Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 137

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Comox Valley Glacier Kings Athletic Achievements

Brennan Day

Introductions by Members

Statements

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month

Hon. Grace Lore

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M238 — Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act (No. 2)

Jordan Kealy

Members’ Statements

Surrey Eagles Junior Hockey Club

Brent Chapman

Argyle Pipers and Senior Girls Basketball Championship

Susie Chant

Willie Dye

Lorne Doerkson

Elementary School Visit and Role of Government

George Chow

Support for Children

Heather Maahs

Literacy Central Vancouver Island

George Anderson

Oral Questions

Reconciliation and Government Handling of Land Title Issues and Property Rights

Scott McInnis

Hon. David Eby

Lorne Doerkson

Government Action on Anti-Indigenous Racism

Rob Botterell

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Hon. Niki Sharma

Provincial Sales Tax Costs for Strata Property Owners

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Building Code Energy Regulations for New Housing Units

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Christine Boyle

Housing Affordability and Expansion of Provincial Sales Tax

Brennan Day

Hon. Christine Boyle

Gavin Dew

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Government Priorities and Funding for Autism Services

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Steve Kooner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Lawrence Mok

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued)

Linda Hepner

Hon. Christine Boyle

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lisa Beare : Today we have some amazing leaders from Maple Ridge in the gallery. We have Gordy

and Mary Robson, who are strong community leaders, including Gordy being a former

mayor and city councillor.

[10:05 a.m.]

Mary has been the executive director of the Friends in Need Food Bank in Maple Ridge

for the past 13 years. She said she’s retiring. Not many of us believe it.

They’ve had many, many accomplishments together. One of the most notable was that

they founded the Maple Ridge News in 1984. These are the kinds of leaders that Mary and Gordy are.

I hope that the House will please make them feel very welcome.

Claire Rattée : This morning I had the honour and the opportunity to go and speak at a breakfast

for Jewish community advocacy days, hosted by CIJA.

A number of the representatives are here in the chamber today to watch question period,

and I just wanted to welcome them and thank them for their time this morning and all

the work that they do on behalf of our community.

I would just ask that the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Yesterday I had the privilege of introducing and welcoming representatives from the

Canadian Home Builders Association. There are more folks in the House today. I’m looking

forward to meeting with them later today.

I also am again delighted to introduce and welcome members from the B.C. Real Estate

Association, who are in Victoria for their Government Liaison Days. It’s a busy week

for housing here.

Welcome to the Canadian Home Builders and the B.C. Real Estate Association.

I’m just going to add one personal plug of a welcome to Sam Watt, who is the chair

of the Greater Vancouver Realtors, a constituent in Vancouver–Little Mountain and

a dedicated community volunteer.

Please join me in welcoming them all.

Statements

Comox Valley Glacier Kings

Athletic Achievements

Brennan Day : There may be no kings in Oceanside, but there certainly are in the Comox Valley.

I want to give a quick shout-out to our very own Comox Valley Glacier Kings of the

VIJHL for sweeping the Oceanside Generals four games to none in the playoff series

— a truly incredible performance by a great young group of athletes.

The boys are going to be out hunting the Cougars and the Panthers from the south Island

in the next round, and with this group, they’ve got it in the bag.

Go, Kings!

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar : I just want to highlight two members from the home builders that actually happen

to be from Kamloops and that are here.

One is a legend within the home-building ranks across this country. Everyone knows

that if Rose Choy suggests you do something, you are to do it. That is across this

country — always a powerhouse from Kamloops on a national level. We have Rose Choy

here.

Sitting with her today is also Ryan Kurzac, who you may have recognized from the Home

Hardware ad fame across this country. He and his family have long owned the Home Hardware

in Kamloops. In fact, my son was able to get through university by working in their

lumber yard — so, long community supporters.

Will the House please make them both welcome.

George Anderson : I rise to recognize a great member of Nanaimo-Lantzville, Jenn McPherson. She is

the past president of the Nanaimo, Duncan and District Labour Council. She has just

finished her term.

She started out as a youth representative, but her activism started on the labour

council through the facilitation with the B.C. Federation of Labour. Also, I’d like

to just highlight the fact that she is one of the youngest-ever labour council presidents.

I hope that the entire House will help in recognizing the great work of Jenn McPherson.

Lorne Doerkson : I am proud to introduce Vanita Des Mazes and Tim Johnson. They are realtors from

the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board here. They are fierce representatives and advocates

for the realtors of northern British Columbia.

I wanted to just add that Tim Johnson is from Williams Lake. He’s a personal friend

of mine.

I would like the House to make them feel very welcome here today.

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to welcome a distinguished group of leaders from the Jewish community

who are visiting the Legislature, organized by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs,

also known as CIJA.

These community representatives come from across Metro Vancouver, Vancouver Island

and other parts of our province. They’re here to meet with elected leaders to discuss

the important work of combatting hate, strengthening community safety and protecting

culturally appropriate services.

[10:10 a.m.]

It’s my pleasure to recognize the following individuals joining us today: Nico Slobinsky,

Shirly Berelowitz, David Decolongon, Liam Sasky, Shir Levi-Yair, Ezra Shanken, Mijal

Ben Dori, Karen James, David Fox, Stephen Shapiro, Samantha Simpson, Jeremy White,

Corinne Zimmerman, Aaron Devor, Anat Gogo, Ohad Gavrieli, Russ Klein, Jeff Moss, Peter

J. Nadler, Jaime Stein, Tanja Demajo and Raquel Hirsch.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to these respected community leaders to

the Legislature today.

Scott McInnis : I see two of my four guests from Kimberley are here today. I hope the other two can

get in for question period.

Angela and Perry Symes are small business owners in downtown Kimberley. They employ

my son, which is very generous of them, as well.

They’ve also brought their fathers here. Larry Johnson and Milton Symes are here today

watching.

In addition, my friends from Cranbrook building association, Interior Realtors, are

here.

As well, my man, No. 9, Jaime Stein is here.

Can we give everybody a big welcome this morning.

Statements

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month

Hon. Grace Lore : I wanted to take the opportunity to share with folks that it is Colorectal Cancer

Awareness Month in March. I want to thank colleagues from all sides of the aisle for

wearing a pin today.

It is the second-deadliest cancer in the province. It is routinely one of the leading

causes of death, and it’s extremely treatable if caught early. Screening for folks

in traditional ages, 50 to 75, is still low at 60 to 70 percent. Colorectal cancer

is increasingly common among younger folks under 50, 40 and even 30. Not always the

cutest symptoms or cancer to talk about, yet we must.

I wanted to take the opportunity to thank everybody again for wearing a pin and hope

that folks in this House will join me in talking to their friends and family about

it, making sure folks know the signs and symptoms and that you are getting screened.

Thank you very much, colleagues and Mr. Speaker.

[Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Kristina Loewen : It’s been a pleasure this week to welcome the B.C. home builders and the realtors

from all across the province. We really enjoyed meeting with them over the last couple

of days, and we just want to thank them for their advocacy.

Today I just want your support in welcoming to the chamber Kim Heizmann, Seth Scott,

Ryan Mayne, Gavin Thomas and Kadin Rainville — all from the Interior.

Susie Chant : This morning I am very happy to introduce Ruth Hanson. She’s a friend, a constituent

and a real estate professional who is in Victoria today with her colleagues to speak

to members of the House.

I also want to introduce Mark Cooper, who is a new friend, who builds houses and lives

in Lynn Valley and has been part of my community for many years.

I hope the House will make them feel most welcome.

Teresa Wat : I would also like to join our members in welcoming the Centre for Israel and Jewish

Affairs — in particular, my two good friends Nico Slobinsky, the vice-president of

the Pacific region; and David Decolongon, associate director of policy and communication

for the Pacific region.

David is no stranger to this building. Earlier in his career, he served as a caucus

researcher, and it’s always nice to see familiar faces continuing their work in public

policy and community engagement.

Since I was elected in 2013, I have had the privilege of working with Nico at CIJA

to learn more about the Jewish community and the important issues that matter to them.

I’m very proud of the work they do to strengthen understanding, advocacy and dialogue

in our province and across Canada.

Please join me in warmly welcoming Nico and David to this chamber.

[10:15 a.m.]

Lawrence Mok : In the gallery, I have three visitors from Maple Ridge. They are visiting the Legislature

for the first time. Over there are my friends, Jay and his wife, Monica.

And over here is my daughter, Faith Mok.

Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu : I have two quick introductions to make.

The first one is our incredible community members who make our community so beautiful.

Jeff Fisher and Ingrid Fisher are celebrating their 25th anniversary today, and they

do so much for our community.

They have two beautiful children and one of their children is our Vernon-Lumby constituency

adviser.

Would the House please join me to wish Jeff and Ingrid a very happy 25th anniversary.

Lynne Block : I’d like to do two introductions this morning. One is Mark Cooper from the Canadian

Home Builders Association, as well as all the rest of them who are here today, the

real estate…. I am looking forward to our conversations in the future.

The second introduction is my CA, Ashten Young, who is visiting for the next couple

of days.

I wish you could all welcome them all to the House.

Sunita Dhir : Today in the House we have Mr. Hao Zheng, who is a constituent of Vancouver-Langara

and a very valued community member. He is here visiting us with the B.C. Real Estate

Association.

Let’s welcome Mr. Hao Zheng to the house.

Harwinder Sandhu : My second introduction is…. I am thrilled and excited, proud to join, of course,

along with all B.C. Real Estate Association, but the Interior delegation: Kim Heizmann,

Seth Scott and Robert Wood.

We had such a great meeting yesterday, and it’s been a tremendous honour to work with

you over the years. We know all of you help us to build our communities.

Would the House please help me make my guests feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M238 — Health Professions and

Occupations Repeal Act ( No. 2)

Jordan Kealy presented a bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations Repeal

Act (No. 2).

Jordan Kealy : I move that a Bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations Repeal Act (No. 2),

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read

a first time now.

I rise today not to play political games but to introduce this bill to actually repeal

the Health Professions and Occupations Act, commonly known as Bill 36. I believe this

House should have the opportunity to debate this bill, and I have the private members’

time to bring it forward.

With over 600 clauses, this enormous piece of legislation fundamentally changes how

health professions are regulated in British Columbia. The bill was forced through

the Legislature. Legislation of this size and consequence should never be rammed through

without full scrutiny and without legitimately consulting the professionals it affects.

Under this act, the 16 health profession boards are condensed under government boards

that are not elected by the trained professionals they represent but instead appointed

by politicians. Health professionals can face penalties of up to $200,000 in fines

and up to two years in jail. It prevents doctors from being honest with their patients

for fear of contradicting health guidelines created by politicians, not health professionals.

