Hansard — Monday, April 20, 2026 Morning, Issue No. 156

I first would like to introduce and ask that you make feel welcome Chantelle Sutton and Serena Charters, who are constituents of mine from Quesnel, British Columbia. Chantelle was the inspiration for my private member’s bill, M237, and she’ll be here today as we go through that process.

They’re in the House, and if you see the two of them around…. They drove all the way down from the Cariboo to be here, and I hope you’ll make them feel very welcome.

My second is for James Murtagh. James is retiring today after 4½ years as a sessional officer, corridor supervisor and security procedures analyst with the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and, prior to that, served seven years with the Ministry of Health as executive director of regional operations and, after that, for 20 years as a health care consultant.

[10:05 a.m.]

James is retiring today for good, so he says. I am not sure we can believe that.

But I do wish that everyone, when you see James, will shake his hand and thank him for his long and colourful years of service with the public sector and to this House.

Darlene Rotchford: I have two introductions to make today.

One, he’s watching from home. We all talk about our partners in this House and how important they are. This past Saturday I celebrated my five-year wedding anniversary with my husband.

We were a COVID bride and groom, so it’s never been a boring story of how we got married. For those who don’t know, we actually had our first dance on the front steps of this Legislature, so it’s kind of serendipitous to stand here today inside the Legislature and get to acknowledge that.

More importantly, today is also someone’s birthday in the Legislature. I would like to wish a very happy birthday to one of our favourite ministers, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Can everyone join me in wishing him a happy birthday.

Brennan Day: It is my wife’s birthday today. We’ve been married 15 years this year, and I’ve known her since high school. She shares a birthday with the minister. She’ll be very disappointed to hear that, I feel.

Anyways, if the House could please wish her a very happy birthday. And I will not say how old she is.

The Speaker: Happy birthday, Minister.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Resource Development
and LNG Industry

Larry Neufeld: Sorry, it’s not my birthday, but I’ll do my best.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this place of honour today. This is a subject, yet again, that is quite close to my heart.

I will state unequivocally that British Columbia is one of the most resource-rich jurisdictions in the world. We sit atop vast reserves of natural gas, over 2,900 trillion cubic feet in place. We have the minerals, we have the forests, we have the water, and we have the skilled workforce.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We should be a global leader not just in extraction but in responsible development and export, yet this province has failed to capture the full economic value of its natural resources.

For over a decade, British Columbia has had a clear strategic advantage, and we continue to. We have direct access to Asian markets, shorter shipping routes and an abundance of low-cost natural gas. We were in the lead. Unfortunately, while B.C. delayed, others acted. We lost time. We lost investment. We lost market share.

Unfortunately, today global competitors dominate the LNG exports. Canada is now only just entering the market. It’s more than just lost economic opportunity. It’s lost jobs, lost tax revenue, lost royalties. Markets and the equity that drive them do not wait. Long-term contracts are signed years in advance. Once markets are secured, they are gone for decades.

We are forcing energy policy into ideology as opposed to a balance. Environmental stewardship matters. I am an environmental engineer. My children live here, and my grandchildren live here. No question. My concern is that that rigid policy creates uncertainty. Uncertainty drives investment away.

This is a conversation that I’ve had many times, but without question, natural gas only has value when it is developed and sold. Left in the ground, it has zero economic value. Global demand shifts elsewhere, often to jurisdictions that have higher emissions and much lower environmental standards than we do, and unfortunately, B.C. loses economically by a significant amount. The world ends up being worse off environmentally, potentially, based on where the energy is produced.

[10:10 a.m.]

Canada entered LNG late. We face higher costs and stronger competition. I know the minister and I have discussed this on many occasions. I think, for the most part, we’re on the same page in many respects, but the window is narrowing, and our natural resources are an opportunity.

Opportunities have a window. Delay closes that window. We can have both prosperity and environmental responsibility, but we need certainty, we need timeliness, and we need respect for investment. The greatest risk is failing to develop our resources and standing at the sidelines, watching the opportunity flow elsewhere.

Month of the Military Child

Darlene Rotchford: April is recognized as the Month of the Military Child. This month offers us an important opportunity to recognize the unique experiences, resilience and sacrifices of children growing up in military families. These young people face challenges that most of their peers will never encounter — frequent relocations, time apart from their loved ones during deployments and the need to continually adapt to new schools, new friends and new communities. Yet despite all those challenges, military children demonstrate remarkable strength.

This year’s theme, “Military children and youth: strength in every story,” shines a light on the everyday courage of the young people. Their stories are filled with resilience, adaptability and quiet determination. They grow up in a world shaped by service and sacrifice and, in doing so, the development to the depth of character is both inspiring and deserving of all of our recognition.

The Month of the Military Child gives us a chance to do three important things: first, to celebrate the strength and adaptability of military children while ensuring they have access to the support and resources they need to thrive; second, to raise awareness of the unique challenges they face, so that communities across our province and our country can better understand and support them; and third, to recognize the vital role these children play in supporting their families and strengthening the broader military community.

Across Canada, organizations such as MFRCs, or military family resources, play a very critical role. Throughout the month of April, they host events, programs and initiatives that celebrate military children and provide them meaningful support in their families.

You may notice the colour teal that I’m wearing today. It is because of the teal being worn and displayed during the month, as part of the “Teal up for the Month of the Military Child” initiative.

Teal was chosen because it represents unity and inclusivity of all the branches of our Canadian Armed Forces. It combines the symbolic colours of blue for our air force, green for our army and blue and white for our navy. Together these colours form a symbolic solidarity, one that reflects and shares experiences and collective strength for military families right across our country.

I am deeply honoured to serve as the military liaison and Parliamentary Secretary for Armed Forces Development and Veterans Affairs for this province, as well as to have the riding of the home of CFB Esquimalt.

In this role, I have the privilege of representing British Columbians through our Seamless Canada work, a very important initiative dedicated to improving relocation experience for Canadian Armed Forces members and their families. Seamless Canada brings together federal, provincial and territorial partners, along with leadership from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, to address key challenges that come from moving between jurisdictions.

We all have a very important role to play. In collaboration with Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services, this work focuses on making postings, and I pun, seamless across Canada, as smooth as possible and as supportive as possible. This includes improving access to health care; ensuring continuing education, particularly, on note, transferability of individualized education plans; supporting spousal employment; and expanding access to child care.

At its core, the work is about making sure that when Canadian Armed Forces members are called to service, their families and, especially, their children have the stability, support and services they need to succeed here in British Columbia.

Recognizing that behind every service member is a family making sacrifices of their own, it’s about ensuring that here in British Columbia, we do everything we can to support those families in what can often be a very challenging time, and they have done so with great sacrifice. It’s especially fitting to highlight the important work during this month.

To all of our military families, to all of our military children across our province, across Canada and right here in my community of Esquimalt-Colwood: we see you, we recognize you, we recognize your strength, and we thank you for the role you play in supporting your families and your country.

To parents, caregivers, educators and all of the amazing organizations: thank you for the care and commitment you show each and every day.

[10:15 a.m.]

Drinking Water Safety
and Infrastructure Investment

Donegal Wilson: Today I am pleased to rise to speak about something that should never be controversial in British Columbia, and that is that people should be able to turn on their tap and have clean, safe drinking water come out. But across B.C., that is not the reality we see today.

In communities…. I’ll pull one from my inbox this week: the community of Olalla, near Keremeos. Residents spent almost all of last summer under boil-water advisory conditions. Even today, a year later, they remain on a water advisory. The community is still waiting for infrastructure improvements that would make their water reliable and safe.

Yet at the same time, the province has funding available to install water meters — not to fix the system, not to improve the treatment, not to remove the advisory, not to make their water drinkable but to put in a meter to measure how much water people are using.

In a quick read through the headlines, the province says metering helps detect leaks, conserve water, support drought planning and improve long-term management. Those are reasonable goals, but nowhere in those goals does it talk about the quality of the water that we’re metering.

That only makes sense when the community has safe drinking water, because the first job of a water system is not tracking consumption. It is delivering clean, safe water for British Columbians. When communities are still boiling their water months at a time, installing meters is not a solution. It is a signal that government’s priorities are out of order.

Unfortunately, Olalla is not an isolated case. Across British Columbia, drinking water advisories have increased by roughly one-third over the last five years. In the Interior Health region alone, where many small rural systems operate, they account for roughly 70 percent of all advisories in the province, which is why I’m frequently on my feet in this House speaking about water.

Not only does my region account for 70 percent of advisories in B.C., but roughly one-third of all water systems in Interior Health are currently on advisory — one-third. That tells us something important. This is not a technical problem. It’s not even a temporary problem. This is a structural infrastructure-funding problem affecting communities across British Columbia.

