The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lisa Beare: Today we have some amazing leaders from Maple Ridge in the gallery. We have Gordy and Mary Robson, who are strong community leaders, including Gordy being a former mayor and city councillor.

[10:05 a.m.]

Mary has been the executive director of the Friends in Need Food Bank in Maple Ridge for the past 13 years. She said she’s retiring. Not many of us believe it.

But they’ve had many, many accomplishments together. One of the most notable

Gordy being a former mayor and city councillor.

Mary has been the executive director of the Friends in Need Food Bank in Maple Ridge for the past 13 years. She said she’s retiring. Not many of us believe it.

But they’ve had many, many accomplishments together. One of the most notable was that they founded the Maple Ridge News in 1984.

These are the kind of leaders that Mary and Gordy are, and I hope that the House will please make them feel very welcome.

Claire Rattée: This morning I had the honour and the opportunity to go and speak at a breakfast for Jewish community advocacy days, hosted by CIJA. A number of the representatives are here in the chamber today to watch question period, and I just wanted to welcome them and thank them for their time this morning and all the work that they do on behalf of our community.

I would ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yesterday I had the privilege of introducing and welcoming representatives from the Canadian Home Builders Association. There are more folks in the House today. I’m looking forward to meeting with them later today.

I also am again delighted to introduce and welcome members from the B.C. Real Estate Association, who are in Victoria for their Government Liaison Days. It’s a busy week for housing here.

So welcome to the Canadian Home Builders and the B.C. Real Estate Association.

And I’m just going to add one personal plug of a welcome to Sam Wyatt, who is the chair of the Greater Vancouver realtors and a constituent in Vancouver–Little Mountain and a dedicated community volunteer.

Please join me in welcoming them all.

Statements

Comox Valley Glacier Kings
Athletic Achievements

Brennan Day: There may be no kings in Oceanside, but there certainly are in the Comox Valley. I want to give a quick shout-out to our very own Comox Valley Glacier Kings of the VIJHL for sweeping the Oceanside Generals four games to none in the playoff series. A truly incredible performance by a great young group of athletes.

The boys are going to be out hunting the Cougars and the Panthers from the south Island in the next round, and with this group, they’ve got it in the bag.

Go, Kings!

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar: I just want to highlight two members from the home builders that actually happen to be from Kamloops that are here.

One is a legend within the home-building ranks across this country. Everyone knows that if Rose Choy suggests you do something, you are to do it. And that is across this country. Always a powerhouse from Kamloops on a national level. We have Rose Choy here.

Sitting with her today is Ryan Kurzak, who you may have recognized from the Home Hardware ad fame across this country. He and his family have long owned the Home Hardware in Kamloops. In fact, my son was able to get through university by working in their lumber yards. So long community supporters.

Will the House please make them both welcome.

George Anderson: I rise to recognize a great member of Nanaimo-Lantzville, Jenn McPherson. She is the past president of the Nanaimo, Duncan and District Labour Council. She has just finished her term.

She started out as a youth representative, but her activism started on the labour council through the facilitation with the B.C. Federation of Labour. Also, I would like to just highlight the fact that she is one of the youngest-ever labour council presidents.

I hope that the entire House will help in recognizing the great work of Jenn McPherson.

Lorne Doerkson: I am proud to introduce Vanita Des Mazes and Tim Johnson. They are realtors from the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board here. They are fierce representatives and advocates for the realtors of northern British Columbia.

I wanted to just add that Tim Johnson is from Williams Lake. He is a personal friend of mine.

I would like the House to make them feel very welcome here today.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to welcome a distinguished group of leaders from the Jewish community who are visiting the Legislature, organized by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, also known as CIJA.

These community representatives come from across Metro Vancouver, Vancouver Island and other parts of our province. They’re here to meet with elected leaders to discuss the important work of combating hate, strengthening community safety and protecting culturally appropriate services.

[10:10 a.m.]

It’s my pleasure to recognize the following individuals joining us today: Nico Slobinsky, Shirly Berelowitz, David Decolongon, Liam Sasky, Shir Levi-Yair, Ezra Shanken, Mijal Ben Dori

in community safety and protecting culturally appropriate services.

It’s my pleasure to recognize the following individuals joining us today: Nico Slobinsky, Shirly Berelowitz, David Decolongon, Liam Sasky, Shir Levi-Yair, Ezra Shanken, Mijal Ben Dori, Karen James, David Fox, Stephen Shapiro, Samantha Simpson, Jeremy White, Corinne Zimmerman, Aaron Devor, Anat Gogo, Ohad Gavrieli, Russ Klein, Jeff Moss, Peter J. Nadler, Jaime Stein, Tanja Demajo and Raquel Hirsch.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to these respected community leaders to the Legislature today.

Scott McInnis: I see two of my four guests from Kimberley are here today. I hope the other two can get in for question period.

Angela and Perry Symes are small business owners, downtown Kimberley. They employ my son, which is very generous of them as well. They’ve also brought their fathers here. Larry Johnson and Milton Symes are here today watching.

In addition, my friends from Cranbrook building association, Interior Realtors, are here. As well, my man, No. 9, Jamie Stein is here.

Can we give everybody a big welcome this morning.

Statements

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month

Hon. Grace Lore: I wanted to take the opportunity to share with folks that it is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month in March. I want to thank colleagues from all sides of the aisle for wearing a pin today.

It is the second-deadliest cancer in the province, it is routinely one of the leading causes of death, and it’s extremely treatable caught early. Screening for folks in traditional ages, 50 to 75, is still low, at 60 to 70 percent. Colorectal cancer is increasingly common among younger folks under 50, 40 and even 30. Not always the cutest symptoms or cancer to talk about, yet we must.

I wanted to take the opportunity to thank everybody again for wearing a pin and hope that folks in this House will join me in talking to their friends and family about it, making sure folks know the signs and symptoms and that you are getting screened.

Thank you very much, colleagues and Mr. Speaker.

[Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Kristina Loewen: It’s been a pleasure this week to welcome the B.C. home builders and the realtors from all across the province. We really enjoyed meeting with them over the last couple of days, and we just want to thank them for their advocacy.

Today I just want your support in welcoming to the chamber Kim Heizmann, Seth Scott, Ryan Main, Gavin Thomas and Kayden Rainville, all from the Interior.

Susie Chant: This morning I am very happy to introduce Ruth Hansen. She’s a friend, a constituent and a real estate professional who is in Victoria today with her colleagues to speak to members of the House.

I also want to introduce Mark Cooper, who is a new friend, who builds houses and lives in Lynn Valley and has been part of my community for many years.

I hope the House will make them feel most welcome.

Teresa Wat: I would also like to join our members in welcoming the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, in particular my two good friends Nico Slobinsky, the vice-president of the Pacific region, and David Decolongon, associate director of policy and communication for the Pacific region.

David is no stranger to this building. Earlier in his career, he served as a caucus researcher, and it’s always nice to see familiar faces continuing their work in public policy and community engagement.

Since I was elected in 2013, I have had the privilege of working with Nico at CIJA to learn more about the Jewish community and the important issues that matter to them. I’m very proud of the work they do to strengthen understanding, advocacy and dialogue in our province and across Canada.

[10:15 a.m.]

Please join me in warmly welcoming Nico and David to this chamber.

Lawrence Mok: In the gallery, I have three visitors from Maple Ridge. They are visiting the Legislature for the first time. Over there,

Nico and David to this chamber.

Lawrence Mok: In the gallery, I have three visitors from Maple Ridge. They are visiting the Legislature for the first time. Over there are my friends, Jay and his wife, Monica.

And over here is my daughter, Faith Mok.

Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu: I have two quick introductions to make. The first one is our incredible community members who make our community so beautiful. Jeff Fisher and Ingrid Fisher are celebrating their 25th anniversary today and they do so much for our community.

They have two beautiful children and one of their children is our Vernon-Lumby constituency advisor.

Would the House please join me to wish Jeff and Ingrid a very happy 25th anniversary.

Lynne Block: I’d like to do two introductions this morning. One is Mark Cooper from the Canadian Home Builders Association, as well as all the rest of them who are here today … the real estate. I am looking forward to our conversations in the future.

The second introduction is my CA, Ashten Young, who is visiting for the next couple of days.

I wish you could all welcome them all to the House.

Sunita Dhir: Today in the House we have Mr. Hao Zeng, who is a constituent of Vancouver-Langara and a very valued community member. He is here visiting us with the B.C. Real Estate Association.

Let’s welcome Mr. Hao Zeng to the house.

Harwinder Sandhu: My second introduction is, I am thrilled and excited, proud to join, of course, along with all B.C. Real Estate Association, the interior delegation, Kim Heitzman, Seth Scott and Robert Wood.

We had such a great meeting yesterday and it’s been a tremendous honour to work with you over the years. We know all of you help us to build our communities.