It creates issues about confidentiality when allowing entry and seizure of records

without warrant of court order.

The cabinet and ministers can adopt as law any regulation standard, codes or rules

enacted in foreign jurisdictions, bypassing legislature. In the middle of a doctor

shortage and health care crisis, we have legislation that many physicians tell me

they are afraid to even speak about publicly. Hundreds are planning to leave, retire

or have already left B.C. because of this legislation. On April 1, when the HPOA act

is enacted, thousands of British Columbians could be without a doctor.

[10:20 a.m.]

This repeal bill gives the Legislature the opportunity to fully examine this legislation

and address the concerns British Columbians and health professionals continue to raise

about it.

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

Motion approved.

Jordan Kealy : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Surrey Eagles Junior Hockey Club

Brent Chapman : The Surrey Eagles of the BCHL were the 2023-24 Fred Page champions. Though the Eagles

made the playoffs the following year, ’25-26 has been a tough one for the South Surrey

squad. The math is against them, so the Eagles will be watching the playoffs this

year — unusual for this reliable franchise.

Anyone who follows sports understands what a rebuilding year can look like. There’s

some disappointment game to game, but overall, the Surrey hockey fans always have

a positive outlook for this great group of local young men.

The team has a dedicated coaching staff and strong management, but the heart of the

Surrey Eagles is in the ownership. Local business leader, Ron Brar, and his family

have their caring fingerprints all over the operations of the team. Don’t get me wrong.

This is not a Jerry Jones kind of situation, not that Ron doesn’t have opinions on

the gameplay. He leaves the game strategy and player personnel to his assembled coaching

staff.

The wonder of this club is the hard work on the ice, win or lose, and its dedication

to the community. Families and kids feel right at home in the boisterous, energetic

yet safe, surroundings of the South Surrey Arena.

Live hockey for families in Vancouver might be out of reach these days but not in

South Surrey. There are big screens at both ends of the rink to review the big goal

or a great play. The concession stand has a remarkable variety of drinks, treats,

hot dogs and Indian snacks. Oh yeah, and the popcorn is very popular.

But the real treat is the kids. They are not on little screens. They go down by the

glass and watch the game. They run up to the concourse during the period breaks to

buy themselves a couple of player cards from the Surrey Eagles souvenir stand only

to track down players later to get those cards signed. The kids have their local heroes,

and the local heroes treat the kids like stars.

If they could give an award for the club that provides great entertainment in a safe

surrounding at a reasonable price, Ron Brar and his family would be taking the cup

home every year.

Go, Eagles!

Argyle Pipers and Senior Girls

Basketball Championship

Susie Chant : And now we’ll move to basketball. I’m so excited to have the opportunity to highlight

one of the outstanding high schools in my riding.

I begin by acknowledging that we’re gathered on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations.

When I’m at home in North Vancouver–Seymour, I live, work and learn on the unceded

territory of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Peoples. I am deeply appreciative of their ongoing stewardship of the land, water

and the air that sustain us all.

On February 28 at 7:45 p.m. in the Langley Events Centre, the Riverside Rapids and

the Argyle Pipers senior girls basketball teams met in a highly anticipated matchup

to determine this year’s provincial champions. In a great display of teamwork, discipline

and determination, the Argyle Pipers took a resounding 72-41 victory, bringing the

championship title back to the North Shore for the first time since 2010.

Captain Sadie Danks and Head Coach Anthony Beyrouti later spoke with Gloria Macarenko

on CBC, reflecting on the unwavering strength of their team — 20 athletes, five on

the court at any given time, and the rest on the bench offering unwavering support.

They described the overwhelming energy of competing in a venue filled with 2,300 spectators

and emphasized the trust that binds a successful team — trust in teammates, in training,

in system and in oneself.

Captain Sadie Danks outlined the commitment required to reach the finals: daily practices,

twice-weekly workouts and film sessions that focused on reinforcing strengths while

preparing for the next challenge. When asked about her future, she shared that she’ll

be attending UBC next year, continuing her basketball journey while pursuing post-secondary

studies.

Congratulations to the Argyle Pipers senior girls basketball team for bringing home

the provincial championship.

[10:25 a.m.]

Willie Dye

Lorne Doerkson : Today I rise to recognize the life and contributions of a remarkable individual from

Williams Lake, Willie Dye — a man whose passion, humour and dedication has left a

lasting mark on our community.

Willie was deeply involved in local soccer. He was the kind of person who believed

that the sport was about more than just the game. It was about bringing people together

and building friendships.

But many in Williams Lake will remember Willie for something else as well — his unforgettable

alter ego, Arty the Art Walker. With humour, creativity and a true sense of community

spirit, Willie brought smiles to the faces of thousands every year. Through that character,

he reminded us all that community celebration should be joyful, welcoming and full

of laughter.

Willie also played a key role as the organizer of the Stampede Parade. The parade,

of course, highlights the Williams Lake Stampede and is one of the largest in northern

British Columbia.

He was a maker of delicious fudge, and for years he made special batches of rum raisin

for my mother for Christmas.

He was an incredible man. He’s been participating in the Medieval Market for decades,

longer than I can remember.

Today I remember Willie with gratitude and as an icon of Cariboo-Chilcotin and offer

my condolences and prayers to his lovely wife, Audrey, and his family. He’ll be deeply

missed but never forgotten.

While it is tradition to remain silent after a statement like this, I would say that

Arty would love to hear a thunderous applause. Please join me in celebrating the life

of Willie Dye and Arty the Art Walker.

Elementary School Visit

and Role of Government

George Chow : Last Friday I was invited to speak to a group of grade 4 and grade 5 students in

my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

They wanted to know how governments work. I began by telling them that there are three

levels of government, and we are like a big family. I said the federal government

are the grandparents, the provincial government are the parents, and the city government

are kids like you.

The city government has a limited amount of money but manages to have fun, like you

kids. They build ice rinks, swimming pools, libraries and parks. They sponsor street

festivals and sporting events so you kids can have a good time.

Now, the provincial government has more money but has more responsibilities that cost

a lot of money, like making sure you’re not sick and that you can go to school or

ride the buses, SkyTrain and the ferries when you need.

The federal government is responsible for dealing with foreign countries, our armed

forces and making criminal laws, and has the most money because it owns a bank that

can print the money.

The provincial government, like many parents, will try to get more money from the

grandparents, the federal government. However, not unlike some grandparents, the federal

government plays favourites sometimes when giving out money to the provinces.

Then came the question period. For example: “What does the opposition do?”

I said: “The opposition is there to ask hard questions of the government, but sometimes

they get carried away and will not listen, not unlike you kids sometimes.”

“What do the Clerks do?”

I said: “The Clerks are really nice people who listen and write down everything that

the MLAs say, but seldom say a word themselves.”

And last question: “What about the Speaker?”

“The Speaker is an MLA who sits in the big chair at the front of the House to make

sure MLAs don’t say bad things about each other, like your teacher.”

On that happy note, my visit ended.

Support for Children

Heather Maahs : That’s a tough act to follow.

Speaking of children…. Children are society’s most precious resource. Children are

a sacred trust, first and foremost to their mothers and fathers, siblings, grandparents,

extended families and to their communities. They are the legacy and lineage that remind

us of all who have gone before and the rich heritage from which we come. Children

are a sacred trust bestowed on us here in the Legislature, as our children are the

future of our culture, of our society, of our country.

[10:30 a.m.]

We must do everything we can to support parents and families as they love and nurture

their children, giving them the respect and acknowledging the responsibility that

they embrace in this incredible duty as parents.

Children depend on their families to provide for them, but if they can’t, they depend

on us, the lawmakers of this province, to provide the necessary support. We must do

everything within our power to ensure they are loved and cared for, housed, fed and

educated — always mindful of what is in their best interest.

Someday we will be dependent on them to provide for us. We must be wise and treat

our precious children with the utmost care in everything we do and decide in this

House. I believe this is a sacred trust, and we will be held accountable for our decisions

and our actions one day.

May God give us wisdom.

Literacy Central Vancouver Island

George Anderson : A strong but mighty group in Nanaimo is doing impressive work that provides profound

opportunities for our economy, democracy and the strength of our communities. Their

social enterprise is called Literacy Central Vancouver Island.

Their motto is powerful: “Literacy is our legacy.” And every day, through volunteer

tutors and community programs, they bring that idea to life by helping adults, families

and young people strengthen their reading, writing and digital skills many of us take

for granted.

While LCVI’s work may sound like a social program, their work provides the underpinning

for economic policy because literacy is the foundation for participation in the modern

economy.

Literacy allows an individual to read a safety manual on a jobsite. Literacy is important

to be able to understand a contract, apply for a job, start a business or pursue education.

Today in Canada, nearly one in five adults struggle with basic literacy and almost

half of adults have literacy skills below the level expected of a high school graduate.

At a time when local journalism is fading, the ability of British Columbians to read

critically and stay informed has never been more important, and that’s why the work

of organizations like Literacy Central Vancouver Island matters so much. I thank all

of their staff and volunteers for the work that they do.

Their one-on-one adult literacy program helps adults build reading and writing confidence,

and their trade skills program empowers individuals in the trades to enhance their

reading, math, writing and computer skills — to be prosperous.

LCVI’s programs empower individuals to understand the world around them and how their

communities are shaped. Strong economies require skilled workers. Strong communities

require informed citizens. And both begin with literacy. When someone learns to read

with confidence, they pursue opportunity and understand their community.

Literacy must be our legacy, and by investing in literacy, we build British Columbia’s

future.

Oral Questions

Reconciliation and Government

Handling of Land Title Issues

and Property Rights

Scott McInnis : There’s tremendous uncertainty in B.C. today.

This government’s continued incompetence and constant attempts to keep the public

in the dark on reconciliation is nothing short of astounding.

Does this government believe that investment confidence remains high in B.C. despite

the NDP’s campaign of ensuring the public knows as little as possible?

Hon. David Eby : In the next 12 months, the province has in the neighbourhood of, and in excess of,

$50 billion in final investment decisions for major projects in British Columbia.

Not one of these projects — and these are the big ones; these aren’t the small ones

— would be reaching a final investment decision if there weren’t strong partnerships

with First Nations.

If the member is the critic for Indigenous Relations and he doesn’t understand that,

then his advocacy that this government cease conversations with First Nations, stop

reaching agreements with First Nations, would terminate those projects in their tracks.

