Contents

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Jeremy Valeriote.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Good morning to everyone. I’m really excited to be able to introduce an incredible group of people who are joining us here in the gallery this morning. These folks literally put the roofs over the heads of millions of people around the world. We’ve got the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau in town.

I want to introduce Mike Hamilton and Tanner Walde from the Watkins group; Curtis Walker from Waldun Forest Products Ltd; Tom Sutherland from Riverside Shingle Products Vancouver Island Ltd; and the guy that champions all the great work that happens with Cedar Shake and Shingle here in British Columbia and throughout Canada, Nav Koonar.

I’m looking forward to the opportunity to meet them later this morning.

Will the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

Sheldon Clare: It’s my pleasure to introduce the members of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators who are in the precinct this week doing their lobbying visits. As a member of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, I was a bargainer for many years.

I just want you to make the president, Brent Calvert, and the president of my own local, Marta Tejero, along with the other presidents of all the rest of the locals of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators welcome.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I see Julina here from my office, who is witnessing her first-ever question period. Julina is an integral part of our team in our office. She is also a marathon runner and super competitive in all athletics.

I just want to say to her: welcome to the chamber.

She grew up in this community. She said: “I’ve never really been in the building until I got a job and started working here.” Hopefully, she feels this place is her home now.

Please join me in welcoming her to this chamber.

Peter Milobar: It’s not often that I have somebody not only from my riding here but also — well, actually, he doesn’t live in my riding, I guess; he lives in the Kamloops–North Thompson riding — a family member. My son Ethan is here today with us.

He wasn’t able to come in 2017. He had a lacrosse game. So he has actually never been here while we’re in session or anything like that as well. I’m glad, after all these years, he’s been able to come down.

Will the House please make him welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Carly Bernays, the administrative assistant in Citizens’ Services, is here for her first question period today. Not only is she incredibly competent at her job, but she is the spirit of the office.

I want everyone here to make her feel very welcome.

Hon. Anne Kang: I would like to recognize two outstanding leaders in our local sports community.

Jim Swanson is the managing partner of the Victoria HarbourCats, since 2013, and a former journalist and broadcaster and a longtime contributor to baseball at all levels. Under his leadership, the HarbourCats have reached the playoffs multiple times, and he has earned numerous awards, including WCL Executive of the Year.

As well, beside him Adrian Somers, vice-president of operations and business, joined the HarbourCats in 2024. With deep roots in local baseball and softball, Adrian brings extensive experience in community sport leadership and business development, ensuring the success of the HarbourCats and their training program.

Will the House please make these two friends feel very welcome.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Today is National Child Day. I can’t think of more of an honour than being the Minister of Children and Family Development on this day. I am pleased to introduce to the House a number of leaders in child development in this province who are here, executive directors of child development centres across our province.

The board of the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention is here, many of whom have taught me so much in my career about being a leader, working with families and children, making sure that they get the intervention that they need early on, overseeing thousands of therapists and family support workers and clinical counsellors, doing crucial work that really is transformational in the future of children and families.

I appreciate all of you.

We have leaders from B.C. Children’s Hospital, from the Child Development Centre in Fort St. John, just everywhere in this province, corner to corner, doing such important work.

Thank you for what you do.

If the House would join me in making them feel very welcome.

Ward Stamer: I would also like to welcome the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau, as our Forests Minister did earlier. I was fortunate enough to meet with them yesterday. They represent thousands of workers, not only in forestry but also in construction around the world.

I know that we all have concerns on fibre supply, certainty of supply. There are some significant challenges in our forest industry. We had a very good meeting with them, and I wish them all the very best.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Let me add to my colleague’s introduction of Jim Swanson — of the Nanaimo Night Owls, not just one team.

Also joining us in the gallery are disability advocates Jeff Leggat, Brent Frain and Sonijia Grandahl. They were with us when we announced changes to the spousal rule on Friday, and I’m so glad they’re here having impact in this Legislature.

Welcome, friends.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: It’s a good day for the South Asian seniors. They are here.

I am very pleased to welcome Tarana Kaur, the founder of the Happyness Wellness Community Society, an organization dedicated to serving low-income immigrant seniors through culturally appropriate and multilingual programs promoting community health and wellness.

Tarana has done an exceptional job supporting these seniors in living a good life. They are Surinder Kaur Bath, Sawinder Paliya, Kuldeep Virk, Surinder Kaur Barnala, Kusum Kundiwala, Surinder Kaur Singh, Dhanwinder Bhullar, Geeta Jaani, Tarana Kaur, Baldev Kaur Gill, Daljit Uppal, Pal Singh Uppal, Surenderjit Kaur Grewal, Amar Singh.

[10:15 a.m.]

I’ll ask the House to please give them the warm welcome of this House.

Jody Toor: Today I have the honour of introducing third-generation commercial farmers from Langley, Scott and Natasja Janzen. We know how important farmers are to our communities and to our local economy.

Can the House please make them feel really welcomed.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: My friend beat me to the punch, but I would also like to welcome all of the members that are here on the precinct this week from the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. They represent over 10,000 faculty and staff that are teaching at institutions, colleges, universities throughout our province, and they are such staunch advocates for the sector.

I really want to give a big thank-you to Brent Calvert, who is the president, as well as…. I believe it’s almost 20 members that are here this week to speak with us.

I had the honour of speaking with them yesterday and really hearing from them what things we can work on together to ensure that our post-secondary sector continues to thrive and continues to provide the best education across our country.

Thank you so much.

Please help me welcome them into the House today.

Hon. Lana Popham: I wanted to join my colleague from Langley-Willowbrook and welcome the Janzens into the chamber. I think they were touring around Victoria today and just happened to notice that we were in session, so I’m really happy to see them.

I also just wanted to acknowledge that we’re in the midst of a really difficult season again for avian influenza and wanted to mention that everyone in this House is so thankful for you doing what you do.

Paul Choi: I’m very excited to welcome amazing entrepreneurs all the way from South Korea who are here. They flew two days ago to get here. They’re here to visit and learn about the parliamentary system we have here in B.C. but also to explore different investment opportunities here in B.C., knowing that B.C. is a great place to invest and do business.

They are from Shoplive. We have CEO Gyyoung Kim; COO Eun Hwan Kim; and then we have software engineers Hyun Woo Kim, Han Seol Shin, Jin Yong Choi, Sung-ho Hwang.

If I can ask the House to please make them feel very welcome, all the way from Korea.

Harman Bhangu: Today we have Brookswood Secondary’s class here, political studies by Ms. Glover, and they’re here to see democracy in action. They’re also here to see our 6-7 Premier answer some hard-hitting questions, like they asked me when I came to visit them.

