First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 85

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

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Kiel Giddens

Rob Botterell

Misty Van Popta

Harman Bhangu

Gavin Dew

Peter Milobar

Reporting of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Elenore Sturko

Lawrence Mok

Pete Davis

Sharon Hartwell

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

Brennan Day

Elenore Sturko

Bill 29 — Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Rosalyn Bird

Lynne Block

Heather Maahs

Rob Botterell

Hon. Lisa Beare

Reporting of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Elenore Sturko

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Lisa Beare

Lynne Block

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Macklin McCall

Hon. Nina Krieger

Hon Chan

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Scott McInnis

Hon. Christine Boyle

Tony Luck

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Lana Popham : I call continuing debate on Bill 20.

The Speaker : Anything in the little House?

Hon. Lana Popham : That’s a great question, Mr. Speaker.

Continuing Committee of the Whole on Bill 12.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Looking forward to continued debate on Bill 20.

Kiel Giddens : I’m just finishing up my remarks from this morning. We’ve been talking about the

Construction Prompt Payment Act. Where I had left off this morning was talking about

the interaction between this particular bill and the Builders Lien Act that, as I’ve

said, needs updating itself. It’s out of step with current realities, but that would

take a whole other consultation process with industry, I would hope, and a long kind

of planning to figure out how that would work. But this bill will interact with that.

As businesses are managing their cash flow and trying to sort out how they can plan

their businesses…. I think where I’d left off was the progressive release of holdbacks

that is really in that particular Builders Lien Act and how that interacts with this

new regime here.

I think that’s something that the government really needs to answer so that industry

has some certainty on how this is going to work. I want to make sure that this new

system actually simplifies things for business, rather than layering another process

on top of what already exists.

Under this act, there’s also the provision allowing contractors to suspend work if

they’re not paid after an adjudicator’s decision. Again, I’d say this is fair in principle.

Nobody should have to keep working if they haven’t been paid, but this needs to be

managed quite carefully.

If you’re working on a major public infrastructure project — for example, a hospital,

a bridge or a school — and a subcontractor suspends work, that can have ripple effects

for the timelines, costs and, of course, for workers who depend on those paycheques.

[1:35 p.m.]

We need to know what government plans to balance those risks and whether public projects

will be managed differently under these rules. That’s something I’ve been clear about.

That is something we will be continuing to ask about, and the industry certainly will

as well, I believe.

Now, one of my biggest frustrations is that this government has a habit of treating

consultation as a check box exercise. They’ll hold meetings under NDAs, they’ll issue

a press release, and then they’ll call it a day. We need continued consultation with

industry on this one to make sure that it works. That’s the whole value chain.

I’ve talked about the little guy, how important it is to be talking to the small sector

as well. Fortunately, there are good groups, like the construction associations, that

have been involved and need to continue to be involved, making sure that it’s the

large contractors right to the small contractors that are included in these discussions.

I’d like to see a commitment from the government that they will work with the construction

sector to monitor implementation, to work with them very closely on all of the regulation-making,

because the way this bill is designed, a lot of the details are going to be in regulation.

Let’s make sure that we learn the lessons from Ontario and Alberta by asking contractors

what worked there and what didn’t. Many who work in B.C. have worked in other jurisdictions,

so let’s actually make sure that that expertise is taken into account, that wide range

of the construction sector. I want prompt payment to work, but it will only work if

it’s built with the people it’s meant to help.

That’s really the point that I want to drive home. I’m standing here today to stand

up for the small contractors, the tradespeople and the suppliers who build this province

from the ground up and keep our economy moving each and every day. These are family

businesses. They train apprentices. They sponsor local hockey teams, and they’re the

backbone of our communities. When those companies don’t get paid, it’s not a line

item on a balance sheet. It’s actually talking about groceries for families. It’s

mortgage payments and jobs that are at stake here. So let’s get this right.

I know this government likes to pat itself on the back for supporting workers. The

truth is that they’ve often failed to understand that workers also rely on their stable

employers. They need small businesses to actually be sustainable so that they can

have sustainable jobs.

We’ll be continuing to look at this as to how it applies in construction and asking

some of the hard questions at the committee stage. I know that good policy isn’t about

what looks nice on a press release. It’s about what works in practice, on the ground,

for the people who have to live with it each and every day. I want the construction

sector in our province to have a bright future, to be very successful.

As I’ve said before, I actually think we can agree that prompt payment doesn’t have

to be a partisan issue here. It’s about fairness, and the construction sector has

been calling for reform for quite a few years now. So I’m listening to them. I’ll

be holding this government to account on what it promises.

I hope this legislation truly helps small contractors get paid faster. As I’ve said,

when I’ve worked in this before, I think of the specific businesses that I had worked

with that needed help in this case. There was a company that supplied portable toilets,

for example. Another one, a Timber Mart in a small community. A First Nations joint-venture

business that’s trying to build their capacity to work on a major project, but because

of non-payment, they’re actually struggling to keep the lights on for their employees.

I don’t want to see that happen.

This is legislation that we need to get right, but if it ends up buried in bureaucracy,

creating more paperwork for these same businesses than progress, then we have a lot

more work to do. At the end of the day, this is about respect — respect for the people

who do the work, take the risks and build our province.

I will always stand up for working people in this province — the welders, the framers,

the electricians, the concrete finishers, the small family firms that keep northern

B.C. moving. They deserve to be paid on time. They deserve a system that works so

they can put food on the table for their families, and I’ll do everything I can as

a member of this House to make sure that they get exactly that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about one of the most critical issues

facing the construction industry in British Columbia, the need for prompt payment

legislation.

It’s been noted before, but it’s worth noting again, that B.C.’s construction industry

employs 260,000 British Columbians and delivers $29 billion in annual economic activity,

and 88 percent of the construction industry is reporting late payments on invoices.

For too long, B.C. has lacked specific laws to ensure timely payment in construction.

In fact, we remain one of the few jurisdictions in North America without prompt payment

legislation. So it’s gratifying to see that we are going to solve that gap. That’s

not just an oversight. It’s a costly gap in our regulatory framework that directly

undermines our construction sector and the small businesses that support it.

The B.C. Construction Association and the Vancouver Regional Construction Association,

along with over 30 other industry associations, have been advocating tirelessly for

implementation of prompt payment laws in B.C. These are the experts. These are the

people with lived experience, and they’re telling us the same thing. The lack of prompt

payment is one of the most significant and damaging issues facing the industry today.

When contractors don’t get paid on time, it doesn’t just affect them. It creates a

ripple effect, placing immense financial strain on small businesses, stalling projects

and blocking billions of dollars from circulating through the broader economy. Across

both the public and private sectors of B.C.’s construction industry, uncertainty,

delay and disputes over payment are all common, and these problems stem directly from

the absence of prompt payment legislation.

In no other industry is it considered normal to wait 90 to 120 days or more for payment,

yet in construction, this has become the status quo. The culture of late payment persists

because, quite simply, the law allows it. Now we have an opportunity to enact law

that won’t allow it.

Subcontractors, suppliers and tradespeople, those closest to the base of the construction

pyramid, are the most vulnerable to these delays. It really is the little company,

the little subcontractor, the little tradesperson that is directly and most impacted

by late payments. With funds choked off at the top, their ability to meet payroll,

purchase materials and keep businesses afloat is severely compromised.

The unique structure of the construction industry, with complex contractual layers,

contingent payment clauses and power imbalances, further exacerbates the problem.

Subcontractors are often forced to finance projects out of their own pockets without

any guarantee of timely payment, all while bearing most of the financial risk. Prompt

payment legislation addresses these structural challenges by setting clear, enforceable

timelines for payment and non-payment notices at every tier of the construction pyramid.

In B.C., the cost of delayed payment is estimated to be over $4 billion due to risk

premiums, interest charges, legal fees, not to mention the untold cost of shuttered

businesses and lost opportunities. Addressing the prompt payment challenge will release

millions of dollars into the economy, improve cash flow for every British Columbian

and help the small contractors who form the backbone of our construction industry.

When they can rely on being paid on time, they can pay their staff, invest in equipment

and training and build stronger, more resilient businesses without taking on unnecessary

debt.

We support this legislation not just in principle but in practice. We believe it is

possible to implement prompt payment laws in a way that minimizes negative effects

on the sector while still promoting vibrant and sustainable construction business

activity.

[1:45 p.m.]

Other provinces like Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan have already implemented prompt

payment and adjudication regimes with clear, positive results. Finally — it’s long

overdue — the province is acting to protect contractors and subcontractors here.

Clarity is needed. The act comes into force only by regulation and can be rolled out

gradually by sector, which could be a good thing, but it also could create uncertainty

unless government makes clear its intent.

The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association is asking the province to confirm

that all public owners — including ministries; Crown corporations, B.C. Hydro, for

example; government agencies; municipal halls; school boards; and regional districts

— must comply with Bill 20, that no public owner exemptions will be introduced by

regulation and that implementation timelines will apply equally to public and private

sectors.

I look forward to committee stage to better understand if these concerns are addressed

in the bill. Speaking of committee stage, I will also be looking for clarity on the

government’s intent in terms of the application of

section 4(2), which says that the

act does not apply in relation to prescribed improvement, contract, service or material.

I also hope and urge all of my colleagues who are in the committee stage to bear in

mind that the perfect is the enemy of the good. My colleagues, like the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough,

are really looking forward to a targeted discussion in committee, where we really

focus on achieving, in a timely way, consideration of this legislation.

The construction industry has played a central role in helping our province rebuild

in the wake of COVID-19. It continues to be one of our largest employers and economic

drivers. The lack of political will to enact prompt payment laws is holding back this

industry and the people who depend on it, and now is our opportunity to remedy that

issue.

With the support of industry organizations and a model that’s already proven successful

elsewhere, the adoption of prompt payment legislation will finally give B.C.’s construction

sector the fair, transparent and reliable payment framework it needs to thrive. Nothing

could be more important in the times we’re in.

Misty Van Popta : Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, is an important piece of legislation for

British Columbia’s construction sector, a sector that I come from. I’m going to be

going through this division by division and then talking about some personal and anecdotal

perspectives coming from the industry myself.

I’d like to acknowledge the good advocacy work by organizations like the BCCA for

championing this legislation forward and for other organizations like the ICBA for

highlighting areas of shared concerns.

The government states that Bill 20 establishes a scheme for prompt payment and timely,

accessible adjudication in the construction industry. The drivers are well known.

Many contractors and subcontractors have suffered from long payment delays, months

before payment, after performing work, which strains cash flows, affects small businesses

disproportionately and can stall projects. Industry surveys show that 88 percent of

contractors reported late payments in 2024.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it appears to be a good objective. Ensuring that those

who perform the work and supply the materials are paid in a predictable time frame

reduces risk, builds trust, encourages investment and helps smaller companies maintain

viability. Particularly for trades and some contractors whose margins may be thin,

improved cash flow certainty is a valuable benefit.

