Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Darlene Rotchford.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lana Popham: Today I had the pleasure of having a lunch, although it was short, with a constituent of mine, Mr. Andy Jani. Mr. Jani started his career in Canada in the public service in Saskatchewan and then moved over to British Columbia, where he dedicated most of his career in the public service here.

You can find his fingerprints or hard work on a lot of the infrastructure projects for the Commonwealth Games in 1994, and he spent a lot of his time in the Ministry of Finance, working hard with numbers.

Mr. Jani, it’s such a pleasure to see you today, and it’s a pleasure to be your representative here.

Pete Davis: I have two of the most important people in my life here today, my daughter Alyssa and my wife, Heather.

Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Today we have a very special guest in the House. It is truly an honour for me to welcome and introduce a good friend of mine, Dr. Hakam Bhullar. He’s joined by his beautiful wife, Joti Bhullar. They’re standing there.

Dr. Bhullar is a well-known veterinarian and a respected member of the South Asian community. He recently published a new book, The Underdog, and this book tells an important story of Indo-Canadian veterinarians’ fight against systemic racism and injustice.

This is a true David and Goliath story, how Indo-Canadian veterinarians, led by Dr. Hakam Bhullar, stood up to systemic racism and won the case after a long, long journey.

I want to say thank you to Dr. Bhullar for his fight.

I want to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Steve Kooner: Dr. Hakam Bhullar is also a friend of mine. I’ve known him for a number of years now, probably about six or seven years. He has always been a very close friend, and he has always been a community leader.

As the member from across mentioned, he has recently written a book, The Underdog, about his professional journey of fighting for justice. He also produced a documentary a number of years ago that was a prelude to the book that just came out.

Can the House please give him a welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: On November 23, Helen Clifton turned the big 100 in Hartley Bay.

I had a chance to visit this feisty Matriarch last year. She is sharp as a whip, and the stories she has will make you laugh and cry. A true testament of resilience, culture and humility. She has six children, 20 grandchildren, 56 great-grandchildren and seven great-great-grandchildren.

Please can the House join me in celebrating this milestone for Helen.

Brennan Day: I’d just like to introduce my parents, Michael and Elizabeth Day, who are in the House today, along with their friends Garrick and Lauren Bradshaw.

My parents are a doctor and a teacher, and here I am sitting as a politician. To say that I’m a disappointment can’t be understated.

I’d also like to say to the MLA for Vancouver-Strathcona, all of this side of the House wish you a speedy recovery.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My first time on the floor of this House was not during my swearing-in ceremony. It was actually in a December month, a number of years ago, when I participated in model parliament.

I did a couple of stints in model parliament. I had the opportunity to serve as leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, which was third party.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m sure the members opposite…. They’ve got their own leadership problems they should worry about.

What brings value to this introduction is that we have some young people in this House that make up the B.C. Youth Council. As the youngest member of this Legislature, it gives me great, deep privilege to be able to welcome members of the B.C. Youth Council.

We have Declan Williams from Surrey, Daryn Dolatre from Victoria, Warren Ran from the Premier’s riding of Point Grey, Erin Sweeney from Richmond, Leo Chen from Coquitlam, Jacqueline Leung from West Vancouver, Aidan Madamba from Richmond as well as Kaya Voyce from Port Moody.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome and welcoming the future leaders — the leaders of today but also the leaders of the future who hopefully will be sitting in this House — to the Legislature here today.

Kristina Loewen: It’s a massive honour that I have these two days here to host my baby in our capital city.

My youngest daughter, Mykyla, is here. She’s 17, she’s in grade 12, and she’s one of the great joys in my life. I’m very proud of her. She’s the one I spoke about who just got her driver’s licence. I just want to say she’s one of the most grounded, kind, caring, compassionate individuals I know.

Please help me make her feel welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I get to welcome a friend from far, far away here in the Legislature today.

We have the mayor of Terrace, Sean Bujtas. He is an incredible advocate for his community. When I was up in Terrace earlier this year, in January, we did a great drive all around. He showed me the great work that we’ve been doing in partnership, that the city is doing with some provincial funding. It was fantastic to meet him and his council.

You might be able to recognize him. He was just meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada. Now there’s a meme going around Terrace and the North that the Prime Minister met with Don Cherry, because of the flashy suits he wears.

With him, he brings Lori Greenlaw, the city manager, and the economic development manager, Michael Pucci.

Can the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Lorne Doerkson: I’m pleased to introduce two incredible people in my life. Bob and Rhonda Grainger are with us here today. They are from Williams Lake and now reside here in Victoria.

I will say this. I had the pleasure of working for about 20 years for Bob Grainger as he built a little company called Black Press. He was the president of then an even smaller company, Cariboo Press.

I certainly enjoyed my years working with them. I love them both.

Welcome them to the House, please.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Today I’d like to welcome the EMCR-GCPE team to the House. Our mighty team includes Ashley, Bianca, Dave, Aaron, Surbhi, Farah and Sristy.

This fantastic group helps support me and my ministry to communicate vital information to British Columbians, including information on emergencies, emergency preparedness and climate readiness. I want to thank them for their work on behalf of all British Columbians.

Please welcome them to the House.

Amelia Boultbee: I am happy today to introduce to the House my father, Steve Boultbee, one of the original inspirations for my political career. He is very excited to be here today.

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

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I would like to introduce to the House four members of our government communications and public engagement team. Here supporting the Ministry of Infrastructure we have Preet Grewal, communications director; Laura Casselman, communications manager; Emma Schram, senior public affairs officer; and Sloane Zogas, public affairs officer.

Would the House please help me make them feel very welcome.

Statements

Duchess Park Condors
Boys Volleyball Championship Win

Rosalyn Bird: Today I would like to give a big shout-out to the Prince George senior boys volleyball teams. For the first time in 30 years, provincials were held in northern B.C., and this year was exceptional. PG had three of the top-five-ranked teams for the entire season, making B.C. school sports history.

Duchess Park last won provincials in 2021. This year our senior boys were undefeated throughout the entire tournament, defeating the number one team from Richmond twice. The final match went to five sets and was over three hours long.

Special mention goes out to the players: Sam Cramer, named tournament MVP; Jude Poulin, named first team all-star; Santiago Gonzalez and Owen Martin, named second team all-stars.

Please will the House join me in congratulating these young northern athletes in their accomplishments.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’m delighted today to introduce Amanda Hill, executive director of Victoria capital region’s Big Brothers Big Sisters program. This organization creates life-changing mentoring relationships that ignite the power and the potential of young people, helping them to get the confidence and support they need to pursue their dreams.

Thank you so much for all the work you do. I know we think about charitable things a lot in December, but I know you do the work every day. Thank you so much.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I am so pleased to be able to introduce my father, Kit Krieger. He is up there in the gallery. He is a bit of a legend in the field of public education, and his work has made a real difference to the lives of students and teachers in this province, and for that I am very proud.

He’s also quite well known for his prolific knowledge and collections related to history, politics and, last but not least, baseball. But his greatest love is, no doubt, my son. I would like to thank him and my mom for being the best nan and pa for Max, which truly allows me to do this work.

Thank you so much, Dad. Love you.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I think, last but not least, I would like to introduce some hard-working seniors in this House today from the Hindi Literary Society of Canada, B.C., in Surrey. We have with us Deepa Sharma, president — I think they’re sitting there; Acharya Shrinath Dwivedi-Sansthapak, founder; and Pushplata Sharma, director; Amit Singh, director, as well.

The Hindu Literary Society of Canada is a non-profit organization that promotes Hindi language and literature through cultural exchange and community-building. This is a great organization that brings together multi-faith organizations to build a bridge between them.

I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Statements

Langley Stampeders Minor Football
Championship Win

Harman Bhangu: I just want to give the Langley Stampeders midget football team congratulations on winning the B.C. Provincial Championships, and my good friend Mark Bailey, who is also an alumni of the SFU football program and the Langley Rams.

I just want to quote him in a post that he made afterwards. I think it’s really important. “Incredibly proud of the group of young men that we were able to work with and help them achieve their dreams and aspirations. We don’t coach for championships. We coach for life. Being a champion is a bonus.”

I want to congratulate Mark Bailey and the entire team on the championship, winning the provincials.

Would this House make him feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M230 — Recall and Initiative
Amendment Act, 2025

Amelia Boultbee presented a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2025.

Amelia Boultbee: I move that a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2025, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Members of the Legislative Assembly are entrusted with the solemn duty of representing the voices of British Columbians and upholding their values. But when citizens lose trust in their representative through unparliamentary conduct, negligence or failure to deliver on promises, our current recall mechanisms fall short, burdened by thresholds that render them nearly insurmountable.

Today I am introducing the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2025. This bill aims to make recalling MLAs more accessible, thereby strengthening accountability and empowering citizens.

Consider the existing barriers. Petitioners must gather signatures from 40 percent of registered voters in a district within a mere 60 days. On average, there are over 38,000 eligible voters in every riding, meaning a recall petition usually requires around 15,000 paper signatures in order to pass.

This bill lowers the number of signatures required to recall an MLA. Under this amendment, the number of signatures required would be equivalent to the number of votes received by the MLA in the last provincial election.

I believe this is important because it reflects the depth of the mandate originally received by the MLA. Balancing competing objectives this way would strengthen accountability.

Even retail outlets know they have to have a credible return policy, and this House should be no different. Easier recall would deter unparliamentary conduct, encourage responsive governance and strengthen faith in this institution.

I hope all members will join me in supporting this bill and allow our constituents to hold us all to account.

