The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Reann Gasper.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford: Happy Monday, Mr. Speaker. Today I have many guests in the House, so please bear with me.

First and most importantly, I have some of our firefighters in the House. I’d like to make an introduction for BCPFFA president, Todd Schierling, as well as some of our members from Local 730, IAFF local president Josh Montgomery and one of his men as well.

I also want to introduce BCFED president, Sussanne Skidmore; Brynn Bourke, B.C. Building Trades executive director; Dan Jajic, business manager, IUPAT DC38; Roy Bizzutto, business manager, Cement Masons 919; Bryan Railton, business manager, IUOE 115; Paul Beacom, president, Ironworkers 97; Barry Capozzi, Teamsters 213; Pete Hayes, Ironworkers 97; Brian Lefebvre, IUOE 115; Wayne Peppard, former executive director, B.C. Building Trades.

[10:05 a.m.]

Also, Phil Venoit, B.C. manager of IBEW 230; Corry Anderson-Fennell, LiUNA, 1611; Jim Noon, business manager, UA 324; Andrew Brown, CMAW; Josh Towsley, IUOE 115; Janna Little, Ironworkers 97; Brad Demelo, IUPAT DC 38; and some of their members, who are joining us in the House today.

Can you please make them all feel welcome.

Misty Van Popta: I, too, want to make recognition of the fire and BCPFFA here today. But today I’d also like to recognize in the chamber…. I am honoured to introduce Christina Austin and Lynn Austin, the widow and mother of the late Neil Austin.

Neil passed away in October from occupational cancer. Neil was a father of three, a stepfather of two and a 21-year member of the Vancouver fire and rescue services.

Christina and Lynn join us here today to witness the final stages of bills before the House. In the face of her grief, Christina has started her journey in advocating for improved working conditions and safety protections for firefighters. Their presence here today reflects the importance of ensuring those who serve our communities are properly supported and reminds us that behind every uniform is a family and behind every policy a responsibility we must carry with care.

Would the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to Christina and Lynn.

Kiel Giddens: There are a number of guests here today I’d like to introduce. From CLAC, I’ll introduce Ryan Bruce, government relations director; Josh Pastoor, regional director; Jamie Wade, provincial representative; Christine Cabey, provincial representative; Colin Scott, CLAC member for 25 years in construction as an operator; Cassandra Campstra, CLAC member for 15 years in construction; and Jeremy Crook, another CLAC member in construction.

From the Progressive Contractors Association, I’ll introduce Paul de Jong, president and CEO; Darrel Reid, VP, public affairs; Dan Baxter, regional director of B.C.; and Natasha Westmore de Jong, events and membership coordinator.

From the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, I’ll welcome Mike Davis, regional vice-president; and Todd Kamiskey, chief operating officer.

From the First Nations natural gas alliance, I’ll introduce my good friend Karen Ogan-Toews, CEO.

From Jon-co Contracting, I’ll introduce Jon Coleman.

I also join the member for Esquimalt-Colwood in welcoming the members from the B.C. Federation of Labour and from the B.C. Building Trades. I know everyone is here for a respectful debate this morning, and I appreciate all of their presence in the House today.

Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I have the pleasure of introducing one union member, but this one belongs to me. It is the president of the Coquitlam-Maillardville First Husbands Club, my husband, David Blatherwick.

May the House make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Marine Rescue and
Life-Saving Actions by
Emma Elvin and Mika Heiskanen

Susie Chant: This morning I would like to acknowledge I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, specifically the Songhees and xʷsepsəm, and when I’m in North Vancouver–Seymour, I live and work on the lands of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the səlilwətaɬ.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I rise today to speak about an incident that unfolded not far from where many of us work, live and raise our families along the rugged and beautiful waters of Indian Arm. On February 5, 2026, as featured in a recent Vancouver Sun article and in the North Shore News, a 70-year-old diabetic hiker became disoriented and lost on a day hike near the Baden-Powell Trail.

What began as a routine excursion quickly escalated into a dangerous ordeal. After he ended up on the rocky shoreline, he attempted to paddle a kayak that he found without a life jacket and flipped into the frigid waters of Indian Arm.

A nearby boater, a 23-year-old Emma Elvin, was finishing up her work day as a small vessel captain responsible for a water taxi in Indian Arm. As she enjoyed the winter sun at the dock by her home cabin, she heard the man and spotted him in the water near a submerged kayak.

[10:10 a.m.]

She did not hesitate. She got back on her boat and reached him within seconds.

Clinging to a rope on a dock, the man was breathless, speechless and in shock. Knowing the basics of cold-water survival from her marine first aid training, including the 1-10-1 principle, Emma noticed his smartwatch showed he had had 32 minutes of intense activity, logging his shock as a workout. She knew she had to get him out of the water immediately if he was going to survive this emergency.

Unable to lift him directly due to the height of the dock and his condition, she applied her marine training and cold-water knowledge, hauling him to safety with an extra rope. She quickly helped him undress from his wet clothing, asked essential medical questions and established that the man was diabetic.

Luckily, her boyfriend, Mika Heiskanen, was nearby at their dock. He, too, is diabetic. He gathered towels, blankets, dry clothing and a glucometer, bringing the gear over by kayak. They warmed him up and kept him stable until the Coast Guard arrived at the scene and transported the victim by ambulance to Lions Gate Hospital for further care. These quick-thinking actions provided critical, life-saving assistance in those crucial moments before the Coast Guard and other responders took over. The hiker later thanked Emma for saving his life.

I met Emma when she was honoured for her actions at the 114th annual B.C. and Yukon lifesaving awards, receiving the Governor’s Gold Medal, chosen by the branch governor of the Lifesaving Society. It’s presented for the most heroic rescue of the year. As well, Emma received a Silver Medal for Bravery, and Mika earned a Silver Medal for Merit. Emma additionally received a commendation from the Coast Guard.

This story serves as a reminder that British Columbia’s natural beauty is unmatched, but it also demands respect. As well, when things go wrong, we are extremely fortunate to have skilled and dedicated individuals, like Emma, who are willing and able to step up and help. Indian Arm, like many B.C. natural wonders, may appear calm from a distance, but it is surrounded by deep cliffs, unpredictable weather and very limited access points. In this case, the man ended up in distress in the water, highlighting just how quickly conditions can deteriorate.

While we celebrate these successful rescues, and we should, we must also ask what more can be done to prevent them, because preparation matters. Learning to swim and knowing first aid can save your life and that of others. This incident underscores the growing pressure on outdoor spaces that are close to urban centres, which is something to celebrate, but it also must be matched with education and responsibility.

Let us take a moment to recognize Emma Elvin for her courage and quick action, and the professionals who supported it, including her boyfriend, Mika. Her professionalism, courage and commitment embody the very best of British Columbia.

Let us also use this moment to remind British Columbians: enjoy our incredible outdoors, but do so safely, responsibly and prepared, because the mountains, forests and waterways that define our province are as deadly as they are beautiful.

Gavin Dew: Let’s talk about jobs. A job is the best social program ever invented. It gives people a paycheque, dignity, independence and the chance to build a life. It helps families get ahead, gives young people their first rung on the ladder and gives communities stability. That is why jobs matter, and that is why private sector jobs matter.

Private sector jobs are what build an economy that can actually sustain everything else we care about. They create the tax base that pays for health care, schools, roads and public safety. When the private sector is growing, families can get ahead, communities can thrive, and government can fund public services on a stable foundation, but when the private sector is weak, everything else gets harder. That is the story of British Columbia under this failing NDP government.

In February, B.C. lost 20,000 jobs. In March, it lost another 19,000. In February, full-time employment fell by 32,500, while part-time employment rose by 12,300. In March, full-time employment fell by 23,700, while part-time employment rose by 4,600.

[10:15 a.m.]

This is not just a story of jobs disappearing. It is a story of stronger, more secure work being replaced by weaker and less secure work.

B.C.’s unemployment rate has now climbed to 6.7 percent, the highest non-pandemic level for this province since February of 2016, a decade ago. The deeper problem is not just two bad months. It’s a longer pattern of failure, excuses and settling for mediocrity. British Columbia has had the worst private sector job growth in Canada since 2019. Even the Business Council of British Columbia has warned that B.C.’s private sector job engine has lost momentum.

People are tired of this government talking about Trump, posturing on pipelines and pointing the finger everywhere but themselves. This government loves picking winners and losers and paying for photo ops with their taxpayer-funded slush funds, but they have been inadequately focused on something even more fundamental: the underlying conditions for broad-based, grassroots, bottom-up private investment and growth.

Job creation does not start with government press releases. It starts with the corner store, the restaurant, the contractor, the small manufacturer, the start-up and the family business deciding whether to hire one more person. And what are those employers telling us? CFIB surveys show that small businesses in British Columbia face some of the highest concerns in Canada over labour laws, tax burden and local government costs.