Thank you very much.

Please, will the House make them feel very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

National Day for Truth and
Reconciliation Statute Repeal Act

Dallas Brodie presented a bill intituled National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Statute Repeal Act.

Dallas Brodie: I move that a bill entitled the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Statute Repeal Act, of which a notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Our bill will remove Truth and Reconciliation Day as a holiday in British Columbia. Why? Because it doesn’t deserve to be one. This day celebrates the greatest lie in Canadian history, the lie that 215 bodies were found at the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

The truth is Canadians never have committed a genocide. This holiday seeks to shame Canadians for building a civilization, for building Canada instead of leaving this land as an untamed wilderness. The idea that we need to reconcile presumes an act of wrongdoing and regret. But we have no regrets, nothing to reconcile for and no apologies to give, because we did nothing wrong.

Settling and building Canada was great, and we’re proud of it. Canadians embarked on grand and daring journeys to explore this continent. They braved rocky rivers and scaled towering mountains. They built railroads. They built this beautiful legislative building.

[10:20 a.m.]

Canadians discovered insulin and saved millions of lives. Canadians ushered in marvels of engineering and sent astronauts into outer space. We’re proud to have staved off the American invasion in the War of 1812. We’re proud to have fought in two world wars. We’re proud to have invented the telephone. We’re proud we ended slavery, established laws and brought peace to warring tribes. We’re proud to have brought Indigenous People with us into the modern age and formed Canada together.

Instead of guilting our nation, let’s celebrate it.

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

Division has been called.

[10:25 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3
Brodie	Armstrong	Kealy
NAYS — 86
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	Wilson	Kindy
Milobar	Warbus	Rustad
Banman	Wat	Kooner
Halford	Hartwell	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Valeriote	Botterell	Bhangu
Paton	Gasper	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Sturko	Boultbee	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Luck		Block

Point of Order

Amelia Boultbee: I stand on a point of order. During her introduction of the bill, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena stated that there was no wrongdoing by Canada against First Nations and Indigenous people during settlement. This is factually untrue, and there is no historical debate about this fact.

It is extremely damaging to have factual inaccuracies such as this go unrepudiated in this House, and I would ask that the Speaker ask the member to withdraw.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member, thank you very much for your point of order. At this point, this is a matter of debate, and the Chair will not intervene.

Members’ Statements

World Fisheries Day

Misty Van Popta: In my home, for one member of my family, November 21 is akin to Valentine’s Day. You see, tomorrow is World Fisheries Day, and for my marine biologist daughter Georgia, it is a day to highlight all things fishy.

Now, she comes by it honestly. Both my immigrant Finnish grandfather and my Norwegian grandfather were commercial fishermen sailing the difficult waters of the Bering Sea, the Inside Passage, Active Pass and the Fraser River. Both my parents grew up surrounded by rough sailors and hard work, and even my dad, at the age of 16, became a union member.

World Fisheries Day is a day to highlight and celebrate the importance of sustainable stocks, while strengthening the rights of small-scale fishing communities throughout the world. From Lake Victoria in Africa to the Aegean Sea in Europe to the Amazon River of South America and the South China Sea in Asia, billions of people rely on the health of our fisheries to sustain them.

It’s a fine balance to both preserve our oceans and river sources while also using them as a resource for food and livelihoods. Our oceans, much like our forests, are complex ecosystems inhabiting both beauty and function. The cod collapse on the east coast in the 1990s is a glaring example of how overfishing can affect not only the health of an ecosystem but also the economy of an entire province.

World Fisheries Day is a good reminder to everyone to work together to support the rights to ancestral food sources, the right to work our waters, and the right to enjoy the bounty and beauty all around us.

The next time you pull off your boots, pull up your pant legs and squish the murky sands of a Pacific Northwest beach between your toes. Take a moment to reflect on the complex dichotomy of preservation, conservation and consumption. The future of your sushi rolls depends on it.

Transgender Day of Remembrance
and Role of Connection

Rohini Arora: Come along with me as I take us back to the moment that I came across a social experiment that has never left me. It begins simply. Several strangers are asked to pair up and build a bar together. They don’t know each other’s names, histories or beliefs, just that they have a task to complete, side by side.

They hold private interviews beforehand and answer a series of questions. Then the pairs get to work. They lift pieces of wood, hold up the frame, laugh when it wobbles, adjust and try again. They solve problems together, succeed together, and without knowing it, each discovers something about the other — that in that moment of their shared work, their differences don’t feel like barriers at all.

There was one pair whose interaction I haven’t forgotten. One participant is a woman. In her interview, she described herself in the most ordinary, human ways we can all understand — a mom, a sister, an aunt, someone whose life, like anyone’s, is defined by the people she loves and cares for. She shares that she is trans.

The other, a man who shares that he doesn’t think being transgender is right — not because he’s angry, not because he’s cruel but simply because he’s never met a transgender person in his life. The world, to him, has always been rather absolute.

[10:40 a.m.]

When the bar is complete, they’re asked to watch videos of each other answering these earlier, private questions. He sees her honesty. She sees his uncertainty. Then they’re given a choice: to walk away or stay, have a beer and talk a little more. He chooses to stay. He tells her the world isn’t as simple as he once imagined. She smiles, patient and open.

By the end, through shared laughs, he jokes that he’ll have to let his wife know that he’s staying in touch with another girl. It’s a small moment but profound. Two people who began as opposites walked away with an understanding.

Today, on the Transgender Day of Remembrance, we honour those we’ve lost. This interaction demonstrates how we can work together to honour the living. Trans youth still face the highest suicide attempt rates, but recognizing and affirming transgender people as people deserving of safety, dignity, curiosity and connection can literally save lives.

If we can build a bar together, we can build understanding together.

Mission Hospice Society

Reann Gasper: I am grateful for the opportunity to recognize Mission Hospice Society, an organization that has become a steady, compassionate presence for so many families in my community since 1985.

In Mission, supporting one another isn’t just something we talk about. It’s something we practise, especially in the hardest moments of life. That belief is lived out every day by the staff and volunteers at Mission Hospice.

I have seen firsthand how they meet families with patience, clarity and genuine care. These are not strangers offering a service. They are neighbours sitting with neighbours, offering support that feels sincere and grounded.

Mission Hospice doesn’t step away once a life ends. Their bereavement programs are a lifeline for many in our community.

In a world that often moves too quickly, they remind us of the value of slowing down and simply being there for one another. For families who rely on them, that presence is unforgettable.