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question. It’s first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Hong Kong Apartment Complex Fire
and Community Response

Janet Routledge: I rise on behalf of the people of Burnaby North, so many of whom immigrated from Hong Kong.

They want us to know how deeply they are grieving the loss of lives, homes and belongings as a result of the devastating fire last Wednesday at Wang Fuk Court, a subsidized housing estate of eight towers, 1,984 units and 4,800 residents, of whom nearly 40 percent are seniors who have lived there for decades. So far, the death toll has reached 159, including an infant, and another 31 are still missing.

They want us to know how the people of Hong Kong have come together to support and comfort each other in the face of this tragedy. They want us to know that crowds have been gathering at a nearby community hall that opened its doors to the families of loved ones still missing. They want us to know that hundreds of volunteers have been showing up since Wednesday evening to pack and distribute food, water, clothing, hygiene products to the survivors.

[1:55 p.m.]

They want us to know that hundreds of off-duty nurses, social workers and psychological counsellors have flocked to the district to offer help. And they want to share personal stories of valour and compassion, like Mr. Li, who found two of his neighbours in the corridor, blocked by black smoke, and brought them into his apartment, and how, when the firefighters arrived, he insisted they help his older neighbours first.

They want us to know that mourners queued for more than one kilometre on Sunday to lay flowers, some with sticky notes addressed to the victims.

I want them to know that we grieve with them, that we honour the courage and selflessness of the more than 2,300 firefighters and medical personnel who put their own lives in danger to save others and that we grieve for Ho Wai-ho, a 37-year-old firefighter who lost his own life fighting that terrible fire.

Xièxiè.

Women’s Institute of Canada

Sharon Hartwell: My remarks today are for the Women’s Institute of Canada. My mom was a member for over 50 years, as were more women in the rural areas. The women’s institute movement and organization grew from rural origins into one of the leading advocacy networks in the world.

The first women’s institute was founded in 1897 in Saltfleet, now Stoney Creek, Ontario, where Erland and Janet Lee invited a group of women to hear Adelaide Hoodless speak on the importance of women engaging in formal domestic education and organizing a unified voice to advocate in areas of family health and community service to improve the lives of their families in their communities and across Canada.

Adelaide’s loss of her own young son John, at just 14 months old, gave rise to her mission to organize and educate women and mothers around the world about food safety, ensuring every woman was trained in home care and domestic science. She routinely travelled across North America to deliver her message of importance of domestic education for the benefit of families. Eventually she became an internationally recognized speaker and advocate for family education.

WI’s work included agricultural improvement, expanding basic education and lobbying for women’s and children’s rights. Many women were inspired to start or join their local women’s institutes to improve their lives and the lives of their friends and neighbours.

Throughout World War I, women’s institutes served as diligent supporters, as they provided much-needed support for soldiers. Towards the end of 1918, with the war over and peace settling in across Europe, the idea of a federation of women’s institutes came back into conversation.

In 1918, Miss Mary MacIsaac, the superintendent of the Alberta Women’s Institute, recognized the potential in organizing rural Canadian women into one organization so that they might have a united voice on the important issues on a national level.

In February 1919, representatives from the provincial institutes met in Winnipeg to form the Federated Women’s Institutes of Canada. Our first president was Judge Emily Murphy of Edmonton, a woman of remarkable ability and energy.

By the end of the 1920s, FWIC had advocated for women’s employment rights, rights to education and health care for all Canadians and resolutions around immigration and community development.

We owe much to these women who continue to educate and strengthen families and are an important part of our rural communities.

Election Campaigns and
Advice by Former MLA

George Chow: In about 24 hours, this House will adjourn until February next year. I wish to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues in the House the happiest time with your family and friends.

As you enjoy some time off, you may like to keep in the back of your mind: “What will I do if there’s an election?” Election outcomes are not entirely predictable, and many elections are decided by a swing of a few percent in the total vote. So naturally, this produces anxiety for those involved.

Anxiety is not entirely a bad thing, as it spurs us into action. However, it is still good to reduce anxiety, and the way to do it is to win the election.

So how to win an election. For that, I would refer my colleagues to the Legislative Library, where you could find a book of the same name. This book was written by former MLA Anthony Gargrave, who was re-elected five times to the Legislature, representing the riding of Mackenzie.

[2:00 p.m.]

Like many good democrats who like to share good things with the community, he wrote a book for the benefit of the public and all aspiring politicians. Even though the book was published almost half a century ago — a time with no email, no internet, no stringent election rules — most of the advice is still very usable today.

I would urge all of you to visit our Legislative Library. Perhaps there’s another book that will guarantee you a win.

Finally, as good as Anthony Gargrave was being an MLA, he was defeated in his sixth try.

The question to all members is: if an election were called, would you put your name in the hat again or throw in your towel, yea or nay?

Medal of Good Citizenship
Recipient Hanna Grover

Linda Hepner: Surrey’s motto is “The future lives here,” a promise that comes alive in the remarkable story of Hanna Grover, a young resident of Surrey–Serpentine River. Hanna embodies the innovation, compassion and drive that defines our city’s vision.

Hanna just earned the provincial Medal of Good Citizenship for her extraordinary contributions. She single-handedly launched Poet2Poet, a powerful movement that carves out safe spaces for young writers to share their voices, read their stories and uplift one another through the transformative power of poetry.

Hanna did not stop there. She founded the Health Education Advocacy and Research Team, or HEART, a groundbreaking program tailored for elementary school children. HEART equips our youngest learners with vital knowledge to lead healthier lives, fostering habits that last a lifetime. Astonishingly, this initiative is now poised to roll out in elementary schools across Canada, a monumental achievement for someone so early in their journey.

Her impact has been duly recognized. She has claimed Surrey’s Top 25 Under 25, as well as the prestigious The Future is Now honour for young change-makers. True to form, Hanna is a change-maker through and through.

In Hanna, we see the future not just living here but thriving. Let us celebrate her and inspire more like her to step forward.

Burnaby South–Metrotown
Constituents and Community

Paul Choi: As this House approaches the end of our sitting and we come to the close of the year, I rise today with a simple but very important message. Thank you to the people of Burnaby South–Metrotown.

Over the past year, I have had the privilege of meeting residents at community festivals, school events, senior gatherings, small business openings, faith services and neighbourhood meetings. Every single turn I have been reminded how generous, resilient and engaged our community is.

Conversations with families about housing affordability, with small business owners about the local economy, with students about their hopes for the future and with seniors about safety and care — all these voices guide the work that I do here in this chamber every day. It is the greatest honour of my life to represent Burnaby South–Metrotown in this Legislature.

I want to extend particular thanks to our front-line workers, teachers and school staff, health care workers, transit workers, small business owners, community organizations, volunteers and faith and cultural leaders. You are the people who make Burnaby South–Metrotown and B.C. welcoming, inclusive and vibrant, not just during the holidays but for all year round.

As we enter the holiday seasons, I hope residents find time to rest, to reconnect with loved ones and to reflect on the year that has passed. Whether people are celebrating Christmas, another holiday or simply taking a well-deserved break, I wish everyone peace, health and joy.

[2:05 p.m.]

Looking ahead to the new year, I am excited to continue working with and for the people of Burnaby South–Metrotown to build a more affordable, more inclusive and more hopeful future.

From my family to all the families in our community, happy holidays and a very happy new year.

Community Contributions of
Joyce Wilby

Anna Kindy: It’s a privilege to honour Joyce Wilby, a beloved figure in Alert Bay and a shining example of lifelong civic dedication. Joyce celebrated her 100th birthday in May 2025, and her remarkable contributions have shaped the cultural and social fabric of her community for more than six decades.

Joyce’s story begins in 1959 when she became the founding volunteer of the Alert Bay Library and Museum. At a time when resources were limited, Joyce’s vision and determination created a space where knowledge, history and culture would thrive. Her commitment did not end there. Even after retiring in 1995, Joyce continued to serve as a library director, guiding operations, programming and book selections for the past 30 years. Her leadership ensures that the library remains a vibrant hub for learning and community connection.

Her impact reaches far beyond books. Joyce curated a museum collection that includes rare First Nation artifacts, preserving invaluable pieces of cultural heritage. She also spearheaded the digitization of more than 2,500 historical photographs, making them accessible for future generations and ensuring that stories of Alert Bay are never forgotten.

Joyce’s dedication to health care is equally inspiring. She served as a director of St. George’s Hospital, chaired the Mount Waddington health council and played a key role in establishing the Cormorant Island Health Centre. These efforts strengthened local health services and improved care for countless of residents.

Through literacy programs like Mother Goose and partnerships with school and cultural centres, Joyce has nurtured a love of learning among generations of children and families. Her work has bridged gaps, built relationships and fostered a sense of pride in community heritage.

What makes Joyce truly extraordinary is her enduring energy and passion. At 100 years old, she remains a role model for civic engagement and volunteerism. Her life reminds us that one person’s commitment can transform a community and leave a legacy that lasts for decades.

Oral Questions

Forest Industry Conditions
and Government Action on Issues

Ward Stamer: I’d first like to start by acknowledging the devastating news of the Crofton pulp mill’s announcement to shut down and how hard it must be on the workers and residents in Crofton and the surrounding areas.

I was in Barriere in 2003 when our large sawmill was destroyed. That was a wildfire. This is a five-alarm dumpster fire. The Crofton Mill has operated for almost 70 years through thick and thin, good times and bad. And now it’s closing on this Forest Minister’s watch. No, this wasn’t Trump’s tariffs or his fault. The Crofton Mill has minimal market sales in the United States.