The problem is not any one single measure. It is death by a thousand small cuts, including hidden costs like credit card fees and WorkSafe premiums on employee tips. Some of these changes are obviously well-intentioned. Some are unquestionably positive for workers, but balance and timing matter.

This government never quite seems to understand that each additional requirement, each extra payroll cost, each new administrative obligation lands on the same small employer already trying to keep the lights on and make payroll. Small businesses cannot create jobs if they can’t survive.

At exactly the wrong moment, this government is expanding the PST to professional services. That means higher input costs for businesses that rely on professional services. This government has kicked job creators when they are down.

You can’t build an economy by endlessly increasing the burden on the very people expected to do the hiring. You can’t build lasting prosperity by growing government while the economy that pays for it stalls. B.C. needs a real private sector jobs agenda that restores confidence, cuts red tape, lowers the cost of hiring and growth and understands that prosperity must be unlocked and built, not simply announced. Because in the end, private sector jobs are the foundation of opportunity for strong families, strong communities and a strong province.

British Columbians have every right to demand better. Soon a new Conservative government will replace excuses with results and deliver the jobs, growth and opportunity everyday hard-working British Columbians deserve.

George Anderson: Every generation asks a simple question of the place they call home: is there a future for me here? Not just a place to get by but a place to build a life, to work, to love, to thrive and belong.

If we are serious about intergenerational equity, if we are serious about what many now call the generation squeeze, then we must be serious about that answer. The next generation should not inherit a British Columbia with less possibility than the one that raised us. The next generation should inherit a province with more open doors, more opportunities within reach and believe that they have a future here.

I believe British Columbia has every reason to be proud. We are not a province without options. We are a province with extraordinary assets, extraordinary people and extraordinary possibility. The question is whether we are bold enough to see it.

[10:20 a.m.]

Giving young people a reason to stay in British Columbia means understanding that affordability is more than just the price of a house. Affordability is also about time and whether a commute steals an hour from a parent at the end of a day or whether a young person needs to get a second car just to get to work.

That’s why public investment matters. When the Broadway subway project promises a trip from VCC-Clark to Arbutus in just 11 minutes, saving riders an hour a day, or the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain promises a 22-minute trip from Langley City Centre to King George, we should see more than a transportation project but rather family budgets, breathing room and precious time given back to ordinary people.

We also need to talk about our existing rail corridors. They are not just relics from the past or leftovers from a past era. They are corridors of opportunity. On Vancouver Island, the Island Corridor is approximately 289 kilometres long, linking Victoria to Courtenay and connecting our ports, a corridor that could actually move truck trips to rail, creating synergies with connections to Duke Point.

That matters because connecting people across Vancouver Island is more than just connecting communities. It’s connecting people to education, services and creating Vancouver Island’s stronger economic future. That same imagination needs to be used for the Sea to Sky corridor.

We can also look to Red Chris mine and to Highland Valley Copper, to the next generation of projects, mining projects like Northisle Copper and Gold, which demonstrate that mining isn’t just part of the past. It’s essential to British Columbia’s future. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering on those projects.

We also can look to the Port of Prince Rupert, which handles approximately $60 billion in trade each year and supports an estimated 3,700 direct supply chain jobs in northern British Columbia, along with roughly $360 million in annual wages. Those are not abstract numbers. Those are paycheques, and those are livelihoods.

Let us speak plainly and proudly about the trades. The trades are not a backup plan. They are not about what happens when something else fails. They are honourable, intelligent and indispensable. The trades build the homes we need, the transit we depend on, the ports that move our economy. The trades are going to help us modernize our corridors to receive and revive manufacturing strength and help make this province more affordable and more self-reliant.

There are now more than 50,000 registered apprentices in British Columbia, with more than 11,000 youth participating in skilled trades, and that is something to be proud about. BCIT is expanding its trades and technology complex, including new spaces for marine, steel and mass timber trades. This is a province investing in people who know how to build.

When we talk about giving young people a reason to stay in British Columbia, the answer is not small. It means building a province where they can imagine to afford living in this province, a province where public investment gives them time back. It’s whether or not we can build a future worthy of the people coming next. That is where we must ground our ambition, grounding our ambition in a province that ensures that young people know that there is room for them here.

Let’s build that province. Let’s build a province that does not ask its young people to lower their expectations. Let us build a British Columbia so dynamic, so connected, so self-confident and so full of possibility that our young people stay not out of obligation but out of the belief that we are building the best province in Canada.

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise to speak about an organization in my community that represents the very best of what it means to care for one another, Metro Community Hub. Metro is more than a building or a program. It’s a place where dignity is restored, where people are seen and where practical help meets genuine compassion.

Five days a week Metro Community Hub opens its doors to individuals experiencing homelessness and vulnerability. They provide hot lunches and fresh coffee. Simple things, yes, but they’re offered with consistency and care, and that builds trust and stability.

[10:25 a.m.]

They offer things that we take for granted: access to showers, laundry, computers, phone charging and safe storage. These are the basic building blocks of dignity — the ability to clean your clothes, check your email, store your belongings and take a shower before a job interview or a meeting.

But what makes Metro truly remarkable is the people behind it. The staff and volunteers are extraordinary. Many of them serve not from a distance but from lived experience themselves or the struggle of a loved one. They know what it means to struggle. They know what it means to rebuild. Some have been unhoused themselves or have walked alongside loved ones who were. That lived experience creates something powerful, not just service or programming but connection and trust.

Metro allows a place for Interior Health and social workers to connect with those who have no fixed address but need access to medication and services. It’s a place where families can reach out to potentially find their loved ones. Trust is what allows Metro to reach people, and consistency and community is what allows them to catch those who fall through the cracks in the system.

Metro is also deeply rooted in its neighbourhood. They do not ignore the very real concerns of nearby residents and businesses. Instead, they engage with them. They listen. They work to mitigate disruption. They understand that compassion for those in crisis must exist alongside respect for the broader community. And the broader community is feeling the consequences of the increase in social needs. This balance is not easy, but Metro strives for it every single day.

Metro also stands in the gap, offering support to those in danger of becoming homeless. Sometimes they cover rent or groceries. Metro knows that it only takes 14 days for an individual to become entrenched in homelessness, and they know that intervening to prevent this saves lives, dignity and money in the long run.

Metro invites those looking for purpose yet still living on the streets or in shelters to come and serve. I’ve served coffee alongside those trying to improve their lives. I recall the pride with which they signed in to serve the coffee and sandwiches. Metro lets them participate. They give them purpose. I see the individuals take great pride in being able to lend a hand. Everyone needs a place to belong, a purpose and connection.

Metro invites individuals still in the struggle into their community and into their church. This is exactly the kind of grassroots, community-driven response to the homelessness that we should be celebrating, supporting and partnering with. Yet that is not what is happening.

Despite meeting eligibility requirements, Metro Community Hub has been denied gaming grant funding not once but twice. Let me be clear. This is a Christian organization, but it operates with an independent board. It meets the criteria. It delivers measurable, meaningful impact in addressing homelessness, poverty and community well-being. Metro did their due diligence and confirmed eligibility prior to applying for gaming grants, yet they’ve still been turned away.

At the same time, Metro was incorrectly classified as an art gallery and hit with a $45,000 tax bill in 2025, despite being tax-exempt every year prior and every year since. This is not just a bureaucratic error. This is a failure that has real consequences for a front-line organization doing essential work.

When organizations that are feeding the hungry, supporting the vulnerable and stabilizing communities are forced to fight through red tape and incorrect assessments, we have to ask ourselves: what are we doing? And when those same organizations happen to be faith-based, we must also ask whether they are being treated fairly.

This government often speaks about inclusion, about equity, about supporting vulnerable populations, but inclusion must include everyone. Equity must be applied consistently, and support must be based on the value of the work, not the beliefs of those doing it.

Metro does not turn away people based on who they are or what they believe. They serve everyone who walks through their doors with dignity and respect. They are living out the very values that this House so often claims to champion.

If we’re serious about addressing homelessness, not just talking about it but actually making a difference, then we need to support organizations that are already doing the work.

I have written to the Ministers of Finance and of Tourism, Arts and Culture, and I urge them to help this incredible organization to reverse the charges and grant the grants.

Amna Shah: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[10:30 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Amna Shah: Today in the gallery, we are joined by a group of home-schooled students, along with their parents and guardians. I hope that they are enjoying their viewing time here as we have members delivering statements of pertinence to themselves, their community and to this chamber. I wish them a wonderful day ahead.

Would the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to talk about some incredible things that happen because of the power of community coming together.

When we talk about getting things done in our communities, it’s so important to remember that nothing meaningful happens in isolation. The real engine behind progress in community is partnership — people, organizations and governments pulling in the same direction. When that happens, big things become possible, even things that once felt out of reach.

A powerful example of this is the recent acquisition of the Hamilton Wetlands and Forests by the regional district of Nanaimo. For decades, volunteers — in particular, one volunteer named Ceri Peacey — environmental advocates, Indigenous partners, local governments, regional leaders and even corporations worked together with one clear goal: to protect this vital ecosystem for future generations.

