First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 77

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Ben Mizrachi and Second Anniversary of Attack on Israel by Hamas

Hon. David Eby

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Lisa Beare

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Members’ Statements

Ben Mizrachi and Support for Jewish Community

Reann Gasper

Foster Family Month and Appreciation for Caregivers

Rohini Arora

Crime in Surrey

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Lower Columbia Community Health Centre

Steve Morissette

Thanksgiving

Ward Stamer

Nick’s Auto Body in North Vancouver

Susie Chant

Oral Questions

Government Action on Safety Concerns at Bulkley Lodge Seniors Facility

Sharon Hartwell

Hon. Josie Osborne

Funding for Long-Term-Care Facilities

Brennan Day

Hon. Josie Osborne

Health Impacts of LNG Projects

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Energy Regulator and Environmental Assessment of Energy Projects

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Economic Development and Youth Migration to Alberta

Tara Armstrong

Hon. Adrian Dix

Drug Decriminalization Program and Substance Use Policies

Claire Rattée

Hon. Nina Krieger

Government Contract with Consultant for Downtown Eastside

Claire Rattée

Hon. Christine Boyle

Mobile Crisis Response Unit in Langley-Willowbrook Area

Jody Toor

Hon. Nina Krieger

Emergency Health Care Services

Anna Kindy

Hon. Josie Osborne

Delta Hospital Emergency Services

Ian Paton

Hon. Josie Osborne

Government Action on Health Care Issues

Trevor Halford

Hon. Josie Osborne

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, annual follow-up report, status of performance audit

recommendations, 2019–2023

Petitions

Lorne Doerkson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Trevor Halford

Jennifer Blatherwick

Bryan Tepper

Stephanie Higginson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Josie Osborne

Anna Kindy

Brennan Day

Scott McInnis

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Heather Maahs.

Introductions by Members

Donegal Wilson : I’d like to take a moment to introduce two members of my constituency team who are

with us today, Christina Quaedvlieg and Ainsley Stewart.

Please stand.

[10:05 a.m.]

They are integral to ensuring that my office runs smoothly and the people of Boundary-Similkameen

are served well.

Please make them feel welcome.

Macklin McCall : I’d like to take a moment to introduce two important members of my constituency team

who are with us in the gallery today, Nicole Day and Jane Inkster.

Nicole and Jane serve as my constituency assistants in West Kelowna–Peachland, and

each and every day they prioritize the needs and concerns of our constituents with

professionalism, care and compassion. Their dedication, hard work and commitment to

our community do not go unnoticed, and I’m truly grateful for their ongoing service.

I ask all members of this House to please join me in warmly welcoming Jane and Nicole

to the Legislature today.

Hon. Christine Boyle : It is a delight for me to ask you all to join me in welcoming the newest member of

my team, my executive assistant, Ayesha Irfan.

I’m just looking around, trying to find her so I can embarrass her and make her wave.

I’m delighted to have her in this role and working with us. Ayesha comes from the

student union at UBC and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience. I’m excited

to get to work with her.

Will the House join me in welcoming her.

Macklin McCall : It is my pleasure to introduce a bright young constituent from West Kelowna–Peachland

who is joining us in the gallery today. Izaak Day is the son of my constituency assistant

Nicole Day.

I am proud to share that Izaak was recently accepted into the University of Victoria,

where he will be pursuing studies in psychology. It’s always encouraging to see young

people in our communities taking big steps toward their future.

Will this House please join me in welcoming Izaak to the Legislature and wishing him

all the best as he begins his journey at UVic.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We are joined today by several leaders from the construction industry, from multiple

organizations, who have done so much work to get us to where we are today in our ability

to table prompt pay legislation.

I want to acknowledge Chris Atchison, Byron Tarby, Cameron Betts and Jessica Sidhu

from the B.C. Construction Association.

We are also joined by Kim Barbero and Trevor Hildebrand from the Mechanical Contractors

Association of B.C., as well as Matt McInnis and Melissa Cornwell from the Electrical

Contractors Association.

They have all been such incredibly strong voices in the industry.

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

Lorne Doerkson : I want to introduce my constituency assistant Bev Marks, who I think showed up here

a day early. I just want everybody to know that she is an amazing assistant in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin and has served the people for many years in South Cariboo.

I also wanted to introduce her husband, Ken, who kindly gets voluntold to do a lot

of things around our office.

Thank you very much for your support.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Joining us today in the legislative gallery are representatives from cooperatives

across British Columbia.

Will the House please welcome executive director Tara Chernoff, board chair Kirsten

Emhoff and members from across the province who are delivering, on our behalf, from

housing and child care to credit unions, agriculture and worker co-ops. The cooperative

movement has been at the heart of building a strong and inclusive province.

All members are invited by the co-operative association to join their trade show,

I guess it is, in the Hall of Honour from 11:30 to 1:30. They invite you to join them.

Will you please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Gavin Dew : I wanted to wait until I was last so that I could be assertive in saying that joining

me from my constituency office are the best staff in any constituency office in the

entire province of British Columbia, Mr. Jarrod Stocker and Ms. Sonia Sandhu.

I’m so thankful for you being here today. I’m thankful for you every day. You keep

me sane. You keep me organized. You force me to carve out time in my

schedule to make

sure I see my family.

Thank you so much for all that you do.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

Ben Mizrachi and Second Anniversary

of Attack on Israel by Hamas

Hon. David Eby : I wanted to rise to mark a horrific anniversary. Today is the anniversary of the

terror attacks by Hamas in Israel. Those attacks took 1,200 lives. Hundreds of people

were taken hostage. Families in British Columbia were affected by that.

Ben Mizrachi was at a music festival with his friends, and instead of running away

from danger, he ran to help. It cost him his life. Today we mourn Ben, we mourn the

loss of innocent life, and we mourn the instability and the violence.

We call on Hamas for the immediate release of all of the hostages. They should be

home with their families and with their friends.

This event also marked the beginning of two years of war in Gaza, the loss of thousands

of innocent lives. We mourn those lives as well — all innocent lives lost in war.

We stand with the international community calling for immediate ceasefire and the

release of the hostages.

We support Canada’s effort to find a two-state solution and to get aid to Gaza.

May the memories of those lives lost on October 7 be a blessing, and may we stand

for peace.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Lisa Beare presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Lisa Beare : I’m pleased to introduce Bill 19, the School Amendment Act, which will expand the

type of child care that boards of education may provide on their property and allow

them to recoup reasonable fees in doing so.

Currently boards may offer child care on school grounds only to students enrolled

in their district and are limited to before and after school, only on days when school

is in session. We know families who need child care generally need more comprehensive

coverage than that.

These amendments will provide clear legislative authority for boards to directly operate

school-age child care on school grounds on business days like pro-D days and over

school breaks, not just on days when school is in session. They’ll be able to offer

child care on board property for children aged zero to five and are able to recoup

reasonable costs incurred in providing that care.

This legislation maintains that boards must still be licensed child care providers

and that any child care program must not interfere with K-to-12 educational activities.

Taken together, these amendments aim to give boards greater flexibility to meet the

child care needs of families in their communities and to promote greater sustainability

of child care programs they choose to offer.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Lisa Beare : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Construction Prompt Payment Act. This bill ensures that

those workers contributing service or materials on construction projects in British

Columbia will be paid on time.

For too long, delayed payments down the construction pyramid have created serious

financial strain. This is especially so for subcontractors and small businesses, leading

to project delays, job losses and even bankruptcies. This bill sets clear timelines

for payment on construction projects, ensuring that once owners receive the information

they need in what is called a proper invoice, payment flows quickly down the construction

chain.

[10:15 a.m.]

The bill also creates a process that enables parties to refer payment-related disputes

to adjudication, ensuring a fast and accessible process to resolve disputes, keep

payments flowing and keep construction projects on track.

Ultimately, it’s about protecting and supporting our construction sector, a really

vital sector here in B.C. — many of them are joining us here today — and making sure

that everyone gets paid on time for the work that they do.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Ben Mizrachi and

Support for Jewish Community

Reann Gasper : Two years ago today the Jewish people endured the deadliest single-day massacre since

the Holocaust.

On that same day, British Columbia lost a remarkable young man, Ben Mizrachi, a graduate

of King David High School in Vancouver. Ben was at the Nova music festival in Israel

when terrorists attacked. Instead of fleeing, he stayed to help the wounded. As a

medic, he ran towards danger, not away.

While mourning with a rabbi, his friend asked: “Why didn’t Ben save himself?” The

rabbi answered: “If he had, he would not have been Ben.” He died as he lived — selfless,

courageous, a hero.

What followed for Vancouver’s Jewish community should have been a time of compassion,

but instead, they were met with intimidation. At a vigil, even as they prayed for

Ben, uncertain if he was alive or dead, they were mocked, threatened and faced with

violent gestures.

While antisemitism has clouded the mourning of his loss, we must remember who Ben

was — warm, kind, selfless, a friend to all. His life was taken by terrorists who

sought not only his death but the destruction of the Jewish people.

May Ben’s memory forever be a blessing and a call to live with selflessness, as he

showed until his final breath.

We not only remember Ben, but we stand with the Jewish community today. We say: “You

are mourning, and we mourn, and we send our love and our prayers to you.”

Foster Family Month and

Appreciation for Caregivers

Rohini Arora : This October marks the 35th anniversary of Foster Family Month in our province. Foster

Family Month is a time for us to celebrate the people who provide caring homes to

children and youth who need a safe, emotionally supportive place to live until they

can safely return home. It’s a chance for us to say thank you and recognize the immense

contribution caregivers make in our communities.