Even more concerning, I think, is the number of long-term advisories. These are ones that last years, not weeks. That continues to grow the most. Advisories are now in place for well over a year before they are resolved.

When government says communities should focus on conservation, behaviour change or metering usage, people quite rightly ask: “Why are we measuring water we cannot drink?” If the strategy to conserve water is to make it undrinkable, that is not stewardship. That is a failure.

What communities are telling us is very clear. They are not asking for more reporting frameworks or pilot programs. They are not asking for mock billing exercises or new ways to measure their water use. They are asking for real investment in infrastructure. They are asking for treatment upgrades that remove advisories. They are asking for reservoirs, pipes and source protection that make their systems reliable for the long term. They are asking for grant programs that meet communities where they are, not programs that require communities to reshape their priorities around the latest provincial initiative while the core issue remains unresolved.

Right now we’re proposing to measure water that people cannot drink. To me, it is obvious that we should not be investing first in meters and measurement tools when we have not invested in water quality first. Grants should follow a priority sequence that reflects the reality on the ground.

Communities, regional districts and improvement districts have already done the planning work. Volunteers and local governments have spent thousands of hours identifying exactly what is needed to deliver safe drinking water. I can say with confidence that not one of those plans begins with installing meters before fixing the quality.

Communities across my region are clear about this. Whether it’s Skaha Estates; Heritage Hills; Hedley; Kaleden; and even Olalla, after a year under advisory conditions, the priority is obvious: fix the water before we measure it.

We’re not resisting conservation. We’re asking for sequencing that makes sense. We’re asking for government to recognize that you cannot manage what people cannot safely drink. Until then, telling communities on advisory that the priority is metering sends exactly the wrong message.

Safe drinking water should never be treated as a secondary objective in British Columbia. It should be our starting point. So fix the water first, and then measure it.

[10:20 a.m.]

Economic Development
Opportunities and Initiatives

George Anderson: British Columbia has always been more than a place on a map. We are a province that faces the Pacific. We are the province that sees opportunity where others see distance. We are the province of ports, shipyards, forests and people who know how to build.

At this moment, we should have the confidence to say something clearly. British Columbia is not on the edge of Canada’s future. British Columbia is where much of Canada’s future will be built. That is why the idea of a Canadian defence bank matters, because this is not simply a conversation about capital markets or international security. It is a conversation about whether Canada is prepared to build again. It is a conversation about how Canada will help its workers, its manufacturers and its entrepreneurs seize a changing world.

Canada is actively advancing the proposed defence, security and resilience bank with international partners, while B.C. is backing Vancouver as a potential headquarters and tying that opportunity to jobs and industrial growth. For British Columbia, the connection is obvious.

Our Look West strategy is about growing sectors that will define the next century — maritime, aerospace, defence-related industries and the infrastructure that ties it all together. Our Look West strategy is about diversifying markets, strengthening our Pacific gateways and making sure that British Columbia is not merely a point of departure for raw materials but a place where value is added, products are built, and prosperity is created.

Some may ask: “What does this have to do with affordability?” It has everything to do with affordability. Affordability is not just about the cost of things. It’s about whether a young person can find a career in the province they love, whether a renter can imagine one day owning a home or whether seniors can age in place with dignity, close to the people they love and in the communities they know. Affordability is not just about prices; it’s about power — the power of a paycheque, stable work and the power to plan a life.

When we talk about a defence bank and when we talk about Look West, what we are really talking about is building that power back into the lives of everyday people. Because if British Columbia can attract more investment into shipbuilding, manufacturing and resilient supply chains, that is more than statistics on a page. It means more apprentices, welders, electricians, longshore workers; more parents coming home with a decent wage and a little more peace of mind.

That matters in Prince George, Nanaimo, Surrey, Campbell River — in every community where people want to work hard, raise a family and believe their children can build their future here.

Stronger wages alone are not enough. If we are going to build a stronger economy, we must also ensure we have an affordable province. That means addressing housing in the way that the Ministry of Housing is doing right now. That means financing growth in strategic industries that should also build homes faster, smarter and at a lower cost.

Why does that matter to ordinary people? Because unnecessary delays get priced into someone’s life. The price gets priced into rent for a young worker. It gets priced into seniors’ housing that takes too long to come online. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Delay is not neutral. Delay is a cost. Too often it’s everyday people who pay it.

So the choice for British Columbia is that British Columbia has chosen to build. We’ve chosen to build more ships, more technology and infrastructure. And that’s what Look West means — not simply across the ocean but to look west with ambition; to look west and see trades, jobs and stronger communities.

British Columbians are not asking for extravagance. They’re asking for a province where hard work still means something, where major projects create major opportunity, where the next generation does not have to leave to find the life their parents were able to build here.

That’s why this moment matters. Because if we get this right, we do more than strengthen the economy. We tell a young person in British Columbia: “Stay.” We tell a family struggling with bills: “Help is on the way.” We tell workers in every corner of this province: “Your skills matter.” We tell the world that British Columbia is ready to build, ready to compete and ready to lead.

Let us be equal to that opportunity.

[10:25 a.m.]

Community Concerns and Needs
in Northern B.C.

Sharon Hartwell: The true north strong and free, as it is written in our national anthem — a place where individuals live, carved out communities while also contributing to the financial growth and development of our province; a wonderful place where stories of opportunities and striking it rich abound; a place of prospects and adventure and a new home.

Well, what a change. It is now the land that very few can afford to buy or develop. Hurdles and delays equal lost opportunities. Rich in gold and silver, but you can’t get it out of the ground. This is a story of life in our northern communities.

This will be a story about Christmas past, present and future. It is also Santa’s home. Everyone knows that. But Santa is struggling this year and is very concerned about what is happening with Christmas this season.

He is troubled that children may not have a Christmas tree, as the harvest allocation is down and the government is once again moving the goal posts — permits, permits and more permits. There will be no more tree for the children to rush to on Christmas morning. The woodcutters are all gone. The people are laid off. With so many restrictions and regulations, they’re not allowed to cut.

And let us remember that Santa and Mrs. Claus are also seniors, and he’s also very concerned about the seniors and their care. You see, Santa’s a very compassionate man. Will they have a place to live? Will they receive the care that they deserve?

This is the story of the three phases of Christmas.

Well, let’s go down memory lane and be reminded of the past. The NDP likes to talk about the past. Christmas past has us remembering some of the special gifts that the NDP gifted to us. Well, let’s see what happened in the past.

I’m sure we remember the last ferry contract. I know that I do. The ferries suffered from chronic mechanical failures, were too slow at adhering to wake restrictions and were definitely not fuel-efficient. The promised budget was of $210 million. The actual cost was $475 million — more than double. And, well, someone got a Christmas present, as they were sold for scrap for $20 million. Just imagine what Santa could do with all that money.

I also remember when the harbour in Prince Rupert was blocked due to a dispute with fish allocations. Some things have not changed.

Promises were made to upgrade roads in the North, but there’s nothing in the budget for this. The gift that just keeps on giving, yes, just not to the taxpayers.

That is the thing about getting older. We have very long memories. The members across the aisle can’t remember who we are. They keep referring to our members as B.C. Liberals. Funny, I ran as a Conservative. I was elected as a Conservative. I’m still a Conservative.

Well, moving on to Christmas present. A present is supposed to be a gift, something to treasure, something to look forward to. Well, let’s be reminded of those presents. Oh wait, the Grinch has shown up. Well, cancel the long-term-care facilities. More taxes on seniors. No plans for mental health and addictions for the northern part of the province, past Prince George. It’s a good thing that Santa has reindeer, as all the roads up north are in serious need of repair. Oh, sorry, not this year. Maybe put it in your letter to Santa for next year.

Well, now we’re at Christmas future. What are you going to write in your letter to Santa for next year? What do you want?

I know what I want. I want businesses that don’t require security. I want seniors to retire with dignity. I want safe streets. I want all communities where families can go for a walk, get an ice cream or go to a movie and feel safe. I want seniors to have care homes that treat them with dignity. I want emergency rooms that are actually open and where health care professionals have the help they need and are not working 20- or 30-hour shifts.

I see that I might be approaching the naughty list. Well, I want a future of prosperity where people want to move to our communities in the North. If I’m on the naughty list, I’m okay with that. I’m okay with getting coal for Christmas. Actually, it would be fantastic. I will ask Santa to sign the final permit for the Tenas coal project that is just outside the village of Telkwa. This will bring employment, and then maybe some of the wishes in our letters to Santa for people in Bulkley Valley–Stikine will actually come true.

