First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, October 6, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 76

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

Tributes

Peter Alan Lea Ford

Darlene Rotchford

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Members’ Statements

FireSmart Program and Response to Mid-Island Wildfire

Stephanie Higginson

Mid-Autumn Festival

Teresa Wat

Island Rail Corridor and Economic Importance of Rail System

George Anderson

Importance of Democracy and Role of MLA s

David Williams

KidSport B.C. and Support for Sports Sector

Amshen / Joan Phillip

Cheam Elementary School

Heather Maahs

Oral Questions

Economic Conditions and Government Policies on Oil and Gas Projects

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Delta Hospital Emergency Services and Government Action on Health Care Issues

Ian Paton

Hon. Josie Osborne

Public Service Labour Dispute

Rob Botterell

Hon. David Eby

Universal Ostrich Farms and Federal Avian Flu Cull

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Lana Popham

Government Hiring of Staff

Kiel Giddens

Hon. David Eby

Budget Deficit and Government Financial Management

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Oil Tanker Policy and Impact on Jobs

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

Forest Industry Trade Issues and Support for Forest Workers

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Food Bank Use and Government Action on Issues

Á’a:líya Warbus

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2024-25

Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2024-25, revised September 2025

Office of the Auditor General, report, Beyond the Bottom Line: Navigating the Province of B.C.’s Audited Financial Statements , August 2025

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report, 2024

Elections B.C., annual report, 2024-25, and service plan, 2025-26–2027-28

Elections B.C., report of the Chief Electoral Officer, provincial general election,

October 19, 2024, Volume 2, Financing and Expenses

Emergency and Disaster Management Act, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31,

Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, annual report, 2024-25, and service plan,

2025-26–2027-28

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report and service plan,

2024-25

Office of the Ombudsperson, Public Interest Disclosure Act special report No. 2, Supporting Implementation and Providing Guidance: How the Ombudsperson Assisted Public

Bodies to Meet Their Responsibilities under the Public Interest Disclosure Act , August 2025

Office of the Ombudsperson, Public Interest Disclosure Act special report No. 3, Awareness and Trust: Insights from Chief Executives and Employees of Public Bodies

Covered under the Public Interest Disclosure Act , August 2025

Office of the Ombudsperson, Public Interest Disclosure Act special report No. 4, Operational Review: Five Years of Operating under the Public Interest Disclosure Act , August 2025

Office of the Ombudsperson, Public Interest Disclosure Act special report No. 5, Proposed Amendments: Lessons from the First Five Years of the Public Interest Disclosure

Act , August 2025

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., annual report and service plan, 2024-25

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., determination decision 25-04; Truck

Loggers Association; designated filer: William Brash; March 13, 2025

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., determination decision 25-06; British

Columbia Nurses Union; designated filer: Adriane Gear, May 15, 2025

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., reconsideration decision 25-04; designated

filer: William Brash; June 2, 2025

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, annual report, 2024-25 and service

plan, 2025-26–2027-28

Motions Without Notice

Membership Changes to

Section A and

Section C

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Josie Osborne

Anna Kindy

Jeremy Valeriote

Susie Chant

Brennan Day

Stephanie Higginson

Bruce Banman

Hon. Adrian Dix

Scott McInnis

Hon. Josie Osborne

Bill 10 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Niki Sharma

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Nina Krieger

Macklin McCall

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 38 — Views and Policies of Association for Reformed Political Action (continued)

Monday, October 6, 2025

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Welcome back to everyone. It’s great to be in the House.

We’ve got some guests here that I’m looking forward to meeting later today. We’ve

got someone who’s very well known to the members of this House.

The former MLA for Peace River North, Dan Davies, is in the House.

In addition to Dan, we’ve got Dion Livingston of Livingston logging in Fort St. James,

also a director of the northern region Private Forest Landowners Association.

In addition, we’ve got Joe Berger, who’s the president of Hotsaw Logging as well.

Both are members of the Peace River Woodlot Association. I’m looking forward to meeting

with them later today.

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

Hon. Anne Kang : Today I am delighted to welcome some truly special guests to the House, individuals

who are making a positive difference to the lives of children and families across

British Columbia.

Joining us from KidSport B.C. are Rob Newman, president and CEO; Judy Joseph-Black,

chair of the board of directors; Angela; as well, Allison Mailer, vice president.

Please make them feel very welcome today.

Amelia Boultbee : I would like to acknowledge that my father, Steve Boultbee, is here with us in the

gallery today observing. It’s very exciting for him to be here and witness all the

great things that are happening in this chamber.

Will the House please join me in making him feel very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Amna Shah : It was a pleasure today for my colleagues and I to meet with the B.C. Chiropractic

Association. Now they are joining us here in the gallery.

We have Dr. Jabeen Jussa, Dr. Janet Belliveau, Dr. Daniel Skinner, Dr. Ron Norman,

Dr. Clark Konczak, Dr. Mike Hadbavny, Liza Kallstrom and Alix Lavertu.

The B.C. Chiropractic Association is a voluntary organization that represents B.C.’s

chiropractors. It works to advance the profession and raise public awareness.

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

Tributes

Peter Alan Lea Ford

Darlene Rotchford : I just want to take a moment to recognize that we’re actually missing someone in

here today. I want to recognize Peter Ford, who we lost a day shy of his 70th birthday.

Thank you for my colleagues in the opposition who actually came to his celebration

of life. He was a constituent of mine, a man well known and cared for by all of us,

I know, in this House, as well as a long-term CAF member, especially base chief in

Esquimalt.

His wife, I just want to say in regards, thanks everyone very much for all the kind

words they sent, the book we sent, and again for the people who showed up.

And to all the staff here, just to let you know we’re also with you. We do know today

is a bit trying.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta : In the chamber today is an old friend and neighbour of mine, Allan Colyn, here to

observe parliamentary procedure as well as show support for my bill reading earlier

this morning. Our kids grew up together in the church nursery and school, but a year

ago he moved away. Somewhat of a legend in the floral and farming industry, Langley’s

loss is Qualicum’s gain.

Will the House please make him welcome.

George Anderson : Today I’d like to welcome Marika Stevenson to the House. She’s a proud British Columbian

who demonstrates an unwavering commitment to the values that all British Columbians

should aspire to — compassion, kindness and care for your neighbours.

With a generous smile and a big heart, Marika possesses what British Columbia needs

most right now — hope and excitement for the future. I am proud to have her as one

of my constituents and prouder to call her a friend.

Will the House join me in welcoming Marika to the Legislature.

Paul Choi : I’m pleased to welcome a Vietnamese delegation accompanied by UVic professor Victor

Ramraj and headed by Madame Le Thu Ha, who is a Member of Parliament in Vietnam, the

vice-chairwoman of the National Assembly office and the general secretary of the Vietnam

Friendship Parliamentarians Organisation; along with 15 others, here for a workshop

with our legislative office on gender equity, digitization and governance.

If I can ask the whole House to please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Nina Krieger : Joining us in the gallery today is Denise Lodge, founder of COREY, Coalition of Riders

Educating Youth.

This is a road safety organization named in honour of her late son, Corey. Ms. Lodge

has dedicated herself to educating young drivers and riders on the importance of making

safe choices behind the wheel. She is with us for the second reading of Bill 12, which

will amend the Motor Vehicle Act to strengthen driver safety and protect lives on

our roads.

I ask the House to please join me in welcoming Ms. Lodge.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

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

intituled Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

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

I am pleased to introduce the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act. This

bill will ensure the act continues to provide a fast, accessible way for those seeking

to prevent or stop non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The proposed amendments

will provide continued authority for the intimate images protection service and the

indirect collection of personal information for the purpose of supporting their clients.

The bill will also provide administrative clarifications that will enhance the effectiveness

of the act and remove publishing requirements for damage decisions made by the Civil

Resolution Tribunal to protect individual privacy.

[1:40 p.m.]

The bill will also enable the amount of damages that an individual can submit a claim

for to the resolution tribunal to be increased up to $75,000.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Hon. Jessie Sunner presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a

bill intituled Sexual Violence Policy Act.

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

Today I am pleased to introduce the Sexual Violence Policy Act. This bill will replace

the current Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Bill 18 provides public post-secondary institutions with modernized legislation to

help address sexual violence in their communities and to ensure that post-secondary

institution policies and procedures meet best practices for sexual violence prevention

and trauma-informed response.

I am proud to introduce this draft legislation as I believe it is a critical step

to increasing safety and expanding our collective efforts to prevent sexual violence

at B.C.’s public post-secondary institutions.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I move that Bill 18 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

FireSmart Program and Response

to Mid-Island Wildfire

Stephanie Higginson : I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague from the Mid Island–Pacific Rim riding

to extend our gratitude and to bring awareness to B.C.’s FireSmart program.

The Wesley Ridge fire was discovered on July 31. The fire itself was in the Mid Island–Pacific

Rim riding, but the responding fire department, the emergency operations centre and

the evacuation centre were in Ladysmith-Oceanside.

The fire had an immense impact across the region. It burned through almost 600 hectares,

threatening the Meadowood community. Close to 450 homes were on evacuation order,

and 330 more were on evacuation alert. It was one of the largest evacuations in Vancouver

Island’s history.

The fire came so close to some homes that the siding melted, and, in one instance,

a ladder that was left on someone’s lawn during the hurried evacuation melted into

the ground. Thanks to the combined efforts of the B.C. wildfire service, Dashwood

fire hall and over 20 fire services that answered the call for help, not one home

was lost in the fire — not one.

There are a few reasons for this, including the world-class rapid response of the

B.C. wildfire structure protection and structure defence units. I learned that there

is a difference between the structure protection and structure defence units.

Without a doubt, the biggest influencing factor was the preparation taken in the Meadowood

area to be fire smart. Starting almost ten years ago, Capt. Willow Bloomquist of the

Dashwood volunteer fire department took the lead to support our region to become fire

smart. Dashwood fire hall’s leadership and preventative action to bring the FireSmart

program to life in the Meadowood community made all the difference in the fire response.

