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Randene Neill: I just want to give a big, warm welcome to members of the B.C. Water and Waste Association. We had an excellent lunch with them, people from both sides of the aisle, today.

I just want to thank you for all the tremendous work you do, especially ensuring that we keep our water systems safe and secure and working to make sure that we work on our waste systems as well.

This is a non-profit organization that represents more than 5,000 water professionals who work every single day to keep our water systems clean, safe and resilient. They provide training, education, certification and professional development, and they advocate on behalf of and strengthen this critical sector.

Thank you so much for coming today. Thank you for lunch.

Let’s give them all a big welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Today we are very honoured to have in the gallery with us officers and members of the executive council of the B.C. Federation of Labour, as well as their staff. I really want to thank the president of the federation, Sussanne Skidmore, and the secretary-treasurer, Hermender Singh Kailley, for bringing officers and members to meet with us today.

I want to say that we have represented here representatives of workers from across our economy, every single sector of our economy. These are individuals who are literally building B.C. They make our communities so much stronger. They bring so much to the table.

Would everybody please join me in making them feel very welcome in this place.

Brennan Day: I’d like to announce a couple of guests who are in the building today: Leslie Gaudette, the president of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C. — you probably know them better as COSCO; and Jeff Moss with the Jewish Seniors Alliance. These two individuals provide amazing service to our communities and our seniors.

Please let the House make them feel welcome.

Darlene Rotchford: I actually have two introductions.

First, I would like to start…. I have two constituents in the House, Randy and Val Munch, who I could not have done this past election without. They were amazing door-knockers. They represent part of my riding — Vic West, for the Victoria side — and ensure that I know what’s going on.

I thank them very much.

The second one. I would be amiss not to specifically reach out. Susie Skidmore, the president of the Federation of Labour, but to us, my girls’ Gammies. I could not have done this journey without her.

She is a union sister, a mentor, a friend and now Gammies to my little girls. She showed up at three o’clock in the morning so I could bring this one into the world.

Thank you very much.

I wish the House to help me make them feel welcome.

Lynne Block: I would like to introduce Carolyn Broady — I think she’s in the House today — past president of the B.C. School Trustees Association. She continues to serve as a trustee in West Vancouver, where I was also working with her.

Please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. Diana Gibson: In the gallery, it is my pleasure to introduce today the members of the UVic Young New Democrats club. Here today are Eva Thompson, Miller Kriese, Cameron Vaughan, Connor Scott and Megan Waddle.

It is vital for young people like you to be getting involved, and I just can’t wait to see what you’re going to do to shape the future.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Sheldon Clare: In the precinct today, I’d like to draw the House’s attention to the presence of former MLA the Hon. Pat Bell.

[1:40 p.m.]

He was a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia representing Prince George North from 2001 to 2009 and Prince George–Mackenzie from 2009 to 2013.

Would you please make the former MLA Hon. Pat Bell most welcome.

Rohini Arora: I just wanted to take a moment to shout out a couple of friends that I see here in the gallery today.

I want to start with Sarah Kooner, who is now the president of HSA at the tender age of 32 but with mighty intelligence.

I just want to give you a shout-out.

Would the House join me in making her feel welcome.

I have a couple more. Crystal Braunwarth, who is the business manager for IATSE 891, one of the most staunch advocates for folks in TV and film.

My other sister, Amandeep Nijjar, from the Canadian Labour Congress, who is acting as interim director of the western Pacific region.

So thankful to see you all here.

One last one, my sister Karen Ranalletta, the president of CUPE B.C.

Oh, no, I see one more. Carole Gordon from the B.C. Teachers Federation.

Obviously, the Federation of Labour was my previous employer, so they’ve been shouted out. But I just want to say it’s amazing to see so many union sisters and women in leadership positions here, representing workers across the province.

Thank you so much.

Would you help me in making them feel very welcome.

Pete Davis: Today I just wanted to rise and congratulate my daughter Alyssa. She’s been working hard in college, and she just got an acceptance letter to BCIT yesterday. She’s going to be a shop teacher, so she’s pretty excited.

I just want to say congratulations. We love you.

Jeremy Valeriote: I am pleased to introduce a special guest today, Adam Bremner-Akins, sitting behind you. Adam is a community advocate, student and political organizer from Port Coquitlam. He is passionate about building communities that are sustainable, affordable and connected and is finishing his political science degree at SFU.

He’s been an active member of the B.C. Green Party, serving in several leadership roles. Adam is driven by a belief that politics should be about people and working together for a better future.

Please join me in making him feel welcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I am pleased to welcome and introduce members of the Lower Mainland Local Government Association who are joining us for question period today and have had meetings with Minister Anderson and myself and, I know, others.

We’re joined today by the president of LMLGA, Paul Albrecht, who’s a councillor from the city of Langley and past president and chair of the Fraser Valley regional district; councillor in Abbotsford Patricia Ross; first vice-president of LMLGA Michie Vidal, a councillor from Harrison Hot Springs; second vice-president Jen McCutcheon, who is a director in electoral area A; third vice-president Chris Pettingill, who is a councillor in the district of Squamish; and their executive director, Shannon Story, who has been doing an excellent job organizing these meetings for them and bringing them here.

Will both sides of the House join me in making these incredible local leaders feel welcome here.

Gavin Dew: I would like to join the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky in extending an introduction to Adam Bremner-Akins, who recently ran to lead the Green Party.

Partisan politics aside, I have nothing but the strongest admiration for any young person who steps up and leads in the political sphere. I spent several years working to support and elect young people through an organization I founded called the Forum for Millennial Leadership, and I’m inspired when I look around this House and see all generations represented.

Adam is also joined here by his campaign manager, Brandon Russell. Born in Kamloops, Brandon spent several years working in Ottawa and across the United States, leading national campaigns and advising candidates at every level.

Today he continues his commitment to advancing ethical leadership and restoring faith in the political process as chief of staff at Vote Nexus, a firm that supports candidates, strengthens democracy and builds trust in public institutions.

Please join me in welcoming these two young leaders to the House, not for the last time, and in wishing them the best as they move forward in their respective political journeys.

[1:45 p.m.]

Jody Toor: I know that this councillor has been recognized by the Housing Minister, but I’d also like to recognize the current councillor for Langley city Paul Albrecht, who’s visiting today.

Can the House please make him feel welcomed.

Mable Elmore: I would like to recognize Dr. June Francis. She is the honorary consul of Jamaica in British Columbia. She’s also the director of the Institute for Black and African Diaspora Research and Engagement at SFU and the chair of B.C.’s anti-racism data committee.

We know that Hurricane Melissa has recently caused catastrophic devastation across several parts of Jamaica, destroying homes, displacing families and severely impacting critical infrastructure. Many communities are in urgent need of relief, recovery and rebuilding support.

June, as the honorary consul of Jamaica in Vancouver and as a member of the Jamaican diaspora, is asking and appealing to all British Columbians to stand with them in this time of crisis. Also, every contribution, no matter how small, helps bring vital aid, including food, clean water, shelter and medical supplies to those affected.

I ask the House to please join me in standing in solidarity with those in Jamaica and those in the community impacted, and please send our heartfelt prayers and wishes for their quick recovery.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just want to welcome to the House a new journalist. He’s not a new journalist, but he’s new to this House. He’s been a crime reporter, so the Legislature…. Oh, it’ll be simple for him.

Anyway, I want to welcome, from B.C. Today, British Columbia Today, Jeremy Hainsworth to the press gallery.

Korky Neufeld: On behalf of all the MLAs in Abbotsford, I just want to recognize someone that’s already been recognized, Patricia Ross.

She’s outlasted, I don’t know, about a dozen mayors in our city. That just tells you about who she is and what she stands for.

I just want to welcome her to this House and for all her hard work in her political career.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Property Rights Protection Act

Dallas Brodie presented a bill intituled Property Rights Protection Act.

Dallas Brodie: I move that a bill intituled the Property Rights Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Dallas Brodie: “You will own nothing and be happy.” That is the true mantra of this government.

In 2019, the property rights of British Columbians were quietly surrendered with the passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, also known as DRIPA. DRIPA was a Trojan Horse. It turned what appeared to be a harmless and well-meaning United Nations aspiration into binding law.

What few realized at the time was that DRIPA mandated the voluntary transfer of property and democratic authority from citizens to unelected and unaccountable tribal Chiefs.

It was under DRIPA that the Attorney General, now the Premier, instructed provincial lawyers in the Cowichan case not to use their strongest legal argument — namely, that Aboriginal title had been extinguished. That was a specific written directive.

We can defend property rights or we can defend DRIPA, but we cannot do both. This bill, the Property Rights Protection Act, repeals DRIPA in its entirety and restores to the province its exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights. This bill declares that the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples has no legal force or effect.

This bill directs public officials to defend the property rights of British Columbians to the full extent permitted by law. This bill requires meaningful consultation with property owners before any government decisions can impact their property rights.

This bill stands for the simple principle that what you own in British Columbia belongs to you, not to the government and not to its friends. It is upon this solid foundation that we pledge to rebuild this province, beginning with this magnificent bill.

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

Division has been called.

[1:50 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.]

Members, the question is first reading of the bill intituled Property Rights Protection Act.

Is the member for Surrey South online? If you are, please turn your camera on now.

Brent Chapman: I don’t know if I’m on here.

The Speaker: Member, please turn your camera on.

Brent Chapman: I’m trying to turn my camera on. It’s not turning on. I’m on a….

The Speaker: Member, then you will not be able to participate.

Brent Chapman: It’s not that I’m not trying to, sir. I can’t make this work.

Point of Order

Sheldon Clare: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, I believe for medical purposes, he isn’t required to have his camera.

The Speaker: The Chair never had any information about the person having a medical leave. Member, also, even if he has a medical issue, then he still has to turn his camera on.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[2:05 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Brodie	Armstrong	Bhangu
Paton	Gasper	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
McCall	Stamer	Day
Tepper	Mok	Maahs
Kealy	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Luck
	Block
NAYS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Valeriote	Botterell

Members’ Statements

Place of Refuge Program

Mable Elmore: I’d like to talk about a place located a few blocks south of my community office in Vancouver-Kensington. There, on a busy street, lies a modest home that looks like many in the neighbourhood. While the tumult of city life echoes outside, miracles are happening daily in the quiet spaces of this residence. It’s where men recovering from substance abuse are finding hope and healing. I’m proud to share with you the work being done inside the sanctuary.

It’s called Place of Refuge. It’s appropriately named Place of Refuge because it is a safe and nurturing home. Here men in different phases of their recovery from substance abuse bond together like brothers in a loving family. Licensed by the city of Vancouver and overseen by the assisted living registrar of British Columbia, the Place of Refuge is a long-term transitional housing program. It’s a Christian-based initiative and founded in the Mennonite tradition of mutual aid and community.

Community is an important part of recovery, because while recovery is a deeply personal journey, no one has to walk it alone. Recovery requires shared wisdom, connection, support and encouragement.

Life at Place of Refuge means attending group sessions. Living there means attending a school of choice or working in the local community. Being a resident also brings access to one-on-one life skills training, access to financial literacy courses, referrals to various services, 24-hour support from staff and a home free of drugs, alcohol and discrimination.

At Place of Refuge, residents are surrounded by people who understand and are walking the same path. They are not strangers in our community. They are our friends, neighbours and valued members of our community. At the end of their journey, they’re able to integrate in the community and live healthier and more fulfilling lives.

Dear colleagues, let’s give it up for Jeff Borden, the executive director of Place of Refuge, his wonderful team and all the groups and churches and individuals supporting this place of quiet miracles.

Land Title Court Case and
Property Ownership Concerns
of Richmond Residents

Scott McInnis: Last night in Richmond, I was joined by the Leader of the Official Opposition, three opposition MLAs from Richmond and three government ministers to hear directly from the residents impacted by the recent Cowichan v. Canada declaration of Aboriginal title within the city of Richmond.

The mood in the room was one of anxiety, uncertainty and curiosity, particularly regarding the validity and standing of fee simple ownership over private property. Residents expressed deep concern about what this ruling means for their homes, their investments and their futures.

In her decision, Justice Barbara Young found that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership can coexist. However, she also affirmed that Aboriginal title is a prior and superior claim to the land.

This has raised serious and legitimate questions from homeowners in Richmond: “Can I renew my mortgage? Can I obtain mortgage insurance? Why is the value of my property decreasing? And why wasn’t I informed of these proceedings?”

These are not partisan issues. They are real, personal and pressing, and they’re being echoed by some of Canada’s top Indigenous legal experts, including Tom Isaac, Geoffrey Moyse, Robin Junger and Bruce Pardy. Dr. Dwight Newman, professor of constitutional law at the University of Saskatchewan, has stated that “the judgment has much broader implications that any privately owned lands in B.C. may be subject to being overridden by Aboriginal title.”

As elected representatives at all levels of government, we must work together to address the uncertainty surrounding private property rights. Our land title system in British Columbia matters. Let us stand together to protect it.

[2:10 p.m.]

Persons Day and Women’s Rights

Jennifer Blatherwick: In 1927, 98 years ago, women were not included in the definition of “persons” under the law.

In the 1700s, a British court had ruled that women are persons in the matter of pain and penalties but not persons in matters of rights and privileges. The British North America Act of 1867 for plural used “persons,” but for the singular only “he,” supposedly excluding women. Never let them tell you that pronouns aren’t important.

So five women — Murphy, McClung, McKinney, Parlby and Edwards — took their case to Canada’s Supreme Court. Could the legal definition of “persons” include female persons? They lost.

The Famous Five appealed to the then-highest court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, in London. Finally, after two years, on October 18, 1929, Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, handed down the decision: “To those who would ask why the word ‘person’ should include females, the obvious answer is, why should it not?”

The decision did exclude Indigenous and Asian women, who would wait many years to receive equal recognition.

The Famous Five were complex, fallible people with beliefs that are unacceptable today. However, October 18 this year was the 96th anniversary of their victory, a victory for all of us. Back then newspapers throughout the British Empire ran banner headlines that declared: “Women Are Persons.” Today it would be headlines if someone said we were not.

This legal decision also contained the principle that our constitution is a living tree, capable of growth and expansion within natural limits, and has largely encouraged Canadian courts to protect and expand rights, not to restrict or retract them.

Today we remain persons under the law. Do not let that torch go out.

Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society
and Food Security

Á’a:líya Warbus: Across British Columbia today, the need for food assistance has reached record levels. According to Food Banks Canada, visits in our province have increased by nearly 80 percent since 2019. Nearly one in three people relying on food banks are children. Families and seniors are doing everything they can but still struggling to put food on the table.

It’s a reminder that food banks were never meant to be permanent. They were meant to be a bridge. Yet for too many, the bridge has become a lifeline.

Today I rise to recognize one of the local organizations in my community that continues to meet this need with compassion and care. The Bowls of Hope program in Chilliwack is celebrating 20 years of service.

This inspiring program was a vision and the compassion of late Mike Csoka, who believed that no child in our schools should ever go hungry. It started with seven kids and a couple of sandwiches, and it has grown into a community-wide effort that now provides 1,100 meals, to every single student that is in need across the school district of Chilliwack.

This includes a community garden that helps add nutritious ingredients to meals, and the starfish backpack program, which ensures children have food to take home over the weekend so they don’t go without.

Though Mike is no longer with us, his legacy continues. The volunteers, donors and community partners have carried this critical mission forward. Together they’ve built not just a meal program but a network of hope, one that nourishes both body and spirit. Their goal is simple but profound: to one day make their program unnecessary.

To Chris and all the volunteers, I would like to thank them for 20 years of service in reminding us what compassion in action looks like when community steps in.

And to Mike Csoka: your legacy continues to fill the hearts and ensure a bright future for all of our children across the community of Chilliwack.

[2:15 p.m.]

Cloverdale Sport and Ice Complex

Garry Begg: It has two — count them, two — NHL-sized ice rinks and another NHL-sized ice rink scheduled to begin later this year. I’m talking about the Cloverdale Sport and Ice Complex, a beautiful recreation facility in the Surrey neighbourhood of Cloverdale, where we all gathered on Saturday to cut the official ribbon, opening this gorgeous state-of-the-art complex.

Each of the two NHL-sized rinks is equipped with four full-sized team dressing rooms, two officials’ rooms, more than 200 spectator seats and features for accessible ice sport like para–ice hockey. Visitors will find skate and helmet rentals, skate sharpening and food services on site. There are also three multipurpose rooms, a meeting room and a wheelchair-accessible viewing area.

Now, I can be fairly accused of being biased to hockey, but this facility offers a wide range of programs, including other forms of hockey, figure skating, public lessons and dry-floor summer sports such as lacrosse and ball hockey. It has a new parking lot with accessible stalls, EV charging stations and a pickup and drop-off area accessibly convenient for athletes, families and spectators. This new facility will make it possible for more of us to enjoy the benefits of staying active, playing sports and connecting with our community.

This is all part of our government’s work to build B.C. and ensure our growing communities have the infrastructure they need to thrive. This project took just over three years to complete and was jointly funded by the city for $62.6 million and the province for $70.2 million.

It gives local athletes the home ice they deserve, provides families and young players a place to gather and to grow and attracts regional tournaments and major sporting events that bring visitors, energy and economic benefits to our region.

The residents of Surrey are rightly proud of our sporting past and confident of the burgeoning future.

Jordin Tootoo and Advocacy Work
on Mental Health and Addictions

Gavin Dew: I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Jordin Tootoo, whose remarkable journey transcends sport and touches the hearts of so many British Columbians and Canadians alike.

Jordin’s on-ice career is well known. He broke new ground as the first Inuk player to suit up in the NHL when he began his professional career with the Nashville Predators and went on to play with the Detroit Red Wings, the New Jersey Devils and the Chicago Blackhawks. Before that, he developed his game with the Brandon Wheat Kings in the WHL.

But equally important is Jordin’s personal story, one that speaks to resilience, identity and service. Growing up in the remote northern community of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Jordin not only learned to play hockey but carried forward his Indigenous heritage as a source of strength.

His journey took him from remote terrains to the bright lights of the NHL, but what stands out most is what he has done since. Jordin has spoken candidly about addiction, about wrestling with alcohol and the pain of losing his older brother to suicide, a tragic loss that has informed his mission.

He has embraced the responsibility of being a role model in communities that often feel left behind — Indigenous communities, remote locations, families struggling with mental health or addiction.

With the support of his wife, Jennifer Tootoo, who he married in 2014, Jordin co-founded the Team Tootoo Foundation, focused on suicide prevention, youth outreach and giving back. Jen has been by his side and has helped amplify the message that strength is found in connection and community, not just individual achievements.

This Saturday marks the launch of his documentary, Tootoo, which shines a light on this full journey — the ice rinks and fights, yes, but even more the healing, the outreach, the northern voices, the message that it’s okay to ask for help, that it’s possible to turn pain into purpose.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Jordin and Jen Tootoo for their leadership, for breaking barriers in sport and culture and for offering hope and mentorship to those in need.

Their story represents not only one man’s journey but a pathway for reconciliation, mental health awareness and opportunity in Indigenous and remote communities across our province and our country.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Gavin Dew: My colleague the critic for Labour is absent from the House today, and I thought it would be remiss for our side not to acknowledge the presence of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

[2:20 p.m.]

I see folks I have gotten to know over the years up in the gallery.

Appreciate the dialogue. In these times of division, we simply want to reinforce that we see you and that we enjoy talking with you.

Oral Questions

Land Title Court Case and
Property Ownership Concerns
of Richmond Residents

John Rustad: Last night, unlike the Premier, I attended a meeting in Richmond where hundreds of residents voiced their fears.

People have been left in limbo. Some fear their mortgages, insurance and property values are at risk because of the Cowichan ruling.

Given that this government did not argue extinguishment, which is at the centre of this uncertainty, will the government step in and provide insurance and mortgage guarantees to property owners affected by this decision, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I was also at the meeting last night, and I was joined by two ministers of this government, the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and the Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation. It was a very important meeting to attend, and we were there because we wanted to hear directly from landowners that may be impacted by the court decision.

B.C. was the first out of the gate to say that we would be appealing the decision because of what we see as impacts on the private property holders that were in that decision. We were first out of the gate.

Another thing that I announced very early is that we would be seeking a stay of the decision and, as such, we are gathering information from those that might be impacted to support that stay, and we’ll keep at it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

John Rustad: I’m glad that the Attorney General had the courage to be able to be there. She did have a moment to say a few words, although she didn’t have the courage to take questions which many people had on their minds out there. She did try to answer some of those questions.

But I do find it interesting…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

John Rustad: …because the members from the Conservative side, from Richmond, of course, were there, had been there, had been involved right from the beginning — unlike some of the members opposite from Richmond — as well as, of course, our critic, their co-critic on Indigenous Relations.

What I found really interesting last night is…. The Attorney General has talked about the fact that they did argue the protection of rights, even though last night we learned that the provincial legal team was labouring under a litigation directive that constrained their ability to argue extinguishment. You can see page 15 of B.C.’s directive for the evidence of that.

In light of this information and in light of the fact that there is so much uncertainty in Richmond, how can this government truly stand up and argue that it was trying to protect private property rights?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I was glad to be able to speak at that meeting and speak with many residents where I was able to answer, along with my colleagues, questions directly with them.

This claim was filed in 2014. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was in government and was a cabinet minister. I would just ask him to take a look back at the pleadings that were filed or the response that was filed on his behalf inside of government and what he pled. There was no pleading of extinguishment of Aboriginal title when this claim started. I will….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, have the courtesy to listen to the answer, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We argued based on the case law. It’s been years in any court in this country that it’s been very clear that the province does not have exclusive jurisdiction to extinguish Aboriginal title. What we constructed our arguments based on was about protecting private property rights through our arguments of suspension and displacement — that once you have a fee simple title, it is protected. We were clear on that in our arguments.

The city of Richmond made the argument of extinguishment. They lost on that argument.

We are working hard on an appeal right now that makes it clear to the court that we disagree with their findings with respect to private property interests. We were the first out of the gate to appeal it, and we’ll continue our work, working together with all parties to get to a resolution.

[2:25 p.m.]

Funding for
Residential Care Facilities

Trevor Halford: For weeks we have warned this government that 850 seniors could have nowhere to live.

On October 31, the minister will cut the funding that keeps care homes open — nurses off the floor, shutting down beds and leaving seniors stranded in hospitals or, worse than that, the streets.

How does this Health Minister justify this cut?

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

We all need to know that our parents and our grandparents are safe, securely cared for, receiving the dignified, safe care that they deserve. We are committed to working with our partners in the non-profit, the affiliate sectors, in the long-term-care sector as we work through this transition, and that is to understand the challenges that they are facing and to support them through that transition. That work is going to continue.

This government has been so dedicated to the seniors file and improving care standards for long-term-care homes to make sure that people are safe in those homes. When we formed government, we took action immediately, establishing a capital funding envelope for long-term care that by 2023 had grown to $2 billion, replacing and building 1,300 beds already, with another 4,300 on the way. In fact, over $3.5 billion invested into seniors care, be it long-term-care homes, community-based services, primary care….

Nothing could be more important, and we’ll continue this work together with the sector.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Well, if nothing could be more important, then the minister would step in and actually continue funding this and not cut this program on Friday.

We are 48 hours away from this cut. Families are in panic, and the speech that this minister just gave is absolutely embarrassing.

I will give her another chance. Will the minister step in today and reverse this cut and protect our seniors, yes or no? Not a speech. It’s a yes or a no.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’ve been clear as we’ve canvassed this topic that we are working with the sector through this transition, that this was a temporary measure established to help through some incredibly trying times.

That work is going to continue, but we know and we experienced during the pandemic…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …just what those trying times meant for people living in these homes, knowing that when we formed government, nine out of ten of these homes were not meeting care standards.

This opposition laid off…. They passed laws that led to the firing of 10,000 workers — completely unacceptable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We’re taking a different approach. We are working with the sector on some of the root causes around training and hiring more workers, around bringing care homes up to the standards that we expect for the people that we love.

We are going to continue this work. We are going to work with operators. We are going to work with the sector to make it through this and have the long-term, reliable sector that families need to know their loved ones are living in.

Reconciliation and Government
Handling of Land Title Cases

Rob Botterell: Successive governments in this province have committed acts of genocide against the First Peoples of this land, causing irreparable harm. That is not a statement up for debate. It’s a statement of fact.

It is our and this government’s duty to reconcile the wrongs committed by the Crown against Indigenous nations. That’s why this government passed DRIPA and with it a legal and moral obligation to act. Many court decisions, including Delgamuukw, have made this clear. Aboriginal title and rights exist and must be reconciled.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, what concrete steps is this government taking to uphold its commitments under DRIPA not just in principle but in practice?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I want to thank the House Leader of the Third Party for his commitment to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s an important act. It’s an act that has allowed us to work in concert with First Nations to forward reconciliation in a good way.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’d say I’m looking forward to bringing to this House treaties with K’ómoks Nation, with Kitselas Nation and, should the vote pass — they’re voting November 1 — Kitsumkalum Nation.

A treaty is one of the most important ways that we can find that path to reconciliation, but there are many other paths too, other agreements we can work on.

I know I was proud to stand alongside the House Leader of the opposition at a recent bringing back of Lightning Rock to the Semá:th people in Abbotsford. We stood there together to bring that land back to the Semá:th because it had been taken wrongly. It’s an important site for them.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: But indeed there are stories like that all across this province. They’re stories of such economic opportunity that we’re building billions and billions of investments in this province with First Nations, thousands and thousands of jobs with First Nations in this province together, united.

That’s how we build a better province.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Rob Botterell: It’s heartening to hear how this government and this minister describes the strong commitments to reconciliation. It makes me wonder. Why is that approach not being taken with the Cowichan Tribes decision?

Misinformation and lack of clarity on this issue, from both sides of this House, have created fear and confusion. This government’s caucus can’t even seem to get it straight. One day they say Aboriginal title should be suspended; next day they say it should be respected.

The temperature on this issue is high. I was also in the room last night, and if last night’s Richmond meeting is any indication, people want answers.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, is the plan now to suspend Aboriginal title?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Our approach as a government has been to bring people together to try to solve really complicated problems that the province is facing, whether it’s through a court case or whether it’s through our economic development plans, whether it’s through everything.

Sitting at a table and solving problems together is how we move forward. It’s no different than our approach with reconciliation. It’s the right of every nation and individual to meet the government in court. Of course, that’s part of the work that we need to do, and we need to respond in court. We haven’t changed our approach.

In this incident, we’ve been very clear about our position with respect to private property rights. Along with our many examples like the Haida agreement, where we sat down with nations and come up to an agreement where we can respect title and property rights, we’ll continue to do that work.

Dallas Brodie: Homeowners in Richmond woke up recently to find that they may not own their own homes. A judge gave their properties to an Indigenous band that had fished there over 150 years ago.

There are 204 bands in this province, and I don’t hear any of them saying that they’ve given up their claims.

My question is for the Premier. With 204 bands in B.C., how many more title cases could be coming down the pike? Just the number please.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: You know, I think it’s important that we focus on where we can come to agreement with each other. I think there are nations all across this province who are keen to reconcile with this province.

