Contents

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Personal Statements

Clarification of Public Comments

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I wish to stand on a point of clarification.

I want to correct an error that was made this morning outside of this place. I want to be clear that I am not presuming that Bill 2 will become law. That is for this House to decide. I want to be unequivocal in my respect for the authority of this House and that any public communication has been immediately corrected.

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 7, international education bill.

Then in Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Housing.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Steve Kooner: I’ll be speaking to Bill 10. We’re talking about the Labour Statutes Amendment Act. Although I highlighted that the changes are welcome in regard to protecting workers, as I was stating earlier, these changes don’t go far enough.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

There are some flaws in the system that’s designed to protect workers. Because there are flaws in the system, these changes may not go far enough to actually protect workers.

I was also, earlier, starting to talk about consultation. There were various groups that had stated that they were not consulted. As I highlighted earlier, in order to have a strong implementation of legislation, there needs to be proper resources, there needs to be proper enforcement and people need to be served. That’s why it’s absolutely crucial that proper consultation should have been had on this particular bill.

When governments move ahead without meaningful consultation, the result can be unintended consequences that create new challenges rather than solving existing ones. If there had been proper consultation, maybe there could have been more mechanisms set in this legislation to actually make sure workers are protected in regard to complaints that they make under the employment standards branch.

[1:35 p.m.]

Maybe their grievances could have been dealt with in a more efficient manner. Rather than having only 32 percent of the complaints being dealt with in a six-month period, maybe all those complaints could have been dealt with in an expedient manner.

Good labour legislation should bring stakeholders together, should build consensus where possible and should reflect the realities faced by workers and businesses across the province. Earlier I touched upon workers and small businesses. I was touching upon small businesses because small businesses also are the backbone of our economy in this province. They are made up of families, everyday British Columbians, that try to pursue entrepreneurism to put food on the table, across this province, in their homes.

Small businesses, like I said, form the backbone of our economy. Across British Columbia, small businesses employ hundreds of thousands of workers. We are here talking about protecting workers. Part of that equation is looking at the conditions or the environment for workers and making sure that workers also have employment moving forward.

Many of the small businesses operate with small margins and limited administrative capacity. Unlike large corporations, they often do not have dedicated human resources departments or in-house legal teams. When new regulatory requirements are introduced, those burdens fall directly on small business owners, who are already juggling many responsibilities. That’s why it’s essential that labour legislation carefully consider the impact on small business employers.

We want to have a robust system that’s not flawed, that actually protects workers. If there are some grievances, if there are some complaints, those complaints need to be dealt with expediently. In order to have a proper, functioning system, you need to bring all parties together to figure out how we enforce these mechanisms.

How do we deal with these complaints in an efficient manner? That can only be done when you bring all the parties together to figure it out. When you have an issue, it’s not just one person or one party. It’s another person and another party right across from them. It’s absolutely crucial to look at the whole environment, especially when you’re looking at.…

There are issues within the system. The provincial government is stating that they recognize some of those problems, and 32 percent of complaints being dealt with in 180 days is not good enough. They recognize that. They’re saying that they want to get the target up to 80 percent within six months. I’m saying that even 80 percent is not good enough. You should have 100 percent of those complaints dealt with.

It’s not even good enough for people to have to wait six months. Those complaints should be dealt with expediently, especially when a lot of the workers that are accessing employment standards branch dispute mechanisms are living paycheque to paycheque. People may not be able to afford or they may not have the conditions to wait six months when they actually need that paycheque to pay the bills, to put food on the table.

Just to get a little bit more into this legislation, since I have a few more minutes here, one of the most significant changes proposed in this bill relates to the appeal process for determinations made by the director under the Employment Standards Act.

Under the amendments in this legislation, an employer wishing to appeal a determination would be required to deposit the full amount of money owed before the appeal can proceed. The funds would be held and would accrue interest during the appeal process. The tribunal would have the ability to allow a smaller deposit on a case-by-case basis.

[1:40 p.m.]

I understand the rationale behind this proposal of putting down the full deposit. I understand it. You want to protect, to make sure. If there’s any money owing or there’s any paycheque owing, you want to have it on hold.

But there are circumstances where there are employers involved, and there’s a bit of a due process for them. They may have some legitimate concerns. On the most part, there may be legitimate reasons to actually have that deposit. But there may be also circumstances where employers also have legitimate reasons to actually state why their claims are valid.

When this legislation says that a complete deposit needs to be deposited of a full amount that’s in dispute, that may not be taking into consideration where there are legitimate employers that are legitimately disputing the claim amount. It doesn’t take that into consideration.

That’s a little bit of an issue because we’re going through bad economic times. We’ve got the worst deficit in history. We haven’t seen a worse deficit than we have seen in this province, than the one that we have seen brought forward by this government. We have the worst debt. The private sector is struggling to just keep afloat. Private sector is struggling to keep the jobs going so workers can have the work.

If there are some legitimate concerns or complaints that employers have and they are operating just on a month-to-month basis, that may jeopardize certain work that workers need to have. So it’s absolutely crucial that when you do a form of consultation, you need to look at all angles. You need to look at all the parties because when there’s a dispute, it’s not just one-dimensional. It’s multi-dimensional. If you want a solution, a proper solution to fix the system, you have to listen to all the parties involved.

So some angles of the legislation could be a little bit difficult for employers that have some legitimate concerns or legitimate disputes.

In justice, appeals exist for a reason. It’s due process. It’s part of justice. We often see, when appeals are made, sometimes the decision that was rendered against a party gets reversed because it was a wrong decision. That’s how our justice system works. There’s an appeal mechanism that’s there, so it needs to be fair to everyone.

In terms of consultation, the process should have included everyone, especially when we are dealing with a system that has major issues and especially when workers’ complaints are essentially at only 30 percent in terms of being dealt with in a six-month period.

I’m just going to summarize now, since we have another couple of minutes left on the clock here. The broader issue is making the system work. Legislation like this often focuses on procedural adjustments — how complaints are filed, how investigations are conducted and how appeals are handled.

But the broader question remains whether the system is working effectively, and that’s been the theme of my speech today. We’ve got to make sure that the broader system is working for workers. It’s not enough just talking about the issue. It’s not enough just merely tinkering with certain pieces of legislation. The broader system needs to be fixed.

[1:45 p.m.]

If workers must wait months or even years to resolve complaints, that’s the problem. That’s the flawed system. If small businesses struggle to navigate complex procedures, that is also a problem. If the employment standards branch lacks sufficient resources to meet its responsibilities, that is a problem as well.

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that delivers timely, fair and accessible justice for everyone involved. Workers should receive their wages quickly. Employers should have clear rules and a fair opportunity to respond. The government should ensure that enforcement mechanisms are properly resourced.

The intent, the goal, of the legislation is good here, but we are still dealing with a flawed system, and that system needs to be fixed so workers rights are protected.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have some young people in the House today. We have St. Patrick’s Elementary School and teacher Sophie Lund.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known as the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations. I also am grateful to have my constituency office on their lands as well.

I rise to speak in support of Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment, legislation that strengthens the fairness, accessibility and efficiency of employment standards enforcement in British Columbia.

As people in this House know, I come from and have a fairly extensive labour background in the broader labour movement, standing up for workers rights as well as: “How do employers and workers work together in fairness?”

This bill does something simple but profoundly important. When people have a problem at work and believe their employment standards are not being represented, they deserve to be heard. They deserve to be taken seriously, and they deserve a system that works for them.

For many workers across British Columbia, the employment standards branch is a place they turn to when they have nowhere else to go. It is where they can seek help if they have not been paid what they are owed, if they have been denied their basic workplace rights or if they feel they have been treated unfairly. The bill strengthens the system so it can work better for everyone involved.

The employment standards branch — or ESB, as I’ll refer to it — plays a critical role in protecting workers throughout our province. It receives and investigates complaints under the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. It helps ensure that employees receive minimum standards of compensation and working conditions they are entitled to under the law.

At the same time, the branch provides guidance and support for employers who want to understand and comply with those laws. In other words, the branch exists not only to resolve disputes but also to promote fairness, predictability and accountability in workplaces across B.C.

Bill 10 introduces targeted amendments that will improve the complaint and dispute resolution process at the employment standards branch. These changes are practical, thoughtful and focus on helping people reach fair resolutions more quickly.

I will say that, during my time as the president of the Victoria Labour Council and recording secretary, the self-help toolkit that was utilized under the employment standards program was very clearly not working. We had workers who would email or call our labour organization quite regularly asking for help and support because they couldn’t get the support they needed because of the toolkit.

As well, it put those workers in a really hard place. For those who don’t know how that toolkit worked, it required employees to attempt to resolve their issues directly with their employer before the branch would accept that complaint at all. How are you supposed…? If you have a dispute with your employer and you’re supposed to go talk to the employer at the time…. It put people in a really precarious place.

It was one of the reasons our organization at the time supported the Together Against Poverty Society’s employment standards organization, or ESOP, as we called it. That organization was actually supporting those workers because they felt they had no one else to turn to.

One of the most important elements of the legislation is improving service timelines. Anyone who has ever been involved in a workplace dispute knows that time matters. When a worker believes that they have not been paid properly, they cannot always afford to wait months or years for answers, because that means their bills aren’t getting paid, they’re not able to keep a roof over their head, and they’re not able to put food on their table.

[1:50 p.m.]

When an employer faces a complaint, they also deserve clarity and certainty about that outcome. Delays actually help nobody.

The amendments before this House streamline several steps within the complaint system while preserving the protections already established under the law. These changes will allow the employment standards branch to resolve straightforward issues earlier in the process and reduce administrative delays. The results can be significant.

When the branch facilitates a resolution meeting between parties, approximately 75 percent of those meetings resolve involuntary resolutions within 30 to 45 days after a file is first assigned to an officer. That statistic demonstrates something important. When people are given the opportunity to communicate and resolve issues in a structured and fair environment, many disputes can actually be settled quickly and effectively.

In my previous role, when I was with my union of BCGEU in the community health sector, quite frankly, one of my favourite meetings was actually my labour management committee. People used to think I was crazy, absolutely crazy. They were like: “Why would you want to sit with the employer and the unions?” Because I believed through collaboration that we could get to a common place because we had common goals, which were: how do we keep the worksite going, and how do we work together to better the lives of the people who work for us?

Bill 10 builds on that success. Requiring participation in resolution means, in cases that are clear and straightforward, the legislation will help more workers and employers reach solutions sooner.

Another improvement in this bill is to address an issue that may surprise many people: unclaimed wages. Every year in British Columbia there are workers who are owed money but cannot be located when those funds actually become available. Sometimes they’ve moved. Sometimes their contact information has changed. And sometimes they simply do not know that a payment has been ordered in their favour.

Bill 10 will allow the employment standards branch to transfer those funds more effectively to B.C. Unclaimed, the provincial organization responsible for safeguarding unclaimed money and locating its rightful owner. Those workers went to work. Those workers earned all those wages. We want to make sure that we can take every effort they’re compensated. This change increases the likelihood that workers will eventually receive those wages that they are owed.

Wages are not just numbers on a page. They represent groceries on a table, rent payments, child care costs and the ability to support themselves or their loved ones. Ensuring those wages reach workers who earn them is a matter of fairness.

It is also important to address concerns that are sometimes raised about impartiality in the employment service process. The ESB is committed to a fair and balanced process that supports both workers and employers. Investigators contact all parties involved in a complaint. They invite submissions and gather facts from both sides. They examine evidence carefully before making any determination, and when a decision is made, it can still be appealed.

Appeals are heard by the Employment Standards Tribunal, an independent body that reviews decisions to ensure they are consistent with the law. These safeguards ensure administrative justice is respected through the process. Bill 10 does not change that fundamental principle. Instead, it improves the procedure that allows the system to function more effectively.

One change included in this legislation involves the appeal process for employers. Under the proposed amendments, employers who wish to appeal a determination on the owed wages will be required to deposit the amount owed in trust before the appeal process.

It is important to clarify what this requirement means. It applies only in the situation where the ESB has already determined the wages are owed, the employer has chosen not to comply with the order to pay those wages and the employer wishes to appeal that determination. If the appeal overturns the decision, the deposit will be returned. However, if the determination is upheld, that fund will already be available for the worker who was rightfully owed that money.

This approach is consistent with practices in many other jurisdictions across Canada. Its purpose is straightforward, ensuring that workers are not left waiting indefinitely for wages that have already been determined to be owed.

Before entering this House, like I said, I spent many years in the labour movement. During that time, I saw firsthand how important employment standards protections are for working people. For many people who do not know, as a trade unionist and as a proud union member, one of our other goals is to lift everybody up. It was to represent and support workers who did not have the same protections that I had under my collective agreement.

[1:55 p.m.]

I like to believe most employers in B.C. do the right thing. They treat their employees fairly and comply with the law. In some cases, those same owners and businesses treat their employees like family. They truly care.

However, when problems arise, though, and there are some bad apples, workers must have confidence that the system designated to protect them is functioning efficiently. Responsible employers also deserve a system that resolves dispute quickly and predictably so they can focus on running their business. I can appreciate that sometimes these processes take up a lot of time, and if you are a small business owner, time is money. Bill 10 helps achieve that balance.

In my current role as Parliamentary Secretary for Armed Forces Development and Veterans Affairs, I wanted to speak briefly about how strong employment standards benefit members of our CAF and their families. Members often relocate across the country as part of their service, with spouses getting new jobs in unfamiliar communities while supporting deployments and postings.

I’m quite proud. I don’t know if people on both sides of the House heard. On Friday, we actually made a really good announcement for military families, for job postings. It’s very exciting. I can send you the link.

If you’re a military spouse now coming to British Columbia, the day you receive your posting message you can actually start looking for employment opportunity. We want to ensure that we’re getting those skilled workers that are military spouses across the province jobs before they put their foot on the ground. Not only will that help keep the family unit stronger but it will help the businesses here. It will also ensure that financial stability is there for housing and other options.

That labour mobility for those people can sometimes make them a little more vulnerable in our labour market. Ensuring that employment standard protections are accessible and effectively enforced is a part of supporting those families. When workers know there is a reliable system in place to address workplace concerns, it creates greater confidence in the labour market for everybody, including those families in my community of Esquimalt.

Since the test of time, it’s been very clear. You go to work; you get paid. People should know that they can rely on that system from when it started until today.

It’s also important to emphasize that these amendments do not weaken protection for vulnerable workers. The changes are designed to improve efficiency in the interpretation and administration and enforcement of the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act without compromising the rights those laws provide.

Investigators will continue to assess whether resolution meetings are appropriate in each case. They will consider language barriers, health and safety concerns, relationships between the parties involved and any other factors that may affect someone’s ability to participate. If a resolution meeting is not appropriate, the branch will continue to investigate complaints using existing processes.

I recognize that this system may not be for everyone. However, I can say that, again, for anyone who’s ever sat down at a table to work collaboratively through that kind of mediation process, it is such a valuable tool to get ahead. The goal is not to force resolution where it is not possible. The goal is to create more opportunities for fair and timely solutions where they are appropriate.

British Columbia’s economy depends on strong workplaces built on fairness and respect. Workers deserve to know their rights will be protected, and our government has a long track record of doing that. Workers deserve a system that is clear, predictable and efficient. Government has a responsibility to ensure that the institutions responsible for enforcing those laws are equipped to do their job effectively with the tools necessary.

Bill 10 reflects that responsibility. It strengthens the tools — that were not there before our government came into effect — for the employment standards branch to streamline processes that currently slow down resolutions and help ensure that workers receive the wages they are owed as quickly as possible. Again, that is the food on someone’s plate, the rent over their head or the child care they may need.

Behind every complaint file is a real person — a worker trying to make ends meet, a family relying on a paycheque or an employer trying to resolve a dispute and move forward. This legislation ensures that when those situations arise, the system works the way it should. For those reasons, I am proud to support the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, and I encourage all members of this House to support Bill 10 as well.

[2:00 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: May I be excused to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Harman Bhangu: Today we have Adam Jr. Steffanick in the chamber here and Miss Lund’s class at St. Patrick’s School. His father is a good friend of mine, and I just wanted to say Adam actually put his name forward for class president. Didn’t succeed, but you know what? He put his name on the ballot, and that shows a lot of courage. I also want to let him know I lost the first time too.

So keep ahead, and this is how democracy is.

Would the House really make him feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: Before I begin my speech, I would just like to say to Adam: you know what? You keep on going.

The first time I ran for something, I got 9 percent of the vote. And here I am, here in this Legislative Assembly.

You keep on running. You keep competing. You keep on leading. And one day, you’ll be sitting down here, Adam.

Thanks, guys, appreciate you visiting.

I rise to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. At one level, this is a technical bill. It deals with complaint handling, dispute resolution, appeals and enforcement under the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. But as is often the case in this place, technical does not mean unimportant.

This bill goes to the heart of whether our employment standards system is actually working for the people who depend on it, and the test of that should be pretty simple.

If a worker is owed wages, can they get them in a fair and timely way? If an employer is wrongly hit with a determination, can they get a fair hearing without being crushed by process and cost before they can even get out of the gate? And does the system actually work in the real world, not just on paper and in ministers’ speaking notes?

That is the lens we should bring to this bill, because I think everyone in this House agrees on the basic principle. Workers deserve to be paid what they’re owed. That should not be controversial.

Employment standards laws exist for a reason. They exist because wages earned should be wages paid. They exist because vulnerable workers need protection. And they exist because a race to the bottom helps nobody except the worst actors.

Healthy workplaces also require something this government too often forgets: balance. Responsible employers need rules that are clear, fair and workable. That matters, especially for small businesses because unlike government, they cannot just absorb every new process, every delay, every administrative requirement and every upfront cost as though cash flow is just some minor detail. For a small business, cash flow is not a detail. Cash flow is survival. There’s a reason they say cash is king.

That is exactly why government needs to think harder about the cumulative pressure it is putting on small employers. This issue and this policy do not exist in a vacuum.

British Columbia has had some of the weakest small business confidence in the country. We have what some have called an entrepreneurial drought.

At a time when we should be making it easier to start, grow and sustain a business, too many people are looking at the landscape and deciding it’s just not worth the risk. Small businesses are already being squeezed from every direction. They’re dealing with higher insurance costs; higher borrowing costs; higher wages; higher lease costs; and in too many communities, higher public safety costs as well — particularly in our storefront small business downtown areas.

When disorder rises, when theft rises, when vandalism rises, when staff do not feel safe opening or closing a business, that is not some abstract social problem. It lands on the balance sheet of a small business. It means more spending on security systems, more spending on private security, more losses from theft, more damage from vandalism, more staff turnover, more time spent managing crises that have nothing to do with serving customers or growing the business. That is a cash flow hit.

[2:05 p.m.]

Then government adds the PST to professional services that small businesses rely on to operate responsibly: accounting, bookkeeping, other outside expertise that many small businesses need because they do not have in-house specialists. These are not luxuries. These are not optional extras. These are basic operating supports.

When government taxes those inputs, it’s not taxing access. It’s taxing the machinery of compliance and basic business administration, and it is squeezing margins to the breaking point for many small businesses. That is another cash flow hit.

For a large company, maybe those hits are absorbable. For a small business, they stack. They compound. They arrive before the revenue does. They arrive whether the month is good or bad. They arrive whether or not the owner has paid themselves. That is why this bill deserves closer scrutiny than the government may want to give it.

Now, one of the big questions here is whether this system is delivering timely justice now. On the government’s own numbers, it clearly is not. The ministry’s service plan shows that over the past four years, only about 32 percent of complaints were resolved within 180 days. Think about that. That means about two-thirds of workers filing complaints are waiting more than six months to recover wages they may need for rent, groceries, gas, child care and basic life.

Then the government pats itself on the back for setting a future target of 80 percent within 180 days. But let us stop and think about that target for a second. Even if they hit it, and they’re nowhere close right now, that still means one in five workers could wait more than six months. That is the definition of a system that is not working well enough.

There’s another problem here. Government is measuring how quickly files are closed, not necessarily whether justice is done. A file can be closed because it is dismissed. It can be closed because it is withdrawn. It can be closed because somebody, under pressure, takes a settlement.

File closure is not the same thing as a fair outcome, so before the government congratulates itself for procedural reform, maybe it should first explain why the existing system is still so slow. This is, unfortunately, the pattern with this government. They under-resource the system, let it drift and then come back with process changes and hope nobody notices the capacity problem underneath. And there is a capacity problem underneath.

The ministry’s own budget shows labour program funding basically flat at about $22.3 million over the next three years. In fact, it is slightly below last year’s restated estimate. So here is the obvious question. How exactly is the employment standards branch supposed to improve performance dramatically with no meaningful increase in resources? That is not a serious plan. That is wishful thinking with a press release attached.

If the branch is expected to investigate better, resolve faster, protect vulnerable workers and enforce the law more effectively, then it needs the staff and capacity to do the work. Otherwise, what happens? Investigators get pressured to move files. Timelines become the priority, and the temptation becomes to close complaints rather than fully resolve them. That is not fair to workers, and it’s not fair to good employers either.

Now, Bill 10 absolutely does contain some ideas that sound very reasonable at first glance. A more formal complaint resolution process could help resolve straightforward matters faster. In principle, that’s absolutely fine. Nobody benefits from disputes lingering forever. But we do need to think clearly about incentives and power imbalances here.

Where there is a vulnerable worker facing an employer with more resources, a settlement process can become a pressure process. It can become a mechanism for resolving the file rather than delivering the full justice the worker is owed. So yes, resolution can be useful, but only if it is genuinely fair and proportionate.

On the other side of the equation, government also needs to understand that what looks like a modest procedural step from Victoria can feel very different on the ground for a small business owner in Kelowna, Prince George, Surrey, Nanaimo, Richmond or Abbotsford. I wouldn’t want to leave out the member for Abbotsford South.

[2:10 p.m.]

A large corporation may have HR staff, legal counsel, payroll staff and compliance people. A small business owner has none of that. They are the HR department. They are the operations department. They are the one trying to make payroll on Friday and still unlock the door on Monday morning. Sometimes that means they can’t afford to have a beer on a Friday night, buy groceries on Saturday or put 20 bucks in the collection plate at church on Sunday.

So when government adds a mandatory resolution process — another set of forms, another appearance, another time-consuming step — it’s not free and it’s not no-impact. It costs time. It costs money. It costs attention. And for small businesses, those costs are often front-loaded. That matters.

It matters because large organizations can usually absorb front-loaded compliance costs. Small businesses often can’t. Some are operating on such thin margins that a broken window is not a nuisance; it’s a serious blow. One unexpected cost, one expense that has to be paid immediately can throw everything off. It can mean the difference between getting a cheque from your small business that month and writing a cheque to your small business.

That is why front-loaded costs matter so much, especially when this bill may require a small employer to put money up front before they can even access an appeal.

That brings me to the appeal deposit requirement, which is probably the sharpest issue in this bill. Bill 10 would require an employer appealing a wage determination to deposit the amount owing or a smaller amount set by the tribunal before the appeal can proceed. Government will say this is about stopping frivolous appeals and making sure workers are protected from delay tactics. Those are laudable goals. Fair enough. There is logic there.

But logic only takes you halfway. Then you have to ask what happens in the real world. What happens when a small business believes the determination is wrong but does not have the cash to post the full amount up front? What happens when the appeal may be legitimate but the cost of access to the appeal process is itself prohibitive? That is not a theoretical problem. That is a real access-to-justice problem.

Appeals exist because decision-makers can be wrong. Systems need checks. Facts can be disputed. Errors can happen. But if the price of entry is too high, especially in upfront cash terms, then for some employers, the right to appeal becomes mostly fictional.

Again, it is the front-loaded nature of the cost that matters. A small business might survive an eventual liability. What it cannot survive is having a large amount of cash tied up immediately while also covering payroll, rent, supplier invoices, taxes and everything else government keeps piling on, including a public safety crisis.

This government consistently underestimates how damaging front-loaded costs can be. It’s not just the amount. It’s the timing and the inflexibility. The timing is what can kill you. Yes, the tribunal can reduce the deposit amount, but how that discretion will actually work matters a great deal. Is it clear? Is it predictable? Is it accessible, or does a small employer have to incur yet more cost hiring a lawyer just to ask for relief from a rule that is already choking them to death? Those are questions this House should not just hand wave through.

There’s also a consultation issue here. Employer groups have indicated they were not aware these changes were coming and were not meaningfully consulted in advance. That’s consistent with a lot of the changes that we see from this government, and it’s not a small point. Labour law works best when government actually bothers to talk to the people who have to live under it, both workers and employers and advocates — people on the ground.

Instead, this government often behaves as though consultation is optional and as though whatever good intention they claim at the front end automatically guarantees a good result at the back end. Intentions versus effects. That’s not how good policy-making works. Good intentions are nice. Incentives, implementation and consequences matter more. The fine print matters.

[2:15 p.m.]

We should also keep in mind the broader cost environment small businesses are operating in right now. They’re already dealing with higher costs, weak confidence and more government-imposed burden, including a public safety crisis exacerbated by this government’s reckless drug decriminalization experiment and exacerbated even further by their tone-deaf, poorly timed addition of PST to the security services that people are being forced to pay for because police can’t keep up with the vandalism and violence created by this government’s failed policies.

When government piles on another procedural cost, another compliance hurdle, another upfront financial barrier, it should not act surprised when small business owners say: “Enough.”

Temporary foreign workers also deserve real attention in this bill. They are often among the most vulnerable people in our labour market. If government is serious about protecting them, then enforcement has to be real, timely and accessible. It cannot just be theoretical.

That means not only having rules on the books but having a system that actually works for people. That is really the larger question hanging over Bill 10. Is this government truly fixing the system or just rearranging it? Is it improving justice or just changing process? Is it building something more credible, or is it trying to paper over weak performance with technical amendments?

Those are fair questions. Yes, workers absolutely deserve strong protections. Yes, bad actors should not be allowed to game the system. Yes, temporary foreign workers deserve meaningful enforcement of their rights. But employers — especially small businesses, especially good actors who play by the rules — also deserve a system that is fair, understandable and grounded in the economic reality they live with every single day.

That means government has to think seriously about the cash flow implications of this policy for businesses that are struggling just to get by; for businesses who are seeing a rising cost of living as individuals and have no more money they can take out of their companies; for businesses that are seeing their margins compressed; for businesses who are seeing weak consumer confidence result in lower consumer discretionary spending, affecting their businesses; for businesses who are seeing the effect of tariffs diminish their revenues; for businesses that are struggling in a weak economy brought on by nine years of failed economic and fiscal policies.

Government has to think seriously about the front-loaded costs of this bill. It has to think about administrative burden. It has to stop pretending that a small business with two or three or ten employees is in the same position as a large corporation with an HR department and outside counsel on speed-dial.

Bill 10 raises real questions about balance, fairness, consultation, cost and capacity. Those questions deserve careful examination in this House and in committee.

We look forward to that next step.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I rise in this House today to speak to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act as MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, a community that I’m very proud to represent here in the House today.

Just a moment to thank those who I represent in our community for their ongoing support. The ability to engage across our community with them is a huge privilege.

Speaking today to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act is also a huge privilege for me as someone who worked closely in the labour movement. I’ve been a union member. I’ve been a union staff person. And I’ve also been a labour educator.

One of the things I did was…. As a young person, I was able to develop a course for young people on their rights in the workplace. This included employment standards. I heard firsthand from young people who were having challenges accessing their rights, including just the basic one of getting paid for their work.

For that reason, it’s a real privilege for me today to speak to the ongoing work that our government has been doing to ensure we’re protecting workers. Part of that is the broad context of the different reforms we’ve made to protect workers.

[2:20 p.m.]

This bill sits within a set of changes we’ve been making to protect worker health and safety, to promote fair workplaces, to strengthen protections for vulnerable workers and to drive economic growth. Our government is ensuring that B.C.’s strong economy that we’re building is built together with the workers that we rely on to do the work, that they can benefit from an economy that lifts up everyone. That’s what the bill today is about.

Some of the changes that we’ve made, as a part of the broader context that this bill sits in, include changes that help protect women, that help protect young people and young workers, that help protect vulnerable workers and that ensure we have safer workplaces.

I’m going to speak a little bit to some of those changes. It’s really important to understand the broader context that this bill sits in.

Because we’re hard on the heels of International Women’s Day, I wanted to speak to some of the important work our government has done to protect women workers, starting with job-protected leaves. We provided longer, more flexible, job-protected pregnancy and parental leave and leaves for people caring for terminally ill loved ones or coping with the death or disappearance of a child.

Of course, raising the minimum wage is about women workers because they are disproportionately represented in low-wage and minimum-wage jobs.

Also the Fair Wages Commission, which was important for elevating all workers…. It was a report received in 2018, where we had a review to ensure fair wages and working conditions across British Columbia. It laid out a path to things like increasing our minimum wage; examining other minimum wage rates in the Employment Standards Act, such as liquor servers, live-in home support workers, resident caretakers, live-in camp leaders and piece rates for hand-harvested crops; and examining the gap between minimum and living wages.

Our labour code review is also key to fair laws in B.C. and part of this context of raising the standards for workers across the province. In our labour code review, we were working to ensure B.C. workplaces are governed by fair laws consistent with the labour rights and protections enjoyed by other British Columbians.

Another area of vulnerable workers that it has been important that we’ve been protecting is young workers. Employment standards are critical for young workers, whose rights need to be protected. Some of the changes we’ve already made include looking at hazardous work for youth — so based on public and stakeholder input, new regulations to define jobs that are considered hazardous and unsuitable for young workers — in January 2023.

We also strengthened employment standards to better protect young workers by raising the general working age from 12 to 16 so that we can protect them from child labour, ensure that they’re in school and being children while they can.

Another area where we’ve been working is to protect health and safety in the workplace. Many changes that we’ve made in the Workers Compensation Act…. Looking at hazardous work for young people, looking at presumptive health and cancer for firefighters.

I had the opportunity to meet with firefighters from across my community just last week, and we talked about the incredible difference it makes for them, as they put their lives on the line for us in their job, to know that those protections are there for them when they need them.

Some of the other things this bill talks to is temporary foreign workers. We’ve done work already as a government to better protect temporary foreign workers in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, which has a requirement for recruiters to be licensed in order to bring in vulnerable workers from other countries.

The work that we’re doing in this bill is building on a foundation of work we’ve done to protect workers and it is critical to continuing to ensure that those protections are there.

Another area where we’ve made reforms is around the ability to unionize, as part of our labour code review and our ongoing reforms, to ensure that the ability to unionize isn’t impeded by unfair practices. And single-step certification is one of the things we’ve done to ensure that we amended the Labour Relations Code to improve the fairness of the unionization process, enhancing workers rights to have a say in workplace safety, workers compensation and benefits.

[2:25 p.m.]

That work is ongoing as we continue to do work like our recent changes in crane safety; our changes in job-protected medical leave, where we have brought B.C. from lower in the bottom to at the top, in our tenure in government, of job-protected medical leave; and our work to take B.C. from the bottom for minimum wages, where it was under the previous Liberal government, to the top, where it is today. That’s the work we are doing in an ongoing way.

This bill is part of that work. With this bill, when people have a problem at work, we know they shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not employment standards protections will be there for them. We know that worry, right now, is there for employment standards. That’s why we’re making the reforms here, to ensure that they have the employment standards being met and the ability to be heard and helped.

These new amendments to the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act will improve the complaint and dispute resolution process at the employment standards branch.

The employment standards branch ensures that employees in B.C. receive minimum standards of compensation and conditions of employment to help protect workers from exploitation. The employment standards branch is an important resource for both workers and employers, and we continue to improve the accessibility and efficiency of our services.

The proposed changes are steps towards improving the process, helping people get resolution sooner. The changes will maintain access to important rights and protections provided by the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act to all British Columbians. The amendments to the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act will help clarify and improve the complaint and dispute resolution process for employers and workers.

The employment standards branch receives and investigates complaints of contraventions of the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act for non-unionized employees and temporary foreign workers and facilitates voluntary compliance or issues decisions and levies penalties for contraventions under the two acts.

The amendments being discussed today improve several parts of the complaint system by increasing opportunities for resolving complaints on issues that are clear and straightforward and by helping match workers with their unclaimed wages more efficiently. The proposed changes are intended to improve the complaint process without compromising access to the rights and protections that the Employment Standards Act and Temporary Foreign Worker Act provide to all workers in B.C.

Together, the two acts provide more than two million workers in B.C. with critical rights and protections when it comes to employment, including specific protections for foreign workers working in B.C. The standards set by these acts promote open communication; work-life balance; and, especially, the fair treatment of employees.

Workers who believe they have not received the rights and protections they’re entitled to under the Employment Standards Act or the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act may file a complaint with the employment standards branch. The complaint process at the branch offers valuable support to vulnerable workers. These workers often lack the power to advocate for themselves when employers or foreign worker recruiters do not meet their obligations under the act.

A typical complaint received by the branch is that of an employer that has not paid wages they owe to an employee. Another common complaint is that an employee has not received an entitlement such as paid sick leave or overtime pay.

We know there are many vulnerable workers in our province who rely on the timely payment of wages to ensure that their basic needs are met, that they can pay their rent, that they can put food on their table. Because of this, it’s imperative that the branch’s complaint process is structured to offer workers quick resolution of complaints.

Employers also benefit from the certainty that timely and efficient complaint resolution provides. Between 2018 and 2025, the number of employment standards complaints received annually at the branch increased by 95 percent. That is, complaints almost doubled, from just under 5,000 to more than 9,600 complaints per year.

Our government has worked hard in the past eight years to bring back basic rights and protections that were gutted under the old government. We’ve worked hard to restore the employment standards branch’s ability to uphold minimum employment standards in our province and protect workers from exploitation.

The B.C. Liberal government eliminated the requirement to investigate complaints, cut staffing levels and closed employment standards branch offices. In just one year, the B.C. Liberals closed 47 percent of branch offices in the province — from 17 to 9 — and within four years, they reduced the number of employment standards branch officers by one-third. They let the act fall behind the changing needs of workers and workplaces in our province.

[2:30 p.m.]

Prior to the 2019 amendments that our government brought in, the act had not been updated for 15 years. It meant that less and less workers were provided with the important, basic protections around wages and working conditions and that more and more of them, including children as young as 12, as a direct result of decisions made by the B.C. Liberal government, were put at greater risk of exploitation and serious injury at work.

In recent years, the branch has undergone transformation to provide workers with easier access to services. Previously under the Liberal government, there was a mandatory self-help kit which required employees to attempt to resolve their issues with their employer before proceeding. Ultimately, that kit was a barrier and that process was a barrier to vulnerable workers filing complaints. We eliminated that self-help kit and made other modernizations, such as extending the period for which the branch can recover wages for an employee from six months to one year.

In 2019, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act was implemented to ensure protections for foreign workers. In 2024, additional legislation and regulatory changes were made to provide employment standard protection for gig workers. We’re continuing to work to ensure that we’re protecting vulnerable workers wherever they are.

These changes, when taken together along with increasing worker awareness about their entitlements and supports available through the employment standards branch, have led to an increase in the number of complaints submitted to the branch and a bigger demand on its services.

In addition to resolving complaints, the branch oversees the licensing and registration of foreign worker recruiters and employers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. The addition of this important protection for foreign workers in B.C. is another factor contributing to significant increases in demands on the branch services in recent years.

We know that many people are facing longer than expected wait times for the complaints to be resolved, and that’s why we’re taking action. Since forming government, we’ve already taken action, adding staff resources to address increased requests and streamlining intake and triage processes to provide better outcomes for workers. We’ve made technology improvements along with enhancements to information-gathering to support more efficient and effective investigations. We’re making progress, but we know there’s a lot more to do.

As part of the ongoing efforts to improve efficiency, this legislation and the changes proposed will help streamline operations in the branch while maintaining the rights and protections workers rely on. There are five key amendments that I’d like to highlight.

First, the amendment proposed providing the branch clearer discretion to require worker and employer participation in complaint resolution meetings, as appropriate, to help resolve complaints more quickly and effectively. Eighty percent of all resolution meetings of the branch already result in voluntary resolution of the dispute within 45 days of the file being assigned.

The second area that we’re working on in this bill is removing the requirement for a formal written report to be served to the parties after early investigation but before final determination. Removing this requirement will help to resolve complaints more quickly and efficiently. It’s important to note that the branch is currently required to provide the parties with a final written determination at the conclusion of every complaint. This requirement will not change.

Additionally, the third area that we are working on….

The fourth amendment that we would like to highlight involves the branch closing a complaint when all parties agree no wages are owing. This, again, will free up branch staff to resolve other complaints while waiting in the queue.

Apologies, I missed the third. The third key amendment is assisting with matching workers with their unclaimed wages. I saw firsthand young workers impacted by a business that closed without paying wages. Young workers rely on those wages. They work to feed themselves that day and that month, to pay their rent. The impact of a business not paying the wages to young workers is something…. If you see firsthand, you know that helping to receive unclaimed wages is a critical part of protecting and supporting our workers.

This change will ensure that unclaimed wages are more quickly processed through B.C. Unclaimed Property Society, also known as B.C. Unclaimed — another way we can better serve workers while using employment standard branch resources more efficiently.

[2:35 p.m.]

Sometimes when a worker quits or otherwise has their employment terminated, employers cannot locate the worker to pay the wages that are owing. In that case, the employer must provide unpaid wages to the branch. Currently the branch must hold the funds while they attempt to locate the employee. If the employee has not been located after one year, the branch must transfer the funds to B.C. Unclaimed.

B.C. Unclaimed is a non-profit society dedicated to quickly connecting British Columbians with their unclaimed money left behind in courts, insurance payments, credit union accounts and other types of accounts. It’s best placed to do the important work of uniting employees with their unclaimed wages.

This amendment will remove the requirement for the branch to hold the unpaid wages for a year when they are unable to locate a worker. Enabling the branch to transfer unclaimed wages to B.C. Unclaimed sooner will better support the efficient and timely matching of unclaimed wages to their rightful owners.

Speaking a little more to the fourth amendment, I’d like to highlight that this involves the branch closing a complaint when all parties agree that no wages are owing. Sometimes when a worker files a complaint seeking unpaid wages, the employer pays the amount they owe before the branch begins an investigation. When this happens, the branch considers the complaint resolved and the file is usually closed with the consent of both parties.

Currently the Employment Standards Act provides that the branch may refuse to investigate a complaint in certain circumstances, including where the branch is satisfied that the complaint has been resolved. However, there’s some confusion, particularly among complainants, about what it means for the complaint to be resolved.

These amendments will provide much-needed clarity that the branch’s authority to close complaints when they’re resolved includes when unclaimed wages claimed by a complainant have been paid. This will improve understanding of the legislation and reduce disputes around the complaint process in those situations, providing clarity for both the employee and the employer.

Fifth and finally, the amendments will require employers to deposit any wages that are owed before appealing a decision with the Employment Standards Tribunal. Ultimately, this means more workers will receive the wages owed to them and fewer branch resources will be required to enforce wage payment orders.

Employers are already required to comply with orders made by the branch in the determination of a complaint, regardless of whether they appeal the termination. In other words, there is currently no legal avenue for employers to avoid paying wages and other amounts owed to workers while they appeal a determination.

However, on occasion, some employers simply choose to remain non-compliant while their appeal proceeds. The collections process is very resource-intensive, and the branch would need to dedicate significant resources to prioritize pursuing these non-compliant employers while their appeal is in process.

In one example, the employment standards branch issued a determination awarding a worker over $100,000 in unpaid wages and accrued interest. The employer made an appeal of this decision shortly after, and the appeal was dismissed. In this case, the employer’s decision to remain non-compliant and to appeal the determination added another six months to this process. Six months later, the worker is still waiting for their former employer to pay the wages rightfully owed to them.

The actions of these few employers create great unfairness to the workers in their employ, and they disproportionately take up resources of the branch to the detriment of other workers and to the majority of employers who do abide by the law. To address this, the proposed change adjusts the appeal process so that employers must pay to the branch the money they owe before the appeal can proceed. Most other jurisdictions require employers to make such a deposit in employment standards, so this is levelling us up to be aligned with other jurisdictions.

Then the money will be held in trust by the branch, and of course, the money will be returned to the employer with interest if the employer is successful in their appeal. Employers who cannot pay the full amount they owe under a determination may request the tribunal’s permission to deposit a smaller amount with the branch.

As I’ve indicated today, the amendments of this bill are collectively intended to create administrative efficiency and allocate staff resources more efficiently at the branch. More fundamentally, the changes today are part of a package of changes we’ve made since taking government to protect women workers; to protect young workers; to ensure health and safety of all workers; to ensure that we’re protecting vulnerable workers, like temporary foreign workers; to ensure everyone has access to the rights they have under employment standards.