Mental Health of Children and Youth
and Role of Foundry Centres

Jennifer Blatherwick: It is always good to sound wise in our statements to the House, even if we have to borrow a little wisdom from others, so I’d like to quote Hank Green: “Bad news happens all at once, but good news happens slowly.”

In that quote, he was discussing the enormous improvement, the determined improvement in health care over the last century that’s led to so many children becoming physically healthier. But I think it equally applies to the steady improvement in our treatment and awareness of mental health for children and youth.

[10:30 a.m.]

Now, we all speak about this. You hear about it in the news, you hear about it in this House, and you hear about it in the community. But we weren’t always so supportive.

Here I want to raise up the work of one of the pioneers in my community, Diane Thorne, who was a past MLA in this House. Before she was an MLA, she was a determined mother and a determined community advocate who managed to work with non-profits in our community and get $1 million of funding for youth housing from the federal government back in 1992, when $1 million was a big deal.

But the community reception was very negative. She received threats, both at her work and at her home. In the end, the community organization she partnered with had to give the money back. Community resistance to any program supporting youth was very negative.

Today things are different. In our province, there is a broad, sustained improvement for youth mental health, the Foundry. If you’ve heard me talk about it before, be prepared to hear me talk about it again and again. I am planning to get a tattoo.

Foundry can be reached, from anywhere in this province, online. Youth and their caregivers living in British Columbia can access free mental health and wellness information, supports and same-day services virtually from the Foundry app. The system is real, it is staffed by qualified professionals, and it is free for youth and caregivers in British Columbia.

Last month I was there when the new Tri-Cities Foundry opened its doors to provide a wide spectrum of in-person supports. This new, modern centre is open to the young people of the Tri-Cities and the surrounding areas, ensuring that youth aged 12 to 24 and their families can get help when they need it.

The new Tri-Cities Foundry will be operated by SHARE Family and Community Services Society, with ongoing funding from the provincial government, as part of our commitment to expand responsive wraparound care for youth. The Foundry model brings together government services and non-profits to break down those barriers and ensure services are centred on each youth, meeting them where they are.

The services at our Tri-Cities Foundry will be delivered in partnership with organizations like the Fraser Health Authority, ACCESS Youth Outreach Services, NaloxHome Society, school district 43, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Douglas College, the Fraser Northwest Division of Family Practice and other community partners.

I’ve been very privileged to work with many of the organizations under this umbrella, and I recognize their long commitment to meeting youth in the community and helping them however they can.

I have seen you develop food programs for youth to teach them how to cook. I have seen you sit through art projects while you have discussed the most difficult topics and the hardest thing that could happen in a youth’s life. I have seen you support them into jobs, into housing, back into education and back into community, where they belong.

I raise my hands to you for your work. You are on the ground. You are on a bus. You are out there at night. You are in the rain. You are there with those kids, helping them walk along the path to better health. There is no replacement for a hand held out to someone who is in trouble, and you do that. We thank you.

When young people go through a difficult time, they can rely on the Foundry centres to connect them with free counselling services. Counselling can help people, the young people of our province, see their own strengths and figure out who they are, figure out their goals while honouring the individual’s values, beliefs and identity.

Those Foundry centres can provide meaningful peer-to-peer supports for young people to feel seen and heard and less alone. Centres organize events for young people throughout our community to meet and learn new skills in supportive environments.

Make sure the youth in your community know the Foundry exists, that it is there. It is there for them, it is there for their families, and it is there for their friends. When I say that good news happens slowly, I don’t mean that the implementation happens slowly. I mean that we see results slowly over time.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will consider Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act, as reported complete from the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

[10:35 a.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act

George Anderson: I move that Bill M216, intituled Professional Reliance Act, be concurred in at report stage.

I just would like to say thank you to all of the committee members who participated and had the vigorous debate on Bill M216. I’d like to also thank all of the individuals who participated by sending in their comments and feedback.

There’s something that’s clear. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: today the most expensive material in construction is delay. And we are all committed to working on trying to ensure that we’re delivering housing in the fastest way possible.

I thank everyone in this House for the opportunity to table this bill and to also spark a very important conversation.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is that Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Bill M216, intituled Professional Reliance Act, will be removed from the order paper.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, the House will continue second reading of Bill M233, Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M233 — Public Sector Construction
Projects Procurement Act
(continued)

Brennan Day: I rise today to speak in support of Bill M233, the Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act, brought forward by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

At stake is a simple question: after years of so-called community benefits agreements, what has the public actually received in return? British Columbians have seen higher costs, longer delays, cancelled projects and less infrastructure delivered than they were promised.

Supporters of these agreements will say they help train workers, support local hiring and create opportunity for apprentices and equity-seeking groups. These are obviously worthwhile goals, and no one in this House should dismiss them. But the question before us is whether those goals require government to lock in public procurement to its preferred labour model at a time when British Columbia is facing critical labour shortages, fiscal strain and urgent infrastructure needs.

Public procurement is not supposed to be an instrument for political favouritism. It is supposed to be a tool for delivering public value. It is supposed to get the best possible results for taxpayers, for workers and for the public that depends on the infrastructure being built.

This bill does not abolish these goals. It simply says government should not rig public procurement around one preferred labour structure and then ask taxpayers to accept higher costs, less competition and fewer projects delivered. The test should not be ideological purity. The test should be whether British Columbians are getting the infrastructure they were promised on time and at a cost they can afford.

Nowhere is that failure more painful than in long-term care. Thousands of seniors in B.C. are waiting for care. Hospitals are clogged with patients that can’t be discharged because the right level of care does not exist. Yet this government has chosen to slow long-term-care capital projects. Its own budget materials confirm that seven approved projects are being re-paced — or, to remove this government’s spin, cancelled.

British Columbia already has roughly 7,400 seniors waiting for subsidized long-term care and is short thousands of beds. Instead of easing pressure on hospitals and families, this government is slowing the very projects they’re counting on. And that is what makes this debate so important. We are not talking about abstract procurement theory. We are talking about whether families can find care for an aging parent.

That is not planning; this is surrender. And while they are pulling back, the cost of the projects they do pursue keep spiralling out of control: the Cowichan District Hospital replacement has climbed from $887 million to $1.5 billion; the Pattullo Bridge replacement from $1.4 billion to at least $1.7 billion and nearly three years behind schedule. Since 2017, public projects in this province have seen more than $17 billion in cost overruns and a cumulative 158 years of project delays.

No serious person would claim that every delay or cost overrun comes from one cause alone. Of course, supply chain pressures mattered. Inflation mattered. Interest rates mattered. But that is precisely the point. When projects are already under pressure from every other direction, government should be widening the field of qualified bidders and maximizing flexibility, not narrowing access through a procurement model built around its own political agenda.

[10:40 a.m.]

That is why this bill matters. When government itself says labour shortages are one of the major pressures driving up costs and slowing delivery, why defend a procurement model that narrows that flexibility and limits that participation? Why shrink the field when British Columbia needs more builders, more competition and more capacity?

Every single unnecessary restriction carries a cost. It means fewer bidders. It means less flexibility. It means less ability to adapt when labour markets are tight and deadlines are slipping. In the real world, that does not punish some abstract system. It punishes the public. It punishes the seniors waiting for long-term care. It punishes the family waiting for a hospital expansion or the commuter waiting for a bridge to open. It punishes the taxpayer who is already stretched to the limit and told to pay more and expect less.

Bill M233 is not anti-union. Union contractors can still bid. Union contractors can still work. Apprentices can still be trained. Local workers can still be hired.

What this bill rejects is the idea that government should privilege one labour model over all others and call that fairness. It simply says that public procurement should be labour neutral and that public contracts should be awarded on merit, safety, qualifications, experience, price and the ability to get the job done. That is just common sense.

Public infrastructure belongs to all British Columbians. The opportunity to build it should be open to all British Columbians. About 85 percent of construction workers in this province do not belong to one of the B.C. NDP’s preferred building trade unions, and roughly 82 percent of B.C. trades apprentices are training in open-shop workplaces. Yet this government approaches procurement like an article of faith, as though its own labour theology must be protected at all costs, even when British Columbia needs the entire construction community at the table.

If the government truly believes in inclusion, then inclusion must include the majority of the construction workforce as well. That includes the worker who does not belong to one of the preferred unions. That includes the apprentices training in an open-shop workplace. That includes the contractor who simply wants a fair chance to bid on public work without first having to conform to the government’s preferred labour template. Public infrastructure is paid for by everyone, and the chance to build it should not be reserved for the few organizations this government prefers.