I ask the House to help me and my colleague for Mid Island–Pacific Rim show our deepest

gratitude to all those who provided support during the Wesley Ridge fire and to the

Dashwood fire department for their proactive leadership on implementing the province’s

FireSmart program.

Mid-Autumn Festival

Teresa Wat : I rise today to recognize and celebrate the Mid-Autumn Festival. This is one of the

most important holidays in Chinese culture and, indeed, for many East Asian communities

across the world. It is a time rooted in history, tradition and profound meaning.

[1:45 p.m.]

The festival is traditionally held on the 15th day of the eighth month of the Chinese

lunar calendar, which happens to be today, when the moon is at its fullest and brightest.

This full moon symbolizes unity, completeness and family reunion. It is a time when

families and friends gather to share a meal, to light lanterns and, of course, to

enjoy the iconic mooncakes — those sweet, dense pastries often stamped with intricate

designs.

Here in Richmond-Bridgeport and across the Lower Mainland, I have been so fortunate

to attend multiple celebrations. Witnessing firsthand the vibrancy and richness of

these traditions, the spirit of the community, of giving thanks for the harvest and

of looking to the future with hope is truly inspiring.

Our Chinese-Canadian community has made invaluable contributions to British Columbia

and to Canada as a whole. Their culture, their resilience and civic engagement are

part of the very fabric of our riding and of our province. The Mid-Autumn Festival

is a beautiful reminder of the deep, enduring cultural heritage they share with us

all.

I urge all members of this House to join me in extending our best wishes to all Chinese

Canadians in B.C. who are celebrating this special occasion.

May the light of the full moon bring peace, prosperity and a joyful reunion to all.

祝大家中秋節快樂！人月兩團圓！

[Wishing everyone a Happy Mid-Autumn Festival. May people and the moon both be united

and whole.]

[Cantonese text and translation provided by Teresa Wat.]

中秋節快樂

[Wishing everyone a Happy Mid-Autumn Festival.]

[Mandarin text and translation provided by Teresa Wat.]

Island Rail Corridor and

Economic Importance of Rail System

George Anderson : Across British Columbia, existing rail corridors serve as corridors of opportunity,

a vision for jobs, prosperity and a province that leads. On Vancouver Island, the

shared visioning process for the Island Rail Corridor is asking not what rail once

was but what this corridor can mean for our future.

Those opportunities are profound. The Island corridor connects ports in Nanaimo and

Port Alberni. The corridor is close to CFB Esquimalt and CFB Comox military bases.

Moreover, the corridor presents an opportunity for reconciliation, not as a slogan

but in partnership with First Nations at the table as full partners, shaping a future

built on respect and trust.

But the Island corridor is only the beginning. Across British Columbia, rail corridors

have always unlocked prosperity, from moving minerals out of the Teck smelter in Trail

to the potential of carrying Kalesnikoff’s mass timber products to the coast, to unlocking

the opportunities at the Port of Prince Rupert, the Sea to Sky corridor and the Fraser

Valley.

When our rail corridors are strong, we create opportunity for jobs for welders, carpenters

and electricians, the skilled trades that built this province; keep young people here

at home; and provide the hope you can measure in paycheques. For businesses, faster

freight and stronger supply chains and confidence for investment. For the environment,

lower emissions, fewer trucks on the road and a cleaner province for the next generation.

Our existing rail corridors are not just about tracks on the ground. They are about

the direction we choose as a province. Will the next generation inherit limits, congestion

and climate crisis, or will they inherit possibility, opportunity and hope? These

existing rail corridors allow us to create abundance of opportunity, prosperity and

hope.

The Island Rail Corridor and all of our rail corridors serve as a promise of jobs,

reconciliation and prosperity. That promise is the future of British Columbia.

Importance of Democracy

and Role of MLA s

David Williams : Democracy is more than a system of government. It is the very foundation of our freedom.

At its heart, democracy means that power does not rest with rulers, elites or influencers

but with the people themselves. It is the belief that every voice matters, every vote

counts and every citizen carries the right to shape the future of their community

and their province.

In our province and in our country, democracy has given generations the ability to

live with freedoms that many around the world can only dream of, the freedom to worship,

to speak, to gather and to choose those who govern us. Let us never forget that many

before us paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend those freedoms.

Too often we speak of democracy as though it is permanent, something we inherited

and will always have. It is a living agreement, one that requires constant attention

and protection.

[1:50 p.m.]

Free societies rarely collapse in a single day. They erode gradually as power is consolidated

in fewer and fewer hands. The Roman Empire did not fall overnight. It unravelled over

years.

But democracy is not only about casting a ballot at election time. Democracy depends

on citizens who are engaged, who ask tough questions and who hold their leaders accountable

when they fall short. It is about accountability. Governments must answer to the people.

It is about transparency. Decisions must be made in the open, not behind closed doors.

And it is about respect, respect for differing opinions and for the rule of law and

safeguards that safeguard the majority and the minority.

Democracy is not perfect, but it is resilient. It is not to be taken for granted but

the responsibility we must renew each single day. As members of this assembly, we

are entrusted with upholding it, not only in the votes we cast but in how we listen,

how we serve and how we respect the voices of the people we represent.

The true meaning of democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for

the people.

KidSport B.C.

and Support for Sports Sector

Amshen / Joan Phillip : I rise today to recognize October 5 to 11, 2025, as KidSport B.C. Powered by Sport

B.C. Week, a week dedicated to raising awareness of the tremendous work that KidSport

B.C. does to help youth throughout the province of British Columbia access the benefits

of sports.

The opportunity to participate in sports is a formative part of childhood. Every child

deserves the opportunity to know the pride of wearing a jersey, the thrill of scoring

a goal and the joy of being part of a team. Unfortunately, financial barriers prevent

some families from enrolling their children in organized sports. KidSport B.C. was

formed by Sport B.C. in 1993 and provides grants to support youth aged 18 and younger

to participate in a sport of their choice.

In the past year, KidSport B.C. supported 10,695 children in 233 communities throughout

B.C., distributing more than $3.6 million in grants to cover sport registration fees.

More than 40 percent of these grants supported children from underrepresented populations

in sports, including Indigenous youth, children with disabilities and newcomers to

British Columbia.

In B.C., we are committed to building a diverse and inclusive sports sector, one where

people of all ages, genders and abilities can reap the benefits of sports participation

and active living. That’s why our government invests $50 million in the sports sector

every year.

Thank you very much, Sport B.C.

Cheam Elementary School

Heather Maahs : In 1875, B.C. boasted a burgeoning population of 42,000. That was 150 years ago.

Two years earlier, in 1873, Chilliwack was incorporated as the third official township,

with a total population not quite reaching 1,500. As one of the oldest municipalities

in the province, with only New Westminster and Victoria being older, each resident

was given a canoe due to the high probability of flooding.

[1:55 p.m.]

The population of Chilliwack was enough to warrant the need for a school building,

and Cheam School was built. The 17 students attending that first year arrived for

school on foot, mostly barefoot, on horseback or by sleigh during the winter. The

lone teacher of this school earned an annual salary of $400.

On April 26 of this year, this little country school celebrated its 150-year milestone.

Cheam School has seen plenty of changes, renovations and improvements over the years.

The reminders of days gone by have been uncovered in walls, including a school strap

— likely some of my colleagues have had firsthand experience with its purpose — an

old handbell and a logbook.

Cheam Elementary School now enrols approximately 250 students, complete with an early

French immersion program. It is a popular school with a lovely ambiance and a meaningful

culture.

Congratulations to the Cheam Elementary School community, parents, students, staff

and administration, from the past and the present.

Oral Questions

Economic Conditions and

Government Policies on

Oil and Gas Projects

John Rustad : B.C. is at a crossroads. We have all the potential we could ever want to become the

Norway of North America, but instead, we sell our natural gas at an 85 percent discount

to the Americans, and Canada sells its oil at a 20 to 30 percent discount to the Americans.

So much for elbows up by this Premier. Instead, he has delivered record deficits,

people struggling and fleeing B.C., shuttered hospitals and a collapsing economy.

After nine years in government, why does this Premier continue to put ideology ahead

of fighting for average, everyday British Columbians?

Hon. David Eby : It’s great to be back, and welcome to all the members of the House.

Well, the member is just wrong. B.C.’s economy is holding strong despite major challenges.

I mean, our forest sector…. I just heard of a 10 percent additional tariff, because

apparently our lumber is a national security threat to the United States, as if it’s

a threat to receive affordable, high-quality building materials that Americans can

use to build their homes. That’s what we’re dealing with right now. Russia has lower

tariff access to the United States right now compared to Canada.

These are serious and challenging threats. Despite that, British Columbia’s GDP growth

since 2017 is second among all provinces, second only to P.E.I. We added 12,000 full-time

jobs in 2025 alone.

But I know a lot of people are struggling out there with affordability, with the cost

of living. I can assure them that we are working to grow our economy. In fact, B.C.

will lead the country, and we’ll ensure we’re delivering high-quality jobs for people

in every corner of the province.

We have more than $40 billion in private sector projects. We were 40 percent of the

major projects that the federal government identified as being close to shovel-ready

and ready to go. We could have filled up that whole list.

The best days are yet to come for British Columbia. We’ve got to support our people.

We’ve got to grow jobs. In fact, we’re going to support this entire country.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, I guess that’s a new definition of rose-coloured glasses. Take immigration

out of it, and our economy grew at just 0.14 percent per year for the last decade,

the worst since the Great Depression.

This Premier says he’s got $40 billion…. That is one project, before this government

took power. There were hundreds of billions in projects before that.

The Premier says, and I quote him here, that a new pipeline would be “a direct economic

threat to the kind of economy he’s trying to build.” He talked about the Americans

going after us, yet he is perfectly willing to see us selling our oil at a 20 to 30

percent discount. He’s perfectly willing to see that natural gas go to the Americans

at an 80 percent discount.

Enough of charity to the Americans. This government is broke. We have thousands of

workers out on the lawn of this building protesting because they can’t be treated

fairly.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’m sorry. This Premier seems to think that economy and revenue can run from ideology

and unicorn farts. It doesn’t take that. It takes a lot more.