Would the House please help me make my guests feel very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M236 — Health Professions and
Occupations Repeal Act

Jordan Kealy presented a bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act.

Jordan Kealy: I move that a Bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I rise today not to play political games, but to introduce this bill to actually repeal the Health Professions and Occupations Act, commonly known as Bill 36. I believe this House should have the opportunity to debate this bill, and I have the private members’ time to bring it forward.

With over 600 clauses, this enormous piece of legislation fundamentally changes how health professions are regulated in British Columbia. The bill was forced through legislature. Legislation of this size and consequence should never be rammed through without full scrutiny and without legitimately consulting the professionals it affects.

Under this act, the 16 health profession boards are condensed under government boards that are not elected by the trained professionals they represent but instead appointed by politicians. Health professionals can face penalties of up to $200,000 in fines and up to two years in jail. It prevents doctors from being honest with their patients for fear of contradicting health guidelines created by politicians, not health professionals. It creates issues about confidentiality when allowing entry and seizure of records without warrant of court order.

The cabinet and ministers can adopt as law any regulation standard, codes or rules enacted in foreign jurisdictions, bypassing legislature. In the middle of a doctor shortage and health care crisis, we have legislation that many physicians tell me they are afraid to even speak about publicly. Hundreds are planning to leave, retire or have already left B.C. because of this legislation. On April 1, when the HPOA act is enacted, thousands of British Columbians could be without a doctor.

[10:20 a.m.]

This repeal bill gives the Legislature the opportunity to fully examine this legislation and address the concerns British Columbians and health professionals continue to raise about it.

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

Motion approved.

Legislature the opportunity to fully examine this legislation and address the concerns British Columbians and health professionals continue to raise about it.

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

Motion approved.

Jordan Kealy: 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

Surrey Eagles Junior Hockey Club

Brent Chapman: The Surrey Eagles of the BCHL were the 2023-24 Fred Page champions. Though the Eagles made the playoffs the following year, ’25-26 has been a tough one for the South Surrey squad. The math is against them, so the Eagles will be watching the playoffs this year — unusual for this reliable franchise.

Anyone who follows sports understands what a rebuilding year can look like. There’s some disappointment game to game, but overall, the Surrey hockey fans always have a positive outlook for this great group of local young men.

The team has a dedicated coaching staff and strong management, but the heart of the Surrey Eagles is in the ownership. Local business leader Ron Brar and his family have their caring fingerprints all over the operations of the team. Don’t get me wrong. This is not a Jerry Jones kind of situation. Not that Ron doesn’t have opinions on the gameplay. He leaves the game’s strategy and player personnel to his assembled coaching staff.

The wonder of this club is the hard work on the ice, win or lose, and its dedication to the community. Families and kids feel right at home in the boisterous, energetic yet safe surroundings of the South Surrey arena.

Live hockey for families in Vancouver might be out of reach these days, but not in South Surrey. There are big screens at both ends of the rink to review the big goal or a great play. The concession stand has a remarkable variety of drinks, treats, hot dogs and Indian snacks. Oh yeah, and the popcorn is very popular.

But the real treat is the kids. They are not on little screens. They go down by the glass and watch the game. They run up to the concourse during the period breaks to buy themselves a couple of player cards from the Surrey Eagles souvenir stand only to track down players later to get those cards signed. The kids have their local heroes, and the local heroes treat the kids like stars.

If they could give an award for the club that provides great entertainment and a safe surrounding at a reasonable price, Ron Brar and his family would be taking the cup home every year. Go, Eagles!

Argyle Pipers and Senior Girls
Basketball Championship

Susie Chant: Now we’ll move to basketball. I’m so excited to have the opportunity to highlight one of the outstanding high schools in my riding.

I begin by acknowledging that we’re gathered on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations.

When I’m at home in North Vancouver–Seymour, I live, work and learn on the unceded territory of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Peoples, and I am deeply appreciative of their ongoing stewardship of the land, water and the air that sustain us all.

On February 28 at 7:45 p.m. in the Langley Events Centre, the Riverside Rapids and the Argyle Pipers senior girls basketball teams met in a highly anticipated matchup to determine this year’s provincial champions. In a great display of teamwork, discipline and determination, the Argyle Pipers took a resounding 72-41 victory, bringing the championship title back to the North Shore for the first time since 2010.

Captain Sadie Danks and head coach Anthony Beyrouti later spoke with Gloria Macarenko on CBC, reflecting on the unwavering strength of their team — twenty athletes, five on the court at any given time, and the rest on the bench offering unwavering support. They described the overwhelming energy of competing in a venue filled with 2,300 spectators and emphasized the trust that binds a successful team — trust in teammates, in training, in system and in oneself.

Captain Sadie Danks outlined the commitment required to reach the finals: daily practices, twice-weekly workouts and film sessions that focused on reinforcing strengths while preparing for the next challenge. When asked about her future, she shared that she’ll be attending UBC next year, continuing her basketball journey while pursuing post-secondary studies.

Congratulations to the Argyle Pipers senior girls basketball team for bringing home the provincial championship.

[10:25 a.m.]

Willie Dye

Lorne Doerkson: Today I rise to recognize the life and contributions of a remarkable individual from Williams Lake, Willie Dye, a man whose passion, humour and dedication has left a lasting mark on our community.

Willie was deeply involved in local soccer. He was the kind of person who believed that the sport was about more

Today I rise to recognize the life and contributions of a remarkable individual from Williams Lake, Willie Dye, a man whose passion, humor and dedication has left a lasting mark on our community.

Willie was deeply involved in local soccer. He was the kind of person who believed that the sport was about more than just the game. It was about bringing people together and building friendships.

But many in Williams Lake will remember Willie for something else as well, his unforgettable alter ego, Artie the art walker. With humour, creativity and a true sense of community spirit, Willie brought smiles to the faces of thousands every year. Through that character, he reminded us all that community celebration should be joyful, welcoming and full of laughter.

Willie also played a key role as the organizer of the stampede parade. The parade, of course, highlights the Williams Lake Stampede and is one of the largest in northern British Columbia.

He was a maker of delicious fudge, and for years he made special batches of rum raisin for my mother for Christmas.

He’s an incredible man. He’s been participating in the medieval market for decades, longer than I can remember.

Today I remember Willie with gratitude and as an icon of Cariboo-Chilcotin and offer my condolences and prayers to his lovely wife Audrey and his family. He’ll be deeply missed but never forgotten.

While it is tradition to remain silent after a statement like this, I would say that Artie would love to hear a thunderous applause. Please join me in celebrating the life of Willie Dye and Artie the art walker.

Elementary School Visit
and Role of Government

George Chow: Last Friday I was invited to speak to a group of grade 4 and grade 5 students in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

They wanted to know how governments work. I began by telling them that there are three levels of government and we are like a big family. I said the federal government is the grandparents, the provincial government the parents, and the city government are kids like you.

The city government has a limited amount of money but manages to have fun, like you kids. They build ice rinks, swimming pools, libraries and parks. They sponsor street festivals and sporting events so you kids can have a good time.

Now the provincial government has more money but has more responsibility that costs a lot of money, like making sure you’re not sick, you can go to school or ride the buses, SkyTrain and the ferries when you need.

The federal government is responsible for dealing with foreign countries, our armed forces and making criminal laws, and has the most money because it owns a bank that can print the money.

The provincial government, like many parents, would try to get more money from grandparents, the federal government. However, not unlike some grandparents, the federal government plays favourite sometimes when giving out money to the provinces.

Then came the question period. For example, what does the opposition do? I said the opposition is there to ask hard questions of the government. But sometimes they get carried away and will not listen, not unlike you kids sometimes.

What do the Clerks do? I said the Clerks are really nice people who listen and write down everything that the MLAs said, but seldom say a word themselves.

And last question, what about the Speaker? The Speaker is an MLA who sits in the big chair at the front of the House to make sure MLAs don’t say bad things about each other, like your teacher. On that happy note, my visit ended.

Support for Children

Heather Maahs: That’s a tough act to follow.

So speaking of children, children are society’s most precious resource. Children are a sacred trust, first and foremost to their mothers and fathers, siblings, grandparents, extended families and to their communities. They are the legacy and lineage that remind us of all who have gone before and the rich heritage from which we come.

[10:30 a.m.]

Children are a sacred trust bestowed on us here in the Legislature, as our children are the future of our culture, of our society, of our country. We must do everything we can to support parents and families as they love and nurture their children, giving them the respect and acknowledging the responsibility that they embrace in this incredible duty as parents.

Children depend on their families to provide for them. But if they can’t, they depend on us.

to support parents and families as they love and nurture their children, giving them the respect and acknowledging the responsibility that they embrace in this incredible duty as parents.