Fostering a child or youth can be an incredibly rewarding life experience. It is a

unique opportunity to have an impact in the life of a child or youth in need of support,

an impact that can last a lifetime.

Foster care givers are people who open their hearts and their homes to welcome children

and youth into their lives. While their individual circumstances may vary, they all

share a common goal of making a positive difference in the lives of young people.

Supports for caregivers in B.C. went unchanged from 2009 to 2019. In 2019, we boosted

support payments for foster care givers and we ensured that extended family members

receive the same rate as foster care givers.

We also know that Indigenous children do best when they’re able to be connected to

their own family, culture and language. That’s why our government is working with

Indigenous communities to support their resumption of jurisdiction over their own

child and family services so children can remain connected to their family’s culture

and language.

In 2023, we increased monthly caregiver rates by up to 47 percent, addressing a critical

need to help with costs for items such as food, clothing and transportation.

[10:20 a.m.]

Being a caregiver is challenging work, but we hear incredible stories from caregivers

across the province about how rewarding it is.

On behalf of the government, I share my deep appreciation to all those who have answered

the call and to those ready to step forward to help a child or youth who needs a safe

and supportive home.

Crime in Surrey

Mandeep Dhaliwal : Our community in Surrey is struggling. We have been under threat and violence for

over a year. Crime and violence are everywhere. Businesses, families and communities

are desperate for help and desperate for action. No other community experiences the

violence and threat that Surrey has — 50 shootings in one year.

We must thank our Surrey police. The police are doing everything they can to protect

us with the limited resources. I hear from them how frustrated they are. They feel

unsupported. Shootings are happening all the time — family homes, a restaurant, a

radio station, a police station. What is next? Enough is enough.

Surrey is a city, not a gangland. We don’t need more press conferences or fake promises.

We need action, and we need it right now. Any other community would have gotten a

fast response from government. Surrey is ignored. Every action is too little, too

late.

Surrey deserves better. Taxpayers deserve better. Businesses deserve better. Families

deserve better.

Our community deserves better, and they demand a strong response.

Lower Columbia

Community Health Centre

Steve Morissette : On September 20, I had the privilege of attending the grand opening of the Lower

Columbia Community Health Centre in Trail, a project eight years in the making, driven

by the vision and determination of local leaders Linda Sawchenko, Win Mott, Frank

Marino and a large team of community folks volunteering their time and expertise to

achieve this goal.

Their vision and persistence are a powerful example of how small communities roll

up their sleeves and get things done. We know that health care is a provincial responsibility,

but when communities step up and shape a project to meet their own unique needs, the

results are extraordinary.

The new health centre now provides 18 exam and office rooms for family physicians,

nurse practitioners, social workers and other providers, alongside a large collaborative

workspace, a physiotherapy room, two fully equipped treatment rooms, a quiet space

off the waiting room and even a staff lunch and meeting room to support teamwork.

Already the centre is attaching over 3,600 patients, with the capacity to serve an

additional 3,600 once recruitment is complete. The current complement includes 3.7

physicians, with more being recruited; 1.7 nurse practitioners, with more on the way;

and 2.5 social workers.

This is what resilience looks like. This is how rural communities build solutions

that work for their people.

I want to thank everyone who has played a

part in bringing the Lower Columbia Community

Health Centre to life.

Congratulations, team. This is a tremendous accomplishment and a shining model of

community-driven health care.

Thanksgiving

Ward Stamer : Thanksgiving in Canada is a time when nature, the changing seasons and family come

together in harmony. As autumn settles across the country, forests glow with shades

of gold and crimson, and the air turns crisp with the promise of winter. It’s a moment

to pause, reflect and give thanks for the harvest and the beauty that surrounds us

all.

[10:25 a.m.]

Rooted in the cycles of nature, Thanksgiving reminds us of our deep connection to

the land. Canadians have long celebrated the harvest and offered gratitude to the

earth for its generosity. Today the tradition continues as families gather around

the tables filled with seasonal foods of turkey and ham, root vegetables and my mom’s

pumpkin pie, sharing not only meals but stories, memories, the laughter and the love.

Family gatherings are at the heart of the celebration. They bring warmth to the chilly

October days and strengthen bonds across generations. Whether in a bustling kitchen

or a cozy dining room, these moments remind us that we are incredibly blessed to live

here.

Thanksgiving is more than a holiday. It’s a reflection of Canada’s natural beauty,

the rhythm of the seasons and the importance of family and friends.

Nick’s Auto Body in

North Vancouver

Susie Chant : I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the Esquimalt.

I also live and work in North Vancouver–Seymour, which is the home to the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations.

Quality service has always been a main focus at Nick’s Auto Body Ltd. For more than

35 years, this family-owned business has proudly served North Vancouver, committed

to returning vehicles to their original, factory-fresh appearance. Mama is still in

charge, a tiny lady who knows what everybody is supposed to be doing and to what standard.

At Nick’s, they believe in treating people the way they would like to be treated,

meaning trusted, high-quality and honest service at reasonable and competitive prices.

Nick’s does this all with specialties in collision repair, glass replacement and the

repainting of old cars and trucks. Their highly trained team has over four decades

of expertise and excels at fully comprehensive collision services, expertly handling

dents, scratches, glass replacement and full repaints.

Nick’s doesn’t stop there, though. They offer free courtesy cars and meticulous sanitation

with environmentally friendly disinfectants, reflecting their commitment to customer

safety and convenience as well as safeguarding the environment.

Simply put, Nick’s Auto Body is a North Vancouver treasure, exemplifying old-school

service and a commitment to care that continues to make them a trusted community resource

today. Their motto of “We make old cars look new again” is absolutely spot-on.

Oral Questions

Government Action on Safety Concerns

at Bulkley Lodge Seniors Facility

Sharon Hartwell : I rise today to speak on an issue that’s very concerning to me. It’s government’s

responsibility to look after the most vulnerable in our communities, and it saddens

me to have to bring this issue forward.

Bulkley Lodge seniors are living in conditions described by a patient’s family member

as “dangerous and unacceptable.” An elderly resident was injured after a safety belt

was not applied properly, with signs of physical abuse linked to rushed or unfamiliar

staff.

If seniors truly deserve dignity, compassion and safety, why do these horrific conditions

continue?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for raising what clearly is a very serious

concern.

Of course, we all want to see…. We know that seniors deserve the very best care in

those years of their lives. Knowing that that is a top priority of this government,

to ensure the highest of safety standards, being the first government to bring in

legislated minimum care standards, for example, to continue to work to bolster the

health care workforce in long-term-care homes and facilities that are providing these

services….

I want to assure the member that I am deeply committed to this work. I welcome her

to bring forward the circumstances directly to me through my office so that I can

work with her to address these concerns.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Sharon Hartwell : At the same facility, a nurse reported that a resident was assaulted not once but

twice by staff. The family wasn’t told for 48 hours, despite management knowing the

day it happened. On some shifts, there is one care aide and one nurse for 18 residents.

Former staff say there’s no proper orientation for nurses, missed breaks and thin

supervision. Those who speak up face retaliation.

[10:30 a.m.]

Will the minister order an urgent, independent inspection today, guarantee whistleblower

protections and immediately set minimum safety standards ratios at Bulkley Lodge for

staffing?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you again to the member for the question.

Of course, no one should face any form of violence in any health care facility in

this province. That’s why this government continues to take steps to ensure that minimum

safety standards are in place and that they are met.

There is nothing more important than taking care of the most vulnerable members of

our society and of seniors, the people who have built this very province. That’s why

this government has worked so diligently and taken so many actions to strengthen health

care, to build long-term-care facilities, to build up the workforce in these facilities,

to ensure that people are there and that minimum hours of care are being kept. Of

course we are going to continue this work because we know we have so much to make

up for. We’re not going to stop.

The Speaker : Member, for a second supplemental.

Sharon Hartwell : That’s interesting. The minister says they’re clamping down on overtime and ending

travel nurses, but Bulkley Lodge is already running on fumes. Staff are exhausted,

families are stepping up to fill in the gaps, and residents are the ones paying the

price. In rural B.C., where there’s no backup, cutting overtime isn’t a solution.

It’s a sentence.

How does this government expect seniors to receive safe, dignified care when they’re

taking away the very lifeline keeping these facilities running?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I want to start just by thanking the people who are working in these facilities and

these centres for their dedication and for the exceptional care that they provide

across B.C.

Now, the program that the member opposite is referring to is a program that was brought

in as a temporary COVID-19 top-up during some very exceptional circumstances that

we were facing during the pandemic to assist private providers. We’re five years out

from that now. The program is winding down October 31. There are some months that

facilities will have to be able to make the transitions they need to. But I want to

again underscore the fact that this is just one program that has been used to support

providers during a really challenging time.

We continue to take action. We continue to take action to strengthen long-term care

by continuing to build new facilities and completing more long-term-care beds across

the province. With 36 completed and ongoing projects, we’re continuing to grow the

workforce, training more health care assistants, improving services so that seniors

can stay at home longer before needing to transition into a care facility.

This is the work that we’re going to continue to do with our partners to ensure safe,

dignified living circumstances and care for the people who helped build this province.

Funding for Long-Term-Care Facilities

Brennan Day : Nonsense. Well, 900 care spaces in this province are at risk with the funding cuts.

We have not changed the basic principle which we have started this program under,

which is that we have chronic staffing shortages that are affecting rural British

Columbians.

Why is this government cutting off the only support keeping care homes open in rural

British Columbia, Minister?

Hon. Josie Osborne : We are building long-term-care beds in this province at a rate that hasn’t been seen

for years — over 1,290 beds complete, with another 4,300 beds on the way.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We’re training more health care assistants…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …adding more than 2,400 health care assistant training seats into the complement

of training seats that are necessary to build up this workforce.