This process is about ensuring streamlining of the complaint process, maintaining important rights and protections for workers and employers — and will generate overall positive impacts for workers, positive impacts for businesses and positive impacts for the economy.

We are committed to continually improving and addressing barriers people have when needing help at times where they need it most. These amendments add to this. These are part of our focus on building an economy that lifts up everyone.

[2:40 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: In my riding of Abbotsford South, temporary foreign workers are a huge component of what goes on in Abbotsford South because of its large agricultural base. Quite frankly, I don’t know that the work that needs to be done could be done without them.

While I’m speaking on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, I think it’s important that we pay tribute to the temporary foreign workers that come up and help feed us.

Some of these workers…. I believe the longest case that I have heard is the same worker had been returning for over 30 years to work on the same farm. I’ve talked with the farmers, and they become family. Their birthdates are celebrated. There are events that happen, and they become not just employees but trusted members that really are part of the farm itself. Most of the farmers that I would speak to would say that, absolutely, the rights of temporary foreign workers need to be protected.

Like in most things in life, there are good employees, there are good employers, and then there are those that are not so good. The vast majority, however, are employers that want to do the right thing. If you’re going to bring someone back for 30 years running, clearly you value that work ethic that comes with that — the fact that that employee literally becomes a vital part of how your operation works. And that’s just on a farm.

We also know that we have temporary foreign workers that do other jobs, whether that be in seasonal…. We take a look at here in Victoria. We’ve gone out for lunch or dinner and it’s been a temporary foreign worker that’s looked after us.

Sometimes they bring other languages with them, which are particularly important when you get into resorts such as Whistler-Blackcomb or other areas. Sometimes they have some distinct advantages. For instance, if they come from the wine industry themselves, we’ll see them sometimes in areas of the Okanagan.

They’re not always low-paid jobs either. Some of them are brought in because of the high skills that they possess. We have a tendency to think of temporary foreign workers as those that somehow fulfil a need that nobody else really wants to do. In some cases, it’s because of the very skills that they have that they’re brought in to fill a niche here in British Columbia that would otherwise go unfilled. They are an incredibly important part of our economy.

This side of the House, for the most part, celebrates the strengthening of those to make sure that those very few bad actors that either purposely take advantage of someone or, more often, I would say, inadvertently…. There should be a dispute mechanism for both the temporary foreign workers — and workers, for that matter — and employers so that justice is actually served.

We want to make sure that the employees have timely access to being paid for what they did, the labour that they put in. They deserve to be paid and compensated for what they did, and it needs to happen in a timely manner.

[2:45 p.m.]

Employers also deserve to have, in a dispute — quite often there can be disputes for many different reasons — a timely manner in which that dispute is settled. I think both sides of the House would agree that if there is a claim, especially if you are — and we have heard stories — a worker that needs to pay your rent, needs to send money home or needs to buy food or whatever it is you need, time is of the essence to make sure that happens.

Sadly, that has not been happening. Shame on this government for not figuring that out. It takes — what was it? — 180 days for…. So 32 percent of the cases take more than six months. That is a failure by this House to ensure that those disputes are settled in a timely manner.

I applaud the ability to try and speed this up. However, there are some issues. One of the issues is that this budget freezes the labour program’s funding at $22.3 million for the next three years. That’s actually a decrease if you include inflation over the next three years. It’s actually lower than last year’s budget of $22.85 million. That was in the estimates.

This is NDP logic or NDP math. They somehow expect to get better results and not actually fund it to be able to get the results. They’re actually lowering the funding and somehow magically expecting that this process is going to speed up. It defies logic. It defies common sense, and it defies what is most likely going to be possible. I would suspect that things are going to get worse, not better. It’s kind of like the budget itself. It got worse, not better.

I also heard that there has been a 95 percent rise in complaints. Well, let’s just absorb that for a minute. There’s been a rise in complaints. We’re going to spend less money and expect better results. They want a target rate of 80 percent. It just doesn’t add up. It just doesn’t seem to work if you take and apply the logic.

Results are not made on wishes and best hopes. Good results are made on good planning. What this side of the House will say to you is there is a lack of good planning to get the desired results that are wanted. It does not make sense, and it doesn’t add up, because it just plain doesn’t. It’s totally illogical, and wishes don’t necessarily make things happen.

There are a few other things. Let’s start off with that. I believe that this particular vehicle that they want to use has already got a gas tank that’s pretty much empty. We’re not going to get to the destination that we want because we have not bothered to put in what is required to actually make it work. I believe it’s destined to fail, with the best of intentions. But the best of intentions don’t get the job done, sadly, much of the time.

In the event that an employer owes an employee wages and they’re unable to locate that employee, the director may now, then, take possession of the wages after attempting to locate them themselves. Previously, the director could only take the wages after a year of attempting to locate them.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have already heard this economy is in dire straits. The vast majority of this will be small businesses, for one reason or another, because small businesses make up the vast majority of businesses. It makes logic that the number one complaint is going to be through small businesses.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Small businesses are struggling right now for a number of reasons, whether that be, as we have heard, theft through shoplifting….

We had London Drugs recently close down its Vancouver location because the amount of theft that was going on has forced them to close a location. They are not alone.

We have had places like Williams Lake announce a state of emergency. I believe it was Williams Lake. It could be a number of small towns, actually, things are so bad.

This government has not managed to fix that. As a matter of fact, under its watch, it’s gotten much, much worse.

For small businesses…. To then increase this and say, “You know what? You have to buck this up now,” actually, could put an unintended consequence on a business. It’s not that the business doesn’t want to pay them. Sometimes it’s an inability to do it at that particular moment. I think that what it does is that it makes it a little bit too rigid on some small businesses, as we have heard by other speakers.

I’m not so sure that I agree with the director being able to immediately go while the employer themselves is looking for that particular employee. I don’t know that we need to go to that drastic step. I have not heard evidence that that was a particular problem.

I’m not so sure why this particular piece of legislation was put in at a time when businesses are already under hardships. We’ve heard the term “death by a thousand cuts.” Is this just one more paper cut, one more cut that’s going to put a burden unnecessarily on some small businesses? Right now losing one is one too many.

Employees deserve to be paid. This side of the House is in 100 percent agreement on that. But where is the latitude for businesses that are clinging on? It may or may not happen in a particular case, but what in the case that it is? Is there any latitude at all so that a business could, say, throughout the year, as an example, pay up for that if they’re having hard times?

And then you also don’t understand sometimes why an employee will necessarily disappear, never to come back. For that money to just vanish into, basically, government coffers…. It’s a hidden tax, in a way. It’s actually never going to get to the intended person that it was supposed to benefit.

What is government going to do with all that money? Is it going to just go into general revenue so that it can go towards gift cards the government was passing around to employees? If it’s general revenue, it potentially could go towards that. So I think that that particular one is probably a little bit too rigid.

The other one that is, is that if an employer…. Not all employees will necessarily file a claim that is necessarily accurate. Yet in this particular case, if an employer wants to actually appeal the case, they have to put up the entire amount up front. Now, if this is a low-wage issue and it’s a few hundred dollars, well, that’s not a big deal.

But what if it goes to one of those high-profile, highly educated individuals that I was just talking about? Some of them are making hundreds of thousands of dollars, because there is no niche for them. There is no place for them within…. There is a lack of an educated, skilled employee to take that particular issue.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, there could be a case where that could be a huge amount of money that now the business has to put up front just to appeal it. In those cases, it could very well cause that business to go: “We can’t afford to fight this. We’re just going to have to take it. We’re just going to have to put up with it, because we do not…. Because we’ve got to put the money up front, we just do not have the cash flow right now to be able to dispute this.”

It puts an unnecessary burden. I would much prefer to see some kind of amount…. A maximum a threshold of some kind, I think, would be perhaps in better keeping with the spirit of this law. Again, the spirit of the law is to make sure that those that are owed wages get them.

The spirit of the law is not…. Where I go with this is, if the appeal is successful, that business has now had to put up a considerable amount of money, perhaps, depending on the case. Like I said, it’s not always minimum-wage jobs that we’re talking about. And that could put that business at an unnecessary hardship.

What requires in this, as in many things in life…. What I’ve seen as a trend within this government is a lack of balance, a lack of fairness. We have a tendency to treat employers, of which the vast majority are good employers, as if somehow they are nefarious and that they are always trying to find a way to mess somebody over and not have to pay what they agreed to.

In some cases, there’s that balancing act required where there are also employees who, either intentionally or unintentionally, think that they are owed money. That’s why we have a tribunal of this sort. It’s why we have a director to make these decisions in these particular cases. It is not always in favour of the employee. Sometimes the decision is in favour of the employer.

We want to make sure that it is balanced and fair and lightning-speed in cases like this — especially, as I said, if it is about an employee that has payments of some kind due. And we don’t know what those payments are.

Waiting six months to get paid is not timely under anyone’s standards. We can do better than that. It needs to be quicker. It needs to be faster. As I said, reducing the budget, not accounting for inflation, with a 95 percent increase in complaints, according to the minister that just spoke…. There just doesn’t seem any way that we can go from A to Z to get that and speed it up.

Now, even if that target that government has laid out is achieved, it still means approximately one in five workers, based on what I’ve heard, could still wait longer than six months to see a resolution. How is that protecting vulnerable workers? It isn’t. It’s an epic failure. We have to do better than that.

[3:00 p.m.]

You have to ask yourself: “Is this remotely just or acceptable?” And as was mentioned, if now the pressure comes on — “You’ve got to solve this; you have to have a decision” — will you then have a director or an adjudicator that is now making decisions based on a timeline versus on what’s actual and required? We look forward to digging deeper into this as this bill moves forward.

The vast majority of employers not only follow the rules but want to follow the rules. I believe that good legislation supports both employers and employees yet holds the few bad apples or bad actors accountable, be they employers or employees.

Now, the other thing that seems to happen an awful lot with this particular government is they come up with a great idea — at least, they think it’s a great idea — and they forget to do that one vital thing, which is to get stakeholders in a room and actually consult, actually say: “Okay, if we do this, what’s the downside? What are we missing? Is this even a good idea at all? Who are we going to hurt if we…? This is the goal we want. How do we get there, and how do we do it without some unintended consequences?”

The smartest individual I ever worked for always used to say, “The devil is always in the details,” and the best way to get those details is by having meaningful, wholesome discussion. It’s partly why we do what we do here.

This side of the House’s job, while negative in nature, is to say: “Look, we see some shortcomings with this particular legislation, and has government thought about this?” Has government, for instance, thought about the unnecessary burden it’s going to put on employers if they have to pay money up front? Has it thought about the horrific burden it’s putting on an employee if they’ve got to wait over six months to get their money?

Consultation would go to both parties and say: “How do we speed this process up, and what’s the best way to achieve the results we want?” Something that happens within 60 days, let’s say. Sometimes, even that’s too long for some employees. “How can we get the desired results?” Yet what’s missing, once again, is consultation.

Part of that consultation could have been when they were talking to small businesses, who may struggle with the new appeal deposit requirement and having to pay the entire amount up front just to appeal it, versus…. Perhaps a portion of it up front would be a much better way. Perhaps there could have been a scaling, depending on what that amount is.

Again, I think the assumption in this is that this is going to be minimum-wage-type stuff. As I said before, there are temporary foreign workers that are highly skilled and, actually, their remuneration is quite…. They’re well-paid for what they do.

So we would like to see, on this side of the House, a way to make this legislation, actually, better. We are most likely going to put forward a few amendments, and we hope that that side of the House sees in the nature in which it is.

We value, as I said before…. In my riding of Abbotsford, we could not survive without temporary foreign workers. Crops would literally rot and would not get harvested; cows would not get milked; and the feather industry would also be in trouble as well, in some cases.

It is a vital component of the backbone of my riding, which is agriculture. We want to make sure that these temporary foreign workers are well-compensated for what they do and that they want to come back, as I mentioned.

[3:05 p.m.]

My example of 30 years, actually, is not unusual. I have heard, time and time again, when I talk to some of the temporary foreign workers when I go out in the fields…. “How long have you been here?” Ten-plus years is not uncommon. It’s not like they come here for one year and then never come back.

So these employers want them. They want those valuable skills, because they know that the crops are in good hands with the people that actually know what they’re doing, familiar with the operation, and they want to keep them here. They do not want to see a case where, for whatever reason, they fail to come back because they felt as if they were dealt with unfairly.

Making sure these temporary workers have decent standards, have decent pay and are compensated for what was the agreement — both sides of the House have no argument with that.

Again, I think that there are, just to surmise, a few things…. We need to make sure that this is timely in manner. Six months is not okay, in anybody’s world. It’s not okay to employer. It’s not okay to employee. We want to make sure that it does not put an unnecessary burden on the employer. There are cases in this where…. You don’t want to see any cracks, and it could do that. We want to make sure that we speed the process up and that, most importantly, it’s just and it’s fair.

This side of the House wants to support this. We will probably make some recommendations that go forward to improve upon it, and I hope that that side of the House takes it in the true spirit in which it will be intended, which is to make sure that it’s fair to both sides of this party. From that, you actually get true justice and you get good legislation.

It’s always a pleasure to speak in this House. Thank you very much for your time.

Lynne Block: First of all, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today and represent my riding and the constituents of my riding, West Vancouver–Capilano. It really is an honour.

I have many small businesses in my riding. In fact, there are no huge industrial complexes or anything like that. For me, this bill was intriguing because I looked at it very closely in the context of people I know — the wonderful little restaurant that has patisserie, then you’ve got the hardware store and you’ve got the pub — all doing their very, very best to make a living. So I have a few comments.

I’m rising today to speak to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, introduced by the hon. Minister of Labour. At its core, this legislation amends two important laws in British Columbia: the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

As the words of Martin Luther King Jr. remind us: “No work is insignificant. All labour that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance.”

These statutes that we are discussing today govern some of the most fundamental aspects of work in our province — how employees are paid, how disputes are handled and how vulnerable workers are protected. That principle is exactly why employment standards exist — to ensure that when work is done, wages are paid.

Every member of this House understands that employment standards are not theoretical ideas. They affect real people. They affect the single parent waiting for a final paycheque. They affect the small business owner trying to navigate a complex system. And they affect temporary foreign workers who may be thousands of kilometres from home and dependent on the fairness of our laws.

Healthy workplaces require balance. Workers must have strong protections. Employers must have rules that are fair, predictable and workable. That balance is the standard by which we must measure this bill. While this legislation contains provisions that aim to improve efficiency and ensure workers receive wages owed, there are several significant concerns that deserve scrutiny.

[3:10 p.m.]

The purpose of the bill. It introduces three main policy changes. First, it changes how unpaid wages are handled when an employee cannot be located. Second, it creates a new complaint resolution process that can require parties to participate in mediation during investigation. Third, and perhaps most significantly, it requires employers to deposit the full amount of a monetary determination in order to appeal it, unless a tribunal allows a smaller amount.

Each of these provisions carries implications not only for employees but also for businesses and the administrative capacity of government.

Let me begin with something every member in this House should agree on. Workers deserve to be paid the wages they earn — simple. Employment standards laws exist for a reason. They establish the minimum floor of fairness in the workplace so that when wages are not paid, the consequences are not abstract. For many workers, missing wages mean missed rent payments, missed grocery purchases and missed paying of bills.

Investigations across Canada have repeatedly shown that wage theft remains a real issue in the labour market. In British Columbia alone, thousands of complaints are filed with the employment standards branch each year.

For example, in Whistler, several workers at a local Domino’s franchise filed complaints after discovering they had been underpaid. After investigation, the employment standards branch ruled in their favour and ordered more than $10,000 in unpaid wages returned to the employees, along with penalties against the employer. Cases like that illustrate why enforcement matters.

Across Canada and here in British Columbia, migrant worker organizations have documented cases where workers were charged illegal recruitment fees, denied overtime pay or threatened with job loss if they complained. That is precisely why the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act exists, and it is why any legislative change affecting enforcement must be considered carefully.

Let us start with clause 2. Currently if wages are owed to an employee who cannot be located, there must be an attempt to locate that employee for one year before transferring the money to the provincial administrator. Bill 10 removes that one-year requirement. Under the amendment, wages could be transferred immediately after reasonable attempts to locate the worker.

Now, on its face, this may seem like an administrative improvement. After all, the government argues that it will allow funds to be held safely by the administrator rather than remaining with employers. But there are important questions regarding this. What constitutes a sufficient attempt to locate the employee? Who decides that? Where’s the scale? How quickly will funds be transferred? Again, who decides that? What process is in place? How easily will workers be able to reclaim those wages afterward?

This issue matters because employment mobility is extremely high in some cases. Workers often change jobs, move cities or return to other countries. As we’ve heard, in sectors such as agriculture and tourism, many workers leave the province at the end of a season.

I know many people who come from Australia to ski here in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, and after the ski season is finished here, off they go — back down to Australia and New Zealand to ski and take jobs down there.

If the recovery process becomes too complex, workers may simply never reclaim money they earned.

[3:15 p.m.]

Another significant change appears in clause 4, which introduces section 76.1. This creates a complaint resolution process during an investigation. The director may require both parties to participate in that process and can specify how they must participate.

Now, I have been in a lot of mediation processes and early dispute resolution, and they can be valuable tools. But it depends on what kind of mediation and what kind of early dispute resolution. Unless they’re very clear and the steps very clear, they don’t work as well as they should or could.

In many legal systems, mediation allows disputes to be resolved faster and with less cost than formal litigation. But the language in this bill raises concerns. If a party fails to participate in the process, the director may continue the investigation or stop investigating and proceed directly to a determination. That is a significant power.

For large organizations with human resource departments and legal counsel, participating in mediation may be straightforward. Not a big deal. However, for small businesses, it can be a very different time. A small restaurant owner, a contractor or a family-run retail store may not have dedicated staff to handle these proceedings. In fact, I would suspect that probably 95 percent of the small businesses do not. Requiring mandatory participation in a formal resolution process could create additional administrative burdens. We know disputes in the system can be complicated.

In one recent case before the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal, a worker alleged he had been paid $16 per hour instead of the $22.50 per hour agreed to in his contract, eventually resulting in a dispute worth more than $40,000 in unpaid wages. That’s a huge amount. Cases like this demonstrate that employment disputes can involve complex evidence and competing claims which may not always be easily resolved through a quick mediation process. If the consequences for non-participation include losing the opportunity to fully present a case during investigation, that raises fairness concerns.

Another issue raised by employer groups is the question of consultation. Many employer associations have indicated they were not consulted before these changes were introduced. That is indeed really troubling. If you really are sincere in making a new process work or something that supposedly benefits all sides, then should you not consult all sides beforehand and reach agreement? That’s the best way to move forward on any process.

Labour policy works best when both workers and employers are part of the conversation equally. When governments legislate without adequate consultation, they risk creating unintended consequences. Good labour policy should bring people together. It should not deepen divisions between employers and employees.

Perhaps the most consequential provision in this bill is found in clause 9. It amends section 112 of the Employment Standards Act to require that anyone appealing a determination involving money must deposit the full amount owed with the director. The tribunal may approve a small amount but only at its discretion.

[3:20 p.m.]

Now, let me be clear about this. This provision is intended to prevent bad actors from using appeals to delay payment, and that goal is understandable. There have been cases where employers used very lengthy appeals just to postpone paying wages, and they could afford to do that.

But the question we must ask is this: does requiring a full deposit up front create barriers to legitimate appeals? For large corporations, the answer may be no. For small businesses, however, the answer may be quite different.

We have seen situations in British Columbia where employment disputes involve significant amounts of money. In one Okanagan case, a security company was ordered to pay more than $80,000 in unpaid wages and compensation to ten former employees after a tribunal dismissed the owner’s appeal.

Imagine a smaller business facing a determination of that magnitude. They wouldn’t survive. Even if they believed the ruling was incorrect, they might not have the financial capacity to deposit tens of thousands of dollars immediately to pursue an appeal. In effect, the right to appeal could become conditional on the ability to pay.

That raises fundamental questions about access to justice. Appeals exist precisely because administrative decisions can sometimes be wrong. Heavens to Betsy. Wrong sometimes. They allow errors to be corrected. There’s an opportunity there. If the cost of appealing becomes too high, we risk undermining that safeguard.

Another concern relates to the capacity of the employment standards branch, and we’ve heard a lot about that today. According to government service plans and research into the system, many workers wait long periods before receiving decisions or payment. Advocacy groups report that, in some cases, complaint investigations can take many months or even years to fully resolve.

When you have only 32 percent of the complaints completed within six months, how does that affect the workers? How does it affect the employers? That is an absolutely abysmal data statistic because that delay can be devastating for workers who rely on those wages to pay rent, who rely on those wages to buy groceries, who rely on those wages to support their families.

As we know, in British Columbia right now, many more families are using food banks because they cannot afford housing. They can’t afford to put food on the table or cannot afford to pay their bills. We’re in dire circumstances.

The government has set a goal of resolving 80 percent of complaints within 180 days by 2027-2028. Now, 80 percent, as a teacher, is mastery. Eighty percent and above is called mastery. So that’s a great goal to aspire to. It is an ambitious goal too. But it raises an important question. How will it be achieved?

There is a word for it, when you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If you continue to process things exactly the same way and expect yourself to get 80 percent or better mastery, we’ve got an issue here. According to this provincial budget, funding for labour programs is frozen at approximately $22.3 million for the next three years. In other words, the government expects complaint resolution times to improve dramatically while resources remain essentially unchanged.

[3:25 p.m.]

I don’t understand how that will be done. It’s a great goal — it truly is — but it’s the how it will be achieved. How will this goal of 80 percent or better be achieved?

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Has this government or will this government be hiring a specialist, an external company to review what’s happened in the past, to point out the discrepancies or the flaws in the present process so that they can analyze the holdups, where the glitches are, where the obstacles are? Is that what they can do? Or are they going to continue the same process on and on and just say, “We’re going to go for 80 percent,” when they’re only reaching 32 percent right now?

Are there suggestions right now as to how to fix this system, or are they just going to continue to repeat exactly the same processes again and again expecting different results, expecting 80 percent or better? Unless this government knows why and where and how these impediments are arising so that they’re only achieving 32 percent, how can they fix this flawed process and achieve their 80 percent goal?

Well, I have a thought. I do love reading. I love reading fiction and non-fiction. One particular area which I really find fascinating is about leadership. I know government processes have been around for years because I keep getting told: “Well, that’s how we’ve done it for years.” Yes, I get that. But perhaps there are some new ways that are better, more efficient, that can help you get to the 80 percent.

I just wanted to probably give an idea of, perhaps, how they can improve with the 80 percent because improving enforcement typically requires more investigators, more adjudicators and more administrative support. Without those resources, the risk is that legislative changes alone will not deliver the improvements workers need.

I propose for the government, moving forward, so they can achieve their 80 percent goal, something called the TASC approach. It’s new, so maybe it’s not old enough, but it’s T-A-S-C.

It’s called the accountability and success checklist. I found it really relevant for this process. “T” is who owns the task. That’s No. 1 step. “A” is the person or persons who own the task or tasks — do they have the authority to be held accountable for that task? “S” is: do they all agree that they are set up for success? Do they have the time or the resources or the clarity about the task? And the last part, the “C” is: is there a checklist of what needs to happen to accomplish the task?

The last part is an interesting one. If they say, “Done,” what does done look like? What does that finished task look like? They do “something” — another term which I really enjoy. It says: “Paint ‘done’ for me.” In other words, colour in the dots. Tell me what “paint done” looks like.

I would offer that to this government moving forward. If they really do want to attain the goal of 80 percent, I would suggest that they look at other processes like TASC because that would fit perfectly into that little niche.

Without TASC or any resources to change the system the way it is right now, the risk is that legislative changes alone will not deliver the improvements workers need or the 80 percent goal that they have.

Bill 10 also amends the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. Temporary foreign workers, as we’ve heard, are among the most vulnerable participants in the labour market. Many arrive in Canada under employer-specific permits. That means their legal right to work is tied to a single employer.

[3:30 p.m.]

If problems arise — unpaid wages, unsafe conditions or unlawful deductions — they may fear retaliation or even deportation. I do know of circumstances where passports have been taken away. This is why strong protections are essential. But it also means that the enforcement system must be accessible and responsive. If complaints take months or years to resolve, the workers affected may already have returned to their home countries. That makes recovery of wages far more difficult.

Returning to the new complaint resolution process, it is important to consider the balance between mediation and investigation. Mediation can be effective when both parties have relatively equal bargaining power. But when there is a significant imbalance, such as between an employer and a vulnerable worker, mediation may not always produce fair outcomes.

In some situations, workers may feel pressured to accept settlements below what they are owed simply to resolve the dispute quickly. That is why any mediation process must be carefully designed and monitored.

What mediation process and what model is to be used? If the goal of this legislation is to resolve complaints faster and recover wages more effectively, then one conclusion becomes clear. The employment standards branch must have the resources necessary to do its job. Investigators must be able to conduct thorough investigations. Tribunals must be able to hear appeals without long delays. Workers must have access to clear information about their rights. Without those elements, legislative amendments alone will not fix the system.

In closing, employment standards laws exist to protect the integrity of our labour market. They ensure that honest employers are not undercut by those who break the rules. They ensure that workers receive the wages they have earned. They ensure that disputes are resolved fairly.

The challenge before us, however, is to ensure that the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, achieves those goals without creating new barriers or unintended consequences. Legislation must not only be well-intentioned; it must also be well-designed. That requires listening to workers, employers and the experts who operate within the system every day.

At the end of the day, the success of our labour laws will be measured not by the words written in statutes but by the fairness experienced in workplaces across British Columbia.

Misty Van Popta: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak at second reading of Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. This legislation proposes a series of amendments to both the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

On its face, the bill appears procedural and technical in nature. Indeed, several of the clauses are described by the government itself as housekeeping amendments. However, in this House, it is our responsibility to examine even technical changes carefully because changes to process often shape our outcomes.

The provisions in Bill 10 primarily alter how complaints are investigated, how disputes are resolved and how appeals are handled under British Columbia’s employment standards regime. These are not trivial matters. The framework that governs employment disputes affects workers, employers, our small businesses and the overall climate for investment in job creation in this province.

We must evaluate this bill through several key principles: fairness, accountability, efficiency in government administration and the protection of economic competitiveness for employers while maintaining basic protections for workers.

[3:35 p.m.]

Bill 10 introduces several major procedural changes.

First, it revises the complaint intake and investigation process under the Employment Standards Act. Section 76 is replaced with a more detailed framework governing when the director must accept a complaint and when the director may refuse or discontinue an investigation.

Second, the bill creates a formal complaint resolution process during investigations, allowing the director to require parties to participate in a resolution process before determination is issued.

Third, the bill allows the director to prepare a written investigative report prior to issuing a determination, giving parties the opportunity to respond.

Fourth, the bill introduces a deposit requirement for appeals, where a determination requires payment of wages or money. The employer must deposit the amount owing or an amount the tribunal considers adequate before the appeal proceeds.

Finally, parallel changes are applied to the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, particularly regarding appeals of determinations and deposit requirements.

At first, these changes may seem administrative, but they reshape the balance between workers, employers and the enforcement authority of the state.

There are some elements of this bill where you can understand why these changes are proposed. It allows for a greater screening of complaints. The revised section 76 provides clearer authority for the director to refuse or stop investigating complaints that are frivolous, fictitious or lacking evidence. Government enforcement agencies must focus their limited resources on legitimate cases, not waste time and taxpayer dollars pursuing complaints that are clearly unsupported or made in bad faith.

Small businesses, in particular, often lack the legal resources to defend themselves against prolonged investigations triggered by weak complaints. Even if a complaint is eventually dismissed, the process itself can impose heavy administrative costs and reputational damage.

By clarifying the director’s discretion to stop investigations where there is insufficient evidence or lack of participation by the complainant, this bill could help ensure that enforcement resources are directed where they are most needed. That is fairly common sense.

This bill also encourages early resolution of disputes. Under the new section 76.1, the director may require both parties to participate in a resolution process and specify how they must participate.

Encouraging dispute resolution before formal determinations are made has some advantages. First, it can lead to faster outcomes for workers seeking unpaid wages. Second, it can reduce litigation costs for employers. Third, it can reduce the backlog within the employment standards branch.

In many labour disputes, the parties are not actually far apart. Miscommunication, documentation errors or misunderstandings about statutory obligations are common. Facilitated resolution can correct these problems quickly.

There is also improved transparency through investigative reports. Bill 10 allows the director to prepare and serve a written report before issuing a determination, giving the parties an opportunity to respond. This step introduces an element of procedural fairness. By allowing the parties to review the findings of an investigation before a final determination is made, the process can become more transparent. Parties may identify factual errors, provide additional documentation or clarify misunderstandings.

[3:40 p.m.]

From a rule-of-law perspective, this is a good improvement. Administrative decision-making should not occur behind closed doors.

Another provision is the deposit requirement for appeals. If a determination requires payment to employees, the party appealing must deposit the amount ordered or a lesser amount deemed adequate by the tribunal. That provision, for me, opens up the conversation about what is fair. I do struggle with that piece of this bill, but this reform addresses a long-standing problem.

There are some bad actors out there that have abused the system. In some cases, employers have filed appeals primarily to delay payment of wages. Workers who have already gone through a lengthy investigation process then face months or even years of additional delays.

Requiring a deposit discourages frivolous or strategic appeals and ensures that funds are available if the determination is upheld. For workers who rely on timely payment of wages, this is an important safeguard. My concern is just that it could be arbitrarily left to the tribunal, in terms of the amount that is deposited.

While the bill contains some steps forward, it also raises several concerns that deserve serious consideration. It expands bureaucratic discretion.

One of the most significant issues is the expansion of discretionary authority granted to the director. The new framework allows a director to refuse to investigate a complaint, stop an investigation, broaden the scope of an investigation to other employees, require participation in a resolution process and determine whether complaints are sufficiently resolved.

While discretion is sometimes necessary, excessive discretion risks inconsistent decision-making. Small businesses and workers alike need predictable rules, not a system where outcomes depend heavily on administrative interpretation. When government officials hold broad discretionary powers without clear guidelines, the result can be uneven enforcement across cases or even regions. The rule of law requires clear standards, not open-ended administrative authority.

There’s also risk of mandatory mediation becoming coercive. The new complaint resolution process also raises a potential concern. The director can require parties to participate and specify how they must participate. In principle, dispute resolution is positive, but when participation becomes mandatory and directed by the same authority responsible for the investigation, the process could become coercive rather than voluntary. A worker may feel pressured to settle for less than they are entitled to. Conversely, a small business may feel compelled to settle simply to end a costly investigation.

Effective mediation works best when it is voluntary and neutral. We should be careful not to create a system where the administrative authority effectively pressures parties towards settlement, simply to reduce its own caseload. Every government agency seems to be under heavy caseloads right now.

The appeal deposit requirement, while addressing frivolous appeals, also raises concerns for small businesses facing legitimate disputes. Not all employers appealing a determination are acting in bad faith. In fact, most small businesses are acting in a way that treats workers with respect.

[3:45 p.m.]

Sometimes determinations are based on incomplete evidence or misunderstandings of employment arrangements — particularly in industries with complex compensation structures, such as agriculture, hospitality or construction. For a small business operating with tight cash flow, depositing the full amount of a determination before an appeal may create significant financial strain.

Even though the tribunal may reduce the required deposit amount, this discretion again creates uncertainty. We believe in accountability but also in ensuring that appeal rights remain meaningful and accessible. Justice should not depend on the size of one’s bank account.

Another provision allows a director to broaden an investigation if the complaint may relate to other employees. On the one hand, this could uncover systemic violations and protect vulnerable workers. But on the other hand, it may transform a single complaint into a wide-ranging workplace investigation, significantly increasing regulatory burdens on businesses.

To put it in different terms, one small claim by one worker could open a can of worms that ties up the one worker’s rights to compensation. Small businesses already struggle with regulatory complexity. Expanding investigations beyond the initial complaint could increase administrative demands, legal costs and uncertainty for employers who believed they were addressing a single issue. If such authority is used excessively, it could discourage entrepreneurship and investment in the province.

Finally, while Bill 10 modifies enforcement procedures, it does not address deeper issues in the employment standards system. For years, employers and workers alike have raised concerns about long complaint processing times, inconsistent enforcement, limited education and compliance support for small businesses. Procedural amendments alone will not solve these systemic challenges. We should be trying to prevent disputes before they occur — through clearer guidance, better compliance tools and faster administrative processes.

From a business perspective, the bill has mixed implications. Positive aspects include stronger filtering of weak complaints and increased opportunities for early dispute resolution. However, businesses may face greater regulatory exposure through expanded investigations and mandatory dispute processes.

For small businesses, which form the backbone of British Columbia and the economy, predictability and simplicity in labour regulation are essential. The small business of one of my closest and dearest friends recently closed. The economic situation made a very good, once thriving business become undone in these times.

When we have bills that come through that could increase financial burden through situations that may have arisen from misunderstandings in contracts and otherwise, it just further really impacts a community. The loss of this business was a huge hit in my community. It was kind of that death by a thousand cuts.

I look at bills that affect small businesses through a slightly different, more personal lens now — taking my friend’s situation and trying to see how this may or may not have affected that business.

[3:50 p.m.]

There are some things in here that are trying to fix a situation, but there are still some things that could have unintended consequences. At a time when our province faces economic challenges, labour policy should support and not hinder the ability of businesses to create jobs — especially jobs that, in my past, were the part-time jobs that I held outside of my career as a single mom, keeping food on the table for my kids.

But workers also stand to gain certain benefits from this legislation. Faster dispute resolution, stronger protections against delayed appeals and the potential for broader investigations into systemic violations could improve enforcement of employment standards. For vulnerable workers, including temporary foreign workers, these protections are particularly important.

Quite frankly, in Langley, we have a lot of temporary foreign workers, a lot of agricultural workers, a lot of migrant workers from Mexico, the same faces that I see come back on routine contracts and go back to their home in the off-season.

However, there is also a risk that mandatory resolution processes could pressure workers into accepting settlements below their legal entitlements. Ensuring fairness requires safeguards to ensure workers understand their rights and are not disadvantaged during negotiations.

Ultimately, the challenge in labour policy is achieving the right balance. Workers deserve protection against wage theft and exploitation. At the same time, employers deserve a regulatory system that is clear, efficient and fair. When labour policy becomes overly bureaucratic or unpredictable, it discourages job creation and undermines economic growth. Conversely, when enforcement is too weak, bad actors can exploit workers and undercut responsible employers. The goal must be balanced regulation that protects workers while supporting economic vitality.

In conclusion, Bill 10 represents a series of procedural reforms to the enforcement of employment standards in British Columbia. It contains several positive elements, like stronger screening of weak complaints, expanded opportunities for early dispute resolution, greater transparency investigations and measures to discourage frivolous appeals. But at the same time, this bill raises important concerns — expanded administrative discretion; potential coercion in mandatory resolution processes; financial barriers to legitimate appeals; and increased regulatory exposure for small businesses, the backbone of B.C.’s economy.

The ultimate question is whether these amendments improve fairness while maintaining a predictable and efficient regulatory environment. Some are clearly moving in the right direction. Others require careful scrutiny to ensure that they do not unintentionally increase bureaucracy or undermine the rights of either workers or employers.

Second reading is the appropriate stage to examine the principles of this bill. It is our responsibility not simply to pass legislation but to ensure that it strengthens the institutions that support both fair workplaces and a thriving economy in British Columbia.

Jody Toor: I rise today to speak on Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, on behalf of the residents of Langley-Willowbrook.

As a member of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, it is always a pleasure to stand in this chamber and speak on bills that will shape the rules governing workplaces across British Columbia. The laws we pass here affect the daily lives of millions of workers and employees throughout our province. They influence how businesses operate, how employees are treated and how disputes are resolved when things go wrong.

[3:55 p.m.]

At the outset, I want to be very clear about something that should unite all members of this House. Workers deserve to be paid what they are owed. The entire purpose of employment standards law is to ensure that wages earned are wages paid. Those principles are fundamental to the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia. They are principles that every member of this chamber should support.

When someone works hard, shows up for their shift, gives their time and energy and fulfils their responsibilities, they should have confidence that they will receive the wages they have earned. That is not a dispute statement. It is a basic requirement in any fair and functioning economy.

At the same time, we must recognize that healthy workplaces require balance. Workers need strong protections, and they deserve clear mechanisms to recover wages or resolve disputes. When problems arise, employers also need rules that are fair, predictable and workable.

Across British Columbia, and especially in the communities I represent in Langley-Willowbrook, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the local economy. These businesses are often family owned. They are the restaurants, construction companies, retail shops, restaurants and service providers that create jobs and help communities thrive.

Most of these employers want to do the right thing. They want to treat their employees fairly. They want to follow the law. They want to maintain positive relationships with the people who work for them, especially the foreign workers as they become their families here. Our labour laws must recognize that reality. They must hold bad actors accountable, but they must also support the vast majority of responsible employers who are trying to follow the rules.

The bill before us today proposes a number of changes to the Employment Standards Act as well as the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, B.C. Some of these changes are administrative or technical in nature. Others introduce new processes or modify existing enforcement. As legislators, it is our responsibility to carefully examine these changes; understand their implications; and ensure they serve the best interests of workers, employers and the broader economy.

One of the changes included in this bill relates to the handling of wages owed to employees who cannot be located. Under the previous rules, the director was required to attempt to locate the employee for a period of one year before taking possession of those wages. Bill 10 removes that one-year waiting period. Under the proposed changes, if reasonable efforts have been made to locate the employee and those efforts are unsuccessful, the wages may be transferred to the administrator sooner.

The goal here appears to be administrative effectiveness. Unclaimed wages can be secured and managed rather than remaining in limbo for an extended period of time. In principle, ensuring that money owed to workers is safeguarded makes sense. Workers should always be able to claim the wages they have earned, hardly.

However, the more major and potential dispute aspects of this bill relate to the appeals process in the introduction of new requirements for employers who wish to challenge demonstrations made under the Employment Standards Act. Under the proposed changes, if an employer wishes to file an appeal of a determination that requires payment of wages or other fiscal amounts, they must deposit the amount owed with the director before the appeal can be processed. In other words, the money must be paid up front simply to access the appeal process.

The legislation does provide some flexibility. The panel may, on a case-by-case basis, determine that a lesser deposit amount is appropriate, but the default requirement remains that the full amount must be deposited before the appeal can move forward.

On the surface, this may appear reasonable. After all, if wages are owed to workers, it makes sense that the funds should be secured while the appeal process unfolds. But we must consider the practical suggestion of this requirement, particularly for small businesses.

[4:00 p.m.]

Larger corporations may have the financial resources to deposit major sums of money while pursuing an appeal, but small and medium-sized businesses operate on tight margins. Cash flow can be unpredictable. Unexpected expenses can have serious consequences.

For a small business owner who believes a determination is incorrect, requiring the full amount to be deposited up front may effectively prevent them from exercising their right to appeal. This raises an important question about access to justice within our employment standards system.

Appeals exist for a reason. They allow decisions to be reviewed and corrected if errors have occurred. They provide an important safeguard within a regulated framework. If the financial barriers to filing an appeal become too high, some employers may simply be unable to challenge decisions they believe are wrong. Fairness in the system must apply to everyone involved. Workers deserve fair treatment and timely solution of their complaints, but employers must also have fair opportunity to present their case and seek review when necessary.

Another aspect of Bill 10 introduces a new complaint resolution process during investigations. The director may require parties to take part in this process while the investigation continues. The intent appears to be encouraging early solutions of disputes, potentially reducing the need for lengthy investigations or formal determinations.

In theory, alternate dispute solutions such as mediation can be beneficial. They can provide opportunities for parties to reach mutual acceptance solutions without prolonged legal processes, which can also be very expensive. However, we must again consider the practical realities faced by many small business owners.

Large organizations often have dedicated human resources departments and legal counsel who can manage complex employment disputes, but small business owners rarely have those resources. For many small business owners, navigating an employment standards complaint is already a challenging and time-consuming process. Adding mandatory mediation or additional procedural steps may increase administration burdens and create further complications. If these processes are implemented without accurate support or guidance, they could place additional strain on employers who are already trying to comply with complex regulated requirements.

Perhaps the most major concern surrounding this bill relates not only to the specific changes being proposed but also to the broader context in which they are being introduced. For several years now, the employment standards branch has faced major challenges in the processing of complaints in a timely manner. Workers who file complaints often wait months, sometimes far longer, before these cases are resolved, according to the government’s own service plans.

Over the past four years, only 32 percent of employment standards complaints have been resolved within 180 days. That means the majority of workers are waiting longer than six months for solutions. For someone who believes they have been denied wages they have rightfully earned, six months is a long time to wait. In many cases, the money owed may represent rent payments, groceries, child care expenses or other essential costs.