It would lead to roadblocks instead of jobs and opportunity. It would lead to pink

slips for British Columbians.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Conservatives’ continual advocacy against this work that even just a few months

ago they supported…. The current leader of the Conservative Party is saying he’s on

the reconciliation team. The leader before him, citing all of the Indigenous agreements

that he signed, including recognizing rights and title…. And now, suddenly, they’re

saying that they’re opposed to that.

The chaos in our economy would be immeasurable. We cannot afford that approach, and

if the member doesn’t understand that, he shouldn’t be the critic for Indigenous Relations.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : The chaos on our economy is here. I fully understand what’s going on.

I would like to read a communication I had with Ilana Schonwetter. Her firm manages

$1.5 billion in real estate and cash investments in Vancouver. She says: “Over the

past week, I have received a tsunami of concerned and angry calls regarding the recent

announced secret federal agreement and its implications for property rights in British

Columbia. The overwhelming sentiment from clients can be summarized in one word, ‘outrage.’”

She goes on to say: “As a result, clients who have held real estate in British Columbia

for decades are now actively preparing to sell their principal residences, divest

from their rental properties and reallocate capital into foreign equities and investment

sectors they perceive as more stable and predictable.”

This is not fearmongering. This is reality.

When will this government wake up and realize that their agenda on reconciliation

is a failed one which is having huge consequences on our economy?

Hon. David Eby : We have the second-lowest unemployment rate in the country. We’re leading the country

in per capita direct foreign investment in major projects in our province. We’re projected

to be the second-fastest-growing economy in the country next year.

The member fails to recognize that it is the members of the Conservative caucus that

are causing misinformation to be spread.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. David Eby : The Finance critic for the Conservatives tweeted….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Premier.

Hon. David Eby : The Finance critic for the Conservatives, leadership candidate, tweeted that people’s

homes were at risk because of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm deal and that this was a deal that I signed. It is a federal agreement that the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm chief has been very clear has nothing to do with private property.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. David Eby : So the Conservative Finance critic…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. David Eby : …appropriately deleted the tweet. And I think the other Conservatives that also spread

the same information should be doing the same, because it is misinformation.

Lorne Doerkson : The answers this morning, of course, are of no comfort to residents with private

property in this province. The toxicity that the NDP has brought to our landscape

is shocking.

As a result of the Cowichan court ruling, we are seeing investment uncertainty across

this province. Monette Farms is trying to sell 12 ranch properties across British

Columbia, but land ownership uncertainty from the Quw’utsun has scared off willing

buyers.

Those are not my words. That is from industry. B.C. lawyer Thomas Isaac, a recognized

authority in Aboriginal law, says: “The fact that we now have uncertainty around indefeasible

title obviously is not helpful to investment, given that in order to have a free market

economy, you have to have the concept of indefeasible title.”

What is the Attorney General urgently doing to legally protect private property ownership

in this province?

Hon. David Eby : I might be mistaken, but isn’t that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin? Isn’t that

the member from the community where there was a court decision under the previous

government, many of whose members and staff had connections to the B.C. Liberals when

the Tŝilhqot’in decision was issued?

[10:40 a.m.]

A transformative decision that recognized First Nations title across a swath of the

province, specifically in the member’s community, a decision that created incredible

uncertainty in the centre of the province because the government at the time refused

to sit down with the Tŝilhqot’in and try to find a path forward.

Now, I think the member could easily stand up and talk about the uncertainty that

was created by that court decision…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby : …and why the members are so opposed to the idea that we sit down to try to avoid

that uncertainty, to recognize that the courts are going to recognize title in this

province and to ensure that we are moving forward in a way that provides certainty

and traction and addresses these issues while growing the economy for everybody.

The member can’t stand and pretend he doesn’t understand the implications of not talking,

because it happened in his own neighbourhood.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Lorne Doerkson : I am shocked at how little this Premier knows about the agreement of the Xeni Gwet’in

and the Tŝilhqot’in People.

For nine years, multiple estimates in this room, we have asked questions about how

to move forward for private landowners in that territory, and there has been no clarity

around that from this government for certain.

The Premier nods his head, yes. That is absolutely incorrect. I have tried repeatedly

to bring clarity for many people in that area. This government continues to say, “willing

seller, willing buyer,” but their inaction has scared off the willing buyers. We’ve

heard one ranch deal has already collapsed and has fallen through because of this

nonsense.

What assurances will this Attorney General give to property owners and investors in

this province today?

Hon. David Eby : I’m glad the member acknowledges the profound uncertainty that came from that court

decision. We’re still, nine years later, trying to sort it out.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby : It is obviously the wrong….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby : When did that decision happen? Under the previous government. The member decries

the chaos, but wouldn’t it have been nice had the government at the time sat down

to try to avoid court and find a path forward? They chose not to.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, wait for your turn, please. Members.

Hon. David Eby : The crucial work that has to happen here to ensure stability in the economy is opposed

by the Conservatives. Their approach of cutting off conversations with First Nations,

ending agreements with First Nations, of trying to avoid court to provide certainty,

will result in exactly the same thing that happened at the Tŝilhqot’in decision.

The chaos that member has been trying…. He says himself on the record in Hansard . He’s been trying to resolve it for nine years.

The desperation on the other side….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. David Eby : They ask their question. They hear the answer, and they shout, and they heckle because

they can’t handle the truth. This is hard work that any government would have to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby : They refuse to acknowledge it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member. Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Everyone, come to order. Wait for your turn. If

you have asked questions, you have to hear the answers.

Hon. David Eby : There are legal realities that the province faces, and I think that leadership candidates

on that side should be clear where they stand on this.

I asked the Finance critic to be clear where he stood on it, and he refused to take

the opportunity. Maybe today is the day we’ll actually hear where the Conservative

Party stands on reconciliation from their leadership candidates, but somehow I doubt

it.

Government Action on

Anti-Indigenous Racism

Rob Botterell : I am shocked by the inflammatory direction and nature of the Conservative opposition

questions this morning.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh. Members.

Rob Botterell : Policy by question period is not the way to deal with a serious issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Rob Botterell : Last year the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner reported dramatic rise in online racial

slurs and threats directed at Indigenous people.

Since the Quw’utsun and Gitxaała court decisions, scaremongering that First Nations

will take away the land of private property owners has proliferated.

[10:45 a.m.]

Indigenous people are being harassed in grocery stores, suffering epithets hurled

from passing cars. Some genuinely fear for their safety. Bad actors seem to take their

cue from south of the border. In this environment, it’s not enough to condemn the

false rhetoric that First Nations are coming for private homes.

My question to the minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation…

This is all happening on your watch, Minister. What added concrete steps will you

take to turn down the temperature, stop the slurs and harassment, and protect the

safety and inherent rights of Indigenous people in B.C.?

The Speaker : All the questions through the Chair, Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I want to thank the House Leader for doing what he can to stand up against the racism,

the misinformation that too often passes for debate in this House and online.

We have a duty, all of us, I believe, to lead with truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : And the truth is that residential schools happened, not debatable. But it seems to

be, for some here, that it is a debate. It’s not a debate.

The truth is we didn’t sign treaties in this province, and that’s why we’re having

these discussions now. B.C. should have done it. We had opportunity over the last

150 years.

I know the member can squirm and giggle about it. It’s not funny, actually, because

it has realities on the ground. When people say things…. And I know leaders of that

party put out tweets and things that say: “They’re coming for your home. They’re coming

for your land.” It’s wrong, and I call it out each and every time. I think we all

have to lead with truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …and — that leader, that one, that one, that one — take down those tweets, take down

the misinformation. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are not coming for people’s homes. And I wonder if they would follow up their reality

of truth…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh, Members.

Member for Kamloops Centre.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …and actually put out the truth.

It seems when I talk about truth, they have to shout. They have to scream. They don’t

want to understand that there is a truth and a reality in this province, speaking

to 150-plus years of the fact that the B.C. government should have been working on

treaties, should have been doing it and didn’t.

The Speaker : Minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : We’re leading that way with First Nations, and we’re working that way with truth,

because these folks won’t, and they don’t.

The Speaker : House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : We’ve seen the government communications apparatus step up before. When misinformation

about wildfires began causing widespread harm, this government devoted extra resources

pass legislation to try to change people’s minds.

It’s not just recent court decisions that this government has bungled. The rollout

for changes to the Heritage Conservation Act and the Land Act, to name just two, have

been poorly communicated and quickly derailed.

My question to the minister: in this moment of increased tension and malicious information,

what additional concrete steps will you take to ensure that you bring this province

together?

The Speaker : Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The member asked a very important question. We have all heard the rise in anti-Indigenous

racism because of the rhetoric that’s coming out. I’m sure the members across the

way have heard about it. The Premier talked about death threats that are coming upon

the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm after the rhetoric that’s coming out of there. It is unacceptable.

We as a government are working on anti-racism plans. I’m working on an anti-Indigenous

racism plan with my ministry, with the act that I led last time. The member talked

about misinformation and how harmful it is when you spread it. What happens when it’s

leaders of a political party that are doing it? What happens when it’s leadership

candidates that are doing it? Where is the shame for the harm that’s happening to

real people in this province?

We are going to focus on bringing people together. We are going to focus on standing,

Indigenous, non-Indigenous, respecting people’s rights, whether it’s private property

or Indigenous rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : And that’s the way forward, Mr. Speaker, not with what’s happening over there.

Provincial Sales Tax Costs for

Strata Property Owners

Korky Neufeld : Truth. Well, here’s some truth. This government is coming for our homes.

[10:50 a.m.]

The government is doing everything they can to make life less affordable here in B.C.

We have heard from strata councils here in Victoria of the NDP PST hikes forcing them

to hike-strike strata fees on all their homeowners. They’re paying $6,000 more due

to PST on strata management, on land-line entry phones, on building security — nickel-and-diming,

a death by a thousand cuts. That’s the truth.

Why is this government making life for B.C. residents living in condos unaffordable?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We have taken significant measures to support British Columbians with affordability

in this budget and many others, and we’re seeing rental prices come down 14 percent

across the province. These are important measures.

We continue to do the work to protect low-cost child care. We’re keeping auto insurance

low, reducing the cost of rent, zero-interest student loans, free birth control. We

can go on and on. These are important measures.

We know what would happen on the other side. We also know what the history is of taxes,

so let’s just take a little look. In 2016, a family making $30,000…. Let’s talk about

affordability. In 2016, a family making $30,000….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Minister.

Members, we are all grown-up people. There are young children sitting up there watching

us. What kind of leadership are we providing to them? Can’t we have a moment to listen?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Is Abbotsford South saying he doesn’t want to listen?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Are you going to argue with the Chair?

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, be quiet.

Minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In 2016, a family making less than $30,000 would pay $177 in taxes. Under our government,

in 2026, they get $1,623 back. Affordability matters to us on this side of the House.