The government side asks us to judge its procurement model by its intentions. We are asking this House to judge it by its results, and results matter. Intentions do not pour concrete. Intentions do not open hospital wings. Intentions do not deliver long-term care beds, and they do not get families the infrastructure they were promised. If, after years of these agreements, British Columbians are still seeing projects cost more; take longer; and, in some cases, never get built at all, then government has a duty to reconsider whether the model they have chosen is working.

This government, in this budget, is already backing away from CBAs, which tells you everything you need to know about the success of these projects in British Columbia.

We need to get roads built, schools and infrastructure delivered on time and on budget. It will happen when we trust the full construction community to build British Columbia across British Columbia.

I urge all members to support Bill M233.

Sheldon Clare: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare: On behalf of the member for Richmond-Queensborough, I would like to introduce students and teachers from H.J. Cambie Secondary in group 1, who are in the gallery present today to learn about the amazing things that happen in the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia.

I’d like to welcome teachers Alyssa, James and Eric and the 27 students that are present here today.

I hope you enjoy everything you see.

I ask that the House would make them feel absolutely most welcome.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince George–Mackenzie closes debate.

Debate Continued

Kiel Giddens: Bill M233 is about fair and open tendering on public sector projects to deliver results for workers and the public and best value for taxpayers.

Unfortunately, what we’ve heard in the course of this debate from government members was some of the most disrespectful commentary I’ve heard in this House towards workers and construction workers and leaders in this province. All workers and construction skilled professionals deserve respect and deserve a government that stands up for them, not simply the few that the NDP government selects.

[10:45 a.m.]

Clearly, members opposite didn’t bother reading the bill. Nothing in this bill precludes government from setting local hiring or apprenticeship targets. Instead, we heard the smoke and mirrors of the NDP’s version of restrictive CBAs.

We heard incorrect statements regarding progressive union workers and contractors with regards to safety, competitive wages and training. Well, the members opposite have shown they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The member from Burnaby East should apologize for her comments not worthy of this chamber and a deliberate insult to working families.

I started out the debate explaining that I worked to advance the LNG industry in B.C., delivered through a managed open-site construction model. Both the LNG plant and the pipeline had a mix of building trades, progressive union and open-shop contractors and workers on site. The final 83 kilometres of pipeline for the LNG project, as an example, was a success story, a B.C. success story, with a partnership between Ledcor and Haisla First Nation, built with workers the NDP seems to disapprove of.

If anyone is to suggest that this work was not done to the highest safety standards, I can say that is categorically false. British Columbians and Canadians built this section that is characterized by an ascent through the Coast Mountains to the highest point, nearly 1,500 metres above sea level, down to Kitimat, including steep slopes, ranging all the way to 63 degrees. You have to have a strong safety focus with highly trained skilled workers to accomplish a construction accomplished like that.

The point is that these skilled workers and all skilled workers deserve respect and deserve to build the public infrastructure that their taxes pay for. Skilled workers, no matter the affiliation, at the end of the day, are just trying to support their own families.

We can’t exclude 85 percent of construction workers. We also can’t deliver the projects that British Columbians need with the government’s current path.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member. Hold on.

Heather Maahs: Point of order, Madam Chair. This member deserves the right to do his closing statement without being constantly heckled by the member across the aisle.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

Kiel Giddens: We have a $13 billion deficit and taxpayer-supported debt expected to reach $189 billion. When Moody’s downgraded B.C.’s credit rating earlier this month, they said: “The increase in recent deficits in rising debt largely stems from provincial policy choices, which we view as evidence of a continued weakening in governance and fiscal and debt management from high standing.”

Well, it’s time to think about the NDP government’s policy choices. Their choices will cost taxpayers $18 million this year to run B.C. Infrastructure Benefits, the Crown corp. the government set up to manage the tendering for CBA projects.

The work can and should be done by the private sector. The government’s choices have led to a capital program that is $17 billion over budget and a combined 158 years behind schedule. But the NDP knows this, and it’s time that we start talking about this in this province.

That’s why the Infrastructure Minister said in estimates last year: “At this time, the Ministry of Infrastructure is not considering any of the other projects for CBA.” That is direct quote, and the service plan for the BCIB confirms that. Basically, we’ve heard nothing but political theatre from the members opposite during this debate, and they know that their plan is failing taxpayers and workers.

They failed workers in other ways. The NDP have turned their back on workers with their decision to build B.C. Ferries overseas rather than in Canada. The NDP is opposed….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hold on, hold on. Excuse me.

The member has the floor. Let’s hear the remainder of his remarks. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

Kiel Giddens: The NDP are opposed to new oil pipelines, a disservice to the steelworkers in Regina that manufacture that pipe, the Teamsters that deliver it and the skilled trade workers who build the right-of-way and weld it together.

When it comes to public sector projects, we can’t keep picking winners and losers in this province. When competition is restricted, taxpayers pay more. More competition means better value and stronger accountability. This is about making sure that every public dollar goes as far as possible.

For any member of this House that values fairness, that values results on public sector projects, that values the contributions of each and every skilled construction worker and professional and that values the taxpayers of British Columbia, please consider supporting this bill.

[10:50 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading, Bill M233, Public Sector Construction Projects Procurement Act.

Division is being called.

Pursuant….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, everyone, please. Please.

Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6 p.m. today.

Okay. Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member for Prince George–North Cariboo to move second reading of Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act 2026.

Bill M237 — Insurance (Vehicle)
Amendment Act, 2026

Sheldon Clare: I move that Bill M237, intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026, be now read a second time.

Imagine, if you would, enjoying a pleasant drive on one of British Columbia’s Ministry of Transportation and Transit roads and highways or, for that matter, one of the province’s forest service roads or municipal streets. I can see that the condition of many of them may interfere with your enjoyment. Nonetheless, suddenly you find yourself in a motor vehicle accident.

According to ICBC, in 2024, there were over 303,500 crashes in British Columbia, with some 760 each day. Something like 150 of those are considered serious and may include fatalities. Nearly 300 people are killed in car crashes every year. The five-year average amount of people injured in car crashes each year is just over 68,000. Shocking figures.

While ICBC public statistical data was not available for specific types of injuries, it is clearly the case that some injuries are considered catastrophic, and some are not. Unfortunately, what constitutes a catastrophe seems to be in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the beholder is the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and ICBC.

At present, the definition of a catastrophic injury is the loss of two or more limbs. I would challenge the members of this House to consider how their life would be changed by the loss of even one limb. Good health and physical fitness are often taken for granted until, suddenly, normalcy is no longer there.

Activities that used to be simple are sometimes no longer possible. Something as routine as pulling the paper towel in a washroom with two hands may not be possible when you’ve lost an arm. Going for a brisk walk might be out, as would driving a standard shift automobile or even a bicycle. In effect, the loss of a single limb represents a catastrophic occurrence.

Today in the House, I have a guest from Quesnel, British Columbia, who experienced just such a catastrophe. Chantelle Sutton was out riding her motorcycle just south of the infamous Quesnel River Bridge on Highway 97 in 2024, when she was in a crash that resulted in the loss of her left leg at the hip. As the law currently stands, such an injury is not considered to be catastrophic and thus denies the injured party access to significant additional benefits and resources that would come into play were two limbs lost.

Private Member’s Bill M237 seeks to remedy this oversight by making two simple changes to the legislation.

First, to change the definition of a catastrophic injury to one or more limbs lost from the current two or more limbs lost. This simple change cannot make a person whole. This change does not make life easier. This change does not return one to the abilities and enjoyment of life that he or she had before. No, it cannot do any of those things. What it does do is it permits additional allocation of insurance resources so that the injured person can take steps to make the best of this life-changing catastrophe.

[10:55 a.m.]

The second thing it does is to make the effective date of the change retroactive to the start of the statute, with space to allow for those affected to benefit from the change.

Another factor in this matter is the issue of the role of insurance. In the fiscal year 2024 to 2025, ICBC contributed some $1.65 billion to provincial coffers. I wonder how much of that money would be better served in compensating those suffering from injuries, whether catastrophic or apparently slightly less so.

It is certainly the case that ICBC has been making record profits after the introduction of its enhanced care program, which is commonly referred to as “no-fault.” One of the arguments in support of the new program is that it reduces incentive for fraudulent claims. However, I put it to you that such considerations are not relevant in the face of a missing limb. This is much more serious than many other injuries and considerably easier to observe.