However, it is also important to test whether the proposed bill strikes the right

balance. One must ask whether this intervention preserves commercial freedom, avoids

excessive administration burden and accurately allocates risk rather than shifting

it in unintended ways.

[1:50 p.m.]

The act’s

part 2 sets out the following rules on invoicing. It establishes that a

contractor must give a proper invoice monthly by default unless the contract specifies

otherwise. It voids a contractual term which makes giving the proper invoice conditional

on owner or certifier approval and defines what information a proper invoice must

contain — contractor details, date, period or milestone, description, amount, payment

terms, etc.

These rules offer clarity and standardization in an area that previously may have

been ambiguous. Standardized invoicing reduces disputes about “is this invoice valid?”

and thus paves the way for smoother payment timelines. In sectors where small contractors

may not have sophisticated administration capacity, a clear statutory template is

beneficial.

Yet one key caution is about commercial flexibility. A rule that monthly invoicing

is the default may not suit every type of project — for instance, large multi-year

projects with milestone billing, modular delivery or complex certification processes.

Contracts should retain latitude to tailor invoice timing to the nature of the work.

While the bill does allow the contract to specify a different period of time for invoicing….

That is helpful, but we must watch how regulations interpret this. If the regulations

become more prescriptive, smaller projects may struggle with monthly cycles they did

not previously follow.

Another risk is that the administrative burden of ensuring invoice form compliance

may fall disproportionately on small companies. A proper invoice has multiple required

fields. Failing to comply may allow an owner to delay payment. While standardization

is good, we must not overburden trades that have limited office capacity. We should

advocate for simplified templates.

Part 3 of the bill deals with timelines for payment. Some of those key features are

that if a contractor gives a proper invoice to the owner, the owner must pay within

28 days after the invoice. A person further down the chain, meaning contractor to

subcontractors, must pay by the earlier of seven days after receiving payment in relation

to the invoice or the person’s calculated payment date.

The calculated payment date is 28 days plus seven days times the person’s contract

position in the chain. Thus, a first-tier subcontractor, meaning position 2, would

have 48 days from invoice date.

These timelines inject discipline into payment flows. In jurisdictions where prompt

payment laws already exist, like Ontario and Alberta, evidence suggests quicker payments

reduced risk premiums and improved supply chain certainty. First of all, our trades

getting paid sooner rather than waiting months means less borrowing, fewer delays

and better capacity to bid on new work.

But there are trade-offs and risks.

First, the fixated 28-day timeline and seven-day downstream timeline may not align

with all project types. Public procurement often involves lengthy certification through

different consultants and the owner, audit and approval processes.

From contractors on big infrastructure projects, delays may be due to owner processes

rather than arbitrary holdups by the owner. If the act does not sufficiently allow

for legitimate certification delays, owners may be forced to pay before approvals

are complete or adopt risk-averse practices, meaning over holdbacks. That, in turn,

could raise costs across the board.

Second, the cascading payment requirement places a cash flow burden on contractors.

A prime contractor may receive payment after 28 days but then must pay subcontractors

within seven days after receipt. If the prime has not yet been paid or is still waiting

for a cash release, meaning lien holds and certification, the risk of insolvency for

the prime increases. In effect, the law shifts risk upstream to the contractor.

[1:55 p.m.]

Next, the potential for wannabe worst behaviour exists. Owners may become more conservative

in certification, delay approving invoices deliberately or negotiate shorter payment

terms to counter the quicker downstream requirements. The act must anticipate this.

While discipline is desirable, flexibility is also essential. The bill should recognize

that not all contracts are identical. Small building renovation jobs differ from large,

multi-year infrastructure projects.

Section 11 sets out rules on notice of non-payment. A person in the chain need not

pay downstream if they give written notice specifying the amount and reasons, and

if the reason is upstream non-payment, they must attach a copy of the upstream non-payment

notice and undertake to refer the non-payment above it to adjudication within 21 days.

Section 10 deals with partial payments and mandates rateable distribution of partial

funds to subcontractors if a contractor receives partial payment.

These provisions ensure transparency and fairness. They help prevent a prime contractor

from collecting payment from the owner and then delaying payment to subcontractors

without cause. The flow-through requirement of partial payments enhances fairness

down the chain and may reduce the waterfall risk, where subs are left unpaid while

the primes hold the funds.

Yet more regulated obligations mean more administrative oversight. Contractors must

track not only payments but notices, non-payment clauses, upstream claims and obligations

to refer to adjudication. These may be burdensome, especially for smaller subs without

legal teams.

Also, the notice of non-payment mechanism introduces additional steps. If a contractor

wants to withhold payment to a sub because of upstream non-payment, it must issue

the notice and refer to adjudication. The risk of that is that some contractors may

opt to pay anyway to avoid the process, passing the upstream risk to themselves. That

means more carrying costs and greater budgeting risk. The law and the act therefore

shift risk and cost burdens into day-to-day operations.

In terms of adjudications, a party may defer a dispute to adjudication if it relates

to failure to give a proper invoice, failure to pay, notice of non-payment issues,

valuation of services and materials or a change order payment dispute. A streamlined

adjudication process gives a path for quicker resolution, making disputed payment

claims less of a gamble and more of a practical tool. That supports the objective

of keeping money flowing and reducing project delays.

However, as with any regulatory adjudication process, caution is warranted. The cost

of filing and administering these adjudications must be reasonable. Otherwise, small

subcontractors may still be excluded, and the process may be used primarily by larger

companies.

Moreover, binding until final resolution means that decisions will carry immediate

payment obligations. But what if the adjudicator makes an error? If a small subcontractor

loses or a contractor is required to pay prematurely, there is risk.

Adjudication should be accessible, low-cost, predictable and consistent with commercial

practice. Oversight of adjudicator quality, fee transparency and standard forms are

essential. Risks of duplication, meaning court and adjudication, and litigation layering

must be mitigated.

Bill 20 also makes consequential changes to the existing Builders Lien Act, although

it doesn’t go into all of the areas of concern. The bill proposes to abolish the so-called

Shimco lien, a separate lien against the statutory holdback, thereby removing a standalone

lien right on the holdback fund.

Importantly, from my perspective as somebody who used to do this job, the bill reduces

the holdback release period from 55 days to 46 days in certain circumstances. These

reforms simplify the security framework, reduce administrative complexity and potentially

release retention funds earlier into the working capital of business. That may improve

cash flow and reduce financing costs for contractors.

[2:00 p.m.]

On the other hand, liens are a critical security device for smaller subcontractors

and suppliers. Weakening lien rights or removing certain lien vehicles may reduce

their bargaining power, leaving smaller companies more exposed. From a risk management

perspective, shorter holdback release periods on complex projects may raise exposure

to defects or claims that arise after release. A one-size approach may not suit all

project types.

The bill defines its application in

part 1, division 2, and allows for regulation

to exclude certain improvements, services or materials. Industry commentary from people

that we’ve talked to has voiced concerns about exemptions, as we do as well. If municipal,

regional and school board projects were exempted, the objective of the law would be

weakened.

Applying identical timelines and procedures to vastly different contracts, meaning

small remodel jobs versus major infrastructure works, may invite unintended burdens.

Also, if the regulations allow carve-outs or exemptions for certain owners — meaning

government bodies, Crown corporations, etc. — the uniformity and fairness may be compromised,

and smaller companies may again be disadvantaged on projects outside the process.

From our lens, exemptions need to be transparent and justified, and regulatory rollout

must allow for scale and complexity variation.

Any major regulatory reform raises implementation and cost issues. This act comes

into force by regulation. A transition period does allow industry to adjust — meaning

to train staff, update systems and incorporate new contract templates — and the government

has signalled outreach and education. However, the cost of compliance should not be

underestimated.

Smaller companies may need to invest in invoicing systems, notice trackers, adjudication

readiness and revised contract templates. There is a risk that compliance costs may

offset some of the intended benefit for small subcontractors. Additionally, the regulatory

infrastructure, adjudication authority, adjudication registration and fees may impose

costs, either borne by the industry or passed through.

A thorough cost-benefit analysis and reasonable regulatory fee structure should be

considered. Further, without a rigorous review mechanism, there is risk that the process

becomes burdensome and less fit for purpose.

There is the appearance of the following benefits with this legislation: enhanced

payment discipline, predictable timelines, improved reliability for contractors and

subcontractors, better cash flow for smaller firms.

Reducing long receivable periods may accelerate business growth and reduce borrowing

costs. Reduced dispute costs and quicker adjudication may reduce time and money spent

on litigation and slow-payment holdups. Fairer chain of payment —downstream subcontractors

get improved protections, less risk of funds being held by upstream parties. Simplified

security holdback mechanisms for some firms, less time waiting for holdbacks, may

free up working capital.

However, there are clear risks to this act if not implemented properly. There’s an

administrative burden. Smaller firms may struggle to adapt systems, train staff and

comply with new procedural requirements.

Cash flow mismatch. Primes may face pressure if upstream payments are delayed yet

downstream payments are required quickly.

Reduced contract flexibility. Fixed timelines and standard forms may hamper small

contract arrangements, especially large or complex projects.

Potential weakening of security rights. Holdback and lien reform may inadvertently

reduce protections for suppliers and trades.

Finally, implementation costs and regulatory capacity infrastructure will impose costs

and transition risk.

It’s well known, on this side and in our team that my background is boots-on-the-ground

construction. I was both on site for years and then in management of projects for

years. A big key to building anything that involves other people and other companies

is relations and relationship-building.

When I made the jump from site to project management, the shift from seeing the intensity

of site activities on a daily basis to the intensity of administrative activities

on a daily basis was pretty overwhelming, actually.

In the spring of this past year, not knowing how far this government had gotten on

development of this legislation, I briefly considered using my private member’s bill

opportunity to support and create a prompt payment bill.

[2:05 p.m.]

In my early days of research, I encountered a bit of resistance from the development

side of the industry. You see, construction is made up of a few different lenses,

and not everybody understands that, if you’re not in the industry. There’s the owner,

the developer, the builder and the trades. Yet we’re all lumped together as construction.

Sometimes the owner and the developer are the same company. Sometimes the owner, developer

and the builder are all the same company.

The hesitation that I experienced when making calls was due to administrative load

on the upper chains of the waterfall of the payment cycle. Most of the successful

big guys who build this province would not still be in business and receive repeat

project bids, project after project, if they were negligent on their payment requirements.

I worked for one of the good guys. I myself even experienced the load of proper payment

and close-out requirements on large projects. It’s a lot of paperwork.