Delayed enforcement undermines the effectiveness of employment standards law. A system designed to protect workers must be able to respond quickly when problems arise and not in 180 days. The government has recognized this issue and has set a target of resolving 80 percent of complaints within 180 days by 2027-2028 fiscal year. But even if the target is achieved, one in five workers could still be waiting more than six months for a solution.

We should also ask ourselves whether that standard is truly acceptable. More importantly, we should ask whether these bill changes alone will solve the problem of delayed complaint.

[4:05 p.m.]

The provincial budget currently freezes funding for labour programs at approximately $22.3 million for the next three years. In fact, that amount is slightly lower than the previous year’s estimated spending of $22.85 million. At the same time, the government expects complaint solution times to improve majorly.

Those outcomes raise serious questions about whether the employment standards branch has the resources necessary to meet these targets. If we want complaints to be resolved faster, the branch responsible for investigating and enforcing employment standards must have accurate staffing, proper training and the tools needed to do its job effectively. Without those resources, the bill changes alone may not produce the improvements workers and employers both want to see.

Another issue that has been raised by stakeholders across the province is related to consultation. Many employer organizations have indicated that they were not meaningfully consulted before these changes were introduced. Labour policy, perhaps more than any other area of law, benefits from broad consultation. Workers, employers, labour organizations, business associations and legal experts all have valuable views to add to this.

When policies are developed through inclusive consultation, they are more likely to reflect real-world conditions and practical considerations. When stakeholders feel excluded from the process, it can undermine the confidence in resulting legislation.

It is important to remember that labour laws are not abstract policies. They govern relationships between people, between workers and employers who rely on each other every day. Effective labour regulations should strive to promote cooperation, fairness and clarity. They should provide clear outcomes and a reliable process for resolving disputes.

In the riding of Langley-Willowbrook, I regularly speak with small business owners who are deeply committed to their employees. They sponsor local teams. They donate to community organizations, and they provide opportunities for young people entering the workforce for the first time.

These businesses are not faceless corporations. They are run by families and individuals who care about their communities. When we design labour policies, we must ensure that they reflect the realities faced by these employers while still protecting workers from unfair treatment. The goal should always be balance.

Workers must have the confidence that if they are denied wages or treated unfairly, there’s a system in place that will protect them and help them recover what they are owed. Employers must also have confidence that the system is fair, transparent and accessible and that they will have the opportunity to challenge decisions they believe are incorrect.

Legislation like Bill 10 plays an important role in shaping that balance. That is why it is essential for the House to carefully examine each provision and consider its potential impacts. Some elements of this bill may improve administrative effectiveness or clarify existing processes. Others may introduce new challenges that need to be addressed through amendments, additional resources or improved implementation strategies.

As members, our responsibility is not simply to pass laws but to ensure that those laws work in practice and work for everyone in B.C. That means asking difficult questions, listening to stakeholders and recognizing when additional support or adjustments may be necessary.

[4:10 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia expect their government to create a fair and effective labour system. They expect workers to be protected and employers to be treated fairly. They also expect disputes to be resolved in a timely manner, so that problems do not drag for months or years.

Ultimately, the success of employment standards bills should be measured not just by the number of files processed or timelines reported in service plans but by whether workers actually receive the wages they are owed and whether employers have confidence in the fairness of the system.

As this bill continues through the process, I hope this government will carefully consider the concerns raised by employers, workers and community members across the province. I hope they will ensure that the employment standards branch has the resources it needs to enforce the law effectively. I hope they will remain open to improvements that strengthen fairness, transparency and balance within our labour system.

The residents of Langley-Willowbrook want a labour system that works. They want laws that protect workers while supporting reasonable employers. They want policies that are developed through meaningful consultation and implementation, with the resources necessary to make them effective. Those are reasonable reaches that the community wants, and they are the requirements that every member of this House should strive to meet.

I understand that there is some other business for the House, so I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to continue.

Jody Toor moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary
International Education
(Designated Institutions) Act

George Anderson: Section A reports completion of Bill 7 without amendment.

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

Hon. Josie Osborne: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary
International Education
(Designated Institutions) Act

Deputy Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the question. The vote is Bill 7 being read a third time, Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Bill 7, Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act has passed third reading.

Hon. Josie Osborne: In Section A, I call estimates for the Ministry of Forests.

Here, in the main chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 10.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Bill 10, continued debate.

Peter Milobar: I take my place to speak to Bill 10, Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

As I think we’ve heard from speakers on our side of the House, we’re in full agreement that, of course, you have to have good labour standards in this province to make sure that employees are properly protected and employers have a clear set of guidelines and rules to follow.

It’s that balance that creates a healthy workplace and those protections as well — not just a healthy workplace in the physical sense, in terms of injury rates and physical and mental, but also just the overall feel of a workplace for employees.

Those protections do need to be strong — absolutely. They need to be fair. They need to be, most importantly, easily understood both for the employee but also for the employer, especially as you get to a smaller operation of employment because those employers typically do not have professionalized human resources departments. They want to do right by their employees, but they’re kind of left on their own to interpret and to figure out what the rules and labour standards codes are.

The easier it is to understand, the less complicated, the less crossover there is for those smaller operators of smaller businesses, the more adherence to the rules we have. That is not because they would want to be wilfully breaking the rules but sometimes it would be unintentionally by not clearly understanding what the role of the employer actually is.

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, Bill 10, hopefully, will provide further clarity and further guidance for employers in that regard as well as for employees.

Of course, employees are always deserving of being paid everything they’re owed and being paid everything they’re owed in a timely fashion. In the case of temporary foreign workers, if they happen to be a bit harder to track down, employers certainly still need to make sure that those funds are available for payment as they can track the person down.

As we look through this bill, we have to keep that in mind — that most employers do want to follow rules. Most employees want the basic tenet of their employment — which is their time, their labour traded in exchange for a preset and predetermined rate of pay that does not turn into a wrestling match to acquire from your boss.

But again, the small business side of this equation…. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with the latest budget, this government does not seem to pay a lot of mind to small businesses in our province, in terms of the impacts of things that they are doing.

Small business sector is around 80 percent of the jobs in British Columbia — what you would consider out of a small business. They have concerns and we have concerns — making sure that they don’t struggle with the appeal deposit requirements in Bill 10, in terms of paying the full amount before a ruling is even rendered, just so you can challenge something that would come as a result of Bill 10.

Again, I say that in the backdrop of…. This will require more expertise, more accounting being done — Bill 10 — in a small business. That accounting under this government’s budget, will require 7 percent more cost to the small business. The small business, once again, has concerns as it looks at Bill 10, wondering if they were truly taken into account, and as I say, predominantly because they don’t have a human resources department.

I know when I had my own small business and when I worked in the family business, even though we had…. At Christmas time and catering, you could have upwards of almost 100 employees filtering in and out. Trying to manage that…. Now, this is going back a little ways, before there were as many human resource contractors out there to access easily. But those contractors come at a cost as well.

Even in a business the size that we were running, as it would fluctuate…. I was tasked with doing payroll. You would have a computerized payroll system. You would try to figure out what statutory holiday payments would be. You would have to figure all of that out. You’d have to live within the rules and the guidelines of the labour code to make sure people were being fairly paid and all those rules were being followed.

It’s a lot of burden on a small business. It is complex. It can be cumbersome. And the rules need to be clear and consistent. Again, with Bill 10, the worry is that this may add to that burden as well.

If it actually truly accomplishes what it’s purported to accomplish, that is one thing. But as we’ve seen all too often in this House, this government brings forward legislation that says it’s going to accomplish one thing and tends to accomplish the exact opposite. Then this government is back here within a session or two, making amendments to their legislation that we have suggested needed to be made when we were at this stage or at committee stage, and they brushed it off as unnecessary worry.

Mandatory mediation in this bill could create some extra administrative work for small businesses, especially with those without HR support or needing to have contract legal support come in to make sure that things are being done properly within the mediation process and that the small business is being treated fairly within that process as well.

Good employers are good employers. That doesn’t mean that they get it right all the time. It doesn’t mean that they wilfully are trying to break rules. So there is a needing…. That doesn’t help, though, the employee that maybe winds up on the wrong side of an employer legitimately making an honest error. Those good employers will still correct that honest error quickly.

[4:20 p.m.]

I can remember many a time I would have an employee that would get a hold of me right after. You could tell they worked previously for an employer that maybe wasn’t as easy to get along with because payday would come, and they’d say: “I’m missing hours.” And you’d have to say: “Well, just hold on. It’s okay. Just let me double-check the time sheet.” And I would say: “Oh yeah. There it is. No problem. I just transposed the number.” Or your finger slipped when you were manually inputting the numbers. “Not a problem. Here’s a makeup cheque,” or “Here’s a redone cheque.” It’s done and taken care of, and it was immediate.

I recognize that not all employers act that way, unfortunately, so again, the employees do need proper access to proper process to make sure it’s done. But good employers also can still be…. Again, it cuts both ways. Not all employees are trying to game the system. They’re just legitimately looking for missing hours or missing statutory holiday pay or things of that nature that were an honest error by an employer. Those relationships are built on trust and conversation. And then corrections are made, and people move forward.

Some employers, as I say, may try to take advantage and hope that the employee doesn’t understand the rules and what they are entitled to. So we do have to safeguard against that.

But just as there is the occasional employer that might try to take advantage of that, there is the occasional employee. They may try to trigger mediation or a dispute that really is maybe even well-intentioned but not based on any actual shortcoming by the employer in terms of what was owed to that employee. And the mediation process under this bill, again, could turn into that administrative legal cost pressure for the small employer — operating under no fault of their own and, ultimately, being indicated that they did nothing wrong and moving forward.

Now, I bring all that up because the government’s target of trying to resolve complaints is laudable; however, they’re not making those targets right now.

When you look at the budget, despite putting the tax collector’s firm grip around the neck of small business and drawing an extra $550 million of extra PST charges in PST that they’re going to pay on their security personnel that are in a store or the PST they’re going to pay for their bookkeeper or their accountant moving forward as a small business…. It’s $550 million they’re going to collect off this extra PST. It’s not a small amount of money.

Despite the government collecting all that extra money on the backs of small business and seniors and hard-working families, we see that the labour program’s funding has actually, essentially, been frozen, and it’s been frozen at $22.3 million for the next three years. So despite the fact that they’re going to pull in an extra $1.6 billion over the next three years, at minimum, on this extra PST, they’re freezing the funding on a program that would actually help employers and employees see a more timely resolution when they go to the mediation process.

Why it’s even more concerning is last year it was actually at $22.85 million — the budget. So this year they’ve actually cut the budget for a program that is underperforming in response times. Now why that’s concerning is….

The government seems to be thinking that Bill 10 will more than double the complaint resolution speed. But we’re not sure how you’re going to double the speed while increasing the number of files while actually decreasing the budget, all on the backs of small businesses that are paying half a billion dollars more in taxation while receiving literally less service for the money they’re being extra-taxed for.

So at a time when the small business community has been pleading for help, pleading for support — be it on crime and safety, be it on the disorder in our streets, be it on a wide range of issues going on that are impacting their livelihoods and their ability to operate properly — this government’s response is to cut budget to a program for disputes and actually put more pressure, more cost pressures, on those same disputes onto the feet and onto the lap of small businesses in the form of extra HR support, contracted HR support, as well as legal support.

Now, again, if you’re a good employer, you don’t have as much to worry about, but it doesn’t mean there won’t still be the odd case that comes through.

[4:25 p.m.]

In my case, we operated a hotel. My family operated a hotel, and then later my wife and myself operated a hotel for decades in Kamloops. I think we were the only full-service hotel that didn’t wind up being unionized, because we treated our staff well. We took care of those types of issues as best we could, and everyone knew they were being treated fairly and well.

But that didn’t mean we didn’t have the odd file go to the labour board about a dismissal or anything else like that, because that is the natural ebb and flow of the employer-employee relationship, where despite good relationships and good working conditions and everything else and trying to follow the rules, there are sometimes employees and there are sometimes employers that have a difference of opinion on how things are being interpreted, how payments are being made, the timeliness of it, severance.

Sometimes, yes, you do have to move on from each other. Sometimes it’s just not a good fit for the style of work, for the person. They wind up finding employment in a different line of work and they thrive and they quite enjoy it. But the employer needs to sometimes take those steps, for their protection or the improvement of their own business, with that employee. If the employee doesn’t agree with some of those situations, of course, we’re going to see more things come forward.

In terms of the clauses, clause 2 removes the time limitation of “within one year” for wages owed to an employer. If a director cannot locate the employee, then the wages are owed and are transferred to the administrator. Prior to this change, the wages could only be transferred after one year.

Again, there is some worry, and we’ll seek better clarification at committee stage around clauses like this, as to what it really means in practical terms and what consultation has really been taken and listened to in a meaningful way with employers.

You know, clause 3 repeals and replaces clause 76 of the Employment Standards Act. This change is a formatting change, but the clause itself does not materially change. So that’s a good thing, in terms of the government deciding that they need to update and modernize language, making sure it better reflects consistency with legislation across the board.

There was clause 6, previously section 78.1, that said a director “must make a report.” That has now changed to “may make a report.”

A lot of times…. I say this quite often. I think back to the failed attempt by the government to bring in Land Act changes. They wouldn’t bring them forward, and they wouldn’t show us what they were. At first, it turned out they were being drafted, and they were going to be quite extensive. Then the minister said that they weren’t even being drafted yet. Then the minister said, at the time: “Well, there are really only a couple of paragraphs, once we drafted it. It’s not a substantive change.”

So the story from government kept changing on what the Land Act changes were or weren’t going to be. At the time, we kept insisting we were opposed, also, because we didn’t take at face value what the government was saying the Land Act changes were going to be or not, because you can’t do that unless you read the legislation.

It’s similar to what we’re hearing about Bill 1 debate or not in this place, where it’s kind of hard to define whether or not you agree with a piece of legislation or not when you haven’t actually read said legislation.

In the case of the Land Act changes, the example I kept using was…. It was the easiest way to explain to people. Reading the legislation is critically important because the use of — I would literally use this — “may” versus “must” in a piece of legislation dramatically changes what that clause actually means to the government and in this case to employers or to employees.

So changing “the director must make a report….” Changing that now to “may make a report” gives a lot of latitude to a director to potentially not make a report.

Now in the backdrop of a government that is removing a Merit Commissioner, not wanting to have their own employment issues have a bit of a spotlight on them but wanting the private sector to have a bit more employment oversight on them is one thing. But the fact that they are now saying that the director doesn’t actually have to tell in a report what is going on — it’s only at their discretion — again, is on brand for a government that is continually finding ways to be secretive.

[4:30 p.m.]

Is the public better served or employers better served by that report being a “may” versus a “must”? Time will tell. Certainly, questions in committee stage will shine a light on that, into whether or not that is, indeed, something that is palatable and workable and understandable why that needs to be made.

There are a lot of other more housekeeping-type changes to the clauses. A lot of it is formatting. A lot of it is because if you rework the numbering in one section, the next sections down the line have to get renumbered as well. That’s pretty standard for this type of legislation.

Again, I think, at its core…. I hope what the government is hearing from opposition is that, fundamentally, we do agree that workers need proper rights, proper protections, proper workplace environments, proper payment, timely payment and the ability to find those funds when they’ve left a job in a reasonable fashion.

But we also have to balance that out with what the employer needs to have in terms of an HR system or a labour system that’s not unwieldy for in-house, homegrown HR-type decisions.

It’s to not put an onerous burden on small businesses as it relates to forcing them to have to go out and find independent HR advice and help that they don’t use on a regular basis. It’s for them not having to go out and unnecessarily have to get complicated legal help and legal advice on files that should be very reasonably easy to move through a system of adjudication and mediation without overcomplicating it with layers and layers of legalese — and HR-ese, I’ll call it. There is a very defined skill set and complexity when it comes to HR issues.

That’s the underlying piece — making sure that, in the backdrop of a budget that is very punitive to small businesses, Bill 10 doesn’t layer on yet another layer. We keep hearing from small businesses about death by a thousand cuts from this government. Let’s hope Bill 10 is not the 1,001 cut because that is not what anyone in the small business community would expect or want.

I think for the vast majority of small business operators, their employees are like family to them. We’re talking about a lot of operations that have five or six employees at most. A lot are long term. Some are multigenerational, where their parents or grandparents worked with the same store, and they get hired in school as well, because they’re from a trusted almost-family member that they hire on and continue working on.

It’s about making sure that those styles of businesses are not being unduly impacted while still protecting that balance of the worker and the employer. Because, of course, we want to hold bad actors accountable, and again, bad actors cut both ways in terms of that.

I thank you for the time on Bill 10. I look forward to hearing other debates on Bill 10, and I do look forward to committee stage where again, unfortunately, as has become the norm, we keep hearing: “Left for future regulation. Left for future regulation.” We’re unclear how much extra regulation will be needed in Bill 10 or if it can be fully enacted full stop.

We as an opposition do sincerely hope that on all bills. Unfortunately, with this government, it has been the practice to do the reverse. That is, to not answer the questions, to avoid giving a clear line of sight as to what the true intention of a piece of legislation is or isn’t and how to move forward in a way that is understandable for the public — for the employer, for the employee, in the case of Bill 10 — and make sure everybody is well-protected with that employer-employee relationship balance.

I thank you for the time, and I look forward to other speakers.

Donegal Wilson: I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

[4:35 p.m.]

In reviewing the bill, it proposes a series of amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, legislation that forms the backbone of how we protect workers in the province while also establishing the rules that employers and employees must operate under.

I’ve heard many times in the Boundary-Similkameen that changes need to be made to these pieces of legislation. I’m not sure these were the highest priorities for the people in my riding, but I look forward to discussing it nonetheless.

At its core, this legislation touches on three key areas: how employment complaints are investigated, how disputes are resolved between workers and employers and how decisions are appealed when there is disagreement with a ruling. These are not small administrative details. These processes determine whether workers receive the wages they are owed, how quickly those disputes are resolved and whether employers have fair access to appeal when they believe a decision has been made incorrectly. Because of that, legislation like this deserves careful scrutiny.

I want to begin by saying something that should unite all members of this House. Healthy workplaces require balance. Workers deserve strong protections. Employers deserve rules that are fair, clear and workable for business. If we get that balance right, we build a labour system that supports both opportunity and accountability for British Columbia. But if we get it wrong, we risk creating systems that are slower, more complicated and harder for both workers and employers to navigate.

Workers must be paid what they are owed. One of the most fundamental principles of employment law is simple. Wages earned must be wages paid. Employment standard law exists to ensure that workers receive the compensation that they have worked for.

Most employers across this province understand that and support that. In fact, the overwhelming majority of businesses want to follow the rules and exceed them in many places. They want to pay their workers properly. They want to treat them fairly and operate within the law.

In my own career, I’ve been extremely fortunate to work in many small businesses and non-profits where I felt like a member of the family. When I needed time off to do something with my family, they were always more than accommodating. And it went vice versa. I was willing and able to help my employers when they needed a little extra here and there because that relationship was good.

But when disputes arise — even in the best of circumstances, they can — workers need a clear pathway to resolve those issues. That is the role of the employment standards branch. It is the body responsible for investigating complaints, determining whether wages are owed and ensuring that those wages are paid.

Bill 10 introduces several procedural changes to how those complaints are handled. Some of those changes are relatively minor administrative adjustments, but others are going to raise important questions about fairness, accessibility and capacity that I look forward to investigating during committee stage, as we move forward.

I think one example relates to what happens when wages are owed to a worker who cannot be located. Under our current legislation, if an employer owes wages but the worker cannot be found, the director must wait one year before transferring those funds to an administrator responsible for holding them. Bill 10 removes that one-year waiting period. Instead, the director would have the authority to transfer those wages earlier after attempting to locate the employee.

On the surface, this may seem like a small housekeeping change, but it does raise some questions, I think, at least for me. What efforts will be required before those wages are transferred? How will workers be notified? And how will we ensure that the workers who move, change jobs or temporarily leave the workforce are still able to recover those wages that belong to them?

The goal always is — to be clear — that money belongs to the worker, not to the administrator, not to the employer. In the case where an employee is owed the wages, they belong to the worker. Any administrative change must ensure that workers remain our priority.

This bill also introduces a new complaint resolution process during investigations. Under the proposed changes, the director would be able to require parties to participate in a complaint resolution process as part of that investigation. In principle, early resolution can be a good thing. It should be our goal at all times. When disputes are resolved quickly and fairly, both workers and employers will benefit.

The workers will receive their wages faster. The employers avoid prolonged investigations. But there are some practical questions here.

[4:40 p.m.]

Many small businesses in British Columbia do not have a dedicated HR department. They don’t have a legal team in-house. It’s usually the wife or the husband who’s in the background in the evenings trying to figure it out — read the laws, interpret it and figure out how to run their business. They’re trying to navigate that complex employment law while running their operations day to day.

Mandatory participation in complaint resolution processes could create additional burdens for these businesses. We need to ask whether those changes will simplify dispute resolution or actually make it more complicated.

I look forward to committee stage, where we can dig into this to better understand where government is going with this and the details around how that’s going to look going forward.

Another key change in Bill 10 relates to the appeal deposit. If an employer wishes to appeal a determination that requires them to pay wages, they must now deposit the full amount of the ruling with the director before filing that appeal. The tribunal would have the discretion to accept a smaller deposit in some circumstances. It isn’t clear how discretionary that is or what those circumstances might be. Financial hardship of the employer — it’s not clear whether that would be considered.

But I do understand the intent behind the policy. It is meant to discourage frivolous appeals and ensure that workers are not left waiting indefinitely while employers challenge decisions also indefinitely.

The reality is that while the administrator takes the deposit, it doesn’t actually go to the worker. It’s sitting in trust, so it hasn’t sped up anything for the worker. That money has just gone from the business to the trust. The worker is still out the money and the business is out the money, while it’s sitting there locked up during this dispute process.

I’m concerned about what the timeline around the appeals process could be. Is this another year? I look forward to also delving into that during committee stage.

For large corporations, depositing that full amount of a ruling is probably manageable. It’s something that’s within their existing cash flow. But for many small businesses, especially ones that may already be facing financial hardship…. As we know, many businesses in B.C. are struggling to make ends meet. I know payroll every second Friday — or mid-month and end of month, depending on the cycle you’re on — is very stressful for many employers in Boundary-Similkameen as they struggle to make those ends meet.

The hearing itself could really stretch those small businesses out further not only with the cash flow sitting in trust but also in the time and energy of, again, going through the appeal process, learning the laws and trying to figure out how to do it.

I’m nervous, I guess, that the full amount up front could effectively prevent some employers from exercising that right to appeal. They may decide, “I financially cannot afford to appeal this,” which puts them in a system that restricts the access to appeal.

It’s kind of fundamental to our democracy and how we do things in British Columbia. We know that mistakes happen. Evidence may be disputed. Interpretations of the laws can vary. So ensuring that that appeal mechanism remains accessible to all parties, for me, is part of the fairness of the system.

I’m concerned that putting that deposit, full requirement, up front into trust over an undetermined amount of time while that’s happening could deter and curb the ability to do appeals.

Perhaps the most significant issue related to employment standards in British Columbia is not addressed directly by this bill, and that is the time it takes to actually resolve the complaint. I touched on it a little bit during the appeal process, but I believe that it’s an overall issue within the employment standards branch.

According to the government’s own service plan, over the past several years, only about 32 percent of employment standards complaints have been resolved within 180 days. That means that the majority of workers are waiting longer than six months to see their complaints resolved. That’s six months that they don’t have money for their groceries. It’s their unpaid wages that they’re waiting six months to get to.

This is a time when people are struggling to pay rent, to pay their bills. I spoke in the House a couple of days…. Some people are struggling to pay for their water in this province, and that six months is really meaningful for a struggling family.

I will acknowledge that the government has set a target of resolving 80 percent of complaints within 180 days by ’27-28. But that’s a 50 percent improvement. It is a lofty goal. I commend the government for going for it.

[4:45 p.m.]

But they’ve matched that with a static budget and no significant changes flagged within the service plan, so it is unclear to me how the minister intends to meet that goal.

If we pretend they are going to meet it and we are going to get there, then that means that still one in five workers would be waiting longer than six months. There’s still a significant amount of cases that won’t be resolved within that six-month window.

Is that acceptable? Is that something that we are willing to just accept here in British Columbia? For me, success should not be measured simply by how quickly we’re closing the files, but success should be measured by whether workers actually are receiving the wages they are owed and whether the system delivers those results in a timely manner.

I want to talk about a small business in my riding which, unfortunately, went insolvent. It’s a sad story. There were a lot of employees that lost their jobs. It resulted in a case that landed in my office last summer. What it was, was a lot of the management team were owed their severance packages from the employer. For whatever reason, they are actually listed as a creditor in the insolvency. They’re not guaranteed those severance packages and wages. At that time, that person had been waiting 15 months for their severance package.

I don’t see anything in here that would solve that. That concerns me because it was a significant amount of money for that person who had moved — had only been in the job a short period of time but had uprooted their entire family — to come work for this business and had them, unfortunately, go insolvent. Unfortunately, that story played itself across several management employees within this organization.

I wish that this legislation spoke to what we’re going to do about that going forward, and I encourage the minister to look at that as something for future legislation.

But that brings up another concern. This government expects complaint resolution times to improve significantly. With a frozen budget at $22.3 million for the next three years, that’s actually lower than last year’s estimate of $22.85 million.

So the question becomes: how will the employment standards branch resolve these complaints faster without those resources? Faster timelines require more investigators. They require more administrative staff. They require capacity within the organization. Without those resources, legislative changes alone will not solve the problem.

If I go back to the same insolvent business, the case that I had, I went to employment standards and was looking for some guidance. I talked to an investigator within the branch. I was told that it was in her workload. Coming up at 15 months is how far they had been at that time. But she was going on maternity leave in the next week. I asked her who was taking over her case files, and she said: “I am the last investigator in the office, and I don’t have anybody taking over my files.”

I seriously wonder whether this legislation can be enforced on the ground. Do we have the investigators to actually work through these files? In the case of my constituent, I can tell you that there was nobody there to get through the files. I’m very concerned about that and what we’re going to do ongoing to make sure those employers…. To my knowledge, they still have not got their wages out of the bankruptcy, so they would be approaching 24 months at this point.

I want to talk a little bit about some concerns raised by some employer organizations relating to consultation. I’ve heard from some groups, in my riding specifically, that they were not consulted before these changes were introduced. Many small businesses didn’t know this was coming. They weren’t included.

I believe that labour policy works best when both sides of the workplace are part of the conversation. We need the employer and the employee together making these decisions and figuring out the best path forward. The employers bring that perspective of practicality and implementation — what it looks like on the ground.

What looks good in this chamber doesn’t necessarily translate down to the bush in Grand Forks, a logging truck employee out in the middle of the bush trying to do something. So we need to make sure that we are including people on the ground in the legislation that we’re doing.

I really encourage British Columbians to engage with the minister if they have concerns about this legislation but to also include the official opposition in those concerns so that we can help have a fulsome discussion at committee stage and make sure those concerns are heard and addressed.

[4:50 p.m.]

I believe that good policy is built through dialogue and through consultation, through engagement with people who actually live on the ground and will live with the consequences of this legislation. We need to include them and bring them along.

British Columbia’s labour laws play an important role in shaping our economy. They protect workers. They set expectations for employers. They help ensure their workplaces remain safe, fair and productive.

Legislation must also recognize the diversity of workplaces across this province. You heard me speak about the logging truck driver who’s out in Grand Forks. I’m sure that there is a tire repair guy right now on the side of the highway somewhere in Beaverdell as a lone worker working through that. We need to make legislation that protects those workers. We need to set expectations that the employer can meet and understand clearly and help ensure that our workplaces remain safe, fair and productive for everyone.

Legislation must also recognize that large corporations in the Lower Mainland are very different from those of a small rural community in B.C. Many employers in Boundary-Similkameen are very small and have one or two employees.

In my own business, we don’t actually have a full-time employee. We hire when we need them, based on the workload.

They’re farmers. They’re tradespeople. They’re tourism operators. They’re loggers. They’re family-run companies. They care about their employees. They want to treat them fairly. But they need rules that are clear and systems that are workable.

In closing, Bill 10 contains several procedural changes to employment standards processes. I think some of those changes may improve efficiency. I think others raise important questions about fairness, access to appeal and whether the system has the resources it needs to function effectively.

Workers deserve to be paid what they are owed. Nowhere in any of this…. That has to be kept at the core of what we’re doing. And employers deserve a system that is fair and accessible.

British Columbians deserve a labour system that resolves disputes quickly and transparently. We need to ensure that we properly resource our investigations office so that we can meet the goal of 80 percent, even. One in five not being addressed in six months still seems not okay to me, but it is a goal, and I hope that the minister is able to achieve it.

As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure that these laws achieve our goals, because at the end of the day, employment standards legislation is not just about regulation. It’s about people — people who work hard every day, people who rely on our workplaces and our businesses, and people who expect their government to build systems that work.

Ian Paton: I’m pleased to get up and speak today on observations to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 10. I want to begin today with some observations from an agricultural perspective, because the temporary foreign worker program and the seasonal agricultural worker program are so vital to our agricultural industry throughout Canada, but especially here for us in British Columbia.

Whether you’re in the Okanagan growing grapes or growing tree fruits, whether you’re running a grain operation in the Peace country or a dairy farm in Delta, temporary foreign workers are exceptionally important in today’s agricultural workings in British Columbia.

Temporary foreign farmworkers play a crucial role in sustaining agriculture in British Columbia. Many farms in the province rely on seasonal labour to plant, maintain and harvest crops — such as berries, apples, vegetables and greenhouse products — especially at our greenhouses in Delta. Hundreds and hundreds of foreign workers are employed and live in Delta in temporary housing at these greenhouses.

Local labour shortages often make it difficult for farms to find enough workers during peak growing seasons. Temporary foreign workers help fill this gap, ensuring that crops are harvested on time and do not go to waste. Their contributions help maintain the productivity and stability of B.C.’s agricultural sector. When farms can operate efficiently, they supply food to local markets, grocery stores and export markets, supporting both food security and economic growth.

[4:55 p.m.]

Agriculture is an important part of the provincial economy, generating jobs not only for farms but also in transportation, food processing and retail — all different types of businesses and professions that temporary foreign workers participate in here in British Columbia. The presence of temporary foreign workers helps keep this system functioning smoothly.

In addition to their economic value, these workers bring skills and experience in farming that can improve efficiency and productivity. Many return year after year, becoming familiar with farm operations and building strong relationships with farmers and their families and the local communities. We see this very evidently in my riding of Delta South with so many temporary foreign farmworkers living in Delta now.

B.C. farmers play a crucial role in fairly treating foreign farmworkers by ensuring legal wages, safe housing, proper working conditions and respect for workers rights. These responsibilities help prevent exploitation and maintain a sustainable agricultural workforce throughout Canada.

Overall, temporary foreign farmworkers are essential partners in B.C. agriculture. Their labour supports farm viability, strengthens rural economies and helps ensure that Canadians continue to have access to fresh, locally grown food.

However, we must be careful when talking about the reduction of temporary foreign workers in Canada, specifically for the agricultural sector. What a disaster it would be if we were to suddenly eliminate the number of temporary foreign workers that we have in British Columbia working in our agricultural sector.

As I said earlier, so many temporary foreign workers from places such as Mexico, the Caribbean nations, Jamaica, Guatemala and India are all actively working now throughout British Columbia.

In my riding specifically, in Delta South, I can name, even on my farm road where I live…. The dairy farm right next to me has probably five to six foreign workers.

Finding young people nowadays that come out of high school here in British Columbia that are eager to get up at 5 a.m. to milk cows and pick berries and do those kind of hard, laborious jobs with our agriculture in B.C…. They’re pretty hard to find, so we’re very honoured and pleased to be able to have temporary foreign workers come to us from places like the Caribbean and Mexico.

The farmers in British Columbia do their part, as well, to bring these temporary workers up. The farmers have to do their part in arranging for airfare, arranging for hotels and accommodation when the workers arrive. And of course, they have to have proper accommodation with proper washroom facilities, all the different things that are offered to temporary foreign workers on our farms.

We must certainly abide by the rules of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, and we must be aware of situations of vulnerability and exploitation to some of our workers. As I said, we need to approve and provide them with safe, adequate housing; with regular inspections, which get done throughout British Columbia, to the conditions and the working conditions of temporary foreign workers at agricultural facilities.

Agriculture would be lost without the TFW program and the seasonal agricultural farmworkers program, and we certainly need those folks in our agricultural business in B.C.

I speak in support of the principles behind the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 10. At its core, this legislation attempts to address an enduring challenge in labour policy: how we maintain a fair balance between the rights of workers to organize, the rights of employers to operate stable businesses and the broader public interest in a strong and productive economy.

Labour law is rarely simple. It sits at the intersection of economics, workplace rights and social policy. Every amendment to our labour statutes inevitably shifts that balance slightly one way or another. Our responsibility in this chamber is not simply to choose sides but to ensure the system remains fair, transparent and workable for everyone involved.

[5:00 p.m.]

Bill 10 introduces several important changes to the labour relations framework in British Columbia. I would like to speak about an important component of this legislation that has not received as much attention as the certification provisions. Bill 10 also makes amendments to the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. These changes deal with something fundamental, ensuring that workers receive the wages they have earned.

Employment standards laws exist for a very simple reason. Workers deserve to be paid what they are owed. Wages earned must be wages paid.

One of the changes in this legislation addresses situations where an employer owes wages to an employee but cannot locate that employee. Previously the director responsible for enforcement could only take possession of those wages after attempting to locate the worker for a full year. Bill 10 removes that one-year waiting period. If reasonable efforts have been made and the employee cannot be located, those wages can now be transferred sooner to an administrator who holds them on behalf of the worker.

On its face, that may sound like a technical administrative change, but in reality, it improves the system’s ability to ensure that money owed to workers is protected rather than sitting indefinitely in limbo.

This legislation also introduces changes to the appeal process when a determination is made requiring payment of wages. Under the new provisions, if an employer wishes to appeal a decision requiring payment, the amount owed must generally be deposited with the director before the appeal proceeds. Those funds will accrue interest while the appeal is underway. The tribunal does retain the discretion to allow a smaller deposit amount on a case-by-case basis.

The intent behind the provision is clear. It discourages frivolous appeals and ensures that workers are not forced to wait years to receive wages that have already been determined to be owed.

However, we must also recognize the concerns raised by many small businesses about this requirement. For large corporations, depositing the full amount of a wage determination may not pose a serious challenge, but for a small business, particularly one operating on tight margins, that requirement could make it difficult to exercise their right to appeal a decision they believe is incorrect.

Healthy workplaces require balance. Workers need strong protections. Employers need rules that are fair and workable. The vast majority of employers in this province want to follow the rules. Labour laws should support good employers while holding bad actors accountable. We must be careful that in trying to strengthen enforcement mechanisms, we do not unintentionally create barriers that make it difficult for legitimate businesses to defend themselves when disputes arrive.

The bill also introduces a new complaint resolution process during investigations conducted by the employment standards branch. Under these provisions, the director may require the parties involved in a complaint to participate in a resolution process while the investigation continues. If a party fails to participate, the director may continue the investigation or may proceed to make determination with consequences.

The goal of this approach is to resolve disputes earlier in the process rather than allowing complaints to sit unresolved for extended periods of time. That goal is important. Employment standards complaints must be resolved faster if we want healthier workplaces.

Over the past four years, government service plans show that only about 32 percent of complaints have been resolved within 180 days. That means the majority of workers filing complaints currently wait longer than six months. Even the government’s target for resolving 80 percent of complaints within 180 days by 2027 still means that one in five workers could be waiting longer than six months for a resolution.

Ultimately, success should not be measured only by how quickly files are closed. Success should be measured by whether workers actually receive the wages they are owed.

That brings us to another important issue: resources. The provincial budget currently freezes labour program funding at roughly $22.3 million for the next three years, which is actually slightly lower than the previous estimate of $22.8 million.

[5:05 p.m.]

At the same time, government expects complaint resolution times to improve dramatically. That raises an obvious question. Does the employment standards branch have the resources necessary to meet those expectations? If we are serious about enforcing employment standards, then the agencies responsible for that work must have the capacity to do it effectively.

These issues are particularly important in sectors such as agriculture, where many workers are seasonal or part of federal migrant worker programs. In communities like mine, of Delta, and specifically in the riding of Delta South, agriculture remains a central part of our local economy.

Much of the farmland in Delta South lies within the agricultural land reserve. Over 26,000 acres of farmland are being farmed in my riding of Delta South, which protects some of the most productive agricultural land in Canada — referring to the agricultural land reserve. Farm operations in the region produce vegetables, berries, greenhouse crops and dairy products that supply families across the province.

My riding of Delta South probably has the most greenhouses growing cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers, more than any other parts of British Columbia, with hundreds and hundreds of seasonal foreign agricultural workers at these greenhouses. They’ve put up wonderful temporary housing units, stacked. Some of them have as many as 100 foreign workers living on a greenhouse farm — such as Windset, which is quite famous in Delta for their products.

You know, I think the people of my riding enjoy seeing these young men and women from Guatemala, from Jamaica, from Mexico, who all ride bikes. They love their bicycles. Every Sunday is their day off, and we see these seasonal workers at the bus stops, because they want to go into Richmond or into Vancouver and experience what it’s like to be in British Columbia.

We’ve even set up in Delta some wonderful things for our foreign workers. These folks from Central America, Mexico and Jamaica love their soccer. We’ll set up a Sunday soccer match between seasonal foreign workers right in Ladner, and they all get the day off from their greenhouse jobs or their dairy farm jobs.

A goal I have of mine is to set up…. We’re going to block off a main street in the village of Ladner and have a seasonal foreign worker night with mariachi bands and some food trucks and whatnot. We want to make these young men and women feel very, very welcome here in British Columbia.

Much of the farmland in Delta South lies within the ALR, which protects some of the most productive farmland in Canada. Farm operations in the region produce vegetables, berries and greenhouse crops, as I said, but those farms depend on a reliable workforce. Agriculture in British Columbia relies heavily on seasonal labour and on workers who arrive under temporary foreign worker programs. These individuals perform demanding work under tight production guidelines. Their rights must be protected.

At the same time, farms operate under a very narrow seasonal window. When harvest season arrives, crops must be picked immediately. A delay of even a few days can result in the loss of an entire crop. That is why labour policy must recognize the operational realities of agriculture. Farmworkers deserve fair treatment and protection under the law. Farmers deserve clear, predictable rules that allow them to operate viable businesses. Both things can be true at the same time.

There is one final concern that has been raised by many employer groups during discussions about Bill 10. A number of stakeholders have said that they were not meaningfully consulted before these changes were introduced. Labour policy works best when both workers and employers are part of the conversation. When one side feels excluded from the process, confidence in the legislation inevitably suffers. Public policy, particularly labour policy, is rarely improved by rushing past the people most affected by it.

Ultimately, labour relations policy works best when all sides believe the system is legitimate. Workers must believe their voices are respected. Employers must believe the rules are predictable and fair. And the public must believe that our economy remains stable and productive. That balance is not always easy to achieve, but it’s worth remembering that strong labour relations systems benefit the entire economy. Stable workplaces reduce disputes, improve productivity and create environments where businesses and workers can succeed together.

[5:10 p.m.]

Bill 10 represents a deliberate effort to strengthen worker protections and modernize aspects of our labour framework. The improvements I have outlined today are not meant to weaken the legislation. They are meant to strengthen it. Better verification processes, clear information for workers about their rights, consideration for small businesses navigating the appeal process, adequate resources for enforcement and broader consultation with both workers and employers. If we take those steps, we can ensure that this legislation achieves its goal — protecting workers while maintaining a fair and workable system for employers.

The history of labour policy in British Columbia has always been cyclical. Governments adjust the rules, economies change and workplaces evolve. But through all those changes, one principle remains constant. Labour legislation works best when it seeks balance rather than advantage.

For those reasons, I support the intent of Bill 10, and I encourage this House to continue refining the legislation so it delivers fair and effective results for workers, employers and communities across British Columbia.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always a privilege and an honour to speak in these chambers and also to represent Abbotsford West. I rise today to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

I’m sure I’m going to probably repeat things that have already been spoken, but I think it’s important that we do. A bill that amends both the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act in British Columbia deserves attention.

At its core, labour law should do one thing above all else: protect fairness in the workplace, both for the worker and the employer. Workers deserve to receive the wages they have earned, and the employers deserve a system that is predictable, transparent and workable. Healthy workplaces are built on balance. When balance shifts from one side to the other and it’s lost and when either the workers or the employers feel the system is stacked against them, confidence in the system begins to erode.