Some have argued that the entire no-fault program needs to be carefully reviewed, and there is a committee in place that was formed to do that as part of the review of the legislation after the first introduction of this bill died with the new session. Some might argue that this bill should be withdrawn and assigned to that committee for review. I am strongly opposed to that action, which would instead have the effect of killing this bill and denying injured parties the relief that they sorely need.

This bill does not interfere with that review process. It is a parallel situation that moves to solve a clear and present oversight in the legislation. A review of the legislation solves no such problem and may choose to make recommendations which the government is free to adopt or to ignore at its pleasure.

That review will likely look at many aspects of the act. However, the existence and process of this bill neither hampers nor distracts from that committee’s excellent and important work. It is a concurrent happening that neither hampers nor distracts from that committee’s work. It highlights the need for that greater review and provides an exigent solution to a pressing matter that all parties in this House should fully embrace.

The committee will be plenty busy in considering all aspects of the legislation in order to craft its report and make any recommendations. Its review may well include this change. This bill in no way detracts from that work and, in fact, highlights the need for a thorough analysis of other aspects of the statute.

This bill deserves serious scrutiny in the private members’ bill committee, and it should meet that examination well. It has been crafted to be clear, concise and credible, with the sole desire to help people who paid their insurance in good faith and now need the benefit of that protection to adapt to a life-changing, new and unfortunate situation.

Bill M237 is action now, not justice delayed and denied. I encourage all members in this House to do the right thing and support this simple, important change, which will provide a small measure of relief to those who have lost a limb as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

I encourage every member in this House to support this bill. You will feel better for it, you will be doing the right thing, and you will gain a great deal of respect from the people of the province of British Columbia.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak on Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, tabled by the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

I want to begin by saying that automobile accidents, even those that can seem minor, can have a profound and sometimes life-altering impact on a person’s life.

Many years ago — in fact, it can now be measured in decades — right after I graduated from teachers’ college in Ontario, I worked briefly as an educator for a health institute that supported people living with traumatic brain injuries resulting from accidents.

One client had a briefcase in the back seat of their vehicle, and during what was deemed a minor accident, the briefcase struck them in the head. At the time, it seemed like a minor injury, but, over the course of time, subtle and incremental changes began to appear. Ultimately, that individual was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury that permanently altered their life, all from what initially appeared to be a minor accident. That experience has stayed with me.

[11:00 a.m.]

When a British Columbian is injured in a crash, they deserve access to care and support immediately so that they can begin recovery without waiting years for a court case to conclude. That is why this government introduced the enhanced-care model to British Columbia in 2021.

That health institute that I mentioned earlier was actually created because of long delays that accident victims historically faced between sustaining the injury and receiving appropriate care, what was often referred to as the “court gap.” Enhanced care was designed to eliminate that gap and to place recovery first.

Importantly, when this model was introduced, there was also a clear recognition that it would need review. It was written directly into the legislation that we must hear from those most affected by the changes to ensure the system is working as intended. Section 182 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act requires the Legislative Assembly to appoint a special committee to review parts 10 and 11 of the act. Part 10 governs the enhanced accident benefits and limits on legal actions, and part 11 establishes the framework for basic vehicle damage coverage.

Accordingly, on February 19 of this year, the Legislature appointed the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. This multiparty committee is tasked with examining how enhanced care is functioning; listening to public and stakeholder feedback; and considering potential improvements, including ideas such as those outlined in this bill. The committee’s work is underway now, and it will report its findings and recommendations back to this Legislature by February 18, 2027. The review is a crucial component of ensuring the act remains effective, evidence-based and responsive to the needs of British Columbians.

While I believe the ideas contained in Bill M237 are worthy of discussion, I am struggling with the timing of this bill. The legislation was tabled after the special committee had already been struck by this assembly, specifically to review the same portions of the act that this bill seeks to amend. That creates a significant procedural concern.

Let me be clear. My concern is not with the intent of the bill itself. My concern is with the awkward and, frankly, problematic decision to advance amendments to parts 10 and 11 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act while the statutory review of those very sections is actively underway. We now risk having two separate committees reviewing overlapping issues at the same time.

Yes, Bill M237 is narrower in scope than the special committee’s mandate. However, both committees will be calling for public input. The public is already aware of the statutory review committee, often referred to as the “ICBC committee” in the media. I worry about the confusion when there are two separate calls for input that appear to be addressing the same issue.

There is also a disparity in resources. The special committee has direct access to ICBC experts and legal and policy support from the Attorney General’s office. When viewed side by side, it becomes clear that the issues raised in Bill M237 are more appropriately examined within the comprehensive, well-resourced statutory review process that this Legislature has already put in place.

What I’m struggling to reconcile is how the Legislature can reasonably consider amendments to parts 10 and 11 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act while that very legislation is undergoing a mandated, evidence-based review. The member for Prince George–North Cariboo knew, or at least should have known, that this committee had been established when this bill was tabled, as it was approved by the assembly earlier this year. The need for the committee is written right into the legislation that the member is asking us to review.

I have approached the member opposite with many process options to have the issues in this bill reviewed by the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, including having this bill referred directly to the special committee, which would then undertake the same process and line-by-line review, with the support that I have already mentioned, but all options have been rebuffed.

It is unfortunate that the member won’t engage with the options to refer to the special committee, to see that these changes are made in a thoughtful manner that would help understand the financial and overall impacts for British Columbians on the issues brought up in the bill. I believe these proposed changes would be better served by being brought forward to the special committee, where they would be examined in the full context of the act and alongside other evidence and testimony.

We would not have introduced amendments to legislation such as the Lobbyists Transparency Act or the Public Interest Disclosure Act or the human rights code while those acts were under statutory review by legislative committees, and the Insurance (Vehicle) Act should be treated no differently.

[11:05 a.m.]

Before I close, I do want to recognize the individuals at the centre of this bill, who I believe may be in the gallery today.

Ms. Sutton, your accident and your injuries are devastating, and my heart truly goes out for what you have endured and for how profoundly your life was changed in April 2023. This story matters. Your story matters.

They must be heard. There may be good merits to this bill, but they must be examined through the proper legislative process, one that ensures clarity, focus and meaningful outcomes.

Tony Luck: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak to this bill. Well, I probably shouldn’t use the word “pleasure.” It’s unfortunate that we have to speak to a bill like this, and I’ve heard some of the statements and things that have been said around here.

As someone who has had an amputation himself, I am somewhat understanding of what the member from Prince George–North Cariboo is bringing forward today. Although my injury is in no way in comparison to someone who loses a leg or an arm or something like that, I intimately understand the thought process and the things that we go through if something like that happens.

I rise today in strong support of Bill M237 from the member for Prince George–North Cariboo. This bill has been moved because our current system is failing some of the very people it was supposed to protect — not everyone, but the ones who matter the most.

When British Columbia moved to a no-fault system under the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, we were told a very clear story that this would help make things more efficient, move things along.

We’d get much faster care for the people that need it, which is really true because some people would wait for months, years before they got the funding they needed to be able to take care of their problems. It would drastically reduce legal fees and the legal fighting that happens in the courts and all the things that have to happen there. It was going to lower costs. Of course, it would lower the cost to both the system and the insured as well, and bring more rational budgeting to ICBC.

It was a system that was focused on recovery rather than delays. I think we all saw that, in a system that was somewhat struggling with getting costs under control and helping people get the expedited resources they need to heal and recover as quickly as possible.

Yes, there is a lot of truth to no-fault working better in some cases. For minor injuries, for straightforward claims, the system is faster and more efficient. I don’t think anybody disputes that. It becomes simpler and is more predictable as well.

But here is what we were not told clearly in the chat about what no-fault would do. The same system would limit justice for the most severely injured people in the province. Some claims cannot and should not be on a compensation chart.

No-fault insurance is built on a trade-off. You get speed, but you give up your right to full compensation. You get certainty, but you lose the ability to have your individual case fully heard. You get efficiency. There’s no question about that. You get the efficiency that’s needed in the system but at the cost of flexibility and fairness in the most complex situations.

For the average case, maybe that works. But for catastrophic injury, that trade-off breaks down and falls short. Of the most serious injuries — once again, cookie-cutter applications for something that can’t use a cookie cutter.

Let me put this into more real terms. As a British Columbian is involved in a crash, they lose a leg. Their career is over. Their future income is cut substantially. Their quality of life is most likely permanently changed forever. Under the old system, that person could go to court and seek recourse. A judge would hear the story. Their future losses would be calculated. Their pain and suffering would be recognized. Their care needs would be assessed in full. Yes, it did take time. Catastrophic injuries take time to resolve. But the outcome eventually would reflect their personal reality.

[11:10 a.m.]