This took persistence, trust and collaboration across many tables, regional and provincial and federal decision-makers and oh, so many funding partners. Because of those partnerships, Hamilton Wetlands and Forests is now protected and open for people to enjoy as the regional district of Nanaimo’s 13th regional park. This is what community-driven success looks like.

We see the same lesson recently in the town of Ladysmith. Last week I was thrilled to announce $52 million in investments into Ladysmith schools to build a new K-to-7 school and expand an existing primary school to make it into a full K-to-7 school. This generational project is about students having safe, accessible and modern spaces to learn. It’s about families coming together to feel confident in their community. It’s about planning for the future, not just catching up with the past.

That school is becoming a reality because of strong partnerships between the town of Ladysmith, the Nanaimo-Ladysmith school board, parents, educators and the province. Years, decades, of local advocacy and a shared vision aligned with provincial investment. Each partner played a role, and together they delivered something no one could have accomplished alone. These stories remind us that partnerships are essential to progress. They help communities move faster, think bigger and create solutions that reflect the people they serve.

I’m going to take the last part of my statement to talk a little bit about a different kind of community and the impact that it can have — being part of a sports community. Some people know that in my house, we are a lacrosse family. Being part of the lacrosse community is about more than just practices or games or scores on a scoreboard. It’s about belonging. When you join a lacrosse team or a club, you don’t just put on a jersey. You become part of an extended family.

Lacrosse is often described as the fastest game on two feet, but anyone who has been part of it knows that its heart is just as powerful as its speed. This game demands toughness, commitment and resilience, but it also builds connection, loyalty and family. When one member of that family needs support, the entire community steps forward.

The community is showing up for one of its own, for Hayden Yerbury. Hayden is a 15-year-old player from the Ridge Meadows Burrards Lacrosse Association. Over the years, my son has played both with and against Hayden. Two weeks ago, Hayden was accidentally struck in the head by a lacrosse ball during warm-up. Despite wearing his helmet, he received a devastating injury and has been fighting to recover at B.C. Children’s Hospital ever since.

Hayden Yerbury is not just a player or a name on a roster. Hayden and his entire family — his mom, Jamie; his dad, Ash; and his brother, Cohen — represent the spirit of lacrosse, of showing up, of giving all your effort and being part of something bigger than yourself.

Whether it’s through dedication to the game or commitment to teammates, Hayden has earned respect in this community, and that respect is being returned. It has been incredible to witness how the lacrosse community has rallied around Hayden. Teammates, coaches, families, fans, professional players, people who may not even know him personally have come together with one clear message: “Hayden, we are with you.”

To Hayden: your presence matters. The way you are being supported reflects the respect that you’ve earned and the impact that you have on those around you. You remind this community of who we are and what we stand for.

[10:35 a.m.]

To the lacrosse community: this is what leadership looks like. This is what family looks like. The support shown proves that no matter the level, the league, the logo on the jersey, lacrosse remains rooted in unity, in compassion and in heart.

Hayden, all of us at the Legislature are rooting for you. You are strong. You are a fighter.

Jamie, Ash and Cohen, we are thinking of you, and we are sending you all of our love and holding your entire family in our hearts.

Reann Gasper: Across British Columbia, families, service providers and advocates are stepping forward with courage, not just for their own children, but for every child who depends on these supports to grow, learn and participate in their communities. Right now, I want to honour each community for standing up for all children. I am happy to stand alongside them to see a balanced system where no child is left behind.

What they are standing up for is not abstract. They are standing up for funding that is stable, predictable and individualized, funding that allows families to build trusted teams, funding that recognizes that no two children are the same. They are standing up because they know what happens when stability is taken away.

When you have children on wait-lists for two to three years that have finally been approved for funding, and then they get a letter when the announcement happens and you say they no longer qualify, and now you say that isn’t a cut, families know exactly what that is.

I want to share a story that reflects what we are hearing across this province. A father from northern British Columbia reached out, not from a major centre but from a region where services are already limited, where access is already fragile. His son was diagnosed with autism at age three. Like so many families, they did everything they were told to do. They sought early intervention. They moved communities to access better services. They built a care team over time.

Today that child is ten years old. For the past five years, he has worked with the same interventionist, one consistent person, one trusted relationship, one place where progress has been built slowly and meaningfully. Even with the current funding, his family can only afford one session per week. Now they have to sit down with their son and tell him that his therapy is going to stop, not because it isn’t working, not because he doesn’t need it but because they simply cannot afford it anymore.

In northern communities, there are no alternatives waiting. The public system is already stretched. Wait-lists are long. This is what happens when policy is announced before systems are built. So what happens now? What happens in the gap between what exists and what is being promised?

This family is left with impossible choices. Do they drain their savings to continue therapy, holding onto hope that their child may one day live independently? Or do they stop therapy, protect their financial future and live with the question they will carry for the rest of their lives? “What if we had done more?” No family should ever be placed in that position.

This is not one story. This is what we have heard in two town halls with over 400 participants from across British Columbia. This is what we are hearing in over 2,000 emails that have come into my office alone. Parents are exhausted. Professionals who are warning us. Communities are telling us clearly that the math is not adding up. They are simply asking reasonable questions.

Who decides which child is high needs enough? What criteria will be used? Who is doing the assessments, and are they qualified? Where is the workforce coming from when we are already experiencing shortage? What happens to children in rural communities where services do not exist? What happens in the time between funding being removed and the services being built?

These are not political questions. These are practical questions, and right now families are not getting the answer.

[10:40 a.m.]

We all agree that children should receive support. We all agree that the system should be fair. But fairness cannot mean taking stability away from one child to give uncertainty to another.

What we’re seeing right now is a system being changed before replacement is ready. Families are being asked to leave supports that are working to enter systems that do not yet exist and to trust timelines that come with no certainty. The result is what we are hearing across the province: fear, confusion and the very real risk of children losing the progress they have fought so hard to achieve.

So my question to the minister, if this plan is truly ready, where are the services? Where are the professionals? Where are the clear criteria? Because right now families across British Columbia are not seeing a system that is ready.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will consider Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, as reported complete with amendment from the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Reporting of Bills

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Misty Van Popta: I move that Bill M214, intituled Firefighters’ Health Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

I’d like to take a moment to thank the members opposite on the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills for jointly working towards amendments on this bill that not only strengthened the intent of it but kept the integrity of the bill intact. Making adjustments to make the bill’s timelines and consultation more workable for the government is proof that collaboration on both sides of the aisle is what this committee should be about.

Sincerely, thank you.

In summary, the committee took the advice of the submission presenters and made four amendments, three of which were repeated in other clauses. They also corrected an original drafting error and assigned the bill to the Ministry of Health.

Two of the main amendments were based on recommendations by stakeholders to add critical exposure data collection to help formulate future plans and to decrease the eligibility of forest fire fighters from ten years down to five years. Both recommendations were excellent pieces of input and were unanimously accepted by the committee.

Another recommendation from the ministries impacted by this bill was to allow for a greater amount of time to formulate the plan, increasing from a nine-month timeline to 12 months. Again, another welcome recommendation unanimously accepted.

The fourth amendment, also based on the recommendation from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, was to allow the ministries in charge of the Fire Safety Act, Workers Compensation Act and the Wildfire Act to choose whom they wish to collaborate with for the purpose of creating the health care plan.

This was a reasonable request, and it is how collaboration with the BCPFFA, BCGEU and the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. has already been working. Again, another amendment unanimously accepted.

Two amendments based on the recommendations of the government and two recommendations based on the recommendations of stakeholders, all enhancing the bill while keeping the integrity of the bill intact.

I wish to recognize Todd Schierling, president of the BCPFFA, for his support and guidance during this past year, and my Local 4550 for their continued support of my community and advocacy for their health.

This bill came from seven years of advocacy from the BCPFFA and from the stories within my community. Although this process has taken 11 months to get here, the good work and impact will be calculated for generations.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Rohini Arora: I would like to start by thanking the firefighters.

I’d be remiss to not mention the third anniversary of the passing of Ray Sawada, former NHL player and member of the Burnaby firefighters, who joined in 2017.

Rest in power, Ray.

Firefighters put their lives on the line every day to protect us all. Your courage and commitment do not go unnoticed, and we are deeply grateful for the sacrifices you and your families make.

I also want to thank the member for Langley–Walnut Grove and all the members of the committee for the time and care you’ve put into examining this important issue.

[10:45 a.m.]

To everyone who participated in the process, through written submissions or presentations, thank you for contributing to our democracy in such a meaningful way.

Supporting the mental health and well-being of our front-line workers, including firefighters, has been a top priority for our government since 2017.

Over the years, we’ve taken steps, important ones, to strengthen protections by expanding presumptive coverage and ensuring it reflects the realities firefighters are facing today. This includes broadening the definition of who’s covered, moving beyond firefighters employed by local governments to include federal firefighters, such as those working on military bases in B.C.; provincial wildfire firefighters, that is a mouthful; firefighters employed by First Nations and Indigenous organizations; and fire investigators who are members of a fire brigade.