Instead of doing hand-picked projects by this Premier, this Premier needs to get government

out of the way. It needs to get to a place where we stop giving charity to the Americans,

and we actually start building wealth for British Columbians.

Will this government stop being a massive obstacle by opposing projects that are coming

forward and actually start opening our economy up for the success of all British Columbians?

Hon. David Eby : Well, the member says that people are fleeing the province. Then in the next breath,

he says: “Well, if it wasn’t for people moving to British Columbia, there wouldn’t

have been growth.” He needs to make up his mind about his facts.

In the same breath as he promotes an imaginary pipeline project from Alberta to our

north coast that will seriously compromise real major projects representing tens of

billions of dollars that are dependent on the support of coastal First Nations and

communities along the line…. As he puts those projects at direct threat in order to

ship raw bitumen to China at the expense of B.C. and Canadian taxpayers, well, British

Columbia has more than $40 billion in real private sector…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. David Eby : …projects that have proponents and financing and business plans and are making final

investment decisions.

It’s an incredibly exciting time for B.C. It’s a challenging time for B.C. residents.

We have to deliver these projects. We cannot put them at risk for ideology or posturing.

We have to deliver for British Columbians and Canadians because that is what Canadians

expect.

We will drive the national economy. We will create the jobs, and we will show that

member what British Columbians can do together.

Delta Hospital Emergency Services

and Government Action on

Health Care Issues

Ian Paton : In this Premier’s economy, even essential services are not reliable. That includes

emergency rooms. We have seen repeated ER closures in every community across this

province.

My hospital, the Delta Hospital’s ER just closed again for the fourth time this year

on Saturday night. An entire city of more than 110,000 people had no access to emergency

care last Saturday night. This isn’t a staffing glitch. This is a public health crisis

caused by years of inaction and neglect from this NDP government.

Will this government commit today that ERs across this province stay open 24 hours

a day, seven days a week?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question. What happened on Saturday night in his

community is very challenging for the city, for the residents, for the people who

depend on emergency services to be there for them when they need it, like people in

communities large and small across British Columbia do.

That’s why we first need to thank all those health care staff who are stepping up

to fill the vacancies and the gaps in scheduling that we’re experiencing because of

a shortage of health care workers.

That’s why we have to continue the actions that we’re taking in the short term, reaching

out, from all the turmoil down in the States, to ask U.S. physicians and nurses and

nurse practitioners to move to British Columbia to be part of our universal public

health care system.

It’s working. We’ve had 1,400 applications, 140 jobs accepted. In the Fraser Health

Authority alone, where the Delta general hospital is, we’ve had 154 job applications

in two months alone.

But that’s not enough. That’s why we’ve got to train the next generation of doctors.

The member speaks about not taking action. Well, the leader of his party failed to

take action, failed to build the new medical school in Surrey when he had the opportunity,

something this government is doing and that we’ll continue to do.

The Speaker : Delta South, supplemental.

Ian Paton : The people of Delta and across the province are tired of the excuses, year after

year after year, in question period. Seniors are being turned away, and parents are

being told to drive hours away for emergency treatment.

[2:05 p.m.]

At UBCM, Delta council requested an urgent meeting with the Minister of Health to

discuss ER closures in my community, but the minister refused to meet with them. The

same thing happened for multiple mayors and councillors at UBCM last week.

Accountability matters, and this minister is hiding from everybody.

If this minister cannot guarantee basic emergency services for British Columbians

and is too busy to meet with locally elected representatives, then what does this

minister get paid for?

Hon. Josie Osborne : As a former mayor of a small community, I know that there is nothing more important

than being able to get face time with a minister to build a relationship…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …and to have those difficult conversations.

I received over 100 meeting requests for UBCM. Each and every one of those conversations

is important, but a person has to prioritize, and I prioritize those communities that

are the farthest away, that have the hardest time getting in front of me and being

able to talk to me. That’s why I travelled into the Interior and up north to visit

as many small communities as I could to hear directly from those community leaders,

to hear directly from those front-line physicians and nurses about what was taking

place in those communities.

Earlier this summer, I sat down with the Delta mayor and council for almost an hour

in their council chambers. I spoke to the mayor this weekend. I’ll be meeting again

with the mayor and council this week, as soon as they’re able to find space for me.

I know those conversations are important, and I’m going to continue to prioritize

them. But to characterize this as something else is absolutely ridiculous. I am deeply

committed to this file.

We are going to continue the work to attract, to train, to retain more health care

workers; to build up the health care workforce that we need, that we are so proud

of in this province; to deliver the health care for people when they need it, where

they need it.

Public Service Labour Dispute

Rob Botterell : Public service workers in British Columbia are pushed to the brink. Housing, food

costs, inflation, the cost of living keeps climbing, yet it’s a fact that many BCGEU

workers make less than the average B.C. worker.

This government is in the history books for all the wrong reasons. They’ve let one

of the longest public service strikes drag on for six weeks, and now students can’t

access their loans to pay rent. Small businesses are feeling the pinch. The government

has the fiscal capacity to act. What’s missing is the will.

I just joined thousands of BCGEU members and supporters on the legislative lawn. What

is their question? Why won’t this government meet the BCGEU’s calls?

Hon. David Eby : I thank the member for the question. This is an important issue.

We have two competing priorities here. I want us to make sure that those amazing people

who do the hard work for British Columbians every day get a fair deal, get supported

so that they can support their families and their communities, so they can do a good

job at work.

The other is we’re in tight fiscal times here in British Columbia, not just in British

Columbia but across the country, nationally and in many places around the world. We’ve

got a slowing global economy, low resource prices. People are making careful decisions

before investing, whether businesses or individuals.

We’ve got these two things that are in competition. We’ve got to be fair to taxpayers,

we’ve got to recognize the circumstances we’re in, and we’ve got to be fair to our

workers and make sure they’re treated well. We’re ensuring that our offer on the table

ensures that workers don’t fall behind; that we’re meeting inflation; that there’s

a group of workers that need to, as the member says, be caught up to ensure that they’re

earning a reasonable wage for the work that they’re doing.

The work is going to happen at the table with the BCGEU. I hope we can get back to

the table and reach a fair agreement for everybody.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : Halloween is around the corner, and this NDP government is a ghost of its former

self. Public service, non-union management jobs have grown much faster than BCGEU

jobs over the past decade, and wages have fallen behind the private sector, driving

workers away. This happened on your watch.

To note, other provinces, Alberta and Ontario, facing the same challenges we do, have

met their unions’ demand for fair wages.

What will this government do to retain the public service workers British Columbians

rely on every day of the week?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : The member raised a couple of points that deserve to be addressed.

First of all, the provinces. We had a much more generous agreement with the BCGEU

than other provinces did. They’re playing catch-up with their workers with their current

agreements. We had an 18 percent increase over the term of the contract, which was

better than inflation over the period — a time of record inflation, I will note. When

we have the resources and we’re able to do it, we make sure that we’re able to bring

our workers along with us.

On the other piece about the size of the public service, I agree. We’ve got to slim

down the administration within the public service. We’ve reduced full-time equivalents

by more than 800 in just the last few months, and we’re going to continue to do that

work to get rid of the administrative costs, whether it’s in the health authority

or whether it’s in core government. We’re ensuring that we’re doing that, but we’re

not going to impact the front-line services.

We saw that when those guys, the Conservatives, were on this side of the House, and

they cut those front-line services that people depended on.

We’re not going to do it. We’re going to protect front-line services, and we’re going

to make sure that people are looked after.

Universal Ostrich Farms

and Federal Avian Flu Cull

Dallas Brodie : On Friday, I travelled to Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood. I met with Katie Pasitney.

For nearly a year, she has fought heroically to save her 500 ostriches from a senseless

slaughter. The CFIA knows these birds are healthy, yet instead of testing them, they’ve

built a kill pen out of hay bales and have barred Katie from even seeing her own animals.

Now we’ve learned that Spirit, one of her birds, has died in CFIA custody after days

of suffering. And the Premier hasn’t lifted a finger.

My question to the Premier is this. Why has he abandoned Katie and her ostriches in

their time of need?

Hon. Lana Popham : Thank you very much for the question.

I think the member understands, as we do, that avian influenza is a federally regulated

disease, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the lead on investigating and

responding to this virus. This is a deadly virus that continues to come into our province

in the fall and has continued on until the spring. Right now this disease is landing

on our doorstep. It is something that is deadly to the poultry industry in this province

and right across North America.

We are doing our best as a province to find ways to work with farmers, including bringing

tables together, because it is now known that this disease crosses over to the dairy

sector. We are working with farmers to fund projects as we find the best ways to stave

off this virus from our poultry businesses as it approaches right now.

It is really difficult to hear the stories from this farm, this ostrich farm, and

we understand how difficult it is for those farmers. We know that all farmers who

face a depopulation order in this province are facing a very difficult time for them

and their families and their communities. We are doing our best to support farmers

as we see this disease pressure come into our province right now.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Dallas Brodie : I appreciate that answer, Minister, but “doing our best”? How are you doing your

best? I haven’t seen any letters written. I haven’t seen even a tweet go out. I haven’t

seen anything being done in support of Katie Pasitney’s farm.

Has the Premier even visited her and lent an ear to what’s going on up there? They

have 227 days virus-free in those birds, and why won’t they test? Why not test them

and see if they’re deadly?

You say it’s a deadly virus, that this is a deadly issue and could kill other animals.

Where’s the proof of that? Why don’t we insist that there be another test done?

Last spring the Premier tried to pass a bill that would have given him the power to

override any law in this province, so he’s clearly not afraid to use power when it

suits him. But when ordinary British Columbians like Katie Pasitney need him to stand

up for their livelihoods, their farms and even for the humane treatment of animals,

he’s nowhere to be seen.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

[2:15 p.m.]

Dallas Brodie : With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of latitude given to other members of

this House. I have listened to long, rambling

preambles to their questions.

The Speaker : Member.

Dallas Brodie : Again to the Premier, why won’t he use his power to help Katie by demanding that

Prime Minister Mark Carney save her beautiful birds from this senseless slaughter?