Under today’s system, that same person is placed into a structured benefit framework: income replacement, capped; care, approved within guidelines; a lump sum impairment payment, limited. No lawsuit. No individualized assessment. No full accounting of what they had lost.

So let me ask this House: is that justice, or is that administration for efficiency’s sake?

And it gets worse. Let me talk about something that should concern every member of this chamber. Under the current rules, losing one limb does not automatically qualify as a catastrophic injury. Let that sink in for a minute, as we think about that. I’m sure we all know somebody that has lost a limb. A worker loses a hand, a young person loses an arm, and the system says: “That may not be catastrophic enough. You have to lose two.” That is not just a policy flaw; that is a moral failure.

We are now seeing real-world consequences, cases where ICBC disputes aspects of care, even for serious injuries; cases where treatment decisions are challenged within the system; concerns raised about privacy and handling of medical information. While the system may be more efficient, efficiency is cold comfort to someone whose life has been permanently altered.

We aren’t the only system that has gone to no-fault or has been looking at no-fault. Other jurisdictions have tweaked their systems along the way, as they found little bumps in the road and little imperfections. Well, not so much little. Some of them were major imperfections. Others have looked at some of the research and have learned from some of the lessons and made the adjustments as necessary.

It’s good to hear that we’ve got a committee set up that’s going to be looking at this. Will that committee work fast enough to get some of this done for the people that are suffering now?

Let me just give you a couple of examples. In Ontario, there is no-fault but also a hybrid system that allows a victim the ability to sue in serious cases. It’s a bit of a hybrid system. In Saskatchewan, drivers can choose their coverage model between a tort system or a no-fault system. In Manitoba, the system provides broader recognition of serious injury and long-term-care needs. Those jurisdictions understood something that we are now starting to discover here in British Columbia.

Just a reminder. No system is perfect, especially when you try to change something and get things under control and build some efficiencies in the system. It takes time to tweak those. But let’s not drag that time out too long, because there are people suffering, and there are people that need to have resolution as quickly as possible so they can get on with their lives and receive the compensation that they’re entitled to. Efficiency cannot come at the expense of fairness for the most severely injured.

Even parts of the United States have experimented with no-fault systems to reduce litigation and improve efficiency. The logic is consistent across all of them: get care to people faster, reduce friction and lower cost. And on those fronts, no-fault systems often perform well for a large majority of people.

But in this case, when it’s catastrophic, they do not help the person that has had the catastrophic injury heal, not only physically but emotionally. A lot of this is…. You lose an arm. You lose a leg or lose two legs. It’s not always about just the physical; it’s about the emotional piece that we have to remember as well.

Bill M237 does not tear down the old system. We’re not saying: “Get rid of the old system.” We’re saying that there are benefits to it. It does not bring back endless lawsuits. That’s not what this bill is meant to do. It’s a very simple bill. I think it’s one page.

The amendments to the Insurance Vehicle Act ensure that individuals with catastrophic injuries have more time to make a claim. Here is the reality: when someone is recovering from brain trauma, undergoing multiple surgeries and learning how to live again, they are not thinking about deadlines. They are thinking about survival. This bill simply says that we will not punish you for that.

Reducing the threshold from two amputations to one is not controversial. It shouldn’t be controversial. It is common sense, it is compassion, and it is a reality.

The debate is not about ideology. It’s about something much more simple. If it works for the easy cases but fails for the hardest ones, then it is not finished. The bill is not finished.

[11:15 a.m.]

The bill makes a very necessary correction, and I don’t believe Bill M237 is…. It’s not radical. It’s not reckless. It is a correction. We can admit that. Sometimes we put a bill in place, and we like to make some corrections.

There is a simple test for any system like this: if it were you or your family member, would you believe it’s fair? If the answer is no, then we have work to do. Bill 237 is part of that work.

For those reasons, I will be supporting this bill emphatically, and I urge every member of this House to do the same.

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026, as proposed by the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

To begin, I will acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations. I remain grateful for the time that I spend here and for the opportunities to learn and work towards meaningful reconciliation.

I also recognize, with appreciation, the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh nations, whose territories form the foundation of North Vancouver–Seymour. Their ongoing stewardship of land and water is actively restoring local ecosystems. It has been an honour to witness and acknowledge the impact of their work.

Any time a vehicle crash happens, it significantly impacts those involved — whether it’s the sadness of damaging a beloved car, the inconvenience of not having the usual mode of transportation or the enormous effect of injury and/or death. All of these things can be life-changing, so it is imperative that restoration work begins right away, particularly in the case of sustained injury.

As a registered nurse for many years, specifically working in community, I’ve been involved with a number of people who have come home from prolonged hospitalization and rehabilitation. Oftentimes in the past, they were waiting for the courts to make decisions that would determine whether they could afford accommodation renovations, ongoing at-home care, a vehicle that allowed independent transportation and many other things that were needed, which included income replacement.

Fortunately, in 2021, our government brought in the enhanced-care model, which brings benefit directly to those who are injured, rather than having funding determined by the courts. Since then, over $1.5 billion have been paid out to manage the care needs of individuals who have been injured in vehicle crashes.

At the same time, our government has been able to keep insurance rates amongst the lowest in Canada and provide rebates to drivers. ICBC has an ongoing feedback mechanism that encourages customers and stakeholders to provide input, which, in turn, strengthens and improves the enhanced-care model so that funding goes where it is needed, when it is needed.

Additionally, if subsequent needs are identified at a later date, a claim can be established up to two years after the event or later, as determined with the input of a health care provider. The definition of the degree of injury is found in regulation, which means that the statute does not have to be amended in order to facilitate change.

Currently, the B.C. definition is consistent with that of other provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. Consultation for these definitions, including that of “permanent impairment,” included many subject-matter experts, Doctors of B.C. and disability advocacy groups.

In 2021, the government committed to reviewing the model in five years, which is in the process of occurring now, with a Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act that was stood up in this Legislature on February 19 of this year.

As with all committees, this one is tasked with looking at the enhanced-care model, seeking input and feedback from stakeholders, the general public and many others who have thoughts, ideas, experiences or other expertise that could make the legislation better. Also, as with many committees, it is comprised of members from various parties, and collaborative process is encouraged, one that supports fulsome discussion and thoughtful recommendations based on comprehensive consultation. This committee is in full swing now, with the recommendation report due early in 2027.

In hearing the bill that has been brought to this House, I truly recognize the underlying intentions and inspiration that led to its generation.

[11:20 a.m.]

I applaud the advocacy that has brought it to this point. I believe it can be readily incorporated into the work that has already been started, to provide yet more breadth to the discussion and reflection of the special committee and all those who participate.

Vehicle crashes are life-changing, and the resultant injuries are often the most significant factors of those changes. As efforts to provide effective care and rehabilitation, with subsequent accommodations that allow quality and comfort back into life for the individual and their family…. These are necessary to be both timely and without financial hardship.

I thank the member opposite for bringing this bill forward and look forward to highlighting his efforts during the discussions of the appropriate committee, in this case, the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Good morning, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I appreciate the pre-emptive applause for what will surely be my most effective speech today.

I rise to speak in support of Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act of 2026. This is a modest bill in form, but it addresses something very significant in substance. At its core, this bill recognizes a simple truth. The loss of a limb is a catastrophic injury. That should not be controversial.

For the person who suffers that injury, it is life-changing in every sense. It is physically devastating. It is emotionally devastating. It can affect mobility, independence, employment, family life, mental health and a person’s sense of dignity and normalcy. It changes how someone moves through the world. It changes daily routines that most of us take for granted. It changes the future they imagined for themselves and for their family.

When a person suffers that kind of loss in a motor vehicle accident, the insurance system should meet the seriousness of the injury with an equally serious level of support. Bill M237 would make two key changes.

Firstly, it would extend the period within which an individual can make a claim for benefits in respect of a catastrophic injury. That is set out in clause 1 of the bill.

Second — and most importantly, in my view — clause 2 would reduce the number of amputations required for an insured individual to be deemed to have sustained a catastrophic injury. Right now the threshold is two. This bill would change that to one. That is the heart of the matter. Under the current framework, a person can lose one limb — a hand, an arm, a foot, a leg — and still not be classified as catastrophically injured for the purposes of access to benefits.

I think most British Columbians would hear that and be stunned because, in ordinary language and in moral terms, losing a limb is plainly catastrophic. It is not a minor injury. It is not a moderate injury. It is not something from which life simply returns to normal after a short recovery period. It is a profound and permanent loss. The question before this House is whether our law should reflect that reality, and I believe it should.