We’ve also expanded the list of cancers recognized as occupational diseases and reduced the minimum cumulative employment periods for several cancers, including testicular, colorectal and esophageal cancer.

Most recently we took a significant step forward by increasing the number of cancers covered under presumptive legislation from 18 to 26. This means British Columbia now has the most comprehensive firefighter cancer presumption protections in Canada.

The addition of cancers such as skin cancer, mesothelioma, soft-tissue sarcoma and several respiratory-related cancers reflects evolving scientific understanding and ensures more firefighters can access timely support when they need it most.

Importantly, these protections now extend to approximately 15,000 firefighters across the province, including career, volunteer and wildland firefighters. For wildland firefighters, we recognize the unique nature of their work by counting a single fire season as a full year of exposure for compensation purposes.

Our work doesn’t stop here. We are actively supporting efforts to improve data and research, including collaboration with Statistics Canada on the development of a national firefighter cancer registry.

Together we are building a stronger, more informed system, one that honours the service of firefighters and supports their health today and into the future.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I am going to read a statement from the Speaker on April 2, just with reference to our report and third reading stage.

Debate at report stage and third reading is not common and is intended to discuss the amended form of the bill, not re-canvass the committee stage, which also applies to private members’ bills.

So now we’re in the report stage with the intention to canvass the amendments brought forward by the committee for the House’s consideration. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your guidance. This has certainly been a thoughtful and collaborative process and a new one for the Legislature but, really, with meaningful input from stakeholders across the province.

First and foremost, I want to thank the important feedback and submissions and presentations through this committee process by the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association. Their dedication to the long-term health and safety of firefighters across the province is deeply appreciated.

I also appreciated the dialogue at the provincial conference several weeks ago, and I know that Bill M214 remains one of their top priorities.

I will sincerely thank the BCGEU for their submission on behalf of wildland firefighters, who do tremendous work in near-impossible conditions to protect communities. Their input and the input from the office of the fire commissioner helped to strengthen this bill, including reducing the years of service requirement from ten years to five.

Bill M214 is a focused and practical piece of legislation. The amendments made at committee have clarified certain clauses to respond to feedback from government and stakeholders. That’s why the timeline for government to table a health plan for firefighters has been extended from nine months to a year.

The Minister of Health has been confirmed as the minister responsible, and additional amendments include requirements for consultation to include ministers responsible for, of course, the Workers Compensation Act, as we know, but also the Fire Safety Act and the Wildfire Act.

The amended bill now also includes improved exposure data collection, which is something that the committee heard very, very loudly as a priority. These changes are measured, and they’re constructive. They move us towards better health screening for more firefighters and support a stronger evidence-based approach going forward.

Ultimately, this bill will also help us all, as legislators, to look more long term when it comes to cancer presumptions.

[10:50 a.m.]

Recent updates. I’ll acknowledge, of course, the updates to the Firefighters’ Occupational Disease Regulation. Those are very welcome. But the firefighters where I live, in Prince George, have certainly reminded me that there is much more work to do.

Thank you for the time to speak, and really, thank you to the member for Langley–Walnut Grove and the entire private members’ bill committee for their work on this.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll ask the member for Langley–Walnut Grove to close the debate.

Misty Van Popta: Seeing that there are no further speakers on this matter, we will close debate.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is that Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will now proceed to third reading of Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Misty Van Popta: I move third reading of Bill M214.

This has been a surreal experience. We’re creating legislation that has direct impact on the lives of British Columbians. With this bill passing, may we be able to prevent the early deaths of firefighters, while being an example to the rest of Canada, leading the charge on caring for those who take care of us. This bill is the first of its kind in all of Canada. Well done to all of us.

A health care plan for firefighters is long overdue. Let’s change that today and support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Langley–Walnut Grove closes debate.

Misty Van Popta: I close debate.

Deputy Speaker: All right, there we go.

Members, the question is third reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, Bill M214, intituled Firefighters’ Health Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M233 — Public Sector Construction
Projects Procurement Act

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie to move second reading of Bill M233, Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act.

Kiel Giddens: I move that Bill M233, intituled Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act, now be read a second time.

Thank you for the opportunity to open debate on Bill M233. I look forward to this debate. I understand there are some opinions that have already been expressed on this bill, but I will start this by saying that British Columbians deserve a public policy debate on fair and open tendering.

Across our province, families are working hard to support themselves and their communities. They’re budgeting carefully. Dollars may be tight to pay for their kids’ next pair of shoes. The small business owner who has just faced PST increases on their accounting services, the seniors who are on a fixed income currently paying for home care and wondering if a long-term-care bed might come available as health challenges arise — all of these individuals are thinking about how every dollar is spent, and they expect their government to do the same, to think like a taxpayer.

[10:55 a.m.]

But what we’ve seen in this year’s budget is a $13.3 billion deficit. We’ve seen the projection for taxpayer-supported debt to rise significantly, reaching $143 billion this year and $189 billion within the fiscal plan to fund deficits but also capital projects. Interest costs alone are set to exceed spending in every area of government except health care and education.

Unfortunately, the government’s capital plan is collapsing under its own weight. Compared with last year’s plan, the three-year capital envelope is lower by about $7 billion. That includes seniors long-term-care homes that were cancelled.

It’s not even counting the quiet concessions over the years, like the Cariboo connector program. In the central Interior, we were promised four-laning from Cache Creek to Prince George. This mysteriously vanished from the capital program altogether several years ago and was never completed.

It doesn’t include the long-delayed Massey Tunnel project that Lower Mainland commuters have been waiting for or the Taylor Bridge replacement.

The government’s record on capital construction projects in this province has led to less projects delivered for higher costs. Public projects have experienced cost overruns totalling more than $17 billion since 2017, and at the same time, construction delays add up to more than 158 years combined. We simply need to do better.

The Cowichan Hospital replacement was originally budgeted at $870 million and is now at least $1.446 billion, a 63 percent overrun and three years behind schedule.

The Pattullo Bridge replacement was originally budgeted at $1.3 billion and is now at least $1.67 billion, if not more, a 28 percent overrun, that we know of, and nearly three years behind schedule.

The overruns on these projects and many more represent billions of additional dollars carried by taxpayers. The government has blamed these ballooning costs on labour shortages and inflation, along with supply chain challenges. At the same time, they’ve limited the labour pool and the supply chain on public projects.

When British Columbians pay for public infrastructure, whether it’s a hospital, a school, a bridge or a highway, they expect that work to be delivered responsibly, efficiently and at the best possible value. It’s not government’s money; it’s taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars that government is stewarding.

Within the construction world, it is well known that a robust, competitive bid process is the best value for the project owner, whether that’s in government or the private sector.

The legislation before this House today is built around a straightforward principle: publicly funded construction projects should be procured through fair and open tendering.

In practical terms, this bill would require publicly funded construction projects to be awarded through labour-neutral procurement. It prohibits government bodies from restricting bids exclusively to union-only or non-union-only contractors. Instead, contracts would be awarded based on merit, safety record, qualifications, experience, price and the ability to deliver results.

As we’ve seen over the past several weeks, this is a highly politicized topic — too politicized, in my opinion. British Columbia’s construction workforce is diverse and highly skilled. Tradespeople across this province make their own decisions about how they want to work. Some choose to join a particular union, and others choose to work in an open-shop environment. Both paths are absolutely legitimate, and both contribute to building this province and absolutely deserve respect. Worker choice should belong to workers, not to government. This legislation respects that choice.

This bill does not exclude union contractors and union workers, not whatsoever. In fact, I celebrate their competitive strength. The traditional labour movement has a long and proud history, and I know for a fact that Building Trades union contractors and workers compete hard and win because of their skills and their unique training model.

However, there are other union models and independent open-shop contractors that have been excluded from select government projects. The government could achieve a policy of community benefits without restrictive labour agreements. Instead, the government has chosen to exclude 85 percent of skilled construction workers.

Each and every skilled worker and construction contractor in this province deserves our respect. They contribute their skills and hard work to building the homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and public works our communities depend on. Just the ICBA open-shop contractors alone sponsor 82 percent of apprenticeships in this province. Their workers often attend the publicly funded post-secondary institutions we are so proud of in our communities.

There are local and Indigenous contractors who have been excluded. The most vocal case was Jon Coleman and members of Cowichan Tribes, who were excluded from work on the Cowichan Hospital and had to fight for their ability to work.

Jon is in the audience today, and I respect what he has done for his community members.

Procurement neutrality respects workers from all backgrounds, who at the end of the day are just trying to put food on the table, pay their mortgages and put some money away in their kids’ RESPs.

[11:00 a.m.]

There is another model that fosters competition and innovation, including safety improvements and community benefits.