Children depend on their families to provide for them, but if they can’t, they depend on us, the lawmakers of this province, to provide the necessary support. We must do everything within our power to ensure they are loved and cared for, housed, fed and educated, always mindful of what is in their best interest.

Someday we will be dependent on them to provide for us. We must be wise and treat our precious children with the utmost care in everything we do and decide in this House. I believe this is a sacred trust, and we will be held accountable for our decisions and our actions one day. May God give us wisdom.

Literacy Central Vancouver Island

George Anderson: A strong but mighty group in Nanaimo is doing impressive work that provides profound opportunities for our economy, democracy and the strength of our communities. Their social enterprise is called Literacy Central Vancouver Island.

Their motto is powerful: “Literacy is our legacy.” And every day, through volunteer tutors and community programs, they bring that idea to life by helping adults, families and young people strengthen their reading, writing and digital skills many of us take for granted.

While LCVI’s work may sound like a social program, their work provides the underpinning for economic policy, because literacy is the foundation for participation in the modern economy.

Literacy allows an individual to read a safety manual on a job site. Literacy is important to be able to understand a contract, apply for a job, start a business or pursue education. Today in Canada, nearly one in five adults struggle with basic literacy and almost half of adults have literacy skills below the level expected of a high school graduate.

At a time when local journalism is fading, the ability of British Columbians to read critically and stay informed has never been more important, and that’s why the work of organizations like Literacy Central Vancouver Island matters so much. I thank all of their staff and volunteers for the work that they do.

Their one-on-one adult literacy program helps adults build reading and writing confidence, and their trade skills program empowers individuals in the trades to enhance their reading, math, writing and computer skills — to be prosperous.

LCVI’s programs empower individuals to understand the world around them and how their communities are shaped. Strong economies require skilled workers. Strong communities require informed citizens. And both begin with literacy. When someone learns to read with confidence, they pursue opportunity and understand their community.

Literacy must be our legacy, and by investing in literacy, we build British Columbia’s future.

Oral Questions

Reconciliation and Government
Handling of Land Title Issues
and Property Rights

Scott McInnis: There’s tremendous uncertainty in B.C. today.

This government’s continued incompetence and constant attempts to keep the public in the dark on reconciliation is nothing short of astounding.

Does this government believe that investment confidence remains high in B.C., despite the NDP’s campaign of ensuring the public knows as little as possible?

Hon. David Eby: In the next 12 months, the province has in the neighbourhood of, and it is in excess of, $50 billion in final investment decisions for major projects in British Columbia.

Not one of these projects — and these are the big ones; these aren’t the small ones — not one of them would be reaching a final investment decision if there weren’t strong partnerships with First Nations.

If the member is the critic for Indigenous Relations and he doesn’t understand that, then his advocacy that this government cease conversations with First Nations, stop reaching agreements with First Nations, would terminate those projects in their tracks. It would lead to roadblocks instead of jobs and opportunity. It would lead to pink slips for British Columbians.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Conservatives’ continual advocacy against this work, that even just a few months ago they supported…. The current leader of the Conservative Party saying he’s on the reconciliation team. The leader before him, citing all of the Indigenous agreements that he signed

It would lead to pink slips for British Columbians.

The Conservatives’ continual advocacy against this work that even just a few months ago they supported…. The current leader of the Conservative Party is saying he’s on the reconciliation team. The leader before him citing all of the Indigenous agreements that he signed, including recognizing rights and title…. And now, suddenly, they’re saying that they’re opposed to that.

The chaos in our economy would be immeasurable. We cannot afford that approach, and if the member doesn’t understand that, he shouldn’t be the critic for Indigenous Relations.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: The chaos on our economy is here. I fully understand what’s going on.

I would like to read a communication I had with Ilana Schonwetter. Her firm manages $1.5 billion in real estate and cash investments in Vancouver. She says, and I quote: “Over the past week, I have received a tsunami of concerned and angry calls regarding the recent announced secret federal agreement and its implications for property rights in British Columbia. The overwhelming sentiment from clients can be summarized in one word, ‘outrage’.”

She goes on to say, and I quote: “As a result, clients who have held real estate in British Columbia for decades are now actively preparing to sell their principal residences, divest from their rental properties and reallocate capital into foreign equities and investment sectors they perceive as more stable and predictable.”

This is not fearmongering. This is reality.

When will this government wake up and realize that their agenda on reconciliation is a failed one which is having huge consequences on our economy?

Hon. David Eby: We have the second lowest unemployment rate in the country. We’re leading the country in per capita direct foreign investment in major projects in our province. We’re projected to be the second fastest growing economy in the country next year.

The member fails to recognize that it is the members of the Conservative caucus that are causing misinformation to be spread.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: The Finance critic for the Conservatives tweeted….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Premier.

Hon. David Eby: The Finance critic for the Conservatives, leadership candidate, tweeted that people’s homes were at risk because of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm deal and that this was a deal that I signed. It is a federal agreement that the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm chief has been very clear has nothing to do with private property.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: So the Conservative Finance critic…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: …appropriately deleted the tweet. And I think the other Conservatives that also spread the same information should be doing the same, because it is misinformation.

Lorne Doerkson: The answers this morning, of course, are of no comfort to residents with private property in this province. The toxicity that the NDP has brought to our landscape is shocking.

As a result of the Cowichan court ruling, we are seeing investment uncertainty across this province. Monette Farms is trying to sell 12 ranch properties across British Columbia, but land ownership uncertainty from the Cowichan has scared off willing buyers.

Those are not my words. That is from industry. B.C. lawyer Thomas Isaac, a recognized authority in Aboriginal law, says, and I quote: “The fact that we now have uncertainty around indefeasible title obviously is not helpful to investment, given that in order to have a free market economy, you have to have the concept of indefeasible title.”

What is the Attorney General urgently doing to legally protect private property ownership in this province?

Hon. David Eby: I might be mistaken, but isn’t that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin?

[10:40 a.m.]

Isn’t that the member from the community where there was a court decision under the previous government, many of whose members and staff had connections to the B.C. Liberals when the Tŝilhqot’in decision was issued? A transformative decision that recognized First Nations title across a swath of the province, specifically in the member’s community; a decision that created incredible uncertainty in the centre of the province, because the government at the time refused to sit down with the Tŝilhqot’in and try to find a path forward….

Now I think the member could easily stand up

recognized First Nations title across a swath of the province, specifically in the member’s community, a decision that created incredible uncertainty in the centre of the province because the government at the time refused to sit down with the Tŝilhqot'in and try to find a path forward.

Now, I think the member could easily stand up and talk about the uncertainty that was created by that court decision….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: ….and why the members are so opposed to the idea that we sit down to try to avoid that uncertainty, to recognize that the courts are going to recognize title in this province and to ensure that we are moving forward in a way that provides certainty and traction and addresses these issues while growing the economy for everybody.

The member can’t stand and pretend he doesn’t understand the implications of not talking because it happened in his own neighbourhood.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Lorne Doerkson: I am shocked at how little this Premier knows about the agreement of the [An Indigenous language was spoken] and the Tŝilhqot'in People.

For nine years, multiple estimates in this room, we have asked questions about how to move forward for private landowners in that territory, and there has been no clarity around that from this government for certain. The Premier nods his head that yes, that is absolutely incorrect. I have tried repeatedly to bring clarity for many people in that area. This government continues to say, “willing seller, willing buyer,” but their inaction has scared off the willing buyers.

We’ve heard one ranch deal has already collapsed and has fallen through because of this nonsense. What assurances will this Attorney General give to property owners and investors in this province today?

Hon. David Eby: I’m glad the member acknowledges the profound uncertainty that came from that court decision, that we’re still nine years later trying to sort it out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shh, Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby: It is obviously the wrong thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby: When did that decision happen? Under the previous government. The member decries the chaos, but wouldn’t it have been nice had the government at the time sat down to try to avoid court and find a path forward? They chose not to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Wait for your turn, please. Members.

Premier.

Hon. David Eby: The crucial work that has to happen here to ensure stability in the economy is opposed by the Conservatives. Their approach of cutting off conversations with First Nations, ending agreements with First Nations, of trying to avoid court to provide certainty, will result in exactly the same thing that happened at the Tŝilhqot'in decision.

The chaos that member has been trying…. He says himself on the record in Hansard. He’s been trying to resolve it for nine years.

The desperation on the other side….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: They ask their question, they hear the answer, and they shout, and they heckle because they can’t handle the truth. This is hard work that any government would have to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. David Eby: They refuse to acknowledge it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, members.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Everyone, come to order. Wait for your turn. If you have asked questions, you have to hear the answers.

Premier.

Hon. David Eby: These are legal realities that the province faces, and I think that leadership candidates on that side should be clear where they stand on this.

I asked the Finance critic to be clear where he stood on it, and he refused to take the opportunity. Maybe today is the day we’ll actually hear where the Conservative Party stands on reconciliation from their leadership candidates, but somehow I doubt it.