The Forests Minister, in his own words, has said: “Gut-wrenching. Lives disrupted. No fault of their own. Painful. Unfair moment. Deserve better.” They sure do. They sure do. We also hear: “We’re working on it. It’s Trump’s fault. The feds aren’t doing enough.”

The minister said we will continue to fight for workers and their paycheques, and then he hands out hundreds of pink slips. Four mills in four weeks have closed in B.C. Thousands of families have been negatively impacted and communities have been torn apart.

When is this Forests Minister going to stop the bleeding?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The announcement yesterday by Domtar that they are closing the Crofton facility was devastating news for workers, just gut-punching for workers, for families and all those that make up the Cowichan Valley region — people who have held this mill together for decades, people who have worked generation after generation after generation at this facility.

[2:10 p.m.]

To all the workers that were impacted, that received notice of this yesterday, I want them to know how sorry I am that they got that news. I want them to know that this was a painful, unfair moment and that I’m sorry that their lives are being disrupted through no fault of their own.

B.C.’s forest sector is facing significant challenges, but we also know that it’s not just British Columbia. Forest sectors across Canada and around the world are facing significant challenges.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We have volatile markets. We have low pulp prices, shrinking fibre, climate-driven wildfires, conservation measures as well as punishing Trump duties and tariffs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: None of that softens the news that was announced by Domtar. But I want the members opposite to know and, most importantly, I want those workers in Crofton and throughout the Cowichan Valley to know that we are going to leave no stone unturned in our efforts to be able to ensure that that site, that facility, has every ability to explore opportunities to ensure that it can produce good-paying, family-supporting forestry jobs.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Ward Stamer: I’ve read the minister’s announcement yesterday.

The forest industry and the experts have been very specific on what needs to be done, and it’s totally within this Forests Minister’s authority: streamlining wood fibre access, faster permits and approvals, reducing operating and administration costs and fixing BCTS. None of this has happened under this Forests Minister’s watch.

When is this Forests Minister going to do what everyone in this industry has been asking, pleading and yelling for before another mill shuts down?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question.

The member opposite has noted significant challenges facing our forest sector right now and, as I’ve noted, volatile markets, a complete collapse of the U.S. housing demand. We’ve noted low pulp prices, low lumber prices but also the punishing tariffs and duties from Donald Trump.

There is an opportunity before us. We have inherited a sector that for decades has been boom and bust, where we have seen mills like the one in Crofton curtail and close in other parts of the province. We have seen that for decades.

We have an opportunity on this side of the House, a commitment to not only the workers in Crofton but to every forestry worker, directly and indirectly, in British Columbia to work together to stabilize this sector and to transform it so no worker is put in this position ever again.

Low-Carbon Jet Fuel Initiative
and Air Travel Costs

Gavin Dew: Yesterday the Minister of Forests posted and then deleted an official statement about Crofton pulp mill that acknowledged the impact of uneconomic fibre. I would ask him what happened, but I’m sure he would just tell us that Donald Trump deleted it.

Now on January 1, B.C. becomes the only place in North America to slap airlines with a fuel mandate that will drive ticket prices up. Families can’t afford groceries, and this Premier wants to make flying a luxury. Or maybe he wants to trap people here because he knows they’d leave if they could afford the ticket.

Why is the Premier about to make air travel unaffordable for British Columbians?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What the member says is simply not the case. The low-carbon fuel standard, which is creating jobs in Kamloops, in Vancouver, in Prince George, around the province, which the opposition opposes and wants to get rid of — getting rid of Tidewater Renewables, for example, and other major job-creating industries in B.C….

The incremental cost on a flight from Vancouver to Calgary, or the measure he talks about, is between 25 cents and 74 cents. It’s not going to stop anybody from flying. What it does is help us create and invest in a clean economy in B.C., future opportunities, jobs in regions in B.C. that need jobs and need support.

I suggest to the opposition, then, that instead of opposing measures that create jobs in B.C., they should start supporting them.

The Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: It seems like the minister hasn’t been talking to the affected industries. Airlines are already preparing to shift flights to Seattle and Bellingham to avoid the NDP’s new costs. That means fewer flights here and more flights in Washington state, all thanks to this Premier.

Why is the Premier helping Donald Trump to push B.C. jobs, routes and dollars straight into the United States of America?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As noted, if we followed the opposition’s advice, we would be closing down Tidewater Renewables and hundreds of jobs in Prince George, taking away opportunities in communities like Kamloops.

We continue, as you know, if he’s talking about Air Canada, to work closely with Air Canada, which is, by the way, already benefiting significantly from the low-carbon jet fuel initiative program. They’ve met their compliance requirements in 2026, 2027 and part of 2028 and have received $9.525 million in ’25 through the program to enable additional SAF purchases to maintain their low-carbon fuel standard compliance. What these measures do is allow B.C. to be a leader in creating jobs of the future, jobs in innovation, jobs in communities.

They should go to Prince George. The members should go to Prince George and tell those workers there that their jobs don’t matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The low-carbon fuel standard works for British Columbia.

Child Protection Services in
Pemberton Area and Child Protection
System Staffing and Reform

Jeremy Valeriote: In late October, my constituency staff met with the mental health team at Xet̓ólacw Community School in Mount Currie, supported by Chief Dean Nelson of the Líl̓wat Nation. They raised serious concerns about the child protection services provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development office in Pemberton.

By all accounts, the office is in crisis, having gone from four full-time staff down to one part-time social worker and one part-time team leader. This office serves a vast area within the Sea to Sky, and now only the most urgent cases are being addressed. Many serious cases potentially lack the necessary attention.

When struggling families can’t get timely and consistent service from MCFD, our entire society suffers. We can’t wait until the point of imminent harm.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. The Pemberton MCFD office needs immediate support. What steps is the ministry taking to provide it?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I thank the member for the question. I have met with the member on this very issue and provided him with correspondence.

We have a global workforce challenge right now, and recruitment and retention are incredibly challenging. We are doing everything we can to incentivize recruitment in hard-to-recruit communities. That includes providing financial incentives. That includes strong incentives to come into communities where we know that they are struggling.

We have struck a comprehensive workforce strategy and will continue to do that work. I’m happy to work with the member opposite.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: Time and again, critics have lamented the failures of the child protection framework. Its colonial attitudes and practices undermine families and community resilience. It fails in its basic mission to keep children and youth safe.

Reports show front-line workers are overwhelmed, systemic oversight is weak and families are left without timely support. Indigenous leaders and advocates have long called for culturally safe services and true partnerships in decision-making, yet families across the province still face delayed responses and fragmented supports.

Again, to the Minister of Children and Family Development, how will the ministry address these structural issues to ensure a child welfare system that protects children before crises occur?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There is nothing more important than the safety and well-being of children in this province. It is the top priority of my ministry to make sure that we are doing everything every day to improve our systems and to support direct service staff doing some of the most challenging work that exists in this province. They meet families at the most challenging times.

We have implemented a number of things in my ministry. We have struck a comprehensive workforce plan in February. That work is ongoing. We have created strong training programs for child protection workers, including trauma-informed practice and cultural safety. There are a number of things underway in my ministry to ensure that we keep children safe while always trying to keep them connected to their family, their community and their culture.

This is the most important work that we can do in government, and I’m happy to work with any member in this House with respect to issues that are going on in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[2:20 p.m.]

University of Victoria Statements on
Residential School History and
Response to OneBC Event on Campus

Dallas Brodie: Yesterday I went with Prof. Frances Widdowson to the University of Victoria to discuss the claim that 215 children were murdered in Kamloops. But the university administration has been perpetuating this lie for over four years now, so instead of allowing us to speak with faculty and students, they had Professor Widdowson arrested — arrested, Mr. Speaker. A publicly funded university arrested a professor to keep students in the dark and to cover up their own lies. If I were the Premier, I would defund UVic today.

That’s my question. Will the Premier immediately suspend funding to the University of Victoria to end this anti-Canadian indoctrination?

Hon. David Eby: The continued misconduct of this member and her associates is troubling to me. I’m sure it’s troubling to every member of this House. I think it was profoundly embarrassing what they did at the university. I think it degrades the public’s opinion of all elected members.

I am certainly looking forward to discussing the private members’ bills that have been introduced in this House by the member about recall.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh. Member.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh. Let the Chair recognize the member.

Member, you have a supplemental?

Dallas Brodie: Yes, I do.

I would remind also the Premier that the bill introduced today works in more than one direction. Immediately there are movements afoot to have the Premier recalled as well. So he talks about it all the time. I’m raising it as well. A lot of people want the Premier recalled.

Interjection.

Dallas Brodie: Are you the Speaker suddenly? Are you the Speaker?

The Speaker: Member, shhh. Member.

Leader of the Fourth Party, please proceed with your question. Please continue.

Dallas Brodie: Immediately after the police marched Professor Widdowson off campus, a land-back activist violently assaulted a OneBC volunteer while others threw orange smoke bombs at our chief of staff, a man who is legally blind. A mob then descended into shrieks and beastly howls. It was like a display of demons. This is all on video, and it’s the true face of this decolonization movement.

This is what happens when our universities abandon the search for truth to instead breed violent left-wing mobs, just like Mao did during China’s Cultural Revolution.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Dallas Brodie: My question is for the Premier. Will he at least condemn this disgusting political violence and demand that UVic’s president, Robina Thomas, resign in disgrace?

Hon. David Eby: I suspect the member got exactly what she wanted at the university, which was not a considered discussion, which was not a discussion of ideas. She is not in favour of those things.