I want to acknowledge the people who make this work possible — the counsellors, the volunteers, the team members who quietly give so much of themselves. Their compassionate strength strengthens our community in ways that go far beyond the walls of any facility. It shows up in the lives they touch, in the families they support and the dignity they help preserve.

Mission Hospice Society represents the heart of community service — steady, humble and deeply human. I am proud to recognize their work in this chamber today and to thank them.

Child and Youth Day

Jennifer Blatherwick: Today we commemorate the proclamation of November 20 as Child and Youth Day in our province because the care and love we provide to young people is the foundation of every good thing we achieve as a society.

We chose November 20 because it’s National Child Day in our country and is recognized globally as World Children’s Day. This day commemorates the 1989 adoption of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, the most rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history.

In my community, that work was localized by the Tri-Cities early childhood development committee and the middle childhood matters group. In 2018, they brought together municipalities and villages, the school district, health authorities and children to write the Tri-Cities children’s charter. Here’s some of what the children said. They wanted the right to be loved and have a family, the right to have friends, the right to have peace and safety, the right to be respected and the right to have a voice.

The world is increasingly complex for youth to navigate, with a set of challenges different from what previous generations have experienced. It’s critical that we do everything we can to ensure children and youth in this province can thrive and live their best lives. That’s why we must continue working toward a renewed model of child well-being, improving how programs and services work together, with a focus on early support and prevention.

That’s how we can better help families so every young person can reach their full potential — working to raise up children from historically marginalized groups that were denied full access to those rights for generations, continuing to work with Indigenous governments and partners to support their inherent right to jurisdiction over child and family services and to more fully implement the convention’s principles for all children and youth in British Columbia.

Today is an opportunity to celebrate that children and youth represent the promise of British Columbia’s future, and to their rights on November 20 and throughout the year.

[10:45 a.m.]

Skiing Achievements and
Advocacy Work of Mike Douglas

Jeremy Valeriote: Tomorrow is opening day at Whistler-Blackcomb, the start of another ski season in my community that represents 25 percent of the tourism economy revenue in B.C., fosters a love of the outdoors, promotes active lifestyles, builds community and facilitates the joys of sliding on snow. There’s nothing like the feeling of fresh tracks on a pow day, shredding the gnar, as the kids say, or used to say, a blank white slate with endless possibilities.

It’s a feeling West Vancouver–Sea to Sky constituent Mike Douglas knows well. Known as the godfather of freeskiing, Mike was a member of the New Canadian Air Force, a group of skiers that revolutionized the sport through a mix of backflips and rock and roll, and he developed the first twin-tip ski in the late 1990s. They were called the Salomon 1080s, which is three 360-degree rotations. It helped earn him a place in the Canadian Ski Hall of Fame recently for iconic snow sport athlete in freestyle/freeski.

Mike is an innovator, and I’m most impressed by his dedication to orienting his vision to a healthier planet. He co-founded the Canadian chapter of Protect Our Winters, POW for short, a community of professional athletes, outdoor brands and enthusiasts who advocate for policy solutions to climate change and other issues related to our natural environment, like PFAS-free textiles in outdoor clothing and gear.

Outdoor athletes see the effect of climate change firsthand as they train and compete outdoors. Extreme heat, retreating glaciers, more rain, a reduced snowpack and poor air quality are threatening and have destroyed venues they rely on. This can lead to climate anxiety and other mental health concerns, a topic Mike addressed in his documentary Sam and Me, where he mentors a Pemberton high school student in how to think about and address the existential climate threat.

POW knows that the solutions to the climate crisis already exist. We just need to act on them. As professional athletes, they understand the commitment, hard work and focus needed to achieve ambitious goals.

I congratulate them on their important work and congratulate Mike on his investiture into the Canadian Ski Hall of Fame.

National Youth Day

Steve Morissette: Today I’m proud to rise in celebration of national youth day, a day to recognize the incredible talent, creativity and determination of young people right across British Columbia. No matter where you go, from our biggest cities to our smallest rural towns, you’ll find young people leading the way. They’re involved, committed and coming up with new ideas to keep their hometowns vibrant and connected.

I love the energy and excitement of youth. My wife and I raised four boys, and most often we had three, four or more extras around the dinner table. We supplied the mountains of food, but they brought the love and laughter to the table.

In my travels through rural B.C., I’ve met so many inspiring young people who show us that leadership isn’t about where you live, nor is it about your age. It’s about the size of your heart and your willingness to take action.

Our role as a province is to make sure youth have every opportunity to succeed, whether that means good jobs close to home, strong schools, affordable housing or access to the tools and training they need to build their future right where they want to be. So today on national youth day, let’s celebrate the energy, optimism and creativity that young people bring to every community across B.C.

To all the youth out there, when I hear people say today’s youth are our future, I agree with that, but your age does not exclude you from the present. Most importantly, you are the here and now, building a better province with us.

We’re proud of you, we believe in you, and we can’t wait to see what you’ll do next.

[10:50 a.m.]

Oral Questions

Government Handling of Land Title
Cases and Property Rights

John Rustad: The kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation has filed a title claim in court and asserted Aboriginal title over lands in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam. The claim area includes the former Riverview Hospital site and covers over 1,000 acres.

The fire of uncertainty that has been created in this province, and the fear, is spreading because this Premier has refused to stand up and fight for private property rights.

The Premier has lit this match. What is his plan to put this out so that certainty can be brought back to the people in British Columbia over their private property rights?

Hon. David Eby: Just like the Cowichan case, the Coquitlam case is one that was filed when the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister on this side of the House. I think it’s important to recognize that. The case was advancing through court when we formed government.

We intervened with the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation. We said: “Let’s sit down and work out a reconciliation agreement with you, a treaty agreement, so that we’re able to address this case in a way that provides certainty to everybody.”

That was an option that was available to the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister responsible for Indigenous Relations. He chose not to take it. He chose to advance us to a court decision that could lead to great uncertainty. Even now he says that we need to stop conversations with First Nations, who are key partners in major economic developments in our province, representing tens of thousands of jobs.

He wants to put our economy at risk. He wants to create uncertainty. He wants to shut down these conversations. And these are cases that started on his watch.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

John Rustad: The Premier loves to put a lot of spin on this, but the reality is very simple. When these things come to court, you stand up and you fight for the rights, particularly the rights of private property owners in this province — something this government has failed to do, in particular, in this case.

Once again the Premier has just admitted that he is negotiating away private property rights without actually including or informing the members and the people that own these properties in this province. He just admitted that here.