Government Action on
Anti-Indigenous Racism

Rob Botterell: I am shocked by the inflammatory direction and nature of the Conservative opposition questions this morning.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

Rob Botterell: Policy by question period is not the way to deal with a serious issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shh, Members.

Rob Botterell: Last year, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner reported dramatic rise in online racial slurs and threats directed at Indigenous People.

Since the Cowichan and Gitxaała court decisions, scaremongering that the First Nations will take away the land of private property owners has proliferated.

[10:45 a.m.]

Indigenous People are being harassed in grocery stores, suffering epithets hurled from passing cars. Some genuinely fear for their safety. Bad actors seem to take their cue from south of the border. In this environment, it’s not enough to condemn the

proliferated. Indigenous people are being harassed in grocery stores, suffering epithets hurled from passing cars. Some genuinely fear for their safety. Bad actors seem to take their cue from south of the border. In this environment, it’s not enough to condemn the false rhetoric that First Nations are coming for private homes.

My question is to the Minister of Indigenous Rights and Reconciliation. This is all happening on your watch, Minister. What added concrete steps will you take to turn down the temperature, stop the slurs and harassment, and protect the safety and inherent rights of Indigenous people in B.C.?

The Speaker: All the questions through the Chair, Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for doing what he can — the House Leader, as well, for doing what he can — to stand up against the racism, the misinformation that too often passes for debate in this House and online.

We have a duty, all of us, I believe, to lead with truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: And the truth is that residential schools happened, not debatable. But it seems to be for some here that it is a debate. It’s not a debate. The truth is we didn’t sign treaties in this province, and that’s why we’re having these discussions now. B.C. should have done it. We had opportunity over the last 150 years.

I know the member can squirm and giggle about it. It’s not funny, actually, because it has realities on the ground. When people say things…. And I know leaders of that party put out tweets and things that say, “They’re coming for your home; they’re coming for your land.” It’s wrong, and I call it out each and every time. I think we all have to lead with truth.

So I wonder if the member would like to go back to his social media…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …and — that leader, that one, that one, that one — take down those tweets, take down the misinformation. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are not coming for people’s homes. And I wonder if they would follow up their reality of truth…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh. Members.

Member for Kamloops Centre.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …and actually put out the truth.

It seems when I talk about truth, they have to shout. They have to scream. They don’t want to understand that there is a truth and a reality in this province, speaking to 150-plus years of the fact that the B.C. government should have been working on treaties, should have been doing it and didn’t.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’re leading that way with First Nations, and we’re working that way with truth, because these folks won’t, and they don’t.

The Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: We’ve seen the government communications apparatus step up before. When misinformation about wildfires began causing widespread harm, this government devoted extra resources to social media myth-busting. For LNG, they host town halls, hold press conferences, pass legislation to try to change people’s minds.

It’s not just recent court decisions that this government has bungled. The rollout for changes to the Heritage Conservation Act, the Land Act, to name just two, have been poorly communicated and quickly derailed.

My question to the minister: in this moment of increased tension and malicious information, what additional concrete steps will you take to ensure that you bring this province together?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member asked a very important question. We have all heard the rise in anti-Indigenous racism because of the rhetoric that’s coming out. I’m sure the members across the way have heard about it. The Premier talked about death threats that are coming upon the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm after the rhetoric that’s coming out of there. It is unacceptable.

We as a government are working on anti-racism plans. I’m working on an anti-Indigenous racism plan with my ministry, with the act that I led last time. The member talked about misinformation and how harmful it is when you spread it. What happens when it’s leaders of a political party that are doing it? What happens when it’s leadership candidates that are doing it? Where is the shame for the harm that’s happening to real people in this province?

We are going to focus on bringing people together. We’re going to focus on standing, Indigenous, non-Indigenous, respecting people’s rights, whether it’s private property or Indigenous rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: And that’s the way forward, Mr. Speaker, not with what’s happening over there.

Provincial Sales Tax Costs for
Strata Property Owners

Korky Neufeld: Truth. Well, here’s some truth. This government is coming for our homes.

[10:50 a.m.]

The government is doing everything they can to make life less affordable here in B.C. We have heard from strata councils here in Victoria of the NDP PST hikes forcing them to hike-strike strata fees. They’re paying $6,000 more due to PST on strata management, on land-line entry

to make life less affordable here in B.C. We’ve heard from strata councils here in Victoria that the NDP PST hikes are forcing them to hike-strike strata fees on all their homeowners.

They’re paying $6,000 more due to PST on strata management, on land-line entry phones, on building security — nickel-and-diming, a death by a thousand cuts. That’s the truth.

Why is this government making life for B.C. residents living in condos unaffordable?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We have taken significant measures to support British Columbians with affordability in this budget and many others, and we’re seeing rental prices come down 14 percent across the province. These are important measures.

We continue to do the work to protect low-cost child care. We’re keeping auto insurance low, reducing the cost of rent, zero-interest student loans, free birth control. We can go on and on. These are important measures.

And we know what would happen on the other side. We also know what the history is of taxes, so let’s just take a little look. In 2016, a family making $30,000…. Let’s talk about affordability. In 2016, a family making $30,000….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Minister.

Members, we are all grown-up people. There are young children sitting up there watching us. What kind of leadership are we providing to them? Can’t we have a moment to listen?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is Abbotsford South saying he doesn’t want to listen?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Are you going to argue with the Chair?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, be quiet.

Minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In 2016, a family making less than $30,000 would pay $177 in taxes. Under our government, in 2026, they get $1,623 back. Affordability matters to us on this matter.

Building Code Energy Regulations
for New Housing Units

Kiel Giddens: I’ll remind the minister that the strata manager that was talked about here is paying $6,000 more under this PST. That is adding costs for British Columbians who just want an affordable home.

Studies in B.C. show that building homes to net-zero standards can add up to 10 percent to construction costs. At a time when people already can’t afford a home, these costs will simply be passed on to buyers. Will this government stabilize costs and pause zero carbon step code to EL2 to prevent more added costs for hard-working British Columbians?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m happy to speak to the work that we’re doing to deliver more homes and see the cost of housing go down.

We have, as a government, taken significant action to reduce barriers, to reduce red tape, to go after speculators. We’re seeing that make a difference in stabilizing housing prices, in more homes available, more housing options for families and for retiring seniors in every community across this province. As the Minister of Finance said, we’re seeing it make a difference in rent prices consistently going down, a significant affordability change for folks in this province.

Maybe I’ll just remind the members on the opposite side that when many of them were staff or elected in government, we saw skyrocketing housing prices, skyrocketing rental prices. And not just that, but members opposite have been very clear that if they were on this side of the House, they would undo all of our actions on housing, and that would see housing prices go way through the roof again.

We will continue to take action because we know how important this is for homebuilders and for families in every part of this province.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Kiel Giddens: The minister wasn’t even close to answering anything to do with the zero carbon step code in that answer. Homebuilders have said that the zero carbon step code should be voluntary and incentive-based.

[10:55 a.m.]

British Columbians don’t need more government mandates driving up the cost of housing. Mike Drummond, interim president and CEO of the Urban Development Institute, said: “The path to housing runs through lower costs, not higher ones.”

Why won’t this government stop these

more government mandates driving up the cost of housing.

Mike Drummond, interim president and CEO of the Urban Development Institute, said: “The path to housing runs through lower costs, not higher ones.”

Why won’t this government stop these costly mandates and focus on lowering the price of housing?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, we have taken significant action to reduce red tape and see homes get built. The member opposite may want to talk about the step code, but I want to talk about how the opposition has been clear they would undo transit-oriented development.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle: They would undo the work that we’ve done on small-scale multi-unit housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, remember this is question period. You’re wasting your own time. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We have taken significant action in partnership with industry, and, in fact, regularly through the advice and feedback and requests of industry to improve flexibility in how homes are being financed so that shovels can get in the ground, to make changes to the building code that make building faster and easier. We are seeing homes delivered because of this work, and we will continue in partnership to deliver.

Housing Affordability and
Expansion of Provincial Sales Tax

Brennan Day: I know that answers are hard to get in this House, so I have an extremely simple question for the Minister of Housing. What is the average age of a first-time homebuyer in Vancouver today under this NDP government? Just the number, Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I, only last week, was accused of bringing too many facts and figures to this debate. I have all sorts of numbers that I’m happy to quote in here, like the 95,000 homes that we’ve delivered as a government, the 300,000 homes that are predicted to be developed because of the work we’ve done on small-scale multi-unit, on transit-oriented housing. We are reducing barriers and delivering homes, rental homes, affordable home ownership options. We’ll keep doing that.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental?

Brennan Day: In Vancouver today, the average first-time homebuyer is 46 years old. Just a few short years ago, it was 36. Under this government, the dream of owning a home has been pushed an entire decade, ten years higher than the national average now. If somebody buys their first home at 46, they will be 76 years old before that mortgage is paid off.