That said, I know firsthand the desperation of smaller subtrades, neither having the

capital overhead to float materials nor the cash flow to hold off suppliers for months

at a time, waiting for even a 30-day payment. Often it is smaller companies that can

offer competitive project pricing, but it comes with risks that they cannot float

large inventories. When procuring a project and analyzing all the bids that have come

in when construction costs are so high, it becomes a managing game of where the project

saves money and where it floats its risk.

One of my first big projects that I worked on, where I was still on the site daily

in the dirt with my crew, I witnessed firsthand the financial collapse and bankruptcy

of our third-largest trade on site — we were 80 percent complete on the project —

an established, large subtrade that encountered the challenges of managing cash flow

and overhead. One day, after working with these men daily for over a year, they were

there, and the next day they were unemployed. These were my friends. They had families.

I then witnessed the chaos to us as the builder of trying to find a new subtrade to

take over the project at the 80 percent mark, another contractor willing to take on

the risk of somebody else’s work while maintaining a completion date, because lost

time is lost money.

Prompt payment legislation is crucial. I know that firsthand. But the framework of

this shell act, and I use the word “shell” because it is a framework, leaves it hard

to understand if this legislation will be everything that it needs to be. Without

seeing or knowing the regulations, once again we are left to debate a bill where the

devil will be in the details. We need to support the trades, industry and contractors,

but we must also support the prime contractor and developers that fund these projects.

It’s a fine balance.

I don’t know how to properly analyze something without the details. If we are going

to exempt this government from their own projects while being one of the known delinquent

payers, it is hypocrisy. If we allow Crown corps to be exempt, it is hypocrisy. But

will this government commit to holding all accountable for prompt payment? Only time

will tell.

In conclusion, Bill 20 represents a significant step forward for British Columbia’s

construction industry. It addresses a long-standing pain point, delayed payment, and

offers the statutory regime with clear timelines, downstream protections and adjudication

recourse. If implemented effectively, it promises real benefits of improved cash flow,

fewer distressed subcontractors, stronger small business participation and a more

transparent pay ecosystem.

However, the success of this act will not be measured purely in legislation but in

how the process operates in practice. Again, the devil is in the details — the regulation,

the administration burden, the cost of adjudication, the flexibility for different

project types and the maintenance of security rights. We must guard against the possibility

that the cure becomes a burden or that smaller contractors end up being both regulated

and still at risk.

I will be okay with this bill going through second reading, but I am cautious of the

structure Bill 20 currently offers. We must insist on prudence and flexibility, risk

awareness, cost control and commercial freedom.

[2:10 p.m.]

I look forward to the rigorous committee stage and to working with the industry to

ensure that Bill 20 serves British Columbia well for small trades and large contractors

alike and for the economy as a whole.

Harman Bhangu : I rise today to speak on Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act. This is a

piece of legislation that, at its core, aims to solve a problem that almost everyone

in the construction industry has faced at some point — doing the work, sending the

invoices and then waiting far too long to get paid.

Whether it’s a small paving company, a steel fabricator, an electrician or a truck

hauler hauling material to a job site, delayed payment has real-world consequences.

For small businesses, one late payment can mean missing payroll, putting off maintenance

or struggling to pay fuel and equipment bills.

So when this government brings forward a bill that sets out to create prompt payment,

I want to be clear. This is something I support in principle. It’s the right direction,

and it reflects something that the construction industry has been asking for, for

years.

But as I’ve gone through this bill and spoken with the people in the industry, from

contractors to suppliers and independent haulers, I also see areas that need to be

handled with care. While the intent is good, the implementation, the regulations and

the carve-outs will decide whether this bill truly helps those most in need or whether

it becomes another process that looks good on paper but leaves people behind.

What the bill aims to do…. The goal of Bill 20 is to bring fairness and predictability

to payment in the construction industry. It does this by setting out specific timelines.

Once a proper invoice is submitted, the owner must pay the contractor within 28 days.

Then the contractor has seven days to pay the subcontractors, and so on, down the

line. If a dispute arises, there’s now an adjudication process meant to resolve payment

issues quickly without dragging people through the courts.

It also makes changes to the Builders Lien Act, reducing the holdback period and removing

some of the outdated mechanisms that have caused confusion in the past.

In short, this bill is meant to ensure that the money moves down the chain faster

and those who have done the work aren’t left endlessly waiting. Those are good goals,

and for that reason, I do support the direction of this bill. But as always, the devil

is in the details.

The role of regulation is in carve-outs. Bill 20 leaves much of its substance to regulations.

That’s where some of the biggest questions arise. The bill gives cabinet power to

decide by regulation which projects and sectors the law applies to. Will it be the

ministry, or will it be others? We just don’t know yet who is included or excluded,

how and when it comes into force and how the adjudication system will actually work.

In other words, the government could, through regulation, carve out certain public

projects and delay the implementation in specific sectors. That’s a real concern.

If the largest owners, including the province itself, end up exempt or delayed, it

would undermine the very purpose of this legislation. If prompt payment is the goal,

then the government must lead by example. The public sector should not be the exception.

It should always be the standard, the bearer.

As we move forward, I’ll be watching closely to see how these regulations are written

up — who’s in it, who’s out and how transparent that process is. This bill’s success

will depend entirely on how fairly and consistently those regulations are applied.

The proper invoice requirement. One of the centrepieces of this legislation is the

requirement for a proper invoice. This is what triggers the payment timelines, but

it’s also an area that could easily become a loophole if not handled correctly. If

an owner can reject an invoice because a date was missing or a purchase order number

wasn’t formatted properly, then the 28-day payment clock never starts.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’ve talked to enough small business owners to know that the bureaucracy often finds

creative ways to delay payments. I would urge the government to make sure the regulations

define a proper invoice.

What is a proper invoice? In clear and simple terms, it’s that the bar isn’t set so

high that it gives owners a new way to say: “Hey, we’ll get to that later.” The purpose

of this bill is to speed up payments, not to give people new technical excuses to

slow them down the road.

The pay-when-paid concern. Another issue buried in this legislation is the so-called

pay-when-paid clause. Under Bill 20, if a contractor doesn’t get paid by the owner,

they can send a notice of non-payment to their subcontractors, essentially saying:

“I haven’t been paid, so I won’t pay you yet.” Now, I understand the reasoning behind

this. But it also means that the smaller subcontractors — trades and truckers, people

who have no control over disputes higher up the chain — could still end up waiting

weeks or months on the money they’ve already earned.

If we’re not careful, that could create the same problem we’re trying to solve, just

with more paperwork attached. The regulations need to ensure that the clause isn’t

used to hold downstream workers hostage for something that isn’t their fault. Payment

should flow as work is completed, and any disputes should be handled quickly through

the adjudication process, not through blanket delays.

The adjudication process. Bill 20 introduces an interim adjudication system, and that’s

a good thing. It’s meant to give contractors and subcontractors a fast, low-cost way

to resolve disputes rather than waiting in courts for years.

Here again, the details will determine whether it works. How will adjudicators be

appointed? Who pays their fees? Will small businesses actually be able to afford to

use the system? If adjudication becomes too expensive or too complex, the very people

this bill was supposed to protect won’t be able to access it. So the regulations must

ensure that adjudication is fast, fair and affordable and the directions are enforceable

without requiring a second round in court.

Timing and implementation. Another concern is that this bill does not automatically

come into force. It will only take effect once the government passes the accompanying

regulations. That could mean months or even years before this law actually applies

on the ground.

We’ve seen that story before. The press release goes out. People think help is on

the way. But the reality doesn’t change, because the regulations are lagging behind.

So I urge the minister to set clear public timelines for implementation and to work

closely with industry groups, unions and small businesses to get it right the first

time.

Real-world lessons. The Highway 1 trucking issue…. I want to draw attention to a real-life

example of why this legislation matters. Earlier this year we saw a situation on Highway

1 expansion where a number of truckers in small hauling companies weren’t being paid

for the work they had done. They were caught in the middle of contract lawyers, with

one company blaming another and invoices sitting in limbo.

I had to step in and help the other minister across the aisle to get those payments

sorted out. Now, you would think that a prompt payment law would prevent that kind

of situation. But when you closely look at Bill 20, it’s not entirely clear that it

would. Depending on how the regulations define who’s included, if independent truckers,

suppliers, aren’t considered part of the official chain of contracts under the project,

they could still fall outside the protection of this bill.

[2:20 p.m.]

That’s why it’s important that the regulations capture everyone who contributes to

a project, not just the big general contractors but the smaller subcontractors, service

providers, who actually make things happen on the ground.

Enforcement and accountability. Finally, prompt payment only means something if it’s

enforced. If there are no real consequences for those who delay or abuse the system,

then we’ll end up right back where we started.

The bill allows for interest to accrue on late payments. That’s a good start, but

the penalties must be strong to deter chronic late-payers. Government should also

consider publishing data on compliance so the public can see which sectors and owners

are living up to the spirit of the law and which ones are dragging their feet.

In conclusion, where I stand, I support Bill 20 because it’s the right direction.

It addresses a long-standing problem that hurts small businesses, trades, workers

all across this province.

I also believe that this bill is only as strong as the regulations behind it. If those

regulations are fair, transparent, inclusive, cover all sectors, prevent unnecessary

carve-outs and make the process accessible for everyone, then this will be a reform

worth celebrating. But if they create exemptions, loopholes and more red tape, then

we’ll still be hearing from the same small businesses, the same contractors and subcontractors

who can’t get paid for months till after a job is done.

I’ll be watching closely as this moves forward, and I’ll continue to advocate for

the people who make their living building this province —the ones who get up early,

drive the trucks, pour the concrete, wire the buildings, keep our economy moving.

They deserve certainty, they deserve fairness, and they deserve to be paid on time.

I would love to support this bill.

Gavin Dew : On this side, we welcome the introduction of Bill 20. For too long in British Columbia,

our construction sector has suffered from cascading payment delays that create real

hardship for contractors, subcontractors, small business and for the people and families

who are behind each of those organizations.

As the B.C. Construction Association put it: “The introduction of prompt payment legislation

in British Columbia is absolutely key for fairness and financial stability in our

industry. For too long, small and mid-sized contractors have shouldered the burden

of delayed payments. This legislation will help ensure that the people building our

province are paid on time, every time.”

With that in mind, we support the fundamental aims of this bill: timely payment of

proper invoices, improved cash flow, fewer bankruptcies and fewer project delays.

Let’s talk for a moment about what the bill does, the positives. Bill 20 introduces

clear timelines so that owners must pay a contractor within 28 days of a proper invoice

and that downstream contractors and subcontractors must be paid within seven days

of receiving payment or by a calculated payment day. It also introduces an adjudication

process for payment disputes, enabling quicker resolution rather than lengthy court

proceedings.

As one commentary from Gowlings notes: “Bill 20’s central objective is to restore

predictability to construction cash flow by setting clear timelines for invoice payment

and effective dispute resolution.”