Building Code Energy Regulations

for New Housing Units

Kiel Giddens : I’ll remind the minister that the strata manager that was talked about here is paying

$6,000 more under this PST. That is adding costs for stratas for British Columbians

who just want an affordable home.

Studies in B.C. show that building homes to net-zero standards can add up to 10 percent

to construction costs. At a time when people already can’t afford a home, these costs

will simply be passed on to buyers.

Will this government stabilize costs and pause zero carbon step code to EL-2 to prevent

more added costs for hard-working British Columbians?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m happy to speak to the work that we’re doing to deliver more homes and see the

cost of housing go down.

We have, as a government, taken significant action to reduce barriers, to reduce red

tape, to go after speculators. We’re seeing that make a difference in stabilizing

housing prices, in more homes available, more housing options for families, for retiring

seniors in every community across this province. As the Minister of Finance said,

we’re seeing it make a difference in rent prices consistently going down, a significant

affordability change for folks in this province.

Maybe I’ll just remind the members on the opposite side that when many of them were

staff or electeds in government, we saw skyrocketing housing prices, skyrocketing

rental prices. Not just that but members opposite have been very clear that if they

were on this side of the House, they would undo all of our actions on housing, and

that would see housing prices go way through the roof again.

We will continue to take action because we know how important this is for homebuilders

and for families in every part of this province.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : The minister wasn’t even close to answering anything to do with the zero carbon step

code in that answer. Homebuilders have said that the zero carbon step code should

be voluntary and incentive-based.

[10:55 a.m.]

British Columbians don’t need more government mandates driving up the cost of housing.

Mike Drummond, interim president and CEO of the Urban Development Institute, said:

“The path to housing runs through lower costs, not higher ones.”

Why won’t this government stop these costly mandates and focus on lowering the price

of housing?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, we have taken significant action to reduce red tape and see homes get built.

The member opposite may want to talk about the step code, but I want to talk about

how the opposition has been clear that they would undo transit-oriented development.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle : They would undo the work that we’ve done on small-scale multi-unit housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, remember this is question period. You’re wasting your own time. The minister

has the floor.

Hon. Christine Boyle : We have taken significant action in partnership with industry and, in fact, regularly

through the advice and feedback and requests of industry to improve flexibility in

how homes are being financed so that shovels can get in the ground, to make changes

to the building code that make building faster and easier. We are seeing homes delivered

because of this work, and we will continue, in partnership, to deliver.

Housing Affordability and

Expansion of Provincial Sales Tax

Brennan Day : I know that answers are hard to get in this House, so I have an extremely simple

question for the Minister of Housing.

What is the average age of a first-time homebuyer in Vancouver today under this NDP

government?

Just the number, Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I, only last week, was accused of bringing too many facts and figures to this debate.

I have all sorts of numbers that I’m happy to quote in here, like the 95,000 homes

that we’ve delivered as a government, the 300,000 homes that are predicted to be developed

because of the work we’ve done on small-scale multi-unit, on transit-oriented housing.

We are reducing barriers and delivering homes, rental homes, affordable home ownership

options. We’ll keep doing that.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental?

Brennan Day : In Vancouver today, the average first-time homebuyer is 46 years old. Just a few

short years ago, it was 36. Under this government, the dream of owning a home has

been pushed an entire decade, ten years higher than the national average now. If somebody

buys their first home at 46, they will be 76 years old before that mortgage is paid

off.

So I’ll ask the minister: does this government actually think that press releases

and broken promises and waiting until your mid-40s to buy a home is actually acceptable

in this province?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I don’t think that the members opposite want to look too far back on this file because,

again, when many of them were in government or staff….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle : We’ll see how their leadership race goes in terms of…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, have the courtesy and patience to listen.

Hon. Christine Boyle : …what history they’re connecting to. When members opposite were in government, the

damage that they did to housing prices, to rental prices, to home ownership was massive.

We are still trying to correct and address the damage that was done in those 16 years,

and we’re seeing it make a difference.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Stabilizing housing prices, decreasing rent prices — these are important indicators

that the action that we’re taking is making a difference. But after the massive damage

the members opposite did to the housing market, the work that we’re doing is working.

It’s making a difference, and we’re going to keep doing it.

[11:00 a.m.]

Gavin Dew : It’s not just the NDP’s approval ratings that are on life support. The Canadian dream

is dying in B.C. Eighty-six percent of 18- to 44-year-olds who don’t already own a

home have given up — 86 percent. Housing prices are astronomical. We met yesterday

with homebuilders who told us the PST hike will add up to $5,000 to every single-family

home and even more for multi-family residential.

What consultation and analysis did the government do on the affordability impact of

their PST hike, and will they table those reports today?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In reality, if the member understood the PST application in the context of the home-building

environment, the PST applies to architectural, but only 30 percent of an architectural

build. So if there’s a giant building going on, there’s an architectural build….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : There’s 30 percent of that build and there’s 7 percent applied to it. It’s about

2 percent of an overall build.

It’s important to understand that all of us in British Columbia are doing the work

to ensure that we are supporting the services that British Columbians rely on, things

like health care and education, and that’s what this budget does.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, please.

Government Priorities and

Funding for Autism Services

Harman Bhangu : It is clear the NDP won’t protect private properties. It’s because they’ve learned

nothing from their mistakes at Quw’utsun. They could have advocated for British Columbians

and made the fee simple private properties exempt in the agreement, but they chose

to stay silent.

We have heard from members of the strata council in Victoria that this government’s

PST expansion will increase costs. We have heard that it will cost CIJA an extra $84,000

a year to protect their places of worship.

We have heard this NDP government’s housing policies increase costs. It has gotten

so bad that the average homebuyer in Vancouver is 46 years old. We have also heard

that 86 percent of people under 45 have given up on home ownership. Under this NDP

government, more and more people are using food banks, and that includes 33,000 children.

And one thing…. I want to set the record straight. The other side campaigned and said

we would cut costs on health care. But you know what? That is the side that has cut

health care.

I have a personal story from my riding.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Harman Bhangu : A single mother in my riding of Langley-Abbotsford contacted my office about her

son, who was diagnosed with autism, a language disorder, speech delay and ADHD. For

years she worked through therapy so her son could develop a voice and the supports

he needed.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Harman Bhangu : Now, under this NDP government’s proposed changes to autism funding…. Her son does

not have an intellectual disability or FASD….

The Speaker : Member. Question, Member.

Harman Bhangu : His autism will effectively no longer qualify for support. Autism does not simply

disappear when a child turns nine.

The Speaker : Member, you have a question?

Harman Bhangu : This mother is now being told they may have to rely on things like GoFundMe just…

The Speaker : Member.

Harman Bhangu : …to continue to provide her child with therapy.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Harman Bhangu : So my question to the minister is: why is this government removing supports for children

with autism who do not have an additional intellectual disability, and how does the

minister justify forcing families in British Columbia to fund basic…

The Speaker : Member.

Harman Bhangu : …development therapy on their own?

The Speaker : Enough. Thank you.

Before the Chair recognizes the minister, I want to ask the House Leader of the official

opposition to please talk to your members. This is a question period, not statements

time. Thank you.

Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

I’ll start by going…. I appreciate the question from the member, but the member will

know, in this budget, that there is an additional $475 million being invested to assist

the people that he is talking about.

But what’s particularly interesting is, finally, we get to hear a question from a

Conservative Party candidate, because all it seems, all session, is we get to hear

from the preferred B.C. Liberal Party candidates.

[11:05 a.m.]

The heckling from the opposition, from the member for Kamloops Centre, is completely

over-the-top compared to his usual thing. Pretty clear that maybe the leadership campaign

isn’t going that well. We hardly ever get to hear from the real Conservative over

there, never gets to ask a question.

What we’ve heard today is misinformation…

The Speaker : Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …on issue after issue after issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : When it comes to property rights…

The Speaker : Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …they’ve been peddling information that they know to be false, that they know to

be untrue.

The Speaker : Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : That has been their stock in trade…

The Speaker : Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …this entire session, and once again, it’s why they will continue to stay over there,

and we’ll stay over here.

[End of question period.]

The Speaker : Wow. The bell ends the question period, one of the worst question periods we’ve had

for years.

Orders of the Day

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

In Douglas Fir Room, we call committee stage on Bill 7, International Education.

And in the Birch Room,

Section C, I call estimates on the Ministry of Housing.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Kiel Giddens : I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 10 in response to the Minister of Labour. We’re

speaking about, as a reminder for folks at home, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

I’m speaking in my role as the official opposition’s Labour critic.

I think it’s an important time to talk about workplaces in this province. With what’s

going on in the world around us, global uncertainty, we’ve heard more and more unrest

and troubling news. We’ve been dealing with unfair treatment of our forest sector,

for example. We have many young people looking to gain their first employment opportunities

and finding it a challenge to get ahead or get their first break.

As a province, we’re facing uncertainty with the most challenging fiscal situation

this province has ever seen. We have massive structural deficits, and debt is rising

much faster than our economy can keep up.

When we look at that uncertainty, it’s important that we look at our existing laws

to give a measure of stability. Both workers and employers are looking for stability

from us as legislators. We need stable workplaces and healthy workplaces, and I firmly

believe that.

This bill proposes amendments to two important statutes, the Employment Standards

Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. These laws exist for a simple

reason, I believe: to ensure that wages earned are wages paid and that workers, especially

vulnerable workers, are protected from exploitation.

I do believe that every member of this House shares that objective and understands

that. But supporting that in principle isn’t enough. Our responsibility, of course,

is to ensure that the system actually works for the workers who rely on it, and has

to be practical and accessible for them.

At the same time, healthy workplaces depend on rules that are fair, predictable and

workable for employers as well. The vast majority of employers in British Columbia

want to do the right thing. They want clear rules and a system that resolves disputes

efficiently and fairly.

[11:10 a.m.]

I believe that good labour policy must strike that balance, so protecting workers

and also, at the same time, ensuring that the system remains workable for employers

who are trying to comply with the law.

Bill 10 proposes a number of procedural changes as to how complaints are investigated

and how determinations can be appealed. There are a few main elements worth discussing.

I’ll provide some comments.

First, the bill restructures

section 76 of the Employment Standards Act to clarify

the director’s authority to accept, refuse, investigate or discontinue complaints.

Providing this statutory language for how complaints are reviewed can be, I think,

actually, a positive step. Workers do deserve a system that is transparent and predictable,

and I think that’s trying to be outlined in this section.

However, I also think it is important to be careful about how discretion is used.