You know what? This Premier could actually take a lesson from Mayor Brad West. Mayor Brad West was clear in a statement he said yesterday. I want to read it. “We have and will continue to vigorously defend public ownership of these lands, along with private property rights in our jurisdiction,” something this Premier refuses to say, creating this uncertainty that we have in this province.

The question to the Premier is really simple. Does he regret his weakness in defending private property rights in British Columbia, and will he apologize to British Columbians for creating so much fear and uncertainty?

Hon. David Eby: Well, the member can make his arguments, but he can’t have his own facts. From the statement from Mayor Brad West: “There are no civil claims initiated by any First Nations involving private property within the city of Port Coquitlam.” Then again: “It is important to note that no private lands within Port Coquitlam are currently the subject of litigation.”

And he says we’re secretly negotiating them away. It’s a lie. It’s false.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby: Just like the member would recognize many of the arguments that we put forward in court on Cowichan, because they were arguments that were put forward when he was the Minister of Indigenous Relations in the government at the time, in the statement of defence…. They’re the same arguments that we’re putting forward, fighting for certainty for private property owners, which is exactly what we did.

When we go to court and the court issues a decision, there is great uncertainty that is caused by that. Whenever we can, we try to avoid court by reaching agreement outside of court. It’s like we did with the Haida, where we protected private property explicitly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby: The members are opposed to the economic growth we’re advancing in this province. The North Coast transmission line that they voted against yesterday — 10,000 jobs, Indigenous partnerships, $1 billion a year for government revenues, partnerships with the Tāłtān First Nations, $50 billion in mining development.

I know they hate our success as a province. They are not in favour of our success as a province, because they want to be on this side. If we’re successful as a province, they’re going to have to stay over there.

[10:55 a.m.]

Scott McInnis: In relation to what’s happening in the northwest behind closed doors, we’ll get to that later.

As the member the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned, there is currently a court case with the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation for Aboriginal title. The lands in question include the city of Port Coquitlam, the province of British Columbia and the Vancouver regional district. This includes Gates Park athletic field, which is used by families and children for soccer practice, etc.

Apparently, this court case is on pause while the government negotiates a deal, which they haven’t told the public.

Will the Premier stand up today and tell us and tell all British Columbians exactly what the details of that negotiation are?

Hon. David Eby: It is not unusual. In fact, it is regular practice, when the government is sued or when the government sues someone else, to engage in settlement negotiations to attempt to bridge the differences and find a path forward outside of court. That’s exactly what we’re doing here. I don’t understand why the member would want to force this to court.

We could see what happens under the Tŝilhqot’in….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. David Eby: When the leader of the Conservatives sat on this side of the House, under the Tŝilhqot’in decision, it went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, the largest land claim decision of the Supreme Court of Canada ever. It threw the whole region into uncertainty. We’re still sorting that out.

Why the members on that side want to stop these conversations, want to force things into court, want to end economic discussions with nations that provide certainty to proponents…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. David Eby: …and grow our economy and lift up the whole province is beyond me.

But I’ve seen the ideology on that side. I heard it with a member that they brought into this House just this morning. They brought that member into this House. They brought that ideology into this House, and it is not that far away from the Conservative ideology.

We have a different perspective, that our whole province needs to work together. British Columbians need to work together, including in partnership with First Nations, to do our part to lift the national economy, which is what we’re doing.

We are the economic engine of the country, leading all provinces with major projects that will transform the Canadian economy, build jobs and prosperity, and they are dead opposed to it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: Working together is exactly what we’re asking the government to do. British Columbians, most of them, support a level of reconciliation in this province. But I’ve talked to private property owners from around B.C. who are extremely concerned that, potentially, their private property is either under a claim before the courts for Aboriginal title or under negotiation for Aboriginal title. Why would they think any differently? The province has said nothing.

My question is a simple one. Will the Premier stand up today and provide a list of both cases of Aboriginal title before the court and those that are under negotiation, or will he continue to hide behind his iron curtain of reconciliation?

Hon. David Eby: What the member says simply is not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Please continue.

Hon. David Eby: We are appealing the Cowichan decision, particularly the findings of the court in relation to the homeowners in Richmond, the private business….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please show some courtesy. Listen to the answer. If you disagree, you can ask another question. In the meantime, stay quiet, please, all of you. Thank you.

Hon. David Eby: We are appealing the Cowichan decision, particularly the aspects of the decision that relate to the private property owners, the homeowners and the business owners in Richmond. We fought for those rights in court at the first instance. We’re seeking a stay of the decision at the Court of Appeal, and we will continue to work to protect private property rights.

One of the best ways we can do that is to reach resolution outside of court and not leave things to the court to issue these decisions that create huge uncertainty.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, if that’s what you want to do, keep arguing amongst yourselves, and there will be no answers provided.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Order.

The Premier will continue.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. David Eby: We are taking every possible measure in terms of the appeal of the Cowichan decision. We continue to ensure and to work to ensure that private property rights are respected and protected in the province.

Also, we’re working in partnership with First Nations to grow the provincial economy, grow the national economy, for the benefit of all British Columbians and Canadians. We’re proud of that work.

FIFA World Cup Hosting
Costs and Ticket Prices

Rob Botterell: We’re watching the price tag of the FIFA World Cup climb higher and higher. What started out as a $230 million estimate has now ballooned to more than $624 million. Whether it’s MAGA-backed pipelines or a FIFA organization with a long history of questionable practices, the Premier has made his choice. If you have money, come on in. Need more? British Columbians will pick up the tab.

British Columbians want to enjoy events like this, but like so many other events in Vancouver, resale ticket prices for matches are reaching upwards of $2,000 per ticket. With prices like these, who is the tournament really for — the small percentage of people who can afford it? What are the Premier’s thoughts? Let them eat cake?

Ontario said it’s considering legislation to cap resale prices. Here in B.C., what is this government’s response?

To the Minister of Arts, Culture and Sport, what safeguards are in place to protect British Columbians from yet another runaway megaproject dressed up as an opportunity?

Hon. Anne Kang: Hosting a FIFA 2026 is an exciting opportunity for British Columbia, and we are so excited to be doing preparations with our partners. As we all know, the sales of tickets are the responsibility of FIFA themselves.

We are creating opportunities and prosperity for British Columbia. We are welcoming the world and showcasing how amazing we are here in British Columbia with our different supernatural views, our Indigenous tourism, our hospitality here.

We are going to make sure that everybody gets the opportunity to participate in FIFA 2026, whether they are watching it in B.C.’s stadium, B.C. Place, or whether they are having a watch party with the municipalities. We are working with municipalities to provide opportunities for watch parties so that we have free opportunities for everyone to enjoy FIFA 2026.