That model is called a managed open site, and I know because I worked for a project owner in the LNG industry. This is the model that delivered the largest private sector investment in Canadian history. I was proud to work closely with labour organizations like the Operating Engineers, Teamsters, LiUNA, and the UA pipefitters and welders, among others. I also worked with CLAC open-shop workers, and many, many Indigenous and local businesses directly adjacent to local communities.

We wouldn’t have got the job done if it wasn’t all hands on deck, and we need that in our capital program to deliver the projects that British Columbians deserve. When procurement policies restrict who can bid on public projects, the pool of eligible contractors shrinks. When competition shrinks, the risk of higher costs and project delays increases.

The B.C. Construction Association, which represents both union and non-union contractors, agrees with Bill M233 and said, “Competitive and transparent procurement helps maximize participation across the construction workforce and delivers better value for taxpayers.”

The government has challenged the opposition for ideas on how we can get more value out of our capital plan. Well, this is one of those ideas, and I’m bringing this forward as a former worker in commercial roofing, as a former steelworker who is proud to work in forestry and mining, and as a former project leader who helped to deliver results on the biggest private sector project this province has ever seen.

If labour shortages are indeed part of the challenge, then it raises a very simple and practical question: why would government limit who can work on public projects? British Columbia has a deep and talented construction workforce, and procurement policies should be designed to maximize the depth and breadth of B.C.’s skilled labour market.

Contractors and tradespeople across our province want to help build the infrastructure that communities need. More competition strengthens the system. It brings forward more ideas, more expertise and more capacity to deliver projects successfully. Importantly, it delivers better value for taxpayers.

I look forward to hearing more debate, and it’s my hope that it is respectful debate for all of the hard-working men and women, workers and contractors that deliver so much for this province. We owe them that respect. Thank you, and I encourage members to consider supporting Bill M233.

Darlene Rotchford: I won’t be supporting this bill, to be quite frank. I rise today to speak in strong opposition, actually, to Bill M233, the Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act. This bill proposes so-called labour-neutral procurement, but let us be very clear about what this means in practice. It would prohibit the province from using project labour agreements, PLAs, to which I will refer in my speech, and community benefit agreements, CBAs, on public infrastructure projects.

This is not a neutral change. Quite frankly, it’s a step backwards. These agreements are not theoretical tools; they are proven; they are practical. They’re delivering real results here in British Columbia. PLAs help ensure that projects are completed efficiently, effectively and safely. They provide certainty in wages and benefits and good working conditions. I’ll talk a little more about before our government came in. This will relate back to those working conditions, which were horrendous for workers in British Columbia.

They reduce the risk of labour disruptions, which gets those projects done. They also support stable, productive worksites. At the same time, they create opportunities for apprenticeships, for skilled tradespeople and for the next generation of workers we are counting on — something which this side of the House has been working on since we came into government, and which, ironically, that side of the House keeps crapping on us for, because they’re saying we don’t support young workers.

These projects are what help keep young workers here and what helps get those skilled tradespeople here, which ensures that we’re supporting the next generation of skilled workers. They ensure that the benefits of major projects are felt locally, not just in the final project but throughout the construction project itself. They prioritize hiring British Columbians. I want to say that again — prioritize hiring British Columbians.

They expand access for unprecedented groups including Indigenous workers and women, and they help connect people to training and long-term careers in the trades. These results speak clearly, as 93 percent of workers in CBA projects are from British Columbia, and 77 percent are local hires. We are seeing higher participation in women in trades, and we are seeing significantly increased participation from our Indigenous workers.

[11:05 a.m.]

These are not just statistics; these are lives being changed. These are families being supported in our communities. These are communities growing stronger together because of it.

This is happening at a time when British Columbia is undertaking the largest capital plan in its history. We are building hospitals. We are building schools. We are building housing and transportation infrastructure that people rely on every single day. To do that, we need a strong, skilled workforce. That is why our government has invested in $241 million over three years to strengthen our trades training.

Nearly 17,000 people registered as apprentices last year alone. That brings us to nearly 50,000 apprentices across this province, the highest number in B.C.’s history. Skilled trades workers. More than 11,000 young people are now exploring careers in the trades.

I’ve had the opportunity in my community to go and talk about skilled trades and how this is actually good for young people. These jobs are good for young people. They will keep you in your community. And I don’t just say that lightheartedly. I say that as someone who has had to leave her home province and move to a province because the work wasn’t there. I have two young daughters myself. Hopefully, they will recognize that skilled trades is a great job, and they will also get into them.

There are more than 6,000 that have become certified professionals. This does not happen by accident. It happens because we are using the right tools in the toolbox, and PLAs and CBAs are some of those tools. Now, we hear the argument from the opposition that these agreements limit competition, but that argument does not reflect reality. All public infrastructure projects in B.C. are procured through an open, competitive process. All qualified contractors can bid. What these agreements do is ensure that once a project is underway, it delivers real values for workers and communities.

Limiting tools available to government, especially during a historical capital build, simply does not make sense and is not responsible. We’ve seen what happens when those tools are not used correctly. We’ve seen projects that rely on lower-paid, uncertified labour. Let’s talk about that for a little bit.

So 2009. It goes back to the Canada Line. Temporary foreign workers, people who were exploited, making less than $4 an hour under the opposition. Anyone who came from the Liberal government was there at that time. Horrendous working conditions, treated unfairly, making $4 an hour. It is shameful.

We’ve seen opportunity for local workers missed. We’ve seen workforce development fall behind. And we are not going back. We believe that British Columbians should benefit from public infrastructure, not only when it is completed but while it is being built.

Since 2018, more than 6,500 tradespeople have worked over 11 million hours on CBA projects. Nearly a quarter of those workers have been apprentices or trainees, and again we’ve seen an uptake in women and skilled trades, and it wouldn’t have happened without these agreements. This is the future of our workforce being built in real time. And behind every number is a person, is a career started, is a family supported.

Bill M233 puts that progress at risk. And I find it kind of interesting to think that someone from the North, from a more rural setting, would think this is a good way to do business. Because those projects in those communities are going to benefit. Those businesses that they’re talking about, that they’re saying we don’t support, are going to be benefited. Those people in those communities and those young people are going to be benefited.

And again, it removes one of the most effective tools we have to recruit, retrain and support skilled workers here in British Columbia. We get accused of people leaving, young workers leaving. Then why would we support this? Because this is what’s going to keep those young skilled tradespeople in British Columbia. It risks driving down standards, which we saw before our government came in. It risks bringing down wages and good working conditions.

Some of you may have heard. I talked in this House about my background in labour. I got involved because of the poor working conditions in this province, from when I became a young worker in 2007 until maybe not such a young worker. This government came in and supported safe working conditions.

And I’ve heard horrendous stories of working conditions and people getting hurt on the workplace. I saw many tradespeople come into my detox facility because they got hurt on the job with no supports, no GAFF, because they did not care, and it is that blank. They did not have the protection of employers, they did not have the protection of unionized work, and that is shameful. This is not a direction we should take.

John Horgan said it himself: “B.C. rightly expects B.C. projects to benefit B.C. workers, families and communities. Full stop.” That should not be debated in this House, because for both sides of this House that should be the goal.

[11:10 a.m.]

Public infrastructure should create good-paying family-supportive jobs. It should be training that will sustain for a lifetime. It will strengthen our communities. It will reflect our values and ensure the benefits of the project stay right here at home.

I’m going to talk a little bit about a member from IBEW 230, Alexandra Robertshaw, working at the project that the member talked about in Cowichan District Hospital, a young woman who saw a viable option to getting in trades, not only a viable option but an option in her community.

She talks about now how she talks to other women and other people in these projects who keep them right here at home. She goes: “I have other friends who have young children who don’t need to travel for work anymore, because these projects in our community are staying here. And I’m getting what I need to get my certification to keep it here.”

Not only that. For anyone who has tradespeople in their lives, I’m sure we’ve heard the stories. I have a father-in-law who’s a plumber and pipefitter, who will drive down the road and be like: “I worked on that project this many years ago.”

This young woman, if she chooses to have children or to her friends or her families, will get to drive by that hospital and say: “I worked on that project. My friends worked on that project. Every bit of the money went back into our community.” That’s something we will stand behind and we should be proud of.

It is very simple. British Columbians expect us to build, but they also expect us to build responsibly and fairly. This bill would limit our capacity to do exactly that. It would move us backward, not forward. For that reason, quite frankly, I can’t support this bill, and I hope people will equally not support it.

Gavin Dew: Before I begin my written remarks, I will point out that the highest number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. was in 2023-24 under this government. Nothing in this bill prevents restricting the role of temporary foreign workers. It’s important that we approach this on a factual basis, on a policy basis, not around political and partisan posturing.

I want to begin with something simple. For most British Columbians, this is not about procurement policy. It is not abstract. It is about everyday reality. People experience this government’s approach in traffic that doesn’t move, in detours that never seem to end, in storefronts that close, in projects that take longer, cost more and deliver less. That is what this bill is about. It is about saying enough delays, enough overruns, enough exclusions, enough excuses.