So I’ll ask the minister: does this government actually think that press releases and broken promises and waiting until your mid-40s to buy a home is actually acceptable in this province?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I don’t think that the members opposite want to look too far back on this file because, again, when many of them were in government or staff….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We’ll see how their leadership race goes in terms of…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member has the courtesy and patience to listen.

Hon. Christine Boyle: …what history they’re connecting to. When members opposite were in government, the damage that they did to housing prices, to rental prices, to home ownership was massive. We are still trying to correct and address the damage that was done in those 16 years, and we’re seeing it make a difference.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Stabilizing housing prices, decreasing rent prices: these are important indicators that the action that we’re taking is making a difference. But after the massive damage the members opposite did to the housing market, the work that we’re doing is working. It’s making a difference, and we’re going to keep doing it.

[11:00 a.m.]

Gavin Dew: It’s not just the NDP’s approval ratings that are on life support. The Canadian dream is dying in B.C. Eighty-six percent of 18- to 44-year-olds who don’t already own a home have given up — 86 percent. Housing prices are astronomical.

We met yesterday with home builders who told us the PST hike will add up to $5,000

in B.C.

Eighty-six percent of 18- to 44-year-olds who don’t already own a home have given up. Eighty-six percent. Housing prices are astronomical. We met yesterday with home builders who told us the PST hike will add up to $5,000 to every single-family home and even more for multi-family residentials.

What consultation and analysis did the government do on the affordability impact of their PST hike, and will they table those reports today?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In reality, if the member understood the PST application in the context of the home-building environment, the PST applies to architectural, but only 30 percent of an architectural build. So if there’s a giant building going on, there’s an architectural build….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There’s 30 percent of that build and there’s 7 percent applied to it. It’s about 2 percent of an overall build.

It’s important to understand that all of us in British Columbia are doing the work to ensure that we are supporting the services that British Columbians rely on, things like health care and education and that’s what this budget does.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Government Priorities and
Funding for Autism Services

Harman Bhangu: It is clear the NDP won’t protect private properties. It’s because they’ve learned nothing from their mistakes at Cowichan. They could have advocated for British Columbians and made the fee simple private properties exempt in the agreement, but they chose to stay silent.

We have heard from members of the strata council in Victoria that this government’s PST expansion will increase costs. We have heard that it will cost CJA an extra $84,000 a year to protect their places of worship.

We have heard this NDP government’s housing policies increase costs. It has gotten so bad that the average homebuyer in Vancouver is 46 years old. We have also heard that 86 percent of people under 45 have given up on home ownership. Under this NDP government, more and more people are using food banks. That includes 33,000 children.

And one thing, I want to set the record straight. The other side campaigned and said we would cut costs on health care. But you know what? That is the side that has cut health care.

I have a personal story from my riding.

The Speaker: Question, member.

Harman Bhangu: Mr. Speaker, a single mother in my riding of Langley-Abbotsford contacted my office about her son, who was diagnosed with autism, a language disorder, speech delay and ADHD. For years she worked through therapy so her son could develop a voice and the supports he needed.

The Speaker: Question, member.

Harman Bhangu: Now, under this NDP government’s proposed changes to autism funding…. Her son does not have an intellectual disability or FASD…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member. Question, member.

Harman Bhangu: His autism will effectively no longer qualify for support. Autism does not simply disappear when a child turns nine.

The Speaker: Member, you have a question?

Harman Bhangu: This mother is now being told they may have to rely on things like GoFundMe to just…

The Speaker: Member.

Harman Bhangu: …continue to provide her child with therapy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Harman Bhangu: So my question to the minister is, why is this government removing supports for children with autism who do not have an additional intellectual disability? And how does the minister justify forcing families in British Columbia to fund basic…

The Speaker: Member.

Harman Bhangu: …development therapy on their own?

The Speaker: Enough. Thank you.

Before the Chair recognizes the minister, I want to ask the House Leader of the official opposition, please talk to your members. This is a question period, not statement times. Thank you. Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I’ll start by going, I appreciate the question from the member, but the member will know, in this budget, that there is an additional $475 million being invested to assist the people that he is talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: But what’s particularly interesting…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: … is finally, we get to hear a question from a Conservative Party candidate. Because all it seems, all session, is we get to hear from the preferred B.C. Liberal Party candidates.

[11:05 a.m.]

The heckling from the opposition, from the member from the Kamloops Centre, is completely over-the-top compared to his usual thing. Pretty clear, maybe the leadership campaign isn’t going that well. We hardly ever get to hear from the real Conservative over there, never gets to ask a question.

And what we’ve heard today is misinformation…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …on issue after issue after issue

Kamloops Centre is completely over the top compared to his usual thing. It’s pretty clear maybe the leadership campaign isn’t going that well. We hardly ever get to hear from the real Conservative over there, who never gets to ask a question.

What we’ve heard today is misinformation…

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …on issue after issue after issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: When it comes to property rights…

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …they’ve been peddling information that they know to be false, that they know to be untrue.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That has been their stock in trade…

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …this entire session.

Once again, it’s why they will continue to stay over there and we will stay over here.

[End of question period.]

The Speaker: Wow. The bell ends question period, one of the worst question periods we’ve had for years.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 10, Labour Statutes.

In the Douglas Fir Room, we call committee stage on Bill 7, International Education.

In the Birch Room, Section C, I call estimates on the Ministry of Housing.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Kiel Giddens: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 10 in response to the Minister of Labour. We’re speaking about, as a reminder for folks at home, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. I’m speaking in my role as the official opposition’s Labour critic.

I think it’s an important time to talk about workplaces in this province. With what’s going on in the world around us, global uncertainty, we’ve heard more and more unrest and troubling news. We’ve been dealing with unfair treatment of our forest sector, for example. We have many young people looking to gain their first employment opportunities and finding it a challenge to get ahead or get their first break.

As a province, we’re facing uncertainty with the most challenging fiscal situation this province has ever seen. We have massive structural deficits, and debt is rising much faster than our economy can keep up.

When we look at that uncertainty, it’s important that we look at our existing laws to give a measure of stability. Both workers and employers are looking for stability from us as legislators. We need stable workplaces and healthy workplaces, and I firmly believe that.

This bill proposes amendments to two important statutes, the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. These laws exist for a simple reason, I believe: to ensure that wages earned are wages paid and that workers, especially vulnerable workers, are protected from exploitation.

I do believe that every member of this House shares that objective and understands that. But supporting that in principle isn’t enough. Our responsibility, of course, is to ensure that the system actually works for the workers who rely on it, and it has to be practical and accessible for them.

At the same time, healthy workplaces depend on rules that are fair, predictable and workable for employers as well. The vast majority of employers in British Columbia want to do the right thing. They want clear rules and a system that resolves disputes efficiently and fairly.

[11:10 a.m.]

I believe that good labour policy must strike that balance, so protecting workers and also, at the same time, ensuring that the system remains workable for employers who are trying to comply with the law.

Bill 10 proposes a number of procedural changes as to how complaints are investigated and how determinations can be appealed. There are a few main elements

protecting workers and also, at the same time, ensuring that the system remains workable for employers who are trying to comply with the law.

Bill 10 proposes a number of procedural changes as to how complaints are investigated and how determinations can be appealed. There are a few main elements worth discussing. I’ll provide some comments.

First, the bill restructures section 76 of the Employment Standards Act to clarify the director’s authority to accept, refuse, investigate or discontinue complaints. Providing this statutory language for how complaints are reviewed can be, I actually think, a positive step. Workers do deserve a system that is transparent and predictable, and I think that’s trying to be outlined in this section.

However, I also think it is important to be careful about how discretion is used. The proposed language expands the director’s ability to stop or postpone investigations in a number of circumstances, including where the director believes there is insufficient evidence or where a complainant fails to participate in the process. Some discretion, of course, is necessary for administrative efficiency, but the government must ensure that this discretion does not create unintended barriers for vulnerable workers or that their cases are prematurely dismissed.

Many employees who rely on employment standards protections are not in a position of power. They may face language barriers, fear retaliation from employers or lack access to legal support. If workers feel the process is stacked against them or too complex to navigate, which is often the case, they may simply give up pursuing wages they are legally owed.

That’s not good enough. That would undermine the very purpose of employment standards legislation. That’s why I think it’s important that there are clear and communicated guardrails to the employment standards branch’s director’s discretion in this.

Second, the bill talks about a formal complaint resolution process during investigations. This is an important part of the employment standard branch’s work. As we read in the bill, under this provision, the director may require the complainant and the employer to participate in a facilitated resolution process.