Hon. Lana Popham : I, in fact, did meet with Katie in the spring, and we discussed the situation. I’ve

sat with Katie, just like I’ve sat with other farmers across the province. One farm

in particular, in the Fraser Valley, has been depopulated four times as we try and

find our way through to a solution with this disease, but the CFIA leads that file.

As a province, we are doing everything we can in our jurisdiction to try and protect

our poultry industry, but it’s very, very challenging.

I understand what the member is saying about how tragic the situation is. We agree.

But the CFIA leads this file on responding to the virus, and what we can do as a province

is get behind making sure that our poultry industry is protected.

Government Hiring of Staff

Kiel Giddens : Two million dollars has gone to the Premier’s friends, NDP insiders and consultants.

The list includes a joke writer for the Premier, it includes his friend Michael Bryant,

and it includes former cabinet minister George Heyman, who is supposed to get the

NDP a deal with the BCGEU. Meanwhile, the people delivering critical public services

are told to settle for barely keeping up with inflation.

Is this the economy that this Premier wants to build, one that rewards his friends

and insiders over the front-line workers who are outside on the Legislature lawn today?

Hon. David Eby : I remember when the Conservatives — they had a different name — were sitting on this

side of the House, and they threw out of work thousands of people that were delivering

care for British Columbians across the province. That philosophy has not disappeared.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. David Eby : Their priority is not the workers delivering care for people. Their priority is something

else entirely.

For us, we’ll stay focused on ensuring that the workers who are delivering that care

and support for British Columbians, delivering front-line services, are protected

and that we get to a fair deal with them. We’re going to make sure that happens.

The member is asking about a contract speechwriter, an incredibly talented contract

speechwriter, that allows me to do the job that I do. I deliver multiple speeches.

It’s a necessary thing. When we hire….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby : When we hire staff, we hire them for their qualifications. I assure you that you

will never find anyone hired by me that is an active residential schools denier that

promotes racism and hate.

What you will find is us hiring people who are qualified, skilled and bring an ability

to do the job and get the job done for British Columbians.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, after the question period, please.

Budget Deficit and

Government Financial Management

Peter Milobar : It sounds like the Premier is admitting that he hired 850 managers under his watch

that he’s now gotten rid of with his FTE reduction plan that he just talked about.

This is the problem. Today the Premier decides to continue to deflect, as he always

does, back in the wayback machine, back to regimes and previous governments, but he

doesn’t want to look at the two-year track record of his own premiership, a two-year

track record where he arrived with a $6 billion surplus, which is now a record deficit

— in fact, a deficit that’s going to continue to climb.

He was warned about the growing public service administration for years, and they

ignored it. Now he wants a pat on the back because they’re trying to adjust. And if

they can get rid of 850 people without impacting public services, why did they hire

them in the first place? What were they doing for the last several years?

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s quite simple. The debt has doubled under this Premier. The debt-servicing cost

has doubled under this Premier. No wonder they have no fiscal room to actually get

a settlement. They’re paying an extra $2½ billion in interest payments alone this

year than when this Premier took office as the Premier.

But he doesn’t want to talk about his own track record. He wants to talk about 20

years ago. That’s relevant to the 10,000 people that were on the front lawn today.

It’s really quite simple. The Premier keeps saying that they’re going to bend the

curve. Unfortunately, they’re bending it upwards and skyrocketing upwards with deficit

and debt, and those costs are ever hampering this government.

When will we see a proper fiscal plan that actually gets the province back on the

right track and actually sees some control of spending with this government instead

of everything going to his political friends and insiders?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Like the rest of Canada, B.C. is facing significant fiscal headwinds, but we’re taking

action. We already have reviewed government expenses and brought down $1.5 billion

from the fiscal plan. But that is not enough. We are reviewing. Every ministry is

doing the heavy lifting of reviewing every dollar that we spend here in British Columbia.

And yes, we have taken action to freeze public service. In fact, we’ve brought down

850 jobs. This is action we must take in the context of the economic circumstances

we find ourselves in, Canada finds itself in, and around the world is the experience.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : But B.C. still remains competitive to the rest of Canada. We have lower GDP-debt

ratios than almost the rest of Canada, and we have a plan to bend the curve. Now,

we know, on the other side, when they were running during the election, they planned

to spend $2 billion more.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh, Members.

Oil Tanker Policy

and Impact on Jobs

Larry Neufeld : This NDP government supports dredging the Burrard Inlet to accommodate fully loaded

oil tankers yet supports retaining a tanker ban policy on the north coast. This makes

no sense.

In this Premier’s vision of the economy, is it only NDP friends and insiders who get

the jobs, while everyone else needs to leave the province to find work?

Hon. Adrian Dix : It’s our approach that British Columbians should get jobs. That’s why we’ve supported,

for example, the policy….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member. Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The Leader of the Opposition, who is yelling out in the first sentence, opposes the

North Coast transmission line, which would create thousands of jobs in British Columbia;

opposes mining jobs in the northwest; opposes renewable energy projects. All of those

projects build British Columbia and build the electricity we need as a province and

move us forward.

On LNG, we talk about export, and we talk about who we’re supporting. We have the

lowest-emission LNG in the world. There were no projects when the NDP took office.

Zero. There are now three under construction and others that are making their own

final investment decisions.

In short, what you are seeing on every front is a government that builds the economy

for workers, especially for union workers, high-paying jobs everywhere in B.C.

Forest Industry Trade Issues

and Support for Forest Workers

Ward Stamer : Mills and workers across B.C. fear the future. They’re struggling to keep the doors

open and food on the table. Every day they wait to find out if they’re going to get

a paycheque or a layoff notice.

This minister talks about protecting workers’ paycheques. What about protecting their

jobs?

Instead of listening to his handpicked advisory council, why doesn’t the minister

talk to workers whose lives are actually impacted by the destruction he has brought

into the B.C. forest industry?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The Premier talked about it in one of his answers — the challenges we’re facing in

forestry when Donald Trump last Monday announced a

section 232 investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, please.

Please complete.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Some things don’t change. Here we have an official opposition attacking the government,

like they do, but who they should be attacking is Donald Trump.

Why do we have an American president who is unfairly treating Canadian lumber as a

national security risk? Forty-five percent duties and tariffs that will exist on our

softwood lumber sector….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member. Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : What a joke. What a joke from the peanut gallery over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Let’s be very clear. The President of the United States is attacking forestry workers

from coast to coast to coast.

On this side of the House, we’re going to stand up for those workers. We’re going

to stand up for their paycheques, unlike the members opposite, that would roll over

for Donald Trump each and every day.

Food Bank Use and

Government Action on Issues

Á’a :líya Warbus : Throughout today’s question period, we’ve been asking this government about the plan

for the economy and about the plan for the massive deficit that we’re staring down

right now in British Columbia. My question has to do with the people that are suffering

under these circumstances.

We continue to be surprised by the government’s ability to set new records. On this

Premier’s watch, local food banks are doing just that. Food Banks B.C. has said it’s

“another year of record-breaking demand for B.C.’s hunger relief services,” with Surrey

Food Bank just hitting an all-time high. That means people are literally going hungry

in this province. These are not the kinds of records that this government should be

setting.

My question. Is it this government’s vision for the economy, one, where people can’t

even afford to buy food?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the member’s question. No doubt there are some people that are having

tough times in our communities, but we have a clear vision of where we want to go.

In fact, I can share with members of this House that we are the envy of the country.

We have provinces that wish they had the opportunities and the potential that British

Columbia does.

What we’re going to do is what we’re already doing. We’re making smart investments,

strategic investments, so that we can not only capture the opportunity of a whole

host of private sector projects, unlike some other provinces, actual private sector

projects with real investments.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition here hates when he wakes up in the morning

and hears good news. He hates when we get final investment decisions in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, order.

Please conclude.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Most people of British Columbia wake up when they hear good news. They hear of investment

decisions coming to the province. They see B.C. getting 40 percent of the national

projects. They would be happy. Not the Leader of the Opposition. He wakes up and says:

“Oh, what am I going to say in question period today?” That is not the mentality that’s

going to take us forward.

We’re making investments in our people, and we’re making investments in our economy.

We’re going to continue to do that as we go forward.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : Members, I have the honour to table the following reports.

Auditor General — annual report, 2024-25; annual report, ’24-25, revised September,

2025; and Beyond the Bottom Line: Navigating the Province of B.C.’s Audited Financial Statements .

Next one, Conflict of Interest Commissioner — annual report, 2024.

Elections B.C., annual report, 2024-25, and service plan ’25-26–’27-28; and Report of the Chief Electoral Officer, 43rd Provincial General Election, October 19,

2024, Volume 2, Financing and Expenses .

Emergency and Disaster Management Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025.

Human Rights Commissioner — annual report, 2024-25, and service plan 2025-26–2027-28.

Information and Privacy Commissioner — annual report and service plan, 2024-25.

[2:30 p.m.]

Ombudsperson, Public Interest Disclosure Act —special report No. 2, Supporting Implementation and Providing Guidance: How the Ombudsperson Assisted Public

Bodies to Meet Their Responsibilities Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act ; special report No. 3, Awareness and Trust: Insights from Chief Executives and Employees of Public Bodies

Covered Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act ; special report No. 4, Operational Review: Five Years of Operating Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act ; special report No. 5, Proposed Amendments: Lessons from the First Five Years of the Public Interest Disclosure

Act .

Registrar of lobbyists — annual report and service plan, 2024-25; determination decision

25-04, Truck Loggers Association, designated filer: William Brash; determination decision

25-06, British Columbia Nurses Union, designated filer: Adriane Gear; and reconsideration

decision 25-04, determination decision 25-04, designated filer: William Brash.

Finally, Representative for Children and Youth — annual report, 2024-25, and service

plan 2025-26–2027-28.

Point of Order

Dallas Brodie : I have a point of order to raise.

I’m looking at subsections 40(2) and (3) of the standing orders. The first one is

“Disrespectful or offensive language forbidden.” That’s sub (2). “Irrelevance in debate”

— that’s sub (3).

Sub (2) says: “No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House.”

The Premier has repeatedly referred to me as being racist, denialist and hateful.