While this bill contains elements that move us in the right direction, it also raises serious questions about fairness, questions about due process, questions about whether the government is providing the resources necessary for the system to function effectively. So before discussing the clauses themselves, we must look at the broader context.

This was already mentioned by the speaker before, but I’m going to repeat it. The government’s own service plans show that only 32 percent of the employment standards complaints are resolved within 180 days. That’s only 32 percent. That means 68 percent do not. That means the majority of workers who file complaints wait longer than six months just to see their cases resolved.

Even the government’s future target about resolving 80 percent of the complaints within 180 days by 2027-28 still means one in five workers could be waiting longer than six months. That is not a system working efficiently.

Here is why. Workers who have not been paid their wages often cannot wait a half a year. Rent doesn’t wait a half a year. It’s due every month. Groceries don’t wait for six months. You need groceries almost every day, and you go shopping every week. Child care bills don’t wait. At the same time as this, the provincial budget freezes funding for labour programs at $22.3 million for the next three years, which is actually lower than the previous year’s estimate.

So we have to ask a fundamental question here. How does the government expect the employment standards branch to resolve complaints faster with fewer resources?

[5:15 p.m.]

I’m not a math whiz, but if you have less resources, which means you have less people, you’re going to get less productivity. At least, that’s how my math works. I don’t know how their math works, but that’s how my math works.

Improving labour standards enforcement requires not just legislative changes. That’s the easy part. But it also means people. You need investigators. You need administrative capacity to make those changes meaningful. Without that, legislation risks becoming little more than paperwork.

It’s easy to make rules and legislation but you need people to enforce it. I think sometimes we’re really good at making legislation. Here’s what we expect from people, here are the regulations, and this is how we’re going to enforce them. But then we don’t put the investment on the ground for people to actually enforce them. So then the legislation becomes, actually, very meaningless.

If you ever want to make systemic change…. I was on the school board for 16 years. We knew as a board that unless you had buy-in at the teacher level in the classroom, it really didn’t matter what you do at the board level. You need buy-in at the ground level.

Another issue raised that touches on that — repeatedly by employer organization — is the lack of consultation before these changes were introduced. So there’s no buy-in. They got no skin in the game. They had no say. Labour policy works best when workers, employers and government all participate in shaping it, because then they have buy-in. Then they own the legislation instead of it being imposed on them.

Most employers in this province want to follow reasonable rules in a reasonable time. They want clarity. They want fairness. They want to know the policies affecting their businesses are developed with their input. That is not what happened.

When significant policy changes appear without consultation, it undermines the trust process. “Why wouldn’t you talk to us? Now you’re imposing this on us, but you haven’t talked to us.” That matters, because compliance works best when stakeholders believe the rules were developed fairly. Without a voice at the table, how can that be fair?

One of the most significant changes in this legislation appears in clause 9, which amends the appeal process under the Employment Standards Act. Under this bill, an employer appealing a determination that requires payment must deposit the full amount owed before the appeal can proceed. The tribunal may allow a smaller amount, but that is at their discretion. Well, I don’t think that’s going to be likely. Once you have the opportunity to grab a little money, I don’t think anybody is going to say: “Well, let’s just grab a little less.”

Let us be clear about what that means in practice. For a large corporation, depositing a disputed amount during an appeal may not be difficult at all because they have a large budget. But for a small business…. Let’s say a family restaurant, mom and pop working hard. Someone is in the kitchen, someone is doling out, and someone is cleaning up. A small construction contractor, where he still puts on the belt and is working every day in the sun and the rain and snow — been there. A local retail shop. This requirement could be extremely challenging to those smaller businesses.

Small businesses often operate on tight margins and probably tighter today than ever before. Cash flow can be unpredictable, especially today, now that we’ve added some PST requirements onto them. The cost of doing business is getting harder and harder each day. “Just trying to stay afloat” is what I’m hearing from businesses every day.

Requiring the full amount of disputing determinations up front may effectively eliminate the ability to appeal for some people. That’s not fair. In other words, the appeal process could become inaccessible not because the case lacks merit but because the business simply cannot afford the deposit up front.

[5:20 p.m.]

I know business owners are probably working. They used to hire staff. This was years ago. They could manage the organization, the restaurant, the little shop, the local retail shop or the construction company. Now things are so tight that I’m hearing business owners saying they can’t afford even to hire employees and they have to work harder themselves.

How are they going to afford this? Justice should not depend on the size of one’s bank account. Appeals exist for a reason: to correct errors fairly. If the cost of accessing an appeal becomes prohibitive, we risk undermining the fairness of the system itself.

Another major challenge appears in clause 4, which introduces a new complaint resolution process during the investigation. Under this bill, the director may require parties to participate in a complaint resolution process as part of the investigation. You know, at first glance, mediation or facilitating resolution sounds like a positive step. Resolving disputes early absolutely saves time. It saves money and stress for everyone involved.

However, the bill also allows the director to impose this process — impose it. They don’t have a choice. “This is the direction you’re going. You have no choice.” And specify how parties must participate.

Here it is again. It’s not equal to every size of business. For instance, for large employers with HR departments and legal advisers, this may not present a significant burden at all. But here we are again. Mom-and-pop businesses, the small businesses — the backbone of every community — many of which do not have dedicated HR staff or mandatory mediation.

This mediation then becomes an administrative hurdle. Preparing for mediation. Can you imagine a mom and pop trying to run a business? Now they’re working harder than ever before. Now they’ve got to create all this paperwork, gather all the documents and navigate a process. All require time and expertise, which they don’t have because they can’t afford it. The government must ensure that dispute resolution processes are accessible and fair for everyone involved, not just those with legal teams.

Another noteworthy change appears in clause 6, which modifies section 78.1. In the previous legislation, it required directors to prepare a written report before making a determination. What a written report does is it allows everybody to see things ahead of time. You can see everything laid out. You know what is coming. No surprises.

Under the new bill, the director may prepare such a report. Now let me ask you something here. If they have less money, less people, less investigators, what do you think they’re going to do? They don’t have time to write a report. They’re going to skip this altogether because they may. It’s no longer mandatory, and that’s unfair to those who are trying to find resolution. They need it written out in plain English.

These changes raise questions about transparency. Written reports provide an opportunity for both parties to understand the reasoning behind the decision. If you want to resolve this and make peace, it’s got to be written down clearly for everyone to see. They help ensure that determinations are based on clear evidence and analysis.

By making the report optional, the legislation potentially reduces the transparency of the process, and that’s what this bill does. If decisions are made without detailed written explanations, both workers and employers may find it hard to understand or challenge those decisions.

Can you imagine? You don’t get a report when they’re making the decision. How long before a report comes, if it comes at all? So what are you doing? When the decision comes down, you’re writing frantically with all these legal jargons. You don’t even know what it says. But if it’s written down clearly in a report, you know exactly what it says. You know what exactly you can get clarification on. You can go directly to that report to find out what you’re going to oppose, what needs to be challenged. Without that report, you have nothing.

[5:25 p.m.]

Clause 2 removes the requirement that a director attempt to locate an employee for one year before transferring unclaimed wages to the administrator. One year. One year goes pretty quick. We’ve been here now over one year, and that went quick.

Is that enough time? I think the guy that’s owed the money definitely thinks it’s not enough. The administrator? We could shorten that a little. It depends which end of the stick you’re on. The intention here appears to be administrative efficiency, but the removal of a defined waiting period raises questions about how long efforts must be made to locate the worker.

Now, I wouldn’t think anybody in this House would disagree that workers deserve to receive the wages they’ve earned. They do — period. I think we’d all agree with that. Any changes to the process for handling unclaimed wages should ensure that genuine efforts are made to locate employees before funds are transferred elsewhere.

This bill also introduces similar appeal deposit requirements under the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. This is a particularly sensitive area. Temporary foreign workers are among the most vulnerable workers in our labour market.

I understand this full well. I come from a city in the country where we have all kinds of agriculture — in the Fraser Valley. They rely heavily on temporary foreign workers. They’re great employees. I have talked to the workers that work there. They come back year after year for 17 years, 20 years, some of them. Some of them have their children coming. That’s how solid these relationships are.

We can’t say that about everybody. Strong enforcement mechanisms are essential to protect them from exploitation. Totally agree. But again, fairness in enforcement requires transparency and due process. Policies must ensure that legitimate employers can challenge determinations when appropriate while still holding bad actors accountable.

I’m seeing this appearing more and more, and the federal government just did this recently. They used a hammer with the international students, punishing every institution across the country, rather than taking a scalpel and dealing with the bad actors and shutting them down. Now every institution has a limited amount of international students. Their budgets are…. Their deficits are running high. They’re laying off employees. They’re laying off staff. They’re closing programs. Less students are able to go to those schools.

This does the same thing. It uses a hammer instead of a scalpel.

Perhaps the most concerning issue surrounding this bill is the gap between expectations and resources. The government wants complaint resolution times to more than double in speed. If I do the math, it means you need two times of everything. At least that’s how it works for me. If I want to get a house built twice as fast, either I have to work twice as long or I need twice the employees to help me build that house twice as fast.

Yet the funding allocation to labour programs remains frozen. So the question: how does it magically double? How do the outcomes magically double? If the employment standards branch does not receive additional investigators, if it doesn’t receive additional mediators and additional administrative staff, these legislative changes may simply shift the burden rather than solve the problem.

The risk is that workers will still wait months for resolution while employers face new procedural requirements. This is not the outcome anybody wants. This does not help anyone.

Success in labour policy should not be measured solely by how quickly files are closed. Success should be measured by whether workers actually receive the wages they’re owed and whether employers believe the system treats them fairly.

[5:30 p.m.]

It’s almost like the housing rented…. I’m hearing people don’t want to rent their houses anymore because the fairness has shifted to one side. Why would you buy a house to rent it out when the renter has all the rules and the laws going on their side? It’s the same here.

We need to make sure the employee gets paid and this process is fair for the employer. When those two outcomes align, we achieve what labour law should strive for — balance and healthy workplaces.

Second reading debate provides an opportunity for members to raise concerns and ask questions about proposed legislation. In the case of Bill 10, there are several questions that remain unanswered.

How will the employment standards branch significantly reduce complaint resolution times without additional funding or staff? I think I’ve highlighted that very clearly.

Two, what consultation occurred with employer groups and small business organizations before these changes were introduced? Is this going to be a surprise to them? They’ve had a lot of surprises in the last couple of years. I don’t think they can handle too many more.

Three, how will the government ensure that the appeal deposit requirements do not prevent legitimate appeals from being heard?

Five, how will the new complaint resolution process be implemented in a way that is fair and balanced for both workers and employers?

These are not partisan questions. I think everybody in this House would want those fairly answered. They are practical questions about how legislation will work in the real world.

Bill 10 contains provisions aimed at improving enforcement and dispute resolutions within British Columbia’s labour standards system, but legislation alone cannot fix structural problems. Without adequate resources — I’ve mentioned it before — proper consultation, without talking to the people on the ground and careful attention to fairness for both workers and employers, these changes may create new challenges rather than solving the existing ones.

Let’s be clear. Workers deserve to be paid what they’re owed. Employers deserve a system that is transparent, fair and workable. And this Legislature has the responsibility to ensure that labour laws achieve both.

We have serious questions with this bill that we want to open up, unpack and make amendments to, to make it stronger and fairer for both the employee and the employer.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 10, intituled Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Now I call continued second reading on Bill 9.

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

David Williams: I’ll pick up where I left off the other day.

Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, sounds really good but, like I specified the other day, not good.

It’s probably the opposite of what it sounds like. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act is a bill nothing like the title indicates. I’m glad that we have this second reading so we can actually sit here and debate it.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’ll pick up where I had left off. I was going clause by clause. So we’ll continue on where I was, clauses 21 and 22, which are sections 71 and 71.1. This has to do with fees for access. Here’s the thing. It introduces paywalls to information. It discourages informal access. And it penalizes low-income applicants.

Access to public information should not depend on one’s ability to pay. Introducing fees for records that would otherwise be made available without an FOI request and requires a paywall around transparency is unheard of and unconscionable.

When transparency carries a price tag, low-income citizens, small community groups and rural residents are disproportionately affected. Many, many organizations and small entities depend on getting this information. They base a lot of findings around information that they receive, so this information should be more readily available rather than more difficult to get.

Let’s move on to clause 23, section 73. This expands the liability protection. Broader immunity could also reduce consequences for poor disclosure practices. That rewards rather than punishes poor disclosure. That’s not good. So now it doesn’t have to be accurate?

Clause 28, transitional application. This is retroactive section 43 powers. The major concern here is the fact that it changes the rules mid-game. Nobody likes rules being changed halfway through. It allows FOIs to be dismissed under a new, broader refusal power. For instance, if I have a request in right now, which I probably do, they could turn around and refuse it because now they just changed the rules on me. That doesn’t sound very fair.

Retroactive application of broader refusal powers undermines fairness and predictability. Citizens who filed requests under one legal framework should not have the rules changed mid-process. Retroactive restriction of access rights erodes the trust in both the process and the institution. Already people don’t trust government.

In conclusion, Bill 9 systematically weakens freedom of information in British Columbia. This NDP government has a history of hiding information, unreasonable delays and deciding what information the public should be entitled to. This bill expands secrecy. It normalizes delay. It concentrates discretion. It weakens oversight, and it penalizes citizens for asking questions.

I cannot support a bill that makes it easier for governments to say no. As a responsible advocate for my constituents, I want it to be easier for citizens to get answers and have government more accountable, not less accountable. Many in the past have fought for our basic freedoms. I believe in transparency, accountability and expanded oversight as well as that decentralization is foundational to democracy. It goes without saying that I strongly oppose this bill.

I am not alone though. Jason Woywada, the executive director for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, stated: “You cannot fix systemic information management problems by weakening public access rights.”

Mike Larsen, president of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association: “This is worse than a missed opportunity. Successive governments receive clear advice on gaps in the act and then completely disregard the guidance.”

Another one. Let’s skip down here. Canadian Association of Journalists: “Restrictions on access of information undermine freedom of the press and the public’s ability to monitor government actions.” Canadian Association of Journalists: “Access to information laws are essential tools for holding governments accountable.”

Like I said, I definitely would have to oppose this bill, and I thank you for the opportunity to debate it.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we are continuing debate on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026.

[5:40 p.m.]

Susie Chant: I truly appreciate this opportunity, and I’m very glad to speak to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I’m going to probably refer to it as FOIPPA to reduce the amount of exertion involved in saying that every time.

Before I start, of course, I acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations.

When I’m at home in North Vancouver–Seymour, I work, learn and live on the territories of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations. I am always grateful for the opportunity to learn and practise the work of reconciliation and commit to continuing this process ongoing.

When we think about it, information is a form of power, a type of currency. It’s the basis for all sorts of services, decisions, plans and many other things. Personal information is gathered for a variety of purposes — health care, access to public services, education, job applications and many more reasons.

For that reason, freedom of information and privacy protection is crucial. It’s been around for a while. It’s been around for quite a long time. We started to realize many years ago that access to information that didn’t belong to you could be crippling — could cripple a business, an organization, an individual. So we started to create a framework to try and protect that information. And that was done many, many years ago in a time when our ways of gathering were different. We used an awful lot of paper. Our ways of storing were different.

I don’t know about you folks. I’ve dealt with filing cabinets that filled rooms and had locks that looked like this. They were called Sargent and Greenleafs. If anybody has ever worked with a Sargent and Greenleaf lock, I’m really glad to hear that, and I hope you were better at it than I was.

But all these documents were also vulnerable to things like floods and fires. They could be lost. They could be taken. They could be inadvertently disposed of in a way that ended up with the information out where it wasn’t supposed to be.

So things have to change, and things have to improve. That has happened, happening over time, and it’s time for it to happen again. That is why we’ve got these amendments coming forward.

I had the privilege of being on the FOIPPA special committee several years ago. It was remarkable the many ways that presenters found that information, either sought or provided, had an impact on their lives. Information, like any other commodity, needs to be collected appropriately for appropriate reasons, stored securely, utilized for only the purposes it was collected, accessed by only those authorized to do so and destroyed or archived properly when no longer applicable.

Having worked in the health care sector for many years, these things make full sense to me and are ingrained as given. We’ve had many times within the health care system where we’ve had notifications come out that people have been looking at people’s files and not supposed to be there. That has resulted in employee discipline. It has resulted in all sorts of weird and wonderful things.

It is also showing that the systems being put in place are allowing us to know, now, when people are inappropriately accessing information and allowing us to deal with it quickly and efficiently and also manage what is called a breach. And for that, I am very, very grateful, because we are all in situations where we don’t want information of a sensitive nature or information that could lead to somebody else benefiting from something, such as business information or intellectual information…. We want to make sure that information is properly cared for and is used appropriately.

These amendments that are being presented here meet a variety of goals and have been generated through consultation with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Additionally, I am very happy to confirm that the report generated by the FOIPPA special committee, of which I was a member, also provided recommendations that are incorporated into this bill.

One of the things that we have to acknowledge is that for many people in British Columbia, access to digital services is a legitimate expectation. Reliance on paper forms, faxes and other, older mechanisms is no longer effective, efficient or secure.

[5:45 p.m.]

This necessitates an updating and modernization of systems at the level of public service in government, one which enhances the experience of those who use it. This update demonstrates the commitment on the part of our government to strengthening the connected digital services for the people of B.C., simultaneously improving the efficiency of the FOI process and service delivery.

In the past, particularly when my kids were still in school, we would fill out numerous forms, usually with the same information, over and over. Each year seemed like a new start was needed through duplication and replication, and this experience can be found in many different settings. Our government has committed to diminishing or eliminating that duplication of work by establishing a unified system — one which is simpler, more predictable and allows for streamlining of services.

This will be partially achieved through connected digital services that will have information moved through government with the knowledge of the person or people involved and, of course, with their permission. Public service entities will be able to share information securely and appropriately with safeguards in place.

The connectivity will promote the provision of increasingly effective service that is able to meet the needs of those who access the services. Privacy is maintained while duplication is reduced or eliminated. A single point of contact, information is gathered only once and added to as situations require. And timely responses are securely prepared and delivered.

Other aspects of this bill address the recognition that freedom of information requests continue to increase in volume and complexity. All of the public services are finding that time, money and administrative resources are regularly engaged through meeting FOI requests. Ministries, health authorities, municipalities, school districts, police forces and many other public services are spending time away from their primary responsibilities in order to do FOI work.

The administrative components of this bill address some of those concerns through managing some recognized inefficiencies, maintaining people’s access to information rights, increasing transparency and generally providing increased efficacy.

Another area of improvement will be in the communication process, with an addition of the ability to have a dialogue that seeks to clarify and focus the request so that information requested not only is made available in a timely fashion but is useful for the purpose that it was in fact requested.

Another process that will be facilitated through this legislation will be the proactive release of information to individuals who are seeking information about themselves. A good example of where this is beneficial would be in the area of people who have grown up in the care of the government.

Their personal information is important in a variety of ways and can be fragmented among a series of entities — i.e., their vaccination status, health issues, school reports, various assessments and so on. Data has shown us that about 60 percent of the FOI requests are for those trying to get personal information.

I was a foster parent for 12 years. We had a variety of kids come through with us because we did “short term,” which was 6 months to a year, to a year and a half — with the exception of one young lady who stayed with us for quite a bit longer than that. Different story.

When we would get kids to us, we would get very limited information. We were expected to get them into school from wherever, get them sorted out with sports, get them sorted out with various things. The information available to us was negligible at that time. Now, admittedly, this was quite some time ago.

I can tell you that a kid who has been in the foster system…. A lot of things go on while they are under the care of somebody else, and those records go a whole variety of places and not necessarily in a way that is supportive of that child. At least they did in the past.

[5:50 p.m.]

What I see in this legislation is the ability for those records to be managed in a way that when that individual needs access to the information that was gathered about them as they were progressing through their childhood and into early adulthood, it is available and is available in a way that is accessible to them and is useful to them. I believe this legislation will certainly help in that.

I mean, I’ve had kids come back to me, saying: “Do you remember when we got this done?” The big one was vaccinations, actually. And I would say: “Yeah.” They said, “Well, we can’t get the record,” at which point, I would go with them. We’d march down to the health authority, and I’d find the public health person and say, “Where do I find this record?” and we would find it.

But it was not necessarily easily found, partly because they kept putting it under my name, not under the kid’s name, because we kept bringing a variety of kids in. Anyway, different story. I digress.

The scope of the oversight role of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been enhanced in this legislation. Currently there are specific circumstances under which an FOI request can be disregarded, and public entities are required to apply for approval to disregard an FOI request.

If an applicant is abusive or malicious, under this legislation, the OIPC can direct that the request be disregarded, again allowing the public entity to focus on the work that they are designated to do — be it providing education, health care, public safety or the many other services provided.

Of course, a clear understanding of what is meant by “abusive or malicious” must be incorporated into the work in such a way that service providers and the OIPC are able to categorically make a decision. Conduct that intends to harass, intimidate, threaten or overwhelm an individual, such as issuing threats, would be viewed as a reason to disregard an FOI request, and that decision would indeed be made by the OIPC.

A clear and understandable FOI request should provide clear and understandable results, which is why the system is being updated to incorporate a mechanism whereby applicants have an actual process to clarify their requests. By integrating the capacity to “stop the clock” when clarification is being sought, both the applicants and the bodies providing the information will benefit — the applicants by having a clearer understanding of when their information will be available and the public body by knowing clearly what information is being sought. This will save time and money and provide a higher level of customer satisfaction.

I have worked in a number of systems, both as a professional and as a volunteer. Often one will hear, “Where do I go for…?” wishing that there was a single access point where information and services could be accessed. Well, Connected Services B.C. is seeking to answer that question for access to public services.

This system provides a government gateway that people and businesses can use to apply for and receive government services and one that will update information across all services as it is received. This model will only enable secure sharing of information between public bodies. It does not facilitate an accumulation and storage of information, personal or otherwise.

These amendments represent thoughtful, balanced and necessary updates to legislation that sits at the very heart of two core democratic values: the public’s right of access to information and the protection of personal privacy. Both of these principles matter deeply, and this legislation strengthens both.

FOIPPA was created in a different era, before digital services were central to how people interact with government. Today British Columbians expect services to be seamless, secure and accessible online. They expect government to work together and not in silos.

The amendments before us do two important things. They improve the experience of people using the freedom-of-information system, and they enable the next stage of connected digital government services. These are not competing goals. They are complementary. We can and we must protect privacy while delivering better service.

[5:55 p.m.]

Let’s talk a little bit more about Connected Services.

British Columbians do not think about government in terms of ministries and program areas. They think in terms of needs. They need to renew a licence. They need to access benefits. They need to update their address. They need support for their family or their business. Yet too often they are required to provide the same information repeatedly across multiple systems and programs.

These amendments support the creation of Connected Services B.C., a single government gateway that will allow people and businesses to apply for services and update their information across programs in a streamlined way.

This is not about building a massive database. It is not about consolidating everyone’s personal information into a giant repository. It is about allowing information, with a person’s knowledge and permission, to flow securely between public bodies so services can be delivered more efficiently.

These public bodies will continue to hold and safeguard information within their own systems, but where appropriate, they will be able to securely share information in a way that reflects how people actually interact with government — not by department but by need. And privacy protections remain robust.

FOIPPA already contains strong safeguards for collection, use and disclosure of personal information. These amendments go further by allowing the minister to establish clear data standards and privacy and security requirements specific to Connected Services.

Additionally, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be notified when a Connected Services provider is established and retains the discretion to review the associated privacy impact assessments. This is modernization with accountability.

Again, we know that the volume and complexity of FOI requests have grown significantly. Across ministries, school districts, municipalities and health authorities, public bodies continue to experience real administrative pressure. We have a responsibility to ensure that access to information remains timely and equitable for all applicants.

These amendments will improve efficiency without diminishing access rights. As an example, they minimize duplicate disclosure processes so that time is not wasted processing records that are already being released through other mechanisms, such as through legal discovery.

They also enable, as I spoke to before, proactive disclosure of personal information back to individuals that are seeking their own records. Currently we find approximately 60 percent of FOI requests are for that purpose. By allowing public bodies to proactively provide personal records directly to the individuals, we can improve access while relieving pressure on the FOI system. This is not restricting access. This is improving it.

Another key improvement is strengthening the provisions around request clarity. The current act requires applicants to provide enough detail to allow records to be identified with reasonable effort. However, there is no clear, structured process for clarifying unclear requests. These amendments create a formal mechanism for allowing that clarification.

This does not force applicants to narrow their requests. It simply creates a transparent process to ensure that when clarification is needed, it is requested formally and responded to promptly. It serves no one if a public body is unsure what records are being sought, while the statutory clock continues to run. These changes provide accurate timelines and encourage engagement, ensuring applicants receive the information that they’re actually looking for. It strengthens fairness and accuracy. And it just is that clear requests allow for clear responses.

I talked a little bit about rare, but disruptive, abuse. There have also been discussions about amendments that allow public bodies, in extremely rare circumstances, to apply to disregard a request that is abusive or malicious.

[6:00 p.m.]

I spoke about this earlier, and I want to be precise. There’s already a process under which a public body can apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard a request. That’s already there. It’s been there before, and it can be done. However, these amendments clarify and expand the circumstances in which that application can be made. The oversight continues to remain entirely with the commissioner. A public body cannot disregard a request. It must apply to the commissioner, and the commissioner makes that decision.

Abusive or malicious behaviour. Again, patterns of conduct that harass, intimidate, threaten or overwhelm. These patterns of behaviour have become more evident in current day. We know this. We hear from a variety of places. There are signs in just about every workplace saying that respect is expected here. Respectful behaviour is required, and they reserve the right not to offer service if the person providing the service…. If it’s being disrespectful or abusive….

These situations are extremely rare, but when they occur, they are highly disruptive. I’ve been in circumstances where somebody comes in cursing and swearing and angry and distressed, and it upsets everybody in the area. It can be very disruptive and very triggering for people. The ability to de-escalate these things is not expected of a front-line worker, but it often is something that they need to be able to do.

Protecting public servants from harassment while maintaining access rights is not a controversial thing. It is responsible governance.

Consultation was done with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on these proposed amendments, and the commissioner has been engaged throughout the process of this legislation coming together. We value the commissioner’s role in protecting privacy and ensuring access to information, and that the oversight remains strong.

Government must balance two responsibilities in this situation: protecting access rights; and ensuring that a system functions effectively so that all requests, regardless of size, can be processed within reasonable timelines. This legislation supports that balance.

British Columbia is moving towards more connected digital services, enabling people to access government through secure digital identity tools like the B.C. Services Card. To support that modernization, our legislative framework must evolve.

But it does not mean weakening privacy. It means embedding privacy into service design. It means building systems that are secure, accountable and transparent. It means ensuring that as a government becomes more digitally connected, it remains grounded in democratic values. And these amendments achieve that through improving efficiency and transparency of the FOI process, protecting public servants from rare but disruptive abuse, enabling proactive disclosure of personal records, modernizing information-sharing frameworks to support Connected Services, maintaining strong oversight by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and reinforcing privacy protections while improving service delivery.

This is a balanced legislation that responds to recommendations from the FOIPPA special committee and operational realities across public bodies. It reflects extensive consultation, and it prepares British Columbia for the next generation of digital government responsibly and thoughtfully.

Access to information and protection of privacy are not competing principles. They are complementary pillars of public trust. These amendments strengthen both.

I am very proud to support this legislation, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

[6:05 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: I’d like to go over Bill 9, which is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. I want to view it through the lens of British Columbians and how they would feel about this legislation that’s been introduced by this government.

Again, we live in a democracy. Part of a democracy is for government to be transparent, and unless government is transparent, it’s not accountable. Since being elected, I’ve sort of noticed that many things done by this government are behind closed doors. To access information has become more and more difficult.

FOIs are a way for British Columbians to be able to access information. The reason we’re hearing that there’s an increase in FOIs is because the government is not transparent. If a government is not transparent, sometimes the only way to get information is through FOIs. And even if you go through the FOI process, a lot of it is blacked out. It can be helpful, but it’s difficult to get the information. I think British Columbians deserve an open, transparent and accountable government.

If we look at, for example, health care, we know we are in a health care crisis. British Columbians sometimes are stuck not knowing what the data is in terms of…. For example, if you have cancer, what is the wait time? And the data is not transparent. The data is not inclusive. Sometimes the only way you can get the data is through FOIs.

For example, wait times. We can divide them into what are called track 1 and track 2. The government will say that, for example, cancer, track 2, is within benchmark. Track 2 is from specialist care to treatment, so that can mean surgery, and sometimes that’s within a benchmark. But we have to look at the entire wait-time process, and that includes track 1.

Track 1 is, for example, when you finally access a primary care provider. Sometimes it’s difficult to do. You access a primary care provider. They put a referral in to a specialist. That referral process can sometimes take…. If it’s urgent, the average wait time is, I believe, four weeks. And for non-urgent, it’s up to ten months. That’s the average.

People that don’t know that have questions, and sometimes the only way you can find out is through FOIs. We have been given information. For example, how many British Columbians have died waiting for care? That wasn’t necessarily released by the government. That was gotten through FOIs. That educates British Columbians to know that there is a wait time, and sometimes people die waiting. I think British Columbians deserve to know.

You need to make FOIs, first of all, not harder to get. You need to make it easier, in a sense, when a government is secretive and non-transparent. FOIs are sometimes the only way to get that information.

I particularly feel strongly with health care because much of the data gotten — be it through Fraser Institute or SecondStreet.org or other organizations — is through FOIs. We shouldn’t have to do FOIs, but we do them.

The fact that, now, this legislation is being sold as a means to increase efficiency and transparency in the FOI system but it has expanded the categories where FOIs can be disregarded by government and applies fees to proactive disclosures…. Now we can actually disregard FOIs if they’re deemed to be malicious, abusive, unreasonably interfere with operations of government, repetitious and excessively broad.

[6:10 p.m.]

I think all of these are actually problematic. Malicious is…. I would say that it depends on the person, what a person considers malicious. Sometimes people are quite sensitive and would feel that an FOI has a malicious intent when, really, an FOI is actually just to get the information for peace of mind. That is such a subjective term that I’m not sure why we’re even using that.

“Abusive” is, again, a very subjective term depending on who decides what is abusive or not. The fact that nobody actually oversees this term, I think, is very problematic.

I think one of the most problematic, though, is “unreasonably interferes with operations of government.” What does that mean? I mean, if we’re actually doing an FOI, obviously government has to respond and that would interfere, in a sense, with operations of government. So all the FOIs actually interfere with operations of government, if we actually look at it, as to what it’s saying here. Why did they even put that in there?

We live in a democracy, and people that work for government work for the people. To actually say that your request of information unreasonably interferes with operations of government is insulting in a democracy, to be honest.

Repetitious. We have to remember that some people who do FOIs are quite, I would say…. People have different reasons to do FOIs, and people write differently. Some people have different brains, and they can repeat things because that’s how their brain functions. So are we going to suddenly discriminate against people that are repetitive because they have an anxiety issue and they tend to repeat things? What does that mean?

I heard from the other side about wanting to make FOIs more equitable, but we’re actually putting labels on people. How is that making FOIs equitable, when we’re actually putting labels on people?

Excessively broad. Well, sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know. Should you write 100 FOIs as opposed to one broad one? Where is it too broad? Again, it’s so vague that it’s basically…. With those five categories, you can eliminate pretty well every FOI. I think it’s very, very problematic.

Over the last nine years, we’ve seen a government that has closed the doors to the people. People deserve to know. Who are we elected by? We’re elected by the people. So why are we putting people in categories to deny their access to information? I think sometimes when we sit in this House, we produce bills not looking at what the results are. When dealing with a government that does a lot of its governmental duties behind closed doors, FOIs are the only ways to get information.

There’s another area as well. Again, I’m going to go back to when I heard that this bill somehow makes it more equitable to get FOIs. How does adding a fee make it more equitable? Like, how can you equate adding a fee to an FOI to equitable? To me, it’s the opposite.

Sometimes I think this government is out of touch, not realizing that people are struggling. Lineups to the food banks, we all know, have increased. Seniors are hurting, with this last budget hurting even more. So $10 is a lot of money. Often FOIs…. Because you can’t make them too broad now, maybe to get your information, you have to do ten separate FOIs. That’s $100. That’s $100. When you’re on a fixed income, $100 is a lot of money.

[6:15 p.m.]

This bill is actually hurting the poorest of the poor in British Columbia. So $10, for many of us, may be not a lot of money, but $10 is $10. That can buy a meal when people are struggling.

I’m not sure why this government decided to change the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the FOI Act. I think a huge reason is because when a government doesn’t do well and people are angry, that’s when the number of FOIs goes up. People are asking questions. They’re not hearing from this government. They’re not hearing why we are where we are. They have questions, and we have to respect those questions because we do live in a democracy.

I think it’s paramount to repeat that word, because in a democracy, governments are transparent and they’re accountable. That’s the only way, really. I mean, if you’re going to be voting, you need to know what you’re voting for. You need to know why you’re here.

Another example, as well, is that FOIs sometimes can make governments more accountable. Why? Because FOI gives the people information, right?

For example, going back to health care, over 25,000 people left British Columbia for care last year in just one year. Some of these people had cancer. Knowing that, when you’re diagnosed with cancer and you’re waiting…. Or you might have cancer. An MRI has been ordered. It’s been already a month and you still have not had your MRI, but you’re wondering if you have cancer. Knowing that maybe you have cancer would lead you to do something to improve access. You would look around. Where can I get an MRI in a more timely way?

Information gives people power, and it makes government accountable.

I think every bill we have to review as to how it is making life more complex for us. How is it making life more complex? To be honest, the more bills we put through, the more life becomes more complex. So I’m looking at this bill. I’m looking at that and saying: “Is this making my life better? Is this a streamlining process?”

I know that if I actually put an FOI in…. I’m a British Columbian, and I pay my taxes or whatever. I live here, and I need some information. Will the government treat me with respect?

This bill actually does the opposite. It treats you, in a sense, with disrespect, because it labels you potentially as malicious, abusive, that you’re repetitious — that’s a big one, repetitious. Can you imagine? Repetitious or excessively broad or that your demands are actually interfering with operations of government just because you want to know what government is doing.

I strongly feel that this bill should not pass. It doesn’t matter what side of the House you sit in. I think we all see how life has become more complex. Everything takes longer. Nothing is simple. Rather than having a bill like this, it should have been a bill to streamline the process, to make it easier for British Columbians to access the information they deserve.

[6:20 p.m.]

On this note, I’d like to talk about a few quotes from the media. I think the great thing is that the media is actually doing their job and looking at this bill. Overall, the media frames this bill as being controversial and potentially reducing transparency. That’s the media. The media, actually, is here to inform us, inform British Columbians. They’re telling us that it’s controversial.

Civil liberties and transparency groups also warned that the bill weakens access to information. It expands the grounds to ignore FOIs and does not address the systemic FOI delay.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There have also been several political commentators that criticized the bill as a step backwards for transparency. They say things like: “It weakens access to information. It undermines the public’s right to know.” So I think on this side of the House, we’re not sitting alone criticizing this bill.

The government needs to maybe revisit why it’s doing this. Why are we making the government less transparent? Transparency is the foundation to accountability. You cannot be accountable unless the system is transparent.

In health care — I’ll go back to health care for a minute here — sometimes the only way to get data is by the FOI. It forces the government to become accountable to the data they’re collecting. And if they’re not collecting it, then the FOI forces them to think about collecting it to be able to target their resourcing.

I’d like to summarize. It doesn’t matter what side of the House you sit. We do live in a democracy. Information is power. People deserve to have that information. It should be easier to get. We shouldn’t….

Again, I’m going to repeat these words because it’s unbelievable to have words that can be interpreted subjectively. “Malicious.” “Abusive.” What is abuse for one person is not for another. And abuse can be used as a political weapon, meaning “you’re abusing me,” when you’re not. You’re just requesting information.

Again, the one that I find the most unreasonable is the “unreasonably interfere with operations of government,” which is so subjective.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to continue at a later date.

Anna Kindy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Rohini Arora: 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. Josie Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary
International Education
(Designated Institutions) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act. We are on clause 16.

On clause 16 (continued).

Lawrence Mok: How are inspections under section 16(a) to (c) conducted without disrupting student learning?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Overall, just to speak to inspections a little bit, inspections are intended to protect and support students’ process. So inspectors are trained to conduct these inspections with minimal interference. A big part of their role is really, actually, to go into the classes and observe what’s going on. It’s not to disrupt the class but just to see what’s going on. They also will meet with students outside of those class hours and speak with them.

They have extensive training in how to conduct instruction, and that minimal impact on instruction is actually helpful for the inspector to know what a regular day in this institution looks like.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Lawrence Mok: What safeguards exist for business premises access under Section 17(1)(a) to (f)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The inspection powers here are similar to ones that exist under existing frameworks like the Private Training Act. The inspectors are limited to the specific powers that are set out in the act, which allow entry during business hours only to inspect records, to observe instruction, request documents, remove documents or make copies or question a person.

No inspector coming in could act beyond the authority that’s given to them under section 17 here.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

How is the Supreme Court order under section 17(2) used in practice?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 17(2) sets out that “an inspector may apply to the Supreme Court for an order directing a person to produce a record or thing” if they initially refuse.

So an inspector goes in. The institution refuses to produce something. They can go to Supreme Court to seek a production order, and a person who fails to comply with such an order from the court would risk becoming subject to contempt of court proceedings.

[1:40 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: What penalties exist for hindering an inspector under section 17(3)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: If an institution or individual was to hinder, obstruct or interfere with the inspector’s ability to conduct an inspection, if they were an employee of the institution, then the institution could be considered in breach of this act and may be subject to enforcement actions under section 18(2), which is where we are going after this section.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Korky Neufeld: I realize we’re getting into administrator actions, whose rules we still do not have. So I’m wondering if, as I ask these questions, you could answer them presently and if you see any future changes to those answers.

The first one: how does the administrator determine contraventions under section 18(1)(a) to (c) presently and any expected changes?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The current process is that inspections are conducted by the ministry — as well as review of submitted records that are asked for, so their compliance records and institutions. In this case, when there’s the act, the act would then be applied to that to decide whether things are okay or if we need to take enforcement actions because there’s a lack of compliance there.

Korky Neufeld: How is the cancellation of designation certificate under section 18(2)(c) communicated? How was it, and will it be communicated in the same way henceforth?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The notice would be in writing over email or mail — whatever the communications have been. Also, the delivery of documents rules that are under section 29, which we talked about a bit yesterday, would apply.

Korky Neufeld: How is the three-year bar under section 18(2)(d) justified, first of all, and then also enforced?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The power to bar for up to three years…. Again, it’s “up to” three years. So this power from an institution, when it’s up to the full three years, is expected to be reserved for rare circumstances where an institution is engaging in particularly egregious behaviour and subsequently needs to demonstrate good behaviour over multiple years in order to rehabilitate its reputation for the purpose of suitability.

But an institution can appeal any loss of designation certificate and bar to apply for designation to an appeal officer and must be informed of this right when these disciplinary actions are taken.

In terms of enforcement, it would just mean that when they apply, they’re not accepted because they’re in a period of being barred. That’s how enforcement would occur.

Korky Neufeld: I’d like to propose an amendment to Bill 7, just for clarification.

It’s here in clause 18.

[Clause 18 is amended by adding the following subsection

(2)(e) Subject to subsection (d) the administrator may reduce the period from which the applicant is barred from reapplying should they believe corrective measures have been undertaken.]

So instead of waiting for all kinds of appeals, the administrator could say: “You know what? These guys are doing their job in good faith. I would like to have the power to reduce that.”

The Chair: Would the member like to speak to the amendment while we determine if it’s in order?

On the amendment.

Korky Neufeld: I think I just have. It’s just to clarify so that they don’t have to jump through a bunch of hoops. The administrator is going to have all kinds of rules and things that he can do. So if he sees the institution, in good faith, presenting the material that they need to present, then they could make that decision without having to go through a longer process.

The Chair: All right. Members, we will take a short recess while we determine if the amendment is in order.

The committee recessed from 1:49 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

The amendment is ruled in order. Would the minister like to respond?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I appreciate the member’s concerns here to be able to reduce it, but as I said, the safeguards are already built into the process.

In order for an administrator to get to the point where they’ve issued a three-year ban on an institution, that means multiple things have gone wrong at multiple stages. The administrator has tried to fix it along the way, and they haven’t been able to do so.

What these three years would do…. At that point, after multiple acts or egregious behaviour occurring, we would need that three-year period. The administrator would need that to ensure that there’s a proven track record with which that institution can…. We can say okay, with the certainty that they’re ready to enrol international students again.