Her conduct is reprehensible. It is embarrassing. It degrades the public’s opinion of every elected member in this House, and I wish she would stop it.

Waste Dumping Site on
Cowichan Tribes Land and
Hospital Construction Waste Disposal

Sheldon Clare: On Monday, the MLA for Cowichan Valley stood in this House boasting about her nine years on the Cowichan Watershed Board, saying: “Water connects us all, and decisions are strongest when Indigenous law, local government, science and community knowledge stand side by side.”

By her own logic, she should have raised the alarm when this toxic dump started leaking hazardous waste into the Cowichan watershed back in 2021, not waited until their first pollution prevention order on October 6.

I’ll ask the Environment Minister for the fourth time: when did the MLA for Cowichan Valley first brief this government, and why did neither she nor the minister do anything until two months ago?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I just want to note to the House that it is now day 10 that the member has refused to provide any information to me, despite me meeting with the member and bringing forward the information that I had to try to resolve this issue.

We’ve heard people’s concerns about this site, and we are taking action. In 2021, the newly created integrated environmental enforcement unit led an investigation. The professional reports, the evidence, the experts — they all provided evidence to lay charges against the illegal dump.

[2:25 p.m.]

We have a range of tools to make sure that the environment is protected, like a pollution abatement order and prevention orders. If someone isn’t following the rules, we can issue administrative penalties or even recommend charges for prosecution. This unauthorized landfill has been operating since at least 2010, and there were various jurisdictions that were involved, both with the investigation and with the ongoing investigation that is happening right now.

If the member would like to share the information that he has, I would welcome that.

The Speaker: Members, all the questions should be directed to the ministerial responsibilities, not to the private members. So if a member has a question for the Minister of Environment or any other executive council member, please do so.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister refuses to give a specific answer about when this government knew about it and that her colleague from the Cowichan Valley knew about it for years. In the meantime, this side of the House has learned that debris from the construction of the new Cowichan Hospital was hauled into reserve land and dumped onto a second site beside the salmon-bearing Tzouhalem Creek.

How much did the province pay to truck hospital construction waste into a creek, and why are taxpayers footing the bill to pollute the Cowichan watershed?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I can appreciate people’s interest in this, and I’d really like to share as much information as possible. But our focus has to be on protecting the environment and protecting the investigation so that this individual can be held accountable. As soon as we have more information, we will.

Again, though, if the member has information and is refusing to give it, that would lead to charges, that would lead to helping the investigation, I welcome him to meet with me again.

Power Line Between B.C. and Alberta
and Government Position on
Nuclear Energy

David Williams: In an interview last week, the CEO of B.C. Hydro indicated that B.C. Hydro would potentially be interested in purchasing imported electricity produced by nuclear power plants in Alberta.

Can the Minister of Energy clarify the government’s position on electricity generation using nuclear energy as a source?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will know that we have been working with Alberta on making improvements to the intertie. Alberta has made commitments since 2007 to improve those connections. It has not done so. We are fully engaged with the province of Alberta on that question.

He’ll also know that we are, under the clean electricity act, not pursuing nuclear opportunities in B.C. and will not be in the future.

Government Targets for
Processing of Mineral Claims

Pete Davis: Data released by the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals shows that despite this minister’s own targets of between 90 and 100 days to process mineral claims, the current average is 127 days. Not only that, but there are also 45 percent fewer claims between March and September this year than the same period between 2022 and 2024. The minister has failed to meet the targets that he set for himself.

What is this minister’s explanation for the failure to meet his own targets, and how does he justify claims dropping by a half in 2025?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. I met with the member to talk about this issue last week. I also promised to the member that we are right now conducting a six-month review and will provide him the briefing about that.

Nevertheless, the question is here. We are fully committed to developing a responsible and sustainable mining sector that is set up for success into the future.

[2:30 p.m.]

The minimum-term consultation framework the member is talking about has been developed in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us just 18 months to implement the new system. It has been developed working with the First Nations and the industry at the same time.

I was very glad to see that we were able to incorporate a number of recommendations made by the AME, the association of mineral explorers, but I know there is room for improvement.

We will continue to work with First Nations and the industry and other stakeholders to make sure the new system works for everyone.

Health Care System Conditions
and Support for Patients
on Waiting Lists

Anna Kindy: Yesterday the government, supported by the Green Party, voted against an opposition bill that would have provided B.C. patients with transparent information and strengthened our universal health care system. That was not a complicated request, and patients deserve to receive timely information about their health care.

What’s more disturbing is the fact that doctors hear regularly from patients who say that they can’t wait any longer and are considering Medical Assistance in Dying to end their suffering. That’s what this government has created — a health care system that is so dysfunctional and disconnected from patients’ needs that people regularly choose to die instead of continuing suffering and waiting.

To the Premier: what do you say to all the British Columbians who today are considering MAiD as an alternative to being abandoned on the wait-list?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and raising the issue around specialist wait times, because when a person is sick, the last thing they want to do is have to worry about wait-lists for procedures and for specialists.

I want to be clear. We are generally meeting our wait-time targets here in British Columbia, but there’s more work to do, and we’re very focused on that work. We know that our population is growing. It is aging, and that’s why…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …we’re redoubling our efforts.

We’ve been taking action, hiring more specialists, more health care workers across this province. Between 2019 and 2023, we increased the number of specialists in this province by 22 percent. That is the result of the hard work and making up for the infrastructure not invested in, that was lost over years and years, before we formed government.

That’s why we’ve been building and expanding hospitals, adding surgical suites, adding surgical time, all to bring down those wait times. We know that British Columbians deserve to get access within those target wait times, and we are continuing to focus on this.

We will continue our efforts to recruit specialists, to expand access to surgeries, to bring down those wait-list times.

Langley Vandalism Incident and
Government Action on Property Crime

Misty Van Popta: Wow. So we’re generally meeting requirements. That’s the bar?

Footage from Langley shows a 17-year-old girl’s car, her first car, being vandalized on the Langley bypass in broad daylight. The attacker didn’t even bother hiding their face.

Property crime is out of control in B.C., criminals are emboldened, insurance rates are climbing, and victims, especially young people, are left shaken and traumatized.

When will this Premier finally take property crime seriously and stop letting criminals treat B.C. like it’s free for the taking?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for the question. Incidents of vandalism, such as the member described, that we are seeing not only in communities in B.C. but across the country are very disturbing.

I think we all have the same goal, which is to keep people, the businesses in communities and communities generally safe. That is why our government has invested in programs like the community safety and targeted enforcement program, CSTEP, to provide law enforcement with the targeted resources that they need to combat property crime in their communities.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are starting to see a tangible difference with these investments. This program was launched just months ago, and in Terrace, police have had success with CSTEP in just two short months, with 76 arrests attributed to this funding, targeting repeat offenders who are committing property crimes. We will continue to ensure that we’re supporting police and providing the resources that they need to keep our communities safe.

Extortion Crime and Community Safety

Jody Toor: One of my residents told me they’re terrified because even though the extortion violence is centred in Surrey and Abbotsford, the fear is spreading into every community. Vancouver police just held an anti-extortion forum, despite having zero reported cases.

How many more community-led meetings will it take before this government admits that they have completely lost control of public safety in B.C.?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for the question. I know that residents in Surrey, in Delta, in Langley and even in communities in the Metro Vancouver area are feeling fearful because of extortion threats and related acts of violence.

We are firmly committed and steadfastly working to support police and to keep communities safe. B.C. has led the charge with the establishment of the B.C. extortion task force that brings together police of multiple jurisdictions to investigate these complex, multi-jurisdictional crimes. Just recently, we held a trilateral meeting, the first of its kind in the country, bringing together all levels of government and all levels of law enforcement that are working on this issue.

We will not stop until extortionists are disrupted, stopped and until criminals are held to account and our communities are safe.

Allocation of Infrastructure
and Services to Surrey

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Surrey and Vancouver have the same population. Surrey has over 100 extortion reports; Vancouver has zero. Surrey has 608 police; Vancouver has 1,452. Surrey has 400 doctors; Vancouver has 900. Surrey has one hospital; Vancouver has four hospitals. Surrey has 671 hospital beds; Vancouver has over 1,900 beds.

Why does Surrey pay the same tax as Vancouver and always receive less?

Hon. David Eby: The member is just wrong on the facts. Surrey has never had more police officers than they have right now. In addition to 600 RCMP officers, there are 700 Surrey police officers. There is the task force. The RCMP has surged resources into the community to ensure that they can respond to the extortion threat.

It’s not just in policing where we’re providing additional services in Surrey. In health care, the first class of the new Surrey medical school is just…. They put their applications in, and admissions are underway. They’re going to start in September. And that’s a medical school that the members on the other side could have started, but they chose not to. The brand-new Surrey hospital is well under construction, and it’s going to be treating people. Celebrate the biggest health investment south of the Fraser ever.

I think about the member and his constituents and the SkyTrain that we’re building in Surrey that’s going to help them get all the way, when we’re done, to UBC. I was out in Cloverdale, a beautiful new arena that our government built in partnership with the city of Surrey, where kids and families were skating and celebrating. The mayor said she’s getting ready for the expansion of that as well.

We are thrilled to be building the infrastructure that Surrey deserves for a generation, after getting ignored again and again by the members on that side. We’re going to keep building in Surrey and right across the province of B.C. because that’s what the people of Surrey deserve.