I do actually agree that encouraging early resolution of disputes can be beneficial. If disputes can be resolved more quickly, workers may receive wages owed sooner and both workers and employers can avoid prolonged proceedings. I agree with trying to resolve disputes quickly. We can’t have lingering problems in the workplace. It’s not healthy for anyone. It leads to longer-term problems. Particularly, I’d say, workers in a small business environment with small teams — we need to make sure that they are going to work in a healthy environment.

The government points out that many straightforward complaints are already resolved quickly through voluntary resolution meetings. If these changes help resolve simple disputes faster, that could be a benefit to workers and employers. However, the legislation must also ensure that efficiency doesn’t come at the expense of fairness or access to justice. We should strengthen dispute resolution mechanisms how we can. But of course, this still has to be backed up by a clear line where enforcement is still necessary, so finding that line is very important.

Where there is a power imbalance between a worker and an employer, as there often is for low-wage and precarious workers, settlement processes can sometimes pressure workers into accepting less than what the law entitles them to. That is something that I think many members would agree that we have to guard against.

There’s also a practical consideration here, particularly for small businesses. Mandatory participation in a formal resolution process may create additional administrative barriers for small employers who often don’t have dedicated HR departments or legal counsel. For many small business owners, navigating regulatory processes can already be quite challenging. It will be important for the government to clarify how this process will operate in practice and whether appropriate supports will be available so that smaller employers can actually participate effectively.

[11:15 a.m.]

What I’m hearing clearly from small businesses is that they’re already drowning in red tape. So let’s make sure that this is accessible and that we’re capturing the right businesses within this provision.

The third major change that I’ll speak to relates to appeals. Bill 10 introduces a requirement that employers appealing a determination involving payment of wages must deposit the amount owing or a smaller amount

businesses within this provision.

The third major change that I’ll speak to relates to appeals. Bill 10 introduces a requirement that employers appealing a determination involving payment of wages must deposit the amount owing or a smaller amount determined by the tribunal. At first glance, this measure could actually help prevent frivolous appeals. In some cases employers use appeals strategically to delay payment of wages owed to workers, and that’s not right. Requiring a deposit may ensure that appeals are filed in good faith and that wages are secured while the appeal proceeds.

The practical implications of this requirement deserve careful consideration, though, I will add. For large employers depositing the amount required for an appeal likely won’t present a significant challenge and it won’t be a problem at all. But for small businesses, particularly those on really tight margins, very small mom-and-pop businesses, being required to deposit the full amount of a determination before an appeal may actually be extremely difficult on their ability to their bottom line.

Obviously, even where an employer believes a determination is incorrect, they may not have the financial capacity to immediately deposit the full amount required to pursue an appeal. That does raise a legitimate question about whether this measure could unintentionally limit access to the appeal process for smaller employers.

I think when we’re thinking about fairness, and we want to make sure that there is a just and fair process and that both parties have that in a dispute, it will be important to understand how the tribunal intends to exercise its discretion to reduce the deposit amounts in appropriate circumstances. So I think perhaps maybe in the government responses we could hear from that or we’ll have to wait for the committee stage.

As I said, small businesses are already struggling and Budget 2026 will now hit them with major tax increases with PST being applied, of course, to professional services that are standard and required for their business, like bookkeeping and accounting services. We want to make sure that what we’re doing is not creating unintended hardship on small businesses in particular.

Bill 10 also mirrors the appeal deposit provisions in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. And of course, I would say that temporary foreign workers can be among the most vulnerable workers in our labour market. They often face significant barriers when asserting their rights so this needs to be accessible in some way for these workers too. Ensuring that enforcement mechanisms are robust and that employers cannot use procedural delays to avoid accountability is actually an important thing.

There is a broader issue that this legislation touches on and employment standards are only meaningful if they are enforced. For years, many labour advocates, workers’ organizations and legal clinics have raised concerns about enforcement capacity in British Columbia. Workers often wait months or even years for complaints to be resolved. So procedural changes I think can help, and I hope that’s really what we see here from this bill. But they can’t substitute for adequate staffing, resources and proactive enforcement. So I would hope that if the government is serious about protecting workers, it would also ensure that the employment standards branch has the capacity to do its job effectively.

Many employer organizations, I will say, have indicated that they were not aware that these changes were coming in and were not consulted in advance. That’s something that I think is a challenge. It is something that obviously impacts many organizations and I think they should have been consulted ahead of time because labour policy works best when it’s developed through dialogue with both worker representatives and employer groups.

When stakeholders feel they haven’t been consulted, it does raise concerns about whether potential impacts, particularly on the small and some of the medium-sized businesses, have not been fully considered. This legislation would likely benefit from that kind of engagement, so I think government should really explain to those employer groups why there was no conversation prior to this being introduced.

[11:20 a.m.]

I have spoken about this before when reviewing the Ministry of Labour’s service plan. The performance measure for the employment standards branch complaint resolution timeline still does raise serious concerns. As I said, I hope that part of what we’re looking to achieve is actually fixing these results.

The ministry results on average over the past four years show that 32 percent of complaints were resolved within six months and the target is

resolution timeline still does raise serious concerns.

So as I said, I hope that part of what we’re looking to achieve is actually fixing these results. The ministry results on average over the past four years show that 32 percent of complaints were resolved within six months, and the target is supposed to be 80 percent within that period.

I know that the minister raised some historical things from 25 years ago, when Nickelback was racing up the charts on the radio those days, but we’re talking about how performance is being managed now, in today’s day and age. I think that’s very important, that when we think about that metric of 32 percent of complaints resolved within six months, the metric reveals something troubling about the current state of the system that we just have to keep an eye on.

The baseline tells us that two-thirds currently take longer than six months, so for many workers, these complaints involve unpaid wages, termination pay or overtime they are legally owed. Six months is already a long time to wait for wages, and the government’s data shows that most workers today wait even longer than that. That should concern members of this House.

I’d say that in the long run, we have to work for continuous improvement, including even the target itself that we’re looking at. The ministry’s goal is 80 percent of complaints resolved within 180 days. That still means one in five workers could wait longer than six months for their case to be resolved, and we’re not close to that now.

In other words, the government is defining success as a system where thousands of workers may still face prolonged delays in recovering wages they have already earned. For workers living paycheque to paycheque, a six-month wait for unpaid wages is not a minor inconvenience. It could mean falling behind on rent, struggling to pay bills or taking on debt.

I think there’s another issue with this metric. It measures how quickly files are closed and not whether workers actually receive justice. A complaint can be resolved quickly if it is dismissed, it is withdrawn or the worker accepts a settlement, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the worker received the wages that they are owed. In other words, the ministry is measuring how fast files are closed, not whether workers actually received justice. I think that’s something that deserves some attention from the ministry.

Part of that wraps up into a broader conversation about the level of resources available to the employment standards branch. According to the Minister of Labour’s budget, funding for labour programs is projected to be $22.348 million for each of the next three fiscal years, so there’s no increase. In fact, it’s slightly lower than the restated estimate from last year of $22.852 million for ‘25-26.

At the same time, the government is setting ambitious expectations for the employment standards branch that they can’t meet with the staff as the way they’re operating now. It raises the obvious question how the branch will achieve significantly faster complaint resolution with fewer resources than the previous year and no growth in funding for the following three years.

Of course, this is at a time when the ministry budget must assume that there will be needed, probably, cuts at some level to pay for public sector wage increases that have to be factored in.

The employment standards branch is important. It’s responsible for investigating complaints, recovering unpaid wages, protecting vulnerable workers and enforcing employment standards across the province. If expectations increase while funding remains flat, the branch will inevitably face operational pressure. That pressure could lead to investigators being pushed to close complaints faster rather than fully investigate them.

Workers and responsible employers both benefit from a system that is fair, thorough and, of course, timely. If the government expects faster service, it must ensure that the branch has the resources needed to deliver it.

I think I’ll keep my remarks relatively brief. I’ll pass it along to others to speak to the bill. We’ll look to hopefully get some answers in committee stage, when I look forward to discussion with the Minister of Labour on this bill.

[11:25 a.m.]

Bill 10 does contain technical amendments that may improve aspects of the complaint and appeal process, so I’m willing to look at it for its merits, but we’ll also be examining some of the questions that will come with that.

Because I think these changes do raise legitimate questions that deserve careful examination on behalf of vulnerable

aspects of the complaint and appeal process. I’m willing to look at it for its merits, but we’ll also be examining some of the questions that will come with that, because I think these changes do raise legitimate questions that deserve careful examination on behalf of vulnerable workers and of course also on behalf of small businesses in particular.

We’ll be looking closely at how discretion will be exercised in complaint investigations. We want to make sure that the director has the appropriate guardrails in place and that we’re paying attention to what that power actually is when we’re giving that discretion.

We’re going to look at how the new resolution process will operate in practice. As I’ve said, this has to be workable. I think we have to make sure that it’s accessible to workers and that they have an easily understood process that they can navigate and that they can access. It has to also work for employers. That appeal process, I think, has to be something that they can manage. How the deposit requirements affects smaller employers in particular, I think, is an important question for us to get to as we get to committee stage.