I know that the member is new to being on that side of the House. I know the member

is new to this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members. Members, come to order.

Members will come to order now.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Let me remind the member that when his colleagues were on this side of the House,

they left nine out of ten care homes not meeting government standards.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne : What’s shameful is they ripped up contracts.

Interjections.

The Speaker : The minister will continue.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : What’s shameful is they passed laws that led to the layoff of 10,000 workers. They

forced workers to work at multiple care facilities, leaving homes dangerously understaffed

and having residents face serious risk of infection. They froze SAFER rental supplements

for seniors.

This government takes a different approach — improving the safety of long-term-care

homes, adding staff, legislating minimum care standards, putting money back into seniors’

pockets by increasing SAFER supplements.

We are not going to stop this work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day : I don’t need a long history lesson or more excuses and long answers.

Will the minister commit right now to immediately pausing these cuts, or are you going

to throw 900 seniors out of their homes and into overcrowded hospital hallways?

Hon. Josie Osborne : What I’m going to commit to is the plan that we are already on, building more long-term-care

beds, expanding existing long-term-care facilities, supporting staff for treatment…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …and training, working closely with health authorities, with non-profit providers,

with our allied health providers and ensuring that seniors get the care they need,

providing supports at home to keep seniors safe. Nothing could be more important than

this work.

I am open to working with the member opposite. I hope that we’ll be able to come to

some constructive dialogue and do this work together, because that’s what seniors

deserve.

Health Impacts of LNG Projects

Jeremy Valeriote : It’s good to be back in this, the people’s House.

What a gift Alberta’s Premier is giving this government. They get to stand up for

our precious northern coastline, prevaricating on an imaginary bitumen pipeline project.

It’s a perfect distraction from the very real work underway, the massive offshoring

of our public resources in the form of liquefied fossil gas to enrich American billionaires.

Meanwhile, gas flaring at LNG Canada is poisoning the air in Kitimat. It’s only just

begun, yet Northern Health has already documented asthma rates 74 percent higher than

the provincial average, not to mention risks of lung and heart disease, cancer, pre-term

birth and low birth weight that come from living in the LNG sacrifice zones.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Is he unaware of

the health risks to British Columbians, or is pressure from industry lobbyists and

foreign billionaires just that much more important to this government?

Hon. Adrian Dix : First of all, I’d say to the member that the Cedar LNG project, for example, and

the Ksi Lisims LNG project, for example, are led by First Nations. It’s okay for the

member to be opposed to those things or to criticize those things. It’s not okay,

it seems to me, to consistently efface the role of First Nations, which is significant

in those projects, which is consistently happening.

I just encourage him…. It’s absolutely okay for him to express his view on the project.

As he will know, LNG projects in B.C. are significantly reviewed independently by

the environmental assessment office in B.C. that addresses these very questions extensively.

These issues are extensively dealt with and are continuing to be dealt with. There

are conditions on each of the licences during the construction period and thereafter

to ensure the protection of communities and support for human health. I think that

that continues to be the case in B.C.

We have, as the member will know, the lowest-emission LNG projects in the world. We

have, I think, some of the most comprehensive and significant reviews to address those

projects. That will continue to be the approach of the government, and it’s proved

to be successful in attracting resources and capital to those projects.

It continues to be successful and to make B.C. distinctive in the world for having

the development of a new industry and the highest standards related to that industry.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Energy Regulator and Environmental

Assessment of Energy Projects

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m happy to debate the true ownership of these projects on another day.

We keep hearing that the government cupboard is bare, so it’s baffling that the minister

justifies billion-dollar corporate welfare in exchange for a handful of jobs and a

crippling burden on our teetering health care system from fossil fuel pollution.

[10:40 a.m.]

This government is making decisions based on old information or no information at

all. The B.C. Energy Regulator is not effectively tracking emissions from gas flaring.

Environmental assessments and industrial carbon pricing give companies a pass on emissions

and air-quality impacts during the start-up phase, which, as we’ve seen in Kitimat,

can go on for months.

Again, to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, we need a comprehensive, cumulative

and independent impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis of fracking and LNG export.

Will the government fund it?

Hon. Adrian Dix : What the member suggests is not the case. Kitimat has an extensive network of air-quality

monitors for fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and other air

contaminants, and the data is publicly available.

I think to suggest that that’s not the case or that the extensive reviews done of

LNG projects under environmental assessment haven’t taken place on environmental issues

is not the case. We continue, yes.

The member may say that 50,000 Canadians who worked on the first phase of LNG 1 is

not a lot of jobs. Well, it’s 50,000 jobs, and having met many of those workers, I

can tell you that they feel very strongly about it.

At the same time, nobody more than the people on the north coast, nobody more than

the Haisla Nation, nobody more than the Nisg̱a’a Nation are concerned about the environment on the north coast.

I believe that strong environmental assessment, a process that really supports jobs

in British Columbia and drives forward jobs in British Columbia, is the right approach.

The evidence for that is the success of these projects and their low emissions relative

to any similar projects in the world.

Economic Development and

Youth Migration to Alberta

Tara Armstrong : We have the highest debt in B.C.’s history. This Premier has run up the highest deficit

in B.C.’s history. Now he is obstructing the most productive industry in the country

— oil.

Young people are fleeing to Alberta, including my own son, where there are more jobs,

better pay and cheaper housing.

My question to the Premier is this. Will he apologize to the mothers of British Columbians

for chasing our sons out of this province?

Hon. Adrian Dix : First of all, having visited LNG projects in different parts of B.C., having visited

renewable projects in different parts of B.C., I can tell the member that sons and

daughters and everyone else who works on those projects…. I just object fundamentally

to this suggestion by the member.

The province of British Columbia is driving the Canadian economy with dozens of projects,

not projects that are…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix : …communications exercises, with a large communications staff but without proponents,

without business plans, without routes, without projects.

We are supporting projects across British Columbia, renewable projects, which the

member opposes; the North Coast transmission line, which the member opposes; and LNG

projects across B.C. We are leading a new industry with the lowest emission of LNG

in the world.

In short, what we’re concerned with is driving the Canadian economy with real projects

and, yes, protecting our economy and our coast and standing up for British Columbians

as we always will.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong : Yeah, more like driving it into the ground. Numbers don’t lie. Twenty-five thousand

young people left B.C. for Alberta last year alone.

In Alberta, taxes are lower, the jobs pay better, and people can afford housing. What

a concept. Projects actually get built.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith knows what she’s doing and lets Albertans create their

own prosperity, but here in B.C., this socialist Premier is busy blocking pipelines

and taking away people’s futures.

Will the Premier fight for B.C.’s future by allowing Alberta’s lead to be on the map?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : I’d be concerned with members who oppose projects in British Columbia but support

fantasy projects from other provinces.

Here in British Columbia, we are, I think, leading Canada in the development of real

projects. It’s why, when the Prime Minister identified the first list of major projects

in Canada, 40 percent of them were in British Columbia. It’s because of the work of

the people of British Columbia; of the workers of British Columbia; of the government

of British Columbia; and of all British Columbians, in fact, in driving economic development

at an important time.

We know our economy is facing headwinds as a result of really vicious and unprecedented

actions from the United States. As a result of that….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Everybody knows that. Everybody in our country knows that, whether it’s Premier Ford

or Premier Smith or our Premier.

Here in British Columbia, we are leading on the question, and you see it in the dozens

of projects we’re putting forward. In February, we announced 18 priority projects

in B.C. All of those projects have advanced since that time because we are driving

to ensure that people in British Columbia get the jobs they need and we build the

economy that we need.

Drug Decriminalization Program

and Substance Use Policies

Claire Rattée : In a stunning admission of failure last week, the Premier said, “I was wrong on drug

decriminalization and the effect that it would have; it wasn’t the right policy,”

and that it became a permissive structure that caused really unhappy consequences.

That’s putting it lightly.

If the Premier now admits that his government’s flagship drug policy has failed, why

are the same ideological architects still in charge of B.C.’s addictions response?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you so much for the question.

I’m pleased to stand here to respond to my first question as B.C.’s Minister of Public

Safety. I look forward to productive and meaningful conversations with members opposite

about matters related to public safety.

Now, the challenges that we’re seeing on our streets, here and across the country,

are very troubling. Let me be clear that public drug use in British Columbia is illegal.

Where there is drug use in public, police have the power to seize drugs and move people

along.

You’ll recall that we stood up this policy as a response to a public health emergency.

We want people to be able to call 911 if they are overdosing. The opposition and the

police supported this policy when it started, and when it did not work as intended,

the Premier made changes to address the concerns that we heard.

We are going to keep working with our police partners to ensure that we save lives

and keep our communities safe.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Contract with Consultant

for Downtown Eastside

Claire Rattée : That wasn’t a response to the question that I asked. I understand that this is the

minister’s first time getting up in question period. I can appreciate that, but that

is not the question that I asked.

To be clear, it’s not true. The police do not have the ability to do anything about

open public drug use, and we’re seeing the real-world consequences of that. They’re

not doing anything about it because there’s nothing they can do. Their hands have

been tied.

After eight years of failure on mental health and addictions, this Premier has zero

credibility on this file. Now he has appointed Larry Campbell to yet another czar-like

role but again refuses to release the details of his contract or mandate.

Will the Premier commit today to releasing not only the details of this contract but

also an unredacted version of any report that this contract produces, yes or no?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks so much for the question. I’m proud to be standing here as Minister of Housing

and Municipal Affairs.