It’s important to know that this province didn’t enter treaty with most nations, as other provinces did. I wish we did. I wish we had. That would have helped nations. That would have helped this province have a lot more certainty today than we do.

But I don’t believe that the path to a better future is through division. I don’t believe it’s through denying the history of this province. It’s through acknowledging that this province has made missteps, has made errors, has caused violence and harm and trauma to First Nations people through laws that were passed in this room. We have to acknowledge that history.

When you acknowledge history, you start to get lighter. You start to find ways to see each other in a way that this building had denied us, in a way that our cultures had pushed us apart. It starts to lead you to a more hopeful future where you can stand alongside each other to build that economy of the future, to build that family, to build that home, to build that community that we all want.

[2:35 p.m.]

That’s what we must do — not through the politics of division, through denial, through making people invisible, through calling them names but through uniting in a positive path for a better future.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Dallas Brodie: I did ask for a number.

If judges don’t take away the homes of British Columbians, then this government will. This government is doing the bidding of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples by voluntarily giving away Aboriginal title across this province. They gave it away to the Haida last year. They’re giving it away to the shíshálh band right now. They’re holding secret talks to give it away to who knows how many more as we speak.

My question is for the Premier. How many bands is he currently in talks with about giving away Aboriginal title? No lectures on reconciliation, please. Just the number.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, I’m really glad that our high school system and our education system teaches about Indigenous education, teaches about Aboriginal rights and title, teaches about the true history of this province, because it’s clear some people have not learned anything from history.

I’m sorry that some members didn’t get the chance to learn about the true history of this province, the rich history that goes back thousands upon thousands of years, a rich history full of vital culture, vital language. If the member chose to learn about that history, her life would be better too. Our province would be better too.

You know, treaties are an important method that we find that certainty. It’s a way of finding agreement on how we work together and how we live together. It’s a path of honour and a path of peace.

I would urge the member to look to how we find agreement to work together as opposed to focusing on trying to divide us so we fight each other.

Funding for
Residential Care Facilities

Hon Chan: Can the minister tell us how many long-term-care and assisted-living beds are at risk of closing per health authority? We want the numbers, not a long, glorified speech.

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

This is a large sector. The topic we’re canvassing here around the temporary funding that was brought in to support overtime and agency staffing is a really important one because we have to work towards a system that provides the stable, safe care for seniors, for the people that we love who are residents of these homes.

That’s why, as I’ve already said today, we are committed to working with operators through the transition to understand the particular challenges that they might be facing at those facilities.

While the number that the opposition has cited is representative of around 6 percent of the number of beds, I know that it matters deeply to each family. I want to be very clear that people are not going to be ejected from their homes, that the fearmongering that’s going on here is very, very destabilizing for people.

We’re here to support people. This government is here to support people. That’s why we’re going to continue to do the work that we have to do, investing in long-term care to make up for years of neglect that we took on when we formed government, the first government in B.C. to establish a minimum care standard of 3.36 hours per day per resident.

We’re supporting the people who deliver this care. We’re going to continue this work.

Bruce Banman: Let me help the minister answer that question. She seems incapable of it. There are at least 60 in Fraser Health, 135 in Coastal Health, 241 in Island Health and 466 in Interior Health.

You might want to write that down so you know your numbers for next time.

The Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

Bruce Banman: Three Links Care Society in Vancouver is at risk of closing 90 long-term-care beds. Now, I realize the member for Vancouver-Renfrew has limitations when it comes to defending their government, so I’ll defend the seniors in his riding for him.

On behalf of the member, will the minister stop these Halloween cuts today and restore funding, yes or no?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: We are going to continue our work with this sector to deliver safe care for the people that we love, to continue to support the care aides, the housekeepers, the cooks, the nurses, the doctors, the administrators, the people who care for them.

I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to each and every one of those workers for what they do in these facilities.

But I don’t need to take any lessons from the opposition about investing in seniors care. When you form government and realize that nine out of ten facilities…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …are not meeting government standards, that is appalling. Our seniors deserve better, and that is why our government has invested in renewing beds…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …building new beds, investing in the training that’s needed for the staff to take care of the people that we love. We are not going to stop this work, because nothing could be more important than caring for these people and assuring their families that they are receiving the safe standard of care that they deserve.

Donegal Wilson: It is clear that this minister is making decisions without understanding the implications.

For my riding, ten beds in Grand Forks.

Will the minister stop these cuts, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, we’re going to continue to work with operators. We’re going to understand the challenges that they’re facing, and we’re going to work with them through a transition into a place where we’re building up the workforce that needed the investment when we formed government. We’re going to continue to support those people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We’re going to grow that workforce by continuing to recruit and to train more health care assistants, for example, but we’re also going to continue the work in building and renovating these facilities that need that support.

We’re going to continue to improve services so that seniors can stay at home. It is so vitally important to honour the fact that so many people want to stay at home for as long as they possibly can. Investing in community supports, investing in long-term care at home programs — this is the work we’re going to continue to do so that our seniors get the care and the support that they need and their families know that their loved ones are safe.

Linda Hepner: One hundred fifty-four long-term beds at Haro Park Centre Society are closing in the member for Vancouver west’s riding.

Will he stand up today and request that his minister stop these cuts, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, this is about working with the sector not about fearmongering and bringing in words that are striking fear in the families’ hearts of people that need to know their seniors are safe. That’s why we’re going to work with the sector. That’s why we’re going to continue rebuilding long-term care and supports for seniors after they were devastated by the members opposite.

We haven’t forgotten what happened when members opposite were on this side of the House. Once again, knowing that when we formed government, when we went into the COVID pandemic, knowing that the gaps were being exposed and seeing what it meant when people were forced to work in multiple facilities, putting our seniors at risk of infection….

That’s why our government has made changes. That’s why our government has brought in minimum standards of care. That’s why our government is investing in the workers that are needed to meet those so people know that their loved ones are safe.

Scott McInnis: I can’t believe the answers I’m hearing.

On Friday, 34 seniors in my riding will be forced from their home and shoved into the hallway of the East Kootenay Regional Hospital.

Will the minister extend agency nurse funding today, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member’s assertion is absolutely not true, and it is irresponsible to say those words in this House and to have the members of his community hear that when they are absolutely not true.

[2:45 p.m.]

We are working with the sector on transition through ending a COVID-era measure of funding. We’re going to continue to invest in training and recruiting more workers, addressing the root causes of some of these problems, understanding from operators what the particular challenges that they are facing are.

We’re going to continue that work because it is so vitally important that people know, that families know that their loved ones are being served well, are in safe homes, are being well cared for.

We can continue to work with the sector knowing that those investments in our seniors are all about the future of seniors health care in long-term facilities.

Sharon Hartwell: Well, the news doesn’t get any better. There are cuts all over the province.

One hundred fifty-four long-term-care beds at the Rosewood Manor are at risk of closing in Richmond.

Will the member for Richmond-Steveston tell the minister to stop these cuts, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, and I want to say a thank-you for coming up to my office yesterday to talk to me about a long-term-care issue in her community. That is the way work gets done, when I’m able to sit down and talk with a member about issues that they are facing in their constituency.

We have made the commitment. We are working with long-term-care operators who are coming forward. We are working with the sector. We are working with the B.C. Care Providers Association to understand challenges that different facilities are facing.

It is so vitally important that we move forward, ensuring that the recruitment is in place, that the staffing is in place, that our seniors are getting the care that they deserve. This government is going to stay focused on that, and not just in long-term-care facilities.

We are going to continue investing in the supports that people need at home, through the Better at Home program, for example, the partnership that we have with the United Way that delivers care for people right in their homes. We know that’s what seniors are looking for — investing in day programs, continuing long-term care at home, an innovative pilot to help seniors stay at home longer.

This work is going to continue because, as I have said time and time again today, we know families need to understand and feel that their loved ones are safe and secure in these facilities and in their homes.

Lorne Doerkson: In Cariboo-Chilcotin, more than 100 long-term-care beds are at risk of potential closure on Friday.

Will this minister stand before this House and stop these cuts, yes or no?

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

Again, we’re going to continue to work with operators in his riding and others who come forward. Health authorities are meeting with operators and understanding the challenges they have so that we can support them through a transition away from depending on temporary measures of funding and into stable and predictable supports around more health care aides working in these facilities, around supporting the minimum standards of care — the minimum standards of care that this government brought in.

We’re going to continue investing in this sector by renewing beds that needed to be replaced; by building new facilities, with 36 facilities either complete or underway; by improving and expanding access to supports for seniors at home. This work is not going to stop.

Brennan Day: We will continue. This side of the House is going to continue to represent not only our residents but the residents of your side, because you are leaving those seniors in the dust.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Brennan Day: On Friday, this minister knows exactly what’s going to happen. Seniors will end up in hospital hallways or worse.

[2:50 p.m.]

As Vaughn Palmer put it, this government only does the right thing when they’ve exhausted every other option. We have been here before. I still remember Charleigh Pollock and advocating for that riding.

We’re here today while the beds are closed in NDP ridings, entire non-profit facilities in the former Minister of Health’s riding.

It shouldn’t be up to us to do your job. Shame on you.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

Brennan Day: I’ll continue.

Don’t just take it from me. In the minister’s own words this fall: “Operators are experiencing cost pressures, so I have committed and we will be providing additional overtime and agency costs. It’s important to keep them whole.”

Well, they’re not whole. Staffing shortages have gotten worse. The funding model is still not resolved. Despite this minister’s promises, nothing has happened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Question, Member.

Brennan Day: In February 2024, the feds announced $733 million for B.C. over five years under the aging with dignity agreement to fix this problem. Where did the money go, debt servicing?

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Brennan Day: Has the minister really exhausted every other option, and will she finally do the right thing and end these cuts, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Can we have the minister to answer the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Chair will recognize when the opposition stops making noise.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member makes it very clear what he will continue to do, and I want to make it very clear what we will continue to do. We will continue to improve the safety of long-term-care homes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We will continue to enhance services to help seniors stay at home longer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Please conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne: What we will never do is what they did. We will never leave nine out of ten homes not meeting government standards. We will never pass legislation leading to the laying off of 10,000 workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We will never freeze SAFER supplements like they did.

What we will do is keep our focus on the people that we love and the safety that they need, the security and the dignity of the excellent and exceptional care that people are providing every single day in this province to the people that we love.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 35

Request to Debate a Matter of
Urgent Public Importance —
Protection of Property Rights
Impacted by Land Title Court Case

John Rustad: I move, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite and urgent public importance, specifically that this House supports protecting fee simple property rights and assessed property values as impacted by the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, until such time as all such appeals are exhausted, given that residents may be unable to acquire insurance and mortgages, thereby leaving them with an uncertain future.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the short notice of the motion from the member.

I would advise the Speaker that in terms of Standing Order 35, it’s usually applied when there is no other option to be able to talk about particular issues. The fact of the matter is that the opposition has raised this issue during question period. They have raised it in previous question periods. There are many more days in the session to address the issue in terms of question periods. The need for an emergency debate is not required.

I would also note that it has often been the tradition of this House that if the opposition is serious about having an emergency debate, they usually approach the government and other parties ahead of time to see if something could be arranged.

I’d ask you to take that under advisement. The reality is there is plenty of opportunity for this issue to be addressed in this House during question period.

[2:55 p.m.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Members.

The Chair will take this under advisement and come back shortly for a decision.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 31.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call the House back to order. We will continue on bill debate regarding Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Seeing no further speakers, I will call on the Minister of Energy to close debate.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I have a few words to say in closing debate and in response to the speeches that were made by members of the opposition, members on the government side and members of the Third Party in the debate.

Bill 31 is an important bill for British Columbia, and it does two sets of very important things.

The first is that it enables the building of the North Coast transmission line. We can see in the debate the fundamental difference between the government and the opposition on this question. They are against the North Coast transmission line. They’re against it. They made it clear in their statements that they’re against it. They, in fact, in the debate proposed, however absurd, alternatives. That’s a significant difference.

I understand that an opposition that is opposed to a clean energy transmission line that brings similar services to the northwest as are available in other parts of B.C.… A clean energy line such as that, they oppose. And the actions they’ve taken and their statements in debate indicate that opposition.

The North Coast transmission line is deeply connected to other measures the government has taken, including successive calls for power, again, for clean energy, delivering lower-cost clean energy, and we’ll get into the question of the cost of energy in these remarks in a few minutes, such that we’ve seen a dramatic reduction, for example, in the cost of renewable energy. This is the largest investment in renewable energy — it’s happening under the current government in the current context right now — that has ever been done, and that is intrinsically linked with transmission lines.

You cannot believe in clean energy and not believe in building transmission lines. The two are inconsistent and incompatible. That is an important reason, an important difference between many of the speeches on the opposition side and the government’s view on this matter.

[3:00 p.m.]

The opposition did raise some issues in its discussions. One of them was to suggest that small nuclear reactors are an alternative to the North Coast transmission line.

Just so that we understand the situation with small nuclear reactors in the world, there are none in North America currently operating. There are some under development in other jurisdictions; there are none operating. There are two countries in the world that have effectively got a very limited number of small nuclear reactors. Those countries are China and Russia.

To present, as the opposition has done — I refer to the members for Abbotsford West, for Courtenay-Comox, for Kelowna Centre, for Skeena, for Abbotsford South and many others — small nuclear reactors as an option on the north coast is preposterous. Why?

There is one project in Canada going forward now. It’s beside the Darlington nuclear reactor. They’re going to put other reactors beside that at a massive cost, between $20 billion and $30 billion, in an area that has been serving a nuclear reactor for a generation, not in an area that doesn’t have any — no supply lines, no way of dealing with spent fuels, and still dramatically more expensive.

The average levelized cost of the call for power is $74. The proposal, if it were on the north coast, is about $400, rate increases in every one of their jurisdictions. It wouldn’t happen, because it also requires dealing with the Canadian nuclear energy regulator and the international energy regulator.

The member for Skeena advocated for this, even though there is no plan, no idea. The member for Abbotsford South said the opposition had a plan. No plan and no idea as to how to deal with waste from a nuclear reactor. These are large. You may call them small nuclear reactors, compared to other nuclear reactors. They’re large nuclear reactors. There’s no plan in place. It would take a generation to build where they say they’re going to build.

When they say this is a reaction…. Repeatedly, member after member said that this was a low-cost option. Member after member on the opposition side said this was low-cost, at a fraction of the cost of the North Coast transmission line. It’s what they said in this House. I’ll read out the quotes, if the member would like.

Well, what is the fact? What is the comparison? On small nuclear reactors, due to international nuclear oversight requirements from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, it would take ten years to establish the required corporate and regulatory structure for B.C. Hydro to choose this incredibly expensive option.

In call for power projects, just to put in an example, the average, levelized cost would be in excess of $300 per megawatt hour after you do all that, and of course, the price would go up since then. We’re talking about an estimated price. They haven’t been built in Canada yet. They’re $20 billion to $30 billion beside Darlington, in Ontario.

What was the price of Site C? Let’s put that in context, because members talked about the cost of Site C. The opposition hydro critic talked about the failures of Liberal policies in the 2000s in his speech, but the average, levelized cost of energy at Site C is $87 to $95 per megawatt hour. The average, levelized price would be more than $300 per megawatt hour, probably considerably more, if you attempted to do this on the north coast.

It is false to say that this is a fraction of the price. It is a multiple of the price, and it couldn’t happen.

Why are we acting on the North Coast transmission line? It’s because we have a generational opportunity to develop mining and the Port of Prince Rupert. This is a generational opportunity.

It is a farce to suggest the small nuclear reactors, as multiple members of the opposition, nine of them, said in their speeches. It is a farce to say the small nuclear reactors are an alternative to this. They have no plan, even though the member for Abbotsford South…. There’s no plan to deal with waste, no plan to deal with the price. We’d have a massive increase in hydro rates. It couldn’t be built. That’s the plan of the opposition — Conservative math at work.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, in fairness, the opposition critic who led the debate, the member for Peace River South, didn’t talk about small nuclear reactors. He talked, as some members did, about natural gas, but the reality of that is also more expensive. It would require new pipeline capacity, and the member knows this — it’s not a transmission line — and, in addition, a transmission line from wherever the combined cycle plant is. It’s a more expensive option.

We are maximizing the value of our natural gas. That’s not a serious option either. It’s a better option, if you ignore the impact on climate change and everything else, than that suggested by his colleagues, but still not good, still nowhere near as good as allowing people in the north of British Columbia, in the northwest of British Columbia, to have access to the electricity that people in other parts of the province get for their aspirations, their industries, their commercial operations, their residential customers.

When the Leader of the Opposition was in the provincial cabinet, they built the Interior–Lower Mainland line to deliver, based on increasing requirements in Metro Vancouver, Site C power down to Vancouver. Good idea. We should do that.

But they are opposed to the northwest, and they represent the northwest? Well, not entirely, thankfully, because we heard the outstanding comments from the Minister of Environment in this debate. But members from the northwest are not speaking for their customers when they oppose clean energy being provided to the northwest. They’re not speaking for their industry, for jobs, for First Nations, for anyone else.

The North Coast transmission line is built into the history of B.C. I heard members on the opposition side refer to hydroelectric power as a 20th-century idea. The lights are on here, and they’re on all over the province because of that hydroelectric power.

Members in the opposition went on to attack B.C. Hydro. They attacked B.C. Hydro and staff, the outstanding people who work for B.C. Hydro, from MoveUp to the IBEW. They don’t like B.C. Hydro. They went on at length, some of the members, about the board of B.C. Hydro.

The board of B.C. Hydro is filled with engineers; outstanding former business leaders; labour leaders like Brynn Bourke, the head of the Building Trades, the staff leader of the Building Trades union. They attacked Glen Clark, former Premier, former head of the largest private company in British Columbia. They attacked him — apparently not good enough to get into the Conservative caucus.

They attacked other members who are members of the Hydro board. I could list off those outstanding members of that board who I think are serving in the public interest. You may disagree with them, but to disparage B.C. Hydro — its outstanding CEO, Charlotte Mitha, the outstanding team of B.C. Hydro — is just not, I think, a credible argument put forward by the opposition.

We’ve talked about their alternative, which is fantastically expensive and impossible to implement, which will leave the northwest region without the power it needs for generations. That’s their plan, just to be opposed, for people in the northwest to get the same level of access.

They’re also, apparently, opposed to partnerships with First Nations. They have lots to say about First Nations here all the time. The reality is that B.C. Hydro maintains and will continue to maintain responsibility and control for the transmission network. They’re expanding that network, and they’re entering into a joint venture, which we’re enabling here, with First Nations along the line.

This is, I think, an outstanding opportunity for First Nations, and a way forward, for many of them, on reconciliation, including in the ridings of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, the member for Skeena and for other communities along the line and, the members will know, for the Prince George ridings as well.

In short, this is a way to involve the local community, to reduce delays, to get the project built more quickly and more efficiently and, yes, to engage in a process of reconciliation which makes sense for people, which brings real wealth to communities, which allows communities that are advocating for more wealth to have more wealth. They are, through this process, also investors in the process. I think that is a remarkable thing and a remarkable opportunity.

[3:10 p.m.]

I hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about economic reconciliation, but when he sees it, he doesn’t like it. We like it. We believe that this process, which has been going on now for two years, to ensure that people are represented on the line and that local people and communities get employment on this line is an important question right now, and we are going to proceed.

That is what voting for this bill means. It means something profound, and it means something significant to the future of the province.

I want to talk a little bit about the other side of the bill and the things that were raised, because there has been a suggestion, which is incorrect, that this is some sort of expansion of governmental power in this bill. In fact, when you work with communities, as we are in the first part of the bill, it’s not an expansion. It’s bringing people together in terms of that.

In terms of the allocation framework, we are doing something very similar, by the way, to what we did last year. I heard from members on the opposition side about cryptocurrency. I hate to tell members of the opposition side, but we passed legislation, the 21.1 in this bill, on cryptocurrency last year. By the way, it was supported, including by members of the Conservative Party, Green Party, Liberal Party. There were no people voting against it.

The legislative foundation for the ban on cryptocurrency was passed at that time because what we concluded at that time was that there was very significant demand from cryptocurrency to the firm power sources of B.C. Hydro. That was not a good deal for B.C., was not a good deal for B.C. citizens, was not a good deal for B.C. Hydro. We decided to limit that.

There had been, and we have, cryptocurrency mines in British Columbia, and they have received B.C. Hydro power. As customers, they will continue to receive that power. It’s about in the neighbourhood of 166 megawatts. But we made the decision to do a temporary freeze, now a permanent freeze, on cryptocurrency. That’s common sense, and it’s consistent with what other jurisdictions are doing.

It’s clear what our plans are, which is to ensure that when we make decisions in B.C., they benefit businesses, benefit communities, benefit people, benefit ratepayers in British Columbia.

On and on we’ve heard about cryptocurrency and different positions. The House passed that bill last year, and the cryptocurrency ban by regulation went in place, the temporary one, before that. It enables that. So the cryptocurrency ban is part of this allocation framework. We’re not going to do allocations of firm electricity to cryptocurrency or to meet those energy demands.

What we are doing is, in fact, providing certainty in the legislation, saying that there are three sectors. These are artificial intelligence data centres, on the one hand, and hydrogen for export, on the other hand. Those areas will be part of what we call an allocation framework. The rules for that framework, who gets access to electricity right now, are on a first-come, first-served basis.

People will have read in the newspaper the request from Bell, for example, for 500 megawatts of electricity for what they want to do in B.C. So there’s uncertainty when there’s not necessarily an ability to deliver that, to ensure that people understand for business certainty what the rules are. That’s what we’ve established in place.

We’ve said that in rapidly scalable industries such as these, we are going to set up, in the public interest, criteria for first access to that electricity. We said in the documents associated with the bill, which we tabled around and have shared with members on all sides of the House, that that would be 150 megawatts a year for AI — there aren’t really hydrogen-for-export programs now, so we don’t do that; and 50 for data centres.

If you do three years, it’d be 450 for AI and 150 for data centres, which is no small number. It’s 600 megawatts in the province.

We’re doing that in a way to ensure that the massive demand in these areas meets the public interest. What will those criteria be? This is the only role for the cabinet, just as we did in cryptocurrency — to set the criteria, as supported by the Green Party, as supported by these Conservatives and the then B.C. Liberal Party; as we did for cryptocurrency, as we’re doing now.

What we’re saying is that there should be criteria that establish how B.C. Hydro manages that process. That is economic policy in the province — not the responsibility of the B.C. Utilities Commission, never the responsibility of the B.C. Utilities Commission, which we respect and admire and which continues to have its responsibilities.

[3:15 p.m.]

It sets the criteria required for these allocations of power based on the public interest. Once those criteria are set, it will be up to B.C. Hydro, under the supervision, as it always is, of an ethics adviser, to go forward with an RFP, as we did for all the clean energy projects we have.

In short, all of these arguments about a centralization of government power are not correct. We are establishing an allocation framework. There is one now. It’s first come, first served. It’s an allocation framework in these three areas. If we wanted to do it in other areas, we would have to come back to the Legislature. This isn’t a generalized power to do it in other areas. It’s just for those three areas.

We’re doing it to ensure that everybody understands the rules of the game. The rules of the game here in B.C. are that we are promoting businesses, and we are, especially for businesses, delivering the public interest, delivering jobs to B.C. and addressing issues of data sovereignty, which are fundamental in B.C. We have to ensure that when a provider who is providing and assisting us with data sovereignty has access to the power…. It’s not just the first person to get into the line, which could need three security guard jobs somewhere around the data centre, but it’s something that meets the public interest and meets the public test.

B.C. Hydro and its standing executives will be involved in RFP. We did an RFP on clean energy. I haven’t heard a single person…. There are some people who are disappointed in the results of the RFP and criticize that. My role in that process, having worked to set the criteria, worked with other members — I welcome other members involved in that process as well — is to help set the criteria, have those set by cabinet. Then B.C. Hydro takes over, and the B.C. Utilities Commission’s role on hydro rates continues unaffected, as it should.

All of these lengthy arguments about increasing centralization of government…. This isn’t centralization of government. This is the government saying that our clean energy advantage should be used for the benefit of British Columbia, as it always is.

Are we picking winners and losers? We are setting criteria in the public interest. It will be the process, it will be the people competing for the power, that effectively picks the winners and losers — along with the B.C. Hydro process, the outstanding teams at B.C. Hydro — and will make these decisions. In short, this is a process consistent with a government that wants to drive economic development and wants to support the AI and data centres in a paced way so that they bring real economic benefits to British Columbia, which I think is a good idea.

I want to say two other things. One is about the centrality of this and the opportunity for B.C. to do something remarkable, to build our economy through the North Coast transmission line, to build our economy through calls for power, to meet that clean energy test and to continue to address issues of climate change in a way that they are doing around the world. Wind powers are growing around the world. The Conservative leader calls them “unicorn farts.”

If we’re going to do this, we’ve got to build the projects. If we’re going to do this, we’ve got to use our clean electricity advantage in the public interest in British Columbia. We think that’s about taking advantage of this extraordinary opportunity in the northwest, in the Port of Prince Rupert, in the Port of Stewart, in the Port of Kitimat, with LNG projects, which will be the lowest-emission electrified LNG projects in the world, and mining projects that have the potential to create massive wealth for the province, massive revenues for the province, jobs for British Columbians and will be transformative to the region.

This is our opportunity. This is what we’re trying to do. We have heard from the Mining Association.

We’ve heard from the opposition saying that this is not good for consumer confidence. Having some sort of nuclear fantasy for the north coast, is that supporting investor confidence? No.

We’ve heard from the Mining Association and their support for what we’re doing. We’ve heard from businesses who want to invest in the region, their support for what we’re doing.

[3:20 p.m.]

Establishing clear rules in terms of allocation in the public interest is good for business confidence, as well, in sectors such as AI and data centres. We have a special opportunity in B.C., and we cannot leave it behind now.

We are proceeding, involving First Nations, involving business, addressing issues of climate change in a way that no other jurisdiction, save perhaps Quebec, is doing in our energy and electricity policies, building transmission and building renewable energy.

This is a fundamental debate for our generation. There is a lot of noise about these issues right now. But we are taking a path that’s admirable, I think, and consistent with the extraordinary history of our province.

I encourage members to vote for this bill. The members of the opposition said in a number of their speeches…. My friend from Peace River South said that we have the cleanest natural gas in the world. Why do we have the cleanest natural gas in the world? Because we’ve taken action on that question, on methane emissions. That’s why. It’s because of CleanBC. That’s why. And it’s because the industry working with the government on CleanBC has reduced emissions. That’s why we have it.

So you can’t oppose CleanBC, as multiple members of the opposition side, and then take credit or say that that’s an important thing. It is dependent on us taking action and continuing to take action, continuing to reduce methane emissions in that sector.

I say to everybody in the House that there is no alternative. If you care about the future of this province and about this planet on the issue of climate change, you have to build out more clean electricity. It is not acceptable in this moment, when we have such opportunities in our province, to step away from that. We’ve got to step towards that. That is the only path in terms of electricity policies.

There are other things we can do in terms of reducing emissions, but this is the path forward: building transmission, working with First Nations, working with communities, ensuring that benefits stay in communities, not allowing some parts of the province not to have access to the clean energy that other parts of the province have.