Bill M233 is about opening public infrastructure to every qualified contractor and every qualified worker so British Columbians can be assured they’re getting real value for the money they are already paying.

Since 2017, cost overruns on public projects in this province have exceeded $17 billion. Combined delays now add up to more than 150 years. Every one of those delays leaves a parent waiting in traffic or a patient waiting in an emergency room. Every one of those overruns has a consequence, because every overrun doesn’t just cost more. It means something else doesn’t get built. A long-term care facility doesn’t open. A hospital gets delayed. A road never gets finished. At a time of record deficits and rising debt, every dollar has to go further.

I want to speak directly to the role of community benefits agreements and organized labour, because I have real-world experience here. I have sat at that table. I negotiated one of the largest and most complex community benefits agreements in this country, an agreement that unlocked a billion-dollar construction project and more than 3,000 long-term operating jobs, almost all of them unionized, and an agreement that secured six years of labour peace.

I can tell this House from experience that these agreements are not simple. They’re never simple. They involve trade-offs, real-world trade-offs between cost and access, between timelines and participation, between flexibility and control. Those trade-offs don’t show up in a press release or a photo op. They show up in project budgets. They show up in schedules. They sometimes show up in whether a project is viable at all.

When these agreements are well done, they’re negotiated in good faith without undue political pressure. They bring people to the table for good faith conversation and for accountability. They create opportunity, they build buy-in, and they deliver real benefits to workers and communities.

But when they’re done poorly, when they are imposed rather than negotiated, when they are driven by ideology or bureaucracy rather than practical outcomes, they can have the opposite effect. They can limit participation, they can increase costs, they can delay delivery, and ultimately, they can reduce or fail to deliver the very benefits they were meant to create.

[11:15 a.m.]

I have lived those trade-offs. I have seen what happens when these agreements are built constructively and flexibly. And I have seen what happens when government tries to use its power or is pushed by political allies to use its power to impose outcomes that should properly be negotiated at the table.

There is one more lesson from that experience. For these agreements to work well, they must respect workers and their representation, but they must also be grounded in a competitive, open-tendering environment, because competition provides discipline for everyone. It forces everyone at the table to focus on what actually matters. It ensures that good intentions are matched with practical outcomes.

Without that competitive pressure, there is a real risk of overreach, of trying to do too much, micromanage too much, or let the tail wag the dog, of layering on conditions that made projects harder to deliver. And that is when costs rise and timelines slip. Competition is what keeps good intentions honest.

Let me be crystal clear, since the government has decided to politicize this bill as they try to engineer an election. We respect the role of unions. From workers on the ground to their representatives, they play an important and legitimate role in a healthy labour market. I have worked with organized labour leaders in the development and delivery of community benefits. I see the important value they bring in training, safety and representation, but that experience has also taught me something important. The strength of a model should come from its ability to compete and deliver, not from government limiting the alternatives.

Good agreements are built at the table. They are not enforced through tender documents. Public infrastructure belongs to everyone. The opportunity to build it should be open to everyone. And that means embracing healthy competition, competition between companies, competition between labour models. More competition means better value; less competition means higher costs. That is not ideology. That is economic reality.

Government says we have a labour shortage, then it turns around and shrinks the labour pool. That contradiction is at the heart of the problem. If the government wants to understand why this bill matters, they don’t need a briefing note. They can walk outside. They can go to Broadway in Vancouver and look at the transit line under construction. Yes, it is a large and complex project. Yes, it will matter when it is finished. But that’s not the full story.

While ministers admire tunnel walls, businesses on the surface are fighting for their lives to survive. A local business is losing 40 percent of its sales. Vacancy rates are approaching 50 percent. Delays keep coming. That is not an accounting issue. That is a payroll issue. That is a family issue. That is a survival issue.

And we should be honest about another consequence. We talk about reconciliation in this House. But what does reconciliation mean in practice when Indigenous contractors are shut out of projects on their own territory? That is not inclusion. That is not reconciliation. That is exclusion.

I can already hear members opposite asking what this has to do with the bill. In one word, everything, because when government narrows who can build, it narrows opportunity and narrows competition. When competition narrows, discipline inevitably disappears. Costs rise. Schedules slip, and when schedules slip, it is not government that pays the price. It’s the business owner, the worker, the commuter, and the bottom line is it’s the taxpayer. Every dollar government spends comes from them. There’s no such thing as government money.

The Pattullo Bridge tells the same story, promised for 2024, then ’25, then ’26 — delay after delay. This is what happens when government confuses process with progress.

Bill M233 offers a straightforward answer. Public construction should be labour-neutral. Contracts should be awarded on merit, on safety, on qualifications, on experience, on value for money, not a labour affiliation alone.

Let’s be clear. This bill does not ban unions. It does not oppose unions. It does not lower standards. It does not exclude anyone. It does the exact opposite. It expands opportunity. It widens competition. And when competition widens, taxpayers have a better chance of getting a fair price, a project delivered on time and more projects delivered for the same dollars.

[11:20 a.m.]

British Columbians are tired — tired of being told to be patient, tired of rising costs, tired of shifting deadlines, tired of disruptions being treated as normal. It’s not normal, it’s not acceptable, and it’s not sustainable.

This bill restores something basic — open competition, fair access, real accountability. When you limit who can build, you limit what gets built, and British Columbians are paying the price. I encourage all members to support this bill.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I would like the House to help me in welcoming a group of students up in the gallery from Queen of Angels School in Duncan, grades 5 and 6 students with their teacher Angelique Rasmussen.

I hope you enjoy your visit here at the Legislature.

I hope the House can help me in welcoming them.

Debate Continued

Rohini Arora: I have been very excited to speak to this bill, and I see the members leaving.

I would love to debate this with you. I hope you stay.

I rise today to speak in strong opposition to Bill M233, the Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act. This bill proposes so-called labour-neutral procurement, but I’m going to break that down and explain what that means in practice.

This member forgets that for five years, I’ve been looking at the case law and labour rulings very closely. He blames the government for a limited worker pool. I’ll get to that later in my speech, but in convos with my friends in the building trades, it’s become very clear to me that this is about the organizations this member supports, and they’re upset that they likely won’t qualify for federal funding because of prevailing wage requirements.

If you’re unsure, maybe you can talk to your friends.

It would prohibit the province from using PLAs and CBAs on public infrastructure projects. That is not a neutral change; it’s a step backward. These agreements are not theoretical tools. They’re proven, they’re practical, and they’re delivering real results for British Columbians.

PLAs help ensure that major projects are completed efficiently and safely. They provide certainty — certainty in wages, in benefits and in working conditions. They reduce the risk of labour disruptions. They help prevent costly delays, and they support stable, productive worksites.

My friendly colleague on the other side was talking about delays. Well, supply chain issues were a massive, massive delay, the biggest one globally. We know that there’s more to the picture than just a PLA or CBA, which support people in taking care of their families in the long run. At the same time, they create opportunities for apprentices and skilled tradespeople and for the next generations of workers we are counting on. They ensure that the benefits of major projects are felt locally — not just the final product but throughout the construction process itself.

They prioritize hiring British Columbians. They expend access for under-represented groups, including Indigenous women and workers. They help connect people to training and long-term careers in the trades, and the results speak clearly. Ninety-two percent of workers on CBA projects are from British Columbia, and 77 percent were local hires.

These are numbers. I’m not making them up off the top of my head, hon. Speaker, so it’s annoying to see the member shake their head at me.

We are seeing higher participation from women. We are seeing significantly increased participation from Indigenous workers. These are not just statistics. These are lived experiences and lives being changed. These are families being supported. These are communities growing stronger. This is happening at a time when B.C. is undertaking the largest capital plan in its history.

We are building hospitals, schools. We are building housing and transportation infrastructure that people rely on every single day. To do that, we need a strong, skilled workforce. That is why our government is investing $241 million over three years to strengthen trades training. Nearly 17,000 people registered as apprentices last year alone. That brings us to nearly 50,000 apprentices across the province, the highest number in B.C.’s history.

[11:25 a.m.]

Where the hell was the government prior to us on these issues? Unparliamentary language. I withdraw.

That does not happen by accident. It happens because we are using the right tools, and PLAs and CBAs are part of that.

Now, I want to address something we heard from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the phrase “worker choice.” I want to be very clear about what that means. I’m currently on political leave from the B.C. Federation of Labour, the provincial arm of organized labour. I am a proud member of the United Steelworkers Local 2009.

In my role, I lead the organizing institute, the educational arm of B.C. Fed proper. My work is to facilitate labour education that helps workers understand their collective power and support other workers in realizing their own. So when the member uses the term “worker choice,” I do not hear empowerment. I hear a rebranded talking point, because worker choice has been used intentionally as softer language for so-called right-to-work legislation. That rebranding effort dates back to the early 2000s.

Yeah, some of us have actually studied labour history.

It is language used by the right-wing think tanks and large corporations to suggest that the choice lies with the worker. But that is not what happens in practice. What it actually does is weaken the threshold of unionized workers at a job site.