The Downtown Eastside is a vibrant community which, as the member knows, has experienced

incredible amounts of struggle and resiliency. Our work as a government, alongside

residents in the community and organizations serving the community, is to create tangible

improvements in the lives across that neighbourhood.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member. Member.

The minister will answer.

Hon. Christine Boyle : As a former Vancouver mayor and federally as a senator, Mr. Campbell brings significant

experience to this role, helping to expand upon the work we’ve been doing as a government

and to bring together three levels of government to create tangible results.

The contract, as well as the dollar amounts, connected to Mr. Campbell have been released.

That information is public. Mr. Campbell has made himself available to media and will

continue to.

His continued priority is working alongside community organizations, bringing together

those voices and levels of government to create tangible results, because it is a

continued priority of this government to address the needs of vulnerable communities,

including those in the Downtown Eastside.

That’s the work that Mr. Campbell is going to help us continue to do.

Mobile Crisis Response Unit

in Langley-Willowbrook Area

Jody Toor : Car 67 mental health response team, pairing police with nurses, still isn’t running

in my riding, a year after this government promised it.

Everyone’s ready, the city and police, except this government. They’ve failed to plan

and failed to care.

Can the minister commit today? Will my community get Car 67, yes or no?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you very much to the member for the question.

We have seen the Car programs, the integrated crisis response teams, help communities

across B.C. We’re committed to providing communities with the resources and police

with the resources to work together to address some of the challenges of our time.

We’ll certainly speak with the community to….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, let her answer, please.

Hon. Nina Krieger : I’d be happy to speak to the member to talk about resources that may be available

to support public safety, to support the most vulnerable in our communities.

Emergency Health Care Services

Anna Kindy : When we ask this Minister of Health about ER closures, she always tells us that this

government doesn’t “take them lightly.”

But what are people in the North supposed to think when there have been 231 closures

in nine months? What about Interior Health, with 129 closures? What the minister is

doing to address this crisis is not working.

Can the minister guarantee that, on this Thanksgiving long weekend, no ER will be

closed, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

I can guarantee that this government is going to continue to take every action possible

to support health authorities, to fill staffing gaps at a time when we are experiencing

shortages of physicians, nurses and other essential health care workers that help

staff these emergency rooms across B.C.

I know, and I think everyone in this House knows, just how important it is to be able

to rely on that emergency room and knowing it is there for you when you need it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : That’s why this government continues to take actions to recruit, to train, to retain

more health care professionals here in B.C. Our efforts are working. As I said yesterday,

from January to August of this year, we are down 25 percent in the number of hours

that emergency rooms have been closed in this province.

[10:55 a.m.]

It’s not just B.C. that’s experiencing these challenges. Thirty-eight percent of our

emergency departments have experienced a closure, but that number is 70 percent in

Manitoba, 66 percent in Nova Scotia and 57 percent in Saskatchewan.

That’s why we’re going to continue to take advantage and seize the opportunity of

what’s happening in the States to attract more health care workers here. That’s why

we’re building a new medical school to train doctors to work here in B.C.

We’re going to continue to do everything possible. We know just how important it is

to have those emergency rooms here for people, in communities big and small, across

this great province.

Delta Hospital Emergency Services

Ian Paton : Last night members of Delta council expressed their outrage at yet another closure

of Delta Hospital’s emergency department, the fourth time this year. This is completely

unacceptable for a city of over 100,000 people.

Mayor Harvie was on RedFM this morning and said that health care in Delta is broken.

When will this government stop making excuses, take responsibility and assure Delta

residents that we will have no further ER closures, including this upcoming Thanksgiving

weekend?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

I’m glad that Delta city council had an opportunity to canvass, at their meeting yesterday,

the incredibly important topic of what’s happening in their emergency room and was

able to talk about steps and actions they can take. I look forward to continuing that

conversation with the Delta mayor and council.

I know that building out primary care in the community is an important component of

this so that people don’t have to go to the emergency room if they don’t need to,

because that’s the work that we’re doing to increase access to primary care providers.

It’s incredibly hard on everybody when these things happen, but we need to uplift

and thank the staff that are doing everything they can to fill those gaps, to work

overtime and spend the time providing the support and the care to people when they

need it most.

It is extremely unfortunate, of course, that Delta had an experience for the fourth

time this year. We know that other communities are seeing this issue too. We did not

get into this problem overnight, and we are not going to solve it with a single silver

bullet. We are not going to solve it overnight either.

What we are going to do is stick to our plan of recruiting more physicians, of training

more physicians, of ensuring that they know about the opportunities to work in incredible

facilities and communities across this province. We’re going to continue that work,

because people deserve the care when they need it.

Government Action on Health Care Issues

Trevor Halford : Let’s be clear. The minister, in previous answers, used the word “dignified.” They

talk about all the work that she’s doing, the meetings that she’s having, the commitment

that she has.

Any moral high ground that this minister or this Premier had on the health file left

when they deprived a child, terminally ill, of medication and made her, her family,

a community and a province beg to get it back — unacceptable, an absolute embarrassment.

We come in today, and we ask specific questions on Car 67, yes or no, and questions

on a seniors program that is ending on the 31st of this month, yes or no.

Can the Premier answer those questions today? Car 67, yes or no? The seniors program

that is ending on the 31st of this month, yes or no? On the Thanksgiving weekend that

we’re going into, will we have ER closures, yes or no?

Will the Premier get up and stand up for health care in this B.C., or will he hide

again and let his minister stick to her talking points?

Interjection.

The Speaker : Thank you, Members. The minister will answer.

Hon. Josie Osborne : This government remains committed to building out and strengthening our universal,

public, health care system here in British Columbia, not adopting a two-tier system,

which I know members of the opposition would do, if they had the opportunity, on this

side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the question period is over. It’s concluded.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : This government has invested more in new hospitals and health care facilities than

the previous government did, building a hospital, even in the Leader of the Opposition’s

riding that he’d refused to build, having two ATCO trailers stuck together and thinking

that that was a good way of delivering care to the people of Fort St. James.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We are building in Terrace. We are building in Fort St. James. We are building in

Dawson Creek.

We are going to continue this work because every community, every person in British

Columbia deserves strong health care, and that is what this government is committed

to.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report, annual follow-up

report, status of performance audit recommendations, 2019–2023.

Petitions

Lorne Doerkson : I rise today to present a petition. The petition notes the serious concerns regarding

a lack of consultation with respect to proposed power projects in the South Cariboo,

and 1,023 members of our communities have signed the petition titled “Halt the Wind

Turbine and Solar Projects in the Cariboo.”

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I am presenting this petition on behalf of very frustrated residents that are calling

for a stoppage on this work unless there is proper consultation brought to the Cariboo.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 12.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call committee stage for Bill 9, health care

recovery costs act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Okay, we’ll continue with second reading on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

[11:05 a.m.]

Trevor Halford : I’m grateful to get up today to talk about Bill 12 in second reading.

It’s kind of a funny thing, because I actually have two kids right now that are going

through the process of getting their licence. One has just gotten his, and the other

one is well on his way. It is scary times. I mean that, because there’s good and bad

that comes with it. There’s a little bit more simplicity going to school, going to

work, things like that. But there’s also a fear.

We heard about that, put so passionately by my colleague who served as a police officer.

I think every parent has that fear when their child leaves the house. You think about….

You can’t protect them when they’re on their own.

For me, it comes down to safety. Those are going to be the fundamental things that

I think this side of the House will be canvassing in committee, the safety aspect

of this piece of legislation. I think the primary goal here is to ensure that our

roads are safe and ensure that our drivers are best prepared to be on our roads.

You know, we look at different things in the structure. When I got my licence, it

wasn’t through the graduated program. I never had an N. I see the Ns all the time.

I see the Ls. I think if we’re making changes to that, we need to ensure that those

changes are enhancing the safety of our roads.

We’ve talked about backlogs that have occurred. Obviously, there are some effects

with the strike that’s going on. I know some people have had their tests cancelled,

which is very unfortunate.

This is legislation that’s existed since, I think, 1996. Part of the thing that I’m

really curious about is — I’m sure there’s good rationale — the statistics in terms

of reducing the age from 19 to 18 of who can apply for a full licence themselves,

in terms of allowing for regulatory power regarding driver’s education that could

shorten wait times for novice drivers to get their full licence, the length of time

that a person has held a valid licence and how a driving record is translated into

another jurisdiction as well.

I think that those are all very important questions that I know myself and my colleagues

will be canvassing.

We do need to make sure, too, that we help reduce the backlog that we are currently

seeing. There are some people in some areas and even in my area…. I live in an area

that’s very populated, right by the border crossing. Actually, in the area that I

live, there’s no public transportation available whatsoever.

If you’re just getting into the workforce or you’re going to university, you’re actually

depending on a vehicle. Right now we’re talking about months and months for people

waiting to get their tests.

We want to make sure though, too, that if somebody’s behind the wheel, we know that

we have legislation in place that makes sure that they are as qualified as they can

be. I think that’s something everybody in this House would agree on. How do we do

that with matching high-quality training programs to ensure that that’s occurring?

We’ve got to talk about cost too. A lot of times the cost of some of these training

programs…. To a lot of families, especially right now when we’re in an affordability

crisis, it’s very cost-prohibitive. So what is occurring there? Some families cannot

afford driving lessons.

[11:10 a.m.]

I know that in some cases it can potentially save on insurance and other such factors,

but we need to talk about equality with that. We need to talk about affordability.

We need to make sure that that enhances the safety on our roads.

We also need to talk about the way we’re monitoring these changes. I’m sure ICBC and

the, I think, previous government, because this was done, as I said before, in 1996….