The northwest is calling to this Legislature to take action to ensure that they have the clean electricity they need to fulfil their dreams. This bill is part of making that happen.

I encourage all members of the House to support this bill. I look forward to all of the questions in committee stage. I think they are important questions to go forward with respect to issues of habitat that were raised by the Green Party members; issues of how the allocation will work that were raised by my colleague, by Peace River South; and others, questions of the demands and the needs for electricity — surely, building a transmission line is good for that in our province; and all the other questions around this.

When we debated last year the bill that contained cryptocurrency, members of the Green Party, for example, said: “Well, we’d like this to apply to LNG too.” They made some of the same speeches that were made in this debate, that the Green Party leaders in the House made in this debate. But they didn’t oppose the good thing we were doing, even though they wanted us to do more or different things.

This is in the public interest. It expands electricity in our province. It addresses issues of economic development. It gives hope to our province. It builds our economy. It addresses issues of climate change.

I ask all members of the House to participate, of course, in the committee stage and to support this excellent piece of legislation that moves our province forward.

[3:25 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Division has been called.

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, we are going to take a division vote on Bill 31 now, but before we start that process, I would like to ask members to stay behind after a vote is taken. The member for Abbotsford West would like to make a very important introduction.

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Valeriote	Botterell
NAYS — 42
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Brodie	Armstrong	Bhangu
Paton	Gasper	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Chapman	Maahs	Kealy
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Doerkson	Luck	Block

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that Bill 31 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Of course, we have an important introduction.

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld: Many of us as MLAs know how challenging it is to be here and away from our families, but there are two individuals that have been fighting their personal battles.

Today, for the first time, the member for Surrey South is on the screen, and I’d also like to give a shout-out to the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, both who are very courageous.

Let’s stand up and support them and show them how much we care.

[Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you so much.

Debate Continued

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 28.

In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 20.

[3:40 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Business Practices and
Consumer Protection
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call the chamber back to order.

We are going to begin debate on Bill 28, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

We will call on our Attorney General to introduce the bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

In a time of increasing complexity and rising cost of living, the bill will amend the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act to provide people in British Columbia, including those who are financially vulnerable, with important tools to protect themselves against credit-related fraud.

The bill will also amend the Personal Information Protection Act to ensure that people in British Columbia can consistently and without cost access their personal information held by the credit reporting agencies. The amendments will also provide assurance that people can seek correction of their personal information held by the credit reporting agencies in a timely way, recognizing the importance that accuracy of this information has in the financial lives of people.

We also recognize that some people in the province access credit monitoring and credit repair services at a cost. The amendments ensure that people are aware of the information they can access and the steps they can take themselves at no cost.

As it relates to credit card fraud protection specifically, this bill creates the ability for people in B.C. to apply security alerts and credit freezes to their credit file held by their credit reporting agencies. This provides people with the ability to manage how their credit reporting information is shared and creates obligations on businesses and lenders who receive a security alert to verify the identity of the individual before entering into a credit agreement.

Security alerts and credit freezes have been implemented in other Canadian jurisdictions, and they are an important tool to manage people’s financial health.

The bill provides people in B.C. with free access to their credit reporting information held by their credit reporting agencies, including their credit scores, on a regular basis. This will safeguard people’s ability to monitor their financial health and, where necessary, take measures to protect themselves.

We also understand the importance of accuracy in credit reporting information, as we recognize that this information is used to make important decisions in people’s lives. As a result, we are creating the ability to require credit reporting agencies to correct personal information within defined timelines so as to ensure that the information used to make significant financial decisions is accurate.

In the consultations leading to this bill, which were undertaken primarily in 2022 and 2023, we sought feedback from stakeholders about credit monitoring offered by the credit reporting agencies and credit repair services. These services, generally offered at a cost, intend to alert people of changes to their credit reporting information and improve their financial circumstances.

At the same time, through this bill, we are providing people with the tools they need to monitor and improve their credit report and score on their own and at no cost. As a result, we are creating new obligations on businesses that offer credit repair services and on the credit reporting agencies that offer credit monitoring to disclose, prior to entering a contract, the steps that people can take on their own at no cost to monitor and improve their credit reporting information.

We are also prohibiting credit repair services, which are offered at a cost, from making untrue or misleading commitments to improve people’s credit reports and scores.

Finally, this bill makes amendments that improve clarity of provisions in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and Motor Dealer Act that relate to the regulators that oversee consumer protection laws, specifically Consumer Protection B.C. and the Vehicle Sales Authority. These changes will assist the regulators in effective administration and enforcement of the act.

Overall, I believe the bill takes important steps in protecting people and consumers in British Columbia. Early this year in Bill 4, we successfully advanced changes to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, focused on contract transparency and providing consumers access to justice. The amendments proposed now build on Bill 4 by providing people in B.C. with further rights to ensure that they have direct access and control over their credit reporting information.

[3:45 p.m.]

This delivers on my commitment to continue to improve consumer protection laws in B.C., a responsibility that I intend to continue to pursue through the rest of my mandate.

Deputy Speaker: Beginning debate will be Richmond-Queensborough.

Steve Kooner: I will be speaking on behalf of the official opposition as the Attorney General critic.

Before I begin, I’d just like to…. The Attorney General just mentioned that we covered another bill, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, No. 1, I believe, 2025. This seems to be in a type of series. Basically, we’re looking at consumer protection. That particular bill had to do with business practices when they deal with consumers and consumer protection in that way, when goods are sold to those consumers.

This goes a little bit further along the line. At times, when you’ve got to buy goods, when you’re purchasing goods, you sometimes need loans to actually purchase those goods. So along that same line of the work that was done on Bill 4, this continues. This deals with a credit safeguard framework. That’s what this deals with.

This legislation touches on an area that affects nearly every British Columbian. It affects every British Columbian — our credit, our financial identity, the information that defines our financial reputation.

Whether you are applying for a mortgage, renting an apartment or financing a vehicle, it touches on the way the credit information is collected, stored, used and how it is used to approve items of loans and how loans are declined as well. So it looks at a complete framework in terms of the credit safeguards and the credit framework that one needs to have to make sure they are protected.

Bill 28 seeks to strengthen the legal framework around credit reporting, credit monitoring and credit repair services. In principle, consumer protection is good, and there needs to be protecting of credit reporting, credit monitoring and credit repair services.

Sometimes we see some rogue businesses that deal with credit services, such as involving credit repair services or credit monitoring services. Sometimes consumers are promised certain fixing tools to their credit and are told that there is an upfront fee for that when, in essence, there may not be actual fixing tools for those consumers in regard to their credit.

This has been an issue in recent years, so this particular piece of legislation does address a problem that exists, has existed. In today’s day, with the online phenomena, we see a lot of people trying to apply for loans. Even if certain people want to purchase certain goods and they don’t have the money for them, there are a lot of different credit applications that happen online. It’s become a lot easier to apply for these credit applications.

More needs to be done to protect these consumers in this sense. This is what this bill, in principle, aims to actually do.

The bill updates the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which was first passed in 2004, as the Attorney General mentioned earlier. This is the second series of amendments to that particular original act. Earlier in the year, we dealt with Bill 4. That was the first change that happened, two decades, essentially, after the legislation had come in. Back then we were told that there was a lot that had gone on over 20 years, and there weren’t any sort of changes, so it was ripe time to actually bring changes, to review consumer protection laws.

[3:50 p.m.]

One thing that was not addressed was credit safeguards. Credit safeguards, especially in an era of identity theft, ease of identity theft, cyber attacks in regard to targeting credit information, personal information…. This type of regime, this type of safeguard is absolutely needed to protect British Columbians.

As I said, in a world of online transactions, identity theft, data breaches and credit fraud, we need credit safeguards. The intent of this bill is to give consumers stronger tools to protect their credit information and correct errors in regard to their credit while setting clearer standards for businesses that handle such information. That is a worthy goal and one that deserves careful discussion in this chamber.

Over the past decade, British Columbians have become increasingly dependent on credit. As I mentioned earlier, it’s easier to buy products even if you do not have the funds to do it. There are a lot of agencies that are willing to offer you the funds. They make it seem like they can check your credit quite easily and get you the funds.

A lot of people may be enticed into purchasing items, even items that they may not even need, because they know that there’s an ease of getting funds. With that, before you get those funds, you’re dealing with your credit.

Similarly, on the lines of providing ease to actual consumers, the people that do identity theft…. It’s actually easier for them to buy goods as well, because if they have stolen somebody’s identity and personal information, they may try to use that for credit information, credit approval, to actually buy goods. So this legislation comes at a crucial time in terms of consumer protection and looking at the actual regime and what has gone on for the last two decades since the original Consumer Protection Act was adopted in 2004.

Credit. We increasingly need it for not only major purchases, such as homes and vehicles, but even for everyday expenses. As a result, the information contained in a credit report…. A lot of times when you want to get that loan, the agencies that are going to give you that loan, they’re going to want to see a credit report. They’re going to want to see credit information.

That’s their aspect of having some level of security in terms of the funds that they offer. They want to make sure that the person that they’re advancing the funds to is credible and sound financially to actually return that money. So credit plays a very crucial, crucial role.

At the same time as the industry is growing with credit and the framework of credit and the credit used to purchase items and credit actually explored by agencies that loan the money, there are some problems. We’re seeing a growing number of complaints about errors in credit reports.

There are credit agencies out there that provide credit reports or provide credit services, but we are seeing increasing complaints of errors in regard to those credit reports. We are also seeing difficulties in getting those errors corrected. Consumers are seeing those difficulties in getting those errors corrected in terms of their credit reports.

Now, I just mentioned earlier how important this credit framework is in terms of, say, the framework or the credit reports. It affects everything. These days a lot of people are using a lot of plastic. They are using a lot of loans to function in their daily lives. Credit reports play a more crucial role than ever before.

[3:55 p.m.]

But there are certain agencies, businesses that engage with these credit reports, engage with the handling of this credit information. At times, the information that’s floated around may have mistakes in it.

A lot of times, when we look at this credit information, it seems like it’s kind of up in the air, because the actual consumer doesn’t really have the paper in front of them, doesn’t really have the report in front of them. Whatever their credit score is or whatever their credit issues may have in them…. They may be in an obscure place that they may not see. If they may not see what’s going on with their credit rating and their credit information, their personal information, you need even more safeguards to actually deal with this credit information and credit reports.

Along with this industry, like I mentioned earlier, there are businesses and there are agencies that help with producing these credit reports for consumers, because consumers don’t see these on a daily basis. They don’t get mailed. They have to order them. There are side agencies that have access to that, and they can provide the consumers with these reports.

Then there are other businesses other than the ones that provide the credit reports. There are services that offer the consumer…. If you have bad credit, these service providers are saying that they can help you improve your credit so you can, in fact, get a loan.

Sometimes we’ve seen in the practical reality that a lot of things are promised, because a lot of people need money, and they need good credit to get that money. Sometimes consumers fall prey to deceptive practices by some agencies that offer credit repair services.

For those reasons, we need extra protection in this area. This area of loans and credit information is not getting smaller. It’s actually getting bigger. Especially with more technology, it’s getting bigger and bigger, and it’s growing at a massive pace. So we really do need extra protections.

I’d now like to get into the actual bill and the sections, what we actually see in this particular bill when we’re going through it. I’ll touch on some crucial clauses.

Clause 1. When we go through clause 1, we see there’s a definitions section. We see definitions on such things as credit repair services, credit repair services provider, credit score, report, reporting agency — all important definitions in regard to a credit framework or a credit regime. These are definitions that are well applicable.

Then in clause 2, we get into more defined terms, such as “applicable contract.”

In clause 3, we go further into repealing and substituting a particular part in terms of adding a title to the legislation.

Clause 4 seems to be another general clause here.

In 5, we actually start to get more into a substantial subject part of this bill. We start talking about security alert information. One of the things I said is that there needed to be more safeguards, and one of the things that this bill does is talk about security alert information.

For example, if there’s security alert information that’s passed on to an agency that’s trying to get a credit report, that would alert them that there’s some issue, so they would have to identify the individual that would be trying to get certain information. This gets into more of the substance matter of providing the extra protection for the consumer in terms of safeguarding their credit information.

[4:00 p.m.]

Clause 6 just goes further and talks further about if you want to request some information in regard to what’s in the security alert information.

Then as we go further into this bill, after this last section I just mentioned, there’s some information on how you can actually put a freeze on the disclosure of credit reports. This is another mechanism where you can freeze certain entities from getting further credit reports and getting further financial information.

One thing to mention about the credit framework. Anytime somebody does a credit check, it actually takes a toll on your credit rating. Every time somebody does a check, it takes a toll. So if you have some sort of freezing ability….

I reserve my right to continue my debate and move to adjourn the debate.

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 35
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Request to Debate a Matter of
Urgent Public Importance —
Protection of Property Rights
Impacted by Land Title Court Case

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair has reviewed the application made under Standing Order 35 by the Leader of the Official Opposition for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, being fee simple property rights, in light of an August 2025 decision rendered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Chair appreciates the brief submission from the Leader of the Official Opposition and from the Government House Leader.

Members will know that the requirements of Standing Order 35 are rigid. The process for raising a matter under Standing Order 35 is prescribed in detail within the standing order provisions and in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition. It’s the duty of the Chair to determine whether the criteria and high threshold under Standing Order 35 have been met.

As noted in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, at page 121, reflecting a decision of Speaker Reid, the Chair must be guided by two factors. The first is to review the matter raised to determine whether other opportunities to debate the matter are available to the House. The second is to assess whether new, sudden or unexpected events require the House to suspend all other business for a genuine emergency debate on the matter.

The subject of the application under Standing Order 35 by the Leader of the Official Opposition has been raised several times during the fall sitting period, including in the Oral Questions period earlier today. Based on the submission from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Chair concludes that neither of the noted criteria for an application under Standing Order 35 have been met.

It is therefore the ruling of the Chair that the application fails.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 28.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Business Practices and
Consumer Protection
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025
(continued)

Steve Kooner: I was just discussing a security mechanism such as freezing disclosure of credit reports. This is a very important mechanism, as I just mentioned.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I was talking about how every time somebody tries to get a credit report, it affects your credit. It affects your credit rating. The degree to how much it may affect the credit rating really depends on the actual consumer or the individual, so this is a very important mechanism to make sure there’s a credit safeguard here in this.

[4:05 p.m.]

Then as you go further, there’s also a further discussion about credit monitoring services. The important thing that I kind of took from that aspect of the bill is that when you’re engaging any sort of credit monitoring services and people think that they want to monitor their credit, for one, they should be able to access….

They want to get a credit report. They should have the knowledge that they are entitled to one credit report which may not even cost them anything. So some people can’t be thinking that they’re engaging some contract and they’re actually getting a service when somebody may be just entitled to that information regardless.

The sections on credit monitoring services actually deal with that, in regard to what disclosure you may be entitled to regardless of having a contract with a credit monitoring service.

Then it also talks about if you engage a credit monitoring service to make sure your credit is going okay. It also talks about how you may be able to cancel that contract if you feel that you’re not getting anything out of it. For whatever reason, you may want to cancel it, and you should have that option to do it.

As we go further into the bill, specifically at clause 7, there’s that discussion about credit repair services. I briefly touched on this in the initial part of my debate. I talked about the credit repair services. There have been some rogue agencies that have, at times, taken advantage of consumers, offering certain recourses to fix their credit that may not even have any basis to it.

This part of the bill is designed to make sure that there’s no deceptiveness from any of these agencies providing credit repair services. This is a very important section because a lot of people do need loans, and if they can’t get a loan, they may be looking at someone that may be able to help them, counsel them, in regard to fixing their credit. Another part of this bill actually gets quite detailed about how to deal with these credit repair services.

Another part I found important was that, at times, there are these credit repair-service agencies that say they’re going to provide these services, and they try to get some sort of upfront fees without delivering. This bill actually talks about if you want a fee, you better make sure you’ve achieved some sort of result, and then you can ask for a fee, rather than promising something and not delivering and still getting a fee for it. This bill actually addresses that situation when it’s talking about credit repair services.

At many times throughout the bill, the bill does talk about the contracts with the credit agencies, whether it’s credit monitoring services or it’s credit repair services. It talks about the consumer’s cancellation rights. It talks about how consumers can get out of that contract. It goes into detail under which circumstances and in which time period they can actually do that.

As we go further through this bill, it has many housekeeping sections within it. We heard earlier that it also deals with some consequential amendments to a couple of other statutes.

[4:10 p.m.]

One other statute that it deals with is the Motor Dealer Act, and another one it deals with is the Personal Information Protection Act. That’s an important one. It’s an important one because that gives the consumer a mechanism for how to fix an error in their credit information.

I talked earlier about how a lot of this information is sometimes in an obscure place, up in the air. You don’t know where your credit information is. You don’t know where this personal information is kept. A lot of people don’t know what their credit rating is.

It’s usually these agencies. You go to these agencies, such as Equifax or TransUnion, to maybe get your report, and then you find out what’s on there in detail and see if there have been any sort of credit issues on that report.

Because of that nature, it has been very difficult to correct errors. If there’s an error on there, a mistake on there, there may be something that may not be connected to you, and it’s on there.

This bill, in this part where it makes this particular amendment in regard to the Personal Information Protection Act, goes to dealing with getting access to your information. When you get access to your information, you may be able to kind of fix it. This bill goes into detail on how you can fix some of those errors that may come up, throughout this bill.

Just to go into a little bit more detail in terms of this particular part of this bill, under the Personal Information Protection Act, it comes down to clause 20 here, the “Right to request correction of personal information — credit reporting agency.” That’s the title. The title kind of explains what it actually does.

“An individual may request a credit reporting agency to correct an error or omission in the personal information that is about an individual, and under the control of the credit reporting agency.

“If an individual makes a request to a credit reporting agency under subsection (1), the credit reporting agency must, within the prescribed period of time, comply with subsections (3) or (4).”

It goes further.

“If the credit reporting agency is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a request made under subsection (1) should be implemented, the credit reporting agency must correct the personal information, and as soon as reasonably possible after correcting the personal information, send the corrected personal information to each organization to which the personal information was disclosed by the credit reporting agency during the year before the date the correction was made.

“If a credit reporting agency is not satisfied on the grounds that a request made under subsection (1) should be implemented, the credit reporting agency must annotate the personal information under its control with the correction that was requested but not made.

“When an organization is notified under subsection (3)(b) of a correction of personal information, the organization must correct the personal information under its control.”

It really gives the consumer a mechanism to kind of protect, correcting their information. Rather than have this thinking that your information is in an obscure spot and you can’t really get to it if you need to fix it, this bill actually goes and gives that mechanism to the consumer.

There are some challenges with this bill. There are some weaknesses in this bill, and that’s where I want to go next. I’m just going to get into that for the last few minutes of this particular debate.

The areas of concern that I have…. One of the concerns I have is in terms of enforcement.

Now, all this text is written out to protect the consumers, but a lot of it, a lot of the stuff may come out in regulations.

[4:15 p.m.]

It sets up the theory of how you can protect yourself, how you can protect your credit and how you can deal with these credit reporting agencies, these monitoring agencies, these credit repair agencies. It deals with all of that.

But how will it play out? How will the enforcement play out? Some of the details were a little bit lacking in terms of the enforcement, of how consumers will enforce these provisions that are designed to protect them. That’s one of the concerns I had.

Some of the other concerns I had, when you’re dealing with some of these credit reporting agencies…. We’re dealing with the law. We’re putting a law in place here in B.C., but some of these credit reporting agencies are across the country.

So now if we make legislation in this particular bill, how will that apply to these other credit agencies? How is that going to work with these credit agencies that are kind of transnational? The ultimate goal is we want to see some consumer protection in terms of safeguards and in terms of their credit, but how will it deal with those agencies that are outside the province, that are operating extra-provincially and within the province as well?

Then the other aspect that when I was reviewing this bill, I looked at…. There’s a lot that’s written here which is good in terms of how you protect your credit information and your credit reporting accuracies and errors and how you correct those errors. There’s a lot of stuff in there, and it codifies all these protections.

The thing is, how will consumers understand this information? It gets a little bit complicated. I have a legal background. I could read this stuff and read it maybe a couple of times to get the gist of it. But if there are consumers that are relying on this, they’re going to need a bit of education to understand how all this is going to play out, how they can get access to all these mechanisms and what sort of steps they’re going to have to take. I think that’s an important thing. Some of these questions need to be addressed at committee stage.

We need to address the educational aspect for consumers in regard to the subject matter of the bill. We need to talk about these credit reporting agencies that operate across the country and how it’s going to be applicable to them. We also need to talk about some of the enforcement provisions within this bill and how the enforcement is actually going to happen. There’s a lot of stuff to actually be debated at committee stage as well.

I’m looking forward to seeing this bill go to committee stage so we can have a more thorough review clause by clause on this bill to address some of these concerns that I have raised.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 28, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act.

It may sound like it has a mundane name and a mundane topic, but at its heart, this bill is about fairness. It’s about transparency and accountability in British Columbia’s marketplace. It’s about ensuring that we modernize our business practices and consumer protection to recognize the digital economy, to make sure consumers have tools and protections they need to make informed financial decisions and to safeguard their personal information.

I’ll save the House from reading the bill line by line, because I’m pretty sure we can all read it. But what I want to talk about is what I think is really important about this bill and why I support it.

We’re going to continue to modernize, with this bill, our consumer protection laws to reflect the realities of today’s economy, where data and credit are deeply intertwined in your daily life. If it’s passed, this legislation will allow consumers to access their credit report and score monthly for free. It will enable them to set up security alerts and credit freezes at no cost, giving individuals control over their most critical financial information.

It will strengthen rules for credit reporting agencies and credit repair businesses, ensuring their services are delivered accurately and transparently.

[4:20 p.m.]

It will create new safeguards against identity theft and credit fraud, making it harder for fraudsters to open accounts or take out loans using stolen identities.

During the last campaign, I met a constituent whose young adult son had just started his financial journey. He was renting an apartment. He was applying for his first line of credit to purchase a vehicle. One day through this process, they discovered that someone had taken out a large loan in his name. His credit rating was destroyed before he had even had a chance to build it. They were shocked, unaware of how deeply vulnerable they were, that all of us are, to this type of fraud.

This bill would have given them the ability to place a security alert or credit freeze immediately, preventing that fraud from spreading further. This is the kind of real-world protection that this legislation delivers.

Here are a few more things that these amendments will do.

They will increase access to credit reporting information, including credit scores, through amendments to the Personal Information Protection Act. This means consumers will be able to request and receive their credit report and score from TransUnion or Equifax once a month, free of charge.

It will require credit reporting agencies to place security alerts and credit freezes when requested and verify a person’s identity for application of amendment of removal of this protection.

This means consumers will be able to apply a security alert or a credit freeze at any time, without needing to show or prove a risk of fraud, which means consumers can proactively manage their financial well-being and make it harder for someone who stole a consumer’s credit information to take out a loan in their name.

If this had been available to that young constituent, their journey of fraud would have never happened.

Lenders will be obligated to make reasonable efforts to confirm consumers’ identity when such an alert is active. This will make it far more difficult for someone to take out a loan using stolen credit information and puts the onus on the lender to verify the identity.

This bill also bans exploitive practices by credit repair businesses, prohibiting them from charging fees before services are rendered or making false claims about guaranteed score improvements. British Columbians seeking help in financial hardship will no longer be preyed upon by misleading promises. A person will only pay once a legitimate correction or verified improvement has occurred.

Imagine being at your most financially vulnerable, trying to fix your financial situation and being targeted again by bad actors in the credit repair business. This bill will help stop that cycle.

These changes will also ensure consumers know what free options they already have before paying for unnecessary services.

These amendments were developed through consultation with consumer advocates, with industry partners and regulatory bodies.

The CEO of the B.C. Financial Services Authority stated: “As B.C.’s regulator of financial services, we welcome efforts to strengthen consumer protection. We value ongoing collaboration with government and stakeholders to help ensure the financial sector remains responsive to the needs of British Columbians.”

The president and CEO of Equifax said: “Equifax Canada is excited to partner with the government to empower consumers by introducing credit freezes in the province. This can significantly enhance consumers’ ability to protect themselves against the impacts of fraud and identity theft.”

That’s collaboration — government and industry working together to serve people, not profits.

Bill 28 represents what responsible, progressive government looks like in a modern economy. This government believes that markets should serve people, not exploit them. We believe regulation should empower consumers, should protect the vulnerable and ensure integrity in every transaction.

By enshrining transparency, access and fairness, we’re reinforcing that the rules apply equally, whether you are a renter trying to secure housing, a newcomer building credit or a small business owner recovering after hardship.

[4:25 p.m.]

Financial inclusion isn’t just an economic issue. It’s a social one. When people can rebuild their credit or correct an error or qualify for a loan, they can participate fully in our economy and in our communities. That’s dignity, that’s progress, and that’s what Bill 28 stands for.

To British Columbians, to the student applying for a loan, to the senior protecting their savings, to the newcomer building credit from the ground up, this bill says: “Your rights, your data, your dignity will be protected.”

I encourage everyone in the House to support Bill 28 and to affirm that fairness in our financial system isn’t just a goal, but it’s a value we live by in this province.

Gavin Dew: I rise today to speak to Bill 28, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2). This legislation focuses on credit reporting, credit monitoring and credit repair services and represents the next phase in ongoing modernization of consumer protection laws.

This bill is, in essence, about protecting the financial reputation of British Columbians, ensuring that their credit information is secure, accurate and used fairly. It continues the same modernization effort we saw earlier this year with Bill 4, which tackled unfair contract terms and subscription renewals. Bill 28 now moves from contracts to credit data, the information that determines whether people can rent a home, buy a car or start a small business.

Let me start by stating my understanding of the bill clearly. Bill 28 continues to work to modernize consumer protections similar to what we’ve seen in other provinces, including Ontario. British Columbians deserve to be able to understand the contracts they are signing. We will have questions when the legislation comes to committee for discussion, but we support it in principle.

This bill builds on the direction we ultimately supported in Bill 4, strengthening fairness and transparency for consumers. Where Bill 4 dealt with the fine print of contracts, Bill 28 deals with the fine print of credit reports. It recognizes that in a digital economy, credit data is as consequential as a contract. British Columbians should be able to see what information affects their credit, correct errors and guard against fraud without being buried in red tape or subjected to hidden fees.

This bill also aligns British Columbia with other provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, which have already implemented credit reporting reforms. That alignment matters. Credit agencies such as Equifax and TransUnion operate nationally. Consistency between jurisdictions avoids duplication, lowers compliance costs and makes protections clearer for consumers.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 28 makes more than two dozen amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Personal Information Protection Act. I’ll highlight the most significant changes.

Clause 1 introduces new definitions: credit repair services, credit repair services provider, credit score report and reporting agency. These definitions establish who is responsible for what, creating a clearer legal framework for oversight and delineating between different kinds of service providers.

Clause 5 adds section 107.1, which requires a business to confirm identity whenever a credit report contains a security alert. For example, if a consumer has flagged potential fraud, it lays out procedures for both when the person is present and when they are not, helping prevent identity theft transactions before they happen.