As the construction association puts it: “These are meaningful reforms and long overdue

for B.C., given that 88 percent of the construction industry reported late payments

on invoices.”

On the core objective, when people perform work, they deserve to be paid promptly

— full stop. That’s really important. Having spent a lot of time in business, having

dealt with delayed invoicing myself, having seen the knock-on implications down the

chain of businesses, I certainly recognize the critical importance of prompt payment,

and I philosophically am very much in line with the approach being taken here.

[2:25 p.m.]

That said, there are obviously some key concerns, some questions that we will be canvassing

further in committee to ensure that the approach and implementation are sound and

that intent is met by effect. That includes regulation-making power. The bill grants

cabinet regulation-making authority to define who counts as an owner, a contractor

or a subcontractor; what services or materials are captured; when a proper invoice

is given; interest rates for late payments and more.

Those are all very, very significant decisions that will have material commercial

consequences, depending on what decisions are made. So it is important that we have

a fulsome understanding of the approach being taken to determining the answers to

some of those questions and that they are suitably in line with the commercial realities

on the ground.

We believe that changes of that significance should involve broad legislative consultation

and clear procedural safeguards to ensure that stakeholders are duly and transparently

consulted, as the progress of the bill moves into the regulation and implementation

stage.

We will seek to understand the timing of regulation, transitional provisions and phased

application, particularly in the public versus private sector, because, obviously,

the bill allows for gradual implementation to different sectors or different ownership

classes. Those are really important questions and considerations where we will want

to understand the intent of government, because they could be very consequential for

different industries and for different subsectors of the construction economy.

Obviously, the more clarity, predictability and stability we can provide for companies

that will be affected, the more easy it will be for this material change, generally

for the positive, to be digested in a timely way by the sectors affected by it.

Now, we also do have some serious concerns around exclusions and carve-outs, particularly

the fact that government procurement is not bound. A major question is that

section

14(2) of the

Interpretation Act does not apply to this act. That means the government

is explicitly excluded from being bound by this prompt payment legislation. In other

words, government contracts may be exempt.

We must reasonably ask: why is government, one of the biggest payers in construction

infrastructure in B.C., excluded from the regime that it says is essential? This is

not a minor technicality. It contradicts the logic of the bill’s purpose. If we truly

want prompt payment throughout the industry, the largest buyer, government, must play

by the same rules and set a good example.

We will request clarity. Will Crown corporations, government-owned entities, ministries

and public infrastructure projects be required to comply? If not, what is the policy

justification for this? What analysis has been undertaken as to the implications,

both on the government side and also on the market side of that equation, to understand

how that arbitrary delineation could have material effects on the marketplace?

We will highlight the risk that this particular carve-out, or potential carve-out,

undermines the entire chain. If government can delay payment, contractors will price

in the risk. Subcontractors will suffer, and the benefit of the legislation will actually

be diluted.

Specifically, there is the potential for impact on cost and bidding behaviour in that

scenario. We will raise how that regime may affect bids and contract pricing. If contractors

know they will be paid within 28 days and must pay their downstream contractors within

seven days, then the risk of delayed payment is reduced.

If government purchasers are exempt, then contractors bidding for government work

may embed additional costs or risk premiums to protect themselves from payment delays.

This comes down to the intended effect of the legislation and the ways in which it

will actually have effect in the marketplace.

These are the kinds of questions we think it’s crucially important are canvassed,

because while it’s very easy for government to shrug and exempt itself, it may actually

be creating significant aberrations in the marketplace, or it may actually be incurring

significantly increased costs for the taxpayer.

Market players react to market situations; market players adjust for risk. If in fact

everybody else is required to pay on time, but government is not, then inherently

what is going to happen is that government procurement is going to actually see higher

prices because those contractors and subcontractors are pricing in the risk of late

payment.

[2:30 p.m.]

Even if government in fact pays on time, those risk premia, those delay premia, will

still actually be priced into the bids that are derived in a competitive marketplace.

All actors will be aware that government has the potential of not paying on time and

all will price accordingly, because they’re reasonable, sensible people with an understanding

of market logic.

We will interrogate the approach that government is taking to make sure that government

itself also has an understanding of the ways in which the market might react to such

an approach.

Again, the bill may lead to higher costs for government infrastructure projects because

contractors will implicitly price in the risk of non-payment or slower payment. We

will ask whether government has done any modelling on how prompt payment regimes will

affect bids, pricing, risk allocation and, ultimately, cost to taxpayers. And we’ll

want to have some assurance that sound research has been undertaken in that regard

to inform decision-making by government. If it has not been undertaken, we’ll want

to see it be undertaken, going forward.

We will want to understand whether in the case of contracts awarded by government….

If payment terms differ — for example, if they’re slower than 28 days or if they are

variable — how will that impact competition or the competitive intensity from smaller

firms, cash flow for subcontractors and overall project delivery?

Again, the risk here is that we’re creating a two-track market. That has a variety

of different knock-on implications where to participate in government contracting

may require companies to have greater debt facilities and greater willingness to stomach

risk of payment delay. That may actually create a two-track marketplace that could

be distortive and that could result in higher costs to the taxpayer.

We also will be looking for clarity around coverage,

definitions and chain position

complexity. Which contracts will be deemed improvements under the act and which will

be excluded? For example, certain service contracts, maintenance, design, consulting.

The bill’s definition is broad but still has exceptions for prescribed improvements,

contracts, service or materials. We want to understand a little bit more about the

inherent logic that is behind that approach.

We’d like to have a better understanding of how the contract position will, in fact,

be calculated in complex chains where we have sub-sub-subcontractors, suppliers, materials-only

contracts. The cascading deadlines formulated in the “28-day plus seven-day times

contract position” formula can become quite complex in large supply chains. It’s obviously

going to be important for the marketplace to understand exactly how that is to be

implemented so that companies beginning to segue into this approach can make their

own plans in terms of their approach and in terms of their realistic timeline for

payment.

We also have questions around communications and information obligations — for example,

the requirement for contractors to provide their subcontractors with information about

invoices and payment upstream in that chain so that there can be predictability around

whether or not and when payment will be forthcoming.

Again, these are all very nuanced and tactical but very important considerations that

will be studied in depth by people in companies who are engaged in the procurement

side, the accounts receivable side. The more clarity that we’re able to produce around

this on a proactive basis, the more we’re going to enable people that are really working

at the coal face of these issues in industry to plan accordingly and to have a really

clear understanding of regulations that may be forthcoming — or even beyond regulations,

just expectations and norms that will be established as this new regime is brought

in.

We’ll also ask about the interplay with the lien regime, existing payment terms and

holdbacks. For example, what happens to milestone payment arrangements or phased payments?

Finally, certainly, we’ll have some questions around transition and interaction with

existing contracts. The bill notes that it will come into force by regulation and

may only apply to new contracts or future work. So we’ll want to understand what will

be the transitional regime for contracts already in place and how the regime will

be managed for government and private work.

These are important considerations, again, because whenever you have a changeover,

you’re going to have some periods of adjustment where different companies at different

stages in the supply chain may be affected and may have to think actively about cash

flow management or simply enact new practices, new norms, new relationships.

[2:35 p.m.]

While we’re obviously very supportive of the spirit of what’s happening here, we want

to make sure these kinds of issues have been fully thought through and fully canvassed

with the wide range of stakeholders who are affected by this legislation and that,

again, the form of legislation and regulation being brought forward is not just spiritual

and philosophical but is, indeed, very practical in terms of the implications for

industry.

Finally, we’ll ask about enforcement and how the adjudication regime will act in practice.

How will it work in terms of cost to parties, the capacity of adjudicators, timelines,

enforcement of decisions, and how may this affect smaller subcontractors?

Obviously, it’s really important — and as the small business critic, I raise this

— for us to understand that in procurement and construction and all these areas, we

have a wide, wide variety of different companies of different levels of sophistication,

from massive, major companies that are operating with a really substantial tech backbone

and that are exploring the frontiers of what can be done in terms of construction,

innovation and technology, to people that are doing business on Post-it Notes.

Just making sure that we’re adapting the system to make sure that companies all up

and down the chain, in terms of level of technological sophistication, size, capital

availability, sophistication…. We need to make sure that we’re doing a little bit

of hand-holding to ensure that all manner of different companies at different levels

of sophistication are able to onboard the implications of this legislation and subsequent

regulation and that they’re able to exist and persist in the marketplace on that basis.

I do just want to come back for a moment to government procurement and reiterate that

when the government of B.C. publishes its procurement strategy, it clearly states

that government spending is to be used as a strategic lever for social, environmental

and economic policy outcomes.

For example, the B.C. procurement plan of 2024 states:

“Each year the government of British Columbia spends billions of dollars procuring

goods and services. We see opportunities to leverage government spending to address

some of our biggest priorities, such as reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, tackling

climate change, supporting jobs and training, ensuring public safety, etc.

“The decision-making process for every government purchase or procurement in British

Columbia must prioritize the best interests of the people of B.C., local communities,

local economies and the environment.”

To continue quoting:

“By using procurement as a strategic lever for change, this plan aligns with government

priorities, including StrongerBC, CleanBC roadmap to 2030 and the implementation of

DRIPA.”

What we see in this release and in other communications from government is that procurement

must advance fairness, jobs, reconciliation and the environment. However, the government

then puts itself outside the prompt payment law that is designed precisely to promote

fairness, protect small firms and improve cash flow. That is operationally and philosophically

contradictory.

We certainly have some very serious questions around this, and I would underline the

following. If government is the largest buyer in the construction sector and wishes

to use procurement as a strategic lever, it cannot exempt itself from the payment

discipline it imposes on the rest of the industry. The message must be that the rules

should apply equally. Otherwise, smaller firms will wonder why they are subject to

tighter payment rules while government projects remain exempt.

The perception of unfairness undermines confidence in the system and, as I previously

articulated, creates significant challenges in terms of different projects being approached

in different ways with different payment terms, which again adds complexity for the

little guy. It adds complexity for the small, “couple of vans, couple of people” companies

that are trying to be down the supply chain, down the contract chain, in these major

projects. They’re now going to be required to implement multiple systems if they are,

in fact, involved in government procurement, should government exempt its own projects

from prompt payment legislation.

Again, consistency is crucially important for fairness, crucially important for a

competitive marketplace of contractors in the construction sector. We really do think

that that’s a very important principle that needs to be discussed further as we work

our way through this legislation.

Just to wrap it up here, when people perform work, they deserve to be paid promptly.

That is the core of Bill 20. We certainly support ensuring that contractors and subcontractors

get paid for their hard work building our province.