Am I now allowed to use words like “stupid,” “incompetent,” “financially illiterate”

and “anarchist”? How far does this go?

The second one is: “No member shall be irrelevant in debate.” He takes shots at me

sideways whenever he can, and I’m not accepting it anymore. It’s unacceptable language

in this House. I could call him lots of names, believe me, but I’m not taking this

anymore.

Raising questions about public expenditures of money in this province is not against

the rules. Anybody who takes public money is open to questioning, and you shouldn’t

be questioned about whether you’re racist. If you want no questions, don’t take public

money.

I would like a declaration from the Speaker about whether people can call each other

names in this House anymore.

Hon. David Eby : I feel like I should be paying the member rent for the amount of space I’m occupying

in her head.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh. Please.

Hon. David Eby : In my answer, I was specifically referring to the staff member that was hired by

the Leader of the Opposition who was fired recently for being a racist residential

school denialist — properly fired, by the way. I congratulate him for taking that

appropriate stand. A little late, but he did take it. I support it. You wouldn’t find

me hiring people like that.

If the member thought I was talking about her, perhaps that’s her issue.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, it’s not a debate, please. You have stated your point of order. You heard

from the Premier. Just take your seat, please.

Members, just to clarify, when there’s a dispute between the members about certain

things, the Chair does not intervene in that, and, so far, I haven’t seen anything

contravening the standing orders that have been stated in the House today.

Motions Without Notice

Membership Changes

to

Section A and

Section C

Hon. Mike Farnworth : By leave, I move:

[That Motion 20, adopted by the House on April 30, 2025, establishing the Sessional

Order for certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections, be

amended by:

a. striking the text of

section 7 and replacing it as follows: “Section A and

Section

C consist of ten Members, not including the Chair, being five Members of the B.C.

NDP Caucus, three Members of the Conservative Party of British Columbia Caucus, one

Member of the B.C. Green Party Caucus, and one Member of the OneBC Caucus.”;

b. striking the text of

section 8 and replacing it as follows: “The Members of

Section

A be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the

bill under consideration and Rohini Arora , Hon. Ravi Parmar , Janet Routledge , Amna Shah , Steve Kooner , Lawrence Mok , David Williams , Rob Botterell , and Tara Armstrong .”; and,

c. striking the text of

section 9 and replacing it as follows: “The Members of

Section

C be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the

bill under consideration and Hon. Adrian Dix , Stephanie Higginson , Hon. Sheila Malcolmson , Steve Morissette , Heather Maahs , Macklin McCall , Larry Neufeld , Jeremy Valeriote , and Dallas Brodie .”]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[2:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 9, health care recovery costs act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker : Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back to this session, where we will begin debate

this afternoon on Bill 9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

Introducing our Minister of Health.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you so much, Speaker. Nice to see you back in the chair. I hope you had a good

summer.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I rise today to speak about amendments to the Health Care Costs Recovery Act that

were introduced in the spring sitting. Because the legislation in these new amendments

is quite technical, I’ll start off by speaking about the initial act and its purpose,

and then I’ll move on to the aspects of what we propose be amended.

The province has been recovering health care costs under the Health Care Costs Recovery

Act since it was first brought into force, back in 2009. As we all know, government,

through the Ministry of Health, incurs costs to provide public health care to people

who need it who are Medical Services Plan beneficiaries.

The Health Care Costs Recovery Act gives the province the authority to recoup health

care costs when an MSP beneficiary has been injured or killed because of the negligence

or wrongful act or omission of a wrongdoer. It’s founded on the principle that government

should be reimbursed for the costs incurred due to the negligence of wrongdoers or

defendants. It ensures these public health care costs are paid for by the wrongdoer,

not by the people of British Columbia.

It’s important to note a couple of things to clarify regarding this particular act.

First, the province recovers health care costs from the alleged wrongdoer. It does

not take funds that are payable to a beneficiary.

[2:40 p.m.]

Secondly, the act doesn’t apply to motor vehicle accidents where a wrongdoer is insured

by ICBC, to opioid- or tobacco-related wrongs or to injuries in the course of work

if the beneficiary is entitled to compensation through WorkSafeBC. These are addressed

through other legislation — the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act,

the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and the Workers Compensation

Act. This legislation is also distinct from Bill 12 back in 2024.

These amendments to the Health Care Costs Recovery Act are technical and of a housekeeping

nature. They’re amendments that will address small gaps in the current legislation

that limit the province’s ability to fully recover the costs of health care services

in specific situations, so that government and taxpayers aren’t left paying for public

health care costs when a wrongdoer was responsible for the MSP beneficiary’s injury

or death. They represent minor changes to the existing legislation, and they are being

made based on government’s experience with pursuing cost recoveries under the act

since 2009.

Addressing these gaps will help further ensure that wrongdoers who are responsible

for the injury or death of a beneficiary pay the costs of providing health care to

that beneficiary. Again, these are amendments that will help the province better recoup

the costs of providing public health care services to MSP beneficiaries who were injured

or died due to the negligence or a wrongful act or omission of a wrongdoer.

By addressing the current gaps, it will make it more efficient for government to pursue

recovery under the act, which will ultimately help reduce the burden on taxpayers

and support the sustainability of our public health care system.

The first amendment. The bill addresses gaps such as an overly broad exception to

the act when a beneficiary is injured in the course of their work. At the moment,

if any money is paid to an injured worker through WorkSafeBC, the act doesn’t apply.

This is because there are other mechanisms to recover health care costs through the

Workers Compensation Act.

However, these mechanisms only work if the injured worker pursues a WorkSafeBC claim.

In some cases, a worker starts a WorkSafeBC claim but later decides to make a tort

claim instead. When this happens, the province can’t recover health care costs under

either act. This bill proposes amendments that would narrow the WorkSafeBC exception

under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act so that the province can still recover costs

in these circumstances.

A second amendment involves extending the time period that a court must accept a health

care costs claim being added to a lawsuit. The act requires that a beneficiary include

a health services claim in their lawsuit, but this doesn’t always happen. If a health

services claim isn’t included at the outset, it can be added within six months, and

the court must accept this. After six months, the court has discretion to decide whether

or not to allow the health services claim to be added.

At the moment, a court is likely to accept a health services claim being added even

after the six-month window has ended, but it’s not fully guaranteed. There is a time-consuming

court application that’s required, and this can discourage claimants from following

through. This bill will amend the act so that a court must allow a health services

claim to be added at any time up until the court renders a judgment in the case.

Thirdly, the bill would create new disclosure obligations for defendants, their legal

representatives and insurers. They would have to disclose information about the beneficiary’s

injury and health services claim and, if needed, provide information to assist government

in recovering health care costs upon request. This will help government to better

understand, quantify and recover health care costs.

This bill will also extend these requirements to self-insured companies and mutual

defence organizations. These types of organizations are not currently considered to

be insurers, so they don’t have the disclosure obligations of insurers, but they should

be held to the same requirements to notify and provide information to government as

traditionally insured parties are.

This amendment would require both insurers and uninsured defendants to provide certain

records, information or evidence related to a beneficiary’s injuries or health services

claim if the minister asks them to do so. These records can currently be requested

from the beneficiaries themselves.

The intent is that these documents or information would always be requested from the

beneficiary first. However, if for any reason the beneficiary is unable to provide

them in a timely manner, these same documents can now be requested from the insurer

or uninsured defendant. This will ensure that self-insured and mutual defence organizations

provide notice to the province and the information that’s needed to assist with cost

recovery.

[2:45 p.m.]

Fourthly, this bill would amend the act to clarify that liability waivers do not impact

government’s ability to recover health care costs. Beneficiaries often sign a liability

waiver before participating in activities that have a known risk of injury, which

often prevents them from seeking damages for personal injury from the operator.

While a liability waiver is generally a good defence against a tort claim, this is

not the case for a health care costs claim. This is because government is not a party

to the liability waiver and is not bound by its terms. Because of this misunderstanding,

insurers often do not notify government about a claim, and this is leading to missed

opportunities for cost recovery. To address this issue, this bill will clarify that

liability waivers do not impact government’s ability to recover public health care

costs.

Next, the bill will change the deadline for when government can file an action in

cases where a third-party defendant is added to the lawsuit. If a defendant believes

that another person or organization is partly responsible for the claim being made

against them, they can file something that’s called a third-party notice to add that

person or organization as a defendant. Sometimes this only happens after the current

deadline for government to file an action, so there is no opportunity for recovery

of public health care costs.

This bill would amend the act so that government must be notified in a timely manner

and has six months from the date it receives notification of a third-party defendant

to file an independent action to avoid these types of missed opportunities.

Sixth, the bill will require that subrogated health care cost claims automatically

apply to third-party defendants. This means that if a third-party defendant is added

to the lawsuit, government would automatically have the right to pursue a health care

costs claim against that third-party defendant as part of their lawsuit.

At this time, the province still pursues recovery against third-party defendants,

but this is done through independent actions. In other words, the province has to

start a new lawsuit rather than pursuing a claim against a third party as part of

the existing lawsuit. This is costly and time-consuming, and it can’t always be completed

before the required deadlines. This change would assist with cost recovery from third-party

wrongdoers.

The final amendment would explicitly allow the collection of prejudgment interest

under the act. While the Health Care Costs Recovery Act is silent on this issue, B.C.’s

Court Order Interest Act already authorizes the collection of prejudgment interest

on financial claims.

The reason prejudgment interest is collected is to compensate a successful claimant

for being deprived of the money owed to them between the time the claim arose and

the time a judgment is rendered. Clarifying that the collection of prejudgment interest

is allowed under the act will assist with the recovery of health care costs.

I’ll close with a few examples. As I think everyone can tell, this legislation is

quite technical, but a few real-world examples or situations will help to explain

how the amendments could come into effect.

The first example relates to the new amendment around liability waivers. There are

instances where a beneficiary has signed a liability waiver before participating in

an activity, but during said activity, some form of negligence occurs and injures

the person who signed the waiver.

The plaintiff sues because of this, but their claim is at risk of being dismissed

because they signed that waiver before participating in the event, thereby waiving

their right to sue. Defence counsel could take the position that this waiver also

applies to the province’s claim under the act. This scenario would be addressed by

clarifying that liability waivers do not impact government’s ability to recover health

care costs under the act.