This also doesn’t prevent institutions from enrolling domestic students again. This is just about international students. In terms of impact on the institution, it is limited just to: “You can’t enrol international students during that time.” It goes back to the protection piece of this entire piece of legislation, of ensuring that we’re protecting students.

If we’re at a point that we’ve seen multiple infractions or egregious behaviour from an institution, we need to be able to have that time frame to rectify those concerns as well as make sure that any new international students that are looking at this institution can come knowing that there is a proven track record of compliance from the institution.

Saying all that, we are not in favour of the amendment.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that.

As long as there’s flexibility that if an institution is showing good faith, that it’s up to three years, that they don’t have to wait for the three-year period. If they’re complying, if they get things in on time and so on and so forth, they could reapply for designation.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to clarify, if they’ve had any kind of infraction, off the bat, it wouldn’t be three years, right? It would be that we’re working with them. “We need to make sure you fix this.” If they don’t fix it and then they do something else — they don’t fix it and then something egregious happens — then that’s a circumstance in which the administrator would say: “Okay, we need to make sure we have three years to look at it.”

It’s not an automatic first infraction. That’s why, by that point where the administrator would be giving a three-year ban, it would be based on many things going wrong or significant things, and we’d need them to build up a proven track record again.

The Chair: Members, the question is the amendment to clause 18.

Amendment negatived.

Korky Neufeld: What is the process for notifying institutions of actions under subsections 18(3) to (5)?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The process of the notice is outlined in the section itself, in terms of the notice including written reasons and if the administrator has taken action to inform the institution about the right to appeal.

In terms of the format of that, it would, again, be by email, mail or fax, with the delivery date being reflective of what’s in section 29. If it’s sent by registered mail, on the fifth business day, it would be deemed received. If it’s sent by email, on the first business day after it’s emailed, it’s deemed received. If by fax, on the first business day after it’s faxed, it’s deemed received.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Lawrence Mok: Can the minister tell us: how are enrolled international students informed under section 19(1)(a)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: If an institution loses its designation certificate and has students enrolled at that time, it’s crucial that they have a clear process for identifying that and making sure that students have notice and have a transition plan for the students.

Section 19(1) sets out what an institution has to do if a certificate is cancelled under section 18(2)(c). It must give international students notice of the cancellation so that the students are kept aware of their rights and options.

In terms of methods of communication, they have established methods of communication under existing frameworks. It can include putting a notice on their website, for example — whatever their method of communication with their students is — to make sure that they’re aware of that.

That being noted, just for subsection (b), as well, if the institution is otherwise able to continue to operate, they’re able to continue to provide instruction to the enrolled international students so that the students don’t immediately lose, needlessly, their ability to study, so they can actually be transferred over and we’re not putting undue burden onto the students who are just trying to get their education here, and we can help support them into their transition.

Korky Neufeld: Is there enough leeway time for students so that they don’t lose a semester and don’t lose educational time when, let’s say, a certificate has been cancelled in a certain institution? Is there enough time for them to repivot and be able to take that somewhere else?

[2:05 p.m.]

I guess I’m trying to figure out what timeline they would have to move to something else or possibly go back home, whatever the case may be.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The purpose of the notification to students by the institution is so students can make that decision — “Do we want to continue at this institution?” — as they have the ability to do, given that federal regulations that govern international students allow them to continue. If the designated learning institution, partway through their studies, ceases to hold that designation, it still allows them to continue. So they can stay there, or at that point, they can look for other options to see how they can be supported to transfer to another institution.

Lawrence Mok: What conditions apply to continued instruction under section 19(1)(b)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under section 19(1)(b), this exists to accommodate the training out of current international students that are here already at that institution. An institution that has their designation certificate cancelled will be taken off the federal DLI, designated learning institutions, list, and they can’t enrol new international students.

They can continue to provide this program, provided it didn’t lose its ability to operate under other regulatory frameworks. They can continue to provide that program to international students that were enrolled at the time that it lost its certificate. That’s, again, to ensure that students aren’t unduly penalized by the loss of the designation certificate, so that students have that ability to continue.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Korky Neufeld: Injunctions under section 20. How does the Supreme Court balance enforcement with institutional operations under section 20(3)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: With an injunction, what it does is allows a court to order a person to do something or stop doing something. If an institution proceeds to breach the injunction, the court can find the party to be in contempt of court, which would lead to monetary and other penalties. If there was an interim injunction, it would allow the court to order a party to do or stop doing something in the meantime, while a matter is still being litigated.

But in this section, what subsection (3) means is that the presumptions in subsection 20(3) make it clear that the enforcement of the act is more important than the continued operation of an institution. That’s what the court would look at when they’re balancing between those different principles.

[2:10 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: Just a clarifying question. Is it because they’ve gone, now, into the category of a bad-actor school, because of some of their breaches of things, that the injunction is there? Is that why? Because there has been…? Yeah?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes. So if we’re at the point where the administrator is seeking an injunction, that means they’ve failed to do something or have done things that they’re not supposed to do. So that goes to all the points of fraud allegations. We’ve talked about not producing records. All of those things we talked about. That’s why it would have gotten to the point of going to the Supreme Court.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Lawrence Mok: Can the minister tell us what grounds for appeal under section 21(5) are most frequently invoked?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This would really widely vary, because it would depend on what grounds the institution wishes to appeal on, not on something the ministry is doing.

An appeal could be made on the grounds that newly available evidence has come to light, that there wasn’t procedural fairness in the process or there were errors in fact on matters of law. The appeal officer could also make a variety of decisions, including sending the matter back to the administrator or submitting their own decision.

You can’t really say which one is more likely than the other, because it’s on the institution that’s bringing forward the appeal to say: “These are the grounds on which we are seeking an appeal.”

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

How is procedural fairness ensured under section 21(5)(b)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: If an institution was having an appeal under section 21(5)(b) and saying that there wasn’t procedural fairness, it means they would be arguing that in the process by the administrator there hadn’t been procedural fairness, at which point they would bring forward their facts. The administrator would give their case, and the appeal officer would determine whether or not procedural fairness had been given to the institution in the whole process along the way.

Korky Neufeld: The appeal officer — is that someone that comes from the judicial side or that comes from the ministerial side, who that person is?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The appeal officer is from the ministry, but there would be no overlap between the appeal officer and the administrator in terms of this process.

[2:15 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: How are appeal decisions under section 21(8) monitored for consistency and transparency?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Overall, just getting to the process of appeal is something that we would anticipate would happen quite infrequently along the process. But if there was an appeal decision that an institution got to and still didn’t think was okay or they wanted to further challenge it, they would be able to challenge it through the courts through a judicial review process.

Korky Neufeld: We’re in part 6, “Administration and General,” division 1, “Administrator.” On 22, how does the minister ensure independence and…?

The Chair: Sorry, were you saying that you were asking questions about clause 22?

Korky Neufeld: Clause 22.

The Chair: Oh. We haven’t passed 21 yet.

Hold on one moment. Thank you.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

The Chair: Please continue.

Korky Neufeld: Yeah, my fault.

How does the minister ensure independence and accountability in the designation of the administrator under section 22? It’s a very important role.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The administrator is a person that is designated by the minister responsible for administering the legislation. This person is anticipated to be an executive director that’s responsible for the organizational unit responsible for the administration of the program. That being said, this would be a member of the public service who is non-partisan and impartial in the process. That is an important aspect of the role.

[2:20 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: That’s good to hear, because now with the Merit Commissioner on its way out, I just want to make sure that I had you on record saying that this person comes from a non-partisan standpoint and is going to be representing in that way. Thank you very much for that.

That’s all I have for 22.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Korky Neufeld: What criteria are used to determine which powers can be delegated under section 23(1)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The delegation of powers by the administrator is…. One check on it is that it must be done in writing and include the terms and conditions that the administrator considers advisable.

It’s intended to be quite limited. It ensures that the administrator can have ministry staff perform administrative and technical work involved in administrating the legislation, such as collecting evidence, viewing records — all of those kinds of technical and administrative pieces involved in the role.

Korky Neufeld: Will this written delegation of authority and power be made public, so that institutions and others and the public know what this job description is and what authority they have — what limits they have and also what powers they have?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The delegation wouldn’t be something that’s posted publicly. It doesn’t really impact the public widely, as this is something that’s routinely done. The delegation of powers is done routinely through ministries.

But an institution that was dealing with the administrator would be aware that an individual was either the administrator or had delegated authority from the administrator in their interactions with the administrator through this process.

Korky Neufeld: What you’re saying is that there will be no public document of the parameters that this administrator works under?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: To be clear, the delegation of that authority to a specific individual in a specific circumstance could be for different aspects. It wouldn’t be something that we could post and just say: “That’s the case for everything.”

If the administrator in one circumstance was delegating authority to someone so that they could go collect evidence and write records, that would be in writing. If, in another circumstance, it was a delegation for something else, that would be in writing. But we wouldn’t post that every single time.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

Korky Neufeld: Now we get to the administrative rules. I know that that could change once the bill goes through. But maybe what has been happening, or if you see any changes coming down…. That’d be great to know through these questions.

How will the administrator determine the information required to be provided to students under section 24(1)(a)? Is there a set of standards? Is it arbitrary to the administrator? Will this process that has been happening continue, or do you see changes?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under section 24(a), these are things that are already under the EQA legislation policies and procedures, which you can find on our website, which is outlined for institutions.

The intention here, really, is that the information that is provided to students be clear and transparent, including information about policies that institutions must have, such as anti-racism policies and sexual violence policies that we talked about yesterday. We do not anticipate much change here between what is currently happening and what will happen under the administrator’s rules.

Korky Neufeld: The top line in “Administrator’s rules” says the administrator may make rules. So my question is…. Okay, they’ve been operating a certain way up until this phase.

[2:30 p.m.]

Now with a new Bill 7 coming into effect, who would this administrator have to run past some of the rules or changes that they were to make? Would it be to the minister, to a broader group of people? Where would this administrator…? If they wanted to create some new rules, make some changes, are there some checks and balances in there?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The administrator is an independent statutory decision–maker that has the sole authority to make rules under section 24. That being said, it is anticipated that the administrator would consider relevant government policy, alignment with federal laws and broader ministry objectives when exercising the authority to ensure coherence with the wider policy environment. This would include briefing ministry executives, responsible ministers and obtaining legal advice in advance of removing, updating or implementing new rules.

Korky Neufeld: So 24(b) says that the administrator may make rules as follows: “respecting the method of delivery for programs of instruction, including the proportion of the instruction to be provided to international students through in-class instruction and the method of determining the proportion that is delivered through in-class instruction.”

So there are people that are taking courses online. There are people taking in person. How is the method of delivery of programs under this section monitored for compliance?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This would be reviewed through the annual review process, through inspections as well as any complaints or student feedback that the administrator received.

Korky Neufeld: What safeguards exist for the minimum proportion of instruction under section 24(1)(c) — the minimum proportion of instruction?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Like section 24(a) and (b), monitoring would also happen through annual reviews, through inspections and through complaints. Also, students in this circumstance would enter into enrolment contracts with the institutions which would outline who the delivering institution is so that students know who is delivering their education but also where to get student supports from and services. That would help us, also, know the collaboration makeup.

Korky Neufeld: We’ve all been victims of fly-by-night businesses that are here today and gone tomorrow — can’t find them. So how are changes to corporate structure or legal name notified to the administrator under section 24(1)(d)? Just to make sure that everything’s on the up and up and it’s the same person delivering it and it’s not just, all of a sudden, somebody trying to dodge something or create something new that isn’t….

Hon. Jessie Sunner: An institution would need to inform us if they change, but if they didn’t, we would also be able to find out through the annual review process, where we go through all their records and make sure everything is up to date, including if they’re up to date with the B.C. corporate registry. So that information would come through. But the specifics of the timelines for notification and all that will be outlined in the rules.

Korky Neufeld: Well, you actually stole my next question. How will the administrator ensure timely communication with those institutions, with those changes being made? They’re probably legal changes that probably have timelines to them. So I just want to ensure that the administrator will be communicating with them in a timely fashion. What would that look like?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In this circumstance, they would actually be the ones, if they were to change their legal name or structure, that would be informing the ministry that they’ve made the change, not the other way around.

In terms of specifics of the timing that they have to let us know, that would be outlined in the administrator’s rule. It’s not meant to be burdensome — just to make sure that we have the most updated information to do exactly what you said, which is to protect students and make sure we’re not having institutions change names to skirt any kinds of rules.

Korky Neufeld: What we’re trying to do is make sure that students are protected, especially international students, that our reputation is protected. So some of these questions are good for me to understand how things have happened and how they’re going to continue to happen. So bear with me on that.

What controls govern the use of the designation mark under section 24(1)(f)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The purpose of 24(1)(f) is to ensure that institutions know what the appropriate uses of the designation mark are so that they can utilize it properly.

If an institution, again, was to utilize it, misuse it and use it when they’re not supposed to, that’s when we would say that they’re not allowed to, and we would seek an injunction for them to stop that behaviour and would be able to get orders against them in court.

[2:40 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: Institutions change policies, and sometimes it impacts students. It says, also, that the administrator can ask institutions to create different policies.

In the time frame of making sure that before a student lands here, they understand the policies that they’re coming to, what kind of communication is there for students under section 24(1)(g)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This is another section that is reflective of existing policies, and we wouldn’t anticipate much change from that.

Existing policies that they’d have to share would include policies like the anti-racism policy and like the sexual violence policy. The manner in which they’d be communicated to students is in a manner that they actually get to the students. Different ways currently include in an orientation package, on the institution’s website or, once they’re here, also on physical boards in the institution.

Korky Neufeld: Moving on to 24(2): “An administrator’s rule may do one or more of the following.” There’s quite a list of things under (a) and (b).

How are different classes of persons or even institutions handled under sections 24(2)(a) and (b), to ensure that there’s fairness and equality and so on and so forth? And who monitors that? Is it the administrator that does that? Is it the institution that monitors itself?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Sections 24(2)(a) to (c) are really customary provisions that may differentiate provisions, for example. This allows the administrator to create rules that would be sensitive to the variety of scenarios.

[2:45 p.m.]

Under this legislation, there are public post-secondaries that would be regulated under this, private degree-granting institutions and private training institutions. There are going to be nuances to each type, and we want to make sure….

This type of language is pretty customary across different legislation. I don’t know why, but it is. It’s just to capture it, to ensure that the administrator has all the powers in those kinds of nuanced situations.

Korky Neufeld: Looking at 24(2)(c)(i) and (ii), there are laws of other jurisdictions. There are laws, rules and standards outside of Canada. There are laws, rules and standards set by the province and the international body — regulations, codes and standards.

I guess my question there is: how does the adoption, by reference, of external codes or standards under section 24(2)(c) avoid conflicts with any of these? Is there somebody overseeing to make sure we’re not missing something — either federally, provincially or even internationally — with the codes and standards?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: So 24(2)(c) really ensures that the administrator has the ability to…. In those cases, you were giving the example of if the laws were to change federally or something was to be useful internationally or under another code or regulation. The administrator would be able to implement those in part or in whole, depending on the need.

The administrator is also someone that will be regularly reviewing this and will be up to date on what the law of the time is at this time as well as receiving regular legal advice. So this section just allows them to make sure that the legislation and the rules that they’re using stay up to date.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Again, just to reiterate, you’re moving from policy to legislation in Bill 7. It’s really important that we get some of the details right because…. I think I asked the question earlier about: have we used all the tools and policy about enforcement, and are they going to be upgraded?

So my question here right now is: how will the administrator ensure adopting regulations or standards under section 24(3) remain up to date and enforceable?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: It’s similar to my previous answer. This provision is specific to administrator’s rules. The administrator is the one that would be staying up to date to ensure that the rules, the regulations around provincial, national or elsewhere — those kinds of legislation; if there were federal changes — are brought into this framework, that their rules are up to date, that they are changing as the need comes, that they’re being protective of students.

[2:50 p.m.]

That’s why these sections allow for that flexibility for an administrator to do that work without having to be cumbersome — where you have to go through so many changes that by the time you make the change, it’s no longer the most up to date in place.

I would just say, again, they’d be receiving regular legal advice, staying up to date on the legislation and policies around federal, provincial and other regulations, codes and standards and make sure that they’re making those changes on a timely basis.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that, because at the end of the day, that’s our goal through Bill 7, to protect students — not international students alone but also domestic students. I thank you for that. As long as it remains up to date and that they enforce the rules that they are allowed to enforce in a timely manner, that protects students both internationally and domestic. Thank you for that.

Clause 24 approved.

On clause 25.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to designation of appeal officer. Can the minister tell us what safeguards ensure independence of the appeal officer designated under section 25?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The appeal officer here is responsible for independently administering the appeals process under the legislation. They’re designated by the minister but anticipated to be an assistant deputy minister that’s responsible for the organizational unit — from the public service. Again, the public service is an independent, non-partisan branch of government. That would be the person that’s responsible for administering the program under the act.

Clause 25 approved.

On clause 26.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to appeal officer’s power to delegate. How is delegation of appeal officer’s powers under section 26 monitored for accountability?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Similar to section 23, the administrator’s power to delegate. This is a section that gives the appeal officer the ability to delegate in writing. That would include terms and conditions that the appeal officer would consider advisable.

Again, this wouldn’t be something posted publicly, but the individual institutions that are being worked with would know that this individual has the delegated powers. This would, again, be in the realm, generally, of administrative and technical work that’s required of the appeal — to ensure that the appeals officer has that ability to delegate those kinds of tasks.

Lawrence Mok: How are terms and conditions of delegation under section 26 to be enforced to prevent misuse?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Again, any delegation would be done in writing and would include the terms and conditions. That’s a safeguard in itself. Any institution that was dealing with someone who had delegated powers from the appeal officer would be made aware of that as well. It would prevent misuse.

Again, the scope to which powers would be delegated are in the administrative and technical nature, to help with the efficiency of that appeal process. It’s not really meant to be something where you get a significant amount of power to do anything beyond that.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

Korky Neufeld: How will authorities identify individuals or institutions violating section 27(1)? Is that made public? Is it posted? How will they know?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In this circumstance, if an individual or institution was representing themselves falsely or misleading, the intention is that they would be listed in the online directory, under section 9 that we spoke about, because they would be a non-designated institution that did not have a designation to advertise to others and they were. So the public would be able to get information through the online directory.

Korky Neufeld: Two more questions, and then we’re done.

Just to make sure I understand, not only would institutions that have designation be listed but also those who do not have designations listed. So it’s very clear for anybody searching on the internet, anybody searching for a school to go to. It would be very clearly marked for them, so they know which institutions fall into which category?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes. If an institution was not designated but was taking actions as if they were and were misleading and were found to contravene the act under this, then they would be listed in the online directory.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you so much for that, Minister.

What penalties exist for false, deceptive or misleading advertising under section 27(2)? What authority does the administrator have to deal with when he finds out someone is being false, being deceptive, misleading? Some of it could be intentional; some could be unintentional. But how does that work?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: If an institution had a designation certificate and was engaging in behaviour under section 27, prohibited behaviour, then the administrator could take action under section 18(2), including imposing terms and conditions, asking them to stop — all of that. If they did not have a designation certificate and were acting misleadingly or providing false information, we could seek an injunction against them in Supreme Court to stop it.

Korky Neufeld: Bill 7’s goal is to protect students. My last question under 27 is: how does the act ensure that institutions do not exert undue pressure on students, under section 27(2)(b)? A lot of times, international students might not understand their rights to speak up and stuff. How do we safeguard that so that they’re not taken advantage of in any way?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Throughout different provisions of this work as well as the work the ministry does proactively, we create multiple avenues for students to be able to come forward, should they feel that there was undue pressure exerted on them. Through the annual review process, the ministry checks in with the institutions to see how they are enrolling students, what that process looks like — to talk about what it does look like.

They also speak with students proactively throughout the process to see what their experiences have been like, ensuring that institutions are posting their policies, including elements in the student enrolment contracts about their rights. That’s another avenue where students know that they have rights in this process.

The totality of all of that kind of information provides for the many venues to do exactly what you’re saying, which is to ensure the safety of students and ensure that they know they have rights when they come here to study.

Korky Neufeld: Is that multilingual? We have students coming from other countries, and English may not necessarily be their first and foremost language. Do we post some of these policies and institution policies in different languages for them to understand?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Within our own ministry, the private training institutions branch does provide materials in multiple languages. We do not require institutions to do so. Also, in understanding that, it’s important to know that any international student that’s enrolling here in B.C. would have to meet a minimum English requirement before coming.

Clause 27 approved.

The Chair: We will take a short ten-minute recess. Please return by 3:13.

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:13 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I call the committee back to order.

On clause 28.

Lawrence Mok: What process exists to investigate false or misleading information provided under section 28(1)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 28(1) makes it explicitly clear that anyone that is providing information to the administrator under this act must not provide false or misleading information.

[3:15 p.m.]

There are various sections of the act that would require someone to provide information, such as under section 4, as a part of their application or renewal application; under section 13, for information and records that are requested by the administrator; or under section 24, for information that needs to be provided for the students under the administrator’s rules. There are many checks and balances across that process with the administrator to ensure information is truly true, or is false in this case.

You’re not there yet, but I will just say that there is…. Section 28(2) provides a safeguard to ensure that in situations where an individual did not know that information was false or misleading with reasonable diligence, that there wouldn’t be a contravention under this act and that that would be taken into consideration — given that they could not have known such information was, in fact, misleading or false when they provided it to the administrator.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

How is “reasonable diligence” defined for compliance under section 28(2)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In this case, reasonable diligence would mean that they could not have known that the information was false or misleading and they can show that there wasn’t an intention to mislead the administrator with what information they provided.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to the section on other matters.

How is delivery of notices or other documents under section 29(1) to (2) verified for compliance and timeliness?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: We’ve talked a bit about this section already, but in section 29(2), it outlines when a document or notice would be deemed to be received by an institution.

Again, if you send it by ordinary mail or registered mail, it’s on the date that is the fifth business day after it’s sent. If by email, it’s on the first business day after it’s emailed, and if it’s by fax, it’s the first business day after it’s been faxed.

Those kinds of frameworks of delivery of notices are standard across not just government legislation. But even in court legislation, this kind of framework is what’s used.

Lawrence Mok: Why is email and fax considered valid delivery under section 29(2)(b) to (c), and what safeguards exist for them?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Institutions are, as a part of their process of application and in communications with them, required to provide us with these multiple types of forms of delivery. That’s why fax or email or mail would be considered a valid form of notification.

It wouldn’t just be us trying to find something. We would already have contact with the institutions through these different forms of communication.

[3:20 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

How does section 29(3) ensure institutions provide accurate mailing and email addresses for official communication?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In 29(3), this is where an institution is looking to be issued a designation certificate or renewal. Really, they want to provide us with the proper mailing or email address so that they can communicate with us in this process.

In this circumstance, they would make sure that they would give us the proper forms so that we can communicate with them in the process to make sure that we are reaching them. If they didn’t provide us with the right method of email or mail, then we wouldn’t be able to contact them to continue the designation process.

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

Lawrence Mok: How is personal information collected and used under sections 30(2) to 30(3) monitored for privacy compliance?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This section works together with relevant sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection Act and relevant federal legislation to allow the administrator, inspectors and appeal officers to collect, use and disclose personal information as required to administer the act and the EQA program.

The clause that says “for the purposes of administering the act” constrains the ability to collect, use and disclose personal information only for the purposes of administering the act and not beyond that. This section also does not authorize the collection, use and disclosure of personal information for any other purpose than outlined here.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

My question for section 31: how does section 31 provide immunity? We are preventing abuse of power by administrators or appeal officers.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This provision exists to protect the administrator and appeal officer and their delegates from being personally liable for any damages that may ensue from any decision that they make under the act. Without such a provision, the prospect of personal liability could have a chilling effect on statutory decision–makers due to potential reprisal.

Such a provision is standard across other legislation as well. The bad-faith clause ensures that a party who suffers damage resulting from a decision made in bad faith does have a way of holding the statutory decision–maker accountable, and it incentivizes decision-makers to ensure that they make prudent and diligent decisions.

This section does not bar any party from pursuing a legal proceeding against the government directly because of damages caused by an action or decision of an administrator or appeals officer.

Lawrence Mok: How is bad faith distinguished from discretionary decision-making under section 31(3)?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The bad-faith clause, again, ensures that any party that was to suffer damages due to a decision that someone did make in bad faith has a way of holding that decision-making accountable.

In terms of defining bad faith, it’s something that’s defined across different case law, and that would determine it, but it’s really someone that’s acting out of the authority that they are duly given under this act.

Clause 31 approved.

On clause 32.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to section 32. Why does section 32 exclude the Offence Act, and what implications does this have for enforcement?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This is another section that you’ll find across legislation. It’s to ensure that we are disapplying this section as there’s no intention to have a contravention of a requirement or an omitting to do an act to be prosecuted as an offence. Instead, the act relies on the enforcement powers of the administrator under section 18(2) and the power to seek an injunction under section 20.

Clause 32 approved.

On clause 33.

Korky Neufeld: How are regulations under section 33(1) made, and what oversight exists for transparency?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Once the legislation is debated in the House and it passes, the regulations are drafted by legislative council and then would be approved by cabinet, and that power is delegated to cabinet from the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

In terms of what goes into those regulations, we’ve spoken about it quite at length throughout this process. It’s based on existing framework as well as much policy work that’s gone into this legislation to strengthen the framework that exists under current policy frameworks that we have. So it’s about strengthening that policy framework, providing those guidelines and having the enforcement mechanisms, and that’s what the regulations will reflect.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

We all know how international agents — how important they are. My next question is: how are education agents vetted under section 33(2)(a), (i) to (iii), to prevent unethical recruitment practices? Are they reviewed annually? How are agents chosen? Does the ministry choose them? Does the institution choose them, and if so, how are they regulated?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: With regard to education agents, they’re not…. We don’t provide them. They’re the institutions themselves, but we set out the guidelines that regulate them, and there is a framework already in current legislation about the code of practice of education agents.

But the regulations will take that policy work and ensure that it has the enforcement power and that we can look at other elements, as well, to ensure, at the end of the day, as we said, that we aren’t having any elements of education agents taking advantage of students or any parts of this process.

Korky Neufeld: Just a quick question to the minister.

Are those guidelines public for the agents, or do the institutions have them?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes, they are public currently, under the EQA framework that exists.

Korky Neufeld: How is the directory information published under section 32(b), to verify that it’s up to date, that it’s accurate? Who checks that to make sure that the directory of compliant institutions that have certification and those who are barred are up to date so that students know exactly what they’re seeing?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes, it’s fairly important that this online directory remains up to date. So it would be reviewed by the program area staff, under the authority of the administrator, and kept up to date. If any institutions had any concerns about things, they could raise them as well, but it would be kept up to date through the staff.

Korky Neufeld: I guess my encouragement would be that it would be done regularly so that we don’t allow time to lapse. That’d be wonderful.

Under 33(2)(c) and (d), it says there: “respecting the application fee.” There’s an administrative fee. There’s an appeal fee. It seems like there are a lot of fees.

My question is: how are fees prescribed? Are they calculated on…? Is there a set amount for each one? Let’s say someone is partway through the process. Do they have an opportunity for refunding?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As we discussed a bit earlier in our conversation, the fee structure will be variable and will take into account things like the size of the institution, how many international students they have. The overall model is meant to be cost recovery, and it is not meant, nor expected to be, burdensome for institutions.

When it comes to the refund of fees, that would be something that would be outlined in the regulation, but there would be a consideration, depending on if an institution withdrew. That would be a consideration that would be taken in, but I can’t tell you exactly, because it’ll be in the regulations.

[3:40 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: Under clause 33, it says: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41.” Then under (e), it says: “respecting any other matter for which regulations are contemplated by this act.”

How open-ended is this? Would it come back to the Legislature? Would only your side of the aisle see these changes? I guess I want to know: how private would this be? How public would these be, these regulation changes, possibly from the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In terms of section 33(1)(e), throughout the legislation there are portions that we’ve talked about where there’s….

Interjection.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes — 33(2)(e).

We’ve talked about sections where regulations or things in a prescribed manner would happen. That’s what would be caught under (e).

What would happen is that the Lieutenant Governor’s powers are delegated to cabinet. Cabinet would approve the regulations, and then those regulations would be made public for everyone to see.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. It’s very important that it would be made public, otherwise it could change the whole outline of Bill 7 behind closed doors, and that’s not what we want.

Moving on. How are discretionary powers and different provisions under section 33(3) monitored to prevent unequal treatment?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This is similar to kind of the catch-all clause that we talked about a little earlier in which…. The subsection (3) includes wording to ensure that the Lieutenant Governor can differentiate between entities of various types and classes of entities when making regulations.

It’s anticipated that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may need to establish a variety of classes of institutions to ensure requirements and oversight are commensurate with risks and the various fees are commensurate with the regulatory costs that are intended to be covered.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to transition. How does the pre-existing designated institution affect continuity for students?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Section 34 is just defining the term, and then in section 35, it speaks a bit to what it means.

What it will allow, this term, is…. The section allows current institutions that have EQA designation to be deemed to hold a valid designation certificate under the act when this new act comes into effect.

This will help ensure a smooth transition for designated institutions to become subject to the act, its regulations and the administrator’s rules. These deemed designation certificates will expire according to the terms of the institution’s prior designation.

If they hold an EQA designation that doesn’t expire for another year, they get to have that deemed as being a designation certificate for the purposes of this act so that we can have that continuity for students, for the institutions and not have them have to jump through additional hurdles as a result of this act.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Korky Neufeld: Continuing on with that thought, how does section 35(1) ensure pre-existing institutions automatically receive valid designation certificates?

Let’s say their designation runs out. Is there overlap, or is there a timeline when it’s completed? Or do you work with them so that it’s a smooth transition and there’s no break in between for instruction?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Really, this is to make sure it’s easy for the institutions to not have a break.

If they currently hold an EQA designation, they’d be notified that it’s just now been deemed to be a designation certificate underneath this legislation. When they go to apply, as they would have applied for EQA renewal, it would just be now under this act that they would be applying for a designation certificate.

It’s not a set time. If you have eight months left on your EQA designation, it’s eight months, and then you’d have to apply anyway. If it’s six months, whatever the time frame is, what’s left on your current valid designation is what would continue until you’d have to apply again, as you would have had to do under the policy framework anyway.

Korky Neufeld: Continuing on with that thread of thought, how is the term of designation certificate determined in subsection 35(2), relative to EQA designation expiry? How do you determine the length that you allow someone to have that EQA designation?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under the existing EQA policy framework, the designation lasts for one year. When that comes up, then they would be renewing under this act.

Korky Neufeld: Maybe help me…. Explain why only one year. Why wouldn’t you do it longer? Is it for protection? Is it that you want to make sure they renew on a regular basis? What’s the reason for a single-year designation?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to clarify, that one year is what is currently happening under the EQA policy framework.

[3:50 p.m.]

The timeline that will be set under this will be under the regulations. But yes, the one year is to make sure that we can constantly be reviewing institutions and make sure that they are up to date and meeting the standards.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Lawrence Mok: Moving on to transition applications, can the minister tell us: how are pre-existing applications converted to new designations under subsection 36(2)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Under this section, it creates a framework on how to deal with applications that have been started under the current EQA framework but will be decided upon once the new act is in force, because they’re just caught in this transition period. Applications are deemed to be applications under the act, and the difference in fees due under the current program and the new act will have to be paid by the institutions.

This approach ensures a smooth transition from the current EQA program and makes it clear that the new act and its regulations and rules apply to any unresolved applications on the date that the act comes into force.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

What process ensures that fee differences under subsection 36(3) are collected fairly and transparently?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The fee schedule will be published, through the regulations, when the act comes into effect, so it will be simultaneous there. Institutions will be aware of what that fee structure is and what they would be paying. That would be the transparent process that they would be able to have that information through.

Korky Neufeld: Just for clarification, to confirm, these fees also are only cost recovery, correct?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes. The whole program is cost recovery.

Clause 36 approved.

On clause 37.

Korky Neufeld: Under clause 37(2), how are pre-existing appeals handled to ensure fairness and continuity? Any guidelines there for that?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: With section 37(2), the intention here is to ensure that the approach ensures the rules and procedures don’t suddenly change and that all involved parties can rely on a single process to govern an appeal without any kind of ambiguity. The appeal process for cases begun under the current program will finish under the current program, and notices of appeal that are provided after the new act comes into effect will have the new process applied.

Just for information, there are not many appeals that we see, even currently, so it’s not something that’s going to impact a large number of institutions.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

Korky Neufeld: I just want to, first of all, to the minister and her staff, thank them for…. It’s helped me to understand processes, and it’s helped me to understand how things work from a government point of view. You always see it from one side. You don’t see it from the other side. So it’s really been educational for me. I hope it hasn’t been too painful for you, but I’ve really been educated in this. It’s helped me to understand how process will work.

Just a couple of comments that I want to do before I ask my last question on section 38. We just heard that Trinity Western is going to lay off a bunch more staff. I’m hearing from out in the field that more institutions are laying off staff and instructors offering less courses.

[4:00 p.m.]

I know this involves international students, but my comment does involve PALs. I really would encourage the minister to look into how they can transfer PALs from one institution to another.

Let’s say if an institution is not able to deliver, and they have a PAL. Instead of that institution using up a PAL and then that person in the same year moving and using up a PAL, if there could be a way that those institutions could move that PAL from one to the other rather than wasting two PALs on the same year for the same student. That’s just a thought.

I really believe that Bill 7 is there to safeguard and protect students, internationally and domestic.

Another comment I would have is when it comes to international students but also domestic students, I’ve heard, as recently as today, that several institutions in their DEI do not even list antisemitism as one of their things that they protect. I just want to encourage — if we really, truly are — that they should have that in there, written clearly. Right now they don’t. Especially SFU and UBC do not.

I would encourage the minister to look into that if we really want to protect all of our students. There are some students, especially now with what’s happening internationally, having a real tough time even going to class and being safe in their Hillel facilities.

I would just encourage the minister, from my heart to yours, to look into that and just make sure that they do protect all students and that they list them. Thank you so much.

On to section 38, how will the commencement by regulation under section 38 be communicated to affected institutions and students? Is there a type of communication that’ll happen? What’s the timeline?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: With any act that comes into effect, but here in this specific case, there will be broad communication with the sector through the ministry to make sure that they’re aware well in advance of the act as well as the stipulations and what the impact on them will be, so no one will be taken by surprise by it. Yes, that’s all coming into effect.

Clause 38 approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: I look to the minister.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just as we close, I’d also like to thank the critic for the engaging conversation and important discussions that we’ve had.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It’s here to protect students, as we said, not just international but domestic, and to really protect our education system and the reputation that we have as a world-class destination for education. It’s important that all students are safe, and that is what we’re always working towards in the ministry.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

I want to really thank my entire team that’s worked on this. This has been something that’s been worked on for a number of months and years, to make sure that it’s going to meet the moment of what we need to protect students, despite any changes that might come at a federal level.

Just on the PAL allocation level, I would say that those comments that you have — I hear you. Those are not things that the provincial government can change. The federal government has made it quite difficult for us to move anything around. But I think it is important, as we see the pressures that institutions are facing, that we’re doing everything we can to support the ability that we have to allocate those PALs to make sure, especially, our public post-secondary institutions are getting what they need and being able to meet the needs of students.

Thank you for the engaging conversation. Thank you for all the work that we’re doing to protect students together, and I look forward to working together in the future.

On that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:04 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 4:17 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $406,398,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Out of respect for the member across the way, my critic, who I know has got lots of questions over the course of the next six hours — not all six hours today but over the course of the next couple of days…. I don’t think my colleague would benefit from a long speech from me.

I’m just going to name the incredible forest service members that I’m joined by, here in person and in the back there, as well as joining us virtually. We’ve got, on my left, Makenzie Leine, deputy minister. Supporting the team is Chloe Burgess, executive director of strategic priorities operations; Courtney Malo, manager of executive issues; and Andrea Wood, director of executive operations.

In the back, we’ve got Ian Meier, associate deputy minister. We’ve got Rob Schweitzer, who’s the ADM of the B.C. wildfire service; David Greer, executive director; Cliff Chapman, director of provincial operations; Kurtis Isfeld, director of fire centre operations; Gordon Asselin, people, culture and capacity director; Dave Fleming, director of corporate governance; Briana Hill, director of strategic engagement and partnerships.

We’ve got Melissa Sanderson, ADM of the coast. Supporting Melissa, we’ve got Allan Johnsrude, who is regional executive director for the south coast region; Sharon Hadway for the west coast region; Lesley Fettes for strategic projects executive director; and Amanda Fouty, who is executive director of coast major projects and development.

We have Mike Hykaway from the North, ADM. Supporting Mike, we’ve got Perry Grilz, Lori Borth, Jevan Hanchard and Karrilyn Vince — all regional executive directors and executive director as well.

In the ADM, south, where the critic calls home, we’ve got Jamie Jeffreys, who’s the ADM for the south. Supporting Jamie, we’ve got Danielle Cuthbertson, who is responsible for the range branch.

Mark Walker, Jennifer Reid, Russ Laroche and Josh — I always mess this up — Pressey, not Presley. That’s how I remember it. They are all regional executive directors, and Mark’s an executive director as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

Jess Coster is the ADM for provincial operations, and we’ve got, supporting Jess, Allan Powelson from BCTS; Ted White, who is responsible for tenures in engineering; Ariel Taylor, who is an executive director; and Jess Ruskin, who is responsible for the HCA transformation project in the FLP branch.

I’m almost getting through this list. We’ve got Albert Law, to my right, who is the executive director and chief financial officer for the ministry. As well, we’ve got Jillian Rousselle, who is behind me, ADM of the tenures and economic division.

Supporting Jillian, we’ve got Janna Jessee, director of economics and trade; Jean-Paul Salley, director of strategic initiatives; Mikayla Neal, director of strategic planning; Kim Reid, who’s the executive director of the forest sector transformation team; Gustavo Oliveira, executive director of the forest sector investment and support branch; Peter Jacobsen, responsible for compensation and business analysis; Patrick Russell, with forest tenures; Al Bennett, with timber pricing; and Paddy Hirshfield, with tenures in the economics division.

Then Shane Berg, also behind me, is ADM and chief forester. Albert Nussbaum, Norah White and Jim Brown are supporting him.

I think it was really important for me to read those names out because it’s not just the ten people that are here.

You’re going to need a lot more binders.

It’s an incredible team that I’m responsible for and get the opportunity to work with as well. I just wanted to give them a shout-out, as they support me over the course of the next six hours. I’m looking forward to the discussion.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for that. It’s interesting. I heard in the past that Forests estimates could run as long as 70 hours. Maybe that’s to help support the amount of people that are in the ministry and all the different levels of departments that you have.

I thought we’d go back in time just a little bit, reviewing the transcript from last year, from our initial discussions. After the Minister of Forests had done his intro, then I had put in a bit of mine, and I talked about some of the things that we were going to talk about.

Right off the bat were U.S. tariffs and jobs and duties that were going to be accompanied with those tariffs. We were going to talk about the B.C. Timber Sales review, about allowable cuts and harvesting, about mill closures and about forest access and the closing of forest service routes.

There was a bunch of different things that we were going to be talking about. It sounds like we’ve gone almost full circle and are going to be having the same conversation again. Part of that was that when we looked at the current data and how many direct jobs we had in our industry, we had approximately 56,000 direct jobs with anywhere between 150,000 and 200,000 other jobs that were tied directly to the forest industry, and we had lost approximately 10,000 jobs in the previous year.

That was previous to ’25. I would suggest that we’ve lost probably somewhere in that neighbourhood again last year, in 2025. It’ll lead me right into a couple of questions. I had mentioned to the minister that we have six hours and that I was going to, as I mentioned to his staff, try to compartmentalize it as much as we can.

Let’s get right to the crux of some of the situations that we were talking about last year. That is the allowable cut. Now, for people that may not understand how the process is, the minister’s chief forester determines what the allowable cut will be for harvesting in the province of British Columbia. Currently, that number is 61.6 million cubic metres.

Unfortunately, we’re nowhere close to that number. We have, in the past…. But again, as the minister has alluded to in the past, some of the reductions in pests and pine beetle kill and wildfires have taken a bit of a hit on our inventories. Nevertheless, our AAC is supposed to be 61.6 million cubic metres in this province.

The minister and the Premier last spring told us and the minister’s mandate letter specified that we should be at 45 million cubic metres in this province, which is still only three-quarters of what it should be, and the minister had a mandate letter to say: “and a path to that 45 million cubic metres.”

Now, as recently as February 2026, the Council of Forest Industries issued a following statement after the budget came out. I’m just going to paraphrase what they said.