It opens the door for employers to pursue decertification, removing unions from workplaces entirely. While decertification can be an accountability tool, I have seen it misused time and time again by employers waiting for the open period or rating period to undermine workers’ representation.

In 2019, I supported UFCW 401 in Edmonton in protecting workers at a poultry plant. During a yes-or-no vote on whether to remain with UFCW, CLAC was actively supporting the employer’s position. CLAC is known for filing applications to the Labour Relations Board under what is called voluntary recognition, where the employer and the organization reach an agreement that takes workers out of the process completely. I will say this plainly. I cannot in good conscience call that a union.

I got so passionate, I lost my spot.

I have supported many workers on job sites under CLAC agreements where if you missed one day of work, Member, you won’t be able to access your benefits for the following month. Is that a collective agreement that workers would stand behind? I think not.

Now, I also want to touch on the supposed need for this bill in the first place. In response to the member’s bill, I asked him to look up double-breasting. I say this candidly. I do not believe he understood it when bringing this forward.

Double-breasting, Member, is where a company maintains a unionized operation to secure a contract and then flips the work to a non-union sister company to complete it.

The goal is simple — protect the bottom line by undercutting union labour. That is how workers are prevented from getting ahead — by losing access to good wages, benefits and protections.

Again, this bill assumes that workers have a choice. They do not. Companies bid on contracts, and workers go where the work is assigned. So using “worker choice” in this context is not just misleading. It is union-busting rhetoric.

This member has claimed he is a steelworker. But I will say this: in the last five years, I have not seen you at a single event, not even once.

The day before he introduced this bill, he met with my local president of 2009, Aman Chumber, and Mike Duhra, assistant to the District 3 director. He looked them in the eye, he shook their hands, and he said he will help protect unionized workers.

What does that mean if it were honoured? It means protecting good-paying jobs. It means protecting benefits and pensions. It means protecting occupational health and safety. It means fostering a conducive and respectful workplace culture. This bill does none of that.

Limiting the tools available to government, especially during a historic capital build, simply does not make sense. We have seen what happens when these tools are not used. We have seen projects that relied on lower-paid, uncertified labour. We have seen opportunities for local workers missed. We have seen workforce development fall behind.

We are not going back to that. We believe that British Columbians should benefit from public infrastructure, not only when it’s completed but while it’s being built.

[11:30 a.m.]

Behind every number is a person, a career started, a family supported. Bill M233 puts that progress at risk. It removes one of the most effective tools we have to recruit, train and support skilled-trade workers. It risks driving down standards in wages and working conditions and safety.

That is not a direction we should take. Public infrastructure should create good-paying, family-supporting jobs here in British Columbia. It should provide training that will sustain careers for a lifetime. It should strengthen communities, it should reflect our values, and it should ensure that the benefits of these projects stay right here at home.

British Columbians expect us to build, but they also expect us to build responsibly and fairly. This bill would limit our ability to do exactly that. It would move us backward, not forward, and for that reason, I will not support this bill.

This member has got CLAC, and we’ve got the cure.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder that second reading is on the principles of the bill.

Also a reminder that you don’t comment on which members are present or not in the chamber.

Misty Van Popta: I feel really uncomfortable with members opposite essentially name-calling hard-working British Columbians in the honour of this chamber here today. That was absolutely mind-blowing, what just came out of the last sentence over there.

I’ll also preface this conversation by saying I still have my boots in my car. I still hit job sites on a regular basis, so I’m talking from experience when I say what I’m about to say.

British Columbians are hurting. Families are stretching every dollar. Businesses are stretching every dollar. Communities are stretching every dollar. Why isn’t this NDP government doing the same?

Instead of caring for British Columbians’ money, the government has built a procurement model that eliminates competition, excludes qualified contractors and workers, and drives up the cost of public projects. This isn’t a myth or rage-baiting. This is undeniable logic.

This isn’t responsible. This isn’t efficient. This isn’t fair to the honest, hard-working British Columbian taxpayers paying for it.

That is why Bill M233 from my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie is so incredibly important. Public contracts should be awarded based on merit, safety, qualifications, experience and price, not just labour affiliations.

I will preface this speech by saying that I grew up in a proud, unionized household. I was supported many years of my early marriage by union wages. I support union work, and my own private member’s bill, which just passed, is a direct result of hearing from the needs of a union. I do not accept the recent slander and attacks on Conservatives of being anti-labour, especially when their own budget proves that this government is moving away from labour-only contract models.

That’s right. This government has already moved away from CBAs, and so their critique of this bill is wrapped thick in hypocrisy. But I will address that later.

The government’s community benefits agreement framework has not improved outcomes. It has produced cost overruns, it has produced delays, it has shrunk the size of bidder pools, and it has produced a system where too many qualified British Columbian contractors are told that they are unwelcome. That is the problem that this government has created.

And 6,900 construction jobs were lost in February. But to quote the Minister of Infrastructure regarding construction costs affecting the Cranbrook hospital project, she said: “Supply chains are one piece of it, but a lot of it is labour and labour availability.” You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have rising construction job losses on one hand while saying, on the other hand, that the cost escalations are due to labour availability.

A managed open site would ensure that it would be a managed…. And there wouldn’t be a labour shortage.

British Columbia doesn’t lack capable firms. Our province has the best skilled workers in Canada. But this government has built a system that excludes too many of them before the work even begins. There are consequences to this. They are real, and they are expensive.

[11:35 a.m.]

Take the Chase four-laning project. The cost of this rose from $199 million to $260 million. That’s a 30 percent increase.

Let’s look at Highway 1 widening in Illecillewaet — a smaller project, a more limited project, yet one of the most dramatic examples of this government’s mismanagement. It rose from $35 million to $85.2 million, more than doubling in cost, more than a 140 percent increase.

These are not small refinements. These are not routine fluctuations. These are signs of a much deeper, more structural problem on how projects are delivered in this province. A problem of cost control and runaway change orders. A problem of delivery. A problem of contracts not structured to ensure surety of scope and expectations. A problem that is only made worse by a government that continues to limit competition.

When you restrict bidding, you reduce competition. When you reduce competition, the price increases. When taxpayers pay more, the government builds less. We’re seeing that in this year’s budget, with eight infrastructure projects being paused. It is really simple.

Labour-neutral procurement expands competition by allowing all qualified contractors and workers to bid, whether unionized or non-unionized, with contracts awarded on merit, safety, experience and price. This isn’t a radical concept. This is common sense.

This bill is pro-union. This bill strengthens safety standards. This bill increases qualifications. This bill increases efficiency. This bill furthers inclusivity. This bill allows every qualified contractor and every qualified worker to compete on equal terms.

We know this approach works. Just look at Ontario. Municipalities that move from closed, labour-exclusive tendering to open procurement reported average savings in the range of 14 to 21 percent. You may be asking why. Well, it’s because more bidders came to the table, competition improved, pricing discipline improved.

While the government attempts to gaslight us by pretending that exclusion has no cost, the evidence says otherwise. When the government pretends that narrower competition somehow produces better values, the evidence says otherwise. And with the amount of job losses in this province, the construction industry is hungry. We will see those cost savings here as well.

When they pretend the status quo is working for British Columbians, British Columbians know otherwise. But there is another consequence here. British Columbians know that money doesn’t grow on trees. If one project is costing more than it should, that money has to come from somewhere.

The cost of restrictive procurement is more than what the government reports. The true cost of restrictive procurement is borne by all other parts of our infrastructure system. It is the project that never gets the approval. It is the expansion pushed back again, the community that was told: “The cupboards are bare. There just isn’t enough in the capital plan this year. Just wait and wait.”

But now I’m going to say the quiet part out loud. This 2026 budget and the direct words of the Minister of Infrastructure in 2025 estimates say that this government no longer believes in their own philosophy either. The CBA agreements — going to the wayside. When I solicited the minister in 2025 in the Committee of Supply, she said: “At this time, the Ministry of Infrastructure is not considering any other projects for CBA.”

Here’s another little tidbit from this year’s B.C. Infrastructure Benefits service plan. You ready? The project skilled workforce expense line item last year was $280 million. This year it’s down to $224 million. And here’s the definite smoking gun. Next year those expenses are only $44 million — a $180 million decrease in expenses for the project skilled workforce.

This government sitting on that side of the aisle, while it attempts to divert attention and name-call Conservatives and fearmonger British Columbians, is doing the exact same thing that this side of the aisle is asking for — to stop using CBA agreements. They’re already phasing them out. If the NDP members stand up and call us anti-labour for doing that, they’re really the pot calling the kettle black.

That is why Bill M233, introduced by my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, is so important. This bill is pro-worker. This bill is pro-taxpayer. This bill is pro-infrastructure. This bill is pro building the infrastructure we need for our province.

[11:40 a.m.]

British Columbians do not expect perfection, but British Columbians expect value for their taxpayer dollars. British Columbians expect fairness.