I welcome the members opposite to enjoy the festivities with us.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

FIFA World Cup and
Impact on Homelessness

Rob Botterell: The government says it is supporting British Columbians, offering them ways to watch the games, but what about our most vulnerable?

In the same month of the World Cup, B.C. Housing will close one of Granville Street’s SROs, uprooting an estimated 300 vulnerable tenants. This neighbourhood sits inside a two-kilometre beautification radius around B.C. Place, a requirement for FIFA’s host-city agreement.

This feels like déjà vu. People remember what happened during the 2010 Olympics when unhoused residents were pushed out of key areas under the banner of safety and security, and meaningful non-market-housing promises were broken. Advocates are worried about these street sweeps.

To quote the Premier’s words from 2008: “Marginalized populations in Vancouver are not benefiting from the games. They are being displaced by punitive new policies targeted at cleaning up Vancouver.”

To the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, does this government have a real, concrete rehousing plan for these 300 residents, or is this going to be another stadium-sized sweep under the rug in the name of keeping FIFA happy?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

We are working closely alongside B.C. Housing and the housing provider at the Luugat, alongside the city of Vancouver, as a partner, to ensure that each of those tenants finds a good, stable home.

[11:05 a.m.]

We know that moving can be destabilizing for folks who have experienced past trauma, so we’re working one-on-one with tenants to ensure that we relocate them well. The Luugat, as a housing site, has had numerous challenges, and the city of Vancouver requested that we work in partnership with them and in partnership with surrounding businesses.

That’s important work that we’re doing in a tenant-centred way, alongside the work that I have spoken about in these chambers before building good supportive housing options across Vancouver and across communities around this province to ensure that our most vulnerable neighbours are well supported.

That’s work that we will continue to do, and quite frankly, I remain concerned about the level of opposition that we hear across the aisle to the supports that we know address encampments, to the supports that allow people to come inside.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We’ll continue to support vulnerable neighbours and improve safety for them and everyone in this province.

Reconciliation and Government
Handling of Land Title Cases

Tara Armstrong: This morning I’ll be reading from the holy scriptures of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you have it with you, please turn to article 26: “Indigenous Peoples have the rights to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”

If I’m not mistaken, that’s all the land. That’s the land under 150 private homes in Richmond. That’s the land under the homes of 100,000 Kamloops residents. That’s the land under your very own feet.

Can the Premier point to any place in British Columbia that was not traditionally owned, occupied, used or otherwise acquired by B.C.’s Indigenous People?

Hon. David Eby: I would thank the member for the question, but it has been quite a day already with those members from OneBC.

Look, they have a clear position. It’s obvious. It is a very unfortunate position, given the history in this place, where Indigenous People were specifically excluded from participating, from voting, displaced from lands, where they were subject to a biological attack with smallpox, where they were forced into residential schools. Many were sexually abused. Children died.

To have to endure for those members…. For members in this House who are Indigenous; for people, high school kids, to be listening to the members promulgating fictions that suit their agenda in the face of the well-documented history of this province and then to rise and to continue this attack on the work that we have to do, at the same time as Indigenous People across this province are working with this government to deliver prosperity in every corner of British Columbia…. To ignore those facts, the thousands of jobs that are going to be realized through these partnerships — I mean, it is reprehensible, disgusting, appalling.

I’ve run out of words to describe what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to drag us to a terrible history, drag us back, and our government is focused on pushing forward, finding a path forward. It’s not easy work, but it is the only path forward for this country and for this province.

We’re going to do it in partnership with Indigenous People.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: Yes, I do. The Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition voted UNDRIP into law in this province in 2019. This act of betrayal didn’t just surrender the province to the 204 Indigenous tribes in B.C., but now American tribes want to take in the action too.

Yesterday news broke that a tribe from Alaska is in court demanding land rights over a gold mine in northwest B.C. Can you blame them? B.C. is up for sale, and the asking price is zero.

My question for the Premier is whether there is any Indigenous tribe…

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Tara Armstrong: …that he won’t give our province away to?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. David Eby: First of all, and the member knows this, we have aggressively resisted the attempts by American tribes to establish claims here in British Columbia. We will continue to do so.

The member is completely wrong when she thinks about reconciliation as a cost, because in our province, reconciliation represents, we believe, in the order of probably $100 billion to $150 billion in economic activity, tens of thousands of jobs, and certainty and predictability for people and businesses across the province. These numbers are backed by companies advancing major projects in this country.

The member wants to rip that up for her ideology, which is clearly anti-Indigenous, unambiguously racist. It is incredibly problematic that we have these voices in our Legislature tearing at the fabric of the agreements that we need to be prosperous and successful in this province.

Those tens of thousands of jobs are not up for grabs as long as we’re on this side of the House. We’re going to fight for those jobs. We’re going to deliver prosperity for British Columbians. We’re going to do it in partnership with First Nations.

Those members on that side of the House — I fully support any effort to recall these members, because there is not a chance that the people who voted for them had any idea about the agenda they’d be advancing in this House.

Drug Decriminalization Program
and Community Safety Issues

Jordan Kealy: I’ll transition to a different topic. Time and time again, we have heard in this House about critical concerns of drugs and crime that have spread like a parasite across our beautiful province.

My region is a main route to the Yukon and territories. We have had five shootings in Fort St. John in just a little over a month. This is a small city. These are gang shootings, and they are trying to consolidate their ownership of the trafficking route to the North.

This is all because of the failed drug exemption that has been imposed in British Columbia — failed drug exemption. I am deeply saddened that this government has made this the new normal. We now hold a title as a…

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Jordan Kealy: …shipping import-export giant in the drug-trafficking world, with our maple syrup and beer being used as a front for meth.

The Speaker: The member has a question?

Jordan Kealy: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I get one question every three weeks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Please state your question.

Jordan Kealy: My question to the Premier is: when will the Premier remove the failed federal drug exemption and right his wrongs?

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

Nothing is more important than providing people with access to the services that they need to stay alive while they are seeking help for addictions and substance use disorders.

This is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. That is why this government remains committed to bringing in tools to help people provide the access to those supports. People can’t access them if they’re not alive.

We remain committed to building out a continuum of mental health and substance use supports and services, and that includes increasing access for people in small communities, large communities across this province as we help them on their journey towards recovery. It is work that we have invested millions and millions of dollars in. It is work that we are deeply committed to, and it is work that we are going to continue to undertake.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Support for Farmers

Jordan Kealy: I didn’t realize that meth and maple syrup were part of our health care system.

Farmers across Canada, B.C. and the Peace region are preparing to protest November 22, this Saturday, because they feel abandoned by this government. We have had CFIA raids and suspicions-based farm seizures destroying family operations without due process.