I think those stats will show how those changes affected things, and I think we need

to know what the statistical rationale is for making these changes now. I’m sure that

exists, but I think we in the House have a duty here to canvass that and make sure

that we can exemplify how that will happen and if there are ways to improve that.

I think some of my colleagues will lay that out.

I am looking forward to canvassing this in committee stage. I know there are a number

of speakers here. Again, I stress the fact that getting your licence is one of the

most liberating times you’re ever going to experience, especially as a young adult

or maybe even a new Canadian and such. I live in a riding that is heavily populated

by seniors, and a lot of issues I have are seniors coming in that are saying: “I’ve

got to do all these things to get my licence.”

We also have a duty to make sure…. Yes, we want to make sure people on the roads have

the freedom to get from A to B, to get to their appointments, to get to their loved

ones, to get their groceries. Also, the paramount goal that we always need to focus

on is the safety of our roads. That is, first and foremost, the most paramount thing

— the safety of our roads. How does this do this? I know that’s the intent. How does

this shape the backlog? Those are the issues that I’m looking forward to canvassing

in committee stage.

I am looking forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues that have served as

first responders. A previous colleague spoke, and I think we’ll hear from another

colleague that served, and these people have seen it firsthand. I know there are people

on the government side of the House that have gone to MVAs and the trauma associated

with that, the fact that they’ve gone and knocked on somebody’s door and told them

that their son or daughter is not coming home anymore. As hard as those stories are

to hear, I think it’s very important that we have that lens when we go through this

process.

This is legislation that was done a few decades ago, and I think the changes that

are being considered here…. I think that as we flush them out, we can get a sense

of what they’re intended to accomplish, what those benchmarks will be and how they’ll

be measured.

I look forward to that conversation, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues on

both sides of the House speak to this in second reading.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am on the territory of the traditional

kʷikʷəƛ̓əm people. I’m grateful to live, work and serve on this land.

I want to thank the member for Victoria–Swan Lake for bringing forward these graduated

licensing program design changes. I appreciate the thoughtful, evidence-based approach

to amending the legislation, reviewing our approach to see if we’re getting value

from the process and how, without sacrificing safety, we can be more efficient and

serve all communities better.

Driving is an essential life skill. For many, especially in rural and remote parts

of the province, it’s a necessity. In commuting to work, taking your kids to school,

accessing health care, having a driver’s licence can make all the difference. This

will help remove barriers for Indigenous, rural, remote and northern communities and

marginalized communities in urban environments.

In my previous role, supporting youth who were coming out of care and employees who

were just embarking on their social work career, many really struggled to get their

driver’s licences. Youth in care are much less likely to have access to the supports

that will help them get that licence: access to a vehicle; a group of adults who are

willing and able to drive with them, instruct them and guide them; help and advice

that mean they can get their driver’s licence early.

[11:15 a.m.]

When they graduate from high school and then graduate out of care, that becomes even

more challenging. I want to thank this government for the supports that they’ve provided

for youth out of care, recognizing the challenge this group of people have in getting

education, job training and acquiring those skills that can help them successfully

move on to adult life.

The real challenge, the moments of learning, come during the time when they’re actually

doing the driving. Practising, practising, practising is key. But when they leave

high school, those kids have a real and serious lack of resources. They don’t have

a vehicle, they are often working two jobs or shift work, and they have less opportunity

to make appointments for drivers’ tests.

They need good jobs in order to be able to have the money to get the car to practise

and then take the test. Because they lack those things, they’re just that much more

likely to delay getting a licence until they have that better job. But then how do

you get a better job without a licence?

I mentioned that I was also supporting young social workers, who are very often kids

who were, at one point, in care and now want to help children like they once were.

When supervising practicum students who are learning about working in the social work

field, we’d spend time strategizing about how they’re going to progress to their goals.

The number one thing that we discussed was how they could get a full driver’s licence.

Those are exactly the youth and the young adults that this program will benefit —

responsible, thoughtful, hard-working kids who need a full driver’s licence to pursue

job opportunities.

So today I’m very pleased to be able to talk about the changes we’re making to improve

how people in British Columbia learn to drive, get licensed and stay safe on our roads,

the action that we’re taking to modernize British Columbia’s licensing program to

make it clearer, more consistent and more accessible without compromising on safety.

Removing the requirement for a second road test to obtain a full class 5 driver’s

licence. B.C. is one of only two provinces, the other being Ontario, that still requires

new drivers to take two separate road tests to graduate from a novice class 7 licence

to a full licence. The evidence indicates the second test alone doesn’t improve safety

outcomes significantly. What does improve safety? Time, experience and practice.

So instead of our second road test, we change to a new 12-month licensing restriction

period for the new class 5 licence holders. For one year after receiving the class

5 licence, maintaining a clean driving record is essential. No alcohol, no drugs in

your system, no excessive speeding and no distracted driving.

If drivers can do that, they earn their full, unrestricted class 5 licence automatically,

without needing to book and pass a second road test. That’s increasing safety. It’s

efficient, but it doesn’t sacrifice safety. Those changes do not lower the bar. They’ll

strengthen it by extending the time the drivers need to get their full class 5. We’re

reinforcing good habits, helping to reduce the risk of crashing, especially amongst

younger and less experienced drivers.

Older drivers face a slightly different risk profile. Research shows that drivers

aged 25 and older have a 20 percent lower crash risk than those under 25. That’s why

we’re tailoring the rules accordingly, to reflect real-world data and better align

with other provinces.

We’re also taking strong action to improve safety for motorcycle riders. Motorcyclists

are some of our most vulnerable road users. The risks they face are real, and the

consequences of an accident are often devastating. The new motorcyclist licensing

program will have stricter safety requirements, including mandatory protective gear

beyond just helmets.

Head injury is a real risk, but bodily injury is also a serious concern. Protective

gear can help keep people safe. Zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol. No one should

be driving impaired, especially as a new driver. New safety training standards to

help ensure that every motorcyclist has the skills and awareness that they need to

stay safe on the road.

These changes are in direct response to long-standing concerns from the riding community,

from health care professionals and from families who’ve lost loved ones in preventable

crashes. These changes aren’t just about safety. They’re also about access.

[11:20 a.m.]

We know that in many parts of British Columbia, road test appointments can be hard

to come by, especially true, especially acute, especially challenging for people in

those remote and underserved communities where travelling can be very long, sometimes

for more than one appointment to complete a licensing process.

By removing the second road test, that will reduce pressure on the system and allow

more appointments for new drivers who are starting their journey and help more people

access the service they need.

That’s especially important for the young people, like the youth and the young employees

I mentioned, who are entering the workforce and need a driver’s licence to get ahead.

That licence can be a job requirement or restriction to moving forward into a more

senior position.

I also want to address a few important pieces. This change is not about cutting costs

or reducing staff at ICBC. ICBC is actively hiring 20 new driver examiners to meet

that current demand, and we’re committed to supporting that staff every step of the

way.

The changes are not going to happen immediately. We’re targeting early 2026 for implementation

to allow for proper consultation with Indigenous communities, driver training schools,

safety experts and industry partners.

Most importantly, if a driver receives a penalty, whether for speeding, impaired driving

or using their phone behind the wheel, their 12-month restricted period will restart.

That means that accountability stays in place and safe behaviour is non-negotiable.

Public safety is the most important piece. Every decision from data analysis to policy

design was assisted and guided by expert advice, real-world evidence and a responsibility

to keep people safe on our roads.

We’ve seen too many families impacted by preventable collisions. We’ve heard from

too many parents and too many first responders and too many communities. So we will

continue to do better, and with these changes, we will.

Above all, this is about people, about young drivers working hard to earn their licences.

It’s about parents struggling to teach their teens to drive, and the people who work

hard in those professionalized capacities in order to support young people in learning

to drive. It’s about workers in rural B.C. who need safe, reliable access to road

testing. This is about motorcyclists who deserve the best protection we can offer

and about building a licensing system that’s fair, efficient and puts safety first.

To everyone who provided input and your expertise, we thank you. It’s incredibly challenging

to shift technical legislation like this, and the expertise you provided was a key

piece of understanding how we could move forward without sacrificing safety.

I am also going through the getting-the-licence process with my children right now.

To the driver examiners, we thank you for your service and your kindness in guiding

our young drivers and your expertise in ensuring that drivers who are not ready are

not on the road.

We thank the road safety experts who provided guidance, who provided expertise and

who helped guide this legislation as it comes forward, and community advocates who

shared their stories, who told us about the experiences of their family and their

loss.

Thank you.

To every person who is doing their best to drive responsibly: you’re a part of this

solution. This isn’t just about policy. This is to ensure that roads are safer and

we’re supporting people where they are.

We’re looking to build a system that reflects the values of this province — smart,

fair and forward-looking.

Bryan Tepper : Hon. Members, distinguished guests who seem to have cleared out very quickly today,

and anybody tuning in at home from Vancouver to Prince George, thank you for joining

me to discuss a bill that revs up change on our roads.

Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, is the NDP’s attempt to put the pedal

to the metal on driver licensing reform. It aims to clear the gridlock at ICBC testing

centres where novice drivers are stuck in neutral, waiting months for a road test

to shift from class 5 novice licence to full class 5.

the mandatory second road test for novice drivers with clean records, replacing it

with a one-year restricted period to prove safe driving.

[11:25 a.m.]

It lowers the independent application age from 19 to 18, grants ICBC and cabinet flexible

regulatory powers and tightens safety rules for motorcycles and distracted driving.

If it comes into force, it’s the biggest overhaul of the B.C. graduated licensing

program since 1998.

While the Conservatives believe in tackling bureaucracy and reducing simple hurdles

as principles we can all rally behind, this can never come at the expense of safety.