[2:40 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Dallas Brodie: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make a point of privilege, please.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 17, 20 and 40, it’s a long-standing parliamentary tradition to prohibit threats of violence or endorsements of violence against members of this House. The Premier today basically said that I got what I was looking for when I went to the University of Victoria and basically is endorsing acts of violence against me and my staff.

It’s the Speaker’s duty to protect all members in this House from threats of violence or endorsements of violence, and I would ask that the Speaker act on this matter with due respect.

The Speaker: The Chair would clarify with the Premier. In his remarks, was there any intended remarks of any threat?

Hon. David Eby: No. Obviously not, hon. Speaker.

The member’s conduct in this place is embarrassing. It’s reprehensible. She has never sought to have serious discussions about policy issues here or anywhere else. I was pointing that out, and I will continue to point that out.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Jagrup Brar: On behalf of the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I have the honour to present the annual report of the activities under the Drinking Water Protection Act in B.C., 2023-2024, from the office of the provincial health officer.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Members, I also want to make another small comment about the point of privilege that was raised by the Leader of the Fourth Party. It was actually a matter of point of order, and the Chair will not get into the debate between the two members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma: I present the 2024 annual report on multiculturalism.

I am also pleased to present the 2024-25 annual report of the Civil Resolution Tribunal.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I am honoured to present the 2025 Climate Change Accountability Report.

Jordan Kealy: I seek leave to move Motion 77 on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: By leave, I move a committee membership change. It’s on the order paper in my name.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Question is adoption of the…. Hold it.

Minister will get back to the House later.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 28.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We are going to have a brief recess while we get our teams together for committee stage. We’ll have about a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will call this chamber back to order, where we are contemplating Bill 28, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, where we are on clause 5.

On clause 5 (continued).

Steve Kooner: We were just starting to get into clause 5. I think where we ended was: I was asking the question whether TransUnion had some concerns. I think the Attorney General consulted with her staff and provided an answer. There was something in terms of this first subclause here, in section 107.1(a), within clause 5. I think that’s where we kind of left off.

What was mentioned was what the concern was of TransUnion. I think that’s where we were. I’d like to get into that, because I also have heard from the concerns of TransUnion. The concerns that were mentioned weren’t entirely just for the stakeholders. The concern was also for the consumers and protecting consumers as well.

This particular subclause, under 5(a) here, talks about if an individual is not present to make reasonable efforts to contact. When we’re talking about contact, there might be information that people have.

It’s important to note that when we’re talking about the subject matter in clause 5, there could be some seriously confidential information. We often hear about how one should always protect their social insurance number. People should always protect their banking information. People should always protect their credit cards. They should protect their financial information.

The reason why there’s this act of information and education within the community and within B.C. is that we are seeing a rise in fraud happening, and a lot of innocent people have been defrauded.

When I’m looking at this particular clause…. I’ve heard what TransUnion has said and has brought to my attention. What I’m worried about is the situation where this legislation says, “make reasonable efforts to contact,” and then there could be expired contact. Perhaps through this legislation, through the updates to this legislation, there might now be an address. People move around quite a bit. The phone number may have changed. What could actually happen is confidential information could get into the wrong hands.

That’s my concern from the consumer side. So I did have an amendment to bring forward.

Another thing I’d like to mention, in terms of this particular clause…. A lot of times, the people that are actually dealing with consumers, the service providers that are dealing with consumers, may have insight into what numerous ways there are to actually reach out to a consumer, if there’s an alert or some information needs to be provided to the consumer.

I think what we touched on last time, too, as a part of the last answer…. What I had asked was: doesn’t this create a rigid system, that you have to follow certain information that’s there? You have to kind of follow a certain way.

My concern with that is if there is a type of rigid system that is created that these credit service agencies have to follow, that could be a disservice to the consumers too, in that information might go to the wrong address or wrong contact information.

At this stage, I’d like to introduce an amendment. I will just read out the amendment before I hand it up.

[2:55 p.m.]

I move the amendment.

[CLAUSE 5, in proposed section 107.1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Confirmation of identity if report contains security alert information

107.1 A person who receives a report that contains security alert information must do the following before entering into a credit agreement or a prescribed transaction with the individual to whom the report applies:

(a) if the individual is not present in person,

(i) make reasonable efforts to contact verify the identify of the individual using the contact information specified in the security alert information, and

(ii) make a record respecting the efforts undertaken to contact the individual;

(b) if the individual is present in person,

(i) verify the identity of the individual, and

(ii) make a record respecting the manner in which that verification was carried out.]

I’m moving this amendment, and I think this would actually protect consumers as well. That’s why I’m introducing it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Member.

We will take a five-minute recess to circulate this amendment to all of the members of this House.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:01 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’re going to call this chamber back to order where I’m going to recognize Surrey North.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I want to introduce my friend. His name is John Cheema. He helped me during the election, and his wife too. She’s well known in the real estate industry.

Please help me to welcome them.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Thank you very much, Members.

We are contemplating an amendment as brought forward by the member for Richmond-Queensborough. I will call on our Attorney General for comments.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked a little bit before about why it’s important to have the provisions that we have here, and I’m just going to talk it through with a real-life example.

In a situation where there is an individual who has put a security alert on their credit report of the credit reporting agencies and somebody like a lender is trying to access that report, what we’re saying is that before anything happens, if there’s a security leak, they need to contact that individual with the contact information that they provided in the security alert.

Now, the reason that that’s important is it protects against identity theft or fraud. A couple scenarios might be happening there. An individual is in contact with the lender, and they’re in that discussion about whatever lending that individual wants to have. The security alert comes through. The lender says: “Hey, there’s a security alert on your credit reporting. All good to access it?”

There are other scenarios where that person might not know because there’s been some compromise to their identity theft or fraud. They might not actually know that there’s somebody trying to access their credit report.

That security alert gives them the security of knowing that if any of that happens, somebody will contact them on the number provided to say that this is happening. So it’s actually a very important part of ensuring that individuals have that ability to control, if they put a security alert on their information, who and where that’s going to with the contact that they provided.

I think there are a few things wrong with this amendment. One of them that I think is pretty key is the removal of a record respecting the efforts undertaken to contact an individual. You would want to know if you put a security alert that there were efforts there to make sure that you were contacted.

We decided through the work — like I said, every piece of legislation is a balancing act — to side on the side of consumers to have their choice of contact and the security alert be the one that was used in the process out of respect for that choice that they would make.

For those reasons, we don’t support the amendment.

[3:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I’d just like to state that some of the tools…. I have heard from the stakeholders that some of these tools have been in practice for 30 years, and they have been working.

I understand what the Attorney General has spoken about, but my concern is that if there haven’t been complaints or substantial complaints from consumers and we have been operating under a current regime for the last 30 years and the system has been working, why try to drastically change it?

As the amendment is put forward, it still puts the obligation on the consumer service agency to also verify the identity of that individual. In that sense, there is some element of contact there still.

My concern goes to: if you start making the system more rigid, we don’t know what the outcome of that will be. If we have a system that’s currently working for consumers, and it has been working for over 30 years, and if you’re going to make a change up, we don’t want to have to deal with a future hypothetical that will stop consumers from receiving that information. We want the compliance side to be pretty easy, to facilitate that contact with the consumer.

From the research I’ve done, I feel that these consumer service agencies are in a significant position to understand the consumers that they are actually dealing with. We don’t have so many. We don’t have lots. When we’re talking about consumer agencies, we don’t have a whole lot of those, but we have this industry that has been working for the last 30 years.

I’ll put that out there, and I think that the amendment should be allowed.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to Bill 28, clause 5, subsection 107.1.

Amendment negatived.

The Chair: Members, we will return to clause 5.

Steve Kooner: Perhaps because that failed…. We’re talking about verifying the identity, and we also have some explanation of reasonable efforts to contact. When I see “verify the identity,” as I just stated earlier, if a consumer service provider is trying to verify, there is some element of contacting there, in essence, underlying verifying the identity.

I just want to get the Attorney General’s interpretation here. Do they view verifying the identity and also reasonable efforts to contact as two separate things, or is it their interpretation that they could coincide as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to provide some clarity to this, it has to…. Upon reading it, it’s clear that it’s if an individual is not in person. Of course, the risk of fraud increases if the person is doing some kind of transaction, or trying to, and they’re not in person. That situation is when you would want to trigger the requirement, if there’s a security alert, to contact that individual.

It’s just a really important part of fraud protection for consumers.

[3:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: The other important aspect that I just highlighted is that we want…. Say if there are being efforts to contact consumers, or contacting of consumers is going to happen. We would probably want that to happen, so we would want to make sure that this clause works in a way where the credit service providers can actually carry out these obligations.

Has the Attorney General’s department turned their minds to whether the credit service providers can actually carry through with this? Are there going to be any problems carrying forward with this clause?

If there are going to be problems moving into the future, that’s going to affect consumers. I’d like the Attorney General’s interpretation and explanation there.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I talked about how this is an important fraud protection tool, and the reason that we’re making any of these changes is to tighten up the system for people in these situations. One of those is an effective or clear requirement for this type of contact. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways, in addition or surrounding, that the lenders or entities could do it, but this is the pathway that is required as one of them.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Steve Kooner: All right. We’re on clause 6. It starts by stating that the following sections are added to part 6. So I guess we can start by….

Perhaps the Attorney General can explain. What was the purpose with adding clause 6 here? More specifically, maybe the focus of this answer could be section 112.001.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very significant addition. I think the member’s question was just about 112.001, but I’ll go through all of them so we can have a clear idea of each part of this clause.