[11:15 a.m.]

Chinese tariffs on Canadian canola are hurting our farmers while the government continues signing MOUs, trade deals and procurement contracts with China. Herd reductions, feed shortages, wildfire losses and family farms going bankrupt with little support. And a generation of young farmers are walking away…

The Speaker: Member, again, please ask a question.

Jordan Kealy: …because it is no longer feasible or affordable.

The Speaker: Member, question, please.

Jordan Kealy: They do not think the government is supporting them.

The Speaker: Question.

Jordan Kealy: This isn’t just about farmers; it’s about all of us.

My question, for every single one of the government members: which one of you will come and stand this Saturday with the people and listen, instead of operating behind closed doors?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think we’ve had discussions over the past number of weeks about how difficult it is every single time a farmer in the poultry industry is affected by avian influenza.

Avian influenza — I don’t know why I have to remind the member of this fact, but it is highly pathogenic. It is a virus that we can’t contain. It is affecting the poultry industry right across North America. We see a case of human infection in Washington statem just recently. This is not a disease to fool around with.

We have poultry farmers that are sitting with us in the Legislature today that probably live in fear every day that their barns are going to be infected. We are in the middle of an avian influenza crisis right now in our province.

I would expect if the member supports farmers and farming, he will stand up for the measures that have to be taken when we are defending ourselves against this egregious virus.

Government Funding of
Drug User Organizations and
Response to Drug Trafficking

Macklin McCall: Eris Nyx and Jeremy Kalicum received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to run the Drug User Liberation Front, which has been convicted of trafficking drugs in Vancouver. Their sentencing has been delayed because they plan to challenge the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on the basis it infringes on their Charter rights.

Why is this government turning a blind eye to drug trafficking in B.C.? Is it because they believe drug trafficking is a human right?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to bring clarity to this conversation, any drug prosecutions are led by the federal government. I have to say that the federal government led a prosecution with members that were accused of drug trafficking, and they were found guilty. That’s something that we had no role in, but we could see….

Every time there’s criminal activity we want our system to be working to address that, and we’ve tooled up our system to do so. When needed, we work with the federal counterparts to do the same.

Government Position on
North Coast Oil Tanker Ban
and Pipeline Proposal

Peter Milobar: Well, it wasn’t that long ago the Premier was dead set against involuntary care. Then the B.C. Conservatives campaigned to bring it in, and all of a sudden, the Premier was a big fan of involuntary care.

The Premier, not that long ago, was adamant that the province would go to a $170-a-tonne carbon tax regardless of what the rest of the country did. B.C. Conservatives campaigned to get rid of the carbon tax. All of a sudden, the Premier decided to get rid of the carbon tax. That was a good idea.

The Premier said decrim was working. B.C. Conservatives campaigned to repeal it. Suddenly, the Premier had a change of heart and decided that maybe we should look at repealing decriminalization.

The Premier used to be against LNG. B.C. Conservatives campaigned hard about supporting LNG. All of a sudden, the Premier is a big convert and a fan of LNG.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Peter Milobar: It wasn’t that long ago — in fact, we even brought in a private member’s bill to repeal the EV mandates — the Premier and his ministers and backbenchers were adamant that the EV mandates were here to stay. Now we hear they’re going to repeal those as well.

The Premier and his ministers…. In fact, the Premier has the Attorney General using every tool in the toolbox unsuccessfully in court to be against TMX.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

[11:20 a.m.]

Peter Milobar: Now it’s, “Dredge the Burrard Inlet, baby; dredge away,” by the Premier.

Given that the Premier continues to change his position on all of these things once the B.C. Conservatives are pushing for it, why does he not save everybody a heck of a lot of time and admit that we need a northern pipeline, that we need the tanker ban removed, and save the next two weeks of theatre and just say he actually agrees with it?

Hon. David Eby: These are challenging times in Canada.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please be respectful.

Hon. David Eby: We face direct economic attacks from the President of the United States that are threatening jobs across the country, in B.C. particularly, in the softwood sector, but in Ontario, auto parts, steel and aluminum.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh. Member.

Hon. David Eby: In a time like this, there is a call to Canadians to do whatever we can to support our country in being able to stand on our own two feet to diversify markets…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. David Eby: …and be able to make an impact as quickly as we can to ensure prosperity, employment, success for families, and lift wages up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, that’s enough.

Hon. David Eby: That is our focus. Now, you have heard the opposition, “Stop talking with First Nations,” and now: “Advance the idea that we should get rid of the tanker ban off of the north coast. Work with the President of the United States. He’s just making requests that a friendly neighbour would.”

Well, they have been consistently wrong, and they are wrong here again. The ban on oil tankers on the north coast….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby: There was a report today that the ban on the oil takers in the north coast supports a $1.7 billion economy. That is thousands of jobs….

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Langley-Abbotsford will come to order.

Hon. David Eby: The ban enables major projects to advance that will ensure Canadian resources get to global markets. Without the ban, that social support, or at least tolerance, from coastal First Nations evaporates.

These members on the other side, for ideological reasons only — because there is no project, there is no proponent, and there is no route — are working secretly with the province of Alberta to conspire against our economy for a nonexistent project. They are not in favour of our province succeeding economically. They are not in favour of tens of thousands of jobs.

When we land these projects, it will show the success of our province, the success of British Columbians, the success of Canadians, and they will be sitting over there for a very long time.

[End of question period.]

The Speaker: Members, I have two things to talk about.

Speaker’s Statement

Guidance on Supplementary Questions

The Speaker: One was earlier, the member for Peace River North in his supplementary question. I just want to advise the House that supplementary questions are not an opportunity to open a new line of questioning. Members should be mindful of this requirement.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, with respect to the point of order raised by the member for Penticton-Summerland earlier, the Chair did not intervene, as the Chair cannot adjudicate matters which constitute disagreements between members on beliefs or matters of debate that come before the House.

The Chair will provide the following guidance to the House. Practice recommendation No. 5 states: “Permit a statement not to exceed two minutes by the member in charge of introduction of a bill to explain its purpose. No further debate shall be permitted at this stage.”

Earlier today the Leader of the Fourth Party introduced a bill that appeared to propose to remove the designation of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation as a statutory holiday in British Columbia. However, the member introduced several arguments that appeared to the Chair to be completely unrelated to her bill.

[11:25 a.m.]

That is inconsistent with practice recommendation No. 5, whose provisions are not to be abused to allow for the introduction of arguments that should otherwise be presented by members in subsequent stages of debate.