We do, however, have one major concern. Again, why is government not covered by this

legislation? Government is one of the biggest payers of contractors and subcontractors

in B.C. Those building infrastructure across B.C. should expect the same timely payment

for work as any other job. Sure, government can always say they intend to pay contractors

on time, but that’s exactly what every contracting party says. That’s the intent,

but it’s about execution.

The real proof is in the law and in consistent application and consistent enforcement.

This legislation is an important step, but only if it applies fairly across all players

and only if the regulations are transparent, well designed and effectively and consistently

enforced.

[2:40 p.m.]

We will be asking detailed questions in committee stage to ensure that the bill works

for all stakeholders — owners, both private and public, contractors, subcontractors,

suppliers and, ultimately, the people of British Columbia.

Again, in closing, we commend the government for bringing forward this reform and

acknowledging a long-standing industry issue. We are informed by stakeholders that

there has been lots of conversation over the last number of years. It is good to see

that there has been a fair degree of stakeholder engagement and consultation. We do

of course want to make sure that any niggling issues are resolved and that ultimately,

as we move toward regulation, we don’t end up with an incomplete execution of this.

We want to make sure this really works, because this has been the work of many hands

over many years to come to fruition. We look forward to working through committee

stage to ensure that the legislation is robust, enforceable and delivers on its promise

of payment certainty.

With good regulations and fair application, including to government procurement, this

bill has the potential to strengthen the construction sector, protect small business,

support jobs and keep projects on schedule, but if government exempts itself from

the rules it imposes on others, it undermines both fairness and value for taxpayers.

That is not a good signal.

I look forward to engaging further as this bill moves to committee stage.

Peter Milobar : I just thought I would chime in on Bill 20, the prompt payment legislation, for a

little bit today, on similar concerns to what you’ve heard from my colleagues so far

on this bill.

On the premise of it, certainly you want to see subs and small contractors, small

businesses, be paid promptly. To be able to move forward with their invoices in a

timely way and to receive that cash flow, for any small business of any type, is critical.

I know that when I had my own small businesses, it was a daily calculation, either

in your head or in a ledger, as to what your cash flow was, what your projection forward

for the week would be, supplies coming in or out, staff costs and all of those things.

You would do it either for a week or for a month and start projecting out and making

sure you had that flow to keep people paid that work for you, first and foremost,

to make sure your remittances back to the government are timely, and things of that

nature.

There’s a lot that goes into this. That is where, I think, we’re hearing the concern

about the government potentially exempting themselves from this legislation. You could

be in a situation…. We’ve talked about the contractor working on a government job

waiting for that timely payment.

I can tell you if that same contractor, for their supplies or their provisions, is

owing to the PST department, funds for those materials, or if they’re owing payroll

taxes to government, the government will not take as an excuse: “Well, I’m waiting

for you to pay me so that I can pay you.” The government will come in and they’ll

freeze your bank account on the Friday of a long weekend and say: “You owe us this

money. You haven’t paid it. We need it.” That’s what they do.

That’s not based on any particular government. That’s how the Ministry of Finance

operates when they’re owed funds from small businesses. So it is critically important

that the government actually be part of prompt payment. There are serious consequences

to those same companies that would legally and rightfully owe taxation and payroll

taxes back to the provincial government, back to the federal government, on a regular

basis.

Those dollars can add up quickly on a construction project, especially when you’re

dealing with materials. After all, a lot of things are not exempt from PST within

the business world in British Columbia. That’s a very real consequence.

Then you look at government procurement, and you ask what the government is defining….

What consultation went into this bill? Are they legislating that provincial government

and provincial Crowns will be exempt, but municipalities will be bound by prompt payment?

We know the government, which is running a record deficit right now, doesn’t worry

about the rules for them matching the rules for municipalities.

Municipalities are not allowed by law to run a deficit in British Columbia, but the

provincial government can. Right now we’re running it at a record level. What about

regional districts? Those would lump into the same. Vancouver, with its own charter….

Are they all now bound by this legislation, but the provincial government is exempt?

Those are questions we’re going to need to find out answers for.

[2:45 p.m.]

What about Indigenous nations? In Kamloops and surrounding areas, they do a lot of

construction, which is great. Are they bound by this legislation? And if they are

bound by this legislation, what consultation did this government actually do with

those Indigenous nations to ensure they are in agreement with prompt payment?

Again, the government likes to talk a lot about reconciliation and working together

and moving forward together. But time after time, when it comes to legislation and

they get asked about it — what consultation was done, what agreements were done —

a lot of times they say: “Well, we didn’t think that we needed to bother to consult

on this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation.” So we don’t know the answers

to that yet.

We look forward to committee stage to get better clarity on that, because those are

very real consequences to the smaller contractors in the province that will hear that

prompt payment legislation is coming forward and be quite excited, except to find

out that they do a lot of governmental work and that maybe it doesn’t actually apply

to them. That’s a big piece. It’s not an opposition just trying to fearmonger or anything

like that. We’re just simply trying to say to the government that you need to come

clean on this and be very clear with your language.

The interesting

part is that this bill has been in front of the House now for a week

and a half, ten days, two weeks, something like that. The discussion around if government

is exempt or not has been out there, and there has been nothing from the government

to clarify, other than silence. One would think that that means that actually they

are going to be exempting themselves, which is problematic.

When you have a bill that…. On the first two-thirds of the bill, it looks like, for

once, this government has really set out with great detail how exactly this legislation

is going to work and operate. They’re not leaving everything to regulation. Then you

flip to the regulation page, where they spell out some 30 different versions of things

that they can make by regulation.

Earlier in the bill, they talk about the number of days for prompt payment. In the

regulation page, two-thirds of the way through the bill, they talk about how, by regulation,

they can alter that. What was the point of having it in the front end of the legislation

if you’re going to actually open up a back door by way of regulation that you can

actually change the number of days?

The one thing I like to do with all legislation under this NDP government is to look

at when it comes into effect. You flip to the last page of the bill, and you say:

“When does it come into effect?” A lot of times it’s on royal assent, on a particular

date, retroactive stuff a lot of times, especially on the Finance file.

This comes into effect by order in council, by regulation signed off by cabinet, at

some point in the future. We’re not really sure when. So a piece of legislation that’s

supposed to provide certainty about payment is quickly turning into the “Just trust

me; we’ll pay you” bill, totally counter to what the government is billing it as.

Now, the government can answer all these questions in committee stage and try to provide

some certainty, but I’m old enough to remember debating a bill in this House on freedom-of-information

fees, where we spent the better part of, I think, three to four days continually asking

the minister what the fee was going to be to file an FOI request to try to get information

out of the government — the government that has been routinely voted the most secretive

government in Canada.

For three days, the minister repeatedly said the fee structure has not been figured

out. “It will be done by regulation after we consult.” That was the answer, for days

on end, when we kept asking and asking at committee stage. Would it be $10? Would

it be $20? Would it be $30? How much will it be? “Well, we don’t know. It’ll be done

by regulation, after this bill is passed and after we’ve consulted.”

Imagine our surprise when what was considered as consultation was, apparently, those

three days’ back-and-forth, because literally about 15 minutes after the bill was

passed, an order in council was signed in the hallway, just behind this chamber, setting

out the rates for freedom-of-information requests.

[2:50 p.m.]

This is why it’s a problem, with the open-ended way that this government deals with

legislation like this. When they say it will only take effect once cabinet decides

to deem it will take effect, after they’ve come up with some other regulations or

changes to regulations…. Again, although they spell out very prescriptive steps for

the first two-thirds of this bill, they then go into a long list of contradictory

things that they will then be able to enable themselves to change by regulation moving

forward.

So it actually doesn’t provide any certainty, let alone a timeline for small contractors

to understand how this is going to impact them or for larger generals to know, and

purveyors of the smaller contractor services, what’s expected of them for prompt payment.

It’s actually going to lead to confusion as to whether or not this is actually in

effect. That is a problem, and it needs to be addressed by government, and it needs

to be addressed at committee stage — not with evasive answers of: “Don’t worry. We

haven’t worked that out yet, but we will. Just trust us.”

The whole purpose of bringing legislation to this House is so that we move through

these steps, so that opposition can look at it. We’ve looked at it as an opposition.

I think you’ve heard very clearly from all of our speakers that we totally agree with

this in principle. We have some concerns that we need answers for, the key being that

that’s the next step when we get to committee stage — seeking those answers out.

The expectation of the public, of the contractors and of the opposition is that government

would actually answer those questions, not evade them. Not come up with nondescript

timelines or: “We haven’t really thought about that yet. Don’t worry about it. We’ll

deal with it in regulation in a closed cabinet room.”

When you ask them, “Well, can we get any minutes from that cabinet decision? Can we

find out what went into that cabinet decision?” as with any government, the answer

comes back: “Cabinet confidentiality. We can’t tell you that.”

This is the one chance that the public actually gets to hear from the government in

an open forum what exactly is intended by this legislation. Industry would have consulted

with government, and we know they did ahead of time. They, understandably, in the

drafting of this legislation, had to sign off on an NDA as the final days of legislation

were being crafted. We understand that, but it has been tabled now. It should have

been tabled and crafted and designed with the ability to answer very basic, forthright

questions.

If the answer is that government has exempted themselves, they just need to be upfront

about that. They need to follow it up with exactly why — why, once again, we would

have a Premier thinking that the rules should apply differently to his office and

government than to the rest of the public.

If they can’t answer the why, and they can’t give a clear answer as to whether or

not they’re exempt, why did they bring this forward now? It’s the certainty that industry

needs to move forward. Right now, with a lot of unanswered questions and two pages

of regulatory exemptions that this government can do, that’s a problem.

I’ll give one more example in my time as to why it’s a problem about that extra two

pages of reasons that they can — by order in council, by regulation — make changes

on things like the prescribed days and other things within this bill.

Right now we have an EV mandate in British Columbia, one that actually is at a higher

standard than the federal government’s. It’s one that is set in this 2026 model year,

which is already being sold in car lots across this province, and is set to be very

punitive and have a direct impact to the costs of vehicles in this province and to

the supply of vehicles in this province because of the tanking EV market.

Now, why I say it’s important is that that legislation when it was brought in, those

benchmarks that are in place by law, needs legislation to change, not regulation.

That means they need to bring the bill to this House to say and admit that they’re

no longer going to get anywhere close to 26 percent of sales of EV vehicles in 2026.

[2:55 p.m.]

They need to change the thresholds or risk seeing cars literally have a $20,000 surcharge

put on them. That’s what we’re faced with right now with the EV mandates because of

the way the legislation was structured.

Now, I don’t take issue with the way the legislation was structured. I actually think

it’s a good thing. But we haven’t seen that legislation in front of the House, and

we have 4½ weeks left in this session, which means we’re going to have a world of

hurt for car buyers coming up real fast. It has to be legislatively changed, and that

was on purpose by the government to make it very difficult for future governments

to change the thresholds of EV sales.