Then the last is whether adequate consultation has occurred with stakeholders. I do think that by asking the questions ahead of time, there could have been, maybe, avoiding some of the unintended consequences. I think that’s something we have to keep in mind as we’re looking at this and we look forward to hearing from some of the answers from the minister later in committee stage.

Workers in British Columbia deserve strong protections, and at the same time, employers deserve a system that is fair, transparent and workable for them. Getting that balance right is essential, I believe, to maintaining healthy workplaces across our province. As I’ve said, I look forward to discussions on the bill.

Thank you very much for the time to speak today, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I am looking forward to using the opportunity this morning to be able to speak to the bill, but if I may, can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: On behalf of my colleague from Cowichan, it is a great honour to be able to welcome up some students from Quamichan School. We’ve got teacher Jen Bayley’s 32…. Well, there are two groups. There are 32 people, 30 grade 9 students and then there are…. I’m not sure if you guys are the second group. We’ve also got 25 grade 9 students.

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Welcome to the people’s House. I hope you guys have a fantastic tour and enjoy your time here.

Debate Continued

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House and to be able to talk about the important work that my colleague, the Minister of Labour, is doing to protect workers, to protect workers’ rights and to ensure that we can have a fair and balanced system in place that ensures that workers are put first every single day in their job sites.

I’m so immensely proud to be a colleague of the Minister of Labour, someone who has spent her entire career fighting for workers, someone who has worked alongside employers every single day in her time at the HEU. That’s where I first got an opportunity to work with the member when I was, prior to being an MLA, a staff person.

I’m just so immensely proud of the work that the Minister of Labour has done on this piece of legislation and the countless other initiatives that she’s brought forward in her time as an MLA and in her time as the Minister of Labour as well.

It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House and speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. It’s an honour to be able to rise after the member across the way, the Labour critic, the most unfriendly Labour critic in British Columbia’s history. It is just continuously shocking to hear that Labour critic rise in House and talk about workers’ rights, just a week after he passed an unfriendly attack on workers.

That is the Labour critic of the Conservative Party. We’re not surprised by that on this side of the House. That’s why that member is going to continue to sit on that side of the House and we’re going to continue to govern the province and ensure that we continue to put workers first on this side of the House.

When people have a problem at work, they need to ensure that the rules are fair for them. On that side of the House, we have an opposition that wants to sit on this side of the House, that wants to side with those that want to exploit workers.

[11:30 a.m.]

They have that record. Their leadership candidates will have an opportunity in this House, if they take the opportunity to speak, to talk about what they’re going to put forward. But their record speaks for itself. When the B.C. Liberals sat on this side of the House, they fired union workers. They fired union workers. My health care worker’s parents lost their jobs.

The Minister of Labour knows that. She worked for the HEU. She fought for their workers every single day during that period of time.

but their record speaks for itself.

When the B.C. Liberals sat on this side of the House, they fired union workers. My health care worker parents lost their jobs. The Minister of Labour knows that. She worked for the HEU. She fought for their workers every single day during that period of time. So we’re going to use every opportunity that we have on this side of the House to bring forward legislation to ensure that we’re protecting workers’ rights.

And that’s what this legislation is all about. It’s about balance. It’s about fairness. It’s about ensuring that when people have a problem at work, which every worker has, there are important fair practices to ensure that employers and unionized workers, workers of all types, can come and ensure that there are government programs and services and infrastructure to protect their interests. This is about protecting employers as much as it is about protecting workers, as well.

The employment standards branch ensures that employees in British Columbia receive a minimum standard of compensation and conditions of employment, helping protect workers from exploitation. The amendments that the minister has proposed in this House that we are debating this morning, and I expect into the afternoon as we head into Committee of the Whole on this bill at a later point, are all focused on amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act that will improve the compliance and dispute resolution process at the employment standards branch.

This is about ensuring, like I’ve said a number of times already, that we can have fairness, that we can have equity and again, at a bare minimum, that workers have protections. That is what we’re going to fight for on this side of the House every single time.

We are not going to do what that member does constantly in this House, and that is attack workers on one hand — talk about pride, talk about being a steel worker, the pride that he had about being a steel worker when he first joined this House and then attack steel workers, attack unionized workers. What side is he on?

We know on this side of the House that we’re on the side of workers every single day, and that’s what Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, is all about.

I want to talk a little bit in the time that I have this morning about the employment standards branch and the important work that it does in holding everyone accountable, ensuring that there are fair practices in place, making sure that that branch continues to receive and investigate complaints of contraventions under the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act for non-unionized employees and temporary foreign workers.

Again, it is so important that when we talk about these amendments and the work that we’re doing on this side of the House, the work that my colleague the Minister of Labour is leading…. We are introducing amendments to help improve service timelines.

We have heard loud and clear from members across the way but also from British Columbians, from employers, that we continually need to adapt. We have a complex world out there. Labour and the workforces are complex, and it’s important for us not only to adapt but to ensure that we’re making more investments. This Minister of Labour, this government, continues to make more investments in initiatives like the employment standards branch.

But on top of that, we are not only just looking to improve service timelines. We are doing so to ensure that we are maintaining the rights and protections of workers and employers under these acts. These amendments serve such an important amount of work that the Minister of Labour is doing to ensure that when someone raises a complaint, there is a thorough process in place to ensure that that complaint is heard, to ensure that that complaint is investigated and to ensure that a determination is provided — all focused on ensuring that we can resolve complaints on issues that are clear and straightforward, as well as those that are complex.

Again, I think that it is typical for the Conservatives to come in here and talk about a bias that we have towards workers versus employers. I am proud to be a part of a B.C. NDP government, led by our Premier, that is always going to be worker-first. My job as the Minister of Forests is to always ensure that we are putting forestry workers first.

But at the same time, we know on this side of the House, when the minister is leading this work as the Minister of Labour, that we have to ensure that there is a balance to that work. It’s why we have different boards and organizations to ensure that we can protect workers and employers at the same time.

Determinations made by the employment standards branch can be appealed, and they can be appealed to the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal. There are processes in place, again, to protect workers and to protect employers, and the important work that we’re doing on this side of the House is amendments to ensure that these timelines can be addressed in a quicker, more efficient way. We’re utilizing technology and innovation to help support that work.

[11:35 a.m.]

But we’re also going to continue the important work that the minister is doing on a daily basis, communicating with employers, communicating with workers. It’s so important. As part of this process, we continue those engages. When the minister led this work, led this transformation that led to Bill 10 being put forward, she engaged

But we’re also going to continue the important work that the minister is doing on a daily basis, communicating with employers, communicating with workers. It’s so important, as part of this process, we continue those engagements.

When the minister led this work, led this transformation that led to Bill 10 being put forward, she engaged with employers. In fact, she engaged through countless efforts to ensure that we’re hearing the concerns of employers around timelines, hearing concerns from employers around the Employment Standards Tribunal as well as the employment standards branch to ensure that we are meeting the needs of employers as well.

Again, I want to just take the opportunity that I have to provide my support for this piece of legislation and to be able to assure all members of the House that we are going to be unapologetic in our efforts as the government of British Columbia to stand up for workers, to ensure that we can build a strong, prosperous economy and to ensure that everyone — employers, workers — is playing by the same rules that we would all expect in our communities.

It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House in the time that I have and speak in support of Bill 10.

If I could just seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My apologies to my colleague across the way.

I believe we now have the second group from Quamichan that is in the House. They’re nodding their heads. So please join me in welcoming, on behalf of my colleague the MLA from Cowichan Valley, the second group of students, teacher Jen Bailey’s class. I think they’ve got 25 grade 9 students up there.

Welcome to the people’s House. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statues Amendment Act, at second reading today.

The Minister of Forests made some comments about protecting workers. I believe workers should be definitely protected, but I want to also speak to this government’s record in terms of protecting workers.

Deputy Speaker: Hold on a second.

Minister of Forests.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I apologize to the member across the way. I got it wrong. We got North Saanich Middle School in the House. Is that right? There we go.

I thought you guys were nodding in agreement. Apologies to my colleague across the way. We’ve got teacher Pamela Enns. Yes? Okay, fantastic. We’ve got North Saanich Middle School in the House, 25 Grade 6 and 7 students.

My apologies to all of you. I hope you enjoy the proceedings, and I hope you had a fantastic tour. I hope you’ll get a chance to be able to meet with your MLA as well. Thanks very much for being here.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Member for Richmond-Queensborough continues.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, at second reading. I’d like to start with making some remarks to the remarks made by the Minister of Forests.