Insurance law and benefit structures inevitably rely on definitions, thresholds and categories. I understand that. Systems need rules. Administrators need clarity. But those rules should still align with common sense and basic fairness, basic empathy. When the law draws a line in the wrong place, it is our job as legislators to move it. In this case, the line is in the wrong place.

A person who has suffered the amputation of one limb will often require extensive medical care, rehabilitation, adaptive equipment, prosthetics, home modifications, counselling, occupational support and long-term assistance in rebuilding a life that has been permanently altered.

[11:25 a.m.]

The costs are real. The burdens are real. The barriers are real. Most importantly, the human impact is real. We should not be telling those individuals that their injury is somehow not serious enough. We should not be telling them that they fall just short of a threshold that any reasonable person would assume they had already crossed.

This bill corrects that. It does not attempt to rewrite the entire insurance system. It does not attempt to boil the ocean. It does not claim to solve every problem. But it does address a clear inequity in a focused and practical way.

I also think clause 1 deserves support on its own merits. When someone suffers a catastrophic injury, life does not become simpler. It becomes more complicated. There are surgeries, treatments, appointments, assessments, paperwork, family adjustments, employment disruptions, financial stress and often a long period of physical and emotional recovery.

In those circumstances, we should be careful about overly rigid claim windows. Extending the period for making a claim reflects the reality that people dealing with catastrophic injuries are often navigating the most difficult period of their lives and the lives of their families. That, too, is a matter of fairness.

This House often speaks about compassion. We often speak about supporting people through tragedy. We often speak about ensuring that systems serve the public rather than forcing the public to serve the system. This bill gives us an opportunity to act on those principles in a concrete way.

I think it is worth saying clearly that supporting this bill is not about politics. It is about recognizing the lived reality of people who have suffered devastating injuries and ensuring that our laws do not compound that hardship.

If someone loses a limb in a motor vehicle accident, they should know that their public insurance system sees the severity of that loss for what it is: catastrophic. That word matters because classifications matter, and classifications matter because benefits matter.

The designation determines the level of support a person may be able to access. It affects what help is available as they adapt to a new reality. In a moment of intense loss and uncertainty, that support can make a profound difference. It can help someone regain mobility. It can help someone return to work. It can help someone remain in their home. It can help someone live with greater independence and dignity.

That is what this bill is really about — not an abstract regulatory amendment, not a technical wording change but whether people facing one of the worst days of their lives receive the recognition and support that they deserve. In my view, they should.

This bill reflects a humane principle and a commonsense one. Losing one limb is enough. It is enough to change a life, it is enough to justify stronger support, and it is enough to meet the threshold of catastrophic injury.

For those reasons, I support Bill M237, and I encourage all members of this House to give it careful and favourable consideration.

Darlene Rotchford: I rise today to speak to Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026.

At the heart of this conversation is something every one of us in this chamber understands. Automotive accidents, even minor ones, can have a profound and lasting impact on people’s lives. When someone is injured in a crash, their world can change in an instant. In those moments, what matters most is that they receive timely care, meaningful support and the ability to focus on recovery not only in navigating a lengthy and uncertain legal process.

That principle is exactly what guided our government when we introduced the enhanced-care model in 2021. Under the model, benefits go directly to the person, not legal fees or prolonged court battles. Since the introduction, more than $1.5 billion has been delivered in B.C., in the form of medical treatments, income replacement, home modifications and other supports. This is real help reaching real people when they need it.

[11:30 a.m.]

However, at the same time, we’ve brought stability back to our public auto insurer. Not long ago B.C. was paying some of the highest insurance rates in this country, while ICBC faced serious financial challenges. Through responsible management, we’ve turned that around, keeping rates among the lowest here in the country and returning savings to drivers through rebates, all while improving the care available to those who are injured.

Now, none of this is to suggest that the system is perfect. ICBC continues to listen closely to customers; to stakeholders; and, most importantly, to the lived experience of those people navigating their recovery. We know there is always room to improve. This is why, when the enhanced care was introduced, it included commitment to full, independent review every five years. That work is not hypothetical; it is happening right now in a non-partisan provincial committee.

Earlier this year, on February 19, this Legislature established a special committee to review the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. This is a multi-party committee tasked with examining how the current model is working, hearing directly from British Columbians and considering new ideas, ideas very much like those actually contained in this bill. That committee’s work is already underway and has a clear mandate to report back to this House within one year, including all recommendations for improvement.

This brings us to the matter before us today. I want to be clear. The ideas presented in Bill M237 are not without merit. They raise important questions, and they reflect concerns that deserve to be heard and very thoughtfully considered. But the question before us is not whether the ideas have value. The question is whether this is the right process at the right time to consider them, and I would suggest it’s not.

We already have a dedicated multi-party committee actively studying these very issues, engaging with experts, stakeholders, the public and, again, some of the most important people, those affected by this. To now move this bill forward through a separate process risks duplication efforts, creating actual confusion and ultimately undermining the comprehensive review that is already in motion.

Good governance is not just about what we do; it’s about how we do it. It’s about ensuring that we have a process we’ve established and that we respect the work underway and that we allow it to reach its full and intended conclusion. I say that as someone who participates in the private member committee about the bills that we look at here today.

So while I support the continuing examination of ideas raised in this bill, I believe strongly that they should be considered within the work of this special committee, where they can be evaluated alongside a full range of evidence, perspectives and potential reforms, where they can be looked at way more in-depth. They have way more resources to properly allocate not just to this bill and what’s in this bill but to all of the issues that we hear that people are still struggling with.

British Columbians deserve a system that works. They deserve a process that gets it there thoughtfully and responsibly. I will also say, for anyone…. I know you all listen to me talk at the private members’ bills committee. I know it’s very exciting.

That process within itself has issues. I think this member is actually highlighting another issue that they can flag as we look at those private member committee bills. I believe he had the best of intentions. I think he brought forward good ideas. However, with having those two duplicative processes….

Looking at how we do the private members’ bills, for example. This private member put his bill forward. There are only so many options of what the committee itself can do with that bill. So even if we think it has a good idea — we now have a provincial committee — and we wanted to follow that process, we only have so much to do with that bill.

So I hope, not as I complain but as I give constructive feedback about the private committee bill process…. This is an example of one of the things I think we need to look at when we’re managing private member’s committee bills, aligning with other committees and making sure that we’re doing the best we can for all bills that get presented to us. So that long, round reason.

Those reasons are why I can’t support advancing this bill at this time. But I do support the ongoing work of the committee that is there. I look forward to the recommendations it will bring forward to this House. I hope the member, no matter what, will be sharing around the provincial committee, looking for that feedback, all those issues and all the important things he also raised, because I think that’s the best avenue at this time for it to go through.

So again, I won’t be supporting this as it is, and I hope those, for the same reasons I listed, will support that.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for the privilege of being able to speak to Bill M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act.

Remember a true Canadian hero, Terry Fox. Can you imagine telling him that losing his leg was not a catastrophic injury? Sorry, we don’t consider that catastrophic. You’ll need to lose both legs. That’s what this current status actually says.

[11:35 a.m.]

It doesn’t really matter how the event occurred, but suffice to say that losing a leg is a life-altering, catastrophic event — or any limb. Does it change your life forever? Does it mean you will never be the same? Does it mean that you will never do everyday life activities that you used to take for granted the same way? The answer, of course, is yes.

A perhaps simplified example comes from when I broke my arm last year. Suddenly all the everyday tasks I used to attend to became much more difficult. Even just washing my hair became impossible. Was this catastrophic? No, but it did create challenges for me.

Now imagine living in a world where suddenly everyday things become not just difficult but almost insurmountable. I could list all the everyday tasks that are now not just difficult but impossible when a limb is entirely lost. Imagine the simple activity of going to the washroom several times a day, taking a shower, getting dressed, driving a car, using stairs, opening containers. Just listing these items doesn’t illustrate the measure of difficulty and an entire new way of having to live your life independently.

Currently the definition reads “Amputation: loss of two or more limbs or specific high-level amputations.” Losing a limb is, indeed, a catastrophic injury. We need to pass this bill not because it’s the right and honouring thing to do. Legally, this is a much-needed correction to a law that needs to be changed.

This is an easy fix. To simply send it to committee and look at it and study it and let it sit for another year and, “It’s okay. We got this. We’re all over it,” doesn’t work. We need to move now.

I hope that the members will consider supporting this bill. People who have suffered catastrophic injuries are counting on it. The compensation can’t change what they’ve been through or give them more intestinal fortitude on the days when it’s all just too much. But it would at least provide a means to an end, logistically, for them, and one less thing that they have to worry about or to tackle.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll try and be brief, but I do want to start out by saying that my heart really goes out to the member’s constituent who brought this forward and the member who has had to absorb all this and try to chart a path forward.