Clause 6 is especially significant. It gives consumers two new rights. The first is the right to place a security alert on their credit file, and the second is the right to request a credit freeze which stops agencies from disclosing their reports to lenders or others without consent. Agencies must verify identity, act promptly, notify consumers before an alert or freeze expires and may not charge a fee for these services.

Clauses 6 and 7 also create an entirely new framework for credit monitoring and credit repair services. They require full disclosure of consumer rights before entering a monitoring contract, including a reminder that everyone already has a free right of access to their own credit report every 30 days under the Personal Information Protection Act. If a company fails to make that disclosure, the consumer can cancel the contract within a year and receive a full refund within 15 days.

[4:30 p.m.]

For credit repair services, the bill specifies that no payment can be taken until a measurable result has been achieved, such as the correction of an error or a genuine improvement in credit score. This targets predatory credit-fix schemes that too often exploit people who are already under financial strain.

I would stress that what we hope to see achieved with this legislation is to ensure that we are going after exactly those bad actors who are exploiting people who are in a difficult position and making sure that the legislation and the regulation that follows is geared toward exactly that objective.

The importance of these provisions is not theoretical. We’ve all seen the consequences when personal data falls into the wrong hands. A prominent example is the Interior Health data breach. That breach dates back to 2009, when personal information — names, birthdates, social insurance numbers and employment details — for over 28,000 current and former employees was exposed and later misused by criminal actors.

Many of those individuals only learned of the exposure years later, and some are still coping today with fraudulent loan applications, false tax returns and credit rating damage linked to that incident.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth. It’s ironic that a public sector agency itself was the source of one of the most serious data leaks in recent memory. If even government institutions can fail to safeguard information, then it’s all the more important that British Columbians have the right to secure and monitor their credit files when that happens.

The new rights embedded in Bill 28 — the ability to place a security alert, request a credit freeze and require identity verification before new credit is obtained — are precisely the tools needed when personal data is compromised.

Protecting consumers isn’t just about regulating industry. It’s also about empowering individuals. When a government breach puts citizens at risk, those citizens should have the power to defend their financial reputations without extra cost and without unnecessary delay. That is why this bill matters. It is a practical safeguard for British Columbians whose personal data, through no fault of their own, remains vulnerable.

The bill also amends the Personal Information Protection Act, or PIPA, to bring privacy and credit laws into alignment. Consumers will be entitled to receive their credit score and the names of data sources when they request information about themselves.

A new section 24.1 gives individuals the explicit right to request correction of errors or omissions in their credit data and obliges agencies to pass those corrections to any organization that received the wrong information in the previous year.

Credit reporting agencies are prohibited from charging a fee for access unless a person is requesting information more than once in 30 days. These privacy updates make the system fairer, more transparent and easier to navigate.

There’s a lot to support in this bill. Empowering consumers, Bill 28 gives people real tools, security alerts, freezes and correction rights to control their personal credit information. Preventing fraud, it adds identity verification requirements that will deter impersonation and data abuse.

In transparency, consumers will finally know what data determines their credit score and how to fix it when errors occur. With accountability for industry, credit repair and monitoring companies will face clearer standards and penalties for deceptive practices. Through national alignments, by harmonizing with Ontario and Quebec, B.C. reduces regulatory friction while protecting residents.

From a conservative perspective, we also believe that good actors should be supported, not punished, for doing their work in good faith. When businesses act responsibly, comply with the law and treat consumers fairly, the system should work for them, not against them.

At the same time, we want to ensure that bad actors, the ones running predatory or deceptive schemes, are stopped and held to account. That balance between fairness for responsible businesses and protection for vulnerable consumers is at the heart of what we believe good regulation should achieve.

I anticipate that we will support Bill 28 at second reading, but we will have several questions at committee stage. One is on effectiveness. Will these rights be meaningful in practice? A right to a credit freeze is only useful if consumers know about it and can access it easily. What, then, is government’s plan for public education and outreach?

[4:35 p.m.]

Enforcement. Consumer Protection B.C. will carry a larger mandate under this bill. Do they have the capacity and resources to monitor compliance and handle complaints?

National consistency. Credit reporting systems operate across Canada. Were Equifax, TransUnion and other providers consulted? How will the B.C. framework integrate with federal and provincial counterparts to avoid unnecessary complexity?

Transition and timing. Many provisions come into force by regulation. We’ll want clarity on when those regulations will be ready and how long businesses will have to adjust.

Consumer literacy. Even the best protections don’t help if people don’t understand how credit works. Will government support financial literacy campaigns so that British Columbians can truly “understand” the contracts they are signing? That ties into a broader theme, which is the overall importance of financial literacy in our society, and it is certainly an agenda that we will continue to advocate for, whether that be for adult consumers or in schools.

Bill 28 is a constructive step forward. It updates an old law for a new era, one where credit data moves faster, reaches further and matters more than ever before. It gives consumers stronger rights, brings B.C. in line with other provinces and helps restore trust in our financial system. But we must ensure that protections are effective, accessible and well communicated, not just written into statute. We must also make sure that implementation does not create unintended burdens for responsible businesses.

While I anticipate we’ll support Bill 28 at second reading, we look forward to a robust committee stage discussion to make sure this legislation truly works for both consumers and the businesses that serve and support them. This bill is about trust, trust in the credit system, trust that personal data is safe and trust that government can get implementation right. Let’s make sure that the trust is earned.

Susie Chant: I rise today to support Bill 28, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, as proposed by the office of the Attorney General.

As I begin, I gratefully acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and the Esquimalt in particular. The water, land, air, flora and fauna have been stewarded here for millennia, and the words in front of the Parliament Building speak to the importance of the people, especially the children.

Additionally, I acknowledge with appreciation the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations on whose unceded land the riding of North Vancouver–Seymour is situated. Every year I learn more about the values and principles that guide these nations and the leaders who are steadfast in the journey to support all members to live a full and healthy life in safety and joy.

I spoke in February of this year to Bill 4, the first set of amendments, which were then passed in March of this year. All the amendments to this legislation have been needed for a while. The last time the consumer protection laws were updated prior to this year was in 2004. The marketplace has evolved significantly since then, with many more ways to separate the consumers from their money.

Vulnerable community members, seniors, new immigrants and those already dealing with poverty or disability are often targets for predators, through a variety of iterations of credit fraud and identity theft. Credit reports and scores continue to gain importance in everyday transactions, and these amendments allow consumers to access the reports and scores without cost, on a monthly basis. Additionally, consumers can also set up security alerts and credit card freezes free of charge. These activities will offer consumers much greater control over their own finances.

I do have to admit that I’d never heard of a credit score until I was setting up group bank accounts for guiding units, about 15 years ago. At that time, anyone who was needed to be a signatory on these accounts had to have a credit check done, according to the bank we were working with. At that time also, there was a cost to have a credit check done, which some of our members found to be prohibitive, so we covered the cost out of the money we had from our fundraising.

Yes, we have all bought or sold Girl Guide cookies, and we’re still selling them, thank you.

[4:40 p.m.]

Credit reporting and credit repair agencies will have new rules making sure that their services are accurate and transparent, once again improving the opportunities for consumers to know exactly what they are doing financially when using these services.

More protective barriers will be established to protect consumers against identity theft and credit fraud so that it’s far more difficult to fraudulently open a credit card account or take out a loan.

These problems have become rampant over the past years, and these amendments will update the legislation to strengthen consumer protection and create a fairer marketplace. These changes will also update other acts and continue to build in better overall consumer protection. The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Personal Information Protection Act and the Motor Dealer Act will be updated to reflect these changes.

So many people in our province go through day-to-day life working with enough financial literacy to deal with straightforward transactions but depending on others or other agencies to provide reliable information and support with more complex dealings. Unfortunately, some people have ended up in very bad financial straits for a variety of reasons, some of which will be addressed through these amendments found in Bill 28.

The changes proposed should help to raise consumer awareness, financial literacy and financial safety. It will reduce the incidence of identity theft and the subsequent use of a stolen identity to perpetrate financial fraud. The changes will ensure that businesses are accountable for their practices and reinforce that consumer protection must be incorporated into all transactions, through increased accuracy and transparency in these transactions.

These amendments also bring B.C. into alignment with other provinces in terms of consumer protection. As always, these amendments went through rigorous consultation processes that involved both the public and private stakeholders and were designed to promote fairness, transparency and fiscal inclusion for all consumers.

Public surveys, consultation with industry and stakeholders engagement forums were conducted in order to determine a clear understanding of current consumer challenges and business impacts. Input was also provided by consumer advocacy groups, financial institutions and legal experts. These amendments will bring British Columbia into alignment with other leading consumer laws in the country.

Consumer Protection B.C. was also part of the consultation process, and Consumer Protection B.C. will be part of implementing the changes to support a smooth transition.

Everyone is a consumer. However, some groups that are represented in B.C. are more vulnerable to consumer fraud, particularly newcomers, those with lower incomes, those with accessibility issues and some of our seniors and elders. The intersectionality of these groups is often high, which enhances the susceptibility to some of the slick fraud campaigns that we have seen exposed in the news or by our police.

The present and future of consumers can be markedly affected by unexpected or unmanaged financial losses. Implementing these new changes will enhance consumer awareness and the capacity for enforcement. This, in turn, will prevent and reduce predatory practices while enabling the capacity to hold businesses accountable.

These amendments also promote affordability and fairness, increasing the ability of the people of British Columbia to access information and tools that are important to making informed decisions regarding their own finances.

There are many stories of consumers losing money through not understanding their own financial circumstances or through fraud perpetrated by predators. These amendments will enhance consumer protection substantially.

I, therefore, am most supportive of Bill 28, amending the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Korky Neufeld: I, too, rise today to speak to Bill 28, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act.

I believe there is not a member in this House who couldn’t regale us with stories of how they have been personally negatively impacted by consumer experiences. At its core, this bill seeks to modernize and strengthen consumer protection in British Columbia, particularly in the areas of credit reporting, in credit monitoring and credit repair services.

[4:45 p.m.]

These are industries that for far too long have operated with limited oversight, often leaving consumers vulnerable to misunderstandings, to misinformation and, in some cases, to outright exploitation. So at first glance, there’s much to be encouraged by.

This bill does move us in a direction with many other provinces, as has already been mentioned, as Ontario and Quebec have already taken. It now gives British Columbians new rights to freeze their credit reports, to add security alerts and to cancel credit monitoring or to repair contracts when companies fail to act honestly or transparently. These are real, tangible protections that can make a difference in people’s financial security and peace of mind.

We know how complex and intimidating credit reporting can be. I am thinking especially of the elderly. Most British Columbians have little idea how their credit scores are calculated, what’s in their credit reports or, actually, who has access to that information. Yet these scores affect everything. They find this out when they try to rent an apartment, get a mortgage or apply for a job.

When mistakes are made, when data is mishandled, the consequences are devastating. People can find themselves shut out of opportunities, paying higher interest rates or, worse yet, fighting for years to correct errors that weren’t their fault. That’s why some of these new measures in this bill, such as giving consumers the right to request corrections to personal information or to see their credit score for free at least once every 30 days, are meaningful steps forward.

While I’m optimistic about the intent behind this bill, I’m also cautious, because this is a very technical and far-reaching piece of legislation, one that amends multiple acts, introduces new enforcement provisions and delegates much of the operation detail to future regulations. Future regulations — when? What will be in those regulations? How will it be implemented? Well, in future regulations, sometime down the road. The bill’s success will depend entirely on how those regulations are written and how they are enforced, and we are expected to take that by faith.

For example, the new provisions allowing for credit freezes and security alerts are welcome, but we’ll need to ensure that the process for requesting these protections is clear, is accessible and is secure. People must not face long delays or complicated verification procedures that make the process unusable.

Similarly, while the bill prohibits credit agencies from charging fees for certain services, such as placing a credit freeze or accessing one’s credit score, we need to be certain that agencies have the resources and technological systems to comply effectively. In other words, do they have the ability to follow through? Do they have the resources to follow through?

Another area that requires careful scrutiny is the regulation of credit repair services. This is an industry that frankly has been ripe with abuse. Too often companies prey on people who are already struggling, promising quick fixes to poor credit, charging large upfront fees and delivering little to no results, and the consumer has little to no recourse.

The changes proposed in Bill 28, such as prohibiting payment until a specific, verifiable outcome is achieved and requiring full disclosure before any contract is signed, is a critical reform long overdue. They place accountability squarely where it belongs, on the service provider. However, as with any new framework, the question remains: will it be enforced? If this is not enforced, it’s a bill that has no teeth.

Consumer Protection B.C., the agency tasked with oversight, already has a full plate. Now new mandates without new resources risk creating gaps in that enforcement.

[4:50 p.m.]

If we truly want to protect consumers, we need to ensure the enforcement body has the funding, the staff and the digital tools to keep up with the rapidly changing financial sector.

Another concern lies in the delegation of authority. Many of the important details, from timelines to verification standards, will be set later by regulation. Here we are again. Future. Later. When? Who? What? How? Sometime in the future. That means the House is being asked to approve a framework without seeing how it will actually function in practice.

We’ve seen this before from this government: good intentions at the legislative stage, followed by confusion and slow rollout when the regulations finally appear. That’s why we will have many detailed questions at committee stage, particularly around consumer access, industry compliance and government readiness.

Still, it’s important to recognize that this legislation represents some progress, which was long overdue. Consumers have been at the mercy of opaque systems, unable to understand or challenge the data that defines their financial reputation. This bill is part of a broader modernization effort that seeks to restore balance, giving the individuals more control, more information and more fairness.

British Columbians deserve to understand the contracts they sign, to know who holds their information and to have the recourse when things go wrong. While we approach Bill 28 with caution, we also acknowledge the positive direction it represents. Key will be the careful implementation, proper consultation and genuine accountability. This legislation could provide stronger protections for individuals navigating an increasingly digital and data-driven financial world.

Our caucus will continue to hold the government to account, ensuring these promises translate into real protections, not just paperwork. We do recognize the importance of what this bill aims to achieve, and we look forward to committee stage, where further questions will be asked.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the vote on second reading of Bill 28, intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

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 30.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, we’ll just take five minutes to get set up for Bill 30. Thank you very much.

The House recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 30 — Employment Standards
(Serious Illness or Injury Leave)
Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: Okay, I will call the House back to order. We are on second reading of Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025.

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

It’s a real honour today to rise to support this critical step in our commitment to improving the lives of working people in this province. Bill 30 introduces a much-needed amendment to the Employment Standards Act, which will provide for an unpaid, job-protected leave of up to 27 weeks within a 52-week period for serious illness and injuries.

Currently the Employment Standards Act does not provide minimum standards for job-protected leave if a worker becomes ill with a long-term condition or suffers an injury that requires weeks or months of recovery.

This proposed amendment reflects our government’s commitment to working people. It’s founded on the simple principle that no one should ever have to make a choice between their job and their health. The changes, if passed, will ensure that people with a serious illness or injury have the peace of mind to focus on their recovery. Employers will be able to better retain skilled talent. This change really is about making B.C. a better place to live and work.

Every British Columbian knows someone who has been affected by a life-altering diagnosis, or in fact, they may have experienced it themselves with diagnoses such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, Parkinson’s. Perhaps it’s someone who has experienced a serious injury through a motor vehicle accident or, indeed, even through intimate-partner violence.

We know that when a loved one, a co-worker, a neighbour or a community member is managing a life-changing illness or injury like this, they’re faced with long periods of onset and progression and recovery. We need to be there for them in these times.

Patient advocate groups have been seeking this change for a long time. I can tell you that I’ve heard the stories. I know that everyone in this House has heard the stories from people in our communities, in our families, across our networks who have been impacted by serious illness or injury, in some cases resulting in job loss.

Many of these brave survivors have told their story in advocating for this change. They include people like Sherri, who travelled from Fort St. John to share with me her experiences of living with multiple sclerosis.

[5:00 p.m.]

A year after she was diagnosed with the disease, Sherri had to step away from a career that she loved and had worked so hard to achieve.

In her circumstance, job-protected leave would have helped her to manage the initial treatment schedule, would have helped her to balance that along with her work and would have helped her to deal with the travel demands associated with her treatment. What was really heartbreaking in what she said was that it would have really also alleviated the guilt that she felt stepping away from work to deal with her treatment and the stress that that created for her, stress which, in fact, given the nature of her chronic illness, actually worsened the impact of that disease for her.

I also want to share another story today, one from Natalie Lipschultz. In 2019, Natalie was diagnosed with early onset colorectal cancer. She was young, in her 30s, young to receive a stage 3 diagnosis. She underwent surgery, and in January 2020, she began to have adjuvant chemotherapy. At the time, Natalie was very open with her employer about what was taking place in her personal life, about how her condition affected her physically, mentally and emotionally.

Although the extended benefits available to her provided for long-term disability benefits, she felt pressured not to take time off. She worked on a small team with colleagues that she considered friends. It was suggested to her by her supervisor that time off would create more work for her colleagues. She wanted to be a good team player, and she felt guilt at the thought of being the reason for her colleagues’ increased workloads. As a result, she took two weeks off of work to undergo surgery and then to heal from that surgery.

Throughout this time, Natalie felt underlying pressure to return to work very quickly. So at the beginning of 2020, she began to receive chemotherapy at Royal Columbian Hospital. But the pressure to not ask for leave, and the fact that the clinic was open on the same schedule as her work shift, meant that what happened was that she brought her laptop with her to the clinic, working as she received IV chemotherapy.

In those months, she remembers feeling anxious, feeling like she was letting people down at work. I just can’t imagine that we want that for anyone who’s going through chemotherapy, that their mind is not focused on getting well and what’s best for them, that their attention is diverted to trying to manage their work.

During her treatment, Natalie also experienced two drug reactions to the chemotherapy and the supplementary drugs and had to go to the emergency department right away. The day after one of these episodes, she was let go from her job. She was in the thick of her chemotherapy treatment, and this sudden loss of her employment left her without security and income at a time when she and her family were the most vulnerable.

I think anybody who has had experience themselves or had a loved one who had cancer, you know that the recovery is a real uphill battle. Unfortunately, at the beginning of 2022, Natalie was diagnosed with stage 4 recurrence of cancer. At this time, she and her husband had, just five months earlier, welcomed a baby daughter. Natalie was on maternity leave from a new job. But because of her previous experience, she became deeply worried and anxious about her ability to return to work as scheduled.

What she said was: “I was worried I would lose this job if I couldn’t come back from maternity leave right away or if chemotherapy extended my leave. Even though I was going through something very private and emotional, I felt I had to reach out to my employer and tell them everything, in case I didn’t have a job to come back to.”

[5:05 p.m.]

Now, much to Natalie’s relief, her new company was great in working with her timeline. She underwent further chemotherapy, more surgery, and this time she was able to return to her job. Following her surgery and her healing, she has been recovered from cancer for 3½ years, and she just celebrated her daughter Zoe’s fourth birthday in September.

On behalf of all of us, I just want to say to Natalie that we’re so grateful for the success of your treatment. We’re so grateful that you landed in a good place. And I’m really grateful that you shared your story and allowed me to share your story in the House today.

I think that Natalie would sort of tell her story as a cautionary tale of what can happen. In her current role at the Canadian Cancer Society, she really encourages patients to take the time they need to tend to the physical, mental and emotional weight that comes with serious, difficult health diagnoses and the ensuing periods for treatment.

I know that in this House, many of us have direct personal experience. I see it on the faces of my colleagues — my colleagues across the way, when one of their colleagues was able to participate online today, how grateful everybody across the whole House was that their colleague was able to join again. Our colleague who has been experiencing treatment due to colon cancer.

These are deeply moving issues. They are the issues that cross lines, that join us together, because we all understand, because we’ve all been there.

And I have been there. I had a cancer diagnosis and needed treatment a number of years ago. I was really fortunate to have an early diagnosis. But I needed to take time off of work, and it was lucky for me that I had a good employer who was understanding. I was able to take that time and take the subsequent time that was needed to address that condition.

Over the last couple of years, my late husband went through a very difficult experience with a very aggressive form of lymphoma. What I experienced, as one of his primary supports and caregivers, was just how critical the ability of people who are facing a life-threatening illness — how important it is for them to be able to retain a sense of control over their life.

For my husband, being able to actually work through some of his early chemotherapy was really important. It was a real lifeline for him to stay connected to that world, to feel like he was continuing to contribute, to know that by the third week of the cycle, he was going to be not really able to do anything but that he would feel better after a week or so, and he would be able to pick up and do a little bit more work.

It was fortunate for him that his employer was able to make those arrangements to work with that treatment schedule. It was really so important for his mental health and so important for his sense of value as a human being to not be defined by the illness but to be able to continue to contribute up until the very moment that you can’t contribute in that way anymore. That transition, of course, is very different for everybody.

I want to say that I know for a fact that many employers in B.C. already do this work of supporting their employees who are grappling with serious health issues. I know they work to support them in their return-to-work efforts.

In fact, we made changes, for example, to the WorkSafe act to make sure that in the occupational health and safety regulation, where there’s been a workplace-related accident, there is a requirement around rehabilitation and return to work and for that to be supported.

[5:10 p.m.]

We know how important people’s connection to their work and to their livelihoods is. It’s fundamental. It’s such an elemental role for all of us, the work that we do, and all of the sense of contribution, of vitality, of connection with our work life and our workmates. All of that forms such an important part of our identity.

Workers who experience long-term illness or disability, of course, have existing legal protections under the B.C. human rights code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Many employers, of course, have policies which exceed the minimum standards being proposed in this bill. Similarly, workers may already have similar leave policies that have been bargained into collective agreements.

But these proposed changes will ensure that that protection is built into the Employment Standards Act for all workers in British Columbia. The Employment Standards Act is the terms and conditions of work for 70 percent of our province’s workforce.

With more than 31,000 people diagnosed with cancer each year in the province and over 11,000 people in British Columbia who are living with multiple sclerosis — as well as, of course, people living with other chronic illnesses — it is so vital that we provide this assurance for workers and their families.

I just want to say that I think this really includes, as well, survivors of intimate-partner violence, mostly women and gender-diverse people. Of the high number of people who experience intimate-partner violence, up to 92 percent have signs and symptoms of traumatic brain injury. We know that 90 percent of intimate-partner-violence cases reported to the police in fact involve survivors aged 15 to 54. They are in their prime working years. For them, the guarantee of job protection may well help in inviting survivors to feel safe and secure in seeking the services that they need for their recovery.

As we speak right now, British Columbia is one of the few provinces and territories in Canada that does not currently provide extended job protection leave under their employment standards law for serious illness and injuries. Since the federal government extended the employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks in 2022, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have amended provincial legislation to provide 27 weeks of extended illness and injury leave.

Bill 30 will bring British Columbia’s protections up to the standard that is already in place in other jurisdictions in Canada and ensures that workers can appropriately access the financial supports available through the federal employment insurance sickness benefits program.

You know, there’s just no question. It is working people who keep our province running, who are building this province, who make incredible contributions to our communities, to providing services, to building infrastructure, to building industry across this province every single day. They deserve to know that their job isn’t at risk because they need time off to deal with treatment due to a serious illness or injury.

Bill 30 is the result of shared work that we’ve undertaken with employer groups, worker groups and patient advocate groups alike. We heard strong support from labour groups such as the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Employment Standards Coalition.

I equally want to thank all of the business and industry employer associations who spent time talking with us and consulting on the development of the legislation groups, such as the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., the B.C. Hotel Association, Restaurants Canada, the association of business improvement areas, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Retail Council of Canada, Business Council of B.C. and more.

Of course, I am very grateful to the patient advocacy groups — the Canadian Cancer Society, the Multiple Sclerosis Society — who have also made incredible contributions to this work.

[5:15 p.m.]

Currently the Employment Standards Act provides for two other extended health-related leaves, the critical illness and injury leave and compassionate care leave. These provisions are there for workers who need time away from work in order to care for a family member whose health has significantly changed as a result of an illness or injury and whose life is at risk, and for a family member who is terminally ill.

Consistent with these two leaves, there’s no minimum period of employment to qualify for the leave. Frankly, that’s just because we know all too well a person may develop an injury or an illness with no notice. They may be in the course of changing jobs, of transitioning when they receive a life-altering medical diagnosis or are injured.

The amendment in Bill 30 requires that the serious illness and injury leave be taken in units of one week, which is consistent with other aforementioned leaves in the Employment Standards Act that are aligned with EI benefits. I think we can all think of those cycles, whether it’s needing to travel for treatment for multiple sclerosis, whether it’s a chemotherapy schedule. There are many times when it’s not a whole long block of many weeks or months at a time that someone needs off. Sometimes what they need is intermittent time off.

That’s why we want to ensure that there’s the flexibility for workers to take the leave in the manner that is appropriate for their specific medical condition and treatment plan. The flexibility is important for workers who, of course, also are dealing with episodic diseases such as multiple sclerosis.

The proposed leave will apply to all employees, including part-time workers covered by the Employment Standards Act, who have a serious personal illness or injury and who are unable to work for at least one week. That is seven consecutive days.

The leave’s entitlement is not limited to physical illness and injury. A serious mental health condition that renders an employee unable to work for at least a week would also be covered.

To access the new leave provisions, workers would be required to obtain a medical certificate from a physician or nurse practitioner. In addition to confirming that the employee is unable to work for medical reasons, the certificate would provide the employer with the amount of time for which the leave is required.

This leave is a minimum standard. Of course, employers retain the discretion to grant additional leave beyond the Employment Standards Act entitlement for employees who require additional recovery time.

There’s no question that workers are at the centre of the economy that we are building in British Columbia. They are key to all of our aspirations in building across every sector that we are building across.

In the course of engaging with business and industry associations, unions, workers and patient advocacy groups, we found a shared recognition of the importance of supporting people at work when they’re suffering from a life-altering diagnosis. There’s a broad agreement, and we’ve seen the sentiments of that expressed here in the House, that workers deserve to be able to return to work and to their jobs once they and their health care providers have said that they are ready.

I invite my colleagues from around the House to take part in taking this important step in the history of B.C.’s employment standards legislation, because I think that we can all agree that nobody in our province deserves to lose their work, their livelihoods. Nobody should have to bear the stress or the anxiety of losing their employment because they’ve been diagnosed with a serious illness or because they’re recovering from a terrible injury or intimate-partner violence.

I look forward to the important debate that will happen in the House on this bill, and I’ll leave it there.

With that, I move second reading.

[5:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the time today. I’m very glad to speak to Bill 30, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, as the official opposition critic for Labour. This is, of course, the second time we’ve seen Employment Standards Act changes this year.

The first was focused on removing the requirement for sick notes for short-term leave. This new bill, as we’ve just heard from the Minister of Labour, creates a new kind of unpaid job-protected leave for workers who are facing catastrophic illness or injury.

I want to thank the Minister of Labour for sharing some very deeply personal information and stories, including the story of Natalie, in that particular instance.

I understand that these changes…. The request was brought forward as the result of advocacy from the Canadian Cancer Society and MS Canada. Of course, these are organizations doing incredible work for all British Columbians. Obviously, both of these illnesses, both cancer and MS, are impacting many, many people in our province. So we have to remember all of them who are going through this as we look into this amendment to this important legislation in the province.