The proposed language expands the director’s ability to stop or postpone investigations

in a number of circumstances, including where the director believes there is insufficient

evidence or where a complainant fails to participate in the process. Some discretion,

of course, is necessary for administrative efficiency. But the government must ensure

that this discretion does not create unintended barriers for vulnerable workers or

that their cases are prematurely dismissed.

Many employees who rely on employment standards protections are not in a position

of power. They may face language barriers, fear retaliation from employers or lack

access to legal support. If workers feel the process is stacked against them or too

complex to navigate, which is often the case, they may simply give up pursuing wages

they are legally owed.

That’s not good enough. That would undermine the very purpose of employment standards

legislation. That’s why I think it’s important that there are clear and communicated

guardrails to the employment standards branch’s director’s discretion in this.

Second, the bill talks about a formal complaint resolution process during investigations.

This is an important part of the employment standards branch’s work. As we read in

the bill, under this provision, the director may require the complainant and the employer

to participate in a facilitated resolution process.

I do actually agree that encouraging early resolution of disputes can be beneficial.

If disputes can be resolved more quickly, workers may receive wages owed sooner and

both workers and employers can avoid prolonged proceedings. I agree with trying to

resolve disputes quickly. We can’t have lingering problems in the workplace. It’s

not healthy for anyone. It leads to longer-term problems. Particularly, I’d say, workers

in a small business environment with small teams — we need to make sure that they

are going to work in a healthy environment.

The government points out that many straightforward complaints are already resolved

quickly through voluntary resolution meetings. If these changes help resolve simple

disputes faster, that could be a benefit to workers and employers. However, the legislation

must also ensure that efficiency doesn’t come at the expense of fairness or access

to justice. We should strengthen dispute resolution mechanisms how we can. But, of

course, this still has to be backed up by a clear line where enforcement is still

necessary, so finding that line is very important.

Where there is a power imbalance between a worker and an employer, as there often

is for low-wage and precarious workers, settlement processes can sometimes pressure

workers into accepting less than what the law entitles them to. That is something

that I think many members would agree we have to guard against.

There’s also a practical consideration here, particularly for small businesses. Mandatory

participation in a formal resolution process may create additional administrative

barriers for small employers who often don’t have dedicated HR departments or legal

counsel. For many small business owners, navigating regulatory processes can already

be quite challenging. It will be important for the government to clarify how this

process will operate in practice and whether appropriate supports will be available

so that smaller employers can actually participate effectively.

What I’m hearing clearly from small businesses is that they’re already drowning in

red tape. So let’s make sure that this is accessible and that we’re capturing the

right businesses within this provision.

[11:15 a.m.]

The third major change that I’ll speak to relates to appeals. Bill 10 introduces a

requirement that employers appealing a determination involving payment of wages must

deposit the amount owing or a smaller amount determined by the tribunal. At first

glance, this measure could actually help prevent frivolous appeals. In some cases,

employers use appeals strategically to delay payment of wages owed to workers, and

that’s not right. Requiring a deposit may ensure that appeals are filed in good faith

and that wages are secured while the appeal proceeds.

The practical implications of this requirement deserve careful consideration, though,

I will add. For large employers, depositing the amount required for an appeal likely

won’t present a significant challenge, and it won’t be a problem at all. But for small

businesses — particularly those on really tight margins, very small mom-and-pop businesses

— being required to deposit the full amount of a determination before an appeal may

actually be extremely difficult on their bottom line.

Obviously, even where an employer believes a determination is incorrect, they may

not have the financial capacity to immediately deposit the full amount required to

pursue an appeal. That does raise a legitimate question about whether this measure

could unintentionally limit access to the appeal process for smaller employers.

I think when we’re thinking about fairness, and we want to make sure that there is

a just and fair process and that both parties have that in a dispute, it will be important

to understand how the tribunal intends to exercise its discretion to reduce the deposit

amounts in appropriate circumstances. So I think, perhaps, maybe in the government

responses, we could hear from that or we’ll have to wait for the committee stage.

As I said, small businesses are already struggling. Budget 2026 will now hit them

with major tax increases, with PST being applied to professional services that are

standard and required for their business, like bookkeeping and accounting services.

We want to make sure that what we’re doing is not creating unintended hardship on

small businesses in particular.

Bill 10 also mirrors the appeal deposit provisions in the Temporary Foreign Worker

Protection Act. Of course, I would say that temporary foreign workers can be among

the most vulnerable workers in our labour market. They often face significant barriers

when asserting their rights, so this needs to be accessible in some way for these

workers too. Ensuring that enforcement mechanisms are robust and that employers cannot

use procedural delays to avoid accountability is actually an important thing.

There is a broader issue that this legislation touches on. Employment standards are

only meaningful if they are enforced. For years, many labour advocates, workers’ organizations

and legal clinics have raised concerns about enforcement capacity in British Columbia.

Workers often wait months or even years for complaints to be resolved.

Procedural changes, I think, can help, and I hope that’s really what we see here from

this bill. But they can’t substitute for adequate staffing, resources and proactive

enforcement. So I would hope that if the government is serious about protecting workers,

it would also ensure that the employment standards branch has the capacity to do its

job effectively.

Many employer organizations, I will say, have indicated that they were not aware that

these changes were coming in and were not consulted in advance. That’s something that

I think is a challenge. It is something that, obviously, impacts many organizations,

and I think they should have been consulted ahead of time, because labour policy works

best when it’s developed through dialogue with both worker representatives and employer

groups.

When stakeholders feel they haven’t been consulted, it does raise concerns about whether

potential impacts, particularly on the small and some of the medium-sized businesses,

have not been fully considered. This legislation would likely benefit from that kind

of engagement, so I think government should really explain to those employer groups

why there was no conversation prior to this being introduced.

[11:20 a.m.]

I have spoken about this before when reviewing the Ministry of Labour’s service plan.

The performance measure for the employment standards branch complaint resolution timeline

still does raise serious concerns. As I said, I hope that part of what we’re looking

to achieve is actually fixing these results. The ministry results, on average over

the past four years, show that 32 percent of complaints were resolved within six months,

and the target is supposed to be 80 percent within that period.

I know that the minister raised some historical things from 25 years ago, when Nickelback

was racing up the charts on the radio those days, but we’re talking about how performance

is being managed now, in today’s day and age. I think that’s very important. When

we think about that metric of 32 percent of complaints resolved within six months,

the metric reveals something troubling about the current state of the system that

we just have to keep an eye on.

The baseline tells us that two-thirds currently take longer than six months, so for

many workers, these complaints involve unpaid wages, termination pay or overtime they

are legally owed. Six months is already a long time to wait for wages, and the government’s

data shows that most workers today wait even longer than that. That should concern

members of this House.

I’d say that in the long run, we have to work for continuous improvement, including

even the target itself that we’re looking at. The ministry’s goal is 80 percent of

complaints resolved within 180 days. That still means one in five workers could wait

longer than six months for their case to be resolved, and we’re not close to that

now.

In other words, the government is defining success as a system where thousands of

workers may still face prolonged delays in recovering wages they have already earned.

For workers living paycheque to paycheque, a six-month wait for unpaid wages is not

a minor inconvenience. It could mean falling behind on rent, struggling to pay bills

or taking on debt.

I think there’s another issue with this metric. It measures how quickly files are

closed and not whether workers actually receive justice. A complaint can be resolved

quickly if it is dismissed, it is withdrawn or the worker accepts a settlement, but

that doesn’t necessarily mean the worker received the wages that they are owed. In

other words, the ministry is measuring how fast files are closed, not whether workers

actually received justice. I think that’s something that deserves some attention from

the ministry.

Part of that wraps up into a broader conversation about the level of resources available

to the employment standards branch. According to the Minister of Labour’s budget,

funding for labour programs is projected to be $22.348 million for each of the next

three fiscal years, so there’s no increase. In fact, it’s slightly lower than the

restated estimate from last year of $22.852 million for ’25-26.

At the same time, the government is setting ambitious expectations for the employment

standards branch that they can’t meet with the staff in the way they’re operating

now. It raises the obvious question of how the branch will achieve significantly faster

complaint resolution with fewer resources than the previous year and no growth in

funding for the following three years.

Of course, this is at a time when the ministry budget must assume that there will

be needed, probably, cuts at some level to pay for public sector wage increases that

have to be factored in.

The employment standards branch is important. It’s responsible for investigating complaints,

recovering unpaid wages, protecting vulnerable workers and enforcing employment standards

across the province. If expectations increase while funding remains flat, the branch

will inevitably face operational pressure. That pressure could lead to investigators

being pushed to close complaints faster rather than fully investigate them.

Workers and responsible employers both benefit from a system that is fair, thorough

and, of course, timely. If the government expects faster service, it must ensure that

the branch has the resources needed to deliver it.

I think I’ll keep my remarks relatively brief. I’ll pass it along to others to speak

to the bill. We’ll look to hopefully get some answers in committee stage, when I look

forward to discussion with the Minister of Labour on this bill.

[11:25 a.m.]

Bill 10 does contain technical amendments that may improve aspects of the complaint

and appeal process. I’m willing to look at it for its merits, but we’ll also be examining

some of the questions that will come with that, because I think these changes do raise

legitimate questions that deserve careful examination on behalf of vulnerable workers

and of course also on behalf of small businesses in particular.

We’ll be looking closely at how discretion will be exercised in complaint investigations.

We want to make sure that the director has the appropriate guardrails in place and

that we’re paying attention to what that power actually is when we’re giving that

discretion. We’re going to look at how the new resolution process will operate in

practice.

As I’ve said, this has to be workable. I think we have to make sure that it’s accessible

to workers and that they have an easily understood process that they can navigate

and that they can access. It has to also work for employers. That appeal process,

I think, has to be something that they can manage. How the deposit requirement affects

smaller employers in particular, I think, is an important question for us to get to

as we get to committee stage.

Then the last is whether adequate consultation has occurred with stakeholders. I do

think that by asking the questions ahead of time, there could have been, maybe, avoiding

some of the unintended consequences. I think that’s something we have to keep in mind

as we’re looking at this. We look forward to hearing from some of the answers from

the minister later in committee stage.

Workers in British Columbia deserve strong protections, and at the same time, employers

deserve a system that is fair, transparent and workable for them. Getting that balance

right is essential, I believe, to maintaining healthy workplaces across our province.

As I’ve said, I look forward to discussions on the bill.

Thank you very much for the time to speak today, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’m looking forward to using the opportunity this morning to be able to speak to

the bill, but if I may, can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : On behalf of my colleague from Cowichan, it is a great honour to be able to welcome

up some students from Quamichan School. We’ve got teacher Jen Bayley’s 32…. Well,

there are two groups. There are 32 people — 30 grade 9 students and then there are….