The second example relates to the new amendment regarding WorkSafeBC claims. Let’s

say a worker is hurt after tripping on a sidewalk. They file a WorkSafeBC claim, and

WorkSafeBC pays for part of their medical treatment. However, the worker decides later

to abandon the WorkSafeBC claim and instead sue the municipality.

Since WorkSafeBC paid for some of the initial medical treatment, defence counsel for

the municipality takes the position that the Health Care Costs Recovery Act does not

apply to the lawsuit, since WorkSafeBC funds have been paid. This scenario would be

addressed by tightening the WorkSafeBC exception.

Together these changes will ensure that the province can more fully recover the public

costs of providing health care services to injured beneficiaries, shifting that burden

away from everyday people in our province to where it actually belongs: on the wrongdoers

whose negligence or wrongful acts or omissions contributed to those injuries.

I look forward to the committee stage debate on the bill.

[2:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much to our Minister of Health for beginning our debate today on Bill

9, Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025.

Anna Kindy : Thank you, Minister of Health. Like you say, the Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment

Act is quite complex. It’s not really a medical thing. It’s almost more of an insurance

recovery.

Looking at why we’re doing this, first of all, and potential unintended consequences

of bills when they move forward…. In the context where this bill is brought forward,

we’re talking about a $40 billion industry. I think in ’23-24, the health care costs

recovery collected just over $6 million. I’m not sure if that was a net recovery,

if we took into account the cost of actually applying this act. It would be something

to clarify, I think, in terms of how much we’re actually collecting and how much it

will cost to implement, if we collected so little, as well as if there was a variation,

from year to year.

Looking at the bill itself, I can see the reasoning behind it. There are many instances

where a person that is liable is insured, and why not go after the insurance company

for the cost, since we need the money in health care? Looking at that, as well, when

we’re going after an insurance company, that also means that the company will have

to increase its cost to the consumer. Insurance costs go up, and who ultimately pays

is the consumer. So is it actually cost saving, in terms of our own taxes as a layperson?

That would be my thought there.

The other thing, which I find a little bit concerning is the clause regarding the

liability of uninsured people. I’m just wondering where the government is thinking

that the money will come from if an outfit is uninsured. I can give examples of maybe

a small outfit — again, we’re not looking at big corporations — say a tree-planting

outfit, where the company isn’t big enough to actually warrant getting insurance,

or they’re running without insurance. I was wondering what the liability of the small

operator would be in that case.

The other, I think, very concerning thing for myself is the waived liability. That

can go from small operator to little operator. Waived liability. For example, if you’ve

got a helicopter skiing outfit and you sign the liability, what does it mean? Why

even bother getting a waived liability if there’s going to be a recouping of cost?

The other thing that you have to consider in there is…. I’m a bit confused, I think,

myself, in terms of the cost to MSP and hospital.

The person that’s injured, is it over…? Can you access that for over six months? If

a person was injured — let’s say they have a spinal cord injury — and that’s an ongoing

medical cost, does that mean that the liable person is liable for the ongoing cost?

That can be…. We’re talking millions and millions over years and years. That seems,

again, that it would increase the cost of insurance dramatically. I’m wondering, again

thinking of smaller outfits, how much the cost of insurance would be at that point.

There are many unknowns with this. I think it would be interesting to actually look,

again, back as to why we’re doing it. In the context of a truly ballooning bureaucracy

in every aspect of government but especially health care, the cost of more lawyers….

Nothing comes for free. Every lawyer is multiple hundreds of dollars per hour. If

we’re looking at the recovery in ’23 and ’24, which was $6 million, I’d be very interested

to know what the actual legal cost was.

[2:55 p.m.]

We also have to put into that not just the legal costs but the cost of people involved

in the paperwork of the whole thing, in terms of accessing the medical records, all

the multiple layers of implementing this. At the end of the line, do we actually end

up with enough significant money that it’s worthwhile?

I’ll come back again to the…. I think the part that we really need to focus on is

the uninsured defendant. Because this, I think, opens it up dramatically to the, again,

smaller outfitters.

The other thing that I find a bit concerning is the fact that if the person injured

agrees not to sue, the government can come in and waive what the injured person, and

even his lawyer, has said and override that decision and go after the moneys for health

care. I find that a little bit concerning, the government-knows-best approach here

as well.

It comes to a scenario where if you have a very small outfit, let’s say you go…. I’m

just taking it out of the blue here. You’re going hunting with a known hunting outfitter,

but he’s your buddy. He goes out, and you get injured significantly. The buddy says:

“I know it’s your fault, but I am not going to sue you because we’re buddies.” The

government can then decide that they can go after his buddy. I find that’s an overreach

from government.

Again, we have to look at the small outfitter and the reality of the unintended consequences

that can happen.

The other thing that also, to me, is very concerning is the privacy issue. It seems

the government, once again, can get records and information without necessarily your

consent. From my background, medical records are private. Sometimes, for one reason

or another, somebody who is injured does not want the government to access their medical

file.

Again, when a government accesses your medical file, you have to remember it’s more

than one person that accesses it. So it means that a whole level of bureaucracy has

the ability to look at your medical file. I find that there’s a big privacy issue.

The other thing which I find and am going to go back to, as well, is that this doesn’t

seem to be…. I’ll just read here. The government can recover past and future costs

whenever and however many times as the minister deems necessary.

I want to apologize to the Minister of Health for saying this comment, but I think,

being in politics, the minister doesn’t necessarily have the knowledge. I mean, potentially

every four years we have a different minister. For a minister to decide that they

deem it necessary…. I think it’s giving too much power to one person to be able to

do….

It’s a bit like, I recall, the HPOA Act, the Health Professions and Occupations Act,

where the minister can, by opinion only, change things. I think I read that in that

act at least 40 times. I think, again, to me, when I see that, it rings a red bell

that one person can suddenly deem something necessary, and it can become a non-ending

thing.

I think we also have to think of the stress imposed on the little outfit when there’s

no off-ramp. Some injuries can be, like I had mentioned before, lifelong, and if you

happen to be uninsured, to have that lifelong stress of being liable for the cost

of health care, which we all know is extremely expensive…. It can be millions and

millions of dollars over a lifetime if someone is injured severely.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m just wondering how that uninsured person will deal with that stress. I can see

some bad outcomes there — I’ll just put it that way — and again, unintended consequences.

The other unintended consequence is.… Being from a rural area, there are many smaller

outfits that work without getting insurance. It’s not something that everybody thinks

about, especially if they’ve been running for a few years and they have very few employees,

and their employees sometimes can be family members or close friends. Suddenly something

happens, and the government can swoop in and go after these little people. I call

them little people, meaning people that aren’t in big corporations.

So I think this bill, in a sense, has quite a few unintended consequences that I think

need to be discussed. I think the minutiae of the cost of implementing it…. Because

it can look good on paper. By the time you’re done, what is the net profit to the

whole health care system? And is it actually making a difference?

Sometimes we actually think we’re making money, but I would argue if it was $6 million

for ’23-24, and we’re talking all of B.C., with the Health Care Costs Recovery Act….

One whole act for an entire province, and that’s all we got. I just was wondering

how many hours of time lawyers spent in court.

We have to remember that there’s a cost, as well, to the other side. That cost to

the other side indirectly impacts people on the ground, meaning that insurance costs

go up, and when you’re planning to do, let’s say, a trip where there is insurance,

that trip is going to cost you more because the cost of insurance to the provider

is more. Those are all sort of unintended consequences.

To me, if you bring forward a bill, it has to make sense. There has to be a purpose.

I think with this, hopefully the government and the Minister of Health can provide

us actual data as to numbers of cases that were…. I’ll go back to ’23-24. So $6 million.

The number of people that the government actually went after, insured people, and

how much the cost was. How many hours and what the result was in terms of net income

to the government.

So overall, I think the intent is good. I think to have health care insurance is good.

If you look around the world…. In terms of health care insurance, if you look around

OECD countries, they allow multiple insurance providers for health care. People get

insurance, and that seems to bring in money, as well, to the government that can’t

provide complete access for health care. So it provides a different way of….

I think this bill, in a way, makes sense that it pushes people — like WCB, for example.

WCB is, in a sense, a private insurance for workers. Because workers have private

insurance, they can access care more easily than the average Joe.

So the intent, I think, is good, that potentially we get more money coming into the

whole health care system. But again, we have to truly look at all the potential unintended

consequences.

Looking at it again, just to make sure I don’t miss anything here.

It would be good, as well, in terms of the uninsured defendant, before we proceed

maybe, to know how many potential impacted people there would be in British Columbia

in that situation.

If this bill passes and becomes

an act, some people will not know that it’s actually

passed. Not everybody reads a newspaper, and I would probably argue that a lot of

those small outfitters would not even be aware that it had passed.

[3:05 p.m.]

They might be taken by surprise, where they had a bad outcome in whatever it can be

— a trip, or if they had, like I said, a small tree-planting business — and somebody

was injured, and they were not aware that this had passed.

There has to be some consideration as well, and I think, without knowing how many

people are actually employed in a situation where there would be impact and uninsured….

Insured isn’t as much of an issue, right? If you’re insured, the insurance company….

Again, there will be an indirect cost to society. Nothing comes for free.

When we say, “We’re going to actually bring money into health care,” well, are we

really? Again, if you have to pay more for some of the things you do, you could be

paying directly to health care, or the cost goes up in, let’s say, your recreation,

and it funnels back into the coffer.

What I’m trying to say here is: with net revenue, does it actually increase it to

the Joe Blow average? I argue that it might not.

That’s sort of the gist of what I’m trying to say here, and I’ll let it be.

Jeremy Valeriote : I’ll just start off by saying I’m a big proponent of virtual meetings, some of the

avoided travel, emissions and the like. I’m still getting used to virtual attendance

to this House. I have to say I don’t really enjoy it; I’m looking forward to being

there in person tomorrow. It does seem to encourage brevity. So I’m going to honour

that today.