For the .001, that’s a security alert. This is the new tool that would be available to British Columbians. It’s actually the provisions that explain to the individual how they set up a security alert and how they would do so.

The security alerts will require that individuals receiving a credit report for the purpose of entering a credit agreement contact the individual to confirm their identity, as we talked about before. A security alert can be placed by an individual for any reason without need to justify rationale and will provide security against fraudulent activity.

The next one is a stronger tool that goes a step farther. It’s not just a security alert; it’s a security freeze. In this situation, a security freeze will stop the credit reporting agencies from disclosing a credit report concerning an individual to anyone seeking to enter into a credit agreement. It’s a more stringent fraud protection tool, because then you’d have the ability to stop any of that activity happening on your credit report.

The final ones are .003 and .004. A lot of times consumers are unaware that they can monitor their own credit free of charge. This section requires that credit monitoring services make consumers aware of their own access rights before entering into a contract and provides cancellation rights, including if a credit monitoring service provider fails to make the necessary disclosures. It provides for refund provisions, in that case.

Steve Kooner: In regards to section 112.001, were there any specific concerns that TransUnion had about this section in clause 6?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned before, the big drive for these provisions is to protect consumers in what is a very significant aspect of their financial well-being — their credit report. I know the member asked a lot about TransUnion’s concerns, but I just wanted to put that perspective in here, that that’s the purpose of the work that we’re doing here.

The concern that they raised was on section (8)(b), and that’s a requirement. If we were ever to put an end date, so an expiry time, for a security alert — which we don’t know if we’re going to do or not, but if we were to do that — it would require the credit reporting agency to notify the individual 30 days before the date that the security alert would end so that it would expire. So the individual knows that it’s coming.

We think that’s a reasonable thing to do. It could be in any prescribed manner, so it could be an email. It could be anything that makes it easy to do that, but we think that that’s an important part of the steps to be taken for the consumer.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation, first of all.

I know that the Attorney General mentioned something about the time period or the time limit and all that, but I was alerted to another concern that has to do with contacting as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

Specifically, in clause 6, section 112.001(3), it says: “A security alert request must include the prescribed contact information for the individual.” My understanding is “prescribed” will be decided in the regulations. But one way to have our system work is to have some certainty in the system and some continuity in the system.

What I’m told is that for the last 30 years, telephone numbers have been used by the industry. The telephone number is not just a telephone number. What I’m told is that these credit service agencies actually have these forms where they store contact information. It goes by a certain number of digits. With phone numbers, there’s a certain number of digits.

So that’s one big aspect. When you’re making a change here, you’re asking to change the whole system. From my understanding, there haven’t been any real complaints about the system for the last 30 years of this happening, and a telephone number has been used.

At this stage, I want to introduce an amendment that inserts “telephone number” in subclause 3. More specifically, in subclause (3), it reads: “A security alert request must include….” Basically, the change I would be introducing through amendment….

I’ll move that amendment in a second, but what it will be doing is striking out the word “the” after “include,” and then it would be inserting a few words after that: “a telephone number or other.” Then this subclause would continue with “prescribed contact information for the individual.”

Now, if this was allowed to happen, this would create certainty, and it would also address the Attorney General’s concern as well, having some prescribed methods of contact information, some prescribed contact information, because that would still happen through regulations. But in the meantime, there’s still some certainty in terms of a telephone number being provided.

I’d like to also state that these telephone numbers don’t just come from the middle of nowhere. They actually come from the consumers. It makes sense to actually use those telephone numbers and have it in this legislation.

I am moving an amendment in the Committee of the Whole on this Bill 28, intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (No. 2), 2025, to amend clause 6 as follows.

[CLAUSE 6, in proposed section 112.001 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Requests respecting security alert information

112.001 (1) In this section, “security alert request” means a request made by an individual under subsection (2).

(2) An individual may, by giving notice to a reporting agency in writing or in a prescribed manner, request that any report prepared by the reporting agency include security alert information.

(3) A security alert request must include the a telephone number or other prescribed contact information for the individual.

(4) A reporting agency that receives a security alert request must, if the request complies with subsection (3), verify the identity of the individual who made the request as soon as is practicable.

(5) If the identity of the individual is verified, and if the security alert request is not terminated by request of the individual under subsection (6) (b), the reporting agency that received the request must include the following information in any report respecting the individual:

(a) a statement that security alert information has been included in the report at the individual’s request;

(b) a statement that section 107.1 [confirmation of identity if report contains security alert information] may apply to the person who receives the report, and a summary of that section;

(c) the contact information provided to the reporting agency under subsection (3) or (6) (a), as applicable.

(6) An individual who has made a security alert request may, by giving notice to the applicable reporting agency in writing or in a prescribed manner,

(a) ask the reporting agency to update the individual’s telephone number, or other contact information as may be prescribed, or

(b) ask the reporting agency to terminate the security alert request.

(7) A reporting agency that receives a notice from an individual under subsection (6) must, before updating the individual’s contact information or terminating the security alert request, as applicable, verify the identity of the individual as soon as is practicable.

(8) If, in respect of a security alert request, a reporting agency’s obligations under subsection (5) end after a prescribed period of time, the reporting agency must do the following:

(a) no later than 30 days after the date on which the security alert request is made, notify the individual who made the security alert request, in writing or in a prescribed manner, of the date on which those obligations will end;

(b) no later than 30 days before the date on which the obligations will end, notify the individual who made the security alert request, in writing or in a prescribed manner,

(i) of the date on which those obligations will end, and

(ii) that a new security alert request may be made at any time.

(9) A reporting agency must, on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the reporting agency, publish information describing the rights afforded to individuals under this section.

(10) A reporting agency must not charge a fee for anything done under this section.]

I’ve just stated what I’d like to do, but I have the copy of the amendment here. I’ll pass it up, and maybe it can get a filed copy.

The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess while we circulate the amendment to all members of this House.

The committee recessed from 3:23 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: It appears the motion and the amendment have been circulated. This is a motion brought forward by our member for Richmond-Queensborough.

We’ll call on the Attorney General for comments.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have been engaging with the sector to talk through what the best method is, and I think the telephone seems to be a method they’re using today. In terms of drafting legislation, you don’t draft legislation to….

The reason that we’re using regulation here is to future-proof it. Say that the method changed and it was no longer telephone. You wouldn’t have to go into the act and amend anything. It would just be part of your prescribed regulation.

I think it works better to just say “prescribed contact information,” and we’re already talking to the sector about what the easiest way to do that is.

For those reasons, I don’t support the amendment.

Steve Kooner: I understand the Attorney General’s concerns, but for the last 30 years, credit service agencies have been using this form of contact, and my understanding is it has been working. I understand that the Attorney General’s department wants to introduce other methods that the Attorney General’s department feels that could help even more. But I don’t grasp the idea where something has been working and you just get rid of it totally.

Here in this amendment that I’ve moved are a couple of spots, actually, where I have tried to amend this particular clause. One was in subsection (3) of this clause 6, and then the second one was down in subsection (6) by trying to insert telephone number as well again.

The old saying is: “What ain’t broke, why fix it?” So that I put on the record.

I do understand the Attorney General’s department has done some consulting of their own, and they want to improve the system for consumers even more. There’s always room to add more. I just like to put it out there. The discussion….

Although there are stakeholders talking about these amendments, my concern, at the end of day, is: how will this affect consumers? How will it help them? Stability helps consumers. Consistency helps consumers. Reliability helps consumers. When you have a system that has worked…. You haven’t really heard any complaints, and you’re trying to add more to it.

[3:30 p.m.]

Sure, you can add more to it and add other forms of contact information by prescribed regulations, but if you just change it totally and you just get rid of the telephone number for now, that will, in my view, create some uncertainty for consumers.

That is my perspective, and that’s my submission.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment, the question before this House is the amendment to Bill 28 introduced by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to clause 6.

Amendment negatived.

Steve Kooner: I’m having a tough day with my amendments here.

I do have another amendment for this specific clause. I will explain it first. We have talked about clause 6, and we are referring to section 112.001. We are speaking about the telephone number. But earlier, before I started talking about the telephone number and contact information, the Attorney General was explaining parts of this clause, specifically in 112.001. The Attorney General put our attention on the part that deals with 30 days and said that that was one concern. It comes out in subclause (8).

This next amendment has to do with subclause 6(8). I have heard the same concerns in terms of the 30-days issue. Now we’re dealing with a system that has…. What I’m told is that it has worked, but we’re trying to improve that system. So I get that part. Improving the system, improving things, is always a good thing, especially when it comes to consumers.

But when you are originally putting, say, a 30-day time limit into the legislation and some stakeholders have some concerns about that, that might lead to possible compliance issues, and that’s not going to help consumers. We want these credit service providers to be able to comply. There is this time that is stated in here.

Another thing that I have actually learned is whenever there is a security alert request put in, I believe the time limit for that is six years. When that is being put in, I believe that notice is usually given to a consumer that your security alert request will be good for six years. I think what this clause tries to do is, prior to a security alert expiring, put a 30-day time limit on to kind of notify the consumers again.

Basically, in subclause (b), it states: “No later than 30 days before the date on which the obligations will end, notify the individual who made the security alert, in writing or in a prescribed manner.” Right now we do have a system where consumers are told: “Here’s a security alert request that you are making and want on your file, but it is for six years.” So people get that notice right from the outset. That time limit is known about. What happens now when you add this extra requirement here is that the consumer may already know about it, but now they have to be reminded.