You get to prompt payment legislation, and they’ve done the exact opposite. They say:

“Here’s the framework up front that we’re going to tell the industry — the rules you’re

going to have to abide by and operate under the law. And oh, by the way, on the back

end, we’re giving ourselves the ability by way of regulation to change everything

in the front end. Believe us today in what we’re doing, but we might change our minds

tomorrow, and we don’t have to come back to the Legislature to do it, with a construction

industry that is critical to our overall economy. We can just do it.”

Those are the two fundamental problems I have with this bill that I really do want

to get some clarity from this government on, moving forward. I hope I’ve laid out

the real-world implications of the seriousness of why those missing pieces and components

are so critical to this legislation.

I mean, I was just at a BCBC event on the state of business in British Columbia, and

they had lots of national-level, very well-renowned economists talking, and a lot

of the conversation in the morning was about productivity and our lack of productivity

in British Columbia. It’s no wonder. I mean, this government is presiding over a housing

crisis in B.C. like we’ve never seen before, and the one component of our economy

that has the worst productivity is construction. They’ve been told that for years

now.

A bill that will help with prompt payment and productivity is a good thing. But if

this is going to layer on more bureaucracy, more red tape, more cost, more burden

and more confusion and uncertainty in an industry that is literally our most underperforming

segment of the economy, which should be actually one of your highest-firing sectors

in a healthy economy, that is a problem.

There are far-reaching implications to pieces of legislation like this that the government

ought to be aware of, first off, and, most importantly, to be willing to actually

speak in an open and frank manner to us when we’re asking legitimate questions, so

that the public and the construction industry actually truly understand what the rules

of play are. Why they need to give themselves open-ended legislation on the back end

to try to change any of the rules and timelines they see fit moving forward, instead

of bringing it back in an open and transparent way to this chamber….

Those are the main concerns I have. I thank you for the time, and I look forward to

committee stage, where we can delve into not so much the concept of this, because

I think you’re hearing that most of us are in favour of the concept, but more the

nuts and bolts of how this piece of legislation is actually going to work. So thanks

for the time.

Deputy Speaker : Member for Kamloops Centre, I’m wondering if you could move adjournment of the debate

for a moment.

Peter Milobar : Oh, sure. I move adjournment of the debate.

Peter Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

Darlene Rotchford :

Section A reports Bill 12 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Lisa Beare : Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker : The question is third reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved on division.

[3:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Lisa Beare : In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 20, the Construction Prompt

Payment Act.

In the little House, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : We will continue with Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the Construction Prompt

Payment Act. This legislation aims to tackle a long-standing issue in our construction

industry, the timely payment of contractors and subcontractors.

I recognize, and I support, the importance of prompt payment in our construction sector,

because for too long, hard-working contractors, tradespeople and small businesses

have borne the brunt of payment delays that can stretch on for months. These delays

aren’t just inconvenient; they can create real hardship, particularly felt by independent

and small business owners. The construction industry is already grappling with rising

costs, with supply chain disruptions….

Deputy Speaker : Apologies, Surrey-Cloverdale.

Members, could we give the floor to our member for Surrey-Cloverdale, please? Thanks.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, the industry is already grappling with rising costs. We have supply chain

disruptions and a sharp downturn in residential construction, and ensuring the predictability

of cash flow is obviously an essential part of that.

Prompt payment protects jobs. It supports economic growth and stability for the men

and women who are building this province. The intent behind Bill 20, to establish

clear timelines for payments, starting with 28 days from owners to contractors and

then cascading downward, is a step in the right direction. I do support the government’s

acknowledgement of this problem, and I stand with the contractors who deserve to be

paid for their labour without unnecessary delays.

That said, Bill 20 falls short in several key areas. Criticism of Bill 20 has already

emerged from stakeholders and experts, drawing from experience in other provinces

like Ontario, where similar legislation has actually been in place since 2019. One

of the most glaring issues is the potential exemptions, particularly from public sector

projects.

Stakeholders from organizations like the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association,

the Electrical Contractors Association of B.C. and the Mechanical Contractors Association

have voiced strong concerns that this bill may carve out exemptions for municipalities,

for the province itself, for regional districts and school boards, and for the very

entities that procure billions of dollars in construction work and that are often

the slowest payers.

In meeting with businesses and contractors in my own riding of Surrey-Cloverdale,

I have to say that their most significant complaint that I get with respect to prompt

payment actually comes from those who are subcontractors working on government projects,

which at first surprised me because the government should be leading the way, leading

the example. Unfortunately, time and again, when I have to meet with contractors who

are having a struggle in this area, it usually is because of delays caused by this

government’s incompetence.

If the government exempts itself from its own rules, what message is that, of course,

sending? It defeats the purpose of this legislation and creates a two-tiered system

where private owners have to comply but public bodies can drag their feet. As Chris

Gardner of the ICBA pointed out, this would undermine the bill’s effectiveness and

leave smaller subcontractors vulnerable.

We can’t allow loopholes that protect the biggest players while exposing independent

and small businesses to financial risk. Why should taxpayers’ monies be used to fund

delays and hurt local businesses?

[3:05 p.m.]

This bill also introduces adjudication as a mechanism for resolving disputes quickly.

However, the question remains as to whether this process is truly accessible and fair.

Adjudication can be an effective tool, but it does come with costs, potential legal

fees, preparation time and possible imbalances where larger firms have the resources

to navigate the system, but small contractors may not. Without robust support, education

and funding for smaller businesses, this could actually become a barrier rather than

a solution. Bill 20 must include clear provisions for training and enforcement to

ensure equity in the system.

Another point of criticism is Bill 20’s handling of pay-when-paid clauses. While the

legislation permits contractors to withhold payment if they haven’t been paid by the

owner, this perpetuates a chain of delays that this bill is supposed to be breaking.

Why not go further and truly protect subcontractors? Delays at the top will still

ripple down, forcing trades to finance projects out of pocket. It’s not prompt payment;

it’s deferred hardship.

The bill also lacks sufficient detail on implementation and transition periods. With

multi-year projects already underway, how will existing contracts be handled?

Stakeholders are calling for a cultural shift towards payment certainty, but without

a mandate, education programs, standardized invoicing rules that reflect real construction

practices and strong enforcement mechanisms, the province risks creating more disputes

than it resolves.

Bill 20 rightly recognizes the need for prompt payment, payment to support our contractors

to build a stronger economy. However, it still has shortcomings that could limit its

impact. Exemptions for public entities, potential inequities in adjudication and the

persistence of pay-when-paid clauses and inadequate implementation details need to

be examined further in committee stage.

I’m very supportive of supporting those who build British Columbia, and I look forward

to seeing this bill go through to the committee stage because I think that together

we really should deliver real protections for the businesses that build this province.

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to speak about Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act.

In my previous crane construction business for 35 years, I know how important it is

for contractors and subcontractors to receive their payment promptly. This bill has

a good goal. It wants to make sure people are paid on time for their work. That is

fair, and that’s the right thing for any government to do.

But unfortunately, for far too long, small contractors and businesses have waited

weeks and even months before they received their payment. They still have to pay their

workers. They have to buy materials and keep their business running. So late payment

really does hurt many companies.

I do not have a problem supporting the goal of this bill, but good ideas must be spelled

out and researched carefully. We must make sure this law works in real life and not

just on paper.

This bill sets clear payment timeliness, and that is good. Owners must pay contractors

within 28 days of receiving a proper invoice. Contractors must then pay subcontractors

within seven days of being paid, and the payment keeps flowing down the line. If there’s

a dispute, there is an adjudication process instead of waiting for court.

This bill also changes the Builders Lien Act to make it easier to release money held

back on projects. These are all good steps. They can make the system seem more fair

and predictable. But the details will decide if it truly helps workers and small businesses.

[3:10 p.m.]

Bill 20 gives the government cabinet a lot of power to decide by regulation who is

included and who is not. For example, the cabinet can set rules for which projects

the law applies to, who counts as an owner, when the law takes effect and how the

adjudication system works. That means a future government could carve out some public

projects or delay the law of certain sectors.

This becomes a huge problem. If prompt payment is the goal, then government must lead

by example. The public sector should not be an exception. It should be the standard.

I will examine carefully to see how the regulations are written, because this bill’s

success depends on who is covered and who is left out.

One of the key parts of this bill is the “proper invoice” found in

part 2 of this

bill. This is what starts the 28-day payment clock. If that rule is written poorly,

it could become a loophole. If an owner can reject an invoice because of a small mistake

like a wrong date, a wrong number or a wrong name and address, then payment can be

delayed again. The rules for invoices must be simple and clear, so that owners cannot

delay payment over small technical issues. The goal is to speed up payment, not to

give people new excuses to slow it down.

There’s another part of this bill that needs care, the pay-when-paid rule. If a contractor

does not get paid promptly by the owner, they can send a notice of non-payment to

their subcontractors. That means smaller trades could still be left waiting even though

they did their work. If a subcontractor has no control over a dispute higher up the

chain, they should not be punished for it. The government must make sure this clause

is not used to hold back payments to small businesses.

The new adjudication process, which is found in

part 4 of the bill, is a good idea.

It gives people a faster, lower-cost way to settle payment fights. But the process

must be easy to understand and affordable. If it costs too much or takes too long,

then small businesses will not be able to use it. Adjudicators should be neutral and

be properly trained, and their decisions must be enforceable without going to court

again. That’s how we make this system fair and real.

Another problem is the timing for the implementation of this bill. This bill will

not start right away. It only comes into force after the government passes the regulations,

but that could take months and possibly stretch out to years.

We have seen that before. A law is announced, but nothing changes, because the rules

are not ready. Therefore, cabinet or government should set clear timelines now and

make sure the system is in place quickly. People need prompt payment in practice,

not just in promise. Prompt payment only matters if it is enforced. There must be

real consequences for people who intentionally delay payment.

The bill says interest will apply to late payments. That is good, but it needs more.

Government should publish payment data so that everyone can see who pays on time and

who does not. Transparency will build trust and make sure that everyone follows the

same rules. If the government is serious, it should prove it with public reporting.

For instance, every quarter the government can publish what the average payment time

is for the various ministries, what the average payment time is for school boards

and how many payments meet the 28-day rule. That is real leadership. That is what

stepping up and supporting workers and small businesses really looks like. That shows

that government is not just regulating others but is leading by example.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think I can support the direction of Bill 20. It is good to see government acting

on something the construction industry has been asking for, for many years. But this

law will only succeed if it is clear, fair and complete. There should be no carve-outs,

no prior exemptions, no endless delays.

Yes, if the regulations are written right, are simple and transparent and apply to

all then this will be a real win for the workers, contractors and small businesses

across British Columbia. They deserve fairness, they deserve respect, and they deserve

to be paid on time and at all times.