In B.C., approximately one in two people will face a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime, with over 34,000 new diagnoses expected this year alone. With regards to MS, there are about 15,000 British Columbians currently living with MS. I think everyone here would agree that when someone is seriously ill from a major injury, the last thing they should have to worry about is whether they do have a job to go back to.

Whether it’s a disease diagnosis or a life-altering injury, I’m sure the members of the House all know someone who’s been impacted in some way by some sort of serious disease or an accident of some kind. We all want to support our loved ones, and let’s start from that place, certainly. Our community neighbours — we want to support them in their time of greatest pain, stress and uncertainty. We want compassion and stability, and that’s something we can all support.

At the same time, when we make changes like this, it is important to look closely at the details, how this will actually work in real workplaces for both employees and employers. Just in the context of my remarks, I’m going to get into a little bit of how the way it’s worded, the way the language of the bill reads, could work in practice, and discuss it a bit further.

Right now under the Employment Standards Act, workers can take a few paid and unpaid days for illness or injury, so five paid and three unpaid per year, but it’s completely understandable that that won’t come close to covering a serious or long-term illness, for example. Bill 30 is looking to fill a gap by introducing up to 27 weeks. That’s a period, obviously, of more than six months’ unpaid leave for what’s really been called, in this, “catastrophic illness or injury.”

In some ways, that does bring B.C. in line with other provinces, what they already offer. We’ve heard from the Minister of Labour some of those provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and others. Each of them has some slight variations to how they implement this.

Still, the success of this policy isn’t just about matching other jurisdictions. I think it’s really about how it works smoothly here in our province for workers, for small businesses and for the people who have to administer it day to day.

Under this bill, an employee who’s seriously ill or injured can take up to 27 weeks in a 12-month period. As we’ve heard, they’ll need a certificate confirming they can’t work, and they’ll have job protection for the duration of that leave.

It appears that this also applies to other health professionals that could be designated by the minister to provide a leave certificate, but it’s not exactly clear who those will be. We’ll try to see if we can canvass that a little further in the committee stage.

I understand that protection can make a huge difference for someone going through treatment or recovering from something major like surgery or an accident. I will say there is consideration for some employers, particularly small businesses. A six-month absence can be harder to manage for some employers than others, and I think that is something that we do need to take into account.

[5:25 p.m.]

If you think about a large business, it’s common to backfill positions, and people move to development opportunities. They probably have extended-leave policies in place already and manage long-term leaves as a regular course. They have HR departments to do this, so that it works in their workplaces.

Many workplaces don’t have spare capacity. I like to use the example of my family’s business, an appliance and electronics repair shop. If someone ends up on a leave, it is very difficult to backfill.

First of all, there aren’t a lot of appliance technicians trained these days, but also the fact that small businesses end up having people that carry out multiple roles based on their skill set. So when someone is away for a long period of time, it can be the employer that has to cover their duties, or the business owner in the case of my family.

My dad, in this example, would end up covering for any of the front-office employees on a leave, or my uncle would end up working longer hours to cover for an appliance tech. It would also be up to them to manage scheduling and figuring out how to handle the return-to-work transition when the employee is ready.

As we also heard from the Minister of Labour, many employers are already doing much of this, providing leave, because small business owners care about their employees. I can think of my family’s example. They become members of the family. So that’s the case in many types of businesses.

But we’re looking at all employers. The Employment Standards Act is meant to be covering each and every employer, large and small, in the province.

Because this bill does allow the leave to be taken all at once or in smaller blocks, it does add a layer of complexity to these smaller businesses, especially because they do need to plan months ahead. I just think we need to…. As we’re looking at this, let’s just make sure that we’re translating it into real-world examples of what employers and employees are working through as they’re making sure that that support is there.

I have heard from many small business owners who, as I said, just genuinely care about their employees. They know their people personally. They want to do the right thing, and they want to support someone who’s facing a health crisis. I don’t want members to jump to assume that their feedback is about opposing this idea of leave, but it’s, again, asking some questions to make sure that it is workable.

Employers have told me that they understand why 27 weeks was chosen. Of course, it matches the employment insurance sickness benefits, but that practical side is important. The employer is not the EI system who has to handle the continuity and making sure the business operations are running smoothly.

The other important factor to consider in getting this legislation right is whether or not it will impact the ability to respond to employment standards complaints from workers. This is a perfectly reasonable right of workers — to file a complaint. It’s an important part of the ministry’s functions.

It’s best if that process is streamlined and fast, and the ministry should have a goal of fostering better relations between employees and employers. So having a dispute hanging over the heads of both parties can be a really big challenge in the workplace.

The service plan for the ministry has a target of 80 percent of employment standards branch complaints that are supposed to be resolved within 180 days. In 2024, we know, from the estimates process last spring, that only 32 percent were resolved within 180 days. So it’s something that needs significant improvement.

I’m not raising this as a reason not to move forward with this job-protected leave. I’m bringing it up because opening up the Employment Standards Act needs to have this critical lens on how the amendments are worded.

Is it providing clarity in the workplace for both employers and workers? I think that’s something we always have to ask. Or are we opening up potential conflict that is going to lead to more employment standards complaints that the ministry can’t handle? I think these are important questions, because we want to support healthy workplaces overall.

A few more themes came up, again, in some of my discussions, and one is flexibility. Of course, we know, cancer being an example, that illnesses don’t follow neat timelines. Some people might need to take their leave all at once. Others might need to come and go, depending on treatments or recovery.

A lot of employees want to be able to work during their leave. So I think that the fact that there is some built-in flexibility, that it can be at any time in a given year, is a good thing for employees.

[5:30 p.m.]

I think for employers, they are asking that the rules allow enough flexibility to make those arrangements work for both sides.

Again, with cancer treatment, it can be so unpredictable in how an individual responds to treatment. So it’s really just making sure that we are building in that flexible option.

Another theme that I’d heard is really about balance, recognizing that a large employer and a small shop have different capacities. As we look into the committee stage of the bill, we just want to make sure that we’re understanding how this will work for, particularly, the smallest employers in the province.

I guess the other thing we want to look at is what happens when things change. A business situation can shift over half a year with new contracts. They could get new equipment. Sometimes the business can materially change. Sometimes they can get into financial issues.

I think it is fair to seek some certainty in how employers can meet their legal obligations if the exact job the person left no longer exists, actually, when they’re ready to come back. They’re not looking for a loophole. They’re just looking for a way to adapt when circumstances do legitimately change.

That’s a reason why we need clear guidance. Should this bill be implemented, we want to make sure that guidance is there for our employees and employers, so that everyone understands how this leave affects things like vacation accrual, severance and benefits. They don’t want to guess or make mistakes because we don’t have clear rules in place.

We don’t want more employment standards complaints. We just want clear rules. Employers really need those predictable rules. Actually, I think, it helps employees significantly.

If disputes were to come up between an employee and employer over whether an employee qualifies for the leave or what happens on return, there should be a simple, respectful way to resolve those issues. That really seems like common sense in my mind.

All these comments that I have received from small businesses come from a place of wanting to make the policy succeed. I want to make that clear. Small businesses want to support their employees, but they need clear, flexible rules to do that effectively. Many small employers don’t have the HR departments. They don’t have legal advisers. Plain-language guidance is key.

As always when new rules are rolled out for workplaces of all kinds, good communication is absolutely critical. I know there’s advertising that goes towards self-promotion of government programs, but I think a good use of taxpayer dollars in this case would be advertising for more education on some employment standards expectations overall, including the changes that are proposed in this bill. I think it would be a valid use.

As I said, this is the second major amendment to the Employment Standards Act this year. That’s why communication is key, as we’re making sure that we’re fostering those healthy workplaces.

Once this bill passes, the real work will be in the rollout, making sure that everyone knows what’s expected of them and that employees really know what they’re entitled to. I think that’s key here.

It’s my full expectation that if we see good, updated communication, with updated frequently asked questions and maybe even some sample policy templates for employers and small businesses, it would go a long way in helping those opportunities for feedback and support for this policy. If this is going to work as intended, I think that education and outreach will be extremely important.

The goal I think we want to see is protecting people when they’re at their most vulnerable. That’s a goal that each and every one of us can stand behind. Good policy also needs to reflect the day-to-day realities of the workplaces it affects.

That’s why the word “flexibility” will be one that I continue to use as we look into this bill, flexibility for employees who need time to recover and flexibility for employers who need to keep their operations going. The success of this new leave will depend on how well those two needs are balanced in practice.

[5:35 p.m.]

I want to take a moment to speak again to the human side of this issue. The Minister of Labour did a very good job of outlining her personal story within her family and that of Natalie, among others. There are so many British Columbians that are struggling. This comes from a place, I understand, of wanting to support those who are going through a tough time in their lives.

In that spirit, I did already share a personal story with the Minister of Labour, and I don’t mind sharing it with the House. My mom worked as a nurse for her entire career. Back in 2006, my mom was walking with her sister, my aunt. They were walking on the north side of the road along Shuswap Lake, on the shoulder, where it’s common for pedestrians on that side of the lake. A distracted driver ended up hitting my mother with their minivan, throwing her back about 20 feet.

Fortunately, she avoided a head injury or something that was going to cause life-altering injuries, but she did have severe injuries to her shoulder and knee, requiring multiple surgeries. In those moments of recovery, it was hard. It was confusing thinking about what her life was going to be like going back to nursing again — her career, of course, being part of her identity. Fortunately, she had benefits that provided short-term and long-term disability, to have that time to determine the extent of those injuries.

Employment standards, as I know and as we’ve heard, really are needed for the most baseline protection for workers. This is a case where I think we can look at this act and find out if we can have some updates that may be supporting those families across British Columbia, all families that may need help in these times.

When someone faces a catastrophic illness or a life-changing injury, everything else in their world can feel like it’s spinning out of control. The hospital visits, the uncertainty and the long recoveries, these are some of the moments when people need stability wherever they can find it.

One of the biggest sources of anxiety for many people is work. Will I still have a job when this is over? Will my position still be there? Will my employer understand what I’m going through? Giving workers in those situations the security of knowing their job is protected while they focus on healing is a meaningful thing. It gives people the space to recover without the fear of losing their livelihood.

Many of us in this chamber can share similar stories of a family member, a friend or a colleague. So I will acknowledge, really, the important intent behind Bill 30. We want to support our loved ones when life takes an unexpected turn. We can look at different ways to do that, and I think that’s a good thing. At the same time, it’s okay to make sure that the policies actually work, that it can be carried out smoothly and that it’s clear for everyone.

In closing, I just want to say: remember that communication will be key as we look at this bill and its implementation. Workers need to know their rights; employers need to know their responsibilities. There needs to be room for honest, ongoing conversation if something isn’t working the way it should.

There are a lot of British Columbians struggling right now and far too many seeking care for a serious illness like cancer. Let’s remember them and figure out how we can help. When reviewing this bill, for all members, picture the worker sitting in a hospital room worried about their future. Picture the small business owner doing their best to keep things running while supporting their team and the families trying to hold everything together.

Thank you for the time today.

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act being brought forward by our Minister of Labour.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am currently working and staying on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm.

In North Vancouver–Seymour, my riding where I live, work and learn, it’s in the territory of the Coast Salish, as well, specifically the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

I continue to be grateful that I am living and working in a time and place where land acknowledgements can be spoken and heartfelt and are a step in recognizing and honouring the peoples that have been in B.C. over the millennium.

[5:40 p.m.]

In other parts of Canada, and at the federal level, it has been recognized for quite some time that people who end up off work due to severe illness or injury need to be able to rely on having a job to return to once they recuperate.

This amendment to the Employment Standards Act speaks to just that eventuality by allowing employees across B.C. to take up to 27 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave in a 12-month period. It still enables employees to access financial benefits provided by the federal government, with the added solace that a job is still waiting for them once they are able to get back to work again.

Under the act as it stands now, there is no provision for job-protected leave for those who are not able to do their job because of illness or injury. The B.C. human rights code against discrimination provides legal protections, and these changes will align the Employment Standards Act with those protections.

The proposed changes will ensure that protections are built into employment standards similar to those that are in the human rights code. It will be applicable to all those who are currently covered and have serious personal illness or injury and are unable to work for at least seven consecutive days, as supported by a medical certificate from a doctor or a nurse practitioner. The certificate will confirm that medical leave is required and indicate the dates that that leave will be needed.

I have been fortunate, as a registered nurse, to always work in a setting where short-term and long-term leave is available when needed. However, I have friends, colleagues in volunteer organizations, constituents and others who have talked about the challenges they had faced when dealing with the onset of a serious illness or having sustained a significant and perhaps life-changing injury.

It’s people who have been reluctant to go to their health care provider for assessment because they don’t feel they can follow the recommended pathway towards recuperation if it involves taking time off work.

It’s people who have had abrupt medical emergencies, such as a heart attack, trying to return to work as soon as possible, detracting from their own rehabilitation and perhaps prolonging their recovery or promoting yet another cardiac incident.

It’s people like the young man who works at the mom-and-pop store, who’s always called upon to do the heavier lifting, high-shelf stocking and other physical work, who injured his back to the point that he could not stand for more than a couple of minutes and needed extensive intervention in order to regain mobility and strength.

It’s people who get a diagnosis of cancer, who don’t know what the future brings but know that their job may well be at risk if they are away for extended periods while they undergo treatment and recuperate.

Yes, during the time they are off, for a finite period, they can collect employment insurance. But if you don’t have a job to return to, the worrying about the future can actively interfere with the ability to heal. It can have a profound effect on family and relationships and the ability to maintain current standard of living. No one should be in the position of having to choose between their health and their job.

Take Parkinson’s disease, for example. At initial onset, it is often difficult to diagnose. An effective treatment takes time, medication adjustments and frequent appointments with specialists. Once an effective medication regime is established, a person may have several more years or longer of a working life ahead of them. Other illnesses, such as MS — again, challenging initially to diagnose — can have a similar trajectory.

Another health area that this bill will have a profound impact on is in the area of mental health. I have a friend, a very competent and professional nurse, who underwent a severe psychotic break, during which time they did not even recognize me when I was visiting, and I had known them for years. They ended up in hospital for an extended period, with multiple medications being trialled before an effective regime was established. Once discharged, they needed several months to recover the level of function that they needed to return to active nursing duties.

They were lucky, as they were in a role that already provided long-term disability protection. However, others who experience similar circumstances may not have such good fortune, and this bill seeks to remedy that inequity.

[5:45 p.m.]

As a health care provider, I’ve seen these impacts up front, with those who have lost their jobs also losing their ability to pay rent, car payments and other day-to-day household costs, which can spiral an individual into a severely impoverished state and potentially take others with them.

The other thing that this bill addresses is intimate-partner violence, which is more and more of a critical need in our current society. Working in an environment that is already high stress as a nurse, I have encountered many individuals who have at various times had to leave their home, taking their dependents with them, possibly taking their pets with them because the other person may take their anger out on the pet.

They need time. They need time to get into shelter. They need time to get everybody somewhere safe. They need time to be able to perhaps sleep for the first time, to feel safe to go to sleep, that they don’t have to worry about their own safety or the safety of their dependents. They need time to figure out where they’re going to live once they are able to leave the shelter and re-establish themselves.

These things do not come in short order. We know this. They need time to re-establish a life, and that time is not counted in one or two weeks. So this is particularly valuable to those people and yet another step that we’re taking to work towards diminishing the impact of intimate-partner violence.

All these scenarios are very real and are encountered by many in our province. So let’s make it better for those people who encounter severe illness or injury or violence in their home by ensuring they can be off work for up to 27 weeks if needed and be able to return to their job and income once they have recovered — physically, mentally, emotionally — and are able to return to work.

As always, consultation has been broad in crafting this amendment. Employers, workers and patient advocates were canvassed, most of whom felt that workers who have had long-term illness or injury should have a job to return to, knowledge of which can be critical in the planning and the process of healing and recuperation.

Once again our government is moving forward in establishing legislation that protects employees, in this case, at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. It allows people to increase their focus on recovering, recuperating, rehabilitating or, at times, learning how to manage their new state of health. Again, this brings British Columbia into alignment with other provinces across the country.

Given the positive impacts that this legislation will provide for the people of British Columbia, I am happy to support Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave).

Gavin Dew: I’m pleased to rise with regard to Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act. This legislation creates a new, unpaid, job-protected leave for British Columbians facing a catastrophic illness or injury, up to 27 weeks within a 12-month period. It’s a policy that is clearly rooted in compassion, and it fills a gap in current employment standards.

When someone receives a life-altering diagnosis or suffers a serious injury, they deserve the security of knowing their job will still be there when they’re well enough to return. Until now, B.C. has had no specific protection for workers who need extended time off because of a long-term illness or injury that occurred outside the workplace. WorkSafeBC covers injuries on the job, but this bill covers the many people who face health crises off the job. That’s an important distinction.

Under Bill 30, a worker who is medically certified as unable to work can take up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period. It aligns with the federal employment insurance sickness benefit program and provides flexibility for the leave to be taken in blocks or as a continuous period. The bill also enables government to define by regulation who qualifies as a health practitioner and to establish minimum employment tenure requirements before eligibility. These are reasonable steps that recognize the need for compassion, while keeping some structure around how that compassion is delivered.

[5:50 p.m.]

As the opposition critic for small business and as someone who runs a small business, or helps my wife do so, I see this through the lens of real-world operations and the implications for business. In a small business, especially a family-run business, every person counts. There is no HR department or corporate back office to absorb long absences. When a team member is away, others step up, and the owner often steps in.

Most small business owners already demonstrate this kind of compassion voluntarily. They know their employees and families personally and do what they can to support them through tough times. What they ask for is balance and predictability so that policies intended to help don’t become unintentionally unworkable for the people who create and sustain those jobs.

Both the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have been constructive voices on behalf of small business through this process. Retail is the largest private sector employer in British Columbia, with more than 358,000 workers as of July 2025. Core retail sales in B.C. reached $73 billion last year and generated $17 billion in wages and benefits. So when we talk about policy changes like this one, we have to remember that scale and the ripple effects across the entire economy.

That’s why it’s important that we listen to voices from small business as we strive to get the balance right.

In their August 2025 submission to the Ministry of Labour, the Retail Council expressed support for the intent of this bill but raised practical and reasonable questions. They asked for clarity on when the 27-week leave resets, whether it refreshes every 52 weeks or only after a full year between leaves, so that employers can plan their staffing accordingly.

They also urged the government to define how this leave interacts with workers who aren’t eligible for federal EI sickness benefits. Many small retailers don’t have formal benefit programs or sick leave pools. In those cases, the business itself shoulders the burden. That matters in an environment where, year-over-year, sales are down, costs are up and small business confidence in British Columbia is among the lowest in Canada for months on end.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s August 14 submission made similar points. They supported the principle of the leave but recommended commonsense safeguards such as a minimum employment threshold, an appeal process for disputes and limited exemptions for micro-employers. They emphasized the need for clear rules on vacation, benefits and return-to-work arrangements to avoid confusion and conflict. Both organizations were clear that consultation must be ongoing, not a one-time exercise.

Small business owners want to get this right, but they need to be heard and supported as partners, not as afterthoughts. It is my observation from my understanding that the consultation process on this bill was rather rushed and rather perfunctory, leaving exactly the impression that it was a fait accompli and that consultation happened after the cake was largely baked.

This bill does not exist in a vacuum. For small business owners, each new change in employment law — whether it’s sick leave, stat holiday rules, pay transparency or new administrative requirements — adds to the weight of compliance. Individually, each measure may be reasonable and well-intentioned. Cumulatively, they begin to strain the capacity of small operators who are already juggling thin margins, staff shortages and rising interest rates.

Not to mention, in the context of storefront small business, the wave of vandalism and violence unleashed by this government’s irresponsible decriminalization agenda.

As we introduce new protections for workers, we must also be mindful of the economic ecosystem that makes those jobs possible. A policy that is too heavy-handed in implementation can undermine the very stability it aims to create. That’s why clarity, flexibility and balance are so essential.

Good employers want to do the right thing. We should make it easy for them to do it and do it well.

[5:55 p.m.]

Implementation will determine the success of this bill. Intent is important. Effect is equally important. Many small businesses and microbusinesses don’t have legal advisers or policy staff to interpret new regulations. They need plain-language guides, sample forms and a single place to get clear, definitive answers.

Government should invest in education and outreach, not just press releases and self-congratulatory commercials, so that employers and workers understand their rights and responsibilities from day one. This needs to be a properly thought-out, effectively communicated policy that is balanced, not just the next pre-election advertisement for the NDP.

As we expand the Employment Standards Act, we should also ensure the employment standards branch has the capacity to handle inquiries and resolve disputes promptly. Last year fewer than one-third of complaints were resolved within 180 days, far short of the ministry’s own targets. If we want this policy to succeed, we must resource the system that supports it.

Bill 30 is a compassionate and necessary step. As I and my colleague the critic for Labour have said, we recognize the intention. We recognize the compassion, and fundamentally, we support the intent.

In our role as critics, it is important that we identify challenges toward implementation and ensure that this and other bills are implemented with fulsome consultation and with a full understanding of the intended and unintended consequences and of the uncertainty that they may create for small business if they are not communicated clearly, with clear definitions, clear scope and an appropriate balance when it comes to both the legislation and the regulation to follow.

It’s important we recognize that behind every policy are real people, workers battling illness and employers doing their best to keep businesses and communities strong. Small business owners want to support their teams in times of crisis. They simply need clarity, consistency and respect for the realities of running a business on tight margins. That is the perspective that we look forward to bringing as we examine this bill further at the committee stage.

This is a moment to match compassion with common sense and to show that good policy can balance both. I anticipate that we will likely support this bill and urge government to work closely with the small business community to make sure that it delivers on its promise and on its intent.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Existing B.C. laws outlined in the Employment Standards Act only provide eight days of job-protected leave, with three unpaid and five paid sick leave days. Although many employers operate from a place of respect and understanding for employees, as has been pointed out, for employees who take sick leave beyond those eight days, there is no legal protection, which means their jobs would not be secure if they fell ill and required more time for recovery. Through no fault of their own, individuals who develop long-term illness in the course of their work could lose their jobs for being too sick to work.

The B.C. human rights code prohibits employers from terminating an employee on sick leave, but the onus lies with the employee to go through the Human Rights Tribunal to fight for their job — a difficult process to go through at the best of times, much less while experiencing long-term injury or illness.

Until 2022, the federal employment insurance sickness benefit provided 15 weeks of assistance for someone with a long-term illness or injury. Strong advocacy from groups like the Canadian Cancer Society called for extending this sickness benefit.

After years of advocacy, in December 2022, the federal government extended EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks. This change was lauded by groups like the Canadian Cancer Society, the MS Society of Canada and labour organizations as a welcomed and long overdue step.

Since the extension of federal EI sickness benefits in 2022, provinces across the country have amended their laws around job-protected leave. Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Quebec have extended job protection to align with EI sickness benefits. B.C. is finally joining these provinces to strengthen workers rights.

[6:00 p.m.]

What does the bill do? An employee can take 27 weeks in a 52-week period of unpaid illness and injury leave. This change would align with the federal employment insurance sickness benefit.

In order to be able to take this leave, the employee must obtain a medical certificate from a physician or nurse practitioner. In this certificate, the medical professional will state the amount of leave that would be required. This will mean that the employee seeking leave would only need to acquire one medical certificate. Leave can be taken in intervals to support intermittent illnesses and treatments such as radiation or chemotherapy.

An employer cannot change conditions of employment while the employee is on leave. People who face life-threatening or impacting illnesses deserve to take time off work to receive treatment and heal thoroughly. They should have security in knowing that their job will still be there once they have recovered.

We are grateful to see this government take steps to improve workers’ rights, allowing employees to prioritize their health when they are ill or injured.

Darlene Rotchford: It’s an honour to stand in front of you today supporting Bill 30. It is also an honour to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour, ensuring that we are continuing to support our workers in the province of British Columbia, because they are the backbone of our province.

On Monday, October 20, Premier Eby and Minister Whiteside introduced an amendment to the Employment Standards Act that would allow workers in British Columbia to take up to 27 weeks of unpaid job leave protection. That amendment will bring British Columbian protections up to a standard that is already in place in other jurisdictions in Canada and in alignment with the financial supports provided by the federal government under the employment insurance sickness benefit program.

In 2024, the Canadian Cancer Society conducted a poll. Only half of British Columbians felt that their jobs would be protected under current laws if they went on to extended leave for illness and recovery time. This is extremely concerning. When someone is sick and needs to be able to work on their physical and mental health, we need to ensure that they feel the supports are there.

Even more concerning is that the Cancer Society has shared with me cases in which employees were let go because they needed extended leave to recover from cancer. That is shameful to hear.

The Canadian Society of Professionals in Disability Management have stated that at any given time, between 8 and 12 percent of the workforce in Canada is off due to an injury and are receiving workers’ compensation, long-term disability or weekly indemnity benefits. Of those workers, only 20 percent return to their jobs, sometimes because their employer has filled their position with somebody else.

We know that 90 percent of intimate partner violence cases reported to police involved survivors aged 15 to 54, people who are in their prime working years. It’s time to shift the narrative, not only because it’s the right thing to do but because these changes will make B.C. a better place to live and work in. It will help employers retain skilled and dedicated workers and facilitate smoother transitions for returning workers.

Many employers understand the importance of protecting the jobs of their employees who suffer from serious illness or injury, and they abide by the B.C. human rights code, which prohibits discrimination against those who have a physical or mental disability. However, they oppose amendments to the Employment Standards Act that provide additional protection by removing any uncertainty that an employee’s job is protected if the employee becomes seriously ill or injured.

I’m going to share a story that I was given permission to share. Sherri received a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in 2013. Sherri had been working in the financial service sector for 16 years. At that time, her career was everything to her. She was good at it. She loved it. She loved meeting with her clients. Her work meant a lot to her.

But it became hard for Sherri, even more than receiving her diagnosis, when she started experiencing symptoms. She began to miss work because the disease left her feeling exhausted and in pain, but she did not know what to do. That’s when she started to feel like she was becoming unreliable to the expectations of her job, to her colleagues and to her clients.

Having worked in the industry for as long as she did, she was very well aware that she was falling short on the expectations she had for herself and her industry. She started to feel guilty. She began to carry that weight on top of everything else that was happening to her physically and as a result of her disease.

It was frustrating for her employer. It was frustrating for her. Importantly, it was an impossible benchmark for Sherri, who was put in the position of managing expectations about her own performance, as she was still not 100 percent and healthy.

[6:05 p.m.]

The stress of having to be away from her job and knowing the impact of it having on her co-workers and clients made her MS symptoms worse. The diagnosis gave her clarity about her condition, but it did little to alleviate the guilt she felt. She needed to travel from her home community in Fort St. John to Vancouver, Prince George and Alberta to see specialists, get MRIs and other diagnoses done. This travel to attend medical appointments and seek treatment would take her one to three days.