I’m not sure if you guys are the second group. We’ve also got 25 grade 9 students.

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Welcome to the people’s House.

I hope you guys have a fantastic tour and enjoy your time here.

Debate Continued

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House and to be able to talk about the

important work that my colleague the Minister of Labour is doing to protect workers,

to protect workers’ rights and to ensure that we can have a fair and balanced system

in place that ensures that workers are put first every single day in their job sites.

I’m so immensely proud to be a colleague of the Minister of Labour, someone who has

spent her entire career fighting for workers, someone who has worked alongside employers

every single day in her time at the HEU. That’s where I first got an opportunity to

work with the member when I was, prior to being an MLA, a staff person.

I’m just so immensely proud of the work that the Minister of Labour has done on this

piece of legislation and the countless other initiatives that she’s brought forward

in her time as an MLA and in her time as the Minister of Labour as well.

It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House and speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes

Amendment Act. It’s an honour to be able to rise after the member across the way,

the Labour critic, the most unfriendly Labour critic in British Columbia’s history.

It is just continuously shocking to hear that Labour critic rise in House and talk

about workers’ rights, just a week after he passed an unfriendly attack on workers.

That is the Labour critic of the Conservative Party.

We’re not surprised by that on this side of the House. That’s why that member is going

to continue to sit on that side of the House and we’re going to continue to govern

the province and ensure that we continue to put workers first on this side of the

House.

When people have a problem at work, they need to ensure that the rules are fair for

them. On that side of the House, we have an opposition that wants to sit on this side

of the House and that wants to side with those that want to exploit workers.

[11:30 a.m.]

They have that record. Their leadership candidates will have an opportunity in this

House, if they take the opportunity to speak, to talk about what they’re going to

put forward. But their record speaks for itself. When the B.C. Liberals sat on this

side of the House, they fired union workers. My health care worker parents lost their

jobs.

The Minister of Labour knows that. She worked for the HEU. She fought for their workers

every single day during that period of time. So we’re going to use every opportunity

that we have on this side of the House to bring forward legislation to ensure that

we’re protecting workers’ rights.

And that’s what this legislation is all about. It’s about balance. It’s about fairness.

It’s about ensuring that when people have a problem at work, which every worker has,

there are important fair practices to ensure that employers and unionized workers,

workers of all types, can come and ensure that there are government programs and services

and infrastructure to protect their interests. This is about protecting employers

as much as it is about protecting workers as well.

The employment standards branch ensures that employees in British Columbia receive

a minimum standard of compensation and conditions of employment, helping protect workers

from exploitation. The amendments that the minister has proposed in this House that

we are debating this morning, and I expect into the afternoon as we head into Committee

of the Whole on this bill at a later point, are all focused on amendments to the Employment

Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act that will improve the

compliance and dispute resolution process at the employment standards branch.

This is about ensuring, like I’ve said a number of times already, that we can have

fairness, that we can have equity and again, at a bare minimum, that workers have

protections. That is what we’re going to fight for on this side of the House every

single time.

We are not going to do what that member does constantly in this House, and that is

attack workers on one hand…. Talk about pride, talk about being a steelworker, the

pride that he had about being a steelworker when he first joined this House and then

attack steelworkers, attack unionized workers. What side is he on?

We know, on this side of the House, that we’re on the side of workers every single

day, and that’s what Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, is all about.

I want to talk a little bit, in the time that I have this morning, about the employment

standards branch and the important work that it does in holding everyone accountable,

ensuring that there are fair practices in place, making sure that that branch continues

to receive and investigate complaints of contraventions under the Employment Standards

Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act for non-unionized employees and

temporary foreign workers.

Again, it is so important that when we talk about these amendments and the work that

we’re doing on this side of the House, the work that my colleague, the Minister of

Labour, is leading…. We are introducing amendments to help improve service timelines.

We have heard loud and clear from members across the way but also from British Columbians

and from employers, that we continually need to adapt. We have a complex world out

there. Labour and the workforces are complex, and it’s important for us not only to

adapt but to ensure that we’re making more investments. This Minister of Labour, this

government, continues to make more investments in initiatives like the employment

standards branch.

On top of that, we are not only looking to improve service timelines. We’re doing

so to ensure that we are maintaining the rights and protections of workers and employers

under these acts.

These amendments serve such an important amount of work that the Minister of Labour

is doing to ensure that when someone raises a complaint, there is a thorough process

in place to ensure that complaint is heard, to ensure that complaint is investigated

and to ensure that a determination is provided — all focused on ensuring that we can

resolve complaints on issues that are clear and straightforward, as well as on those

that are complex.

Again, I think that it is typical for the Conservatives to come in here and talk about

a bias that we have towards workers versus employers. I am proud to be a part of a

B.C. NDP government, led by our Premier, that is always going to be worker-first.

My job as the Minister of Forests is to always ensure that we are putting forestry

workers first.

At the same time, we know on this side of the House, when the minister is leading

this work as the Minister of Labour, that we have to ensure that there is a balance

to that work. It’s why we have different boards and organizations to ensure that we

can protect workers and employers at the same time.

Determinations made by the employment standards branch can be appealed, and they can

be appealed to the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal. There are processes in place,

again, to protect workers and to protect employers, and the important work that we’re

doing on this side of the House is amendments to ensure that these timelines can be

addressed in a quicker, more efficient way. We’re utilizing technology and innovation

to help support that work.

[11:35 a.m.]

We’re also going to continue the important work that the minister is doing on a daily

basis, communicating with employers, communicating with workers. It’s so important,

as part of this process, we continue those engagements.

When the minister led this work, led this transformation that led to Bill 10 being

put forward, she engaged with employers. In fact, she engaged through countless efforts

to ensure that we’re hearing the concerns of employers around timelines, hearing concerns

from employers around the Employment Standards Tribunal as well as the employment

standards branch to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of employers as well.

Again, I want to just take the opportunity that I have to provide my support for this

piece of legislation and to be able to assure all members of the House that we are

going to be unapologetic in our efforts as the government of British Columbia to stand

up for workers, to ensure that we can build a strong, prosperous economy and to ensure

that everyone — employers, workers — is playing by the same rules that we would all

expect in our communities.

It’s an honour to be able to rise in this House in the time that I have and speak

in support of Bill 10.

If I could just seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : My apologies to my colleague across the way.

I believe we now have the second group from Quamichan that is in the House. They’re

nodding their heads.

So please join me in welcoming, on behalf of my colleague the MLA for Cowichan Valley,

the second group of students, teacher Jen Bayley’s class. I think they’ve got 25 grade

9 students up there.

Welcome to the people’s House. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner : I rise today to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, at second reading

today.

The Minister of Forests made some comments about protecting workers. I believe workers

should definitely be protected, but I want to also speak to this government’s record

in terms of protecting workers.

Deputy Speaker : Hold on a second.

Minister of Forests.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I apologize to the member across the way. I got it wrong.

We’ve got North Saanich Middle School in the House.

Is that right? There we go. I thought you guys were nodding in agreement. Apologies

to my colleague across the way.

We’ve got teacher Pamela Ens.

Yes? Okay, fantastic.

We’ve got North Saanich Middle School in the House, 25 grade 6 and 7 students.

My apologies to all of you. I hope you enjoy the proceedings, and I hope you had a

fantastic tour. I hope you’ll get a chance to be able to meet with your MLA as well.

Thanks very much for being here.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner : I rise today to speak to Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, at second reading.

I’d like to start with making some remarks to the remarks made by the Minister of

Forests. The Minister of Forests was talking about how that side of the House is always

on the side of workers, but, in terms of this legislation….

When I was looking at this legislation, I was doing my research. I found that when

we’re looking at worker complaints, we’re looking at employment standard complaints,

only 32 percent of those complaints get dealt with in a six-month period. That’s not

looking out for the workers. That’s not good enough. That’s definitely not good enough.

When we hear from the other side that workers’ interests are put at the forefront,

that’s not what we’re seeing from the data here. The other thing here is that we talk

about…. What we’ve seen from the other side is that they’re saying that they’re protecting

workers, yet in terms of the labour program’s funding, that has gone down in the budget.

It has gone down in the budget.

So we hear one thing from the other side but in terms of action, we see something

different. I just wanted to highlight that.

All in all, in terms of this particular legislation, it’s always good to make sure

rights are protected and those rights are facilitated. That’s one aspect of this legislation.

What it does is it’s designed to protect workers.

But the issue here is that if we look at the overall system, there are still huge

problems with resource funding. There are huge problems with efficiency in terms of

moving cases along, in terms of making sure rights are protected. Those are ongoing

concerns although this piece of legislation is being introduced.

[11:40 a.m.]

At its core, this legislation proposes a number of amendments to the Employment Standards

Act. This law governs some of the most fundamental relationships in terms of our economy

— the relationship between workers and employers.

This legislation sets rules around wages, workplace rights, enforcement and dispute

resolution. Because of that, any change through this particular statute of employment

standards deserves careful scrutiny, and also careful scrutiny because…. I just mentioned

some issues with the overall system. We hear the rhetoric of protecting workers, but

in substance, if you look at the actual system, there are major flaws in terms of

protecting workers. Also, healthy workplaces require balance. Workers must have strong

protections. They deserve to be treated fairly and to be paid what they have earned.

At the same time, employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses, which make

the backbone of our province…. Many families operate in a small business type of setting,

and that is also a big part of our economy. So we also need to look at making sure

that the system is fair for workers and small businesses. We need rules that are clear,

workable and fair.

When labour legislation gets the balance right, everyone benefits. Workers are protected,

responsible employers can compete fairly, and the economy grows. But when the balance

is off, it creates uncertainty, administrative burden, unintended consequences that

affect both workers and businesses. While there are elements of this bill that address

legitimate issues, there are also serious questions that need to be examined as this

legislation proceeds through the House.

Workers deserve wages that are owed to them. To the extent that this legislation is

designed to make sure that wages that are owed are actually paid out, that is a very

good thing. We also must always keep in mind the actual system. As the system is implemented,

is it actually protecting workers?

Let me begin with the principle that I believe everyone in the House should agree

with. Workers deserve to be paid what they are owed. Employment standard laws exist

for a simple reason: to ensure that wages are earned and wages are paid.

The overwhelming majority of employers across British Columbia follow the law. They

work hard, they pay their employees fairly, and they want to do the right thing. But

there are cases where workers are not paid properly. In those cases, enforcement mechanisms

are essential. We must have those protections for workers. That is why the work of

the employment standards branch is so important.