“As the province navigates significant fiscal and economic challenges, the forest sector continues to face intense pressure. We welcome their recognition of the urgent crisis facing the forest sector and the government’s plan to make targeted investments that support the sector.

[4:25 p.m.]

“We are concerned about the budget’s plan for a harvest level of 29 million cubic metres over the next three years” — not 45, and not anywhere close to the 61.6.

“The sector’s immediate survival depends on increasing the harvest level through predictable and economic access to fibre. We look forward to working with the government to strengthen and modernize our management approaches to unlock that wood supply and improve global competitiveness. Working together, we can reverse the mill closures” — and the pulp mill closures that we’ve been seeing.

“Forestry actively supports our economic security. By working towards an annual harvest of 45 million cubic metres, these are the significant benefits that we can receive.

“We can retain our skilled workers. We can protect our critical infrastructure — including those primary sawmills, pulp mills and secondary manufacturing that rely on the main manufacturing side of things — and generate another $600 million in additional revenue.”

Again, back in 2021, I think the direct revenue to the Forests Ministry was $1.9 billion. That’s now down to $500 million and dropping.

“Expanding opportunities for economic reconciliation with our First Nations partners, enhancing our ecosystem health through innovative forest management practices and opportunities to grow our forest economy.” That is what COFI had said.

A couple of straightforward questions to the minister, if I may, looking at our time allotment….

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: I’ve got lots of time.

Back to the AAC, I have some specific questions in regard to what the plans are with the industry when it comes to the allowable cut. If the chief forester is saying that the sustainability level is 61.6, the path is to 45 and we’re stuck at 29, what initiatives are the Forests Minister and his staff looking towards in 2026 that was different in 2025?

I know there were different…. There could be definite economics. We talked about tariffs. There’s an additional 10 percent on top of the other countervailing duties. But I think the main request from industry is more access to supply.

We’re talking about cutting permits. We know, through some of the information that we’ve received, and we’ve heard it, that the timeline has gone from 45 days to 25 days when it gets to the district manager. We also know that getting to the district manager has gone from one year to three years to sometimes not even getting there.

What exactly is the minister planning on doing short term, in the next three months, to be able to help alleviate these situations where these licensees only have one or two cutting permits to be able to rely on when they can’t really mix that fibre basket? To be able to look at the economics to scale on having enough fibre across the entire region to be able to balance the high cost and the low cost, to make a proper budget plan and not just be stuck with one or two cutting permits, knowing that they’re this close to shutting their facilities down….

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to my colleague across the way for starting us off with a really important question around the importance of being able to get our harvest right back up to where it needs to be.

The member is absolutely correct about the mandate that the Premier has provided to me to restore confidence in the sector and ensure that we’re delivering for workers and families and forest-dependent communities in every corner of our province.

[4:30 p.m.]

The member knows very well the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs and duties on our forest sector, and I also think he knows that, just in the last couple of weeks, we’ve had major success in NAFTA panel rulings showing once again, in the case of countervailing and anti-dumping duties, that the United States Commerce Secretary continues to not follow U.S. law.

As early as yesterday, we received another ruling that shared that from 2017, countervailing duties were incorrectly determined, and the NAFTA panel shared that the U.S. Commerce Secretary had to go back to the drawing board. Hopefully, that will not only lead to a redetermination but also to money back into the pockets of licensees here in British Columbia and throughout Canada as well.

It’s really important to talk about the impact of duties and tariffs, but I think what differs in our conversation from last year is not just the duties that went up and the 10 percent tariff — my colleague across the way referenced this — but also the impact of U.S. housing starts having gone down significantly, which always impacts British Columbia in a big way, being that we are so reliant on the United States. Also, where the lumber price is, and the price of pulp as well, in itself is a big factor.

I wanted to provide that as kind of the overarching comment on some of the things that we are dealing with and that in many ways are out of our control but that do not stop us on this side from doing the important work to ensure that we’re standing up for our forest sector. It’s why the Premier, as an example, this afternoon is meeting with the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, to continue to make the case for Americans to come to the table and solve this softwood lumber issue once and for all.

Also important, equally, is that we ensure that no worker is put in this position ever again. That means we have to diversify. We’ve got an incredible organization in my ministry called Forestry Innovation Investment. I’m not sure if we’re going to get a chance to talk about their work. But they’re doing outstanding work — led by Michael Loseth, the CEO, as well as the new board chair, Rick Doman, who are travelling the world and forging powerful partnerships. I was proud to join them in Japan and South Korea last year as well.

To get to the root of the member’s question around what we are doing to try to increase fibre supply, there are really two pieces that I want to alert the member to. There is the provincial work that we’re doing, and then there’s the local work.

On the provincial side of things, the member will have heard my speech at the Truck Loggers Convention earlier this year. Last year we led management unit reviews across the province to better understand what the sticking point was for not being able to move fibre. There are countless examples in the province of where we’ve actually got STI but it’s not moving. Cost is a big reason for that.

Building on that, we have launched a ten-year cost obligation review across the province. We’re working with licensees and First Nations to better understand why costs have gone up. Are these costs that government can address to ensure that we’re making our sector more competitive?

Also, transportation costs on the coast have gone up 40 percent. That’s because we’re harvesting farther from where these mill sites are as well. Those are some things that we’re going to have to address as part of this new generation of forestry that we’re dealing with here in British Columbia.

I am committed, as is my team, to ensuring that we can work with licensees not only on the provincial stuff that we’re doing as part of our ten-year cost obligation review but also locally on management unit reviews to move a path forward with licensees and First Nations to get that fibre moving. We’ve had a number of examples recently of where we’ve worked with First Nations to be able to address issues that have seen fibre moving.

From an economics perspective, we’re always having conversations. I would point the member opposite to the conversation that we had last estimates and to the work that we did in Mackenzie with cost-blending.

When we have these situations where cost is a big factor — and it speaks to some of the challenges we have here in British Columbia, historically, around competitiveness — we have to find out-of-the-box solutions to be able to address those challenges, and block-blending in Mackenzie is one of those things.

I’ll also advise the member opposite — I’m sure he’s well aware, from reading the budget — that we have a stumpage payment deferral program as well, which I hope will help licensees. We’ve got a number of companies that are taking advantage of that program right now to be able to keep the lights on and keep their operations going.

That’s really important as we do our level best, on this side of the House, to ensure that we’re standing up for the forest sector; restoring confidence; and, most importantly, standing up for those workers as well.

Ward Stamer: A couple of questions then. When you’re talking about this ten-year obligation review, what is the timeline on that?

Again, I think, as you alluded to, there seems to be not only a cost structure challenge…. We know that we have the most expensive fibre in North America, and part of that is planning. We know that costs have gone up astronomically in the planning, anywhere between 200 and 300 percent in the last five years alone.

[4:35 p.m.]

That’s obviously going to be a concern to everyone going forward. What measures is the minister going to be able to implement to be able to streamline that process? Also, when we’re looking at the total…. When you mentioned STI, BCTS…. I know that there’s been some on the BCTS review, and we’ll get into it later on some of the specifics. But where are we seeing that additional fibre coming to market? I think that’s one of the questions that is foremost on everyone’s mind.

If we recognize some of the challenges that we have, how is the ministry able to navigate through that and cut through some of the red tape and be able to expedite these permits quicker? Can the minister elaborate a little bit more on the work his ministry has done in the last year on the regulatory and the policy side of things to be able to speed up that process?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite, thanks for the question around the timelines for the ten-year obligation review. The team has been working since the last half of 2025 and right into 2026 to be able to meet with licensees in every corner of this province, First Nations to better understand the concerns there.

In late 2025, we began an assessment of the cost of obtaining a cutting permit. It was really important for us not to look in one particular area but to do this analysis in every timber supply area. Also, to not do this in silos but to invite licensees, to invite First Nations to the same table to be able to assess not only our perspectives but to be able to invite them to be a part of that discussion as well.

We have found the cost to be widely varied around the province, and we’re going to be working over the course of the next number of weeks to bring more consistency and efficiency to the process to reduce costs and timelines. There is a cost component to this, absolutely. But as we’re doing this work, we’re also looking at the efficiency.

Late last year I directed my deputy to begin the work of bringing all of the district managers together to ensure that we had one process. One thing I heard, and I’m sure the member opposite has heard this in his travels across the province, is: “This district office may have this process. This district office has that process.” That’s just not acceptable anymore.

We need to ensure that if you’re Canfor operating in the East Kootenays versus Canfor operating in Prince George, there at least is a balanced approach to ensuring that the ministry has a set number of guidelines.

Don’t get me wrong. Local is important. It’s important that we recognize that this province is vast in its geography, but it’s also important that we have an efficient process. One of those things that we’re looking at is our 1 CP and expanding use for that, creating more streamlined efficiencies.

Very proud of the work that the ministry did. One of the first actions I took was to take the threshold of cutting permits from 45 days to 25 days. And 80 percent of the permits are being approved in 25 days. The ministry is doing an outstanding job. In fact, in coastal B.C., it’s almost 100 percent being turned around in 25 days, which is very important.

[4:40 p.m.]

The member talked a bit about not only expediting permits…. But just to his comments around increasing the benefits of forestry with harvesting, I want to note to the member, again, my remarks that I’ve made over the course of the last year at different speeches around active forest management.

The member and I had an opportunity last session to be able to watch a film from Murray Wilson called B.C. is Burning. I’ve actually invited Murray to sit as a special adviser on my Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council to be able to help advise the work that we’re doing on active forest management.

Thinning guidance for B.C. was released in April of last year. The guidance has been updated to include wildfire risk reduction, which will be released in spring of 2026. I’ve asked the FRPA committee that reports to my chief forester to also look at the important work of how we expand active forest management throughout the province as we deal with the impacts of wildfires as well.

Ward Stamer: I thank you for those answers. I was just hoping for something to be a little bit more specific.

When we’re looking at an allowable cut of 61.6 million cubic metres, which the chief forester has set as being sustainable in the province of British Columbia, and we have a path to 45, which has been mandated to the minister, and the Premier supporting and we’re still stuck at 29, I have a fairly specific question. What tangible things is the Ministry of Forests doing to make sure that we get to 45? Again, that represents 50 percent more than what we’re doing right now.

That is a significant amount of volume that we need to be able to not only bring back some of the manufacturing facilities that have shut down but also to be able to expand our opportunities in this province. Again, it’s up to those businesses to determine whether they can afford that fibre with tariffs or not tariffs. That’s a business decision.

So I have a couple of quick, straightforward questions. Do we have enough cutting permits that have been approved to even be able to cut 45 this year? If we don’t, what was stopping us from having that happen? If the minister is able to say that we can reduce the amount of time from 45 to 25, where are the cutting permits?

It doesn’t mean that you have a cutting permit approved and you have to go log it. That’s not the way it works. So where are these cutting permits that we need to get us to 45?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to reiterate again that the work that we’ve been doing on this ten-year obligation review is very critical. It’s important that we get it right, and that’s why we’ve been taking our time working with licensees. We’re not starting from scratch. We’re also doing this work as part of the work that we did last year with these management unit reviews.

These management unit reviews have been critical in my ministry’s ability to understand what exactly is locking up fibre. Right now there are 48.7 million cubic metres of standing timber inventory across the province.

[4:45 p.m.]

I shared a couple of answers ago that there are different parts of the province where you’ve got STI. I think of Campbell River as an example, where right now you’ve got an STI of 3.6 million. It was 3.6 million a couple of months ago, when I last asked for an update, and a couple of months before that.

We are approving permits. But we have to ask ourselves: why is that fibre not moving? Duties and tariffs, U.S. housing conditions, the price of lumber — which is important around why we need to diversify our trade and ensure we never put workers in this position ever again. But it comes down to the economics. It comes down to the cost.

As part of this ten-year obligation cost review, we are ensuring that we are being more efficient in our permitting, but we are also, as part of the management unit reviews, looking at planning stability, making sure that we’re looking at pricing.

I used cost blending in Mackenzie as an example. We’re open to having those conversations across the province. That is what’s going to open up access to fibre. That is what’s going to ensure that we get to that sustainable cut that the member refers to.

I would be happy to talk a bit about the allowable cut. I’ve been intrigued by some of the comments that the member has made in the media around this being a made-up number and stuff. It’s not. There is a thorough process it goes through. But I’d be very interested in spending some time, if the member is interested, in talking about his concerns.

Our goal is to make more of this STI available. That’s the work that we’re doing. It is work that’s immediately happening across the province.

I would also just add that as part of this work that we’re doing, it’s so very important, as part of the efficiencies, that we look across the spectrum around how we can be more efficient as an organization, utilizing AI. But we’ve done a lot of work on the permitting side. We’ve got more work to do. One of the biggest barriers is cost right now.

I think if you look at the ability for people to submit permits but also move on their STI, if the price of lumber goes up, that will help. If U.S. housing numbers go up — they are set to go up later this year, based off of some economist reports I read — that will help as well.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for his comments. I agree with the minister that there are a lot of factors that go into play in the cutting permit process, but there are many of our permits already in this province that are negative stumpage.

I know all about blending. I understand the dynamics of that. I also understand that there are a bunch of issues when it comes to the planning that is taking significantly longer than it used to in the past.

We’ve explained before where, yes, cutting permits, when they get to the district manager’s office, may go from 45 days to 25 days. But it can take anywhere from two to three years to get that process through, when before, it was only six months.

Let’s just move on a little bit from that to wildfire. We can talk about this. If we can, let’s ask a couple of questions around salvage.

We know full well that we’ve lost an incredible amount of fibre in the last five years, ten years on wildfire. I’m looking at the information in front of me, when it talks about the minister’s…. It’s the manual for wildfire recovery.

In that document, it specifically says that we have specific timelines when it comes to salvaging fibre from a wildfire. There are implications, even in the minister’s numbers, saying that the expectation is only 10 percent — that 10 percent is the number to recover wildfire fibre.

Now, there are many of us that would disagree with that number. Part of the reason, I believe, that we’re having that low number is it’s taking an incredibly long period of time to be able to access that fibre.

Can the minister answer a couple of very straightforward questions? What was the timeline in the last two years in the recovery of the wildfire volumes, and what was that number? What was the percentage of that number that was recovered?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re just working on getting the number. But rather than keeping him waiting, I thought we would just give an answer, and then we can always get that number to them when the team report is back up.

I just want to touch on, before we get into the wildfire salvage piece…. The member will have heard my remarks at the TLA as well as the ILA and COFI last year — and COFI in a few weeks — around the need for us to be able to shift our forestry away from “cutting permit by cutting permit” forestry to full operational planning forestry. I’m a big believer in the need for us to build a working forest that can provide the stability on the land base.

I don’t believe…. Given the challenges we face with our competitiveness but also the landscape that we’re responsible for here in British Columbia — which is very unique compared to Alberta and to the U.S. south, which, obviously, COFI and others sometimes use to describe and to compare ourselves to — we have to move towards that operational planning.

If you want to use an example, the ʼNa̱mǥis Nation is that prime example. ʼNa̱mǥis and Western Forest Products, in the member for North Island’s constituency, have done the work to be able to develop an FLP, which will lead to a forest operational plan, which will essentially lead to the certainty and stability that an operation like Western Forest Products needs. That’s huge. If we get an opportunity to talk more about that, happy to do so.

That is the future of forestry in British Columbia. It’s First Nations, industry, local governments and labour all sitting at the same table with government developing those plans.

I’m really excited about the work that we’re doing, with 15 FLPs already started and many more that don’t necessarily have government at the table with dollars.

[4:55 p.m.]

But the member across the way will know our mutual friend George Lampreau, the Chief of the Simpcw First Nation. Talk about a Chief that has gone above and beyond my expectations of developing a forest economy in his region.

He didn’t wait for government. He didn’t wait for industry. He went and did the work with his neighbouring nations and has essentially developed a stewardship plan that meets the test of those industry partners in his region and is now working with us to be able to develop, essentially, an FLP.

It’s going to be fantastic. I’m really excited about the work. We met in Prince George at the Natural Resources Forum, and Chief Lampreau is just an outstanding leader in his community and an outstanding example of someone who brings people together.

As we shift towards wildfire salvage as well…. The member opposite knows very well, given where he calls home, that due to climate change, we’re seeing wildfires in B.C. burn hotter, spreading faster and really doing more damage in communities and forests around British Columbia.

Of course, coupled with the impacts of President Trump’s ongoing attacks on B.C. forestry, jobs within our sector have been hit hard. Our government has been taking action to push back and work to protect our forestry sector and the paycheques of those forestry workers as well. This includes cutting down on permitting red tape, bringing timelines down from approximately 40 days to 25 days, allowing more wood to be salvaged faster.

Wildfire salvage opportunity agreements have also made room for more meaningful First Nations participation in the forestry sector since their introduction in 2022. There have been 22 wildfire salvage opportunity agreements — or as we refer to them in the forest service, WSOAs — issued to First Nations and 12 associated tenures. Earlier last year we released the wildfire timber salvage planning and administration guidebook and strategy template, which provides clear and consistent guidance on salvage.

Building on those wildfire salvage opportunity agreements, we’ve also released some salvage planning tools to help accelerate the permitting process, such as the wildfire timber salvage planning and administration guidebook, which provides clear and consistent guidance on salvage processes and improved burn severity mapping and economical mapping by wildfire as well.

Over the past few years, there have been significant efforts made to shift the pulp industry’s perspective on the use of wood chips. As an example, in 2024 and 2025, pulp mills accepted over one million cubic metres of wood chips, up to 500,000 cubic metres in 2023, representing 7 percent of feedstock.

I think the member just has to look to his neighbour’s — Kamloops Centre — backyard, if you’re looking for an example of us being able to move very quickly. That’s the Mine Creek wildfire salvage.

In the fall of 2025, early collaborative planning between Stuwix Resources, Coldwater Indian Band and B.C. Timber Sales paved the way for two of the fastest-issued salvage cutting permits, allowing the Coldwater Indian Band to recover timber from the 2025 Mine Creek wildfire and beginning salvage before the end of the year. That’s what we need to be moving towards.

We’re trying to clear that red tape, eliminate that red tape, but at the same time, I think it’s really important…. As I shared with the member last year, one of the things that the team launched last year and has been a huge success in the 2025 wildfire season was a rapid ecological assessment team. This team goes in immediately after a fire occurs, understands the critical habitat, the burn severity and also does work with our planning team and district offices to understand what mills can take.

It’s really important, as we work to get the member a number…. I know the member already knows this from spending many years in the bush. There’s an economic cost to this, as well, when you’re looking at salvage. There are many situations in the northeast, as an example, where it just doesn’t make economic sense to go in and salvage that wood as well.

That’s something we have to keep in mind when we look at the numbers, but it’s also the important work that we have to do to ensure that we are streamlining our processes and, whenever possible, bringing down costs while also making sure that we’re maintaining high silviculture practices when it comes to wildfire salvage.

Outstanding work that we’ve been doing with First Nations, and I certainly hope that as we prepare for the 2026 wildfire season, and we use the Mine Creek wildfire as an example, there could be more Mine Creek wildfire examples of nations, industry coming together and, again, salvaging permits in the same year that the fire occurs.

Ward Stamer: There was a lot in that seven or eight minutes that the minister was answering the question on the wildfire. We went from the wildfire to FLPs and then back to the wildfire, so I thank him for that.

There were a couple of very specific questions that I had. The minister mentioned about wildfire salvage and recovery. He talked about timelines. Again, I’m looking at the guide, and I would suggest that there is still some flexibility in those timelines in the salvage process.

[5:00 p.m.]

The minister mentioned some success stories of early salvage. I have many that I can list to myself that are not successful in my own riding, where certain organizations were able to recover the fibre in a timely fashion and some that is still not. I can certainly provide the pictures and the areas required to show that not happening and asking specific questions of why not.

When I look through roles and responsibilities and it talks about who’s responsible for what after a wildfire and the chain of command, it specifically says that tenure holders will have to, when relevant, identify and coordinate with other tenure holders and mills on milling capacity of burnt wood. Obviously, that includes sawmills and pulp mills. Then it talks about requiring the FSPs, CP/RPs and submitting permit applications to the district staff.

My question: ultimately, who is approving these cutting permits? Is it the licensees, is it First Nations, or is it the district staff that is authorizing these cutting permits?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s the district manager.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for that.

Another question I had in the wildfire recovery. Is there a way that I can get a breakdown when I asked specifically what the volumes were in the last couple of years? I’m looking at some of the information that was here on the wildfire in last year’s estimates book. Is there an opportunity that I can get the numbers of the amount of fibre that has been recovered in the last two operating years, ’24 and ’25, and the grades associated with that recovery?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, no problem. We’ll do our best to try to get it by the end of the day today, if not by the end of the week.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister. That’s fine.

If we’re going to go back…. The reason I brought up wildfire and salvage is because we know that that is a critical component of the AAC right now even though…. It’s part of the chief forester’s plan, when he’s determining the AAC, that there’s going to be a drop-down in disease. There’s going to be a drop-down in the result of forest fires. So part of that AAC, obviously, would be fibre that has been damaged by fires. That’s pretty straightforward.

My question is now going to lead a bit more into supports. I asked the minister specifically about the 61.6 and the drive to 45 or the path to 45 million cubic metres. We have a budget that shows, for the next three years, that we’re basically being budgeted at 29 million to 30 million cubic metres. That’s what was cut last year. That was the previous year, and that’s what it looks like is planned for this year.

My question to the minister is…. We’ve had substantial pulp mill losses in the last 24 months. Can the minister list off…? Other than other ministry-specific support for those laid-off workers, what else does the Forests Minister have for those people that have lost their jobs?

I’m looking through all the lists of the programs that we had in the past. We had the forest worker and community supports. That was in fall ’21. We’ve got JEDI, Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills. Those allocations were up to ’24-25. We’ve got the forest employment program and rural business and community recovery initiatives, which were no longer available as of March 31, 2025. We know the forestry worker supports and community resiliency council was formed in 2022.

Can the minister please tell me what we have for additional supports for those laid-off forest workers?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. It’s so important, as we see the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs and duties hitting our forest sector hard here in British Columbia, that we work together to ensure that we’re standing up for forest workers.

The member across the way knows the impact that our forest sector has on our economy here in British Columbia. It provides good-paying, family-supporting jobs while also, at the same time, providing revenue to our province as well.

The member opposite will know that in 2020 and 2021, when lumber prices ballooned significantly, we were making good money. People were employed and doing well. But we also know that when lumber prices are low, that’s when British Columbians and forestry workers suffer. It’s, again, why we have to transform the sector and move us away from a dimensional lumber sector, a commodity lumber sector, towards a high-scale, high-value-added sector.

I want to touch on one of the programs that my colleague in the Ministry of Jobs had, and that was the manufacturing jobs fund. This is a particularly special program for me because it was launched in 2023 when I was chief of staff to the Minister of Jobs.

Government actions created and saved more than 3,500 forestry jobs that otherwise would’ve been lost to direct supports to businesses through the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. We’ve seen over $550 million in investments flow to the sector through MJF’s commitment of up to $91 million to 75 projects, including one project that I know that the member knows very well in his own community — Gilbert Forest Products.

I know Gilbert well because I’ve got a really cool gift that they provided to me. It’s a wooden spatula of some sort that’s on my wall. Outstanding company. The member should be very proud — I know he is — of Gilbert Forest Products and the work that they do in Barry, which is a beautiful community by the way. That’s not just me buttering up my colleague across the way.

Ward Stamer: Barriere.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Barriere. Sorry, my apologies. But a beautiful community. I hope to spend more time there in the future not just as minister but maybe as a tourist as well.

The member across the way also touches on the important work that we need to do to be able to help support workers. It’s really important for me to recognize at the outset that it’s not just my ministry that is leading this work. The Premier has asked me to bring forward all of my colleagues. I think of the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Jobs. We need an all-of-government approach to ensure that we’re providing the supports.

The member across the way will know that in Budget 2026, in addition to the stumpage payment deferral program — which is significant in helping to keep the lights on and keep licensees afloat as we deal with this really raucous time with duties and tariffs and the price of lumber, as well as where housing starts are — there were additional dollars invested.

The Wildfire Reduction Equipment Support Trust is to help contractors offset the cost of purchasing equipment and keep people working. We’ve also made some recent policy changes that the member will know I announced at the TLA Convention. This increased the reimbursement up to 25 percent or a maximum of $250,000, up from 10 percent and $100,000. Again, Budget 2026 adds an additional $5 million.

On top of that, we’ve got additional money, $15 million in the FireSmart community funding. We’ve got an additional $5 million for the forestry service providers compensation fund as well as an additional $5 million for the First Nations Forestry Council, which is an outstanding organization.

The member opposite, I’m sure, has had lots of conversations with Lenny Joe around the role of First Nations, especially as 20 percent of our tenure is in the hands of First Nations. They’re just doing outstanding work as an organization to be able to support those nations as a major…. All of them are major licensees in their respective communities.

[5:10 p.m.]

In addition to the work that we need to do to be able to ensure that we are working as a province to support those funds, it is so important that we get our fair share of funding from Ottawa.

The member will know that last week the federal Minister of Jobs was here in Victoria in the Legislature on Thursday, announcing $70 million in funding, much of that coming towards the softwood lumber industry here in British Columbia. We’ll have certainly more to share with the member across the way in the weeks ahead as we work with my colleague in the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to stand up some of those programs.

For example, one program that was very successful in the past was the forest employment program, specifically targeted towards contractors and loggers. That’s a program that we’re certainly looking at — how it can be employed in the future to be able to help support workers.

But it’s so important to recognize that, at the same time, we are continuing to struggle to get Ottawa to show the level of care and equity with forestry as they do with Ontario and steel. On Thursday, the Minister of Jobs was here in B.C. announcing this funding. Today she’s back in Ottawa standing with the minister responsible, Mike Harris — who’s a gem of a guy, nice guy, even though he’s a Broncos fan — in Ontario, in Ottawa, essentially announcing additional funding for their hard-hit sectors of steel and aluminum and forestry as well.

But the member opposite might be surprised to know that there are more dollars for softwood in Ontario than there are softwood dollars here in British Columbia. That makes zero sense to me, as I’m sure it makes zero sense to him. We need to ensure that the federal government continues its investment in forestry here in British Columbia. We are going to hold them accountable to that.

That’s why in a couple of weeks, during our break week, I’ll be heading to Ottawa to have conversations with ministers to remind them that forestry is our auto sector, forestry is our steel sector, and we deserve the same level of supports, the same level of equity that Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and other provinces get.

We don’t get equalization payments. We continue to pay into the pot, but we don’t get those benefits. It’s so important that we continue our work, and I would welcome the member in joining me in this advocacy to ensure that the federal government makes the necessary investments to support us.

We will be on this side of the House, as a government, fully committed to supporting workers in this transition, fully supporting workers as we deal with the impacts of duties and tariffs and the current situation that we’re facing here in British Columbia. But we also, at the same time, need to ensure that the federal government steps up and brings dollars to the table.

I’m thankful for the dollars they announced last week, but we need more.

Ward Stamer: That basically answered my question. There weren’t any new initiatives other than the $15 million that the minister alluded to — $5 million to the First Nations Forestry Council, $5 million for the equipment help and the $5 million for the contractor fund, which I’m quite sure wouldn’t go very far if you were a large contractor and you had a tenure operator go under, but that’s fine.

Another thing the minister mentioned was on the value-added side of things. Yes, I agree that we should be getting more out of every cubic metre we can in the province. But I wouldn’t say that…. Without our primary manufacturing, we don’t have value-added manufacturing in this province, because very little of our value-added manufacturing can actually do much with a log. So we still need our primary manufacturing facilities up and running.

The two examples that the minister was mentioning, Gilbert Smith Forest Products…. I am very fortunate they are still in operation in Barriere. They are the largest job business in Barriere. They employ over 80 full-time jobs and the subsequent spin-off jobs. But I know that on the manufacturing jobs fund, they were successful in applying to that fund, but that has also been paused for a year as a business decision.

As for Tolko Industries down in Heffley Creek, they were fortunate with a $2 million grant from that fund, but they also had to leverage $6 million of their own money in that fund.

It’s not like some of the other funds that we’ve heard of that do not have the guidelines or the guardrails with the manufacturing jobs fund — which, I agree with the minister, was and is a good initiative for the province of British Columbia. But in most cases, it’s requiring three to five times private investment for every dollar that goes into it from a taxpayer’s perspective. I agree with that. As for an investment fund that doesn’t have those guardrails, I will never support anything like that.

[5:15 p.m.]

But having said that…. Again, we’ll be going back to the allowable cut. What has the ministry factored into their analysis? If we’re stuck at 29 million cubic metres for the foreseeable future, what will that do to our forest industry? Do they see a path forward in being able to get out of the crisis that we’re in, with the fact that we have so many facilities on the brink of closure because there isn’t enough fibre for those facilities?

What has the ministry factored in if we don’t get to 45, say, this year, even if we don’t get to 61.6 as an allowable cut? What happens if we don’t get to 45 this year?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I can’t help but comment on the member’s attack and the fact that he voted against the strategic investment fund — a fund that, now that it is enacted, will receive royal assent shortly, I’m sure, and will possibly help forestry operations.

I’m glad that the member across the way is supportive of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund and the millions of dollars that we have spent as a government to be able to help support operations in his own community. I’m looking forward to it. I’m not sure if Heffley Creek is in the member’s constituency or if that’s Kamloops Centre.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Okay, good to know.

I understand from a conversation with Tolko that it’s either in the process of being commissioned or will be commissioned very soon. It’s very exciting news, and full credit to Tolko. Tolko has been an outstanding partner in the work that we’ve been doing together to be able to increase fibre supply in their respective regions.

There is an example of a major licensee that sees the value of the value-added and isn’t pushing it aside but is making the investment. The member is absolutely right. In partnership with the government of British Columbia, they’ve invested $6 million to be able to build this plant.

I’m looking forward to the opportunity to be able to tour it soon. I’m going to be in Kamloops next week. I’m not going to get a chance to be in the member’s constituency, but I will be back again and hope for the opportunity to be able to tour and help celebrate with the workers there the investment and what that means for our forest sector here in British Columbia.

I hope the member opposite will see, over the course of time, as my colleague the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth rolls out the strategic investment fund, that this is good news for British Columbia. The member opposite just has to look to other provinces — Conservative provinces. They have similar funds, and these funds attract economic investment in communities.

We need a fund like this to ensure that we can attract federal investment. I met with the Minister of Natural Resources for Canada yesterday, where we were talking about direct investment. It’s because of the work that my team has done, working in partnership with the Minister of Jobs, that our friends from Kalesnikoff saw a $5 million investment last week. Kalesnikoff has received substantive investments from both the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada, and we are happy to support an operation led by an incredible team.

[5:20 p.m.]

Ken, as the member across the way might know, has retired and has moved on to some advocacy roles. He’s part of the forestry transformation task force that the federal government is leading but is still a B.C. guy, doing important B.C. stuff, still involved with the independent logging processors association. His kids are now running the operation, Kalesnikoff mass timber, Kalesnikoff Lumber — an outstanding team. I had an opportunity to be able to tour their operation.

It’s the work that we are doing on this side of the House to be able to attract those federal investments that leads to our ability to be able to shift our sector from commodity dimensional lumber towards that high-value sector. So I really hope, over the course of the next number of weeks and months and years, that the member opposite changes his perspectives on the strategic investment fund. It’s a shame that the Conservatives voted against it.

To the member’s question around budget forecast, the allowable cut versus the harvest, the member opposite will know from my answers last year that the $29 million is a budget forecast. That is not a forecast set by the Ministry of Forests or the forest service. That is set by the Ministry of Finance, and it factors in a lot of things. I’m sure the member opposite may have an opportunity to be able to ask questions to the Minister of Finance and can certainly ask the questions related to her team.

One of the biggest drivers for budget forecasts, you can imagine, is the price of lumber as well as U.S. housing conditions, in terms of where they’re at. When you have the price of lumber as low as it is and U.S. housing starts significantly reduced, that is going to factor the situation we have here.

The member opposite knows, given the conversation we’ve had over the course of the last hour, that the economics clearly determine whether cutting permits get submitted or not. That’s the issue that we’re dealing with right now. It’s really tough out there. Duties and tariffs, U.S. housing starts as well as the price of lumber is impacting our forest sector in a way that we have never experienced before.

In 2008-2009, well before my time, we were dealing with a recession and the collapse, and we saw the impacts, but this is unique in itself. So we are committed on this side, in my job as the Minister of Forests, with the forest service team, to driving up our harvesting rates.

We have touched on, over the course of the last hour, a number of the initiatives that we’re doing, whether it’s the ten-year obligation cost review, the management unit reviews on how we can drive up harvesting. We’re committed to meeting my mandate over my period of time as Minister of Forests, but I also have to recognize that there are so many circumstances out there that pose challenges on my ability to be able to meet that mandate as well.

For example, in the last hour — it’s been about an hour since I checked Twitter — maybe the President tweeted out something about duties and tariffs after the U.S. Ambassador’s meeting with the Premier. Who knows? That seems to be the tool, Truth Social, that he uses to be able to communicate with people.

I’m not trying to be funny, but that’s the reality that we’re dealing with — a President of the United States that doesn’t believe he needs the trees from Canada. But if you go ask U.S. homebuilders, they want our trees, want our logs, want our lumber. They want our building products, and we’re happy to provide them. But when they add duties and tariffs — we’re talking about 45 percent and in the case of Canfor, 55 percent; and, again, NAFTA panel rulings from 2017 showing once again that they’re not following the law — it makes it very difficult.

It’s why we have to diversify. It’s why my team at FII is doing incredible work. My colleague Michael, who’s the CEO, and Rick Doman were just in the U.K., where we announced we’re opening a brand new office. We’ve got a person already there forging powerful partnerships and had an opportunity to be able to meet with the U.K. High Commissioner last week.

We’re not just doing this work in the U.K. I was in Japan and South Korea. I hope to be able to visit China later this year. We’re forging powerful partnerships all over the place to ensure that no worker is put in this position ever again.

Ward Stamer: Just a couple of things. It wasn’t that I’m against a strategic fund per se. What I was mentioning is that there’s a clear distinction between the manufacturing job fund and the strategic fund that has been part of Budget 2026, inasmuch as the manufacturing jobs fund has specific guidelines, particularly when it comes to investing in the fund and the ability to invest in the fund, whereas in this new fund, there are no such requirements, and there are also grants that can be adjudicated from that fund where nothing to the sort could happen with the manufacturing jobs fund. So that’s when I mentioned the comment about no guardrails.

As for the cutting permits, yes, I understand that there’s economics involved in the plans, but I think what the licensees are asking for and the tenure holds are asking for is more opportunity in the fibre basket.

[5:25 p.m.]

What they’re finding is that there are many areas of the province that are part of the allowable cut that seem to be off-limits. And we’re not talking about protected areas. We’re not talking about areas that have been eliminated out. They’re areas that seem to be under conflict.

One of the questions I had to the minister earlier, when we talked about the Forestry Worker Supports and Community Resiliency Council…. It was formed in October 2022 and consisted of 21 members from local government. As of last year, that final report has not been released. Can the minister share with me if that has been released?

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

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

I don’t share his perspective on the strategic investment fund. The member opposite will know — if he had an opportunity to be able to sit in the House and listen to the speech and the debate that unfolded in this room, I believe, or upstairs — that the manufacturing jobs fund helped in the development of the strategic investment fund.

If we want to continue that debate, we could continue that when the Minister of Jobs and his critic are here. I’m going to continue to put it on the record that this is a good fund, and I hope the member changes his perspective over time on this.

The member refers to the work that happened prior to my time as Minister of Forests with his forest resiliency council. Outstanding individuals. I think of Geoff Dawe. I think of my friend Todd Chamberlain from the Interior Logging Association. I think of folks from Unifor and the United Steel Workers and a whole host of other individuals that came together to help advise government on the important work.

The Chair: One moment, Minister.

Member, if you’re going to get on the phone, can you please leave the room? If you’re on the phone, just please step outside.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I have to remember what I was saying. Okay, what was I talking about? I was talking about the resiliency council, naming some of the members that were participating in the report.

The report was an internal report to help guide program development if we’re ever put in this position again where we needed to roll out those reports. I can assure the member that we utilize that report for internal purposes. The report not only guides my work but guides the work of my colleagues — as an example, in the Ministry of Jobs and the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction as well.

It’s also directly correlated to the work of the Softwood Lumber Advisory Council, or what we refer to as SLAC internally. The Softwood Lumber Advisory Council is doing outstanding work. I know the member opposite had some hesitations when the Softwood Lumber Advisory Council was first announced, concerned with too many union members on there.

I’m really glad that the union representation is on there with folks like Geoff Dawe, Gavin McGarrigle as well as my friend Scott Lunny from the United Steel Workers — in addition to industry representatives, in addition to the forest sector.

[5:30 p.m.]

The member might be interested to know that Kim Haakstad from COFI now sits on the Softwood Lumber Advisory Council as well. We continue to adapt, continue to ensure that we are supporting the sector the best way we can.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

I want to thank that council for the work that they did in advising my ministry and across government on the necessary steps we need to do to ensure that those supports are available.

Welcome back to the chair, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I’m recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We just had an incident here that could’ve cost somebody another bottle, and I think the Chair is very aware of that from the previous year.

I’m not really going to comment too much on the minister’s comment about what I had perceived to have said on the makeup of the softwood council, because he basically addressed one of my concerns, which was that I believe that there should have been more industry people at that council. He just alluded to the fact that the president of COFI has been added to that, so I thank him for that.

That is why I had criticism. It had nothing to do with the format of the council, other than I believe there should have been more industry leaders on that. So just want to make sure to correct the record on that.

The second part is…. I’d like to be able to shift a little bit, if we can, to FireSmart. We may have enough time today or we may not, but I just want to bring up a few things.

I know I’ll steal a little bit of the minister’s thunder, but I think it’s important for us to realize that the Forests Ministry and the B.C. wildfire service has done an excellent job with our municipalities in working towards wildfire mitigation and fuel reduction in our communities, particularly interface. We know how challenging it is when you have a community surrounded by fuel and when it gets to the extreme temperatures that we’ve seen in previous summers, how volatile it can be. We can use West Kelowna and Scotch Creek as a couple of examples not that long ago.

We also know that, to date, 132 First Nations and 148 local governments have received $190 million in taxpayers’ funding, and many of these organizations have built up the capacity to be able to continue this good work. I think it came as a shock to many of us, including our municipal leaders, to hear the announcement last month that the funding that has been going on for the last three, four or five years was going to be changed.

So I have some very specific questions to the minister. Hopefully we won’t spend too much time on it. But when we look at the realities that…. It was about $40 million a year that was being spent, and this is just on the fire smarting program. This is not having to do with B.C. wildfire service and their suppression efforts.

We can talk about that when we get into the budget line items and those kinds of things. They’re kind of lying together because I think there was an understanding by many of us that there was a need for year-round employment in not only fire suppression but in ways of reducing the risk in our province, not just from a suppression perspective but a proactive perspective, not a reactive perspective.

But in that time, we’ve built up a significant amount of capacity within our municipalities and the B.C. wildfire service to do that work — having workers that could be doing wildfire fuel mitigation and reduction right now, at this time of the year when it’s still damp and there isn’t a real risk of fires in the interface, and then to be able to transition some of those workers or a lot of those workers into suppression crews when we do have fires.

I think that’s where some of the…. Well, we’ll see where the rubber hits the pavement on some of these funding models. I know the minister and the ministry added another $15 million to the $25 million that was left in the fund. By some indications, there will be enough money to go to the summer. In some indications, there will not be. Hopefully, we can get through this fairly quickly with some very specific asks.

What is the plan in the next six months to replace what we originally had on the ground, and what can you say to alleviate the concerns of our municipal leaders and their fire departments when they’re looking at this year’s fire season coming and they’ve got all this capacity?

[5:35 p.m.]

What are they going to be able to do to continue with those fuel reduction and wildfire mitigation efforts that they’ve been doing in their communities?

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

A couple of things. This is a real priority for me as Minister of Forests — the minister responsible for the B.C. wildfire service. It provides me an opportunity to be able to thank, once again, all of the staff in the forest service, in particular as we head towards April 1 and the start of the 2026 wildfire season, the outstanding team that makes up the B.C. wildfire service — not just those members, those hard-working men and women, that put everything on the line to be able to go in and help protect communities and help save lives but, as the member opposite noted, the important work that fire officials do all across the province.

One of the individuals who was a highlight for me to meet last year — I’m not sure if the member opposite has had a chance to meet him — was Chief Jason Brolund from West Kelowna. Talk about a leader who is not only showing commitment to his community but also has been, in a way, advising me in terms of the importance of FireSmart as well as the important work that we’re needing to do.

The member will know, given his colleague from West Kelowna and the questions we got last year, that West Kelowna is arguably the leader in the province in terms of the work that they’ve had to do and wildfire risk reduction as well.