Each time her employer required Sherri to provide a doctor’s note explaining the absence and, at the time, Sherri needed to go to see her doctor very frequently. She would pay out of pocket for those notes. In the time she did forget, Sherri had to go to her local family doctor for a note to prove she had to travel for her health or else risk leaving a bad mark on her record of her performance.

Sherri did not know she would have a job to return to when she got healthy and back in order. When you receive a difficult diagnosis, you are already grieving your body as you know it, your career and the life you had when you were healthy. “In addition to grief, I was feeling stress and the guilt of having to be away from work.”

The changes proposed in Bill 30 mean that people like Sherri would no longer need to carry the weight of guilt when they need to take time off to travel to medical appointments or undergo treatment of their illness. People who are living with serious illnesses or chronic diseases are already dealing with physical symptoms. Knowing that this time is available to take care of their health relieves them of any added unnecessary burden on their mental health.

By 2014, Sherri’s symptoms had worsened. She could not use her hands without pain and, after discussion with her doctor, she decided she needed to step away from her career to tend to her MS and her symptoms. In 2016, Sherri began volunteering for MS Canada, and in 2017, organized the first MS walk in Fort St. John’s. She has since raised over $100,000 in her community for people living with MS.

I wish to close with Sherri’s words: “I hope employers understand the importance of this change. For anybody with a difficult diagnosis, trying to recover or seek treatment, you’d have to choose between health and your career.”

British Columbians are working hard towards a brighter future for our province, one that has Canadian values at its core, like community and caring for one another. Together British Columbians are lighting the path forward. In 2022, the Canadian Cancer Society conducted a poll that found 93 percent of Canadians supported job protection illness leave. The changes proposed in Bill 30 reflect on the values of our government, that people will be at the heart of every decision.

I hope that among myself, my opposition, the Third and Fourth parties, our independents, we can all agree that we can pass this bill and ensure people like Sherri know that when they need those protections, that they’re in place, that their jobs are in place, that their livelihoods are in place and that they get a place to go back to.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to speak on Bill 30. With this, I would like to support this bill in principle, but I feel, as opposition, it’s really important to speak on the key things where I feel there could be some shortfalls.

The Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025. This legislation adds a new type of unpaid job-protected leave to the Employment Standards Act, allowing employees who suffer from serious illness or injury to take up to 27 weeks within a 12-month period of time to focus on recovery. At its heart, this bill is about compassion, dignity and stability.

Life can change in an instant — a cancer diagnosis, a serious injury, a sudden medical crisis. No British Columbian should have to choose between their job and their health. That principle is one worth standing behind, and I would like to support this bill. I think all of us can agree that illness and injury don’t discriminate. It can affect anyone: a parent, a co-worker, a friend or even ourselves.

In my own life, I’ve seen how quickly things can change. A close friend of mine, someone I grew up with, was involved in a serious accident and couldn’t work for several months. Instead of focusing on healing, he was continuously worried about whether his employer could afford to hold his job. His employer wanted to help but didn’t know what the law allowed. If legislations like Bill 30 had been in place, with clear guidance and communication, it would have taken enormous pressure off both of them.

[6:10 p.m.]

That’s what this bill has the potential to do if implemented properly: give workers peace of mind, give employers clarity when life takes an unexpected turn.

As formerly the opposition critic for Transportation and now the opposition critic for Jobs and economic development, I have spent a great deal of time meeting with workers, business owners, community leaders across this province of British Columbia. I’ve travelled through the Interior, up through the Cariboo, through Quesnel, down to Smithers, back down through the Interior, through Shuswap to Revelstoke, Golden, all across the Kootenays and looped back around the Similkameen area, Kelowna and all the way back to the Fraser Valley.

Everywhere I go I hear the same thing. People want clarity. They want fairness, the opportunity to succeed. Whether it’s a small business trying to get staff or a worker trying to get recovery from an illness, everyone wants stability and a system that actually works.

Part of my responsibility as critic is to ensure that policies like this one protect workers in times of hardship while keeping businesses strong enough to continue creating opportunities for them. It’s easy for government to make compassionate announcements, but good intentions must be backed by good implementation.

That’s why my approach to this bill is one of constructive support. I agree with the principle, but I want to make sure it’s done right. While I support the intent of this legislation, there are several areas where greater clarity is needed.

First, the bill allows the cabinet to decide by regulation who qualifies as a health practitioner. That may sound like a small detail, but it’s crucial, particularly for people in smaller and rural communities. In many of those areas I just mentioned, it can take weeks to see a doctor. People rely on nurse practitioners, community clinics and regional health centres. They deserve the same access to job-protected leave as someone living in Vancouver or Victoria.

Second, the government will also determine by regulation how long someone must have worked before qualifying for that leave. The threshold must be clear and fair from the start.

Third, the Ministry of Labour must be ready to manage this properly. The employment standards branch already deals with a lot of backlogs. With cases stacking up to six months to resolve, if the government adds more responsibility without improving response times, confusion will grow instead of compassion.

Back home in Langley-Abbotsford, I speak with business owners all the time, people who employ our neighbours, sponsor our local sports teams and quietly give back to this community. These are the good people who genuinely care about their employees. When someone on their team is facing hardship, whether it’s an illness, injury or a family challenge, they’ll do whatever they can to help. That’s just who they are. What they tell me is that they want clarity. They want to know exactly what the rules are so they can do the right thing without fear of getting it wrong.

Large corporations have legal departments and HR teams, but small businesses don’t. For them, a 27-week absence can mean everyone else working double shifts just to keep the doors open. That’s why this bill needs to be clear, flexible and practical so small businesses can plan ahead and the workers can recover with peace of mind. Compassion for employees and common sense for employers must go hand in hand.

As I’ve said before, the success of the law depends not on how it sounds in a press release but how it works in real life. If this bill is to deliver what it promises, governments must provide plain-language information for both employees and employers, clearly outlining what documentation is needed, how to apply and how to return to work once recovery allows.

If the rules are confusing or inconsistent, the people this bill is meant to help will be the ones most affected. We need to make sure the process is simple, fair and accessible because when someone is seriously ill, the last thing they need to get caught up in is red tape.

[6:15 p.m.]

It’s also important to recognize that this bill fills a gap. If an injury happens on the job, WorkSafeBC provides protection. But for serious illness or injuries that happen outside of the workplace, there has been no similar safeguard. Bill 30 addresses that gap, and that is a good thing.

However, this government must ensure that WorkSafeBC and the new leave provisions are aligned so people aren’t caught between two systems that don’t speak to each other. So while I support this legislation, I want to see government focus on four key steps to make it work.

One, define key terms clearly, especially who qualifies as a health practitioner and what documentation is required.

Two, consult directly with small business owners and industry groups before finalizing the regulations.

Three, fix employment standards branch delays so people get answers in weeks, not months.

Four, communicate simply and transparently with both employers and employees.

If those steps are taken, this bill can provide real help when people need it the most, without adding unnecessary hardships to the very employers who keep our community strong.

British Columbians are hard-working and compassionate people. When someone in our community is sick or hurt, we come together to help. We check in, we lend a hand, and we make sure they can get back on their feet.

This bill reflects the same spirit, ensuring that when someone faces serious illness or injury, their livelihood isn’t lost along with their health. As opposition critic for Jobs and Economic Growth, I’ll continue to support measures that ensure to protect people while ensuring businesses can thrive.

I would also like to support this bill, but I really want to make sure there is clarity, and I will be watching closely to ensure it’s implemented with clarity, compassion and common sense.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to speak in strong support of the amendment to the Employment Standards Act that will allow workers across British Columbia to take up to 27 weeks of unpaid, job-protected medical leave when facing a serious illness or injury.

This bill is about compassion. It’s about fairness. And it’s about making sure that here in British Columbia, no one ever has to choose between their health and their livelihood. I want to commend Premier David Eby and the Minister of Labour for introducing this important legislation and for listening to the voices of workers, patient advocates and employers, who have all said the same thing: people deserve peace of mind when they are at their most vulnerable.

This amendment brings British Columbia up to the same standard that already exists in several other provinces — Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador — and aligns us with the federal employment insurance sickness benefit program, which provides income support for up to 27 weeks. It’s a change that has been a long time coming and one that will make a real difference for thousands of people and families across our province.

Every one of us knows someone whose life has been changed by a diagnosis like cancer, multiple sclerosis, heart disease or Parkinson’s. We know people who have faced devastating injuries from accidents or violence or simply the unpredictable turns of life.

[6:20 p.m.]

When illness strikes, it can turn a person’s world upside down. In those moments, the last thing anyone should have to worry about is whether their job will be there when they recover.

This amendment gives workers the dignity and security they deserve — the assurance that when they are ready to return to work, their job will still be waiting for them. It gives them time to heal, to undergo treatment, to rebuild their strength and to do so without any worry or fear.

I have heard from constituents in Vancouver-Langara who have shared how difficult it can be to manage a long-term illness while also worrying about their job. One woman told me that after being diagnosed with breast cancer, she used her vacation days and short-term leave just to get through chemotherapy. When those ran out, she didn’t know what would happen next. She said: “I just needed time to get better, but I also needed my job to come back to.”

That should not be too much to ask for in a province as caring and forward-thinking as ours. This legislation will ensure that workers like her — our neighbours, our friends, our family members — do not have to face that kind of impossible choice again.

Many employers in British Columbia already do the right thing. They understand that supporting workers through illness isn’t just the compassionate thing to do. It’s also good business. When you take care of people, they come back stronger, more loyal and more committed. This bill recognizes that partnership.

I want to acknowledge the employers, unions and associations that supported this change, including the Retail Council of Canada and the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. Their willingness to work together with government shows the best of what we can achieve when compassion and collaboration guide our decisions.

Importantly, this leave is unpaid, so businesses are not being asked to cover wages during the leave period. Instead, this amendment provides clarity and fairness, a clear framework that balances the needs of workers and employers alike.

This amendment also reflects our shared values of equity and inclusion. It acknowledges that people living with disabilities or chronic illnesses deserve the same opportunity to remain in the workforce, to recover and to contribute to their communities.

We know that one in four British Columbians lives with a disability. For too long, many have had to make the painful choice between working beyond their capacity or giving up their job entirely. As the Disability Alliance B.C. said: “This change will remove a key barrier to employment and help build a more inclusive labour market.”

For survivors of intimate-partner violence who may suffer serious, long-term injuries, this new leave will ensure that they have the time they need to seek medical care and recover safely without risking their employment. That, too, is an important step toward justice and healing.

[6:25 p.m.]

The evidence supporting this change is clear. In any given year, 8 percent to 12 percent of Canadian workers are away from work because of injury, illness or disability. In British Columbia alone, about 53,000 people claim federal employment insurance sickness benefits each year, and many of them need longer than just a few weeks to recover.

There are also 245,000 people living with cancer in our province today, 42 percent of whom have survived more than a decade after diagnosis. That tells us something powerful. People can and do recover. With time, treatment and support, they return to their families, their communities and their workplaces. This legislation gives them the time they need to make that recovery possible.

Now, some may ask whether this change will be difficult for small businesses. I understand those concerns. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and they have faced immense pressure over the past few years. But our government continues to support them by doubling the employer health tax exemption threshold to $1 million, maintaining one of the lowest small business tax rates in Canada and helping open new trade and investment opportunities.

We know that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. Supporting people through recovery is an investment not just in individuals but in our economy and in the social fabric of this province.

This amendment is about more than legislation. It’s about empathy. It’s about recognizing that, at some point, any of us or someone we love could find ourselves in that position. It’s about ensuring that British Columbia continues to lead with compassion to build workplaces that are fair, inclusive and humane.

As our Premier said: “People should never have to choose between their job and their health.” And as our Minister of Labour reminded us: “When life takes an unexpected turn, workers deserve to know their job will be there when they are ready to come back.”

With this amendment, we are saying clearly: “Your health matters, your recovery matters, and your contribution to this province matters.”

Today I am proud to stand in support of this legislation, proud to stand with workers, with families and with every British Columbian who has faced illness with courage and hope. Let’s make sure that when our people focus on getting better, they can do so knowing that their future remains secure.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member. I think you caught yourself in your early error in your speech, but I do want to remind everyone not to refer to each other by their name.

Peter Milobar: I’m happy to rise to speak to Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act.

[6:30 p.m.]

As I think you’ve heard, as the House has heard and people at home have heard, on the surface of the basic understanding of this bill, certainly the opposition understands where the government is trying to head and agrees that people need to have a level of protection and assurance that their job will be there, especially as they’re going through very serious health challenges, regardless of where it might be and how it came about.

We do have, though, and I certainly have questions around getting that clarification, as we’ve heard from other speakers to the bill. We’ve heard from government members saying: “This bill very clearly lays out….” And a few have said that. But there are a lot of questions that the business community does have, not in opposition to but in clarification of how this bill will be truly implemented and work in the actual real world of small business and large business in general.

As a former small business owner myself, an operator, I can think back to when maternity and paternity leave first came in. That was going to be the death knell for businesses. And businesses adapted. They figured it out, and as it unfolded, they started to realize the benefit it actually was to their workforce.

As they got used to the provisions and how you can work that into your employee base and, again, how you can have a trained employee then seek those benefits out, continue on growing their family and have a trained, skilled worker coming back into the workforce again…. It has been an adaptation time frame that has…. Now no one can really remember what it was like before that.

That’s what I think we will see, the evolution of Bill 30, happen, as well, in the workforce. There’s no doubt about that, but it does need to have that clarity. It needs to have that clarity, as we move through committee stage, around the starting and stopping of the 27 weeks and how much time frame in between the starting and stopping resets it back to the 27.

I say that because, under the current backdrop of what we’re facing with access to health care and treatment in this province, it’s not unrealistic that people need to, and they do on a regular basis, start a treatment and then need to wait to get access to another specialist for another portion of their treatment or their procedures that they need done.

So how does that mesh with this legislation? That will be an important part as we move through committee stage so that the public, the employee that needs these types of provisions, can clearly understand how it works but also the employer, because obviously it needs to be that give-and-take relationship.

My experience has been that most employers are very good about things like this. However, there are always those few that create the need for legislation like this because they don’t work with the employee and they aren’t reasonable with the employee’s expectation or needs within their personal life. So we do need to make sure there are some provisions. But the provisions need to be clearly understood, and they need to be clearly understood because the employment standards branch has a backlog of files that are taking six months plus to action.

You think about the 27 weeks in this bill. That’s 189 days. The employment standards branch right now is backed up 180 days. I get that these aren’t directly connected, but if there is an employee or an employer that takes issue with how the provisions of Bill 30 are being applied in a particular situation, and one side or the other wants to go to the employment standards branch, that could create some more backlog and some more problems unnecessarily, potentially, and it’s strictly because there’s not the clarity necessarily needed at this stage.

That’s what committee stage hopefully will shine a light on, bringing that clarity and that certainty to it, because frankly, the government has the best of intentions with a bill like this. I have no doubt about that. But we have seen many unintended consequences over the last seven years of legislation brought forward.

In fact, this session, we’re seeing, either by way of a private member’s bill from the government or other pieces of legislation, essentially changing and amending legislation this government themselves brought in. Because the errors and the complications and the unintended consequences they were warned about when that legislation first came in…. If you go back and read second reading and committee stage debate, they were warned about, and ignored, the flaws or the real-world implications of those pieces of legislation. So this session has been kind of a “clean up our errors” session, as far as I can tell, with a lot of the pieces of legislation.

[6:35 p.m.]

Bill 30, as well intentioned as it is, needs to be as close to correct and accurate and well-understood coming out of the gate as possible because of that 180-day backlog that has grown under this government’s watch at the employment standards branch. That’s a 180-day wait on files for either an employer or an employee to start moving their file forward, when there is a dispute between the two, at the employment standards branch.

That doesn’t scream workers’ protection to me. That doesn’t scream employer protection to me. That screams yet another area of government that’s got massive backlogs.

Again, we just had to deal with a piece of legislation on driver’s licensing because the testing was so backlogged we had to take away a driving test. We’re now dealing with a piece of legislation that…. If it’s not clearly spelled out for employees and employers what their rights actually are, what the timelines actually are, how this actually can be actioned and tracked and all of those timelines, there’s a very real possibility that 180-day delay at the employment standards branch increases.

That’s why you’re hearing from the opposition that, on the surface, we agree with the spirit and the intent of Bill 30. We do recognize that people need to be protected. We do recognize that people need to have that peace of mind in the back of their minds that their job will be there for them. That’s the last thing they need to be worrying about as they’re trying to figure out their next few months of recovery, of treatment, of procedures, of health processes.

But that only works if the other pieces of the government services that injured employee needs to access are actually available to them. If they don’t have timely access to the physiotherapy they might need, that’s going to put a strain on the 27 weeks, and we know there’s a backlog for physiotherapy.

We know, in the case of cancer care and cancer treatments, there are backlogs. Eight weeks to get a PET scan in Kamloops, out of town because the government won’t approve a PET scan in Kamloops. God forbid we have one in our new cancer centre that may or may not ever break ground. I digress.

That’s a very real clock that starts to tick on somebody that is waiting for a PET scan to get a treatment plan to start cancer treatments. Do they continue to work for those eight weeks while they’re waiting for their scan and it’s playing on the back of their mind? If they don’t, by the time they get their scan, they only have 19 weeks left.

The failures in the health system created under this government’s watch, of timelines, will put pressure on Bill 30.

Counselling services. Addiction services. If you’re a construction worker that needs the 27 weeks because you’re ready to go into treatment…. You started taking Oxy for an on-the-job injury, and you finally, with your family’s support, wanted to seek out treatment. Twenty-seven weeks is critical for you, to know you have a job to come back to still. Will the treatment be there for the full 27 weeks? When you’re ready to seek treatment…. You have that moment of clarity, and you can’t be back on the job site because it’s a safety hazard. Does that start the 27 weeks?

These are serious, real-world ramifications of what is happening because of a crumbling health care system under this government’s watch. And how it interconnects to Bill 30 will be critically important as we move through committee stage.

It’s wonderful that the government wants to pat themselves on the back on a bill like this because it is a good measure. But it’s only a good measure if it actually will accomplish what the stated intention is. Simply telling somebody that they can be away from work for 27 weeks without fear of losing their job while they’re seeking out treatment that might take 26 weeks to access — and they haven’t even started actual recovery, but they’re living in pain because they need a new hip — doesn’t really help them on the recovery side.

[6:40 p.m.]

If you’re a warehouse worker and you need a new hip, if you’re a fast-food employee working on hard tile floors…. I worked in the food and beverage industry. Slippery, greasy floors, hard tile, very hard on your back, very hard on your hips.

If you’re being told you need a new hip and it’s too painful to go to work, how does Bill 30 help you if you have to wait six months, 26 weeks, to get that hip? Those are the things we’re going to need answers on, from this government, not flowery language about a perfect world in a perfect setting, because we know what the wait times are.

We know that if an employee does not agree with the decision about their 27 weeks of agreement with the employer and employee on when it should or shouldn’t start and stop and they want to go to the employment standards branch, they have at least a 180-day wait, created under this government.

The theoretical, as with most things this government tries to bring forward, gets painted as a perfect scenario, but what people are living in their day-to-day lives in British Columbia is something completely different.

The pressure small business feels right now around having properly trained employees and their workforce. The pressure employees are feeling with their cost-of-living pressures and their feeling that they need to go to work, whether they feel up to it or not, not because of pressure from the employer but pressure from the economy, because of the cost of groceries at the grocery store.

We’ve just heard today in question period about how much food bank usage has gone up — or was that yesterday, maybe — in this province under this government’s watch. There are a lot of people going to work in pain, not because they’re fearful of their employer but because they can’t afford to stay home because of the cost of living in British Columbia.

It’ll be interesting to see how the government addresses the broader concepts as we get into committee stage on Bill 30. Again, we fully agree that someone shouldn’t have to lose their job waiting to get a new hip because they physically can’t do the job without a new hip.

They also shouldn’t be sitting on a wait-list for that whole time, waiting for that hip, and then find out they have no more unpaid leave. So now they’ve got a new hip and no job. I guess they could take it to the employment standards branch and argue it, but they’d have to wait another six months to get a hearing, at least.

That, again, is the fundamental flaw when we hear the government stand up and say all the wonderful and great things they’re intending with a piece of legislation. If everything else in the government system was working properly, what they’re saying would actually stand up to scrutiny, but everything is not working that way.

WorkSafe. We all get constituent files. Now, I understand WorkSafe provisions. If you’re injured at work on this, WorkSafe provisions still kick in. I get that. But WorkSafe is not exactly an easy place to navigate if you’re an employee that has been injured.

What happens now with those disputes and those resolutions when the employer might think that the person was injured at a rec hockey game? I actually do know people that were injured at rec hockey games and went to work with a broken arm the next morning because they were fearful of not having coverage and some money coming in while they were rehabbing. They stayed home overnight, then went to work.

What happens when the employer wants to dispute that 180 days, whether or not the employee was hurt at work or not at work? Technically, they can qualify for unpaid leave under this bill, but there’s still that 180-day process going with the employment standards branch.

These are things that happen in the real world. There are definitely bad actors of employers. There are definitely also occasional employees that push the limits of the rules. Shockingly, that’s human nature, on both sides of the equation.

[6:45 p.m.]

How will Bill 30 properly protect and properly advance the timelines for employee protection while still also protecting that other side of the equation, the employer protection? That’s what you’re hearing from small businesses right now, not an opposition to the bill, not an opposition to the concept of the bill.

We can’t afford, and employees and employers cannot afford, another piece of legislation that is grossly overpromised by this government, grossly underperformed by this government. Then they’ll wait a couple of years to bring in yet more amendments to correct things that get pointed out in committee stage, because they get brushed off: “That won’t happen.” We see it time and again.

I do hope that the minister has answers for the timelines, especially as it relates to people that are stuck on wait-lists for serious medical procedures — how the 27 weeks correlates with that or not, their recovery time and their ability to actually return to work or not. There are people who literally get to the breaking point, where they just physically cannot work anymore, while they are stuck on waiting lists in this province.

If the government wants to try to pretend otherwise, that’s shameful. It’s called a government facing the reality of the situation the residents of British Columbia are living with on a daily basis and acknowledging it, not trying to sugarcoat everything.

Those are questions and areas that my colleagues that spoke before me and I myself will be interested in as we get into committee stage, to hear what the government’s plan is to truly address worker and employers relationships around unpaid sick leave. Will it truly help those that truly need the help, or is it another feel-good exercise by the government that is going to require a bunch of amending by this House, in the years to come, after a couple of years of frustrations by employees and employers trying to access the rules of this bill?

We hope that’s not the case. We hope there will be clarity at committee stage. Based on past history, I’m not overly optimistic, but we will see. I would love to be proven wrong.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I am so glad to be able to speak to Bill 30, the Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025, because no one should have to choose between their health and their job. I think that every member in this House agrees with that.

We all know people — in our own families, our friends, our loved ones — who have experienced a life-altering diagnosis, an accident, an illness. I was earlier mentioning rec hockey, which has caused some grief in my family. Luckily, we are fully recovered.

Having this bill pass means that workers can concentrate on getting better. They don’t have to worry about being able to keep their job. They’ll have that peace of mind when they need to fully focus on what’s best for them and for their family on the road that they have ahead of them.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Noting the hour, Speaker, I reserve my spot in debate and adjourn debate.

Hon. Kelly Greene moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:05 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, to order.

I’ll recognize the Attorney General, should you have any comments to make.

On clause 7 (continued).

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we left off on an exploration of the timelines within clause 7, and particularly the seven days. That was to correct any issues with the proper notice.

Just to note that the member was raising concerns about whether people could adapt to that timeline. I just want to note for the record that it’s the same timeline that was put in place in Ontario, with similar things — with the sophistication versus small business, similar issues in their sector.

I’m told that people adapted, and then there were no ongoing concerns or issues raised, especially since we did ask. They did a review in 2024, and it didn’t come up as an issue.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Gavin Dew: For the Attorney General, in reviewing 8, I’m looking to better understand the intent and meaning of “revise.”

Am I correct in understanding that the function of 8 is to allow a contractor to simply correct an invoice without resetting the clock, or is there a more complex purpose than that here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The purpose of this was, I guess, a little bit of leeway to acknowledge that if there is a revision to the proper invoice, both parties can agree that it doesn’t retrigger the timeline, that the change can just be made without doing that. Because it’s by agreement of both the owner and the contractor, the idea would be that it would more than likely be a small revision to that proper invoice that was needed.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation.

Is it implicit that the contractor also agrees in advance to the revision in this situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This clause is initiated by the contractor, and its contractor may revise a proper invoice if the owner agrees. So it would be by their initiative.

Gavin Dew: I understand where the Attorney General is coming from in the explanation that this is triggered by the contractor, but that’s not what I’m reading in the black-letter law here. What I’m seeing is that a contractor may revise a proper invoice given to the owner if the owner agrees in advance to the revision and if the date of the invoice is not changed.

In this instance, it sounds as if…. If we think about the fixing of the invoice as being sort of the curing of the invoice from some issue that needs to be remedied, in a hypothetical scenario, it could be that the owner, for example, wants a change made to the invoice that the contractor is not comfortable with making.

For example, the owner wants a more detailed itemization of hours, goods. Do they want, for example, again…? In an unreasonable owner situation, is the owner asking the contractor, for example, to mischaracterize the nature of the goods or services offered?

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m again trying to understand. It seems as if the burden is placed entirely on the contractor here to revise an invoice based on the owner agreeing to the revision, but there is no reciprocity there in terms of the contractor having comfort with the nature of revision that they’re being asked to make.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just talk through how clauses 7 and 8 interact with each other and how they don’t, because I think it lays out all of the different ways a proper invoice can be treated by either side.

This is about revisions. A contractor, as it mentions, can revise a proper invoice with the agreement of the owner. In the instance where, as the member asked, the owner doesn’t agree and says, “I don’t agree to the revisions in this contract,” then the initial proper invoice stands.

There is an adjudication process. You’ll see later on that if it becomes that much of an issue whether it’s a proper invoice or not or what the proper invoice is, then that can be dealt with through the fast-tracked adjudication.

Just to note that the owner can…. If there are questions about whether it’s a proper invoice, meaning it doesn’t contain all of these things, the owner has that previous ability that we talked about in clause 7, with that seven-day timeline, to make those corrections or ask for them.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

[3:15 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I will start with a simple question. Could the minister define what “pay” means for the purposes of this section?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The word “pay” has just the ordinary meaning. It’s not defined. It means to pay the invoice, as you would use it in an ordinary meaning.

Misty Van Popta: A couple of other smaller housekeeping items on this clause. I’m going to just wrap them into one question here.

I’m going to assume that the original 28 days is, most likely, in other legislation in Ontario, Alberta or other jurisdictions. If the minister can just confirm where the 28-day starting point came from.

Also, in regard to the term “pay,” there’s also the term “receives.” There’s a little bit of a grey area, in terms of lag. There’s a contractor releasing a payment, either electronically or via cheque, but then there’s going to be a lag in which the receiver is going to receive it, to be in receipt of that payment.

Do the seven days start at the release or at the receipt of a payment? What kinds of considerations are made regarding postal strikes and/or technology blackouts?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To the question of the 28 days, that’s a standard timeline that’s everywhere. I think it’s important to be consistent when we can, especially with the talk of interprovincial trade and all the work that’s happening there.