For young British Columbians — whether they’re heading to UBC, starting a job in Kelowna

or just picking up pizza in Surrey — backlogs stifle independence.

Why don’t cars trust bureaucracy? It’s because it keeps putting them in park.

The bill’s focus on high-quality training programs and evidence-based pathways is

promising. However, are they just making it too expensive for some people to simply

carry on with what is a necessary part of life today?

We support improving road safety and recognizing that structured driver education

can prepare novice drivers better than a one-size-fits-all road test. But here’s the

catch. It’s not a speed bump. We must ensure that this isn’t a shortcut to clear backlogs

at the expense of safety. British Columbia’s roads aren’t a racetrack for reckless

reform.

Every year crashes claim lives, break families and strain our health care system.

Novice drivers are overrepresented in these tragedies. So I ask if the NDP has studied

the stats from before 1997, when our two-test system began, to after its implementation.

Does Bill 12 balance efficiency with evidence, or are we risking a collision with

safety?

In principle, less red tape is a green light, but safety is the road sign we can’t

ignore. Let’s take this bill for a test drive, clause by clause, with an eye on the

data and the human cost.

The 1990s were a different era for driving in B.C. A knowledge test, one road test,

minimal practice, and vroom, you’re fully licensed. No waiting periods, no passenger

limits, no zero-tolerance alcohol rules. It was the Wild West of driving, and the

stats were a wreck.

In the early ’90s, young drivers aged 16 to 19 were crashing at rates of 20 to 25

fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers annually, according to ICBC and Transport

Canada. The risks were clear. Inexperience led to nighttime collisions, teen-packed

cars, speeding and impaired driving. A 1999 study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine noted that pre–graduated systems across North America saw young driver crashes up

to four times higher than adults.

My colleague spoke of his personal experience, and I’m going to tell a story from

one of mine in my career as a police officer. I had to go twice, to two different

families, over my career having to tell them that their child had died because of

driving behaviours that caused loss of life.

In one particular instance, it was a vehicle that had gone off the road, rolled, and

there was a person missing from the car that we couldn’t locate. Over the course of

that time, as police, we were forced to call the home to find out if he had returned

there during that time. Because of the rollover and not wearing a seatbelt and multiple

people in the car, he had been thrown from the vehicle and killed. A family received

that phone call with no knowledge of where he was and what had happened.

[11:30 a.m.]

I was the one that had to go to the house, with our victim service worker, thankfully,

to talk to them. When they got the phone call that we were on the way to their home,

a 45-minute drive from where we were, I can’t imagine what that was like for a family.

I spent several hours there, hugging the family, dealing with their issues, their

tragedy.

This is something that nobody ever wants to go through, that nobody ever wants to

hear about. As I said, I had to do that more than once in my career, and I don’t know

if there are police officers that don’t have to do that.

In B.C., the data screamed for reform. In 1998, in the graduated licensing program,

our province’s roadmap to safer roads…. It introduced three stages: learner, class

7L, one year with a supervisor; novice, class 7, two years with restrictions like

no nighttime driving after midnight, one passenger under 25 unless supervised and

zero alcohol; and then your full licence, class 5. A second road test was the finish

line, a real-world check of skills.

The results were a game-changer. ICBC’s evaluation showed that within three years,

novice crash rates dropped 16 percent, saving 31 lives and preventing 17,500 collisions.

Meta-analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that GLP slashed

teen fatal crashes by 26 to 40 percent across jurisdictions, with overall crashes

between jurisdictions between 20 and 50 percent.

In B.C., nighttime restrictions alone cut novice involvement by 20 to 30 percent.

By 2016, young driver fatalities fell from over 50 annually pre-1997 to 20 to 25 in

recent years, per B.C. Coroners Service, which I wish I did not have to quote.

During those years, working with the RCMP, I was not a traffic member or a highway

safety member. I worked closely with them on many occasions. The goal of zero deaths

on our highways is an admirable goal, and we have moved a long way towards that. It’s

still too much.

From 2012 to 2021, police reported that novice crashes kept declining, even as vehicle

kilometres travelled rose. So this wasn’t luck; it was structure. Was it the two-test

system building competence, or was it the time behind the wheel? Were the other restrictions

being followed more closely by the youth of today?

But this all is like telling a car you don’t get to race until you’ve mastered the

parking lot. So I challenge the NDP.

Did you dive into these pre- and post-1997 stats? At some point in Hansard, it mentions the evolving road safety practices, but we haven’t seen the deep dive.

Have you modelled crash rates under no-test systems?

In 2023, a UBC study on GLP tweaks suggested that removing tests without robust training

could spike novice crashes by 5 to 10 percent. Safety isn’t a suggestion. It’s the

seatbelt of this debate. We need evidence, not just horsepower.

Let’s pop the hood on Bill 12’s clauses. It appears to me that clauses 1 and 7 are

tune-ups, minor edits to sections 21 and 261 for clarity. I don’t see any red flags

there, looking at it myself at this point.

[11:35 a.m.]

But clause 2 amends

section 23, adding subsection (2.11): “The Lieutenant Governor

in Council can prescribe different amounts of driving experience for different classes

of persons.” It’s flexible, yes. It recognizes out-of-province licences or clean records,

which is great. It’s like giving a seasoned driver a fast lane. ICBC’s new power to

compare out-of-province offences adds fairness.

But “classes of persons” is as clear as a foggy windshield. Who qualifies — urban

drivers, rural, newcomers? Without definition, it’s like handing ICBC a blank roadmap.

I will say, why did the driver get lost in clause 2? The directions said: “Turn left

at prescribed clauses.”

Clause 3 is the potential flat tire. It amends

section 25 to make road tests optional.

People only take a knowledge test, road test or science test if ICBC requires it.

For class 7 to class 5, no test if you’ve held the novice licence for the prescribed

period, which is now set by cabinet, and completed approved training. Instead, a one-year

restriction period enforces safe driving. Lowering the application age to 18, in clause

4, empowers young adults. Data shows 18-year-olds are as mature as 19-year-olds for

licensing.

Approved driver education courses that shorten wait-lists are fantastic. Studies show

that they can cut crashes from 10 to 20 percent. We support this in principle.

Backlogs, apparently over 100,000 waits in 2024, push some to drive unlicensed, risking

fines or worse. A monitored year of driving could prove skills better than a 30-minute

test. It’s like, again, show me how you handle the highway, not just the cul-de-sac.

Why will novice drivers love the new system? It’s because they don’t have to parallel

park for a grumpy examiner.

But safety can’t stall. New subsection 10(

f) lets regulations adjust conditions based

on how long you’ve had a licence, driving record or other prescribed conditions. That’s

vaguer than the GPS saying “recalculating.”

What are these considerations? ICBC can deem out-of-jurisdiction licence equivalents.

But without transparency, how do we ensure fairness?

My own fear is that we will have drivers over the age of 25 that we know have a harder

time picking up on tasks requiring concentration and coordination. Just try playing

a video game with a 16-year-old.

The previous speaker actually mentioned that people over the age of 25 are generally

safer. This is for people that do have some driving experience. It’s the general coordination

and ability to pick up skills and muscle memory that become more difficult as somebody

ages over 25. I don’t know how we’re going to address that in this bill.

Rural drivers in Prince George face different roads than Vancouver commuters. So will

their experience be judged equally?

The bill mandates monitoring, but where is the independent oversight? Pre-1997 data

warns us loose gates lead to crashes.

Let’s hear from stakeholders. The B.C. Trucking Association supports streamlined licensing

but urges mandatory training standards. Parents I have spoken to worry. “My teen is

ready, but no test? I need proof they’re safe.”

We need clarity, consultation and data-driven exemptions.

Move on to clause 5, the mandates for protective gear for class 6L, 8L motorcycle

operators and passengers — jackets, boots, helmets. Long overdue.

I am going to tell another personal story, but this one is not quite as heavy.

[11:40 a.m.]

Back at the beginning of my career, I was working with a traffic program that was

ongoing with the commercial safety inspectors. On the way back, we’re driving down

a gravel road when a fellow pulled out on a motorcycle wearing shorts, no shirt, no

helmet.

I was in the commercial vehicle with that driver. He turned on the lights and the

siren. The person got a little scared, apparently, wobbled in the gravel and dropped

over on his motorcycle. Of course, we got out quickly to make sure he was okay.

He was fine, other than picking gravel bits out of some of his skin here and there.

I would have been happy with that as enough punishment for what he had done. However,

if we know our commercial vehicles safety inspectors, he pulled out his ticket book

and wrote up a long list of infractions.

That could have been far worse than just a simple story where somebody had some gravel

in his skin — other than that, unhurt. So yes, I do applaud the new restrictions for

protective clothing. Motorcyclists face fatality rates 25 times higher than cars.

Clause 6 bans hands-free devices for classes 6L, 7, 7L, 8, 8L learners and has zero

tolerance for distractions. Smart, since distractions cause 25 percent of young driver

crashes.

Clause 8 shields pre-amendment licence holders from retroactive bans, which is fair.

While I’m sort of still talking of the distracted drivers, getting rid of all…. I

applaud it for all levels of this with distracted driving as well, to move it in there.

It is, I believe, right now…. I haven’t seen the stats in a few years, but distracted

driving is the number one cause of crashes. I will have to see updated stats, and

hopefully, they are coming if this moves forward.

Clauses 9 to 10 streamline classes 7, 8 and 5, 6 and grant cabinet broad regulatory

powers.

Clause 11 scraps the redundant 2020 amendment, and clause 12 sets commencement by

regulation.