The ministry is going to be reviewing the delivery of the overall community resiliency investment fund to risk activities on Crown land. With the work that we’ve done with the B.C. Timber Sales recommendations and the implementation and, of course, the success that we’ve had with the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and the dollars that my government has provided to that organization, it is a real good time for us to be able to look at how best to deliver and integrate an effective model of wildfire risk activities on Crown land.

This work will be internally driven with targeted engagement with First Nations, local governments and stakeholders over the course of the next number of months. Specifically, I would add that the Crown land wildfire risk reduction program has been a huge success. Over the course of the last year, they’ve been able to utilize all their funding and participate in all the programs that they planned for.

[5:40 p.m.]

That’s, I think, the first time in a number of years they’ve had that level of success. So kudos to the team there.

I’d also remind the member opposite that it was just a couple of years ago that my predecessor, Minister Ralston, announced $15 million in funding for the Aberdeen Plateau near Vernon. That’s an example of a really interesting, cool initiative that my colleague from Vernon advocated for very strongly. They got $15 million to be able to help protect the watershed, and I believe that is the third-largest watershed in British Columbia. There’s really important work happening on the ground there with licensees and with local governments as well.

Again, I want to give a shout-out to my colleague from Vernon-Lumby for being an outstanding advocate for her community and for being able to land $15 million to be able to help protect the watershed that her community relies on, while also doing important wildfire risk reduction work.

Active forest management is a big part of this. The member opposite will know that this has been a key pillar to my work. It’s why I hosted a national wildfire symposium at UBC last year to bring all of my colleagues along, from coast to coast to coast, to have a conversation around federal involvement and federal participation in active forest management.

It would be great to see the federal government invest dollars to help support communities, alongside the province. I’m hoping that the member across the way can join me in his advocacy and encourage his Member of Parliament, as I’m encouraging mine, to ensure that we see the federal government participating in these programs.

To get to the root of the member’s question, in terms of the next six months, we believe that with the additional dollars that we’ve received in Budget 2026, we will have enough funding to be able to help support the intake process that currently is open.

I just want to assure the member opposite — not only speaking to him, but speaking to communities all across the province that have written to me and the Premier and have made comments in the media — that we’re talking about a program that has been very successful. The member opposite acknowledged it.

We’re fully committed to reviewing the program in the context of the challenges we’re dealing with today, while also recognizing the whole-of-society approach needed to addressing wildfires. We need federal participation in these programs. We need to ensure that the government of British Columbia continues to be at the table. We need to work with local governments and First Nations on this.

We’re committed to doing this work. We’re committed to embedding the BCTS recommendations. We’re committed to embedding the important work that organizations like Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. do. I’m very proud of the work that our B.C. wildfire service is going to be doing on this over the course of the next number of months.

Ward Stamer: Thank you for the minister’s comments. Again, I think part of the challenge is that there are optimistic expectations in there being enough money for the existing programs. I believe that that’s why many of our communities are sounding the alarm. They don’t believe that there is.

There are a couple of things here, a couple of funds that I want to bring to the minister’s attention. The Community Resilience investment, the CR program, has two active funding streams — FireSmart community funding services, FCFS, distributed through UBCM; and Crown land wildfire risk reduction, CLWRR, distributed through the Ministry of Forests.

Then the UBCM FCFS program has two funding arms. They have funding for FireSmart activities, which is community preparedness, education, home assessments, etc., and that is the community wildfire resiliency plans, CWRPs, which I believe you have to have if you’re going to be looking for funding of any sort. Then there’s funding for fuel management activities, which are fuel management prescriptions and fuel treatments.

In announcements on January 28, 2026, and action on February 2, 2026, the funding for FireSmart activities was transitioned to a closed intake for 2026, with only $25 million remaining. I believe the minister mentioned that there’s another $15 million to be added to that amount. Funding for fuel management activities was discontinued, with no clear plan for re-establishment or an alternative.

A couple of questions. There’s no public information on how the CRI funding was distributed between those two streams, between 2024 and 2026, or how it was distributed. When we’re looking at the approved years, I have numbers. Approved in 2023 was $140 million, and $75 million was disbursed. In 2024 it was $137 million, and $74 million was disbursed. In 2025 it was $140.7 million, and $75 million was disbursed.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think some of the concerns that we’re seeing is that there’s also another funding stream that the minister just touched on briefly. That’s the First Nations Emergency Services Society and Indigenous Services Canada, which probably has a bit of fed dollars to it. It’s called FNESS/ISC.

These are grants for on-reserve lands. The funding streams are for cultural and prescribed fire, FireSmart, preparedness education and home assessments and operational field treatments — with a maximum grant amount of $150,000. Now, my information, from what I’ve received, is that there’s a lot of uncertainty going forward in what’s going to occur with that level of funding as well.

Does the minister have any information to share today on those funds, those programs as well?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I am not going to read out all the acronyms, because the member did — very impressive. I will leave it to him and save him some time without me reading those acronyms. But I’ll just share, and we can get into more specifics if the member is interested.

The field management work that local communities are doing actually is moving to the Crown land risk reduction pot of dollars that are available. We as a ministry are going to be taking a bit more of a leadership role in supporting communities. So you can count that as an example of the province stepping in and supporting local governments, seeing as that is an important program that addresses field management concerns and very important to the success of protecting communities from fires as well.

The CRI funding is available to the FNESS organization that the member refers to. I had an opportunity to be able to meet them. They were at the national wildfire symposium that I hosted back in December of last year. Outstanding organization.

[5:50 p.m.]

I want to assure the member that they are receiving funding, and we’re looking forward to continuing to work with them.

Again, I’ll be in Ottawa in a couple of weeks, and we’ll be working with that organization to advocate for more dollars to be able to help support. I think with the commitments that the Prime Minister has made around NATO, maybe there are some opportunities for more dollars for wildfire risk reduction and other types of initiatives to be able to help support and protect communities here at home as well. That is something that is going to be top of mind for me when I’m engaging with my federal colleagues.

As part of this broader work, I’ve touched on active forest management. Again, the member and I, I think, are on the same page in terms of the role that active forest management can play. B.C. Timber Sales can play a role. We have had, in Prince George, the first two commercial thinning sales, building on the first commercial thinning sale in the province we had on the Sunshine Coast. I can advise the member opposite we’ve got three more on the way over the course of the next number of months.

With the wildfire risk equipment trust program, just in the last quarter, we had over 40 operations, 40 contractors actually utilize that trust to access funding to be able to purchase the type of equipment they need to be able to do that level of commercial thinning.

I also want to advise the member that we’ve been having some very interesting conversations with insurance companies as well. We see insurance companies — a number of them here in B.C., a number of national ones — interested in having this conversation around the need for active forest management, not only commercial thinning but in particular, wildfire risk reduction. We’re having those conversations as a ministry. The B.C. wildfire service is leading that all around the important work that we need to do to be able to address the challenges.

The WUIs, the wildland-urban interfaces, are a big priority. I was asking the member a couple of questions ago when he asked his question about Logan Lake. If you want to look at a prime example in the province of major success in the MLA for Fraser-Nicola’s constituency, it’s the community of Logan Lake. I’m going to get an opportunity to be able to check out a wildfire risk reduction project there next week that I’m looking forward to.

The success of the community forest for Logan Lake is, I think, a prime example of the work that local governments, government, industry and First Nations can do to be able to help protect communities, in particular around those wildland-urban interface areas as well.

I hope that touches on some of the questions that the member was asking.

Ward Stamer: I’m very familiar with Logan Lake and the fellow that used to head up the community forest, Garnet Mierau. I used to work with him. Really good guy, and they did some really good work there in Logan Lake.

There were a couple other specific questions I had to the minister. Again, it was back on the FNESS program, which is the First Nations Emergency Services Society. I know it’s a little bit different level funding but it is important because all these proposed projects must be on reserve land, proposed projects can only contain components of all three streams, and the approved projects must be completed within two years.

For the 2026 projects, it was announced in 2025 that funding was available for only three projects. That application was due by a deadline of December 1, 2025. Communities with approved projects were notified by January 23, 2026. Information on the projects with successful applications is not currently available. Any other communities with unsuccessful applications have no other source of funding available for 2026.

My sources have told me that there are many First Nation communities that fit under this umbrella of need for funding. In 2024, there was a $5 million grant from the Ministry of Forests toward a broad range of fire stewardship programs distributed by FNESS.

I’m just wondering. My question: is there going to be any other funding available to help cover some of the shortfalls, specifically in this program with FNESS and the good work that they’re doing on these reserve lands?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite, the grant that he refers to was a one-time grant from 2024, and the top-up funding that we received in the Ministry of Forests in Budget 2026 of $15 million, which we’ve discussed, will be available to FNESS if they are interested in accessing it — which I expect they would be, given my conversations with them.

But again, I think the member opposite and I can agree that if there is a party that has not been at the table providing the necessary dollars to be able to help support an organization like FNESS, it is ISC, Indigenous Services Canada. So again, part of the work that I’ll be doing in Ottawa in a couple of weeks is to be able to advocate to ensure that we are seeing more federal participation in wildfire risk reduction in addition to emergency support services.

The member may be aware that my colleague the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness was in Ottawa just a few weeks ago, similarly doing some engagement and advocacy around dollars for the impacts of floods in the Fraser Valley. I’m sure this was top of mind for her as part of broader advocacy that the province is doing.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for his answers to that.

I know that some of the FireSmart programs have been administered from the provincial government to the municipal governments or to the regional districts. Does the ministry have any information as to how many people applied for FireSmart grants last year in the province of B.C.? Is that information that is available through the provincial government and the municipalities, or is it all broken up between those levels of governments that receive the government funding?

My second question is…. I’m looking at the funding from the LGCAP, which is a local government climate action program which was providing financial support to municipalities. Can the minister tell me if that funding stream is going to be able to continue, or is that still part of the $40 million that was originally offered from the provincial government to municipalities through the FireSmart program?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Do you mind just repeating the second question again? Just the name.

Ward Stamer: Oh yeah, the local government climate action program. It provides support for the municipalities for projects advancing climate adaptation and risk reduction. Many of the municipalities, including the district of Clearwater — I have a couple of questions to ask — were using those moneys to increase capacity, purchasing equipment — that sort of thing.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the first question, I’m happy to provide that information to the member. UBCM is a delivery agent for a lot of the funding, so we would be more than happy to reach out and get that information. Similar to our comments previously, I’m happy to provide that, hopefully, probably not end of today, seeing that it’s six o’clock, but certainly by the end of the week. That is no problem.

The funding stream that the member is referring to. We’re just digging up some more information, so we’ll get an answer to him, certainly, I’m sure, before we’re back on Thursday.

Ward Stamer: To further that, I mentioned earlier in my last question about the district of Clearwater…. I know the minister is familiar with the file, the fact that the district of Clearwater used to have an initial attack crew. It was even back in last year’s bible about discussions on the viability of that and some of the challenges the Ministry of Forests had, whether it was staffing levels or the need for an attack crew in the North Thompson.

I, as a municipal leader in the North Thompson, certainly understood the benefits of having that crew. I would certainly think that if some of this work that’s being now done by the district of Clearwater…. If we had an attack crew up there, they could do some of that work.

But going forward with that, does the minister see value in looking at the B.C. wildfire services re-engaging and putting an attack crew back in Clearwater this year?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I remember this similar line of questioning from last estimates, and the member will not be surprised that it’s going to be a very similar answer to last year. I think it was our colleague the member for Peace River South who was also raising a similar concern in Chetwynd, British Columbia, as well.

I think that, based off of the conversation I had with the member for Peace River South when I visited his community — in particular, Chetwynd — the answer that I gave last year and that I’m about to give speaks for itself.

All of the resources of the B.C. wildfire service are provincial resources. We pre-position those resources based off of the best data and modelling that the team does in the B.C. wildfire service. We have a predictive analysis team that does seasonal outlooks. We’ll have a seasonal outlook for the spring coming up in the next few weeks. Based off of that, and as we head towards the start of wildfire season, we will pre-position resources where we believe those resources need to be positioned.

It’s not about picking one community over another. As an example, in estimates of last year, the member for Peace River South raised the issue of Chetwynd not having an initial attack crew. We actually ended up putting an initial attack crew in Chetwynd, and it had nothing to do with the great advocacy of the member or the mayor of Chetwynd. It was a decision not made by me, but made by the experts in the B.C. wildfire service, as it should be made.

In the case of Clearwater, similarly, if we believe it’s in the best interest of the province, in the best interest of that region, to position an initial attack group — more than happy to. But again, it should be experts, based off of modelling, that decide those very important decisions.

[6:05 p.m.]

I want to give a shout-out to Mayor Blackwell and the team at Clearwater. I had an opportunity to visit his community, engage very early on in a conversation around the role that his fire department can play. They’ve been able to staff up and help support their efforts and be able to protect their community. I’ve had some conversations about Wells Gray Provincial Park as well.

Again, similar to my comments previously around the role of Chief Lampreau from Simpcw Nation, Simpcw Nation actually has two initial attack crews, and they are fully integrated into the B.C. wildfire service. And they are treated no different than government crews, as an example. So it just speaks to the work that, in the member’s very own constituency, the Simpcw Nation is doing to be able to, again, not only support their community but the region and the province as well.

Ward Stamer: Picking up on that, with our boots on the ground…. I’m just looking through here that last year there was more than 1,700 applications for firefighting with the B.C. wildfire service.

Can the minister tell me how many full-time staff firefighters we had last year in 2025, and what are we looking forward to this year?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: If the member doesn’t mind, we’re just going back to the question around that local government program that he was referring to in his last question.

That program is actually administered by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I think now known as Minister of Environment and Parks. So that’s to be able to put those questions forward to that minister.

In terms of the member’s question, the B.C. wildfire service has 600 permanent staff, 300 seasonal staff and about 1,300 wildland firefighters, totalling around 2,200 staff.

In the 2025 wildfire season, the member is absolutely right that there were 1,700 applications.

On Monday, I’ll be sharing some more news. The member will have to wait a couple of days, but I’m pleased to be able to share with the member that it was a record-breaking year for applications. And I think that should be a sense of pride for all of us — that people here in British Columbia once again are stepping up, putting their names forward.

I’ve had a chance to see those boot camps. I don’t know if I would survive those boot camps, but nevertheless, I’m really impressed with the work that the B.C. wildfire service does all year round to be able to help recruit. Again, another record-breaking year, and I’m looking forward to sharing more of those details in Kamloops on Monday as well.

Ward Stamer: Knowing that we’re just about out of time today, I just want to ask the minister another question.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’m going to steal a little bit of the thunder. Just looking at the Premier’s Expert Task Force on Emergencies and the recommendations that came from that task force to the B.C. wildfire service. Again, compliments to the wildfire service for implementing many of those recommendations.

Hopefully, tomorrow we’ll have time to talk about the wildfire training and education partnership between B.C. wildfire service and Thompson Rivers University, which is in our joined ridings with Member Milobar. I hope that we have that opportunity to have a conversation about that.

But also, when we look through all the lists of the things that were recommended, whether it talks about using new technologies, drones, the boot camps that we were talking about or liaison services with not only the Cattlemen’s Association and First Nations but other community groups…. Advancing the aviation fleet. I’ll have questions tomorrow about what those capacities are and what initiatives the B.C. wildfire service has.

But the last one is the one that, again, comes up to mind. This was a recommendation from the Premier’s task force that said: “Increased opportunity for rural and community response through the 2025 FireSmart pilot program.”

I’m asking the Forests Minister today to not only be looking at a thorough review of our wildfire and FireSmart programs but also a commitment and an opportunity for the Forests Minister to be able to recommend not only to his ministry but also the Minister of Finance the importance of continuing our proactive FireSmart programs throughout British Columbia. I’d just like to hear the minister’s take on that.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think the member was referring to the cooperative community wildfire response, which is an initiative by the B.C. wildfire service that provides an opportunity for communities to be able to be involved. I’m sure the member has got some examples in his community and region. There has been an outstanding level of participation from communities.

I think that just speaks to the work that the B.C. wildfire service has done to involve communities in this work, for them to be able to set up their own initiatives to be able to help support wildfire risk reduction work while also being prepared to be able to help support in the case of fires as well.

After the 2023 wildfire season…. The member opposite referred to the Premier’s Expert Task Force on Emergencies. One of the recommendations was defining clear pathways for trained and organized local people to play a role in wildfire preparedness and response.

I can assure the member opposite that not only am I committed to that but also to all of the initiatives that we’ve been able to do on FireSmart. We are the national leader when it comes to FireSmart, and that is something I think we should all be very proud of.

It’s why I hosted a national wildfire symposium, to be able to show the entire country not only that we are leaders but that we’ve been able to do this with very little federal funding. It would be great for the federal government to come to the table to be able to share in this whole-of-society approach.

There’s an opportunity for local governments, for First Nations, for the provincial government, for the national government to be able to come together. It’s why we’re doing the review, and it’s why I’m hopeful that over the course of the next number of months we’ll be able to engage in this conversation and meet communities where they’re at.

You look at a community like West Kelowna. They are so advanced in this work that they have very expensive projects coming up that don’t actually meet the thresholds of what the current funding allows. They’re talking about $3 million or $4 million projects. In fact, the mayor of West Kelowna brought a big cheque for me to sign, and I couldn’t do it because you don’t have the ability under that program to be able to do that.

We have to meet communities where they’re at. That has been a big important part of FireSmart community funding. Given that we’ve been able to roll out hundreds of millions of dollars, I think it is prudent upon us in the Ministry of Forests to work with the Ministry of Finance to be able to look at this programming and ensure that not only are we continuing to invest in the people-centred approach, not only are we committed to investing in the technology and the infrastructure….

There are examples over the course of the 2026 wildfire season, as we prepare for that, for us to invest in new fire equipment, new things that our people need on the ground to be able to help fight fires. There are countless examples that we’ll be able to get into tomorrow or Thursday or whenever we’re back. Happy to do that.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,683,425,000 (continued).

Tony Luck: I haven’t had the opportunity to give my opening remarks, so I’ll take that opportunity now, and then I’ll turn a few minutes over to my colleague here to ask a few questions after my remarks. Then we’ll get back into it for Municipal Affairs, if that’s okay.

Good day, Chair and members of the committee and that. Today we begin estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and local government at a time when communities across British Columbia are grappling with rising costs of living, escalating infrastructure backlogs, delays in development approvals and uncertainty over provincial support. British Columbians expect clear accountability from their government — accountability for the money they invest, the policies that shape their communities and the results delivered in every city, town and regional district from Vancouver Island to the North.

Budget 2026 was tabled by this government on February 17. The government describes this budget as making careful choices to protect what matters most and safeguarding services while advancing targeted investments. Yet the budget also projects record deficits that grow over the fiscal plan and includes pressures that put strains on ministries responsible for the day-to-day realities of local governments and the people they serve.

British Columbian communities want and deserve systems that work, predictable funding, faster permitting where appropriate, properly supported plans for infrastructure and clear evidence that provincial allocations are producing measurable results. They want a government that acknowledges and responds to the pressing needs of both urban centres and rural communities without leaving anyone behind.

As we examine the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and local government, our objective must be to bring clarity to how taxpayers’ dollars are allocated, whether strategic priorities are aligning with the community needs and how transparency and accountability are upheld throughout.

The ministry plays a fundamental role in coordinating with local governments; distributing funding; and supporting communities’ capacity to address infrastructure, housing, growth management and permitting challenges. But with the reported reduction in local government transfers in this budget cycle — reportedly, a reduction of around $10 million — rural and smaller communities have rightly asked whether they will be left with fewer resources at precisely the time when pressures are mounting.

It is our responsibility as elected representatives accountable to the public to ensure that this ministry’s expenditures are justified, transparent and tied to genuine improvements in the lives of people across the province. Our questions will reflect both concerns for taxpayers and respect for the necessity of strong, well-resourced local communities.

I look forward to a rigorous and constructive discussion as we move forward.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister for the opportunity to ask a few questions.

I would like to start by talking about the incorporation of Okanagan Falls. I’m wondering if we could put on the record the timeline for completion of the incorporation for the new municipality of Okanagan Falls. Can we get the timeline on record, please?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. I’m happy to get to have some of this conversation.

I am encouraged by the ongoing collaboration taking place between the Osoyoos Indian Band and the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen to advance the incorporation of this new municipality. This is the first municipal incorporation in 15 years and the first for the province under the Declaration Act, which is a true opportunity to start the new community off on a successful path that provides opportunities for growth and local autonomy while advancing reconciliation with Indigenous People in the South Okanagan.

I look forward to recommending letters patent to cabinet for consideration this spring, and if cabinet approves letters patent, the first election for the new municipality could be held in conjunction with the general local elections in October 2026.

Donegal Wilson: As we’re sitting here on March 10 today, many would say that spring has started. Could we have a more definitive timeline or definition of spring?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I can appreciate spring may have begun. It was snowing in many parts of the province, so we can debate that later.

But to the point: certainly, a fair question. As the member knows, there is online engagement and an in-person event planned for April, which would inform the letters patent later in the spring, with — and I’ll just say again — still a plan to get to the general election timeline in line with the overall municipal elections.

Donegal Wilson: To the minister: can you tell me what the exact last possible date is for the letters patent to still make the fall election — for those to be issued and still have an election this fall?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: In order to keep things smooth and simple for the new municipality, we would aim to have letters patent ready by the end of June at the very latest.

Donegal Wilson: You referenced the together for B.C. website for the consultation process. I’m assuming…. I go on there right now, and there are a bit of frequently asked questions, a little bit of information, but there’s just an email to send in any concerns. There’s no framework around that.

Is there a full online consultation coming with a framework for people to provide informed comments and input into the incorporation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There’s a range of public engagement planned, both in person and online, that the member and residents in the region can expect in April. The details of those are being finalized now.

Donegal Wilson: I’m going to assume that there is going to be some sort of structured framework on the online portal that is not going to be just a blanket email where people can send questions. Is that correct?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. The structure for both the online engagement and in person is still being finalized.

For now, the website, as the member stated, contains information that residents have been requesting. The email addresses are intended so that residents can be sending in other questions, and we can ensure that that information is part of the further engagement expected in April.

Donegal Wilson: Will the letters patent respect the referendum question and include the name and the boundary that was actually put forward in the referendum to the community?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Decisions around aspects such as the boundary and municipal naming will be informed by the ongoing discussions at the local level and are components of the letters patent. The province’s role is to complete the letters patent for the new municipality in a way that reflects the interests of the involved parties.

Information will be shared with the community as discussions progress and as we move closer to municipal incorporation and informed not just by ongoing conversations with key partners, including RDOS and OIB, but also, as I spoke to earlier, by upcoming community engagement.

Donegal Wilson: I don’t know that that was necessarily answered, but I will take it a step further then.

At the online and in-person consultation that’s upcoming, can we expect that any boundary changes, any name changes and any future governance changes will be consulted on in that public consultation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. Residents will have a chance to have input on all of those areas, and then the province’s role is to complete the letters patent for the municipality in a way that reflects the interests of all of the involved parties.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to canvass on this.

Last thing, I guess. Based on how we have a public consultation upcoming and we have an online portal upcoming, timelines are tight, obviously, with March 10. These are supposed to be happening in April, with letters patent completed by the end of June. That leaves a very tight timeline for any changes.

[1:55 p.m.]

Can the minister provide assurance to the people of Okanagan Falls that there will be no surprises between what is consulted on and what the final letters patent include — that all things that will be in the final letters patent will be consulted on?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. The public engagement will include engaging on all the key topics related to incorporation. Of course, there will be a variety of viewpoints, but the intention is to have that broad engagement on the key topics the member mentions, alongside that fulsome conversation.

There is, again, as the member knows, an ongoing consultation with both the regional district, the RDOS, and OIB. Those meetings are happening on a regular basis, so all of that will be part of informing where the letters patent land.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that.

I guess the question was more around the “no surprises.” Are there going to be no surprises for the public when they get to the actual letters patent? They’re like: “We didn’t even know that was on the table or being discussed.”

It’s not the question around viewpoints and gathering them. I understand that not everybody is going to get their way in this process. But I mean that there should be no surprises. My expectation is that there are no surprises when the letters patent come out — that there’s nothing contained within those letters patent that the public was not aware was being discussed. Can we have confirmation of that, please?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks again for the question. It’s certainly the intention that the engagement is fulsome. We’re operating under a no-surprises approach with the RDOS and OIB in the conversations and consultation happening there.

In the end, the letters patent come to cabinet for a decision. That’s the formal process.

Donegal Wilson: I did hear fulsome discussion and transparency between the RDOS and the Osoyoos Indian Band, which are both at closed tables under pending NDAs.

The question was: will the public know, through their public consultation — no surprises and the same transparent discussion?

Hon. Christine Boyle: That is absolutely the intention.

Tony Luck: The Budget 2026 projections include significant deficits and spending constraints while asserting protection of services moving forward here. Given these challenges, what measures has or will the minister take to ensure full transparency in its estimates and reporting requirements to the Legislature?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Perhaps I’m missing something out of the member’s question. That’s the process that we’re in right now. We are here to answer any and all questions put before us.

Tony Luck: Well, I think what we’re concerned about is that sometimes there isn’t always full transparency, and we’re not able to…. What is often said is not necessarily always done and followed up with. So I think we want to make sure that we can….

Is there a tracking process to make sure the goals that are set and how this is going to be are going to be followed through with? And that the things that are going to be spoken about, especially in housing targets and those kinds of things, are going to be seen, moving forward? How are we going to measure that for the public and for the Legislature?

Does that make a little more sense?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: An important part of this process is the tabling of the ministry’s service plan, which we have done. Then we will table an annual report at the end of the year, which is a tracking of the metrics related to the service plan.

Tony Luck: As provincial fiscal pressures grow, so does the imperative for municipalities to justify projected spending, of course.

Will the minister table a detailed spending schedule that explains how each dollar in the ministry’s estimates aligns with specific outcomes for the municipalities, with the pressure that they are feeling on this?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Budget estimates include line items and allocations from the ministry to municipalities as well as the ministry’s other responsibilities. Local governments publish their own annual budgets and audited year-end reports.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Minister, for that.

Ministry estimates include votes for multiple program accounts. Can the minister provide a breakdown of all material variances between Budget 2025 allocations and the 2026 estimates for this ministry?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The estimates are fully public. The member is welcome to look to the estimates report from last year and compare to this year. Then if there are specific line items that the member has questions or is looking for an explanation on between those two documents, we’re certainly happy to do our best to answer.

Tony Luck: Thank you for that, Minister.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Tony Luck: Through the Chair?

The Chair: Member.

Tony Luck: Sorry. I’ve got to wait for it, I guess. Right.

Public confidence depends on clarity of reporting so that they can understand things. I know sometimes we know the answers here, but of course, some public is watching and they want to know, for that clarity as well.

What specific performance metrics will the minister publish during this fiscal year to demonstrate the effectiveness of the expenditures?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Those metrics are all outlined in the ministry’s service plan. And then, as I said earlier, the annual report at the end of the year reports out on the metrics that we are publicly tracking and have laid out in the service plan.

Tony Luck: Forecasting variance affects legislative scrutiny. Has the ministry included any contingency funding in its estimates? If so, what triggers its deployment?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The ministry itself doesn’t hold contingencies. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for all contingency access and the processes related.

Tony Luck: If that’s the case, do you…? Obviously, within the ministry, there must be triggers that you’d be able to be asking the Finance Minister for to be able to use that deployment of those funds to look after things within your ministry.

Are there certain triggers that you would use to make those requests and get the money to fund those activities?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Contingencies for unforeseen circumstances, as I stated, all go through the Ministry of Finance. There are a range of Treasury Board processes, but they are the purview of my colleague the Minister of Finance, and questions are appropriately directed there.

Tony Luck: Recent reporting suggests local government transfers will be decreased by approximately $10 million in 2026-2027. Can the minister confirm this figure and provide details on which programs will be impacted?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The bulk of the local government impact, $8.8 million of that $9.3 million, is related to traffic fine revenue sharing. That number reflects a higher degree of realism about the cost of the traffic fine revenue sharing program. Actual grants to municipalities for traffic fine sharing are unaffected by the reduced budget allocation. The full amount of traffic fine revenue owed under this program will continue for local governments to invest in community safety.

The other two portions of this amount are relatively minor amounts to infrastructure planning grants and administrative efficiencies.

Tony Luck: Just a little clarification on that. There’s going to be a cut to the revenue. Does that mean the ministry is going to be keeping that money? Are there less speeders out there? I just want a little bit of clarification. I just did not quite understand. If we’re getting a cut in there, does that mean there’s going to be less revenue, so they’re cutting it out of there? Just a little more clarification on that, please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The ministry had previously overbudgeted, over and above what the actuals were. So as I said earlier, the actual grants to municipalities won’t be affected. This is just us bringing our budget into line with the actual amounts.

Tony Luck: Thank you very much for that answer. That helps a lot.

Local governments rely on provincial funding for statutory and discretionary services. As we know, they’re under a lot of constraints right now, a lot of pressures and everything. What steps is the ministry taking to ensure that reductions in transfer funding do not harm core service delivery at the municipal level?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Just to be really clear, as I spoke to earlier, there are no changes to transfers to local governments in this budget.

Tony Luck: We’ll leave that one alone for now then, and we’ll move to the next one.

The next one is that budget decisions can impose financial constraints on municipalities, as I said in the previous one here. Will the ministry provide assessments of tax impacts on local governments as a result of changes to provincial transfer funding?

But I think you just answered that. There will be no transfer changes at this particular point.

Having said that, as well, they are not going to be going up any time soon either, being able to help to offset inflation and things like that.

[2:25 p.m.]

Let’s move on to the next question then. Equitable access to provincial support is a core expectation for smaller and, especially, rural municipalities. What measures are in place to guarantee that rural municipalities receive stable and proportionate provincial funding, moving forward?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are a number of programs such as the small community regional grants program and the resource benefits agreement. Those all remain unchanged in this budget.

Tony Luck: Provincial transfer programs often include conditional requirements a lot of the time. Will the minister release details of any new conditions attached to local government funding streams in the 2026 estimates?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are no new conditions within funding streams in this budget.

Tony Luck: I take it that it’s status quo, then, on that. So we’ll be holding firm that municipalities can expect to have the same conditions, moving forward, then. Okay, that’s great.

The next question. Development approvals have been cited as a key barrier to housing. We’ve heard that from a lot of industry — out there in the industries and everything. They’ve been a real barrier to housing delivery. Have there been any budget resources that the ministry allocated to improving the timeliness of the development approval process, moving forward here, for municipalities and cities?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. There’s a new intake, $9 million, in the local government development approvals program, operating through UBCM. In addition to that funding, the ministry is developing a number of tools.

The province is working with housing and technology sector partners to position B.C. as a North American leader in digital permitting and construction, delivering key tools and services that help people build homes. An example is the building permit hub, a no-cost permitting system that makes it easier for builders to work in multiple jurisdictions by standardizing and streamlining the approvals process, reducing unnecessary back-and-forth that causes project delays and increases costs.

We’re working with local government and industry to automate compliance checks that help ensure local governments receive submissions that are compliant, to move forward more quickly.

Tony Luck: I think the development community would sure like to hear that and how they can reduce those wait times and move things along. Sometimes a lot of us don’t realize that time is money. The quicker we can get some of these projects hitting the ground and getting moving…. We can really save a lot of money there and meet some of the targets that we have.

British Columbia’s local government development approvals program continues to operate, with multiple intakes. How much funding has been allocated in estimates in 2026 for the LGDAP, and what performance targets have been set for this year, if any?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province committed $9 million for a third intake of the local government development approvals program to support local government projects implementing best practices and testing innovative approaches to improving development approvals.

The first intake of the program was $15 million. It funded 41 local government projects. The second intake was $10 million and funded 38 local government projects. As stated, this third intake is a $9 million fund.

Local governments apply and then are measured against outcomes aligned with what was outlined in their own proposal, and the program is administered by UBCM.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Tony Luck: Housing affordability pressures persist in many communities, if not all, throughout British Columbia, of course. How does the minister plan to coordinate with other ministries to align provincial housing priorities with municipal land use approvals?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are a number of initiatives underway on this front — including provincial permitting reforms happening under WLRS and other ministries and the permit hub, which I spoke about earlier — alongside my ministry’s work to bring in new rules to turn more short-term rentals into long-term homes for our friends and neighbours in communities across the province.

Passing small-scale multi-unit legislation is designed to help deliver more housing options within reach for people across B.C. As well, passing legislation to help create new transit-oriented developments is designed to take advantage of the billions of dollars that we are investing in transit across British Columbia by putting housing within a walkable distance of SkyTrain stations and bus exchanges.

Through all of this work, we expect that as many as 300,000 additional net new homes will be unlocked throughout B.C.

Tony Luck: Efficient approval and supporting investors — we kind of talked about this, how important it is to get the building permits moving and unstuck and everything. Efficient approvals support investors and build their confidence in the province and everything.

Can the minister provide data on average approval times for major developments over the past three years?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The ministry doesn’t directly facilitate approvals. Local governments lead their own permitting. The ministry has done a lot of work with local governments to improve on permitting times.

I can speak to provincial permits and the work that we have done to see improvement there. Overall in 2023, the average processing time of natural resource housing-related applications…. These are significant applications. This isn’t your average home being built in a community. In 2023, the processing time was 257 days.

Since the establishment of the housing action task force, a development of a prioritization framework for housing applications and a significant permitting timeline in approvals on provincial permitting, the current average processing time for a new natural resource housing-related application has been reduced to 154 days — a 40 percent decrease. Industry has been quite pleased with the work that has been done on this front.

A total of 4,410 decisions on housing-related applications were made since March 2023, and 100 percent of the 914 initially identified housing-related applications have been completed. The solutions being implemented for housing are scalable to other sectors and are being applied across provincial priority initiatives.

Tony Luck: Well, I think I was told many, many times: “Nothing measured; nothing gained.” I think that’s really, really important. I mean, it looks like it’s a great thing, that 257 days to 145 days — moving in the right direction. I think trending is really important to see, especially for the public and the investors and those that are building these projects, so that they can see that money spent is being used wisely so that we can see these numbers come down.

That’s really, really important because that’s one of the things that’s going to drive housing in the future here and make sure that we can keep people on board for that. I really appreciate the numbers that you’ve given us on that.

Regulatory consistency between provinces and municipality systems can impact economic development. That’s no surprise to anybody here. Will the ministry provide a detailed plan for harmonizing provincial regulations with municipal bylaws where duplication still exists or is existing?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. This is really important work.

In the fall of 2023, as part of the province’s Homes for People plan, the province passed a suite of housing legislation to harmonize land use across the province and, in partnership with local governments, to help deliver more homes across B.C. faster. These changes introduced a proactive planning framework requiring that local governments plan and zone land up front to meet housing needs and streamline approvals.

Another key piece of work we’ve been engaged in on this front, as I spoke to earlier, is the work of the building permit hub, a no-cost permitting system that makes it easier for builders to work in multiple jurisdictions by standardizing and streamlining the approvals process.

There are ten jurisdictions currently using the building permit hub, including the municipality of Bowen Island, the regional district of the Cowichan Valley, the city of Kamloops, the town of Ladysmith, the city of Langley, the city of North Vancouver, the district of Saanich, the district of Summerland, the resort municipality of Sun Peaks mountain and the Tl’azt’en First Nation.

Approximately 134 of 189 local governments still rely on paper or PDF formats for permitting services, so Digital has invested $5.9 million in projects and partnerships with industry partners, as well, to help move local governments to a more efficient and streamlined process.

Tony Luck: Thank you for that answer. I think that’s really good, and it probably comes a little bit into play in my next question I have, because sometimes we have an urban and rural lens, those divides there, and permitting delays can obviously disproportionately affect much smaller communities around the province and everything.

What supports are in place to assist rural municipalities in streamlining permitting processes and getting them on the bandwagon, as well, moving forward here?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member heard in the list of communities I named, these programs are open to communities large and small, and many of those smaller and rural communities are the communities accessing these programs because it is of such benefit to them. We’re grateful for that partnership and to be able to work alongside them.

[2:50 p.m.]

Tony Luck: That’s great. Is there any incentivization in place to be able to get those municipalities to come on board a little quicker, moving forward here, in the future, or are we just hoping that they’ll decide this is a great program to be involved in?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Permit hub is the only program in the market that is free. It is saving rural local governments thousands of dollars in software costs. Then, as I mentioned earlier: $5.9 million available from Digital, the new $9 million intake on the local government development approvals program — many incentives that are being taken up.

Tony Luck: That’s great. Well, you can’t get more incentivized than free, can you? That’s awesome.

Accountability requires regular updates on policy implementation. How frequently does the ministry report on progress towards reducing regulatory duplication, and can these reports be tabled, if they exist?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m not sure if I fully understood the question, but the ministry, of course, does monitor adoption of programs. We don’t have specific reports on each piece. We regularly report out publicly, for example, on the housing target communities, and those numbers are publicly available for the member.

[2:55 p.m.]

Tony Luck: Okay. We’ll look for those and have a look through.

Here’s the one everybody likes to talk about. We’re going to talk about infrastructure and capital planning here for a little bit. That’s everybody’s favourite topic these days: infrastructure.

We’ll start low-level here. Many municipalities face deterred maintenance on many, many infrastructure projects within their communities. But let’s just touch on bridges and culverts. What funding has been allocated in 2026 to address critical bridge and culvert replacement moving forward?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It’s true. I also, like the member opposite, love talking about infrastructure.

Municipalities are responsible for maintaining their infrastructure, as the member knows. The province has supported infrastructure investments through a $1 billion growing communities fund. That was in 2023 and is a five-year fund to help build community infrastructure and amenities to meet the service demands of population growth.

The fund allows local governments to prioritize which eligible infrastructure projects will enable community growth. The fund provided a one-time total of $1 billion in grants to 161 municipalities and 27 regional districts for water and wastewater treatment plants, recreational facilities, parks, child care and other community infrastructure.

Now $775 million has been reported as expended on completed or in-progress projects as of 2025 and has leveraged an additional $1.9 billion in local government investments, for an overall estimated $2.7 billion investment in the construction market and in community amenities.

Tony Luck: I appreciate that answer because it took care of the next two questions, actually, because recreation facilities….

Interjection.

Tony Luck: We love efficiency around here, that’s for sure.

That helped me understand a little bit more there.

[3:00 p.m.]

Emergency preparedness is also a big thing, with an increasing provincial priority all around the province, of course. What capital resources are allocated to enhance municipal emergency management infrastructure this year?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Of course, the majority of emergency funding requests would come through the EMCR.

Local governments, though, through the growing communities fund, are able to determine, themselves, what their priorities are for investing those infrastructure dollars. Then, in addition to funding, local governments have a variety of land use planning tools available to mitigate risks or to direct growth away from areas exposed to hazardous conditions, including development permit areas, floodplain bylaw zoning, OCPs and regional growth strategies.

In addition, changes have been made to the B.C. building code to mitigate the impacts of climate change in particular, including requiring each new home to provide at least one room that doesn’t exceed 26 degrees Celsius, either through passive or active actions, to mitigate against extreme heat.

So a range of both financial investments and other tools.

Tony Luck: Just one last question here, and then I’m going to turn some time over to my distinguished colleague here on my right.

Infrastructure projects require multi-year planning. Does the ministry maintain a rolling five-year capital plan, and is it publicly available?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Local governments maintain capital asset plans and asset management plans. Infrastructure dollars provided provincially to local governments are operating dollars, because the province doesn’t own those assets. The local governments do.

Chair, I’m hoping to request a five-minute break before we move to the next series of questions.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: I call this committee back to order.

Linda Hepner: We’re going to switch questioning now from local government and municipal affairs back to housing, if that’s okay.

The Canada bilateral agreement, the ten-year agreement, is set to expire at the end of 2027, and the federal contributions to B.C. Housing are projected to collapse from $236 million this year to just $22 million in 2028. That is a 91 percent reduction.

What is the minister’s plan to replace that funding? Has the government received any assurances from Ottawa that the bilateral agreement will be renewed, and if not, which housing programs would then have to be cut to absorb that $214 million annual shortfall?

Sorry, there’s a lot in there.

Hon. Christine Boyle: These are the national housing strategy dollars. We are working closely with the federal government alongside other provincial and territorial governments. This is a hot topic at our federal-provincial-territorial meetings, but we have every expectation that the funding will continue, as there would be significant impacts to people in provinces and territories all across the country if the federal government made a decision to change this funding.

Linda Hepner: How many housing units currently in the pipeline are dependent on the federal cost-sharing that is due to expire at the end of next year?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Units funded under this program to 2028 are already secured, based on funding that’s already secured.