Pete Davis : You know, there’s something that has been lost in politics these days — something

simple, something that used to matter a lot more than it does today — and that’s your

word. When you tell someone that you’re going to do something, you do it. When you

give your word, you stand on it. It’s called integrity. It’s called the foundation

of trust in business, in government and in life.

When we talk about this bill, Bill 20, the Construction Prompt Payment Act, at its

very core, this is what it’s supposed to be about — doing what you say you’re going

to do. You sign a contract, and you get the work done. The invoice comes in, and you

pay your bill. It’s integrity. It’s standing up for your word.

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen time and time again from this government opposite is

that they say one thing and they do another. They make promises and then find excuses

not to follow through. I have to ask. Is this bill another one of those situations,

another “say one thing, do another” scenario? Or is this government actually serious

this time about standing behind the people who build this province?

Make no mistake. The construction industry is the backbone of British Columbia. These

are the hard-working people, contractors, subcontractors, small businesses — folks

who get up every morning, load up their truck and put in an honest day’s work. They’re

the ones literally building this province from the ground up for us, yet for years,

too many of them have been left waiting and wondering if or when they’ll get paid,

and they’ve already completed the work. It’s done. That’s not right. No one should

have to chase payment for honest work.

I am in full support of the principle of prompt payment. I think we all are. I believe

if someone does the work properly and delivers on their contract, they deserve to

be paid. They should be paid promptly, fairly and without delay. It’s called basic

respect. It’s business.

This bill, in its intent, is a great step. It seeks to ensure that when a proper invoice

is received, payment must flow down the chain from owner to contractor within 28 days

and then to subcontractors within seven. That kind of system would make a real difference

for thousands of small businesses struggling to keep their doors open and their employees

paid.

Let’s be honest. It’s hard to run a business in this province right now. Costs are

through the roof. Taxes are high. Fuel is expensive. On top of that, you’ve got contractors

waiting months just to get paid for work they’ve already completed.

I’ve spoken with contractors in B.C. They want to do the work, they want to hire people,

and they want to build, but when payments get delayed, the stress piles up. Payroll

gets tight, equipment loans still come due, and you’re forced to dip into your savings

or your line of credit just to keep your employees paid, while your own invoices sit

in limbo. It’s tough.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s the reality that they have on the ground. That’s why prompt payment is not

just a bureaucratic detail. It’s the difference between surviving and shutting down

many small and mid-sized companies in our great province of British Columbia. Yes,

I support the goal of this bill, but, and this is an important “but,” I am deeply

concerned about what’s hidden beneath the surface.

When you read through the fine print, you start to notice a pattern. There are so

many ways to get out of this, and the question is: why? If you’re entering into an

agreement, and the job gets done properly, then pay the bill. It shouldn’t be complicated.

Yet this government seems to have written in exceptions, carve-outs and regulatory

powers that could water this whole thing down even before it begins.

For example, the bill gives cabinet the ability to make major changes by regulation

without any consultation from the Legislature. They can redefine who counts as owner,

contractor or subcontractor. They can change how payment deadlines are calculated,

what counts as a proper invoice or even the interest rates for late payments. It’s

a lot of power concentrated behind closed doors with no legislative oversight at all.

Then there’s the biggest issue of all, government’s own exception. Somehow, despite

the talk of fairness and promptness, the government has written itself a way out.

Section 14(2) of the

Interpretation Act does not apply to this bill. What does that

mean? The government doesn’t have to be bound by its own prompt payment rules. That’s

interesting.

While they stand here talking about fairness and accountability, they are quietly

giving themselves permission to not follow the same rules as everybody else. That

is unacceptable as far as I’m concerned, because the government itself is one of the

biggest customers in this province. They contract for schools, hospitals, roads, housing,

infrastructure — billions of dollars of work. Those contractors, those crews, deserve

the same prompt payment that they would expect from any private client.

It’s baffling to me, frankly, for a government to introduce a bill about prompt payment

and then carve themselves out of it. What’s the point? If this government truly believes

in standing by its word, if they truly care about helping the construction sector,

they should start by applying these same rules to themselves. Pay your bills on time.

Honour your contracts. Lead by example. That’s what we should be doing here.

Right now there’s a serious trust problem we have. This is the same government that

promised $1,000 affordability cheques to British Columbians before the last election.

Well, we all know where that turned out. Another promise that sounded great in a press

release but never made it to anybody’s bank account. So when this government stands

up and says, “We’re going to ensure that contractors are paid promptly,” forgive me

for being skeptical. The track record just doesn’t back it up.

I want to be clear. I’m not rooting against this. I want this to work. I want every

contractor, every subtrade, every small business owner who’s waiting on payment to

finally see some fairness and predictability.

I say to this government: prove it. Prove that this isn’t just another front, another

photo op, another headline with no follow through. Prove that you mean what you say

this time. The people, the builders, the welders, the electricians, the framers, the

concrete crews are counting on you to finally get this right.

[3:25 p.m.]

They’re not looking for handouts. They’re looking for honesty, they’re looking for

reliability, and they’re expecting integrity. When someone puts in the work, when

they deliver on their promise, they deserve to be treated with the same respect in

return. That starts with paying our bills on time.

I will be supporting the intent of this bill because I believe it is what we need

to stand for, even if I’m not convinced that the government really does stand behind

this. I guess time will tell. Let’s hope for once that their actions match their words,

because in business and in life, your word is your bond.

If this government truly believes in that principle, then it’s time to prove it by

paying their own bills promptly, by treating contractors fairly and by standing behind

their word. That’s what integrity looks like, that’s what leadership looks like, and

that’s what British Columbians deserve.

Sharon Hartwell : We are here today debating the Construction Prompt Payment Act, Bill 20. At first

glance, this bill sounds quite simple. It’s about making sure people get paid on time

for the work that they do. Well, who could argue with that? But the fact that we even

need a law like this says something about how complicated and slow our systems have

become.

When I first started in business, it was very straightforward. If you didn’t pay your

supplier, you didn’t get your supplies next week. It was that simple. There was accountability

and trust. We didn’t need a long legal document to make sure people honoured their

word.

That’s what makes this debate a bit puzzling. Somewhere along the way, that basic

trust, that handshake agreement, got lost. Today we seem to need more laws and more

rules to make people do what used to be just common sense.

This legislation is aimed at the construction industry, but the issue it’s trying

to solve is about more than just one sector. It’s about fairness, it’s about reliability,

and it’s about respect for people’s time, effort and expertise.

It’s not just construction workers waiting months for their pay. I’ve heard from doctors

who weren’t reimbursed for months and small businesses that do work for government

but wait endlessly for payment. These aren’t isolated stories. They’re part of a larger

problem, a culture of delay that hurts small businesses and working people the most.

While I support, cautiously, the intent, I have to ask whether it will really fix

the problem or just add another layer of bureaucracy, because we already have a lot

of those.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

People back home tell me they don’t need more forms or agencies. They just need government

to get out of the way, to do what it already promised to do: pay its bills on time.

In my own community, I’ve seen small local contractors wait six months or more to

get paid for work they finished long ago. These are not large corporations with cash

reserves. They’re family businesses. They hire a few people, work long hours and do

honest work. When the payment doesn’t come, the pressure lands right there at home.

Bills pile up, equipment leases fall behind, and that uncertainty weighs heavily on

them.

Many of these small operators already spend thousands of dollars just bidding on projects,

buying materials, fuel and equipment to get the job done. They invest in their communities,

they hire local workers, and they keep our economy moving. All they ask in return

is for a fair deal — that when they finish the work, they get paid in a reasonable

time.

I’ve watched these small businesses struggle, not because they did poor work but because

payments were held up by processes, paperwork or budget approvals. For them, prompt

payment isn’t about convenience; it’s about survival. Yet despite how much local skill

and talent we have, I see government projects handed out to large companies from outside

our region, sometimes even outside the province.

[3:30 p.m.]

There’s a seniors housing project in Telkwa that went to a contractor from Alberta.

At first, it seemed fine. They promised to hire local subcontractors, and they did.

But soon these local workers weren’t getting paid. The project stalled, months in

delays. Two years, three years later, the society that sponsored the project is still

dealing with warranty problems, and the building still isn’t finished. The Alberta

company declared bankruptcy and walked away, leaving quite a mess behind.

That’s not just bad luck. It’s a failure of oversight and fairness. It’s also a reminder

of why local contractors matter. When local people get the job, they care. They live

here. They have a reputation to uphold. If something goes wrong, they’re there to

fix it. They don’t skip town when things get tough.

Now, I understand that not every job can go entirely to local companies. Some projects

are too large or too specialized. But local businesses should at least have a fair

chance to be part of the work in their own communities. They should not be pushed

aside for big firms that win bids because they have more lawyers and accountants.

While government often demands that contractors be bonded or meet specific financial

conditions before bidding, shouldn’t government also meet its own standard of responsibility?

If contractors must prove they can deliver on time, shouldn’t government prove it

can pay on time? Fairness has to work both ways.

I’ve had my own experience with late government payments. I provided catering for

a government event. It wasn’t a huge contract, but it mattered to me. I wanted to

do a good job. In fairness, I wanted to be paid on time as well. Weeks passed, then

months, and still no payment. In the end, I had to write again and let them know and

tell them I’d double the invoice to cover the wasted time and interest. Well, not

long after that, the cheque showed up in the mail, but, of course, without any interest.

That experience has stayed with me. It reminded me that too often government assumes

that small businesses will simply wait. It’s not the responsibility of contractors,

small business owners or anyone else to bankroll the government. These are our taxpayers.

They already contribute to the financial stability of the province. They should not

have to wait months to be paid for services they’ve already delivered.

That’s why the idea of prompt payment is right. It’s fair. But we must make sure the

law is written in a way that actually helps the people it’s meant to protect.

A major concern is that the government can still make significant changes to this

act through regulations, with no consultation within the Legislature. That means key

decisions could be made behind closed doors. The rules about who is covered, what

projects qualify or how the timelines are enforced could all be changed later. That

is a real worry. Laws that affect thousands of workers and businesses shouldn’t be

written without open debate.

We’re also concerned about carve-outs, especially, as has been mentioned before, that

14(2) of the

Interpretation Act doesn’t apply to this law. That means government isn’t

automatically bound by it. In plain language, the province could exempt itself from

the same rules it’s setting for everyone else. That’s just not right.

You can’t tell every private company in B.C. that they must pay their contractors

within 28 days and then say government doesn’t have to follow the same rules. If government

is going to set the standard, it should lead by example. If we’re going to introduce

a prompt payment law, it should apply to everyone, public and private alike. It should

be simple, consistent and enforceable.

That brings me back to a bigger question. Is this new legislation going to fix the

problem, or will it just create another layer of red tape? If it becomes another process

with more forms, agencies and more approvals, then small businesses won’t be helped.