The Chair is prepared to intervene should this occur at the introduction of a bill in the future.

David Williams: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

David Williams: It’s not often I have visitors from the Interior, but I am pleased to recognize and welcome some grades 7 to 9 students and their accompanying party from Christadelphian Homeschool Co-op in Armstrong.

Can everyone please welcome them to the Legislature.

I hope they find the day very insightful.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, in this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 20.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 25.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 11:26 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act
(continued)

The Chair: Members, I think we will call a quick recess while we wait for the minister and her staff. Five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:28 a.m. to 11:33 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good morning, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order where we are contemplating Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act, and we are at committee stage.

On clause 43 (continued).

Steve Kooner: Last time we were here, we were talking about clause 43, administrative fees. We were covering many fees that we actually covered. We talked about retroactive fees. We talked about referral fees. We talked about percentage fees. We talked about just fees in general.

There was one fee that we did not cover. It’s quite common when you’re talking fees around the legal sphere. A lot of lawyers actually charge upfront fees before work actually gets done. I guess, for lawyers, it’s called a retainer. You pay your fees up front, make sure there’s security there, and then you do the work.

Now we’re dealing with adjudication authority. Adjudication authority might be a company, or it might be a non-profit, or it might be a public body as well. But when you’re dealing with a corporation, the essence of business is making sure that you’re protecting your revenue stream.

[11:35 a.m.]

One source of fee could be that you put the fee down before a service is even performed. It’s important to kind of figure that out. A lot of people that are probably in the construction industry are probably used to it. A lot of them have been hiring lawyers. Standard practice is that lawyers say: “This is how much it’s going to cost. I do need a retainer in advance.” Sometimes the lawyers actually go and take care of the fees for, say, a board or a tribunal or court fees, and they just kind of disburse everything.

Now with, I guess, the bypassing of lawyers so you don’t have to go to court, you’re now dealing with a tribunal or adjudication authority, so lawyers might be out of the picture. Now someone still has to pay the costs. Somebody still has to pay the fees and expenses related to the actual adjudication authority.

In regard to that situation, my next question is: has the Attorney General’s department contemplated there might be advance fees before any work actually gets done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m afraid I’m getting quite repetitive in my answers here as different types of fees get thrown at me from the member. I just want to say again that it’s broad enough to capture any…. If you look at the section, it says: “An adjudication authority may specify an amount or a method for determining an amount.” It tells you the range of fees that they could….

It says “may,” so I’m going back to my same answer here. I could just say that with any further questions related to fees, I’m going to have the same answer, even with different examples of fees.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate the answer from the Attorney General.

The reason why I bring all these examples is because a lot of these examples actually happen in the legal world. You do get the advance fees. You do get deferral of fees. Well, I didn’t speak about deferral fees, but I guess the answer will probably be the same.

We do have all these different fees that I’ve spoken about. You see them in the legal world. That’s why I know about them, from my experience of being in the legal world. That’s why I’m bringing it up, because people are going to be wondering: “Look, we’re bypassing the lawyers, but we’re not used to all these fees because we used to hire a lawyer before, so how are we going to come about this?”

That’s why I brought it up, so that, for the record, people know that we’ve actually talked about it, and they know that if there is that type of fee that they’re used to paying right now, there is an answer for it. That was the logic behind that.

I think that was the last fee. I did have one more fee, the deferral fee, but I guess that will be the next answer for the fees.

I think I’ve just got one more question on the fees. I think so. Or we might be ready to go to the next clause, actually.

Clause 43 approved.

On clause 44.

Steve Kooner: All right, clause 44. The subtitle reads: “Minister may act as adjudication authority.” I think we tried to deal with this question, or I had some questions related to this. Then I think the Attorney General deferred her answer until we got to this section, to answer a lot of the questions I was asking earlier.

I have specific questions on this one. The first question I have: under what circumstances does the government realistically anticipate the minister needing to act as adjudication authority?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an important part of just making sure there are no gaps. In the instance where there’s no adjudication authority but there is some kind of a duty that’s required that an adjudication authority would have performed had they been in place, or for the examples that we talked about — if one was terminated, if you terminated the agreement with the adjudication authority and there were still duties that needed to happen to keep things flowing in the interim — the minister has that responsibility in that situation.

[11:40 a.m.]

Steve Kooner: I see the subsection here talks about fees again. I think I had one question. I’m glad that that popped up right there in terms of fees, so I’m going to be asking about that. I think I did bring it up. I think that was my last question from the last time we were here.

I think we had left off on the question. What would happen if an adjudication authority had fees sitting and then the provincial government decided: “Look, adjudication authority, you’ve had your chances. You’ve been failing on all fronts, and it’s now come to the period that we have to revoke your designation. We have to get you out of the picture”? Now we’ve got the situation that the Attorney General just mentioned. The minister is saying: “Okay, the minister is going to take over.”

What would happen to those fees? Those fees are now sitting in the bank accounts of, it could be, a corporate entity. Then how do you get to…? What’s going to happen to those fees? There are probably many procedures that are not over yet. There are hearings that are set that are supposed to happen, and fees have been registered. But the provincial government doesn’t have any control over the corporate entity that has it’s own bank account.

They’re like: “Okay, you don’t want us to be the adjudication authority anymore? We’re leaving.” But they’ve got the funds. How do you get the funds? You’ve got to still operate this procedure.

I see that there’s a section that says: “a fee under section 43 (1) that is established by the minister acting under this section must be paid to the government.” I don’t know. Would this section deal with that situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That would likely be dealt with…. Well, it would have to be dealt with in the contract.

Once there’s a designation, and I think we talked about it, the way you would execute that is through some kind of commercial contract between government and the adjudication authority. In there, you would build in provisions that talked about what happens in the event of termination, and you’d probably have many things in there that would cover off exactly what happens with fees and money held by the organization and that kind of thing.

Steve Kooner: I understand the logic. There seems to be a lot of theory there. “Well, this is how it’s going to happen. There’s a contract.”

There are a lot of contracts in the legal world, but a lot of people break them. Then people are looking out for the remedies. How do we get our hands on some of these things that we’re entitled to and the other party still has?

What’s a recourse? You go to court. You go to court, and it takes a long time to actually enforce that contractual obligation. You’re dealing with the courts. Wheels of justice move very slowly.

When the minister says: “Oh, I’m taking over. Because you’re doing a bad job, I’m coming in now. We do have a contract, so I’m going to need my hands on that money, because we’ve got to keep this procedure flowing forward. You, the adjudication authority, is doing a bad job. I’m revoking your designation.” So the minister…. I guess, in this case, it would be the Attorney General coming in.