The Minister of Forests was talking about how that side of the House is always on the side of workers. But in terms of this legislation…. When I was looking at this legislation, I was doing my research. I found that when we’re looking at worker complaints, employment standard complaints, only 32 percent of those complaints get dealt with in a six-month period. That’s not looking out for the workers. That’s not good enough. That’s definitely not good enough.

When we hear from the other side that workers’ interests are put at the forefront, that’s not what we’re seeing from the data here. The other thing here is that we talk about…. What we’ve seen from the other side is that they’re saying that they’re protecting workers, but yet in terms of the labour program’s funding, that has gone down in the budget. It has gone down in the budget.

So we hear one thing from the other side, but in terms of action, we see something different. I just wanted to highlight that.

All in all, in terms of this particular legislation, it’s always good to kind of make sure rights are protected and those rights are facilitated. That’s one aspect of this legislation. What it does is it’s designed to protect workers. But the issue here is that if we look at the overall system, there are still huge problems with resource funding. There are huge problems with efficiency in terms of moving cases along, in terms of making sure rights are protected.

Those are ongoing concerns, although this piece of legislation is being introduced.

[11:40 a.m.]

At its core, this legislation proposes a number of amendments to the Employment Standards Act. This law governs some of the most fundamental relationships in terms of our economy: the relationship between workers and employers.

This legislation sets rules around wages, workplace rights

number of amendments to the Employment Standards Act. This law governs some of the most fundamental relationships in terms of our economy — the relationship between workers and employers.

This legislation sets rules around wages, workplace rights, enforcement and dispute resolution. Because of that, any change through this particular statute of employment standards deserves careful scrutiny, and also careful scrutiny because…. I just mentioned some issues with the overall system. We hear the rhetoric of protecting workers, but in substance, if you look at the actual system, there are major flaws in terms of protecting workers. Also, healthy workplaces require balance. Workers must have strong protections. They deserve to be treated fairly and to be paid what they have earned.

At the same time, employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses, which make the backbone of our province…. Many families operate in a small business type of setting, and that is also a big part of our economy. So we also need to look at making sure that the system is fair for workers and small businesses. We need rules that are clear, workable and fair.

When labour legislation gets the balance right, everyone benefits. Workers are protected, responsible employers can compete fairly, and the economy grows. But when the balance is off, it creates uncertainty, administrative burden, unintended consequences that affect both workers and businesses. While there are elements of this bill that address legitimate issues, there are also serious questions that need to be examined as this legislation proceeds through the House.

Workers deserve wages that are owed to them. To the extent that this legislation is designed to make sure that wages that are owed are actually paid out, that is a very good thing. But we also must always keep in mind the actual system. As the system is implemented, is it actually protecting workers?

Let me begin with the principle that I believe everyone in the House should agree with. Workers deserve to be paid what they are owed. Employment standard laws exist for a simple reason: to ensure wages are earned, that wages are earned and wages are paid.

The overwhelming majority of employers across British Columbia follow the law. They work hard, they pay their employees fairly, and they want to do the right thing. But there are cases where workers are not paid properly. In those cases, enforcement mechanisms are essential. We must have those protections for workers. That is why the work of the employment standards branch is so important.

However, legislation alone does not guarantee fairness, as I just mentioned earlier. The system…. There are flaws in the system. That’s why when we see complaints coming out of the employment standards branch, we are only seeing 32 percent of those complaints being dealt with within a six-month period.

I would like to also be clear. A lot of times when we’re talking about the types of workers that are going through the employment standards branch, there’s a lot of workers in there that are currently struggling. They’re struggling to make ends meet. They’re struggling to get the groceries put on the table. They were also promised that they would have a $1,000 grocery rebate. They don’t have that to give them a little bit of extra so they can help run their households.

[11:45 a.m.]

There are a lot of struggling families at this current time, putting food on the table, paying for utilities, paying for household expenses — everything has seemed to have gone up — and paying for their housing.

A lot of the people that are struggling with these types of situations are going through the employment standards branch complaint process. Out of all those complaints, only

paying for their housing.

So a lot of the people that are struggling with these types of situations are going through the employment standards branch complaint process. And out of all those complaints, only 32 percent get resolved within a six-month period. A lot of those complaints are about wages that are unpaid. You can just imagine the consequences on working families of having that type of situation.

Although this legislation has been introduced, I think there is a failure on the part of this government, and that failure is in terms of fixing the actual system that is currently flawed. Why do we have only 32 percent of these complaints being dealt with in a six-month period? I know the government is wanting to reach a new benchmark of 80 percent. Why do they not want to reach a benchmark of 100 percent?

It’s already unfair to wait six months to see if you can get your wages. When you’re already struggling to run your household and you’re living paycheque to paycheque, then you’re having to wait six months? The government is saying that they’re going to move the target to 80 percent, but what about the 20 percent? That’s a huge problem.

It seems to be an ongoing problem with justice issues throughout this province. People are getting victimized, and they’re getting victimized over and over again. Whether it’s victims coming in the criminal justice system or within the criminal justice system or essentially being victimized by the system itself in other realms, such as workers. We’re talking about workers here in terms of actual labour protections. This is a serious concern. When we hear about victims, it’s not only victims to the extent of dealing with public safety concerns; it’s also victims that are being victimized by the actual system.

So although the intent may have been good in terms of bringing forth this legislation, I think this particular legislation misses the point, because it could have gone further, and it could have brought real solutions to make sure workers were actually protected. The benchmark should be protecting, making sure that 100 percent of those cases are being dealt with and being dealt with in an expedient manner.

Why do people actually have to wait six months to see if they can collect their wages? That’s the ongoing theme that I see. When I see the other side talking about workers, there’s all that rhetoric about protecting workers over there on the side of workers, but when you look at the actual system, it’s not protecting workers. Why? The number of 32 percent is staggering. It shouldn’t be happening. It just shouldn’t be happening.

So the work of the employment standards branch is important, and like I said earlier, legislation alone does not guarantee fairness. You also have to look at the implementation. You’ve got to make sure you’ve got the proper resources, and you have to make sure that benchmarks are actually being met. You’ve got to make sure that the service is actually being provided.

Enforcement and timely resolution of complaints are what ultimately determine whether workers actually receive the wages they are owed. That is where this government still faces significant challenges.

Over the past several years, the government’s own service plans, like I said earlier, have shown troubling performance when it comes to resolving employment standard complaints.

[11:50 a.m.]

I’ve already spoken about the 32 percent issue, why it’s been 32 percent in terms of resolving complaints within 180 days. The 180 days is problematic, as well, because a lot of people are struggling, and they need those paycheques in hand because

issue of why it’s been 32 percent in terms of resolving complaints within 180 days. 180 days is problematic as well. Because a lot of people are struggling, and they need those paycheques in hand because people are living paycheque to paycheque.

When we look at those numbers in terms of the 180 days, six months, 32 percent, that means the majority of workers who file complaints are waiting longer than six months for their cases to be resolved. Six months is a very long time when you are waiting for wages that you rely on to pay rent, grocery and bills.

Even the government’s own future targets raise questions. The goal set for the 2027 and 2028 fiscal year is to resolve 80 percent of complaints within 180 days. But even if that target is achieved, it still means one in five workers could wait longer than six months to see a resolution of their complaints. We should ask ourselves whether that is truly acceptable. Success should not only be measured by how quickly files are closed. Success should be measured by whether workers actually receive the wages they are owed, and whether the system works efficiently and fairly for everyone involved.

That leads to another issue that I briefly touched upon. That leads to the concern raised by this legislation: resources. The government’s most recent budget shows labour programs’ funding frozen at $22.3 million for the next three years. In fact, that is slightly lower than last year’s estimate of $22.85 million. That’s a problem. How do you provide better service when you’re cutting the funding, when you’re cutting the resources?

Here we have legislation that’s introduced to protect workers, but there’s going to be an issue in the implementation because the government is cutting the budget for resourcing, actually dealing with the implementation of what the government is proposing.

The government expects complaint resolution times to improve dramatically, but the funding is being cut. Cutting funding and expecting complaint resolution times to move quicker — they run in contrast to each other. And they conflict. You can’t be cutting funding and also be saying that cases are going to be resolved within a certain period of time when you don’t have the resources. It’s an issue.

If the government expects the employment standards branch to process complaints faster and resolve disputes more efficiently, the obvious question is, do they actually have the resources to do so? That’s the question. Because without sufficient staff and capacity, legislative changes will not solve the underlying problem. There’s an underlying problem here in the system. Workers still wait. Employers still wait, face uncertainty. And the system will still struggle to deliver timely justice.

Another issue raised…. When you’re looking at the implementation, then another issue comes up: whether there was enough consultation to make this legislation more effective. Many employer groups have indicated that they were not consulted prior to these changes being introduced. Labour policy works best when both workers and employers are part of the conversation because then you can actually see there are inefficiencies.

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

[11:55 a.m.]

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

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

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House is now adjourned and we will reconvene 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.