As I usually do when taking an item like this fresh, I went back to our 2024 election platform. As it turns out, not surprisingly, we agree with the sentiments of the bill. People who have been injured in a car crash should be able to access care and support without having to fight the system that’s meant to provide it.

The current no-fault system doesn’t always put the well-being and recovery of those who have been injured in a motor vehicle accident at the forefront. There are many cases in which people cannot access necessary medical care or return to their studies and careers because of existing limitations in ICBC policy.

I appreciate the argument between efficiency and comprehensive care. Those who have sustained long-term injuries due to an MVA should feel supported and be treated with respect rather than being handed inadequate compensation or subject to undue administrative burdens and barriers. I would suggest that two limbs over one is an administrative barrier. It’s long overdue for the culture of ICBC to be oriented more towards providing adequate care than minimizing payouts.

This bill put forward…. I feel very blessed that I get to sit on both these committees. It is what the private members’ process was intended to be. There is an unfortunate concurrence of committee work here. But we each get one shot in this session, and this is what the member chose to bring forward, looking to remedy what’s, essentially, an unjust situation.

[11:40 a.m.]

I respect the arguments on both sides. It’s my view that these can proceed concurrently. Actually, I wonder if it might be consecutive, given the February 2027 deadline for the IVA committee. So the special committee on the Insurance (Vehicle) Act might choose to recommend the exact same thing, might find something different, might modify the definition of catastrophic injury, but these are still a recommendation that are sometimes acted on and sometimes sit on a shelf and nothing happens with them.

I’m concerned that we could potentially undermine this private member’s process that we all know has some flaws and needs some fixes. We’re just over a year in, and I agree that those need to happen. But if we say…. Well, I mean, to be totally frank, if we said you can’t bring forward anything where there’s a process of some kind underway, I don’t think…. That would really limit the scope of what private members can bring forward.

I will finish off by just saying…. I’ll repeat the same pieces. It is an interesting confluence or concurrence of work. I don’t love the inefficiency of it. The duplication is annoying. At the same time, I don’t know that there’s that much confusion or repetition. This is a one-line bill, and the committee will consider vast amounts. If they choose to come to a different conclusion in a bunch of coordination, then that’s something we’ll deal with in due course.

I won’t repeat the overall philosophy of why we agree with the general intent of the bill, but I will say that I don’t agree with knocking it off course because it might be dealt with at some point in the future by a different committee.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I rise to speak on M237, the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026. I want to say that before I speak to some of the more technical aspects, I would like to speak to the real intention to alleviate suffering that is behind this bill, not just from my colleague across the aisle. I would also like to acknowledge the many people who have come to my office to speak to me about their experiences, many of whom I am hoping to hear from on the special committee when we review.

This is very close to my heart. When I was in high school — which is just a short, short time ago — one of my friends was hit by a car. She was a pedestrian. The car was turning left from behind her as she crossed the road, and the driver was watching for oncoming traffic, not for a 100-pound high schooler.

She lived, and she healed, but there were after-effects. And her family, with a parent who was struggling with serious medical issues, had to pay for every single treatment out of pocket. Did she skip treatments? Yeah. Yes, she did. Did that affect her recovery? I can’t say. I’m not a medical professional. I’m just her friend. But medical professionals do not give recommendations for treatment for no reason, and her symptoms persist to this day.

By the time she finally got her settlement, thousands and thousands of dollars went to pay those legal bills and thousands and thousands of dollars had gone out to pay for her therapies. The funds she received were welcome, but they didn’t erase the years of struggling to afford treatments that, if they had been consistent and early, could have made a difference.

We know the value of enhanced care, because it means that people get treatment early, and they get what they need. The model means benefits go to people like my friend, and over $1.5 billion has gone out in treatments, income replacement, home modifications and other benefits since 2021.

I appreciate the conversation on all sides of this House, acknowledging the significant shift in how we spend dollars and how we focus on patients, on the people who have been affected.

[11:45 a.m.]

Now, she is my most personal example, but as I said earlier, there are so many others that I have known over my decades of being a driver, passenger and customer of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Those stories that I’m hearing as an MLA though — stories from people who have been through both sides of the model, the old, the new, and who appreciate the enhanced-care model….

I also hear from those people whose experience means that we need to focus on review. They tell me that the service could be improved, that the system could be better, that the responses could better reflect the wide range of injuries and the different recovery paths that people take.

The individual circumstances of people who are wounded in accidents do not follow a model that can be easily predicted by statistics and ticket boxes and forms. This system that we have created is new. It’s a new path forward to support people who need help.

When the law came into place in 2021, there was a commitment to have a review within five years. We now have a multipartisan special committee to review the provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. This is essential. These processes have meaning.

When we get together in groups, we have fulsome and effective conversations about all sides of the issue. We’re able to call witnesses. We’re able to call experts. We’re able to hear from professionals who work with this every day. We’re able to hear from patients and medical professionals who help people through their systems and recoveries. And we hear from the people who need this to change the most and who are most affected under the old system.

I want to speak a little bit now about the technicality. We’ve heard a little bit about how referring this bill to the special committee would kill it. But the referral process is actually more of a concierge. It would be a request from our House Leader to go directly to the special committee, and it would produce a report individual to that one recommendation. Unlike other processes where you go through private members’ bills, this one would have the most attention, the most concentration, the most focus that a bill would receive.

I think that the ideas that are contained with this bill are worth discussing. They’re worth holding up. They’re worth us having a multipartisan conversation but also allowing that conversation to be debated on, to be discussed and to receive presentation from members of the public and experts.

This multiparty committee, which I am proud to serve on, will continue to look at how this new model is delivering for people. It will hear their experiences and consider feedback for improvement. We know that when you come in with a new system, it isn’t going to work perfectly in the beginning and that we can do better. Ideas like the ones in this bill…. We can find ways to improve enhanced care and continue to make sure that people get the care that they need when they need it.

I look forward to ideas like this, but I would prefer to hear them, I feel that it’s most effective to hear them, and I feel like people would be better served to hear them in the context of the work of the special committee, where we can get feedback from public, from experts and members of this House.

I want to go back and speak of another friend of mine who was injured and about how process deeply affects the outcome of their case. She was injured in a car accident, and it affected her soft tissue in her back and her neck.

Just as she was coming to the end of that process of ICBC assessing whether or not she would finally get her compensation…. As anybody who went through the old process knew, that was a very lengthy process. She received no payment, no support, nothing for her many treatments. Then she was in another car accident and injured the same area of her body. That meant that we started the process all over again.

So for her, it was ten years between the time she was first injured and when she finally got payment. When the new system came in, she cried, because she knew that other people would never have to experience what she did again, struggling on a limited income to pay for the treatments that meant that she could then go to work.

[11:50 a.m.]

I really want to ensure that everything that we do to change this law aligns with the needs of the people who we so desperately want to support. It is very easy to make shifts out of the best of intentions, and they have unintended results, or they’re not fulsome enough, or they don’t cover enough. What I really want to see is to ensure that we can improve our Insurance (Vehicle) Act as thoroughly as we possibly can.

I would like to sit with knowledgeable members of the public and this House, and I want to make sure we walk forward together with the people who have been affected, with legislators and experts.

Thank you so much. I will not be supporting this amendment, but I look forward to reviewing the principles and the ideas brought forward in special committee.

Amna Shah: Before I begin, I just want to extend my thoughts and my well wishes to the member’s constituent, Ms. Sutton, and relay my sympathies for what has happened and the things that she’s had to deal with since in her recovery. I wish her continued recovery.

I know it’s not easy, at times, to listen to debate, especially when we’re introducing certain technical commentary. But I think I speak on behalf of all members of this side of the House when I say that we truly do care and want to ensure that any changes or amendments made to legislation are done in the appropriate way, which is why we’re having a fulsome discussion here.

Now, with the member’s intent of the bill, I thank the member for his advocacy, not just for his constituent but for others who may be in this particular type of situation, and that he has chosen to make his private member’s bill about something that matters to people.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Under the previous government, we knew that the insurance model that we had was not working. We heard that directly from people, from constituents, from British Columbians. We understood that something does have to change. There were, really, horror stories about people not being able to get the care that they needed when they needed it, the support to help them recover, the support to help them heal.

It really did not feel to them as though benefits were going to them. It felt like it was going to costly legal….

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

Amna Shah: Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate, and I move the adjournment of debate.

Amna Shah 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 11:53 a.m.

Contents