Bill M233 will not solve all of our infrastructure problems overnight, but this bill is a step in the right direction. This bill is a step towards more competition, a step towards better value, a step towards more projects delivered for British Columbians on time and on budget and a step towards putting British Columbians first.

I encourage all members in this House to support Bill M233.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just start by saying I don’t have any entrenched views. I’m happy to wade into this passionate debate. I don’t have any strong views one way or the other. I’ve only been a union member for brief periods in my career.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote: Welcome.

I understand the concerns about escalation and fair and open tendering. I understand the need for better government procurement. I’ve heard the, at the very least anecdotal, unverified figure of thumb that it is 30 percent greater for government contracts and vendors that will only bid on government contracts because they stand to charge 30 percent more.

I think this needs more study. I don’t believe that it’s a…. As a fiscal moderate, I’m concerned by that type of thing. But I will say I don’t agree with this particular method of addressing it or this attack on workers and unions who keep our province running.

The Third Party caucus stands in support of the fundamental rights of construction workers in our province. Any legislation that strips working people’s wages, reduces working standards and puts profit first will not be supported by us.

This bill seems to be predicated on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the current system of community benefits agreements. The member stated the government is “limiting who can work on a project, and that contracts should be awarded based on merit, safety record, qualifications, experience, price and the ability to deliver results.”

Clause 3 says that “a public sector entity must not use whether the vendor employs unionized employees or non-unionized employees as an evaluation criterion.” In reality, any company can bid, and they are bidding. If you’re a non-unionized company and you win the bid then you’re required to pay your workers an appropriate wage, give benefits and ensure safety protections.

So what is the problem that we’re solving here? I feel like it’s a simplistic approach to perhaps some larger systemic procurement issues that need to be dealt with, but we don’t support this way of doing it.

This kind of prescription I don’t think is the way we’ll get to better government procurement, but I think there are many other ways that we can do that. Perhaps I will consider that for my private member’s bill when my time finally comes.

To conclude, the Third Party caucus supports workers and their right to fair wages and working conditions. We should be focused on bettering the lives of working British Columbians. It’s unfortunate that we have to debate a bill that could depress wages and incentivize unsafe projects.

We will not be supporting this bill.

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

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Wow. This is so exciting.

I have two groups coming in from Queen of Angels. I would like the House to help me in welcoming a group of students and their teacher from Queen of Angels School in Duncan. Up in the gallery, grade 5 and grade 6 students with their teacher Angelique Rasmussen.

I hope you enjoy your visit here to the Legislature.

Let’s please give them a warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Today I want to speak about the province using a variety of labour methods, including the project labour agreements, PLAs, and community benefits agreements, CBAs, to help develop the skilled workforce we need to meet our infrastructure needs.

When government invests in roads, schools, hospitals, transit, housing and other public works, they are spending taxpayer dollars. Public construction is not just about concrete and steel; it is about public trust.

[11:45 a.m.]

That is why PLAs and CBAs can play an important role. A PLA is an agreement that helps set clear labour terms for a major project. It can reduce disputes, provide labour stability and help ensure there is a skilled workforce ready to get the job done. For large projects with many contracts and subcontractors, that kind of certainty matters. Fewer disruptions mean fewer delays, fewer changes and orders, and a better chance of keeping a project on schedule.

A CBA goes a step further by making sure a project delivers real benefits to the surrounding community. That includes local hiring, apprenticeships, training opportunities, Indigenous participation, opportunities for underrepresented groups and commitments to safer and more inclusive job sites.

In other words, the project should not just build a facility; it should help build the community around it. That is what makes PLAs and CBAs not only practical but fair. They are fair because they are major public projects to return more than just a building. They return jobs, skills, training and opportunities. They help ensure that public money supports public outcomes.

Some people worry that these agreements add cost and complexity. But the real question is not whether a major project should have standards. The real question is whether public money should be spent without clear expectations for fairness, stability and community benefit. I would argue it should not.

A well-deserved PLA and a CBA does not have to be a barrier. It can be a framework for success. It can help deliver a project that is better organized, more inclusive and more accountable to the people paying for it.

I would like to read a quote.

“As a ticketed Red Seal construction electrician, I was blown away by the new Bill M233, which an MLA from Prince George presented in the provincial Legislature in early March.

“I worked construction for a number of years now, and I’m currently working on the new Cowichan hospital, a community benefit project just north of Duncan. It’s difficult breaking into a male-dominated industry. Each time I take on a new project or end a job, I feel as if I have to prove myself as a young woman in construction.

“There are many important differences that project labour agreements like Cowichan hospital bring — for example, good wages, good benefits and good retirement funding for local trade workers. Labour agreement projects are special because they provide the space for women and other visible minority trade workers to gain experience and knowledge on a job, like building a hospital.

“For me and other tradeswomen, this is a dream come true. There are easily two or three times more local tradeswomen on this job than I’ve ever seen in any other job I’ve worked.

“This is no mistake. It is simply sound social policy that is long overdue, being made possible through a community benefit project. The opposition’s Bill M233 will undo all of that, sending women in the trades back years, struggling to get ahead. From my perspective, this is shameful.”

At a time when we need housing, infrastructure and public facilities built efficiently and responsibly, we should use every good tool available. PLAs and CBAs are among those tools. They help ensure that major public projects are not just built; they are built fairly, built well, built in a way that leaves a positive legacy. That is the standard that the public deserves.

[11:50 a.m.]

This bill will ban the province from delivering projects that also achieve benefits from the communities they are built in, like prioritizing local workers and delivering good family-supportive jobs.

While the opposition stand up for the big businesses and anti-union friends, our government is proud of our work to put British Columbians at the front of the line for the jobs on B.C. projects.

Garry Begg: I’m pleased to rise in response to this private member’s bill, Bill M233, entitled the Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act. This bill purports to be about requiring labour-neutral procurement for publicly funded construction projects, and it does so by prohibiting public sector entities from requiring union-only labour or requiring a contractor to enter a specific collective agreement as a condition of bidding.

The effect of a requirement like that would be to place a ban on the province from using labour models like PLAs or the community benefits agreement for any future public infrastructure project. It’s a ban on requiring that certain major projects like Highway 1, the four-laning and the Pattullo Bridge replacement employ local workers who are guaranteed good-paying, family-supporting jobs. It’s a ban on ensuring our government’s historic infrastructure investments also deliver the benefits that communities need, like good local jobs, increased apprenticeship opportunities and an expanded and skilled workforce.

We reject such a ban because, now more than ever, these benefits are exactly what British Columbians need.

As we face trade and economic headwinds, our government is proud of our record to invest in British Columbians by building the infrastructure that people need and the services that people depend on. In fact, our government is delivering the largest capital plan in B.C. history, with thousands of projects completed or underway in every corner of this province. These projects are building the infrastructure that growing communities need, like hospitals, schools, transit, housing and so much more.

Budget 2026 also invests nearly $38 billion in capital projects, and it’s estimated these projects will help create 130,000 jobs over the next three years. We believe British Columbians should benefit from these investments, not only from the services that will be delivered but also through the jobs they create and the support they bring to local economies during construction, because none of these projects would be possible without the skilled work or trades of construction workers.

But to deliver the infrastructure that our growing province needs, the next generation of trades and construction workers needs to be trained.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

As I’ve said, this bill would ban the province from delivering major projects that also achieve benefits for the communities they’re built in, like prioritizing local workers and creating good, family-supporting jobs.

We’ve seen the old B.C. Liberal-Conservative approach that undermines standards for workers. They didn’t build the infrastructure communities needed, and when they did, they allowed lower-paid workers, including temporary foreign workers, to get jobs ahead of tradespeople who live in the very community where the project was being built. These projects were often delayed and over budget and failed to deliver benefits to people and communities during construction.

While previous right-wing governments prioritized a race to the bottom, our government knows that better is possible, that the people in the province deserve better. When we were elected, we made a commitment to deliver good-paying jobs and better training and apprenticeship opportunities that will build B.C.’s next generation of skilled, trained workers.

[11:55 a.m.]

We can see very plainly from this legislation who the B.C. Conservatives are standing up for — not the workers, not our communities, not the good-paying jobs that people here at home need. They’re standing up for big-business, anti-union friends, and they stand against our government’s work to put British Columbians at the front of the line for jobs for B.C. projects.

It’s important that the government continue to use every tool available to deliver these projects responsibly and effectively. That includes applying different labour models. On select major projects, government is utilizing project labour agreements and the community benefits agreements. PLAs and CBAs are helping deliver important projects that thousands of people will rely on every day — projects, for example, like the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, the Cowichan district hospital and highway improvements and expansions across the province.

These models will all help us build infrastructure while we’re also building opportunity — training trades and construction workers, supporting families, creating pathways for underrepresented groups and keeping economic benefits here close to home.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers.… Is the member for Courtenay-Comox speaking on the bill?

Brennan Day: I reserve my time, yes.

Brennan Day moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.