The Attorney General would be like: “I’m taking over.” Is the Attorney General going to rely on the contract and say: “Okay, now we’ve got to go to court, and we’re going to get the fees”? How do you get your hands on that money?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, your guidance to get us back to the clauses. I think this is a very interesting exploration of hypotheticals that may or may not happen in a future contract that doesn’t exist, but I don’t think it’s rooted in the clause.

Of course, if there was a situation where it was a determination that, in some future government reform, went really badly, there would likely be court action if there were breaches of contract.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect to the Attorney General’s response that they’re hypotheticals, this is a real hypothetical. The purpose of this legislation is to design adjudication authority that’s going to set the regulatory framework of prompt payment.

This legislation…. We’re on this clause right now that states that things might not work out. Based upon what the Attorney General said, if things don’t work out, the minister is going to take over.

[11:45 a.m.]

Now, if we’re going to rely on some contractual remedy and things haven’t worked out, this is a major problem. We could be looking at two years of holdup on the money, and somebody doesn’t have access to the procedure here. This goes to the very core of this procedure operating once an adjudication authority is flipped out.

I understand that it’s hypothetical, but everything we’re talking about today is hypothetical. Why is it hypothetical? Because we do not have an adjudication authority today. We do not have a prompt payment system today. So everything we’ve talking about, with all due respect, is hypothetical today. We’re trying to formulate a regulatory body, an adjudication authority for prompt payment, but we don’t have it yet.

We have to have some foresight in this legislation because that adjudication authority will come up. The prompt system will come up, and we need this legislation to work to make sure nothing is going to fall through the cracks.

Is it that the Attorney General’s department has not turned its mind to…? Maybe they thought: “Well, look, there’s a contract available. Obviously, we’re going to have the remedy set forward.”

Or did the Attorney General’s department say that maybe the government will have a joint account with the adjudication authority, so if it doesn’t work out, the government can just step in? That’s the whole purpose of having a joint account. You can just step in. The minister would have control of those funds, and we would have proper flowing procedure.

If the Attorney General’s department has not thought of it, are they planning to deal with this within their regulations?

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

Leave granted.

The Chair: Carry on, Member.

Introductions by Members

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I’d like to draw to attention that Take a Hike program from Duncan is here in the gallery.

Hi, everyone.

They are celebrating a milestone of 25 years of impact. It’s a one-of-a-kind program which has supported over 2,000 youth, 16 programs across Canada.

Please can you help me in welcoming them here today.

I was really excited to see you all here today.

Debate Continued

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just on that note, I’m told that Katie, beside me, used to be on the board of Take a Hike, so there you go.

I have every confidence in my staff. They’ve thought of everything when it comes to scenarios. You wouldn’t build that into the bill. How you would do it is the same answer as before. You would build a contract that considered all these variables. Then, if there were breaches, in that unfortunate circumstance, you would go to court.

Steve Kooner: This is a clarification point, but the Attorney General would agree with me that if you were to go to court, the process could take some time. It would not be a quick process.

Perhaps I can get that answer.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Precisely the reason for this clause. This ensures that the minister has the authority to continue the adjudications and continue the work of the prompt payment regime in the event of there being no adjudication authority.

Steve Kooner: Based upon that answer, if there’s a contract and then something’s not working out, obviously, the answer was that you go to court and figure it out. I did not get the answer of how…. It would take some time for that court decision to decide something on the funds. The answer that I did receive is that the minister would just step in and handle the proceedings, and the proceedings will continue as is, as they were continuing before.

Is it fair to say that some proceedings will continue even though the fees are not currently available because they’re still under litigation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This provision is kind of like what we were talking about before. It’s in the event that there is no adjudication authority. It actually hasn’t happened in other jurisdictions, but it’s prudent legislative drafting to do that.

Same answer as before. The kinds of issues that the member is raising about fees or how that would be dealt with in a commercial contract…. If there were disputes related to that, we would have to go to court to recover. This gives the ability to the minister to continue the work of the prompt payment regime in that instance.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:51 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: The committee for Bill 20 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Steve Morissette: Section A reports progress on Bill 25 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:36 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On clause 9 (continued).

Linda Hepner: I think we left off yesterday with defining what an extraordinary circumstance would be and getting some clarification of identifying exactly some illustrations of what that would be.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

As I spoke to yesterday, we would work with a local government. It’s intended to capture situations like wildfire or flood, and that would be work we could do alongside a local government.

Linda Hepner: Is the minister able to amend the definition by regulation?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, as I spoke to yesterday, it would be up to a local government to request consideration as an extraordinary circumstance and to lay out that circumstance. It is intentionally flexible so that we capture a broad range of what could be considered extraordinary circumstances.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to go a little bit…. If you’ll humour me, I’ll say an extraordinary circumstance may be that a local government does not have the infrastructure and has not been provided any funding to advance infrastructure that would accommodate the multi-housing mandates that are in there.

If there is no definition that is defined either by legislation or by regulation and we’re just hoping that we can advance that this is a problem that we have at the local government, is the minister saying that whatever the local government identifies as an extraordinary circumstance in their particular area would be considered as acceptable under this legislation?

For instance, if there is no transportation that will allow for density, if there is no infrastructure that would allow for density, if there is no proper or expanded water and sewer system that would allow for the density, would this, then, be an extraordinary circumstance?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

Again, as I’ve spoken to, there already exists the option of extension for areas where infrastructure is being upgraded or upgrades are required. The original small-scale, multi-unit legislation had extensions available for these areas. As I’ve said before, it includes where upgrades are required to avoid risks to health, public safety, the environment.

This proposed legislation will also provide an opportunity for local governments to request an extension related to infrastructure needs.

Linda Hepner: I’m guessing, then…. Does the minister foresee many local governments needing to apply for extensions and relying, then, on a provincial decision, or is this intended to be only a rare circumstance?

I think what I’m getting at here is that there are going to be many local governments — in fact, probably all local governments — that are going to say to you they don’t have either the water, the sewer, the capacity or the opportunity to consult with their constituents within their own communities. They don’t have the mandate that allows them to say to you: “We don’t have the infrastructure to be able to do this, and it doesn’t fit here.”

What have you decided, amongst your analysis and your data collection, would be the numbers of extensions that you expect?

[11:45 a.m.]

If you could just give me a clarification around Bill 44 and the number of extensions that you’ve had to deal with there, that may help me understand where we are headed for what is supposed to be simply a clarification around the Bill 44 regulations and legislation.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We expect very few. Under Bill 44, 18 extensions were granted, and we have worked with those local governments. We don’t anticipate many at all in this circumstance.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.