They’ll be buried.

We should also think about what happens when the system fails, breaks down. We’ve

seen interruptions in payment systems before, delays in government departments, computer

outages, budget freezes. If that happens again, what protections will there be? Will

this law guarantee that payments continue, or will people once again be left waiting

while bureaucracy sorts itself out?

I don’t raise these questions to dismiss the bill. I raise them because I want it

to work. The people who build our roads, bridges, schools, homes and hospitals deserve

better. They deserve to be treated with respect, not as an afterthought in an endless

payment chain.

Think about the contractors who show up at the job sites before sunrise; the operators

out there in the mud, the rain; the electricians working late to finish a building,

missing time with their families; and the truckers who keep our projects moving. These

are hard-working British Columbians. They don’t want handouts. They just want fairness,

to be paid on time for an honest day’s work.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s what this legislation should deliver, but it will only do that if the government

holds itself to the same standard it expects of everyone else.

As this bill moves forward, I hope the government listens closely to the people who

live this reality every day — the small business owners, the independent haulers,

the tradespeople who keep this province running. They don’t need another promise.

They need results they can count on.

If this legislation brings that, if it truly makes prompt payment the rule and not

the exception, then it will be a welcome change. But if it becomes another complicated

system full of exemptions, delays and loopholes, then this government will have failed

the very people it was supposed to help. We owe it to them to get this right.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 20, intituled

Construction Prompt Payment Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I call continued second reading on Bill 18.

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

(continued)

Brennan Day : I want to begin by acknowledging the powerful and personal stories that have been

shared during the previous part of this debate. They remind us that this issue is

not political. It’s human. There has been a rare sense of unity in this chamber, and

rightly so. When we discuss sexual violence, we speak as legislators, parents and

as people who want the next generation to inherit campuses that are safe, fair and

compassionate.

As a father, I don’t have to worry about my eight-year-old quite yet, but he’ll be

trotting off faster than I’d like. When he does, I want to know that our post-secondary

institutions are places where every student, faculty member and staff person can learn,

teach and work without fear or intimidation. That’s what this bill is about — the

simple right to safety and dignity in learning.

Bill 18 replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016, the first

framework created after years of student advocacy. This new legislation expands protection

beyond students, to include faculty, contractors and volunteers, and updates language

to use “sexual violence” rather than “sexual misconduct,” recognizing that these are

acts of harm, not mere infractions.

The member for Surrey-Panorama captured that well when he said that the new act recognizes

that university autonomy must be balanced with public accountability. There is a careful

evolution of the framework, progress built on experience rather than reaction to headlines,

and I share that sentiment.

The bill requires each post-secondary institution to have a clear policy outlining

procedures for disclosures, formal allegations and disciplinary action. It mandates

advisory committees that include students, regular consultation and annual public

reporting. These are meaningful steps towards transparency and accountability, something

we certainly can use more of in government.

Just as importantly, this bill allows institutions to share outcomes of cases with

survivors. That small change from secrecy to open communication restores a sense of

trust that has long been missing.

As Conservatives, we also must say plainly that fairness and due process matter. The

member for Surrey-Panorama noted that transparency cannot exist without fairness.

He’s right. Believing survivors and supporting them must go hand in hand with ensuring

that investigations are independent, evidenced-based and timely. Compassion and justice

are not competing values. They are partners in credibility.

Implementation and not just announcement will decide whether this legislation succeeds.

Our colleges and universities are under extraordinary financial strain currently.

The abrupt end to the international student program has gutted a key revenue stream,

leaving institutions large and small scrambling to fill the gap — not just the Simon

Frasers but the North Island Colleges.

[3:40 p.m.]

The funding model itself was already broken, and the current transition is forcing

institutions to stretch every remaining dollar just to keep basic and critical programs

running. Adding new reporting and consultation requirements without corresponding

support risks creating a two-tier system, one for large urban universities with compliance

offices and another for smaller regional campuses where a handful of staff are asked

to do it all.

The government must recognize this reality and provide the resources, guidance and

shared service tools that smaller institutions need to meet the same high safety standards.

Otherwise, the best intentions of this bill will be lost in the paperwork. Safety

should not depend on your postal code. Students at North Island College deserve the

same protections as those at UBC or SFU.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky spoke about the daily precautions that women

and girls feel compelled to take, from crossing the street to carrying keys between

their fingers. That image has stayed with many of us. He also said: “Any attack on

somebody’s mind, body or soul is

an act of violence.” I want to acknowledge that remark

from the Green Party, because it captured the moral dimension of this debate.

Laws can set rules, but only culture can prevent violence. That culture begins long

before students reach university. Respect, consent and accountability must be taught

in our homes, reinforced in our schools and carried forward into adulthood. Freedom

and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

This bill wisely recognizes that sexual violence can also occur through the use of

technology. That inclusion is crucial. Digital harassment, image-based abuse and deepfake

exploitation are not minor offences. They are devastating violations. As AI tools

make these abuses easier to commit, our laws must be equally agile in preventing them.

I would urge the ministry, in its forthcoming regulations, to ensure that the training,

prevention and investigation frameworks address these emerging forms of digital harm.

Transparency builds trust. The requirement for annual reporting is welcome, but it

must go beyond counting policies and training sessions. Reports should include measurable

outcomes — how many disclosures were made, how many investigations were completed,

how long they took and whether survivors felt supported. That kind of honest reporting

will show whether institutions are improving or merely complying. We do not want this

to be a pencil-whipping exercise. A centralized provincial dashboard could further

that goal, not to shame institutions but to let parents, students and legislators

see progress over time.

This legislation moves the conversation forward. It broadens protections, modernizes

language and demands greater accountability from our post-secondary institutions.

But its success will depend on what happens after this vote, on follow-through, funding

and leadership.

I support the principle of this bill because it reflects the kind of province we want

British Columbia to be, one where compassion is matched by fairness and where justice

is guided by both empathy and common sense. When our kids step onto those campuses,

we want them to inherit institutions that stand for more than just degrees and credentials.

We want them to reflect the values we raised them with — respect, decency and responsibility.

If Bill 18 helps my son’s generation walk into adulthood with those principles intact,

in places where they can learn safely and live without fear, then every word spoken

in this House will have been worth it.

Elenore Sturko : I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act,

which will replace the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016.

In British Columbia, post-secondary institutions such as universities and colleges

have been required to implement sexual violence and misconduct policies since legislation

was introduced by the previous government nearly a decade ago. The law was enacted

following advocacy from student groups like the Alliance of B.C. Students and the

B.C. Federation of Students, spurred on by high-profile cases at institutions like

the University of British Columbia, where survivors reported inadequate institutional

responses to allegations of sexual assault.

[3:45 p.m.]

The original act mandated policies covering prevention, reporting and responses. While

B.C. was a pioneer in mandating such policies, recent reviews initiated after stakeholder

consultations identified gaps in enforcement and resources, prompting calls to align

with evolving best practices and strengthen provincial oversight.

Since this government was first elected in 2017, post-secondary institutions, alongside

student organizations, survivors and equity advocates, have all continued to call

for stronger provincial legislation to address persistent gaps in the existing framework.

I’m glad to see that after eight years, this NDP government has now introduced updated

legislation that will require post-secondary institutions to apply sexual violence

policies to more than just students and to strengthen reporting requirements to more

easily allow the province to hold schools accountable.

Additionally, this updated legislation adds objectives that must be considered by

post-secondary institutions when making their sexual violence policy. It requires

post-secondary institutions to establish an advisory committee. It adds consultation

requirements, adds requirements in relation to annual reports, authorizes post-secondary

institutions to provide more information about the outcome of a formal allegation

to the person who made that allegation and requires post-secondary institutions to

make training available.

While Bill 18 makes significant progress, it doesn’t fully address every concern raised

by B.C. post-secondary institutions — primarily, funding. The Sexual Violence Policy

Act lacks dedicated funding mandates, leaving programs and services vulnerable to

annual budgets. As was made abundantly clear to members of this Legislature during

the 2026 budget consultations, which I was privileged to participate in…. We heard

about the dire financial situation that post-secondary institutions are in.

Major changes to Canada’s international student program in 2025, including stricter

study permits requirements, have significant impacts on post-secondary budgets. Simon

Fraser University, for example, expects 500 fewer international undergraduates this

semester, leading to a $20 million loss in its budget. KPU, which has five campuses,

including one in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, has experienced a significant decline

in undergraduate and graduate international student numbers, which has tuition revenues

expected to fall by $49 million.

I’m supporting this legislation, and I want to see these legislative changes succeed

at creating safer campuses, but more funding will be required. I checked the news

release. I checked the B.C. sexual violence action plan, but I wasn’t able to find

guaranteed annual funding to accompany this legislation. There may very well be some

grant money that was announced, which I might have missed, but the reality is that

post-secondary institutions need certainty, which means that they need dedicated resources.

Additionally, post-secondary institutions and allies have been advocating for stand-alone

provincial bodies to handle institution-level complaints and impose fines. This bill

enhances ministry-led accountability but relies on existing structures which, of course,

lack true independence.

Even with these limitations, I do think that this updated legislation modernizes the

approach to sexual violence policies at post-secondary institutions, so I do look

forward to supporting this legislation through to the committee stage, and I look

forward to the continuing debate.

Deputy Speaker : Any further speakers?

Okay, seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the question. The question is second reading

of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I call second reading on Bill 29.

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I am pleased to speak to amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Before I do that, I just want to quickly reflect. This is the first piece of legislation

I’m introducing in my role as Minister of Children and Family Development, and I just

want….

Deputy Speaker : Minister, I’ll just ask you to move second reading, and then you can speak to it.

So you move second reading.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Sorry. I move second reading of Bill 29.

[3:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Yes. Thank you. Continue.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : As I mentioned, this is the first time I’m introducing legislation in the House,

and I just had a moment where I really reflected on what an honour that truly is.

I take the role and the responsibility of being the Minister of Children and Families

incredibly seriously. The responsibility is not lost on me, and I am really proud

that we are introducing legislation and making legislation that will continually try

to improve the lives of children, youth and families in this province. I will continue

to do that every single day that I’m in this role, and it is the honour of a lifetime

for me to be able to stand here and speak to these amendments.

These amendments align with our government’s ongoing work to improve the way in which

we approach the safety and well-being of children and youth across British Columbia.

Every single day, child protection workers meet families that are facing some of the

toughest moments of their lives. They work diligently to support families and keep

children and youth safe and thriving.

To do this work, there is a range of child protection measures that can be used to

protect and support children. To determine the best approach in a specific case, child

protection directors and their staff are guided by legislated principles. I think

these principles are crucially important, not just to our legislation but to my entire

ministry and to me as the minister. I want to share these principles. I think they’re

really important.

Children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and ha