The bill cuts red tape, but the regulatory blank cheque in sections 23 and 25 is like

giving ICBC the keys to a sports car with no speed limit. The government must define

classes, mandate consultation and ensure equity. Safety isn’t just a road sign; it’s

lives. Bill 12’s no-test pathway must be grounded in evidence, not just a quick lane

change to clear backlogs.

Post-1998, GLP slashed novice fatalities by 40 percent. Removing the second test risks

backsliding unless we double down on monitoring. Again I ask: is it the second test,

or is it the restrictions on the licence?

Mandate annual crash rate reports for exempted drivers using telematics. ICBC has

the tech to track violations in that first year.

For motorcycles, protective gear is a start, but mandate advanced training. Ontario’s

motorcycle program cut novice crashes by 15 percent with mandatory training courses.

These stats, NDP, show us the evidence. Pre-1997, 16- to 19-year-old crash rates were

double today’s. Post-GLP, a 16 percent drop in three years. Again, was it the second

road test or some other factor? We need to know. The government needs to present this

House with real data and supporting statistics.

A 2024 ICBC pilot in Kelowna showed test-exempt novices with training had crash rates

equal to tested drivers, but it was small-scale. Model Bill 12 provincewide. Will

it hold up? If not, pilot it in low-risk areas first.

I heard from my constituent: “My daughter is 20, ready for her class 5. No test sounds

great, but I want data that this is safe.” Full disclosure — that was me. Once again,

government must present this bill with the stats and evidence that led to this bill.

Bill 12 is a chance to shift gears — less bureaucracy, more trained drivers, safer

roads. I understand the NDP’s intent to clear backlogs, embrace training, ban distractions.

But safety is our top priority.

[11:45 a.m.]

Learn from pre-1997’s wild ride. Don’t repeat it. The people of British Columbia deserve

roads where a teen’s first drive ends at home, not at the hospital. Pass this bill

with amendments that prioritize evidence, equity and real lives. For our kids, for

our communities, let’s keep safety in the driver’s seat.

Stephanie Higginson : I rise today to speak in support of Bill 12, but I want to start by thanking the

members opposite from Kelowna-Peachland and Surrey-Panorama for their service and

for their personal stories around this issue of road safety.

I live in a rural community. We don’t have sidewalks. My son used to walk four kilometres

to school and see four streetlights. So the issue of road safety is a daily concern

in my community for both young and old. We have lost members of our community, both

young and old. It’s an issue that’s really important to the members of my community.

I welcome the goal of this bill to modernize the graduated licensing program and to

provide improved safety standards to the motorcycle licensing program. I remember

getting my driver’s licence at 16 years old in Toronto and literally the next day

driving down the 401, a 16-lane highway, in my mom’s 1985 Chevette, thinking: “I really

shouldn’t be here.”

I welcomed when the graduated licensing program came in, because I really remembered

that day, thinking I shouldn’t have been there. But I think it’s also really important

for us to remember that the current graduated licensing program has been around for

over 25 years. It is time for an update. It’s time for a refresh to respond to today’s

context and the changing nature of the roads since this was put in place.

The changes will create simpler and more accessible processes for new drivers while

at the same time maintaining the high safety road standards for motorcycle riders

and all road users. The changes propose to remove the requirement for a second road

test to obtain a class 5 licence and to create a new 12-month restriction period for

new class 5 holders.

The proposed changes will also establish a new motorcycle licensing program with stronger

safety measures, including mandatory protective gear and zero tolerance for drugs

and alcohol. These changes will help new drivers build safe behaviours, reduce barriers

to earning a full licence and help improve access for those seeking a road test to

earn their novice class 7 licence. The changes also do aim to reduce fatalities and

serious injuries, especially among new motorcycle riders.

I am also…. There are a lot of us in this House who are moms or parents of teens,

one of whom just got his N almost a year ago. Because of that, I’m surrounded by a

lot of teens who are also going through this process. Our family found the requirement

for the second road test to be an arbitrary hurdle that may or may not reflect the

ability or skill of a new driver.

There are too many factors at play that impact the outcome of that test. Then there

are the required wait times after each test if you don’t pass, which may or may not

have happened in my house. We may have been one of the more than 50 percent that did

not pass the test the first time.

If you’re lucky enough, then, to get another test in a timely manner…. It’s not a

common occurrence to get another test in a timely manner. You kind of have to wait

months and months. That creates inequitable access to this hurdle, for many directly

impacting their ability to seek employment. The disparity of that hurdle is often

dictated by where you live in the province.

The proposed changes instead focus on experience, not a date on a calendar, because

a longer period of experience is demonstrated to be better at building the right skills

and behaviours for safe drivers. Research indicates that age and inexperience can

contribute to a crash risk. As new drivers get more experience, their crash risk decreases.

Evidence also shows that having an extended period with restrictions and enhanced

driver record reviews builds the necessary skills and behaviours to promote safe driving.

[11:50 a.m.]

The restrictions on new drivers for the first 12 months of their class 5 will be introduced,

which will extend the period that they are not allowed to have any drugs or alcohol

in their system. They must also maintain safe driving behaviour, no driving suspensions

or prohibitions, and have no excessive speeding or use-of-electronic-device tickets

on their record during this 12-month period to be eligible to receive an unrestricted

class 5 licence. No excessive speed and no electronic tickets are currently not a

requirement to exit the graduated licensing program.

This approach is used in other Canadian provinces to encourage and require new class

5 drivers to operate in safe and responsible manners and not to engage in risky behaviours.

With these changes, drivers will be older, they will have more time behind the wheel

when restrictions are removed, and all of these changes remove requirements not proven

to increase road safety, which will reduce wait times for those seeking road tests

to earn their novice class 7 licence.

I’ve heard some accusations or concern that perhaps we’re putting this forward for

efficiency. This government has always stood on safety, sometimes at the impact of

efficiency. I have to say that I find those concerning accusations, because it’s not

fair. We heard from the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, at the beginning

of this, the evidence that was used to make these changes.

They also align B.C. with other provinces across the country. At this time, only B.C.

and Ontario require a second road test.

I want to also speak in support of the proposed changes to create a new motorcycle

licensing program with stricter safety requirements. I was actually quite surprised,

as a mom of teens, to learn that, in my opinion, it’s actually easier to get a motorcycle

licence than it is to get a vehicle licence.

As a mom of teen boys, that really scared me. Luckily, my kids are super risk-averse.

Neither of them, at this point, wants to ride a motorcycle on the road. But some of

them have appeared in my yard with their friends riding them, and it was way easier

for them to get that licence than it was to pass the vehicle test.

We’ve heard concerns, and we’ve also heard about the deep consultation that has occurred

with industry experts in order to bring forward the motorcycle licensing program.

The approach ensures that new riders gain the unique skills required to ride safely.

These changes will also help reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting from

motorcycle-related crashes.

There were a lot of good questions asked, and I look forward to Bill 12 making it

to second reading so that we can go through those questions and ensure that there

are safer roads for every British Columbian.

I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

Stephanie Higginson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson :

Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Bowinn Ma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

Recognizing the Minister of Health, if you have any comments.

On clause 1.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thanks very much, Chair. Good to be here. I’m looking forward to the conversation

we’re going to have.

I’ll just take the opportunity to introduce the staff that are joining me. We have

Katherine Thiessen-Wale, who is the executive director of legislation for the Ministry

of Health; Razvan Diacu, the director of legislative initiatives; and Kelly Millar,

the deputy supervisor from the Ministry of Attorney General.

I’m happy to get going.

[11:10 a.m.]

Anna Kindy : Welcome to the Minister of Health and her staff.

I liked what one of the ministers said yesterday about working cooperatively. This

is about, if there are changes, trying to make the changes better for all our constituents.

It’s about recovering health care costs and also making sure that we address the issues

adequately.

I’m hoping this is not going to be confrontational. I don’t feel like it should be.

So let’s work together with this.

Starting with

section 1, there are some concerns in terms of the definition of what

an insurer is and what an uninsured defendant is. Can we start off with that and then

go from there?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

Just a little bit of background. One of the reasons why it’s important to have the

clarification of these

definitions in the act is because many corporations who call

themselves self-insured have taken the perspective that they are exempt from the act,

but they are not. By providing clear

definitions — I won’t read it into the record

because I know that the member has it before her — that will make it totally clear

that they are not exempt from the act.

Brennan Day : I just need some clarification around the uninsured defendant issue. Currently under

the act, nothing is being pursued against uninsured defendants, effectively.

Does this create a new category definition that would then be able to be used by the

government to go after uninsured defendants specifically, and could you broaden out

the scope of what that might look like in terms of creating that new category?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : The short answer here is that this really doesn’t change anything. But it does clarify

the requirement for an uninsured defendant to notify government. They always were

required to subrogate the government’s claim, but this really clarifies when and how

they have to give notice. It doesn’t change the responsibilities of the uninsured

defendant.

Brennan Day : With the short notice periods, how do extensions and things…? How is that going to

function under this legislation? Knowing that when we’re talking about uninsured,

we’re likely talking about smaller businesses and things of that nature and individuals,

potentially, is there any sort of mechanism within this bill that’s being looked at

to allow those extensions? I think that potentially puts quite a bit of burden on

people that might not have any experience navigating this sort of system.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I appreciate the question. I think that’s on a different clause, though.

Scott McInnis : Thank you to the minister and the staff.

Clause 1 expands the definition of an insurer to include self-insured organizations

and mutual defence groups. Looking from the lens of, say, a small adventure tourism

operator who potentially could rely on informal or cooperative insurance agreements,

how could this potentially affect them?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thanks for the question.

First of all, just to point out, virtually all small businesses do have some form

of insurance. It would be, of course, an extremely risky proposition to be undertaking

a tourism venture and not have insurance.