A future renegotiation after 2028 would come with new unit targets, but there aren’t units at risk.

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, none of the housing units currently in the pipeline are dependent on that funding at all? Is that what I’ve heard from the minister? Or is the minister saying that those that are in the pipeline, not identified by a number, are already secured through that funding model?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. The units are already secured from this funding commitment from the federal government.

Linda Hepner: What was that number?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province works to leverage federal dollars to make our own provincial investments go further, such as the recent Build Canada Homes announcement where provincial investments were able to stretch further because of securing federal dollars for those units. Many units are a combination of both provincial and federal dollars.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to guess, then, that some of the questions I ask now around BC Builds will be within that context, that that funding model is providing some leverage to those homes as well.

BC Builds was launched in 2024, with $2 billion in low-cost financing and $950 million in program funding. It’s now two years old. The government’s target was 9,000 rental units. How many BC Builds units have actually now been completed and are occupied by tenants today?

I am not asking how many are underway. I am not asking how many are in the early development stages or in the pipeline. I am asking how many are actually finished, two years later, with people living in them.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: BC Builds was launched in February 2024, two years ago. It had a goal of starting construction in 12 to 18 months. As of now, 72 units are complete, 2,717 more are in construction and another 1,570 are in development.

Linda Hepner: So 72 are complete, with actual tenants in them, and none of those are student housing?

Hon. Christine Boyle: BC Builds isn’t student housing. Our aim is for middle-income households to spend no more than 30 percent of their total income on rent so more people can find a home they can afford on the salaries they make.

BC Builds is supported by a provincial commitment of $950 million and, as stated, $2 billion in low-cost financing, with an additional $2 billion in financing from the government of Canada. BC Builds ensures that at least 20 percent of homes have rents at 20 percent below market for projects that receive grants through the program. Rents will vary per project and won’t exceed market rents for middle-income levels in the community.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that outline of BC Builds, but I think the operative part of BC Builds was that it was a program for fast-tracking middle-income rental housing, and 72 complete in two years doesn’t seem particularly fast.

[3:30 p.m.]

Of the 1,400 units that have now been reported as underway, can you identify for me how many have broken ground versus those that are in the pre-construction approval stage?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, happy to. Again, the goal of BC Builds was starting construction in 12 to 18 months. The member will know from her own background that that is fast.

So 72 units complete, as we’ve stated. Then 2,717 are in active construction, and 1,570 are in the earlier stages of development.

Linda Hepner: What is the average time from the first tenant move-in for the projects furthest along? I guess I’m asking: of those 2,717 that are in active, what is your completion timeline or your estimated completion timeline for that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member would understand, each project is unique depending on its size, build form, etc. As an example, there’s a BC Builds project in Prince Rupert that is a modular project — 40 units of affordable rental housing expected to be complete in under a year because of that modular construction. Of course, the larger concrete buildings take longer to build.

So a spectrum. We monitor that closely, as speed is one of the priorities of the program.

Linda Hepner: Yes, I understand that.

What is the projected date by which 9,000 BC Builds units would be completed and occupied, from the ministry’s perspective?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member may know, the initial commitment of BC Builds was 9,000 units starting construction by 2029, as we’ve already canvassed in these discussions.

We are re-pacing some projects, and it’s important to note and remind members that while we’re adjusting the pace of our housing investments and moving some investments in some projects to later years, we remain firm in our resolve to deliver the housing that we’ve committed to.

Linda Hepner: And that commitment extends now, given the re-pacing of those units, to what year?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The pace of that re-pacing and delivery will be dependent on future funding availability as the economic situation and housing delivery costs shift. We will continue to adapt, but again, we remain committed to that delivery as promised.

Linda Hepner: Okay, I’m a little lost. I thought the $2 billion and the $950 million was to cover that program cost. Is the minister saying that that is not going to be sufficient to do the 9,000 units and that we are waiting for a different funding model?

[3:40 p.m.]

Clarify for me again what that funding looks like, if the $2 billion or the $950 million isn’t taking care of the original intent for 9,000 units.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The commitment of that $950 million plus $2 billion in financing will, we believe, be sufficient to deliver the number of units, but part of that $950 million will be coming in future years. That was a multi-year commitment of funding.

As well, we continue to be in conversation with the federal government about access to federal dollars that can help, as we spoke about earlier, stretch provincial dollars further to deliver more units.

Linda Hepner: As of early last year, there are more than 73,000 housing units that have been approved across Metro Vancouver but remain unbuilt.

I’m going to talk just for a second about how Surrey alone has 44,300 approved units, but they’re all stalled. There is no construction going on.

Is there any specific action that the minister has taken to help get shovels in the ground on these already approved homes? Do you think that it’s runaway development cost charges or any policy impacts that are stalling us into this state of paralysis for these 73,000 units?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: New and updated development finance tools were introduced in fall 2023 to support the shift to a proactive planning framework and to help meet long-term housing needs and streamline development approvals. Through conversation and partnership with industry, we continue to make changes to see housing delivered.

The regulation, for example, that enables developers to pay certain development finance charges by instalments has been amended effective January 1 of this year. The goal of the amendment is to encourage housing development by providing a useful tool for developers to delay the payment of development finance charges and maintain organizational equity for future projects while protecting local governments from undue risk of nonpayment.

Similar amendments were made to development cost charges payable to TransLink. Again, these were in conversation with and at the request of industries.

The regulation was amended in four ways. The first is that the timeline for payment of instalments was increased from two to four years.

The second is that the number of instalments was reduced from three to two.

Additionally, qualified developers can use on-demand surety bonds to provide security for payment of the second instalment, which is preferable for both local governments and developers. These bonds are easily called on by local governments but don’t require the deposit of significant equity by developers.

Finally, there was a broadening of the charges that may be paid by instalments to include school site acquisition charges.

Linda Hepner: Actually, some of those were very good initiatives, particularly the surety bond and the timeline, extending that.

Unfortunately, the industry is still saying to us — both you and me, I’m sure, Madam Minister — that they cannot pencil a project. So I’m just wondering. What kind of conversations have you had with industry agencies in their ability to do the pencilling to make the projects work, and what initiatives, if any, have you taken to help in that regard?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We certainly continue to be in conversation with industry as we hear about the impacts that tariffs and federal immigration policy changes are having to project viability.

As an example of changes that have been made recently, the instream protection extension has saved developers with projects in Metro Vancouver about $220 million and assisted in seeing projects carry forward.

[3:50 p.m.]

The member will know, because we crossed paths just a few hours ago, that I was meeting with CHBA representatives ahead of, I assume, her also meeting with them. We continue to be in conversation with industry to hear feedback and work on solutions together that see projects delivered.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to move to B.C. Housing, taking a look at their service plan and seeing their total debt rising. Their total debt is jumping 19 percent in one year, and combined liabilities are now on track for about $8.8 billion. Their interest costs are rising — 44 percent to 51 percent.

Given our own provincial debts, I’m wondering. How is the minister managing B.C. Housing’s debt burden without becoming a fiscal time bomb for taxpayers here?

[3:55 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for your patience on that. The overall summary is that the more we build, the more we will see this deadline go up. It’s a combination of construction financing and mortgages. And as projects complete and are paid off, then we will, of course, see a decline.

As the member will likely see, part of the project re-pacing sees the total debt line item decreasing over time.

Linda Hepner: Has the minister…? It will decrease because we’re re-pacing some of the projects, so the numbers won’t exist. And the numbers that currently exist have a lot to do with the cost of construction and some of the other initiatives that escalate housing costs. Is that what I heard from the minister?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It’s construction financing and mortgages, so it gets paid back over time, and as we re-pace, it gets stretched out over time as well.

Linda Hepner: The construction business right now has estimated that 10 percent of B.C.’s GDP is tied to construction, 50 percent of that being residential. Over the last year, they have estimated that 20,000 construction jobs have been lost in the Lower Mainland. The industry has gone from a labour shortage about a year ago to layoffs in the last 12 months. Only 6 percent of contractors say that we are on the right track, given how many workers we’re actually losing.

Does the minister acknowledge that the residential construction sector in B.C. is in crisis, and if so, what emergency measures are we taking in this budget year to save the home-building business?

The reason I’m asking that is that it’s a whole lot harder to get workers to come back if they’ve had to leave and go somewhere else to find work. So I’m concerned that that significant number of workers being lost will motivate them to go to another province to find work. And I know the minister will have some idea of what emergency measures are in place when we’re in this kind of a crisis of workers.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. It’s, of course, a shared priority to continue to deliver homes and the good jobs that they’re creating. As I’m sure we can agree, no single action can address the housing crisis, but we remain committed to increasing housing supply and seeing projects delivered.

Housing starts remained strong in 2025. They were only down 5 percent, despite global economic challenges. To speed up the construction of homes in B.C., as we’ve been able to speak about already, we have taken a number of urgent and significant actions, including expanding the building permit hub, giving homebuilders more financial flexibility, updating the B.C. building code and passing legislation to fix restrictive and outdated zoning rules that were making it harder for townhouses, duplexes and multiplexes to get built.

Economic modelling projected that up to 300,000 additional net new homes could be built across B.C. over ten years through those zoning changes related to small-scale multi-unit and transit-oriented areas. Our government will continue to break down barriers and to work alongside industry to deliver more homes that people need and help people find a place they can afford in a community they love.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that. I don’t think it satisfies the 20,000 workers that no longer have jobs building the ever-increasing number of housing that I don’t think we’re seeing within the industry at all.

I will ask directly, then, to the minister, since we have both, as you acknowledged, been meeting with both the Canadian Home Builders as well as the real estate folk this week in their advocacy days…. One of the things they’re suggesting — and I’m wondering what the minister’s opinion on that is — is stopping the step code at stage 3. Where most of the contractors doing housing have now acknowledged that step 3 is fine, going to step 4 and step 5 at this time in a tenuous market or in, let’s call it, a crisis market is not at all viable for the industry.

Is it the minister’s intent to slow the step code down to stop at step 3?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, thanks to the member for the question. We are reviewing recommendations from the independent CleanBC review, which call for maintaining progress on energy efficiency and decarbonization in buildings while recognizing regional differences, affordability pressures and industry capacity.

The province continues to work with national partners to inform the development of a harmonized approach to energy efficiency and carbon emissions in future national and B.C. building codes. The ministry is also undertaking an updated energy and zero carbon step code costing study to better understand current construction costs, economic impacts and regional considerations before determining future implementation timelines.

I think it’s worth noting on the record that over 2025, housing registrations were up 5 percent, permits were up 11 percent, housing starts remain above the ten-year average and completions were up 21 percent — one of the reasons why we’re seeing rent prices decrease and housing prices stabilize.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that response. I don’t think there’s anyone within any of the housing agencies that would say that we are in a good position — not a single one.

[4:15 p.m.]

I appreciate the number that the minister is providing relative to what is going on within the construction realm in B.C. housing, but it is not following through on any assistance relative to the industry private sector housing.

Transfers to Crown corporations. B.C. Housing transfers over the next three years will jump from $1.225 billion to $1.55 billion, a 27 percent increase, and 85 percent of the ministry’s spending budget is represented by that transfer. Yet the mandate letter to the minister has referenced the need to continue implementing recommendations from governance reviews and improving financial controls.

Can the minister provide a status update on those outstanding recommendations from B.C. Housing’s governance reviews and confirm how many of them have been fully implemented versus those still in progress?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As previously discussed, we are reinvesting over $900 million to support demand for existing housing services and programs, including funding for non-profit housing operators, assisted-living supports for seniors and for people with disabilities. That’s where the funding increase comes from.

Alongside that, B.C. Housing has been working to modernize their organizational structure, implement key personnel changes, strengthen processes across all business units and enhance oversight of financial transactions.

The EY operational review made 44 recommendations to B.C. Housing and the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. As of December 31, 2025, 31 of those recommendations are complete, and 12 are underway or are future priorities to be addressed through broader and longer-term transformation initiatives.

[4:20 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: I appreciate that robust answer.

The presale condo market has collapsed by 50 percent — in fact, maybe a little bit more than that now, I understand. Some 61 percent of presale units are actually in the danger zone, but it has collapsed by 50 percent. Developers are converting or cancelling their projects across Metro Vancouver. Some of them have converted them into rental units — which may assist the minister in having a higher rental rate now — because they have to.

The government relies on $2.2 billion in their property tax revenue. Has the ministry modelled the fiscal impact of a sustained presale market failure on the ministry’s revenue projections, and what contingency will exist if that tax revenue continues to fall significantly with the collapse of presales?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you for the question.

All modelling on tax revenues is done by the Ministry of Finance, so again a question to be directed to them.

Linda Hepner: That was 100 percent exactly the answer I expected, and in fact, I’ve already sent that to the critic for Finance to ask that very question.

The government is mandating housing targets in at least 40 municipalities, yet the budget actually has reduced local government transfers from $224 million to $215 million. Municipalities are obviously saying they cannot build the water, the sewer, the road infrastructure that is needed to support the density that is being required of them.

How does the minister expect the cities to comply with those housing targets when the province itself is cutting, but not increasing, the infrastructure support?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As discussed with your colleague earlier, the actual dollar amounts of transfers to local governments aren’t changing. Local governments are demonstrating significant progress under the Housing Supply Act, with 25,710 net new housing units now ready for people across the first 30 municipalities and more underway.

Linda Hepner: Apologies if there was a redundancy there.

The 44,000 units in Surrey are not underway, I would remind the ministry.

Has the ministry met with the UBCM on its effects relative to this at all recently, within the budget, so that they understand that the number has not reduced at all? We’re hearing that that’s a concern. So if you’re telling me that isn’t a concern, do the UBCM and their members know that, in some defined way?

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, I meet regularly with UBCM and the UBCM executive. I met with the UBCM executive just last week. Staff meet regularly with UBCM staff. Not every member of UBCM may be aware, but they are active partners. UBCM is part of the budget lockup.

Of course, infrastructure investments remain a top priority and a regular topic of conversation, and it’s work that we’re engaged in both with UBCM and local governments and also in conversations with the federal government.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

The capital project listings that I’ve seen under the services plan…. I’m going to talk about one. The Clark and 1st Avenue project — $188 million for 97 units. That’s nearly $1.94 million per unit. It had a targeted completion for 2024, but it has now cost $154 million of $160 million and remains listed.

Every single project listed identifies these risks: delays due to labour shortages, escalation due to those delays and cost increases.

Can the minister identify a major housing capital project that has been completed on time and on budget? What is the total cost overrun across all active major housing capital projects? Because that certainly seems like a lot of money per unit on that one.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The identified project at 1st and Clark is a mix of housing, health and social enterprise space. The majority of the space is health. But just to outline that the anticipated total cost is a mix of all of those — housing, health and social enterprise. It includes withdrawal management and detox spaces.

The identified risks that the member pointed to are just that. They’re risks that we identify in order to proactively work to mitigate them.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister identify again what the total cost overrun across all active capital projects currently sits at? I don’t think I got that from you.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I don’t have that number in the aggregate. Each project contains a built-in contingency for cost overruns. The industry standard is around 3 to 5 percent. Of course, some projects come in below. That’s why it is an average.

Linda Hepner: Could I ask the minister to provide that assessment at a future date?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Happy to work with the member to better understand scope and time period or if there are specific projects that the member is interested in, in order to get that number.

Linda Hepner: What I’m looking for is a cumulative number on the cost overruns rather than if there’s a contingency plan in each of them. I want to know what the cumulative overrun is projected to be.

If I could work with you independently, through the Chair to the minister, that would satisfy me.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. I think it’s just worth noting that we have different streams and structures, so some projects are not directly led operating funding, etc. We can work together on better understanding what you’re trying to get at.

The Chair: Just a reminder, folks, to….

Hon. Christine Boyle: Through the Chair.

The Chair: Yes, please. I would appreciate that.

Linda Hepner: What I’m looking for now is…. The mandate letter instructs B.C. Housing to review all their programs for efficiencies and relevance. Yet there are no efficiency targets, no savings targets, no timelines in the service plan. Housing spending is supposedly five times the 2016 levels, and I think we heard that a couple of times. But the completions are declining, to just 2,500 units.

[4:40 p.m.]

Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister: what is the all-in cost per housing unit delivered in 2025-26 compared to those that you’re referring to — probably, now, through 2016 to ’18, somewhere in there? What I’m trying to get at is, is B.C. Housing actually getting less efficient, not more efficient?

The mandate letter is very clear on those efficiency targets.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Let me try to get at a number of pieces of that question that the member asked.

[4:45 p.m.]

The cost per unit, of course, varies significantly across different funding programs, and because those programs didn’t exist in 2016, we can’t draw a comparison. I also think it’s worth noting that the member is certainly hearing the same things I’m hearing from the housing sector overall about the price of construction and labour cost increases across the delivery of housing.

I also want to make sure to speak to the work that B.C. Housing is doing on efficiency reviews. B.C. Housing has been working with the ministry to address administrative efficiencies, particularly prioritizing staffing for front-line positions, as well as working on more efficient procurement processes.

The re-pacing of projects that we have spoken about provides an opportunity to strategically sequence major projects over a longer term and, where possible, redesign projects to lower costs.

Linda Hepner: Has the minister given any timelines in the service plan, in terms of expectations or percentages, in terms of reductions in the efficiencies? Usually when you’re doing an efficiency review, you would give some expectation around conclusion times or a timeline within which to satisfy the minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Just to start off with — and I’m sure the member understands this, given increasing construction costs — those increased construction costs don’t equal inefficiencies. We’re hearing the same thing from the private sector about construction and labour costs. That’s why it is a focus of ours, not just in my ministry but across government, to address efficiencies in a variety of ways.

[4:50 p.m.]

Government recognizes that different sectors will have different capacities to adapt to a leaner workforce, and some sectors continue hiring into critical front-line positions. Ministry- and sector-specific targets haven’t been established yet.

The Ministry of Finance will be engaging with individual ministries over the coming months, and further updates will be provided through government’s quarterly financial reports.

Linda Hepner: There are over 35,000 applicants on the B.C. Housing wait-list. The government plans to complete just 4,000 units this year, declining to 2,500 within two years. At this pace, how many years will it take to clear the current wait-list, setting aside any new applicants? Has the minister modelled when the supply will actually begin closing the gap with the demand?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I think it’s worth clarifying that the B.C. Housing registry is not a wait-list. It’s a registry of people in search of subsidized rental housing. Many people on the list are already in housing and on the list for a different type of unit of one kind or another.

There are a number of ways that we are working to deliver homes to meet the needs of people on the B.C. Housing registry and beyond. One of those ways is through the homes that we build through B.C. Housing and in partnership with the community housing sector.

[4:55 p.m.]

We also support that work through rent supplements as well as work to deliver more rental housing through the private market, resulting in, as we are seeing, declining rents and more availability of units.

B.C. is not unique in the registry that we have, and we’re working on a number of fronts to find homes or help people who are looking for a different type of housing who are on that list.

Linda Hepner: The wait-list is a conglomeration, then, of many avenues of housing options within the ministry? Is that what I’m hearing?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, it’s not a wait-list. It’s a registry. The registry is a conglomerate of people interested in subsidized rental housing across a number of programs and housing types.

Linda Hepner: Could you describe…? The wait-list is not a wait-list? It’s a list of those that are interested in programs as well as housing options? Is that what I heard the minister say?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The housing registry is an applicant database for people in search of subsidized rental housing, where rent is no more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income.

Linda Hepner: That sounds very much like a wait-list, but what I’m hearing is that it’s just a wish list of people who potentially may be interested in housing if we were ever to give them a call. Or they’re interested but not desperate. I don’t quite get what the difference is. I think that we’re talking in circles.

These people have registered, and they expect to have some sense of whether or not they can ever get a subsidized housing option.

My question is: if we were to presume that they would like housing, how long would it take to accommodate them, given what we’re currently constructing or is currently available? If the answer is that they’re just registered and there is no indication that they would ever even want housing if we were to offer it to them, which doesn’t make sense to me….

I need a better answer. I’m sorry. I just don’t get it.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the ability to clarify this. It’s certainly an important issue.

As I’ve stated, the B.C. Housing registry includes people who already have housing but are looking for a different type of housing or size of housing or location. There are also people on the B.C. Housing registry who are currently living in a B.C. Housing building but looking to move to a different building of some kind. There are people on the B.C. Housing registry who have received offers of other housing that didn’t meet their exact need so are staying where they are and continue to be on the list in the hopes that something else comes up.

All of which is just to try to illustrate that the types of people and need on that registry vary quite significantly, as do the solutions. As I spoke to, some people will move off of the registry due to the construction of new non-market housing units that fit their needs. Others will move off of the registry list because of rent supplements.

Over the past year, we’ve made important expansions to access to rental supplement programs, which allow somebody to bridge the gap to be able to afford a rental home in the private market. The rental assistance program over the past year included eligibility changes that resulted in 1,800 more households being able to access RAP, the rental assistance program, meaning that those households could then find and afford homes in the private market.

In addition to that, over the past year, changes to the SAFER program, Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, resulted in more than 2,600 more households accessing SAFER — again, finding affordable housing through the private market with that additional top-up.

Of that whole registry list, people in very different current housing situations, very different housing situations that they’re looking for…. That may be the result of being on the list for a long time, if their need and request is very specific.

The work that we’ve done to expand eligibility of rent supplements has been an additional way, in addition to the delivery of housing, that we’ve been able to address those housing needs.

Chair, I’m told, though time is flying by, that it has been a couple of hours since our last break, so I wonder if we can have a five-minute break.

The Chair: We’ll take a recess for five minutes. If we could promptly return back at 5:10.

The committee recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling this meeting back to order.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that. That was helpful.

I’m going to move on to a couple of things that I have relative to the service plan and the residential tenancy branch.

That branch was crippled for nearly two months by a labour action in the fall. How many dispute hearings were delayed or postponed during that period, and what is the current backload? I’ve met with a couple of landlords who are telling me that they cannot get timely hearings on non-payment of rent. Fundamentally, is the RTB adequately resourced to clear that backload and to meet even the modest 80 percent service standard?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member may know, to help both renters and landlords resolve tenancy issues, the province committed $15.6 million over three years to improve service and reduce delays at the residential tenancy branch. In 2022, it was a 40 percent increase in the RTB’s operational and staffing budget. By last year, average wait times for participatory hearings fell by 69 percent compared to 2022.

During the period of the strike, there were no hearings cancelled, and the average wait time for hearings over the last year, including during the period of the strike, was two weeks for emergency applications. That’s compared to nearly four weeks back in 2022. For standard applications, the wait time was 4.6 weeks compared to 16.4 weeks prior to these investments and improvements. And for deferred or monetary applications, the wait time was ten weeks compared to 36 weeks prior to these investments.

Linda Hepner: The ministry’s service plan is forecasting that only 78 percent of disputes were heard within the service standard of 80 percent. Could the minister, then, explain to me why that is so, in the plan itself? Is the minister now suggesting that that is an incorrect read of the service plan?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I noted, during the strike no hearings were cancelled, but the residential tenancy branch operated with a reduced staff complement from September 2 to October 27, due to that labour action. As a result, the RTB is forecasting that 78 percent of disputes will have been heard within service standards, 2 percent shy of the target.

Amendments to future-year targets aim to better reflect the impact of labour action, as well as more sophisticated modelling reflecting seasonal changes in demand for RTB services, available resources and other unforeseen circumstances.

Linda Hepner: Am I, then, to understand that that 80 percent target will now be met within the RTB?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, that is the target.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister provide to me some regulatory barrier that has been eliminated or quantify how many days have been shaved off the average housing project approval time, given that the mandate letter given to the minister is to expedite permits and remove barriers? I’m trying to get a sense of what barriers have been removed or what has been eliminated that would activate permits more quickly, if I could.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I suspect we can agree, no single action can address the housing crisis, but we certainly understand, and have been working to increase, housing delivery. We’ve been taking action across a number of fronts, as the member asked, to reduce barriers, make it easier to build faster and address challenges in the housing market.

I’m more than happy to get to outline a number of those actions, including supporting the building of more types of homes — such as laneway homes, townhouses and multiplexes across the province — and speeding up housing development approvals by streamlining provincial permits for housing development.

We’re rolling out the building permit hub, which we’ve been able to speak about today, to standardize and streamline how builders apply for building permits anywhere in B.C. and providing standardized designs and working with CMHC to share their standardized designs so people building small-scale multi-unit housing can plan faster and at a lower cost.

A standardized housing design project offers ten customizable, small-scale multi-unit housing designs at no cost, reducing design expenses, supporting faster permitting and enabling further efficiencies such as prefabrication and expedited local approval processes. Ongoing collaboration with local governments, B.C. Housing, the federal government and CMHC aims to expand that work.

We’ve also been supporting opportunities for people to own small-scale multi-unit homes by making it easier to add an additional building to an existing lot and convert the property into a strata. We’ve made funding available to local governments to help speed up development approvals through projects like off-site construction, prefabricated buildings and standardized designs.

We implemented work to allow developers of large housing projects to market homes for up to 18 months before construction, instead of the usual 12 months, giving developers more time to secure financing and permits. We’ve allowed single-stair buildings to provide options to design and build apartment buildings on smaller lots and create opportunity for larger multi-bedroom units.

We’ve been supporting more housing in the right places faster by shifting to a more proactive, long-term approach to planning, where local governments identify their housing needs and then plan and zone for what is needed.

As I spoke to, we have been providing new and updated development, finance and planning tools to ensure that local governments can continue to help fund the cost of infrastructure, amenities and affordable housing needed to support complete and livable communities. Those include inclusionary zoning; density bonuses; development cost charges and amenity cost charges, which include changes to reduce upfront payment requirements, as requested by and developed alongside industry.

We’re seeing local governments starting to develop amenity cost charges and inclusionary zoning bylaws, establishing important tools to support complete communities and affordable housing and reduce the barriers that had been in place to get us there.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for the very complete answer.

I’m wondering if she can just identify: has there been any provincial regulatory barrier that has been eliminated?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As outlined, the province has done significant work to reduce local government regulatory barriers, which has made an important difference. As we’ve previously outlined and have been able to speak about in these estimates, the province has also been doing our own work to speed up provincial permitting.

An important example of that is the housing action task force led by WLRS — the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship — which includes the Ministries of Environment and Parks, Forests and Transportation and Transit. The housing action task force provides dedicated and coordinated oversight and solutions for provincial natural resource housing authorizations. This includes streamlining decision processes and supporting a coordinated, single-window approach to housing-related permits and authorizations.

The housing action task force is prioritizing housing projects that are B.C. Housing projects, multi-unit projects, Indigenous-led projects and projects that provide affordable housing.

Overall, the average processing time of natural resource housing-related applications identified in March 2023 was 257 days. Since the establishment of the housing action task force and the development of the prioritization framework for housing applications, the current average processing time for new natural resource housing-related applications has been reduced to 154 days, a 40 percent decrease, which industry has been quite pleased with.

A total of 4,410 decisions on housing-related applications were made since March 2023, and 100 percent of 914 initially identified housing-related applications have been completed. The solutions being implemented for housing through this work are scalable to other sectors and are being applied across other provincial priority initiatives.

I also think it’s worth noting in the work between the provincial government and local governments on removing regulatory barriers — worth highlighting — that the province has eliminated public hearings for buildings that are consistent with official community plans, again highlighting the proactive and advanced planning work that we are shifting to with local governments to see homes get delivered more quickly.

Linda Hepner: It’s too late in the day to start talking about what Bill 44 has brought to the municipalities across the province, but I appreciate the minister’s response that they’re working with local government to make that potentially work in some fashion.

My question is around regulatory barriers being eliminated. I’d like to extend that into: are we looking at any regulatory relief to the net-zero carbon initiative that we’re hearing about?

[5:35 p.m.]

I’m sure the minister has heard, as I have heard recently, with just the most recent visits that we’ve had from the Home Builders Association, that that regulation around getting to net zero at the level…. I think it’s step 5. They are asking very seriously, in order to complete housing, to stop at level EL-2, which fundamentally, given that the province imports 20 percent of its electricity, makes sense.

I’m just wondering if the Housing Minister has taken a look at relief in that regulatory sense.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I believe that this question was asked and answered, but I have been taking notes all along, so I’m happy to repeat my answer if that is the request.

The province is reviewing recommendations from the independent CleanBC review, which called for maintaining progress on energy efficiency and decarbonization in buildings while recognizing regional differences, affordability pressures and industry capacity.

The province continues to work with national partners to inform the development of a harmonized approach to energy efficiency and carbon emissions in future national and B.C. building codes, and the ministry is undertaking an updated energy and zero carbon step code costing study to better understand current construction costs, economic impacts and regional considerations before determining future implementation timelines.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Minister, for responding to that. I did not, until you started repeating it, recall that. So I do appreciate your reminding me of that.

I am going to turn the chair over to one of my colleagues.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you to my colleagues for the opportunity to say a few things and to the Chair and to the minister for allowing me some time here today.

I’m going to switch gears a little bit and talk about building codes, specifically the national building code as it relates to the B.C. building code. I had spent a couple questions last year in estimates on this topic as well, and I just wanted to kind of circle back on some information that has come forward.

We’ve all been hearing a lot about the affordability of building in this province — changes to code that have affected the cost of building a home. Last year I talked a lot about just a little change, in my personal experience, from my last project that I did right before I got elected, where I had a housing project that straddled two different building codes and the impact that I noticed immediately in terms of material pricing and things like that. So I just wanted to circle back.

I had some feedback, even, with the Canadian Home Builders this week, just getting some questions with them. In regards to updates to the national code, if those are going to be automatically adopted into the B.C. building code, going forward?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. It’s also a conversation that I was able to have with the Home Builders just earlier today.

Under the construction codes reconciliation agreement, B.C. has committed to harmonize with the 2025 national building code by 2027. Many of the new changes in the national building code are already, as the member would know, adopted and implemented in the current B.C. building code 2024. It is a local adaption and harmonization in line with the goal of reducing the financial cost of code changes.

Ministry staff have collaborated with the housing construction sector to identify amendments that improve buildability and cost-effectiveness. Proposed revisions introduce new compliance options, technical updates and clarifications, with a proposed minister’s order taking effect in spring 2026.

Misty Van Popta: Further to that, could the minister please clarify if those harmonizations…? Is that in regards to anything new identified in 2025 or moving forward, or is that in regards to things that have already been adopted in the B.C. building code 2024?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The national building code…. Again, I know the member knows this because of her work background. The national building code was released in December of 2025.

[5:45 p.m.]

We are currently reviewing that national building code in partnership with industry to determine what parts will be implemented here in B.C. and how. The updated code includes new, valuable options for compliance, new reference standards and other changes that builders have recommended.

Misty Van Popta: Quite a bit of the feedback prior to adopting the BCBC 2024 was on issues regarding the adaptable units or the volume of and also a lot of the seismic requirements. In response, there was a one-year pause on that legislation or that change, only for it to then be re-picked up in March of last year.

I guess the question around some of this is…. The industry has identified areas that drastically had impacts on constructability. Would review of those items — like a re-review and a reassessment of those cost challenges — be a part of something that the ministry would be considering, going forward?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Adaptable dwelling requirements in the B.C. building code of 2024, as mentioned, were phased in to respond to development industry concerns about project delays, major redesigns and potential cost impacts. The phased approach allowed the ministry to publish an illustrative design guide to support the B.C. code’s 2024 implementation, complementing the Space and Cost Impact Report study.

Seismic provisions in the B.C. building code 2024 follow the latest science about seismic risk and focus on preventing structural collapse during earthquakes with a focus on improving the resilience of buildings, particularly in high-risk areas such as the capital regional district and parts of the Lower Mainland.

The ministry has commissioned the University of British Columbia to study areas where poor soil conditions and high seismic hazards coincide — greater Victoria is an example — which will lead to a guidance document on earthquake design for large buildings that may decrease costs while still providing the required level of earthquake safety.

Misty Van Popta: Sorry, I’m a little bit confused just on that last response. The feedback that I’ve gotten over the past year in regards to seismic requirements is actually that we’re building to beyond survivability and moving into an area of almost livability — no cracks in the drywall, that type. The seismic requirements are so robust that we’re not talking about surviving major incidences anymore. It’s more about being able to never have to leave the building after a seismic event.

There is a fine balance between ensuring that people stay safe in a major event and that buildings survive versus having a pristine building after. That’s the feedback that I’ve been receiving from the construction industry, especially in the capital region and otherwise.

I just wanted to further understand. Sorry. Were you talking about how there’s analysis going on, that you’re still going to have those conversations about possibly peeling it back? I was just a little confused by the answer.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The focus is on minimizing injuries to allow exit. We aren’t designing for post-event occupancy. The work that I referenced that the ministry has commissioned from the University of British Columbia is to bring clarity to how you interpret what’s in the code related to soil conditions and seismic activity.

I’m hoping to do work to further clarify, and I’m happy to have further conversation about this. It sounds like an issue the member knows well.

Misty Van Popta: Before I move on to another line of questions, that is not what I’m hearing in terms of the amount of seismic requirements. We’ve actually got conflicting codes at this point in some, like electrical code versus HVAC code versus building code, just based on the seismic requirements. We’ve got a lot of challenges, which is my world, of coordinating. It’s creating a lot of challenges.

We can solicit that further conversation another time. I wanted to move on to an answer that you had just previously given to my colleague here in regards to changes that have been made to offer builders more affordability, one of them being single egress.

This is a topic that I’ve solicited before, actually, in question period. Last year, May 2, 2025, I asked a question of the then Minister of Housing in regards to the single egress change and the outcry that it has received and the direct opposite recommendations from fire chiefs of B.C., BCPFFA. The answer at the time during question period was that this is what Seattle is doing.

Since that question was in the House, I got information brought back to me, and I found it on the NFPA website, directly from the executive director of Seattle’s fire prevention. There’s a quote on there that says: “The city building department, the fire marshal and myself are all against the single-exit stair as the code for everyone, because we feel that most fire jurisdictions are not situated like we are here in Seattle.”

That’s very true. In Seattle, they have fire hydrants on every block. They have massive apparatus to attack fires, which is highly specialized, expensive fire equipment. They have full-time career firefighters on staff.

[5:55 p.m.]

Using a city like Seattle as the justification for why we adopt here is something that the industry and the BCPFFA and fire chiefs are still upset about because it’s putting members and residents at risk.

Having a single egress, especially up to six storeys…. I personally wouldn’t want to jump out of a six-storey building to escape a fire. There are a significant amount of fires that are caused in stairwells. I want to say it’s around 14 percent of fires happen in a stairwell. Don’t quote me on that stat, but it is a recognizable statistic.

If I look at northern B.C., rural B.C., even jurisdictions outside of Metro Vancouver, they don’t have the apparatus. They have volunteer firefighters or paid on call, where time is of the essence.

As we’re building and densifying and building more six-storey, wood-frame-type buildings, I wanted to understand if the minister is going to reconsider that piece in terms of what the first responders are saying is not safe.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question and an important conversation.

I know that we all share, in this room, appreciation for the fire service and our first responders’ dedication to protecting people in communities across the province. Our single-egress stair adjustments were drafted in consultation with experts, including feedback from the fire service community. We took those concerns into consideration in developing options that made the code workable in more scenarios to help address the risks they’ve identified.

I think it’s important to note that single-egress stairs are, as my colleague in the corner there mentioned, in a section of the building code designed for communities with a professional fire service. This isn’t a recommendation for communities with voluntary fire services.

It’s also important to note that single-egress buildings have been built in many other parts of the world, not just Seattle but across much of Europe, and recognize that people are struggling to find housing that meets their needs.

We are working alongside industry and experts to find ways to innovate and build differently by adjusting B.C.’s building code to allow for single-egress stairs in low- and mid-rise buildings. We’re not only boosting housing supply but also creating more options for families and people who need larger layouts and more bedrooms.

Misty Van Popta: Even in my municipality, I’ve got half career — paid, full-time career — and half paid on call. Extremely rural. I’ve got one area right now underserviced, which is in the process of being mitigated, but we’ve got up to 14-minute response times. This is even in a metro area.

It affects not just jurisdictions where they have career, because I have career, and it affects abilities in my region, especially because fire apparatus is so expensive. Property tax increases are happening all the time for other downloaded reasons outside of increasing our first responders, which is a must as a part of operating our municipalities.

I understand that there is data elsewhere and other jurisdictions doing it, but our B.C. fire chiefs said that this was a bad idea. They said it was a bad idea, yet we still went ahead with it anyways. I’d just like it on the record that the industry is still asking that you reconsider the safety of British Columbians, as we move forward, as more areas that may not have career firefighters today may in the future as they grow and develop.

We are now building structures that may affect a life, and I can’t think of the worst scenario where somebody does die because of a blocked fire staircase or due to fire, somebody jumping out of a six-storey building.

With that, I’m going to move on to one other line of questioning. Again, I really want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to do this. Just switch on to B.C. Housing. I’ve got a great relationship with different organizations within my area, within the Fraser Valley greater area. Some of the challenges….

There are two lines of questioning that I’ve got. One has to do with direct funding for shelters, shelter housing and staff training and the line item for that, which is about $2,500 a year for this particular organization, which is about an $86-per-staff allowance for training.

[6:05 p.m.]

This is all the different training that the staff have to have: crisis prevention training and/or de-escalation; non-violent intervention; standard first aid and CPR; Indigenous awareness training and cultural safety training; mental health first-aid training; domestic violence safety planning; safety for women in co-ed shelters training; substance use awareness and safety training, including naloxone training; LGBTQAI+ awareness training; trauma-informed practice training; staff self-care training; Vulnerability Assessment Tool training; and B.C. Housing database training. All of that totalled up is about $780 per staff, and the allotment that they have is $86 per staff.

When we talk about funding into the system and caring for our shelters and organizations that are helping the most vulnerable…. A lot of their resources are going into the training aspect. Also, because they’re generally unionized, they might have to pay for a day’s lost wages and pay, for the staff that are off, another person to fill that position.

There are exponential costs that are being taken out of the organization’s funding and operation dollars, so I just wanted to ask if there were any potential increases to the training budget as allowed for shelters, given the amount of training that they have to have.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you for the question, to the member. I have a number of pieces of answer and appreciate getting to go into this.

The first is that new buildings receive start-up funds that include training costs when a whole staffing component is needing to be trained up all at once. Those fundings are included in an initial start-up cost. In, of course, ongoing operating, not all staff would need all of those trainings every year, so those costs are spaced out. But noting that also, in the past, B.C. Housing has provided one-time funding for training such as fire and life safety.

In addition, in 2024, B.C. Housing received $300,000 from a federal-provincial bilateral agreement as part of the national gender-based violence action plan. That grant supported gender-based violence prevention training for shelter, housing and homelessness service providers. That funding was provided by Women and Gender Equality Canada to the Ministry of Finance gender equity office, and funding was allocated to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs for that project.

In 2025, a further $4.3 million established one-time grants to women’s shelters and transition houses to enhance staff capacity to support survivors and respond to urgent needs as well as other needs identified by providers.

So a combination of ongoing and one-time funds to address needs in conversation with the sector.

Misty Van Popta: Hearing those funds, they all seem to be driven towards, perhaps, women’s shelters or transitional housing. In this case, these are co-ed sheltering facilities so they wouldn’t have had access to one-time funding grants like that, I would think.

You know, the overall…. Whether they had a one-time fee or if there’s ongoing training, whether it’s all their staff or some of their staff, the fact is that the $86 a year that they are allotted for training per…. Whether they are training ten people in one capacity for one session in 2026, the $86, or $2,500 that their whole entire shelter budget has, is not enough. That would be one course for one type of training.

Just on record, there are conversations around needing to have a beefed-up training allowance for our shelters, given the volume of required training that they have.

One other thing that I learnt on the ground was the approval timelines for their budgets. In one of the situations that I was in, in talking with the administrators of this particular operation, they had stated that sometimes they don’t get their budget approved until the summertime. So they’re actually operating in a deficit, with uncertainty, not understanding if their budget’s going to be approved.

They submit them and start working with the ministry in about November, December. The budget is due by April 1, but they’re not hearing back until a significant amount of months later, which adds, really, insecurity within their operations.

I was wondering if you can speak to maybe some improvements in budget approvals for shelters so that they operate with security, knowing how much they need to fundraise, perhaps, if something isn’t going to get approved or otherwise.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, a good question. I think it’s worth noting that funding never stops. Shelters’ funding carries forward into the next year, so those precarity concerns…. A shelter isn’t holding those costs themselves. That funding from the previous budget will continue until the next year’s agreement is signed. Some of those agreements are calendar and some of them are fiscal year.

B.C. Housing endeavours to provide approvals on budgets as soon as is possible. The process has been streamlined to make improvements on the administrative front, and there are ongoing, continual efforts to find efficiencies in response to providers’ feedback.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.