In the meantime, a lot of information may have changed. Contact information may have changed. That may lead to problems of confidential information getting into the wrong hands, if contact information has changed in the meantime. It also duplicates notice that has already been provided. For that reason, I’m introducing this amendment here to clause 6, and the amendment goes to subclause (8).

[3:35 p.m.]

Essentially, the biggest thing it changes is that it deletes subclause (b) here, and it deletes a part of subclause (a) towards the end which states: “Of the date on which those obligations will end….” Then it has some little changes as well.

I’ll just leave that for the record. I’ll move this amendment. Everyone will have it, and they can read it for themselves.

[CLAUSE 6, in proposed section 112.001 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Requests respecting security alert information

112.001 (1) In this section, “security alert request” means a request made by an individual under subsection (2).

(2) An individual may, by giving notice to a reporting agency in writing or in a prescribed manner, request that any report prepared by the reporting agency include security alert information.

(3) A security alert request must include prescribed contact information for the individual.

(4) A reporting agency that receives a security alert request must, if the request complies with subsection (3), verify the identity of the individual who made the request as soon as is practicable.

(5) If the identity of the individual is verified, and if the security alert request is not terminated by request of the individual under subsection (6) (b), the reporting agency that received the request must include the following information in any report respecting the individual:

(a) a statement that security alert information has been included in the report at the individual’s request;

(b) a statement that section 107.1 [confirmation of identity if report contains security alert information] may apply to the person who receives the report, and a summary of that section;

(c) the contact information provided to the reporting agency under subsection (3) or (6) (a), as applicable.

(6) An individual who has made a security alert request may, by giving notice to the applicable reporting agency in writing or in a prescribed manner,

(a) ask the reporting agency to update the individual’s contact information, or

(b) ask the reporting agency to terminate the security alert request.

(7) A reporting agency that receives a notice from an individual under subsection (6) must, before updating the individual’s contact information or terminating the security alert request, as applicable, verify the identity of the individual as soon as is practicable.

(8) If, in respect of a security alert request, a reporting agency’s obligations under subsection (5) end after a prescribed period of time, the reporting agency must, do the following:

(a) no later than 30 days after the date on which the security alert request is made, notify the individual who made the security alert request, in writing or in a prescribed manner, of the date on which those obligations will end;

(b) no later than 30 days before the date on which the obligations will end, notify the individual who made the security alert request, in writing or in a prescribed manner,

(i)(a) of the date on which those obligations will end, and

(ii)(b) that a new security alert request may be made at any time.

(9) A reporting agency must, on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the reporting agency, publish information describing the rights afforded to individuals under this section.

(10)A reporting agency must not charge a fee for anything done under this section.]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Member.

As heard, the motion has been moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough. We’ll take a five-minute recess so that we can circulate the amendment to all of the members of our House.

The committee recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:38 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I’m going to call the chamber back to order.

We are circulating…. I think most have had an opportunity to see the motion introduced by the member for Richmond-Queensborough. The amendment is in order, and I would call on the Attorney General for comments.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: You know, I think it’s clear in the debate and the amendments that we’re receiving that the member has spoken to TransUnion and other entities, but I wonder if he has spoken to consumers.

The amendments I think that are coming forward are things that I just don’t agree with. I think from the perspective of a consumer, it would be the case that they would not agree either.

First of all, we haven’t prescribed a time period. I think he mentioned six years. That may be in other jurisdictions, but we have not prescribed or indicated what a time period might be. If we do and it is an extended period of time, I think it’s reasonable, after years of a security alert being there, that there is a notification requirement to consumers before it expires and there’s an ability to make sure that it’s not onerous and that it serves the purpose of protecting the consumer in that situation.

For those reasons, I don’t support the amendment.

[3:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I understand the concerns of the Attorney General. Yes, there might be a certain stakeholder that has brought up these concerns. But my mindset, when we’re looking at a consumer protection act, is to see how some of those concerns might line up for supporting consumers. If I see anything that is going to be possibly affecting consumers, my perspective is to raise it in this House.

The stakeholder might have some of their own concerns, but some of the concerns might be valid for consumers as well. That’s the perspective that I was…. As I explained in my other amendments and now in this amendment, we want to make sure that there can be stringent compliance, because we need to have this framework. If we don’t have a framework that’s working properly, it’s going to affect consumers. We don’t want it to affect consumers.

There are always ways to improve the system, but if you’re taking certain parts and just overhauling certain parts, that may, at the end of day, create issues later on. We’ve seen in this House where legislation is passed and then, all of a sudden, we have to come back, say, a few years later to make some certain amendment because certain things weren’t foreseen.

From that perspective, perhaps after we deal with this amendment, I’d like to ask the Attorney General: how many complaints from consumers have they actually received about clause 6? There might be extra information that I don’t know about and that the Attorney General’s department does know about. Obviously, we always want to make sure, when we have some consumer protection legislation, that we are looking out for the little guys.

My understanding is that this proposes some time limits. The Attorney General just said that the department is not aware of any six-year time limit, but the information I have received is that there is some type of time limit and that there are some advisories given to consumers. Making that assumption, I’m putting forward this clause on that basis. I’m looking in terms of consistency when I’m putting forward this amendment.

Those are my remarks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Member.

We are contemplating the amendment as introduced by Richmond-Queensborough. I see no further speakers.

The amendment is to clause 6.

Division has been called.

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Thank you very much, Members. We are here to consider a motion as introduced by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to Bill 28, clause 6. It has been circulated to members and is in order.

[3:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 38
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Banman	Kooner
Halford	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Van Popta	Dew	Clare
K. Neufeld	Brodie	Armstrong
Bhangu	Paton	Gasper
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Maahs	Sturko	Boultbee
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Luck		Block
NAYS — 46
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

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will go to a brief recess while we get the Attorney General’s team back into the chamber.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: We are going to call this chamber back to order. We are contemplating Bill 28, of course, where we are on clause 6.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Steve Kooner: Maybe the Attorney General can explain the intent behind clause 7.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The significance of each new section in this part is as follows: 112.34 provides definitions for terms used in this new part, including “credit repair services,” “credit repair services contract,” “credit repair services provider” and “credit score.”

[4:00 p.m.]

So 112.35 is about avoiding false claims. This section defines “specified outcome” and stipulates that a credit repair service cannot accept a payment until a specified outcome is achieved.

And 112.36 is to ensure that consumers are informed of their rights before entering a contract for credit repair services. This section requires that credit repair service providers review certain information, including that individuals may request their own credit score, seek corrections and that the credit repair service cannot compel a credit reporting agency to change a report.

Clauses 7 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Under clause 15, we start to get into the consequential related amendments.

Perhaps the Attorney General can just explain to me — or to the House, sorry — what the purpose was behind consequential amendments.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The amendments to the Motor Dealer Act, including subsections (2) to (5), add authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe provisions of part 6 of the BPCPA. Part 6 relates to credit reporting.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Steve Kooner: For clause 16, maybe the Attorney General can explain what gets amended here. It is the Personal Information Protection Act. How does this amend the provisions within the Personal Information Protection Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This amendment ensures that the reference to the definitions for “credit report” and “credit reporting agency” is to the new section 106(1) of the B.C. Consumer Protection Act. Adding a definition of “credit score” will provide meaning to the term, as it is now added by way of this bill.

Clauses 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’d like to move an amendment that would strike out “an organization” and substitute “subject to subsection (2.1), an organization” and amend “unless fewer than 30 days” to “unless one month has passed.”

[CLAUSE 22, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

22 Section 32 is amended

(a) in subsection (2) by striking out “An organization” and substituting “Subject to subsection (2.1), an organization”, and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) An organization that is a credit reporting agency must not charge a fee to an individual who makes a request under section 23 for access to the individual’s personal information that is not employee personal information, unless fewerless than 30 days haveone month has passed since the date of the individual’s most recent request for access to that information.]

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this amendment is that the use of the word “day” in the Personal Information Protection Act refers to business days.

The intention of this section was to ensure that individuals have access to their personal information held by the credit reporting agency at no cost once per month. As a result, the clause as drafted would limit free disclosure to once every 30 business days. That would be six weeks. This amendment is necessary to fit in that timeline.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess while we circulate the amendment to all members of the House.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: We will call the House back to order, where we are contemplating an amendment to Bill 28 introduced by the Attorney General.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to state that, having a legal background myself, I do understand that sometimes there are interpretation issues. All this amendment seems to be doing is that it replaces 30 days with one month, which could be 31 days or 30 days. I do see that, at times, we do have agreements that sometimes say one month’s notice or sometimes say 30 days’ notice. I know it happens quite often in the legal world, especially when you’re trying to do some drafting.

Then the fewer/less — to me that seems like it means the same thing, so I don’t take any exception to these two grammatical changes here. Yeah, I’d just like to state that.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the amendment is in order. It has been introduced by the Attorney General, and it is to amend clause 22 of Bill 28.

Amendment approved.

Clause 22 as amended approved.

On clause 23.

Steve Kooner: Chair, I’d ask for guidance here. I’m trying to get to clause 27, so maybe we can deal with a few of these clauses in bulk, 23 to 26.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Absolutely, Member. We will pass clauses 23 through 26, if that’s agreeable by the House.

Clauses 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

On clause 27.

Steve Kooner: Clause 27 deals with commencement of this legislation, and we do have a few items here.

The first item is by royal assent, and then we have items 2, 3 and 4, which deal with sections 1 to 7, sections 10 to 11 and sections 13 to 26. Those are by regulation. Can the Attorney General just explain why there is a differentiation here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was part of our discussions with the sector, and this will give us time to ensure that people are ready for the changes when they come into force.