[3:20 p.m.]

The question about receipt or release is an important question and is tied to a regulatory-making power, which is 49(2)(f). This allows for a regulation that sets out what is meant by, as the member asked, what “receives” means and how it’s being triggered.

The reason for that is because you need to — obviously, to the question, which I think is a good one — nail that down so it’s clear what exactly it means by “received” and when that trigger is. So that will be a regulatory-making power, as we’ve committed to consult with industry on that before we make that regulation. We’ll be able to talk to them about the different ways, in the normal course of business, that that would be triggered and what’s kind of a fair way to analyze it.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that answer.

When I look at complex projects that might have…. The owner will have two contractors for different phases. The excavation phase will have one contractor, and then vertical construction will be a different contractor. They both might be mobilized at the same time, and then underneath those, there are layers of subs as well.

When you look at complex chains like that, how is compliance going to be monitored? Who is in charge or the watchdog making sure that the seven-day waterfall is going to be compliant?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll start by answering the question, which is related to the overall scheme of the bill. I think we have to just make it clear that this isn’t about oversight or government oversight or any kind of regulatory role of government. This is about what the sector asks, which is setting clear guidelines and rules and dispute-resolution processes if needed.

Those tools are there for the industry to use, and that’s the purpose of them. What we’ve seen in other jurisdictions is that once you set that out, it changes the behaviour of the sector and, also, your access to a remedy if there’s a problem.

Gavin Dew: We canvassed in some depth yesterday, during definitions, the matter around defining “contractor” and some questions around consolidation or layered contractors. The Attorney General did provide a fulsome response at that time, but I know that I was asking a question that she was answering on the fly at that time.

I did just want to throw a softball to the Attorney General, if she’s had a chance to think more about the question of layered companies — the opco, holdco structure matter — that we discussed yesterday. Just if there’s any other clarification or thought on that particular issue that she wishes to get on the record at this time.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I do remember the exchange that we had with the good-named companies, although I didn’t like who was on the wrong side of that.

I don’t think we have anything more to add, from my part, but I’d be happy to take any clarifying questions that the member might have and see if we need to dive into it more.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: A division has been called in the main chamber. As such, the committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:24 p.m. to 3:51 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, back to order. We are on clause 9.

Misty Van Popta: I’m going to talk to one other item on clause 9. A narrative that I’ve been hearing is a little bit of the shift of risk on the cascading levels of payment.

A prime contractor might receive the payment in 28 days, then must pay his subcontractors within seven days after receipt or earlier. However, in cases when the prime has not been paid or is still waiting for a cash release, especially towards the end of a project, at lien holdbacks and things like that, or certification…. Especially at the end of projects, the risk of insolvency, especially when you’re dealing with multiple….

Some of our bigger developers have got multiple phases of multiple projects, different projects, and it becomes a lending kind of balance. So a piece of concern is the cascading effect on the tight timelines of the seven days and the risk that puts on prime contracts.

I just wanted to understand from the minister that that careful lens has been considered and whether the Attorney General foresees any big risks with this legislation on larger contractors.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The approach that we took was very mindful of these situations that the member raises, and we really appreciate that we got to have a round table with a whole bunch of different industry and business owners to really talk through this process.

So just to say, first and foremost, it’s not the entirety of the tools available to a contractor. There are performance bonds or labour or material bonds that could be at play, especially in bigger projects with a prime….

The goal of this whole regime is to mitigate this uncertainty that would lead to insolvency. So the point of knowing when your payments are going to come and how, with a certain level of certainty, is what was missing in the sector and what they said was missing, in terms of how you can plan ahead or manage your finances, because of the uncertainty created by not knowing when it’s coming in and then not having a quick remedy if it hasn’t come in.

The entirety of this bill, along with other tools, is available to the prime contractor and the subcontractors to make sure — risk has to be somewhere in projects — that the risk is mitigated through timeliness of payment but also a very clear idea of when payments are coming so you can plan your affairs around it.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Misty Van Popta: Clause 10 was something that I actually spent quite a bit of time on. It wasn’t something that I’ve actually experienced, so I wanted to really understand the perspective of partial payments and how it affects those below. Something that kind of crossed my mind was….

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, can you…?

Members, we’re in the middle of committee. If you can keep your voices down, it would be appreciated. Thank you.

Continuing on.

[4:00 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Something that I hadn’t considered was how a partial payment on the upper chain can affect those on the lower chain, especially in the case of where, perhaps, tier zero going down to tier 1 was, say, only a 50 percent payment, and that 50 percent payment could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

But then subs from the contractor could also be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if the rateable of only, say, 50 percent was to trickle down to the other chains below, what would happen in the case that the 50 percent from tier zero actually wasn’t enough funds to fund everything below?

I was wondering if the minister could go into how, in this legislation, partial payments would be allocated fairly among multiple subcontractors if only part of the invoice above was paid.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just explain this provision in the context.

First of all, this is in the instance where there has been a proper invoice delivered. There’s a realization from the owner: “I can’t make full payment.” They would issue a notice of nonpayment but pay, in this idea, a partial payment of whatever they could.

Now, the question is, in this…. The problem it’s trying to solve here is what happens if, in this case, the prime contractor, the No. 1 on the chain, holds on to that partial payment even though it should be, in fairness, distributed amongst all the subcontractors that were owed because of a good or a service.

The obligation that this bill will put on any partial payment in that scenario is that it’s paid rateably, which is that proportionality provision. In the instance when it’s also a lot of money or when, as the member was referring to, there’s not enough money around, the obligation would be for it to be proportionate. Right? It would be split in a fair manner through the contract chain, depending on the work and the good or the service that was provided.

Just to say that without this bill, it would be a messy situation. You have a situation where there’s only partial payment, there’s no order to it, and then you would probably have everybody disputing, but the dispute process would be long and complicated.

What this does is provide a quicker, fast ability to adjudicate with dispute resolution. In the scenario where partial payment doesn’t go down, you would have a lot of subcontractors with a right of adjudication, based on the mechanism set out here, which they would have, probably, little availability to do given the complications of dispute resolution now.

This is also consistent with other frameworks that are around the country.

Misty Van Popta: Hearing that, I do foresee a slight risk, knowing…. I did understand that it was rateable. But especially from a certifier, in the odd case that a certifier only certifies 50 percent of an invoice at the very top level….

Say it’s a $500,000 draw that’s expected, and only $250,000 is approved to be paid out. That is $250,000, but that doesn’t mean that all the subcontracts below, at a 50 percent rateable amount, equal to less than the $250,000 that has only been released. You do have potential, especially for some of your front-heavy contracts, that 50 percent of their invoice might actually be $350,000. In that case, you’re not able to pay all of your subcontractors at the 50 percent rateable release.

I was just wondering if the Attorney General anticipates that disputes might arise if multiple subcontractors are claiming an overlapping portion and what experience other provinces have had with that. How has it been mitigated?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe I’ll just start to explain it by saying that the risk that the member identified already exists in the industry.

I think she talked about: what if you only get half of your payment? If it was $500,000, you only get $250,000, and then one of the subcontractors has a $350,000 bill right there. What the provisions, and this is shown in other provinces, are trying to do is to say that you can’t just pick your favourite subcontractors and say, “You’re going to get paid first, and you’re not, and we’re going to do it that way,” or hold on to the money.

It has to be proportionate, and the examination of what rateable means in this situation is going to be complicated, because you might have a scenario where somebody has, like the member was saying, a $350,000 invoice that’s waiting. You might have somebody that has only done one portion of the service that’s much less. But the point being that down the chain, everybody deserves their portion of that partial payment based on what they’ve done.

Just to say, the first level of clarity that this provides is the proper invoice. The proper invoice sets out the materials and services that were provided under that invoice. That’s like the first set of what subcontractors may or may not be entitled to whatever that partial payment is.

What it does, I guess…. Situations like this would happen without this bill, the risk of not being paid, but it creates a fairness through the subcontractors and the prime contractor and the inability for somebody to pick and choose who should get paid in the scenario of partial payment.

What I’m told is that in other provinces, this has been running like this. Every adjudication is private, so we won’t get to see the results of that, but there have been no judicial reviews about this issue — what is rateable and if it is working.

[4:15 p.m.]

We expect that with the dispute resolution process, if there is an issue then people in that chain, based on that proper invoice, have an ability to get a more fast-tracked resolution.

Clauses 10 and 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Misty Van Popta: Skipping over to right of information, I would like to just have on record the history of this particular section in terms of subclause 12(1). Just kind of understanding the intent behind it…. I do have quite a few questions, so I just want to hear the history first before I dive into my questions on it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very important part of the bill. It’s really about correcting the problem of information asymmetry, which is a really excellent phrase. Because of the different levels of contracts and the different sizes of parties, certain ones have better information than others.

For example, the owner and the prime contract. Those contract details of when milestones are made, when payments are made or whatever…. If you’re a contractor that’s, say, doing the painting at the very end or something like that, you wouldn’t know what was happening at that level. But you’re subject to a lot of those terms.

So this is about fairness of information to make sure that the…. You may not be able to provide all of the privity of contract and everything, the details of it, but at least specific information that’s listed here, including any prescribed information that may come up if we’re seeing things happen…. You are entitled to that information, and it goes down the chain — the contractor to subcontractor, subcontractor to other subcontractors.

It’s important for people to know what their rights are and what’s happening and if they have a dispute that they need to bring forward.

[4:20 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: That’s what I assumed the intent was, which is why I’ve got a couple of follow-up questions on that.

The legislation doesn’t really speak to how a subcontractor is to get that information verified. It just says that a contractor has to provide the following information. But is that through providing of a contract, or is it a trust scenario where: “Well, I’m being told I’m going to be paid in 28 days, so therefore, you will be reciprocated with the proper waterfall”?

Does there have to be any verified backup that the information being sent to a subcontractor is actually true, or is it hearsay?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If there is a question about a subcontractor that says, “I’m not sure if this information is correct,” or the person that’s above them in the chain of the contractor has failed to comply with the right to information, there are a few protections there for that person.

One is just in that clause itself, subsection (4), it creates it as a…. There’s liability there, right? There’s a direct insertion of liability if there’s a failure to comply with this information section or you’ve actually knowingly or negligently misstated the information. And that’s accompanied by the adjudication clauses in 16, which we can get to, and the causes for adjudication.

So if you were in that situation where you felt like there was something wrong with that information that you were getting, and you should be paid, and you should have been paid, then you can trigger, and we can talk about that later, an adjudication process and then require the other party to defend themselves, basically.

[4:25 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Okay. I’ll reframe it.

I wasn’t quite going into, necessarily, if they misrepresented but more into what format. Do they have to show their prime contract, or can it just be a written email saying: “Hey, this is what’s in it, and you’re going to just have to trust me”? Are they allowed to request a copy of contracts on tiers above them? If the minister could just kind of clarify that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reasons that you’ll see in this clause we haven’t prescribed an actual method or form is because of the complexities of contractual relationships in the sector. For example, the owner and the prime contractor…. There’s probably a whole bunch of things in their contract that they wouldn’t just share with the subcontractor. That’s why it’s clear what information is needed, but it doesn’t prescribe what it would be.

There are a few ways that might play out and has played out, I think, in other places. You would clearly, in your contract with that contractor, specify the method. “This is how we want to interact with you when it comes to information about payments and invoicing,” as long as it has those elements to it.

Then what we’ve done for flexibility in the case that there’s more needed is…. First of all, we can prescribe more information. So if at some point it’s like: “Actually, we need to add something specifically in regulation that clarifies information that’s needed to be disclosed….”

[4:30 p.m.]

Also, there’s a regulatory-making power in subsection 49(2)(i), and that talks about the ability to talk about prescribing information that’s required. We haven’t seen, I think, any…. Similar provinces have similar information requirements, although every one may be a little bit different, and we haven’t seen that be an issue in terms of needing to be directly prescribing more at this stage, but we give ourselves the flexibility to do so if we need to.

Misty Van Popta: Okay. That still is a little bit vague in terms of the expectation on the industry. I understand if they build into their own subcontracts that they could put that information, “Hey, we’re going to pay you on the 15th of the month” or, you know, these requirements and any potential prescribed information. But if they ask for it after a contract has been executed, that format in which they receive it…. Is it just an email saying: “Hey, this is what we’re going to do” or “This is what we have to do”?

The only reason why I’m digging into that is in my experience, especially with smaller trades that have a lot of high overhead, cash flow has to be super managed. In my experience, they will have contracts where a contractor will be paid twice a month so that they can manage their cash flow. Then I look at this, and I’m thinking: “Okay, does that then allow for a subcontractor of that sub to also then in turn be paid twice a month when really it was just to help them manage their cash flow?”

I’m fearful in that if we do start having to…. But they don’t want to misrepresent, saying: “You’re only going to get paid once a month, but I’m getting paid twice a month to help manage my cash flow with other projects that I’m managing.”

I was wondering if the Attorney General can just clarify the intent that it’s for payment down the chain, what the expectation is, and not necessarily what the contractor above them is receiving, especially when arrangements are being made to help manage their cash flow so that they can, in turn, always pay their subs and their materials in a timely fashion.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Hopefully, this helps.

There’s nothing stopping different subcontractors and contractors from entering into arrangements that work with whatever schedule or their relationships that exist and that make them able to do their work, but the access to information gives everybody a clear idea of what’s happening.

For example, 12(1)(a) says one of the pieces of information that you can request, that’s entered by written request, is the proper invoice, when the proper invoices are being issued. Then, if it’s with the prime contractor and you’re maybe three below that, you have that information of when that contractor is being paid and, therefore, of when you can anticipate your payment down that chain.

You may have other arrangements that are part of the work of that project or that are related to that, like the member was providing, but access to that information helps to make sure that there’s fairness and an understanding of when you can expect to get paid and what the arrangements are for that payment. The proper invoice is applicable to you if it includes that service and material that you were providing as a subcontractor.

Misty Van Popta: That still sounds like there could be an issue.

If a contractor or subcontractor reveals, “I get paid twice a month, but you’re only going to get paid once a month, and it’s just to help manage my cash flow,” I understand that they need to reveal it, but then the expectation that would then trickle down, when really it’s a different arrangement for payment for those above to be able to manage more than just their invoices below them.

That’s the piece where I’m wondering if there are risks there with identifying, especially when it comes to item (4), where somebody would say, “Well, you’ve misrepresented. You’re only paying me once a month, but you’re getting paid twice a month,” where really, that arrangement is just to help manage cash flow.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The scenario that’s described…. I’ll just talk it through. Let’s say you pay twice a month to one but only once a month to another subcontractor. I’m assuming they’re in the same chain. Then the prompt payment legislation, how it lies on top of that arrangement, is the parties are free to have contracts amongst themselves.

Say two subcontractors or the contractor and the subcontractor talk about a cadence of payment. “I’m going to pay you twice a month,” whatever it is, or “I’m going to pay you once a month,” like the scenario that was being described. The only thing that matters…. That’s a freedom-of-contract issue. You can decide that. The only thing that would matter in the context of prompt payment is: was the payment made within those 28 days?

If the person is getting paid only once a month, and I’m assuming that’s somewhere in a contract or an agreement, their grievance would occur if they weren’t paid within whatever line of that countdown from the chain that they’re at, whatever that day count is. If they weren’t paid within that day, they could issue a notice of nonpayment.

There’s nothing in the information provisions that say you have to disclose the cadence of the payments. It’s focused on period of time, milestones and other bases for giving a proper invoice. The trigger is information about the proper invoice. If you are in that service and materials that was included in the proper invoice, it captures you as a subcontractor. So it figures out what the chain is that the money would flow.

Misty Van Popta: If a subcontractor chooses or just never really exercises their ability to request their right to information on invoicing and payment, and they decide closer to the end of the project, “Hey, you know what? I want to know what the expectations for invoicing and payments are,” and they discover that they were supposed to be paid more frequently or otherwise, is there a retroactive retribution for that, in the sense that the request was not necessarily negligent but it was never requested?

I look at item 4 and see that this is only if they’ve requested the information that they can’t misstate the information that was requested. But if they acted in bad faith in terms of how they paid, does this provision here allow the subcontractor to go into arbitration retroactively or in retribution for being paid maybe incorrectly along the line?

The Chair: Member, there’s no food in the little House.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think this answer is actually better fully answered later on in the provisions, because I think what’s being described is somebody who’s acting in bad faith, and the person doesn’t have information. There are adjudication processes that give that person the ability to bring forward claims and seek remedy through that process. And I mean, if there’s bad faith, then, of course, the penalties and the ability to do that go up.

The Chair: I’m going to call a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, friends, we will call the meeting back to order.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Steve Kooner: Well, it’s good to be back and in the committee stage on this bill.

Clause 13 has to do with holdbacks under the Builders Lien Act. I have some questions about this particular section. How does this clause interact with the holdback requirements under the Builders Lien Act? Maybe the Attorney General can shed some light on how exactly this is going to coincide with the Builders Lien Act.

I know there are many steps within the Builders Lien Act, explaining how to get a builders lien and how the process all works and stuff. How in practice would this clause work with the Builders Lien Act?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This section’s purpose is to make sure it’s clear how the holdback requirements in the Builders Lien Act interact with this prompt payment regime. Just to make it clear, if you’re required to do a holdback under the Builders Lien Act, then you’re still required to, despite any obligations of this bill.

Steve Kooner: At times, you deal with litigation that goes further. Litigation starts as a result of an original builder’s lien that was put in place. At times, we have notice of a claim being filed and a certificate of pending litigation being filed. That all originates from the actual builder’s lien, because you’ve got a time limit to actually start your litigation, file your notice of a claim, file the certificate of pending litigation.

Now, because that litigation comes directly as a result of a holdback or a lien situation that may involve a holdback, how does this…? It has this reference to the Builders Lien Act and a holdback. How does this coincide with further litigation? Does it just stop according to a certain time period? I believe that builders’ liens last for a certain period of time. But to extend that, you’ve got to follow that litigation.

How is this going to work with that extended litigation? Does it just stop in advance of the extended litigation?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I’ll be able to fully describe the question that I think is a part of concurrent issues that might be under here or litigation in a further section, in the 30s. I think it was 31. So I’m happy to answer that at that stage.

Just to say with this one, it’s just specifically about that holdback. So that percentage of the Builders Lien Act requires there to be a holdback for it to make it clear that if you are obligated under that, it applies despite anything in this act.

Steve Kooner: What’s a time period of…? Is it like 45 days, or what’s the time period that we’re worried about in this section? We’re talking about a holdback.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This section doesn’t have a time period associated with it. It’s just about clarifying obligation and connecting the two acts related to the holdback.

Steve Kooner: What analysis was done to ensure that the provision in terms of the holdback and how this legislation is subject to the holdback under the Builders Lien Act…? What analysis was done to ensure that this clause won’t create conflicts between lien and payment rights? Here we’re talking about lien, but this bill is talking about payment rights. A lien is holding back money. Payment is paying that money.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The clarity that this provision provides will prevent conflict because it’ll keep the obligations very clear. I think, when they did an analysis of how the Builders Lien Act interacts with this regime…. They just want to make it clear in this section that the holdback requirements are still there. So part of this clause is to mitigate conflicts.

Steve Kooner: When the Attorney General did consultations in regards to this specific clause, what did the stakeholders say? When the lien…. The builders lien clearly deals with delay, holding back, and then this legislation is designed for prompt payment. Did they have any concerns in regards to this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No issues were raised on this particular section related to the holdbacks.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General confident that there won’t be unnecessary delay as a result of this particular section when contractors, subcontractors, are going to be wanting payment? A lot of times when one payment is late, it affects the next payment and it affects carrying out the work. You need the money to keep coming in, in order to keep carrying on with the work.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s nothing about this particular clause that does anything about timelines.

We talked, I think at the earlier clauses, about the very clear timelines that a proper invoice triggers in terms of payment. This is just about the obligation. If you have an obligation for a holdback, then it’s clear that the amount of that holdback is something that you’re obligated to hold back.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Steve Kooner: So we’re on clause 14. This kind of defines “wages.”

How is “wages” defined? It says it has the same meaning as under the Builders Lien Act. What prompted the Attorney General’s department to take this wages definition? I know that there may be other places where we have a definition, the Employment Standards Act, other acts, but why take the definition out of the Builders Lien Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These are obviously two pieces of legislation that target the same groups of people and sectors, so consistency is important, and that’s why the definition is consistent.

Steve Kooner: Other than defining this actual term “wages,” it goes on further. Can the Attorney General explain subsection (2) here and how it all works?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This section is meant to preserve the legal obligation to pay workers regardless of any delays or disputes in the payment claim. It doesn’t interfere with existing laws that employees rely on such as the Employment Standards Act or any collective agreements.

Misty Van Popta: Could the exclusion of employment and collective agreements create confusion regarding subcontractor wages versus employee pay?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very clear way to protect workers to be paid. It helps to set out how you can’t say that your legal obligation to pay workers in any way could be…. You can’t say: “No, I can’t pay you because of this or that.” Your obligations to wages and your collective agreement and any employment contract are clearly your obligations as an employer. It just makes that very clear.

Steve Kooner: Another situation that comes to mind when we’re looking at wages, when we’re looking at employment…. A common issue that comes up is employee versus independent contractor. I know there’s been a lot of case law on the point, because at times, you’ve got employees saying they’re independent contractors, and at times, you have independent contractors saying they’re employees.

Now, this particular provision under 14(2) states that this act does not apply in relation to a contract of employment. There’s been vigorous jurisprudence in terms of what is an independent contractor and what is an employee. It’s a very common theme that you see in employment situations or contract situations.

What did the Attorney General’s department do when they were drafting this up to make sure it doesn’t become more of an expansionist category, because there is that extensive jurisprudence involving independent contractors and employees?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The issue of employee versus independent contractor isn’t an issue that is…. There’s no part of a clause in this bill that weighs in on that either way. The case law and law that the member described that’s already out there is at play, and it is an issue separate from prompt payment and whether people are paid on time.

What this provision is really at is that we want to make it clear that your obligation to employees or in any collective agreement or just to pay wages is not at all impacted by any of the things. That’s just your obligation as an employer.

Steve Kooner: I kind of get what the Attorney General mentioned, and I get there’s jurisprudence. But what happens is when there’s jurisprudence and you’ve got to review it…. Every time you’ve got to review it, you’ve got to get into it, you’ve got to get into some proceedings, that’s delay. So that’s where my point was.

If you’re having to get into all of that and there’s some ambiguity and there isn’t more of a definitive framework here, that could cause delay, and we’re trying to get prompt payment. So was that issue looked at?

[5:20 p.m.]

I know there’s jurisprudence. That’s why I brought it up. But what we’re worried about is delay.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. What this clause makes clear and is, I think, the purpose of it is that we’re not talking about employment contracts. We’re talking about construction contracts.

The flow of money down the chain is about contract owner, contractor, subcontractor. It makes it clear to all those, the owner — well, maybe not so much the owner, as important to the owner — the contractor and subcontractors down the chain that any obligation you have to pay your workers is still an obligation.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Steve Kooner: I was informed that there was some discussion on prescribed rates, and what was mentioned earlier was that prescribed rates are going to be mentioned in the regulations. That bit I understand.

Because regulations don’t have as much consultation as legislation does, the question is: will there be a framework or some sort of measurable tools used to actually calculate this interest or to come to a decision of what the prescribed rate is going to be? Is there going to be some sort of framework that’s going to be followed in the regulations to actually come up with that prescribed rate, although we don’t know what the prescribed rate is at the moment?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, this is a bit of an asked and answered. I know it was a couple of days ago, but we talked about how we’ve already committed, and will be committing, to work with industry to set what that rate is and the factors that make it so that it creates the culture shift you want without being too onerous.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

The next one is in regards to the rate, if any, specified in the applicable contract. I assume there’ll be contracts with contractors and subcontractors, but sometimes there’s some ambiguity in the contract.

Because this bill is going to apply to all situations, there’s going to be, in regard to the companies that it’s going to apply to, independent contractors, subcontractors and owners. Their sizes might be all over the map. It might be one small company that you’re dealing with, and it might be one very large-scale company.

When you’re dealing with smaller companies, what happens is that some of the contracts could be not drafted properly, or some of the terms probably would not stand up in court. When we’re looking at interest — say, if somebody puts a ridiculous amount of interest in that contract — how would that stand up under this provision, if somebody could challenge that?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the exact reason for this clause. I think what the member was trying to say could happen or does happen in the industry. So it not only will encourage compliance with deadlines but, the way it’s drafted, it also prevents a party from, through their outsized bargaining power, bargaining for an extremely low rate that doesn’t incentivize the type of behaviour we want.

It says that interest begins to accrue that…. Sorry, just the last part is the key one: “Paid under this part at the higher of.” So it sets at the higher of. It either has to be the prescribed interest rate or anything entered in the contract, but it can’t be below the prescribed interest rate because of the way it’s drafted.

Steve Kooner: Just to follow up on that, I know the Attorney General just talked about a low interest, but what I was trying to refer to was that somebody might put a ridiculously high interest rate. When we look at interest rates, sometimes the interest rate could be even higher than what is legitimate.

For example, there’s a Criminal Code interest rate. You cannot charge a certain amount of interest. Then if you charge excessive interest, that could void out that provision in the contract.

Now, this provision, as the Attorney General mentioned, is the higher. But the higher would be if somebody would have entered that, put that in the contract. So you would be relying on different parties. How does this relate back to this part of the bill in terms of making sure we have efficiency and prompt payment?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This, basically, comes down to a freedom-of-contract issue. We wanted to make sure that there was at least a minimal amount, but if the parties have, through their negotiations, agreed to a rate that’s high, then that’s within their business, like freedom of contract, to do so.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Misty Van Popta: Looking at this one, I was wondering if the Attorney General could talk about what safeguards would prevent parties from using adjudication as a tool to strategically delay legitimate payments or for the bad actors to intimidate smaller contractors. I would hope that this doesn’t occur, but are there safeguards within this bill to prevent people acting in such a way?

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way that that’s handled is further down in section 32, so once we get to that clause, I’m happy to talk about it.

[5:30 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Going to (h), a prescribed matter, is there anything that has come across in other jurisdictions in regards to additional prescribed items that might be added to interim adjudication? Is there any anticipation of what that might be?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This list is based on when Ontario introduced their scheme, covering that off. The reason that you have “a prescribed matter,” and we don’t have any idea or intention or understanding of what that might be in the future, is because you want to see how the system runs before you figure out if there’s some adjusting to see. Of course, we would talk to the industry and understand what that is.

Just to say that with Ontario’s example, the adjudications went really well. They started to be a faster way to resolve disputes and get things not clogging up courts that would take years. We hope that will be the same case here and that we won’t need to, maybe, adjust or whatever, but that prescribed matter gives us the ability to do that if we need it.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Misty Van Popta: Just a couple little more housekeeping-type questions.

On clause 18, it says the notice must include a proposed adjudicator. In the proposition of an adjudicator, especially with larger firms, say, going after or bringing up adjudication for a smaller firm, does it not disadvantage whoever is being served, smaller contractors who might not have the networking capability of already having pre-chosen adjudicators?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are provisions throughout that kind of get at, I think, what the member is rightly saying should be protected. That’s the reason it says “proposed,” because although one party can propose an adjudicator, that’s just a proposition.