Again, this is about…. Government is merely participating in the claim. If action

is taken against some such business and it’s proven that they were negligent or didn’t

take the due diligence or care and it’s proven that that is the case, then government

participates in the claim and has the opportunity to recoup those health care recovery

costs from the defendant.

Anna Kindy : Just so I can get the context of what we’re working with here with this act since

it’s been implemented, the number we have is that $6.6 million was collected in ’23-24.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m wondering, in terms of…. It’s very easy to ramp up dollars in health care very

quickly with ICU stays and the rest. So I’m just wondering. With the $6.6 million,

what are the numbers of actual people that end up having to contribute? How many outfits

ended up having to contribute that $6.6 million? Just so I sort of have an idea.

I don’t know if you have a list of that at all available for us. Is that something

that needs to get through FOI, or is it something that’s available to get an idea

of where the moneys were coming from and how many people it impacted for the $6.6

million?

Hon. Josie Osborne : While the detailed information that the member is referring to is not something that

is easily available or readily at hand, certainly not with me today, I want to assure

the member that the Ministry of Health is constantly monitoring this program overall

and ensuring that the legal costs — for example, the cost of running the department

— are not outpacing what’s being recouped.

Again, I want to remind the member that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of injury

claims that come forward, and government is subrogated in each and every one of those

claims. So it’s important, and the principle under which the act was established in

2009 is about recouping the cost from the wrongdoer — from the person or the organization,

the business that is found to be responsible for injury or death — and that instead

of recouping those health care costs from the general taxpayer in British Columbia,

it instead is coming from the wrongdoer.

Brennan Day : What criteria will cabinet use to prescribe an organization as an insurer under paragraph

(e)?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : This part of the clause is really around future-proofing the legislation so that

if in the future we find additional information is required, we don’t have to go back

through the process of amending the legislation but instead have the authority to

be able to identify the records or information that should be collected and is needed.

Brennan Day : Can the minister please provide examples of insurers that will now have to comply

with the act’s notice and information requirements, just in general, so we can have

a good understanding of what that captures?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Just by way of background, again, one of the reasons for bringing this amendment

act forward is to do some of the fine-tuning, clarifying, narrowing exceptions, ensuring

that it is very clear both to the public and to insurers, for example, what the requirements

are in this case.

Examples of organizations that…. And again, I want to assure everybody, these are

already organizations that were captured by the act, but what we’re doing is changing

the notification provisions to ensure that government has the opportunity to be part

of an action and ensure the opportunity to recoup health care costs.

The Canadian Medical Protective Association is a mutual defence organization that

represents doctors, for example, and now it will be very clear what those notification

requirements are for such an organization. There are also large, say, grocery store

chains or retail chains that are self-insured just by virtue of being so big. Again,

it is much more clear for them. The act always applied to those organizations.

Again, this is about the notification requirements to ensure that government has the

opportunity to recover health care costs when those organizations are found responsible

through their wrongdoing or omission or negligence for personal injury or death.

Anna Kindy : Just again, looking at what you capture and…. You know, it sounds like it’s….

First of all, a lot of organizations I could say have insurance. For example, WCB

has insurance. I imagine bigger heli-skiing outfits like CMH have insurance.

My concern is twofold. The little outfits — they exist, right? The little outfits

that aren’t necessarily sport-related but can be work-related as well. And they’re

uninsured, these little outfits. So I’m just wondering why the uninsured defendant

has been added to this act, because it could have unintended consequences, like I

mentioned yesterday when we were debating.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : I think this is pretty similar to the question that the member opened with.

Again to be clear, whether you’re insured or not, you could always get sued, and government

will always participate in that. If an individual or a business or an organization

chooses not to have insurance, again, that’s a decision they make and could put themselves

at considerable risk depending on the type of activity they’re undertaking.

What the act here does is clarify the definition of an uninsured defendant and make

it more clear about their responsibility to notify government when a claim comes in.

Brennan Day : Given that we’re making these changes, what is the increase in projected revenue

due to these amendments? I think that’s important for us to understand so we know,

at least ballpark, what kinds of figures we’re talking about here. So $6.6 million,

I know, seems like a large figure, but in the grand scheme of health care, at lawyers’

time, it can be eaten up fairly quickly.

Hon. Josie Osborne : The total amount of health care costs that can be recouped in a year of course depends

on the number of claims that come in, and it depends on the facts of each case, which

we just have no way of predicting. So I can’t answer the member’s question outright.

I want to be clear that revenue is not the motivation for bringing forward these amendments.

Instead, these are the clarifications, the tightening, the fine-tuning, if you will,

that enable government to more effectively participate and ensure that we’re not wasting

the court’s time, for example. To that end, they could actually result in savings,

because we’re not engaged in court arguments that simply aren’t necessary. That’s

the purpose of the act.

Again, just coming back to first principles and the whole reason for why the act was

established in 2009, it’s to ensure that it is those who are responsible for injury

or death, the wrongdoers, who are the ones who pay the health care costs instead of

having them borne by taxpayers of British Columbia.

Anna Kindy : The Minister of Health knows that adding the uninsured is a big amendment to

an act.

The Minister of Health knows, as well, that uninsured people tend to be the smaller

outfits. And the Minister of Health knows, as well, that being sued for recouping

health care costs can be millions of dollars and add unbelievable stress to what potentially

will be a very small outfit. I’m not sure that that’s taken into account here.

I just want to make sure that that’s on paper.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Again, I want to be clear that the uninsured defendant has always been subject to

these kinds of claims. This changes nothing. It changes nothing with respect to a

person’s or an organization’s or a business’s decision whether to purchase insurance

or not. Again, that can be risky business depending on the activity that they’re undertaking.

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s not the intention of these amendments. These amendments are to clarify the definition

of an uninsured defendant and make sure that it is clear what their responsibilities

are in notifying government. But any action that is taken against an uninsured defendant….

Those actions will continue, and government already participates in those cases. So

nothing is changing in that respect.

Brennan Day : Has the government conducted an impact assessment on the compliance costs this is

going to impose on small and medium-sized enterprises that manage internal risk funds?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The answer is no. Again to be clear, these small and medium enterprises have always

been subject to the act. Since 2009, they have always had to participate if somebody

takes action against them. They are vulnerable to that. That is, in part, the purpose

of them having insurance.

Brennan Day : Knowing that this is going to increase cost capture — because that is the intent

of these changes, and to streamline — has there been any consultation done with the

insurance industry in terms of what impact this may have on insurance premiums in

British Columbia for small businesses?

The Chair : The minister has answered this question a couple of times. Perhaps not necessarily

about the insurance association, but the minister has said again and again that this

hasn’t changed anything, that a business that is sued will always end up being sued,

so there are going to be costs that are associated with it.

Just maybe, perhaps, could you rephrase your question? I fear that we’re going to

end up in a situation where the minister just provides the same answer again.

Brennan Day : Sure. I’ll rephrase the question. I’ll simplify it.

Has any consultation been done with the insurance industry on potential impacts to

insurance premiums?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I think we’re straying off of clause 1, but I’ll leave that and say, just again,

that the liability of these organizations and businesses has not changed. So it is

difficult to understand how this would impact the premiums.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Brennan Day : Can the minister confirm that clause 2, (2)(b), means the government may now recover

health care costs even when a person has voluntarily signed a liability waiver?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Clause 2(

b) repeals and replaces

section 2(2) of the act, and it clarifies that subsection

(1) applies even if the beneficiary or their personal or other legal representative

has waived liability.

This is required because of a frequent misunderstanding regarding liability waivers.

Liability waivers serve as a complete defence against claims of negligence or liability

brought by beneficiaries who suffer injuries during the activity for which they’ve

signed a waiver.

Some insurers have been under the impression that the liability waiver also precludes

government from participating in action and seeking reimbursement for health care

costs through subrogation. As a result of this, what we have seen and found is that

these insurers may fail to or neglect to notify government of the claim. That results

in missed opportunities for recovering the associated health care costs.

Again, this is fine-tuning the clarifications and expectations, but it’s not a substantive

change.

[11:40 a.m.]

Anna Kindy : Is there a precedent in B.C. or Canada of the government basically disregarding the

liability waived?

The Chair : I’d ask the member: can you clarify your question? I’m not sure what you’re asking.

Anna Kindy : That’s in health costs. Is there any precedent where the government, where the defendant

and…? There’s been a waived liability signed, and the government has disregarded this

signed liability. Is there a precedent anywhere? That’s what I’m asking. I’m not a

lawyer.

Hon. Josie Osborne : To be clear, the waiver that a person signs is a matter between that individual and

the organization or the business that they’re doing their activity with or doing their

business with.

Government is not a part of that. Government always participates in a health care

cost claim in this manner because that is a separate matter. The issue here is that

government has the opportunity and should be able to recover the health care costs

regardless of whether an individual signed a liability waiver.

Anna Kindy : Let me read the question, actually. It’s probably easier. Is there any precedent

elsewhere in Canada for government…? I’m asking for a precedent. I’m not saying what

you’re going to be doing in the future. But is there a precedent in Canada for government

disregarding liability waivers for health care costs recovery?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Okay, so this is not a matter of government disregarding a liability waiver. A liability

waiver is a contract between a person and a business or organization. For example,

a ski hill. If there is an injury that takes place on said ski hill, it is government

that incurs the costs of health care. If the ski hill is found negligent and a claim

is made, then government participates in this and has the opportunity to recover those

health care costs.

The member asked the question: is there a precedent for government disregarding liability

waivers in Canada? Not that we are aware of.

Government in British Columbia has consistently taken the position that we are not

party to liability waivers. This is comparable to other schemes that other provinces

have in place to recover health care costs.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.