Clause 27 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee sits in adjournment.

The committee rose at 4:11 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:13 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

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

Lorne Doerkson: The committee on Bill 28 reports the bill complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: With leave, now.

The Speaker: Members, the question is to read the third reading of the bill. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 28, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 28, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 22.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 22 — Statutes Act

The Chair: Members, I’m going to call just a very brief recess. It’ll only be two or three minutes while we get our teams organized here. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will call the chamber back to order, where we will be contemplating Bill 22, the Statutes Act, and we will recognize our Attorney General to open our committee stage debate.

On clause 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start with gratitude to thank the staff for the work that they’ve done to get the bill to this state. The two that will be joining me to guide me through the committee stage: we have Rodney Fehr, deputy chief, legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel, and we have Jillian Shoichet, senior policy analyst, office of legislative counsel.

Steve Kooner: My understanding of this Statutes Act is that, essentially, online versions of statutes now can be used as evidence in the court of law. I think this has been an issue for some time, that if you wanted to rely on documents in court or tribunals, you have to get official copies from the King’s Printer. So perhaps the Attorney General can start by — and I know there’s some latitude in clause 1 — explaining what the purpose was behind this particular bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member was correct. This makes it easier and corrects something that I think a lot of people, especially in the bar, would be grateful to have. It would make online versions of acts and consolidations official under the Evidence Act, which means that people will be able to use, for evidentiary purposes, online versions of statutes and consolidations accessed through a government website.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: Clause 2 deals with the meaning of “consolidation.” Perhaps the Attorney General will just give…. It’s a pretty extensive section here. Perhaps the Attorney General can explain it.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The definition of “consolidation,” actually, as was eloquently put by Rodney, just basically describes the green binders behind us and what’s in there. It’s just in order to…. In plain terms, a consolidation of an act is a record of the act as it reads at a particular point in time, reflecting any in-force amendments made to it by other enactments and includes only in-force provisions.

Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

Steve Kooner: Clause 11 deals with retroactive legislation. Perhaps the Attorney General can just explain that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The purpose of this is to make it clear that it’s not required to retroactively incorporate in-force amendments into point-in-time consolidations published on the official website.

The purpose for this and the reason for it is that there are many pieces of legislation, and many of them have parts of them that have been retroactively amended. It would be a huge task to go through and change anything related to that, so that’s why.

Clauses 11 to 18 inclusive approved.

On clause 19.

Steve Kooner: Clause 19 deals with transitional regulations. Perhaps the Attorney General can just elaborate on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In order to make it more user-friendly and readable, it just makes sure that the date that the subsection comes into force is available to the reader.

Clauses 19 to 37 inclusive approved.

On clause 38.

[4:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: On clause 38, it deals with commencement here, and there’s a differentiation again here.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Item 1 will come into force on royal assent. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 will come into force by regulation. Specifically, sections 1 to 19, section 22, section 24, section 26, sections 31 to 37 will all come into force by regulation.

Can the Attorney General please elaborate on why the differentiation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The provisions that related to retitling of the Queen’s Printer Act and updating the references to that act are going to come into force through royal assent. The other provisions — we wanted to make sure that they were only brought into force when processes and systems have been updated in order to give effect to the changes made by this bill.

Clause 38 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We’ll stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:27 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 22 — Statutes Act

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 22 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time, House Leader?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Statutes Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 22, Statutes Act.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 22, Statutes Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Before we call the committee, I have a ruling that I would like to give to the House.

Question of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, on Tuesday, December 2, the official opposition House Leader raised a question of privilege regarding the use of parliamentary time. In essence, the official opposition House Leader took objection to the use of certain procedural tools that she believes impede the good use of time and, therefore, constitute a breach of privilege.

The Chair thanks the official opposition House Leader, the Leader of the Fourth Party and the Government House Leader for their submissions.

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the question of privilege. Once a question of privilege has been raised by a member, it is the duty of the Chair to determine whether a prima facie breach of the individual privileges of a member or the collective privileges of the House has occurred.

The Chair recognizes that the fall sitting period has cast new light on the procedures that govern the conduct of parliamentary proceedings. It is not the role of the Chair to determine whether the use of the gardening tools within this garden of democracy, as it was once described by a long-serving member, constitutes a good use of the House’s time. The rules that govern how this House undertakes its work are in the hands of the House itself.

It seems to the Chair that, in their submissions, the official opposition House Leader, the Leader of the Fourth Party and the Government House Leader offered suggestions on possible refinement to our parliamentary practices. If the rules or procedures no longer serve the needs of members, that is a determination for the House itself to make by way of substantive motions and for the Chair to thereafter uphold.

With respect to the question of privilege raised by the official opposition House Leader, it is the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of the privilege has not occurred.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:34 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

The Chair: I call the committee to order on Bill 23, the Regulations Act.

On clause 1.

[4:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Chair, I’d just like to get your guidance. This legislation has similar provisions as the last bill that we dealt with. The last subject matter was statutes. This is regulations.

I have some specific questions that are a little different in some sections, that are different than the previous bill. I don’t have any questions from 1 to 57, but I do have some questions at 58 onwards. Perhaps I could get your guidance on that.

Clauses 1 to 57 inclusive approved.

On clause 58.

Steve Kooner: So 58 provides some Attorney General powers. The Attorney General may make regulations referred to in section 41 and may make regulations respecting matters. Sometimes we have regulations and the minister just deals with those regulations. But in here, there’s a specific clause that actually deals with giving the Attorney General more powers, and it also talks about conferring some of that power onto employees.

Perhaps the Attorney General can explain this clause a little better.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I seek leave to make a correction.

The Chair: Minister, what’s the correction?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s a correction from something that I said earlier in the House.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Okay, proceed.

Statements

Clarification of Remarks
Made in the House

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Earlier, in question period, I stated that I met with the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on an issue that he raised. I misspoke. While my office is corresponding, I have not yet had the opportunity to meet with the member on the issue.

I, of course, would be happy to meet with the member opposite or any members of this House on service challenges in their community.

Committee of the Whole

Bill 23 — Regulations Act
(continued)

Hon. Niki Sharma: This allows the Attorney General to make regulations related to regulations. So it could be things like the format of a regulation or whether it’s PDF or not or things like that, and this is a power that the Attorney General has had for more than 40 years, related to regulations.

Steve Kooner: I have no further questions on this one.

Maybe I could get the Chair’s guidance. I don’t have further questions until clause 71.

Clauses 58 to 70 inclusive approved.

On clause 71.

Steve Kooner: This talks about the date of commencement of regulations, and normally, we have the commencement dates towards the last particular clause. Perhaps the Attorney General can just explain why we have the commencement provisions here and elaborate on this particular clause.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Section 3 of the Interpretation Act generally sets out the rules for the date of commencement of acts. However, section 3(5) of that act provides that a regulation to which the Regulations Act does not apply comes into force on the day the regulation is enacted unless the regulation specifies another effective date. The purpose of this section is to set out the rules for the commencement date of regulations.

Steve Kooner: Chair, I seek your guidance. I don’t have any further questions until clause 82 now.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Clauses 71 to 81 inclusive approved.

On clause 82.

Steve Kooner: So 82 deals with commencement again. Although there doesn’t seem to be a differentiation in this particular bill on this commencement, we do have a schedule.

Perhaps the Attorney General can mention why we have a schedule here. Most of this commencement seems to come in by regulation, so just an elaboration on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is similar to the Statutes Act. This would come into force by regulation so we can make sure that all processes and systems have been updated.

With respect to the schedule that the member talked about, that schedule is referring to section 2(1)(b), not the in-force section of this clause.

Clause 82 approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:42 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:44 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 23 reports the bill complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now, hon. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 23, Regulations Act.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 23, Regulations Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

[4:45 p.m.]

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to
Children and Youth Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Earlier today I mentioned that, by leave, I wanted to move a motion. It was to replace two members on a committee, to switch out.

By leave, I move:

[That Garry Begg replace Amshen / Joan Phillip as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, I am advised that the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain seated. We will be doing royal assent shortly.

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Statutes Act

Regulations Act

Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

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

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025

Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

In His Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Hon. Ronald Skolrood (Administrator): That brings the session to a close. Thank you all for your ongoing service to the people of British Columbia. I wish you all very happy holidays at home in your communities with your families.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[5:00 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I read the adjournment motion, I’d just like to do two things.

One, that we all thank the amazing staff who have spent this entire session ensuring that we have the materials and the water and the place functioning the way that it should. They do an amazing job, and without them, we wouldn’t be able to do our job.

[Applause.]

I also would be remiss if I did not pass along an instruction from those hard-working individuals to, when we leave here, clean out our desks, because that is not their job, to clean out our desks, but our own.

Adjournment Motion

Hon. Mike Farnworth: With that, hon. Speaker, I move:

[1. That the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the First Session of the Forty-third Parliament of the Province of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all Members that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date.

2. That, by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings of this House may be altered if required due to an emergency situation or public health measures, and that such agreement constitute the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give notice to all Members of the agreement and shall table it for it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting.

3. That, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order; in the event that the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order; and in the event that the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another Member designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order.]

The Speaker: Phew. That was long.

Members, you heard the long motion.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, in addition to what the House Leader was saying, thanking our staff here, I also want to thank, on behalf of all of us, every other staff member and all other departments for what they’ve been doing. An amazing job. Without their help, we could not have functioned or be able to function.

I also want to wish each and every one of you happy holidays.

Be safe. See you soon.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:04 p.m.