However, legislation alone does not guarantee fairness, as I mentioned earlier. There

are flaws in the system. That’s why when we see complaints coming out of the employment

standards branch, we are only seeing 32 percent of those complaints being dealt with

within a six-month period.

I would like to also be clear. A lot of times when we’re talking about the types of

workers that are going through the employment standards branch…. There are a lot of

workers in there that are currently struggling. They’re struggling to make ends meet.

They’re struggling to get the groceries put on the table. They were also promised

that they would have a $1,000 grocery rebate. They don’t have that to give them a

little bit of extra so they can help run their households.

There are a lot of struggling families at this current time, putting food on the table,

paying for utilities, paying for household expenses — everything has seemed to have

gone up — and paying for their housing.

[11:45 a.m.]

A lot of the people that are struggling with these types of situations are going through

the employment standards branch complaint process. Out of all those complaints, only

32 percent of those complaints get resolved within a six-month period. A lot of those

complaints are about wages that are unpaid. You can just imagine the consequences

on working families of having that type of situation.

Although this legislation has been introduced, I think there is a failure on the part

of this government, and that failure is in terms of fixing the actual system that

is currently flawed. Why do we have only 32 percent of these complaints being dealt

with in a six-month period? I know the government is wanting to reach a new benchmark

of 80 percent. Why do they not want to reach a benchmark of 100 percent?

It’s already unfair to wait six months to see if you can get your wages. When you’re

already struggling to run your household and you’re living paycheque to paycheque,

then you’re having to wait six months? The government is saying that they’re going

to move the target to 80 percent, but what about the 20 percent? That’s a huge problem.

It seems to be an ongoing problem with justice issues throughout this province. People

are getting victimized, and they’re getting victimized over and over again, whether

it’s victims coming in the criminal justice system or within the criminal justice

system or essentially being victimized by the system itself in other realms, such

as workers.

We’re talking about workers here in terms of actual labour protections. This is a

serious concern. When we hear about victims, it’s not only victims to the extent of

dealing with public safety concerns; it’s also victims that are being victimized by

the actual system.

Although the intent may have been good in terms of bringing forth this legislation,

I think this particular legislation misses the point, because it could have gone further,

and it could have brought real solutions to make sure workers were actually protected.

The benchmark should be protecting, making sure that 100 percent of those cases are

being dealt with and being dealt with in an expedient manner.

Why do people actually have to wait six months to see if they can collect their wages?

That’s an ongoing theme that I see. When I see the other side talking about workers,

there’s all that rhetoric about protecting workers over there on the side of workers,

but when you look at the actual system, it’s not protecting workers. Why? The number

of 32 percent is staggering. It shouldn’t be happening. It just shouldn’t be happening.

The work of the employment standards branch is important, and like I said earlier,

legislation alone does not guarantee fairness. You also have to look at the implementation.

You’ve got to make sure you’ve got the proper resources, and you have to make sure

that benchmarks are actually being met. You’ve got to make sure that the service is

actually being provided.

Enforcement and timely resolution of complaints are what ultimately determine whether

workers actually receive the wages they are owed. That is where this government still

faces significant challenges.

Over the past several years, the government’s own service plans, like I said earlier,

have shown troubling performance when it comes to resolving employment standard complaints.

[11:50 a.m.]

I’ve already spoken about the 32 percent issue, why it’s been 32 percent in terms

of resolving complaints within 180 days. The 180 days is problematic as well. A lot

of people are struggling, and they need those paycheques in hand because people are

living paycheque to paycheque.

When we look at those numbers — in terms of the 180 days, six months, 32 percent —

that means the majority of workers who file complaints are waiting longer than six

months for their cases to be resolved. Six months is a very long time when you are

waiting for wages that you rely on to pay rent, groceries and bills.

Even the government’s own future targets raise questions. The goal set for the 2027

and 2028 fiscal year is to resolve 80 percent of complaints within 180 days. But even

if that target is achieved, it still means one in five workers could wait longer than

six months to see a resolution of their complaints.

We should ask ourselves whether that is truly acceptable. Success should not only

be measured by how quickly files are closed. Success should be measured by whether

workers actually receive the wages they are owed and whether the system works efficiently

and fairly for everyone involved.

That leads to another issue that I briefly touched upon. That leads to the concern

raised by this legislation: resources. The government’s most recent budget shows labour

programs’ funding frozen at $22.3 million for the next three years. In fact, that

is slightly lower than last year’s estimate of $22.85 million. That’s a problem. How

do you provide better service when you’re cutting the funding, when you’re cutting

the resources?

Here we have legislation that’s introduced to protect workers, but there’s going to

be an issue in the implementation because the government is cutting the budget for

resourcing, actually dealing with the implementation of what the government is proposing.

The government expects complaint resolution times to improve dramatically, but the

funding is being cut. Cutting funding and expecting complaint resolution times to

move quicker — they run in contrast to each other, and they conflict. You can’t be

cutting funding and also be saying that cases are going to be resolved within a certain

period of time when you don’t have the resources. It’s an issue.

If the government expects the employment standards branch to process complaints faster

and resolve disputes more efficiently, the obvious question is: do they actually have

the resources to do so? That’s the question.

Without sufficient staff and capacity, legislative changes will not solve the underlying

problem. There’s an underlying problem here in the system. Workers still wait. Employers

still face uncertainty. And the system will still struggle to deliver timely justice.

Another issue raised…. When you’re looking at the implementation, then another issue

comes up: whether there was enough consultation to make this legislation more effective.

Many employer groups have indicated that they were not consulted prior to these changes

being introduced. Labour policy works best when both workers and employers are part

of the conversation because then you can actually see there are inefficiencies.

[11:55 a.m.]

Noting the hour, I move to adjourn the debate and reserve my right to continue.

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant :

Section A reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir : Committee of Supply,

Section C, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry

of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : The House is now adjourned, and we will reconvene at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary

International Education

(Designated Institutions) Act

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7. We are doing the

bill Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act, and I call

this to order.

On clause 11.

Korky Neufeld : I’d just like to welcome everybody back too. I think we’re under “Collaborations

with other institutions,” if I’m correct, on

section 11.

How is the minimum proportion of instruction under

section 11(1)(

a) enforced? Are

there any guidelines? Are there any minimums or maximums? Who does that?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner : The requirements about the proportionality of instruction that will be provided will

be specified in the administrator’s rules that will be out.

Currently, under EQA policy, the policy is that the designated institution would have

to provide at least half of the instruction. That really comes from the purpose of

this

section being to ensure clarity about responsibilities, so students know which

institution is accountable for their educational experience while institutions would

retain the flexibility to incorporate specialized training or expertise from qualified

external partners, and, ultimately, just to ensure that non-designated institutions

are in compliance, as well, with the requirements.

Korky Neufeld : It seems like we’re waiting for the administrator’s rules coming down the pipe sometime.

Do we know when that’ll be coming so that institutions will be well aware of the rules

that the administrator will be bringing forth? Is there a timeline for that?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Yes, so we’re working on the regulations and the administrator’s rules. Those will

be out within this year.

Institutions will be aware of what’s happening. Also, currently, the policy that institutions

would be looking at in this legislation is already regulated under the policy that

I mentioned, where 50 percent under current policy has to be delivered by the designated

institution.

Korky Neufeld : How does

section 11(1)(

b) ensure collaborative programs meet act requirements?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : What this 11(

b) refers to is that a designated institution is responsible for ensuring

that even when they are doing collaboration with a non-designated institution, they’re

all done in accordance with the administrator’s rules and in a manner that complies

with all requirements of the act otherwise. Just going back to that piece about ensuring

that we are meeting all of the aspects of the act, even if there is collaboration

with a non-designated institution.

Korky Neufeld : Under clause 11, “Collaborations with institutions,” I want to read the context so

that anybody listening knows.

[11:20 a.m.]

“If a designated institution provides a program of instruction to international students

in collaboration with a person that is not a designated institution, the designated

institution must….”

Point 3 is: “This

section does not apply in relation to provisions of a program of

instruction in collaboration with an excluded institution.”

My question, then, is: why does

section 11(3) exclude collaborations with excluded

institutions? What’s the rationale?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Subsection 11(3) just concerns cases where an institution works with an excluded

institution that’s defined in

definitions, such as a high school — like in dual-credit

programs, for example — to provide elements of post-secondary instruction to those

international secondary students.

That subsection is just highlighting that these rules don’t apply when a designated

institution is collaborating with one of those excluded institutions.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

The Chair : Member, I’ll just get you to hold a minute.

I will remind members of the committee that when the minister or the critic is speaking,

I’d prefer that other people do not, please. Thank you so very much.

Lawrence Mok : Can the minister tell us how the administrative fees are being determined and enforced

under

section 12?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner : As we’ve canvassed before, the administrative fee will be outlined in the regulations.

It’s intended to be a variable fee that will require calculation based on factors

that are set out in regulation, such as the number of international students that

an institution has, the number of provincial attestation letters or the number of

locations of a certain institution.

Going back to the conversation about larger institutions versus smaller, that would

be taken into account when we’re looking at this.

This fee is intended to recover costs of administering the new regulatory framework

and providing institutional oversight, including international student enrolment levels

and inspections for their different campus locations.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Korky Neufeld : To the minister, a more broad question. We’ve had several questions for clauses,

and the administrator’s rules have come up, which are not yet made.

My question, I guess, is a broad question. Why wouldn’t the administrator’s rules

have been made in conjunction with this bill as this bill was presented? Why is it

being delayed and not being here? It’s very difficult for us to know how to go through

this Bill 7 without knowing what the administrator’s rules are.

Maybe you can give me some rationale on why the rules weren’t made in conjunction

with this bill so we can look at both of them together. Every time I ask a question

on certain things…. “Well, the administrator’s rules, the administrator’s rules —

we don’t have them.”

Maybe you can give clarification for that.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Thank you to the member for the question. With the legislation before the House,

we have the ability to review the legislation, set the intention and purpose of the

legislation and review that. This is an enabling framework that’s used in the act.

[11:30 a.m.]

Once it’s considered by the Legislature, then we have the ability to see what the

finalized version was that we’ve actually been able to pass into legislation and then

look at the regulations.

I understand the question and concerns you have there. I will just reflect that the

uniqueness about this bill is that we have an existing framework that we are bringing

from policy into legislation.

The intention is to reflect much of what’s in that framework, which is in the EQA

policy framework already. So it’s not meant to be…. The administrator’s rules won’t

be a significant deviation from what already exists and what institutions are already

doing — just the ability to legislate it and have more enforcement power.