The Third Party caucus supports the B.C. government, on behalf of the taxpayers, recovering

the cost of health care services to British Columbians as a result of, as has been

discussed, wrongdoers, malpractice or lack of full disclosure.

We see these proposed amendments as intended to plug holes in the legislation that

have become apparent since 2009. They’re supported by both myself and my colleague

the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the House Leader of the Third Party.

To repeat what’s been discussed, they’re adding a definition of “uninsured defendant,”

a clarification for waiver of liability and additional requirements for notification

and information-sharing.

We understand these changes will also streamline and speed up court proceedings and

settlements through greater clarity in the legislation. This is a big benefit, not

only to patients and victims but also to the system as a whole and all its associated

costs and impacts — one place where we believe streamlining to be a big advantage.

This bill also speaks to one of the core responsibilities of government, which is

fairness. It’s something we’ll be discussing all week: the concept and the principle

of fairness. It’s part of a suite of measures that collectively make sure that wrongdoing

does not damage a person’s life beyond repair. It goes even further by making sure

that it isn’t taxpayers who are responsible for these costs but, rather, the negligent

party.

This amendment clarifies the rights and responsibilities of both defendants and beneficiaries,

reducing the risk of legal challenge and helping everyone understand what they’re

entitled to and what their responsibilities are. We applaud the amendments to make

clear requirements around notification and information-sharing, and we look forward

to getting into the details in committee stage debate.

Susie Chant : Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 9, the Health Care Costs Recovery

Act today, a bill which continues to support our government’s efforts to ensure every

dollar spent lands where it should. Conversely, if monies should be returned to the

government, they need to be able to be effectively collected.

Before I start speaking on Bill 9, I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking

on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and the Esquimalt.

As well, I acknowledge the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations, on whose unceded land my riding and home of North Vancouver–Seymour are

found.

As always, I am grateful for the stewardship of land, water and air that these and

other nations continue to practise.

[3:10 p.m.]

This bill is being put forward in order to support a greater recovery of health care

costs generated through the actions of wrongdoers, wrongdoers who have acted in such

a way as to result in others needing to access our public health care system. These

costs should be shouldered by those who create the injury or illness, not by the provincial

taxpayer.

In 2009, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought into being. The act allowed

government to recover the costs of health care services provided to the Medical Services

Plan, known as MSP, beneficiaries that were injured or who have died due to the negligence

of a wrongdoer. The changes being brought forward now will ensure that the government

can collect a greater range of those costs, relieving the taxpayers of that burden.

Overall, the initial iteration of the act was successful, with annual recoveries that

varied. As you heard, in the ’23-24 year, about $6.6 million was recouped, monies

which are beneficial to the people of B.C., in spite of what was said across the aisle.

To me, $6 million can be used in a lot of places. At the moment, though, recovering

health care costs to the fullest extent possible remains outstanding, related to some

aspects of the act of 2009.

The current health care recovery act aims to address those areas in a number of ways

— first off, through narrowing the circumstances in which the act does not apply,

specifically, as an example, because the beneficiary was injured in the course of

their work.

Again, you heard the example that was spoken about earlier, where you have a worker

who damages themselves while they’re at work, carries on with a WorkSafe claim but

then goes on to claim something against the area where they were damaged — in this

case, the municipality.

At that point, the worker then goes on to public pay health care. Of course, the defence

counsel for the municipality would take the position that the Health Care Cost Recovery

Act of 2009 does not apply to that lawsuit, as the WorkSafeBC funds have already been

paid out. However, MSP services have been utilized for either ongoing care and/or

rehab past the extension of the WorkSafe claim.

Let me tell you about care and rehab. I’ve seen people who have wounds that have not

healed. The nurses are in there every third day for an hour at a time — the person

is at home getting care. Sometimes those wounds get infected, and they need home-based

IV. That is a lot of time and a lot of money on the part of the health care system

that is not covered off if their WorkSafe claim has been expired.

Additionally, for rehabilitation, people do a lot of work to achieve rehabilitation.

Sometimes that’s with the public purse, with our occupational therapists going in

and making assessments of what equipment is necessary, with our physiotherapists going

in and setting out a plan or an action that people can follow to achieve a better

level of health.

In this instance, the WorkSafeBC exemption is being tightened to ensure that the costs

of the worker’s health care are recuperated, that the monies that are put into those

nurses, to those clinical staff, to the planning, to that work, come back to the government

from the further claim that the worker makes to the municipality.

Another component included in this bill is to lengthen the window of time during which

a claim can be amended to include a health services claim. An example of this would

be….

For instance, you’ve got a situation where a health authority is being sued for something.

And I can tell you, having been a team leader in a health care environment, people

are angry a lot of the time, and their answer to being angry is to sue. They sue the

nurses, they sue the doctors, and they sue the hospital because they don’t have the

result that they want, that they felt should happen. Sometimes those suits are very,

very legitimate, and other times, maybe not so much.

However, what happens in this case is that sometimes the plaintiff adds another person

to that suit. In this case, for instance, if somebody was suing because they got a

diagnosis very late on, a very late diagnosis, and they sue everybody in the chain

that they feel they should have got that diagnosis from….

[3:15 p.m.]

Later down the line, they go: “Oh, wait a minute. I didn’t talk about this clinician.”

It might be a doctor. It might be a nurse. It might be a specialist of some kind.

And they add that to the claim. In the current state, this gets missed, and any collections

that are made from that claim are not refunded to the province.

What we’re doing at this point is to make sure, first of all, that defendants are

required to notify the province when a third-party defendant is added to the lawsuit.

That allows the province to become aware of this as soon as it happens. This organization

would now be captured in the definition of insurer, would be required to notify the

province of the potential claim and, if needed, provide information and assistance

to the province in recovering health care costs.

This allows for those costs to be recognized, to be part of the whole decision-making

of the courts and for those costs to be recovered. The deadline for the province to

file legal action against the doctor or whoever would now be six months from when

the province receives notice of the third-party claim, so there is no longer a risk

of the province finding out about the claim once a deadline has been passed. So again,

that allows a tightening up of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act to allow moneys

to come in even when time has gone by.

What this does is expand the disclosure obligations for defendants and their insurers.

It also defines very clearly who counts as an insurer under the act to ensure that

self-insured and mutual defence organizations must provide notice to the province

and information that is needed to ensure cost recovery.

The other part of this is clarifying liability waivers. We’ve all signed them. I went

hot air ballooning about three weeks ago, which I probably shouldn’t have been doing.

But never mind. I went up, came down. There were 40 other balloons. It was beautiful.

It was like being in a jigsaw puzzle. Sorry. I digress.

I did my bit, read the waiver, went, you know: “La, la, la.” I signed everything.

The reality is if that hot air balloon goes down because of negligence, because of

something that wasn’t done, I still have the capacity to sue. When that happens, people

don’t realize it a lot of the time. The waivers are waved about, and this protects

the company or whatever.

If there is negligence involved, there still needs to be some response. So this clarifies

the effect of liability waivers. Now, we sign liability waivers all the time. When

we go skiing, you know, we sign something. It’s all that small printing on your ski

pass. Do you see those lines and lines and lines of small printing? Those are a liability

a lot of the time. It tells you what they won’t cover, like when you ski out of bounds.

The other thing is that the province needs to now be notified when a third-party defendant

is added to the legal proceedings. It automatically includes health care cost claims

against the third-party defendant when this happens so that those claims are included

when that defendant is added, not that they are discarded because, “Oh, well, WCB

was involved originally,” or for some other reason.

The limitation periods will be extended to ensure that the province has time to begin

legal proceedings after being informed of a claim, and prejudgment interest can be

collected from defendants. Well, again, if it goes a long time, things to think about.

As you would be aware, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act does not apply to motor

vehicle accidents where a wrongdoer is insured by ICBC, to opioid- or tobacco-related

wrongs or to injuries in the course of the work if the beneficiary is entitled to

compensation through WorkSafeBC, because these situations are addressed through other

legislation.

So how does it help the people in British Columbia? Well, let’s think about that.

It helps people in B.C. to avoid costs due to the negligence and wilful acts or omissions

on the part of others. So when somebody does something wrong, and it results in somebody

being hurt or damaged or getting ill or dying, there is somewhere to go. Wrongdoers

will be held accountable.

[3:20 p.m.]

It will help reduce costs in our health care system writ large. The amendments also

put the burden of paying for these health care costs on the wrongdoer instead of on

the taxpayers, basically ensuring that those who commit the wrongdoing and not the

taxpayers pay for health care costs for the impacted individuals.

There were a variety of the ministries involved in discussing this and making sure

that it was tight. That included the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as well as Finance, Labour, WorkSafeBC,

B.C. Financial Services, and the courts were also consulted in the creation of this.

Who will be affected by these changes? They’re pretty much going to affect third-party

defendants who are added to legal proceedings under the act; uninsured defendants,

to speak to the opposition’s concern; insurers for defendants under the act; and legal

counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants involved in legal proceedings under the

act.

To speak to my colleague across the aisle’s concerns, everybody has got to know. Everybody

has got to know about these changes, has to pay attention to these changes and include

them in their planning.

Self-insured organizations will also be affected, organizations that are insured by

a subsidiary or a partner. Mutual defence organizations will also be affected to the

extent that they will insure wrongdoers in legal proceedings under the act as they

will now be considered insurers for the purpose of the act.

These amendments are intended to address gaps in the current legislation as opposed

to creating major additional obligations for insurance companies. The increased administrative

burden for insurers is expected to be relatively minor as it will only impact a small

number of claims, mostly relating to waiver issues and to notice requirements.

Overall, this act should prove beneficial in terms of making sure that health care

costs, which we know are significant, in the state where they are brought on by wrongdoing,

are able to be collected and are considered as things go through the courts.

Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity.

Brennan Day : It’s great to see everybody back after the summer. I hope everybody is well rested.

I think it’s going to be a fairly exciting fall.

I rise to speak to Bill 9, the Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025. While

this bill looks very technical on the page, it does adjust some serious

definitions,

adds notices and lines up powers. But laws don’t always land on paper. They land on

people. They land on families at the kitchen table and on small businesses trying

to make payroll.