If it’s not agreed to later on, then the adjudication agency can assign one so that you can help reshift any power imbalances. That’s the reason for the drafting.

Misty Van Popta: What is the mechanism, then, if the company getting served doesn’t agree to the adjudicator that’s being proposed? Are they sending a formal letter? Is there a template? What kind of format does a company have to say: “I don’t agree to an adjudicator”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Once we get to clause 23, I think I can show her that clause.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Misty Van Popta: Just a quick one here. Could the Attorney General please quantify where the 90-day time period in 19(2) came from, if that was a recommendation from the industry or if there’s some sort of standard used on the 90 days?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a standard timeline that’s found in other jurisdictions. The whole point of this adjudication is to have a very timely, “pertinent to the project type” of adjudication that affects the moving of money through that one construction project amongst the contractors. It’s important to have a timeline of when you can do it.

Once you’ve exhausted that — in this case, 90 days — you still have your rights to go to court if you want to, but the adjudication is not meant for those kinds of longer-term claims.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Misty Van Popta: Just a quick item here as well, in regard to (a). What constitutes an agreement? If the parties are agreeing to only address a single dispute, what does that agreement look like? Is it an email? Is it some sort of written communication?

Hon. Niki Sharma: On the adjudicator and the adjudication process, you want to balance, in the act, what you mandate, what you prescribe and what you don’t. I think I started at one clause talking about how the whole design of this is meant for industry to use in the way that sets the standards and timelines that will help solve problems about the flow of money.

At this point, when there’s an adjudicator or adjudication process, the idea would be that the adjudicator would be the overseer of that, so that we wouldn’t prescribe how the agreement form is or what forms that agreement amongst the parties. It would take on its own process.

Clauses 20 and 21 approved.

On clause 22.

[5:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: In regard to parallel proceedings, this clause allows for them to exist. My concern here is: what if you get a decision in both? What’s going to stand?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With that one question, there are further down clauses that will clarify that question that the member asked. I’m happy to answer once we get to them.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Misty Van Popta: It says that the adjudication authority must appoint an adjudicator within seven days on request. Knowing that this legislation is going to have easier tools for contractors to use, I would assume that there’s going to be a bit of a bump in caseloads. I was wondering how the caseload will be anticipated and how that will be managed, given the increase that this is going to add on the industry.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, interestingly enough, I just had a meeting the other day where I was talking to people in the ADR profession and what their outlook is and what they see as tons of ways to resolve disputes quicker for people. I think there just is a hunger and a desire for a whole bunch of professionals to try to be part of this kind of thing, so I expect that the professions will rise to this.

The good news is that what we saw in Ontario was because of…. It makes sense, because once it’s in place and because it only covers a certain time period during construction, there was a slow easing into the numbers of adjudications.

So once the bill is passed, I’m sure a lot of the ADR associations out there will start to think about how they meet any rise in demand and adjust accordingly.

Steve Kooner: Another question here on clause 23.

Now, clause 23 talks about an adjudication authority that receives a request and can appoint an adjudicator. There’s another clause that’s kind of connected with this. It talks about adjudication authority. That clause later on talks about how, when there’s no adjudication authority, the minister can act as the adjudication authority and can appoint the adjudicator.

The issue that I’m contemplating here is when the government is one of the parties to the contract, and the government is the one that has to pay, and then the government, in another position, is the minister and acts as an adjudication authority, then appoints an adjudicator. Now you have a government-appointed adjudicator, and you also have a government as a party.

[5:45 p.m.]

With that situation, the independence of the arbitrational decision comes into question, whether it was truly independent.

My question here is: how do we safeguard the independence in terms of making sure we are able to totally exclude bias from a decision-maker, when the decision-maker may be the government here and the party might be the government here as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is dealt with in clause 44, and I’m happy to talk about it when we get to it.

Clauses 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

On clause 27.

Misty Van Popta: I just see in clause 27 that item (g) is something that we had challenges with in the spring session and that we saw a lot in Bill 15. I was wondering, this prescribed power, why it’s deemed power.

Then also, can you clarify that this is just going to be done via regulation or if this will be a power of the Attorney General?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, so this is not a cabinet power in the sense that it’s not cabinet assigning any powers to itself. It’s a prescribed power related to the adjudicator.

You’ll see when you read this that the subsections here under 2(a) to (f) are very broad. That’s for a good reason, right? You want the adjudicator to be able to take on the process and do what adjudicators do best, which is try to get a quick resolution.

In the context of what we might see as this rolls out, you may have to prescribe an additional power to the adjudicator. That just gives us the ability to do that if we needed to.

Steve Kooner: In regard to this particular clause, I believe it allows for on-site inspections. I guess, from what I remember, that was to maybe assess on different jobsites or something like that. How is this going to work, the adjudicators going to these different sites for examinations?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very important, probably, aspect if there was something about nonpayment related to the completion of something or the quality of something or something related to that.

There might be many reasons where you need on-site inspections, so 27(2)(d) gives that power to the adjudicator. But then, if you go down to subsection (3), it talks about the kind of constraint on that power.

Steve Kooner: Another part of this clause actually talks about an adjudicator engaging an expert. In regards to experts, in the court process, there are always some issues with experts. What are the qualifications for the expert? How do you appoint them? What can that expert actually do?

When this provision allows for an adjudicator to engage an expert, who approves that expert, and on what basis are the expert’s qualifications tested?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I understand why the member was comparing it to a court process, but this is actually quite different. The point of this is not to have the kind of long, drawn-out or process-oriented court procedures that might happen, although any party at any time is open to use the court system and that litigation process.

This is meant to be like an alternative for dispute resolution. That means that the powers of the adjudicator are meant to be…. We saw the timelines where we would like a fast-acting decision. So that gives the ability of the adjudicator, if they want to engage somebody, if there’s a matter of fact that’s in question that they need to examine through the eyes of an expert….

That was the intention of it. That is why what you won’t see in here is a complicated list of regulations or standard forms or qualifications or all those things, because once you start doing that, you take away from the fact that you need to have…. What they’re looking for is a quick dispute for money to flow.

Steve Kooner: So when we’re talking about obtaining assistance of a merchant, accountant, actuary, architect, engineer…. These are highly qualified people. Some people like…. I think there was another bill that came across the House back in the spring session that talked about engineers. There’s some ambiguity on what an engineer is.

I know there’s case law. A lot of times, case law is applied to whether some expert is actually qualified to be an expert. Would the adjudicator apply that case law?

I know, in different adjudication forums, such as the residential tenancy branch, they do apply case law that’s from courts. So would that be applied here to determine an expert?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ll draw the member’s attention to “or other persons.” There actually isn’t a restriction on the arbitrator’s use of somebody to help guide in the fact-finding or whatever mission that they’re on to resolve the dispute.

Clauses 27 and 28 approved.

On clause 29.

[5:55 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Just a quick one on here. I wanted to understand that if two parties mutually decide to terminate adjudication — they’ve, outside of the doors, solved this on their own, and then they terminate — but then they realize it wasn’t actually fully resolved and they want to refile, are they able to refile for adjudication after it’s been terminated the first time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. The parties are always free to start another adjudication in that event. The only upward time frame is the one we talked about before, which was the 90 days after the end of that contract.

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

Steve Kooner: In regards to determination by adjudicator, sometimes there’s a determination that happens and there may be a clerical mistake, or there might have been an order presented and it may not have been worded in the way that the parties heard was going to be the actual order. Then, sometimes, you’ve got to go back for a clarification in different forums.

But, in this particular adjudication forum, how would that work? Would there be a procedure in place where somebody’s like: “Look, there’s a mistake in the order”? How do you fix that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s found in section 33.

Misty Van Popta: Just in regards to the 30 days, I’m assuming, but I don’t want to totally overassume, that there’s been consultation with the industry of adjudicators that 30 days allows them enough time to set it out in writing, do all their summaries and file it with the parties. Is 30 days enough time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. The timelines are really important in this piece of legislation. I think we’ve talked about it a couple of times. The point of this intervention is to make things go quickly so payment can flow, projects can get going and people are paid.

The 30-day timeline is an important one, and we would expect that all adjudicators would just follow suit with that. Also, it’s in line with other jurisdictions.

Misty Van Popta: Regarding item 3: “A determination issued after the deadline under this section is void.” Now, god forbid there’s some sort of natural disaster or something happens that is catastrophic that prevents a determination from being issued on time. It’s a week late or a couple of days late. But in this, it’s very hard-core, saying that it’s going to be voided.

I’m just wondering why it’s so rigid in saying that it’s going to be voided without it maybe built into regulation that there’s an opportunity, via act of god or otherwise, that it could be still a valid determination.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It allows that flexibility with the parties by agreement. They can agree to extend the timelines. The reason for it — again, these ideas of an absolute timeline and the timelines — is to direct a fast-moving process.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General shed some light on clause 31 in terms of, when you read it, a determination being displaced? What was the logic behind this? Practically, how will this work?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The interim binding nature of adjudicator determinations is just a cornerstone of the adjudication regime, and it’s intended to promote speedy and enforceable dispute resolution in construction projects.

Clauses 31 and 32 approved.

On clause 33.

Misty Van Popta: We see, on typographical errors, the five days it would allow for a determination to…. Sorry, I lost my train of thought. Corrections could be made.

Item (b), though, is kind of vague in the sense that it talks about oversights on the adjudicator’s part. You would think that if they’ve come to a determination, they’ve talked to industry, they’ve talked to witnesses, and they’ve talked to contractors or otherwise.

The piece here that’s a little bit worrying is that if somebody doesn’t like the determination, there’s a five-day window that they could be, essentially, lobbied in to change their mind because the party didn’t present in a way that the adjudicator understood. I was just wondering if the Attorney General could talk about the security in that five-day window — that it won’t be used to change determinations kind of willy-nilly.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is part of the work that we’ve done in tracking other jurisdictions. I’ll just maybe describe a potential problem that you might want to correct.

Let’s say, for example, if the adjudicator has put the wrong amount or timeline or something in the decision and that was an oversight — you see the keyword is “oversight” — by the adjudicator, that there’s….

Just to take a step even further back, this is subject to regulation, so it’s not even in force unless we put a regulation in place to do that. What we’re watching is what’s happening in Ontario. Under Ontario’s Construction Act, they follow a similar provision.

The worry is that you don’t want to have a mini-appeal, where you could just have parties continually going up, because that’s not the point of the adjudication. If we were ever going to go there…. We’re watching what’s happening in Ontario with that, to see that it doesn’t, which is why we have….

[6:05 p.m.]

This is very cautious. It’s by regulation. In the event that you want to create that ability because you’re seeing it happen, and you want parties to have that quick remedy rather than who knows what else, then you could put that in by regulation.

The way it’s worded, it says: “To correct an injustice caused by an oversight.” That term “oversight” is meant to make it so it’s not about the reasons in general or a mini-appeal process. It’s for things that just need to be corrected because of an oversight.

Steve Kooner: What tools will be used to define injustice?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Section 49, under regulatory-making power, gives us the ability to actually say what the types of things might be if we wanted to.

Steve Kooner: There have been situations where an order was rendered, like in court, and the parties got hung up on a few words. Now, why that brings me to stating that is because we’re talking about fixing — ”correct typographical errors, errors of calculation or similar errors in the determination.”

It seems like we’re talking about words. A lot can fall on words. We know in terms of the jurisprudence on interpretation that a lot falls on different words. One word can mean a lot of different things.

When you’re fixing an error, what sort of safeguards are there? What guidance is going to be there for an adjudicator to say, “Look, this is in fact a typographical error, and I’m entitled to fix it,” versus maybe it isn’t? Maybe there’s a lot more that falls on that. What protection or safeguard is there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: First of all, we are starting with trained adjudicators. These are professionals.

I’ll take a step back even further. I think we’ve talked about, before, how this is not about a government oversighting government. We’re not setting up further processes just to make it all complicated. We want it to be simple. We want it to be effective. We want there to be parties in control of it as much as possible and the sector to take it on.

The adjudicator will be trained, and that’s their role, to oversee the dispute. This type of provision just gives that ability to correct these typographical errors which are, by their definition, something that’s inconsequential to the outcome.

If there was an instance, as the member describes, where that adjudicator changed something but actually it had a legal effect that was not intended or maybe a mistake, then there’s a process of judicial review.

Steve Kooner: My next question goes to subsection 33(2) here. How come a correction or amendment may be made without holding a hearing? What was the thinking behind that?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a similar answer to the ones that’s I’ve given before about not wanting to set up something that’s going to take a long time, overly onerous. We want things to move quickly and issues to get resolved quickly.

In an adjudication process, the adjudicator might bring the parties together. They might not, right? It might be something that can be resolved just by looking at documentation. This is just clarity to make it clear that you can make these post-determination decisions without requiring a hearing.

Steve Kooner: Subsection (1)(b) talks about trying to correct an injustice. In subsection (2), it goes to making a correction without a hearing. When you think about the word “injustice,” you think about maybe wanting to be heard. When I was asking that question, that’s where I was kind of going with it.

I know that you want to have ease of decision or you want to fix a mistake as easily as possible. But some circumstances may require to be heard. It may be injustice, and the person aggrieved may be wanting to be heard for that injustice. That subclause talks about making a correction without a hearing. How does it balance that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It doesn’t prevent a hearing. It just doesn’t require it.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

Misty Van Popta: In this one, again, we have the ambiguous term “pay.” If there’s a determination to pay an amount, the person must pay the amount within 15 days. Again, it comes into that interpretation of what pay means.

Is it receipt or release of payment that has to be the 15 days, or do they have to actually physically receive the funds within 15 days? If that could be clarified by the Attorney General, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: A similar answer to the one previously, where the question was asked about another clause where there’s a regulatory-making power that would clarify that.

Steve Kooner: Is this set in stone? Sometimes when you go to court, you ask for a grace period. Sometimes an order is given, “How much time do you need?” although you’re supposed to pay within a certain period of time.

Is this a rigid timeline and the adjudicator would have to follow that no matter what?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the point of this legislation is to put timelines on things and to bring certainty. The more you have ways around the certainty, the less effective the whole regime is. I’ll just say that at the start.

The timeline of 15 days after the termination…. What that means is that’s on the party that’s obligated to pay. They have 15 days to pay. If they don’t, then the two things could happen. There could be interest charged on those payments, or you could stop work.

Steve Kooner: This states 15 days. That takes me to the question of enforcement. It says 15 days, but what ensures that you will get that payment within 15 days?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I partially answered this question already with the interest implications and the stopping of work. Also, you could take it and use the court enforcement by registering it with court.

Misty Van Popta: I actually want to go back to the Attorney General’s answer in regards to the 15 days.

I’m just thinking of a scenario where perhaps this adjudication process has actually halted progress on a project. The project is at a standstill because of a dispute, and, therefore, certifiers aren’t releasing payments. In that case, if up the chain they’re receiving their payment late because a project has now been on hold, but they now have a 15-day window…. I was just wondering why there aren’t provisions to allow the adjudicator to set the date and use the 15 days as a default if there are no other days specified within the determination.

If both parties agree that “yes, I’m going to pay you, but I need 30 days just because I need to get my payment certified and then released before I can pay you in turn,” I’m just wondering why the 15 days would circumvent a determination.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, with the objective of the act being making payments faster, it is important to have clear timelines. If we did what the member described and said, “Go ahead, adjudicator, set your own timelines,” you have to also keep in mind that at this point of adjudication, you’re likely going after the non-payer. It’s not the contractors or the subcontractors. There’s a circling around of who is holding the money and not paying. At some point, it would get to that.

If you don’t put tight timelines on that person, whatever the holdup is on payment, everybody down the chain is affected. The point of the timelines is to keep that money flowing. If you left it up to the adjudicator, you might actually get wildly different decisions. The timelines would be altered. The whole scheme of the act is shifted with that.

Just to say that this is consistent with Ontario’s act, and that’s been running since 2019. They initially had ten days, but the most recent amendment, I think, gets it to 15 days, so we’ve just kept that consistent.

Misty Van Popta: Just a narrative to that. The way that I described would be if the contractor is in adjudication with the owner, going up the chain. If the project is delayed because the contractor is refusing to do service, then the owner is not going to get release, progress draw or certification, so it would actually trickle down to every single subcontractor below that.

If an owner is saying, “I need an extra couple of days to get that payment released,” it might fall outside of those 15 days. That’s why the question was framed from that perspective. I understand where you’re coming from in the subcontractor world, but if it’s a contractor going for nonpayment on an owner, that’s where we might run into problems.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General can speak to that.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. Underlying all of this is also the ability of the parties to make their choices on what they do. So in the scenario that the member was describing, it’s like the owner-contractor relationship. The contractor is disputing payment from the owner, and there’s that chain of payment there.

You have to remember that when we’re at this stage in this clause, they’ve already been to adjudication. So we know they’re very clear about what the outstanding money is, what the dispute is. The parties are making their submissions. The adjudicators made that determination, and says to the owner: “Well, you owe,” I don’t know, “$2 million in 15 days, or $100,000 in 15 days, and that’s my determination.”

Then it shifts to the contractor. What are the contractor’s rights there? The contractor’s rights are, if they don’t receive payment within 15 days, the interest would start accruing after 15 days, or they could choose to stop work. Now, in that scenario, you could say the owner and the contractor can have a conversation about the rate of payment, how the payment is going to be delivered to that contractor. The contractor then could say: “You know what? I may not stop work, because I see it’s coming, but you owe me this interest.”

Although the underlying decision could be up there, it helps to clarify and move things along, which is the whole point of that regime under the context of what may be happening with the individuals involved.

Misty Van Popta: Hearing that, that means that in theory, they could negotiate payment terms as long as something is received within the 15 days, or does it have to be payment in full?

The reason…. I’m just hearing that answer there that makes me think: “Okay. Well, they could come up with their own plan.” But by having it written in this legislation, it sounds also, then, hard and fast that it has to be a full 15 days.

Just between the answer and the clause here, I wanted to clarify.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What’s clear is what remedies are available to that person that has that adjudication decision in their favour. So what their remedies are, are that the owner owes them this amount of money, that the 15-day timeline is triggered and that if that 15 days is up, that person that’s owed the money has a choice.

First of all, the interest starts to be paid, or they could stop work. So they can choose to say: “Look, owner. I’m glad that I got this decision that says you owe me money.” Then they could decide whether or not to enforce what was determined by that adjudicator in whatever way that they do. But it’s clarifying those obligations and rights that bring, hopefully, things faster to a resolution, if that makes sense.

Barring that, it’s…. Both the interest and the right to suspend work are triggered in 15 days, so that’s the other thing that the person that’s owed money has an ability to do, but it’s still their choice.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Clause 35 deals with suspension of work. If a party to adjudication who is required by a determination to pay an amount to a person fails to do so in accordance with section 34, the person may suspend further work under the relevant contractor until some event.

[6:25 p.m.]

In regards to this, my question is: how will adjudicators or courts prevent abusive suspensions that damage third parties or critical infrastructure projects?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Similar to other jurisdictions and regimes, you have to imagine that if you design something that’s there to change behaviour in industry to move payments through, there have to be consequences for nonpayment. That kind of aspect of it is critical to the change in behaviour. So although the suspension of work is a very dramatic outcome, it also is a very good incentive to keep payments flowing through projects. It’s similar to other places.

Then you have the other subsections here that talk about other things that would happen to the person if they don’t make payment on time.

Steve Kooner: Are there any limits to this suspension? For example, say if there’s some public safety or essential services that could be affected.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Misty Van Popta: I think we got this answer on the last one, but I’ll rephrase just for clarification.

If somebody who’s owed by a determination chooses to suspend their work until they get paid — I’m just looking at (ii), any interest accrued on the amount under that section — is interest automatically occurring from the 15 days, or is that a parameter that they can choose if they’ve negotiated payment terms? “Hey, I’m going to suspend work until you’ve paid my determination, but I’ll waive the interest.” Is that a negotiable thing or is it automatic?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I did answer a little bit last time, but just to reiterate. The keyword is “may” under that. So it’s “may,” the choice of the party.

Misty Van Popta: So the question I’m going to ask now…. I didn’t know where to fit it in because there’s no specific clause in regards to the question, but it most likely fits in with the suspension of work. That is, actually: after a determination is made, when is the expectation of the resumption of work?

If somebody has not been doing their contract because they’re in arbitration or they’re in adjudication, at what point are they actually triggered to go back to work? Is it within 30 days of receiving? Is it after a verbal determination? Is it at the point of written determination? Is it before the 15 days? If the Attorney General can talk to that piece.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The right to suspend work under whatever relevant contract is until paid. So that’s when that expires.

Misty Van Popta: I’m actually asking the opposite. So if somebody has already…. They’re not doing their job because they’re in adjudication. They’ve already suspended work. When are they expected to go back to work? Is it at the point that they’re paid? Is it at the point of the determination? That is the piece. It could be a variation of different days. So what is the expectation on the industry to go back to work?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe I’ll just explain myself a little bit more about this provision.

So we’re at the stage in the dispute where there has been a determination. You’ve gone through the arbitration. There’s been a determination against you. And let’s say the party that is supposed to pay…. It’s triggered that they have 15 days to do so. At that point, at 15 days, the party that hasn’t been paid yet then has the right to suspend work until the relevant contract is paid.

The reason I said until paid, because you could see that…. Sorry. You suspend work under the relevant contract. They are under a legally binding contract to do the work. What we’re saying is that they can suspend that in the context of this, where they’ve not been paid after 15 days. It’s a legal right to not do the contract until paid.

That resumption of work, which is the question I think you were asking, happens when they’re paid. So then they’re under that contract that they were in before to deliver whatever service they were doing.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, maybe refresh my mind. It’s getting a little late in the day.

Are there safeguards within this legislation that prevent a contractor or a subcontractor who is under contract from suspending their work? You know, they’re kind of digging their heels in: “I haven’t been paid for a month or two months. I’m not doing any more work until there’s a determination through the adjudication process.”

Does this cover that they’re not allowed to stop working while a determination and adjudication are occurring?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This particular right to suspend work is very, very specifically placed in the end of the adjudication process after 15 days of nonpayment, after a determination. At that point, the adjudicator said who is wrong. They made the determination.

The situation that I think was being described before is that there are probably other contractual terms that those parties have between them that would show that that would be a breach of contract, or whatever that relationship is, if there was a suspension of work. This is only covering that one time period after the adjudication and the determination.

Misty Van Popta: Then, to clarify, it would be based on the contract that they’re acting under that they have to continue with their work, unless there are provisions within their contract that say: “If we’re going to go to arbitration, you have the right to stop working.” Otherwise, the assumption would be that they have to carry on with their contracted work while they’re going through the adjudication process.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, so this gets at another key part of this, that you want work to continue to move while things are happening. The dispute resolution may intervene and be quick about it, but you want things to keep moving on the construction project. So yeah, the suspension of work is only after the determination, adjudication and the 15 days. That’s something that is built into the bill.

[6:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: This will just be kind of a comment for the record.

It would be great that it’s not done in retaliation for the prompt payment legislation to come into play. I would hate for a subcontractor to be like: “You have no teeth in being able to get me to work until this determination in this adjudication process.” It would’ve been a nice piece to have added that there’s the surety that work will continue, given the framework of the contract that they’re under, that going to arbitration or adjudication will not halt the work while they’re waiting for a determination.

With that, I’ll just sit down.

Gavin Dew: I think this is probably the last question on this particular clause. Just looking to understand how “reasonable costs” is defined or whether that is an item that will be defined further under regulation.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The term “reasonable costs” is very commonly used in many disputes in the courtroom and adjudication, so it’s a very well-understood term.

The way that it would work is that the parties would attempt to agree on what reasonable costs are for that, and if they disagreed, then they have the option of adjudication.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Misty Van Popta: Regarding clause 36 and the two-year certified copy filing with the Supreme Court, could the Attorney General clarify under what conditions, or the reasons why, somebody would want to file a certified copy and why two years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Two years is a standard limitation period, so I think it was just brought forward in the act to tie in with that.

This would be something that the party could avail themselves of in the event of nonpayment, so they could use the determination by the adjudicator to avail themselves of all the enforcement mechanisms in a court.

Misty Van Popta: I’m a little light on my legalese. Does that mean that it has to be filed with the Supreme Court if they’re choosing to enforce it in the Supreme Court? Do they have to pre-emptively already have filed it, or can they file a certified copy at the time that they choose to do an order through the Supreme Court?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, so it is like a matter of filing it within that two years. It’s like when you register a court order with the court. Then it means it gives that ability for them to enforce it through all those court mechanisms.

[6:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: When we talk about filing things in court, then we as lawyers always think about service and making sure you serve the other party. I don’t know if that’s listed somewhere else in this bill, but in this particular clause, it does not list that.

In order for this order to be enforceable, would it have to be served as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a situation where the wrongdoer has already been through an adjudication, has received a determination from the adjudicator and has failed to pay. So in that instance, they’re well notified that this person is pursuing payment.

Clause 36 approved.

On clause 37.

Steve Kooner: We were talking about holdbacks earlier under the Builders Lien Act. I just want to make sure I didn’t miss anything, because this is the same subject matter that we spent some time on.

“A requirement under a determination to pay an amount is subject to a required holdback under the Builders Lien Act.” Is there a reason why we have this clause up here when we were talking about holdbacks and the Builders Lien Act in the previous section?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is along similar lines of the earlier clause. At that point, it was during the prompt payment that the holdback was here. Here it’s at the time of the determination, just to make it clear that the payment is subject to any required holdback.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

Gavin Dew: We’ve established, in prior conversation, the intent for a prescribed interest rate, to be defined at a later time by regulation. I’m just wondering if I could get a little bit more detail on the rationale behind the choice of interest rates between the prescribed interest rate and the rate, if any, specified in the applicable contract.

What I’m specifically trying to understand, without having any prejudicial assumptions around this, is why we’re effectively establishing a lower bound on the interest rate but not establishing an upper bound on the interest rate.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I answered this exact question on a previous clause, but this is kind of a repeat, in a lot of the wording, of that clause. I’ll give the same answer.

The reason for the lower one is, I think, apparent. You don’t want somebody to contract out of consequences, which would be interest rate payments. In terms of the higher amount, this was a freedom-of-contract determination. We wanted to make sure that parties had the freedom to determine if there was a rate that was different, but it just couldn’t go lower than the prescribed interest rate.

Steve Kooner: I know we had a prescribed rate and a rate pursuant to a contract, but would this section allow for compounded interest?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this will be something that we’ll consult with industry on before we prescribe it. Obviously, with the freedom-of-contract side of it, that might be determined by the contract, but with the prescribed side of it, we would determine that through discussions.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

Misty Van Popta: On this one, I’m wondering where the 35-day provision came in. It’s very specific. It’s neither 30 nor 15; it’s 35. So I was wondering what the history is on the 35-day window for determination.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This 35-day deadline is consistent with recent amendments in Ontario. I think it’s just along the lines of having certainty in timelines for when things can move forward.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.