We will be able to canvass more of, also, the scope and intention of the administrator’s

rules in

section 24, which outlines the parameters that the administrator’s rules

and decisions would operate within. That helps add a bit more of that intention piece

that you are talking about.

Korky Neufeld : Thank you, Minister, for that.

When a question is coming forward that applies to the administrator’s rules, maybe

refer back to what the rules are presently in place so that I have something to work

off. Because if I don’t, I’m just not sure where to land. So I would really appreciate

that. Thank you so much.

What timelines are applied for providing information under

section 13(2)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : There is flexibility built into this piece, specifically for the fact that certain

requests will be larger than others. Some might be smaller, so you might be able to

do it in a quicker time frame. It builds in the ability for the administrator to work

with the institution.

Ultimately, what’s done in this determination is balancing procedural fairness and

administrative fairness, for the institutions to be able to have enough time to provide

information while recognizing that there is a student protection piece as well. So

that is really what the administrator is weighing.

Again, it’s not meant to be burdensome and challenging for institutions, but recognizing

that we are balancing those competing pressures as well.

Korky Neufeld : Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

I have more of a broad question under information and records. How is non-compliance

with information requests penalized presently?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Depending on how egregious the behaviour is, they could go all the way up to having

their EQA designation revoked.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

[11:35 a.m.]

Lawrence Mok : How will

section 14 ensure institutions use their designation mark properly, according

to the administrator’s rules?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : The designation mark will replace the current EQA marks that institutions receive

when they are granted EQA status. This will function to communicate to the public

that the institution is displaying that it is a designated institution.

If institutions were to use this inappropriately, we would be able to take enforcement

action and compliance action all the way up to seeking an injunction, as we talked

about yesterday.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Korky Neufeld : Under inspectors, what qualifications are required for inspectors under

section 15(1)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Inspectors would be ministry staff that are hired. In this, there are defined job

descriptions within the Public Service Agency, the criteria they’d need to meet. Specific

things would include things like experience interpreting legislation, reviewing judicial

decision-making and that kind of thing. But this would all be outlined in PSAC by

the union, as well, and the job descriptions.

Korky Neufeld : Would they need to have any post-secondary experience in order to be able to understand

some of the things they…? I know for me, having come from the K-to-12 system, acronyms

and different things and different words, different acts…. You have to understand

it in order to be an inspector of it.

I’m wondering. Are they going to have to have some sort of post-secondary understanding?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Post-secondary experience would definitely be an asset here, but the main thing in

terms of requirements would be their investigative techniques and their experience

in that, because that’s the majority of what they’re doing as inspectors.

Of course, if they came in and had everything else and didn’t have the post-secondary

experience, there’s significant training that they would be undergoing before they’d

be able to go out on the job as well.

Korky Neufeld : Are these job descriptions — the past ones for inspectors — made public? Do you see

any change to those job descriptions now with this new bill?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : These are job descriptions that exist currently under PSA, and we don’t anticipate

any significant changes to those job descriptions.

Korky Neufeld : The hirings, would they be internal? Would they be made public? Would anybody be

able to apply, or is it coming from within the ministry?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : The hiring itself is managed centrally by the Public Service Agency. So whether they

have rules on internal hiring first or external, all of that is determined by them.

Korky Neufeld : Moving on, how are restrictions on inspector powers determined under

section 15(2)?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Under this section, the administrator has the ability to impose restrictions. The

power to restrict the powers or duties of an inspector can be used to impose restrictions

when it’s necessary or appropriate to do so, such as limiting which powers — listed

under subsection 17(1), when we get there — the inspector could exercise.

It’s not expected that this authority to restrict the powers and duties of an inspector

will be used routinely, but it matches a similar provision in the Private Training

Act that currently exists, in order to promote consistency between the inspection

powers in the two regulatory frameworks.

Korky Neufeld : The reason why my questions about the inspector being, whether internal, external….

Now, if there’s no Merit Commissioner, or it’s on its way out.… How can the public

be assured that the qualified person is going to be hired for this and have the assurance

that the person that’s doing the inspection is the right person for the job, if there’s

no Merit Commissioner to check the balances on that?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : All of the hiring in these roles is done by the Public Service Agency. They have

their rules and regulations that they follow on hirings, and merit is a component

of that hiring process.

As we’ve talked about in the Legislature, when they’ve done reviews of that process,

it has been found to be merit-based. That will continue.

Clause 15 approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned. Thank you so much for your time.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Birch Room

The House in Committee,

Section C.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Housing and Municipal Affairs

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C, to order. We are meeting

today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Housing

and Municipal Affairs.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,683,425,000 (continued) .

Linda Hepner : We got a little bit into my first question yesterday. I just want to clarify for

the record that the Housing Minister has had nothing, nor has her ministry, to do

with the modelling of the 44,210 units that the ministry has assumed will happen for

[11:15 a.m.]

I understand the minister to have said that more properly belongs with the economic

modelling, but what I want clarification on is that the ministry has had no

part in

that modelling or anyone from her ministry attached to that economic modelling exercise.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Just to reiterate from yesterday, the economic modelling draws on data from many

sources, including some data from Housing and Municipal Affairs, but that modelling

for the provincial budget is managed by the Ministry of Finance.

Linda Hepner : I’m going to ask for more clarification on that again because what I want to know

is if they are relying on any ministry information as they develop that economic modelling.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I understand that this is frustrating, but the questions about how the Ministry of

Finance builds that model are really for the Ministry of Finance. It’s managed by

them; it’s not managed by me. Understanding how that model is put together is really

a question for the Ministry of Finance.

Linda Hepner : So if I ask the Minister of Finance about the modelling, she will say to me that

there has been no input from your ministry?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I can’t presume to answer for her, what she would say.

As I said earlier, data is drawn from many sources. I will leave it to the Minister

of Finance to answer that question, and we can flag for her to expect it as coming

when their estimates come up, if that’s helpful.

Linda Hepner : Yes, that would be helpful.

I’m astonished that the ministry would rely entirely on modelling from Finance, with

no input from the ministry itself. But I will take that at your word and move on,

given that that will now go to the Minister of Finance.

[11:20 a.m.]

Budget 2026 pulls $1.4 billion from housing construction and cuts B.C. Housing’s completion

targets by 44 percent, from 4,500 to just 2,500 units annually in the ’27-28 budget,

I believe. How does the minister reconcile that housing is a top priority while delivering

some significantly less number, dramatically slowing the construction of homes that

those in British Columbia desperately need?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the question. I just want to start by naming that we have more than 95,000

homes complete or underway in communities across B.C. since 2017. We remain committed

to addressing the housing crisis and to our investments in new affordable housing.

These investments in much-needed housing supply — along with significant policy changes

to address speculation, to speed up approvals and to return short-term rentals to

the long-term housing market — are having an impact with vacancy rates rising and

asking rents decreasing in communities across B.C.

While we are adjusting the pace of our housing investments and moving investments

in some projects to later years, we remain firm in our resolve to deliver the housing

that we’ve committed to.

Linda Hepner : We’ll get to those perceived numbers later on, in terms of actualities.

Of the $1.4 billion reallocated, can you give us a breakdown of exactly where that

money is now being taken from and where it is going?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : As the member knows, we are slowing the pace of some new housing projects, including

reallocating $1.4 billion across the fiscal plan. We are reinvesting over $900 million

to support demand for existing housing services and programs. This includes funding

for non-profit housing operators, assisted-living supports for seniors and people

with disabilities, as well as supporting thousands of new below-market homes through

the attainable housing initiative partnership with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.

Budget 2026 investments in housing continue to be significant and are nearly five

times higher than in 2016, demonstrating a strong government commitment to creating

healthy and sustainable housing options for people and communities.

Linda Hepner : I don’t think that answered where the money is being taken from at all. It spoke

to the $900 million, but it did not speak to exactly where the money is going, to

some sense. I heard that, but where is it being taken from?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The technical answer for the member is that the $1.4 billion comes from the housing

priority initiatives fund, which is a Ministry of Finance fund.

What the member may be getting at is: what are we not spending? As I’ve spoken to

earlier, we are re-pacing our housing investments. That’s where that $1.4 billion

makes a difference , in the re-pacing of housing investments.

Linda Hepner : Thank you for the answer, to the minister.

The government claims that the housing investment — I believe the minister just spoke

of it a moment ago — is nearly five times higher than a decade ago in 2026. In 2026,

how many units were then completed, and is there a unit cost that we can compare versus

the 2,500 that are now targeted for ’28-29?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the question. I presume the member meant 2016. The question was asked

about a comparison to 2026, I think it was. I’m just going to answer for 2016, and

she can tell me if I got it wrong.

So 2016 was, as we’re all aware, under a previous government. There were different

programs and different funding streams, so I don’t have those numbers. What I can

say is that since 2017, we have made historic investments in non-market housing.

Linda Hepner : The comment was made — it was made here this morning — that the investment is nearly

five times higher than in 2016.

I’m assuming, then, that the minister, in making that comment, has the number of units

that were completed, to which she is referring. That is my question.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : The number I’m referencing is the overall investment, which includes new housing

units. It also includes repairs and maintenance. It includes supports for resident

and tenant needs in that housing and support for the flow of tenants through the housing

continuum.

As a point of reference, in 2015-2016, the B.C. Housing budget was $636 million, and

in 2026-27, it was $3.1 billion. Again, since 2017, we’ve had more than 95,000 homes

completed or underway in communities across B.C.

Linda Hepner : Just for clarification, those new housing starts, the repairs, the maintenance….

Is the minister referring to the 2026 budget or the 2016 budget?

Hon. Christine Boyle : It would have been both, but what I’m referring to is that our current budget and

overall investment spans all of those categories.

Linda Hepner : Moving on. I’m going to move on to the new PST on professional services now. Can

the minister tell this committee exactly how much the new PST on engineering and architectural

services will add to the cost of a typical — let’s go with — 100-unit affordable housing

project?

Hon. Christine Boyle : The PST question — in fact, all taxation questions — is best addressed to the Ministry

of Finance.

Linda Hepner : No, that’s not going to work for me. I’m sorry, but when you’re building through

BC Builds or through B.C. Housing, to whom you give an enormous amount of money, surely

you must have modelled some idea of what this per-unit cost will be on your very own

projects.

I would ask that the minister reflect on that. It’s not a Finance question. That is

a question of the very concept of building for which the ministry is responsible.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : I understand the frustration of this from the member. That modelling is done by the

tax policy branch in the Ministry of Finance.

As the member will remember from question period an hour ago, a question around PST

was appropriately directed to and answered by the Ministry of Finance there. It is

their team that does that tax modelling and their team that can respond to more detailed

questions about it in their estimates.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.