My goal today is simple: lay out what this bill is trying to do, ask the practical

questions it raises for the uninsured individuals and small operators that this bill

now affects and underline why this needs a thorough, good-faith debate in committee

so that we make sure we get this right.

At a high level, the principle is easy to support. When a publicly funded health care

system pays for care after a negligent act, taxpayers should be made whole. I agree

with that. I don’t think anybody in this room disagrees. The question is not the principle.

The question here is the machinery. Are we building a system that collects fairly,

proportionately and in a way that people can actually navigate, or are we setting

up traps and timelines that will push ordinary people into a process they don’t understand

and can’t afford?

So what actually changes here.

First, the bill seems to create a new category, the uninsured defendant. That’s any

person who has been served with a claim and doesn’t have insurance responding to that

particular allegation. Once you’re in that bucket, a hard 60-day clock starts. Within

60 days of being served, you need to notify the Minister of Health that you’ve been

sued. There’s a form to fill out. Miss the deadline, and the government can go to

court to order compliance and seek costs. The same enforcement tools that apply to

insurers now apply under this act to uninsured individuals.

This is a very new definition. What prompted it? We know this government is struggling

with balancing budgets, and I’m very, very curious to know what the actual impact

on our budget will be by adding substantial new regulations and probably growing the

bureaucracy.

[3:25 p.m.]

Second, the bill changes the choreography of a lawsuit. If you bring in a third party,

say, a landlord, a contractor, or another responsible actor, you have to notify the

province within 21 days of filing that third-party claim. That notice automatically

engages a health care cost claim against the third party. This will change the strategy,

timeline and settlement on these claims.

Third, the bill frames the government’s right as subrogation. That sounds like lawyer

talk, but it matters who gets paid first, how releases are worded, and what happens

if a plaintiff has signed something thinking that that would close the door, such

as a settlement outside the courts.

Fourth, the amendment window expands. The old six-month cap to amend pleadings to

add health care claims are gone. Courts can allow late amendments even well into the

life of a file. That can be useful as injuries evolve, as they tend to, as the member

opposite noted. It also increases leverage later in the case.

Fifth, timelines and dollars move. The bill enables prejudgment interest on the health

care portion and ties limitation triggers to the new notices. That changes the math

inside settlement rooms quite dramatically.

That’s the frame. Let’s throw some siding on it to make this understandable, because

for many people this will not feel like a tidy system. This is going to feel like

a bit of a gauntlet.

If someone in our province is served with a claim in a slip and fall, a recreational

accident, a product matter or an assault where no policy responds, they’re suddenly

on a 60-day clock. They must produce records and information on tight timelines and

cooperate with people assisting the province in recovering health care costs. If they

file a third-party claim, they have 21 days to notify the province. If they miss any

step, government can seek court order and costs.

In a law office, those steps are routine. For a self-represented person or a two-person

small business, this may be overwhelming. Let me ground this in a tragedy close to

home. In my riding, just recently, a bicyclist collided with a pedestrian, an NIC

student who was walking home after his shift. The impact was catastrophic. He spent

days in intensive care and later died of his injuries. The community grieved, and

his family is still grieving. It’s difficult to even speak about this in the chamber

because beyond the legal frameworks, there was a young life cut short.

What impact will this have in cases like this? Will we all be expected to carry full-liability

walking-around insurance just to leave the house? Will we need to consider insuring

bicyclists in cases of liability? What impact is this going to have on small business

insurance premiums trying to protect against those questions?

Why do we raise this? Because it forces very practical questions this bill will have

to answer. In an incident like that, who has coverage and who doesn’t? A cyclist may

or may not carry any personal liability insurance. Most do not. A pedestrian typically

doesn’t have a policy that covers somebody else’s negligence.

If coverage is uncertain, the person alleged to have caused the harm becomes an uninsured

defendant under this bill. The 60-day clock starts. Does that person even know a clock

has started? How would they? If they don’t know, how can they fix it after the fact?

Should there be a grace period where there’s no prejudice? Could we make a dead-simple

online form that takes five minutes on the phone to fill out, with a plain-language

explainer: “If you’ve been served with a claim and don’t have insurance, start here”?

If we want compliance, are we making it easy enough to comply?

What happens next? Government will ask for records. How broad is that meant to be?

Are we talking about a tight list tied to health care costs, medical invoices, treatment

dates, provider details, or does this sprawl into general medical history, employment

requests are proportionate to what’s actually in dispute?

Could every request come with plain-language guidance about privilege, about what

not to send and a one-page extension form? If a person sends too much, what protects

their privacy? If they send too little, do we jump straight to court, or do we allow

a quick do-over with guidance? I think we all know it’s extremely difficult and it

takes considerable time to get information from the health authorities, and that’s

something that needs to be considered within these timelines.

Think about a small business. A café owner gets sued for a slip at the doorway. The

insurer is still investigating an exclusion, so coverage is unclear. For now, that

owner is considered uninsured. They’re making coffee at 6 a.m., doing payroll at 10

p.m., and in between, they need to read legal letters, calculate deadlines and upload

records.

Are we structuring timelines so a two-person shop isn’t set up to fail? Could we let

them batch responses on a

schedule that fits their actual reality? If they hire a

lawyer for an hour to make sure they get this right, will that be reimbursed promptly,

or will they have to wait for months?

[3:30 p.m.]

The bill says reasonable and necessary costs can be reimbursed. Reasonable to whom?

Necessary in what sense? What does that mean for a small operator who simply needs

one hour of legal advice?

How about a dog owner out for a walk with their beloved dog on Crown land? A child,

uninvited, reaches out to pet the dog and gets a bite that needs stitches. Both parties

decide not to sue, but does this now open it up for the government to go after the

dog to recover those medical costs?

These are all things that we need to discuss to make sure that it is very clear who

will be affected. There are many such cases where individuals decide not to pursue

a remedy through the courts — maybe your neighbour, family or friend.

Do these changes turn the government into a vexatious litigant in cases, to try and

drum up the amounts being recovered? Is there a cost cap on government? Is it $100

or $100,000? Will they chase every single dollar, in the hope that the cost to recover

is outweighed by the amount recovered, and damn the bureaucracy that that may create?

Back to the NIC tragedy. Imagine the families on both sides — one family grieving

a loss no one should have to bear, and another family suddenly at the centre of a

legal process they do not understand.

If a third-party claim is filed, perhaps against a property owner, maintenance contractor

or another actor, does that automatically bring a health care claim against the third

party into play? This needs to be made clear. Could we provide a simple checklist

so people don’t miss the trigger? Could the province commit to a service standard

so that once it is in the loop, the file doesn’t stall for months? We know that the

courts are significantly backed up.

Settlements raise even more questions. If parties settle but don’t clearly set out

the portion that is for publicly funded health care, interest might be claimed from

the date of the accident. Is that what we want? Would it be better to let parties

request a quick estimate of the health care costs from the province and then start

interest from the day that the estimate is provided or from when it is unreasonably

withheld after proper notice?

Would that approach encourage cleaner paperwork and fewer fights after the fact? Could

that be written into this statute so that everybody knows the rules before they sit

down to settle?

Do we think that 60 days is realistic? The amendment window has been lengthened by

removing the old six-month cap. That flexibility can help government capture legitimate

claims that surface late, but is there a point where flexibility becomes moving goalposts

for defendants trying to budget, keep a business afloat or plan a household? Should

courts be asked to weigh prejudice and timing more explicitly when late amendments

are sought? Is there a way to guide that discretion so that parties know what to expect?

Coverage disputes happen all the time. While coverage is being sorted out, the individual

carries the duties. If coverage is later confirmed under a personal policy, a reciprocal

or a captive, how quickly do duties and reimbursements shift to the insurer? Can we

make that handoff automatic once coverage is acknowledged? Could we require the province

to update its demand letters to the party within a set number of days so that individuals

or small businesses aren’t left carrying a file that no longer belongs to them?

The bill also sits alongside other regimes. So what is the interface with the Workers

Compensation Act? It matters at the edges. Do we risk duplication through this act

or conflicting duties? Can we spell out a clean handoff so that people aren’t bounced

around between the systems? Anybody that has had the experience of navigating WorkSafeBC

understands that it’s not the easiest department to deal with.

I want to talk money. This actually matters in this case, because it seems, at least

at face value, that this is about buffering the coffers and reducing the government’s

burden. We’re told that the program recovered about $6.6 million last year, certainly

not a small sum of money. That’s real money, and it should certainly go back into

care, but revenue is not profit.

What did it cost to recover that $6.6 million under the current system? What does

the government project that it will change to, not gross but net? How much bureaucracy

will be created for every additional dollar that is recovered under this new system?

Are we actually making money at $6.6 million, or are we simply employing lawyers in

back rooms to sort through the details?

We would need to see a three-year trend line for gross and net so that we’d know whether

we’re building an efficient machine or just a busy one. This government certainly

seems to build extremely busy machines, but efficiency, certainly, does not seem to

be its strong suit.

[3:35 p.m.]

Enforcement raises fairness questions. When has it the right to go to court for an

order — only after clear non-response and a second chance, or the day after a deadline

is missed? Should the act require a warning letter before court, especially for self-represented

people? Would that cut down on unnecessary applications and costs on both sides?

For fairness and efficiency, should we consider limited-scope duty counsel? Even a

30-minute appointment to review a request and draft a response could prevent significant

mistakes, protect privacy and save considerable court time, which is in short supply

these days. Could we fund a small panel for this purpose? Would that panel pay for

itself by reducing needless litigation?

I’ll go into transparency. Would an annual report help? The number of insured notices,

number of third-party notices, number of enforcement applications, average time to

resolution, amounts recovered and costs to recover, indemnities paid and how often

requests were narrowed for proportionality — if we published these figures, could

we tune the system with evidence rather than anecdotes? Could we commit to bringing

those numbers back to this House each year?

Transparency should be top of mind when we’re talking about a system that is being

built to promote efficiency and cost recovery. Building a system for systems’ sake

is certainly in nobody’s interest.

Let me return to the example from my community, because it exposes the human side

of this law. In that collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the immediate response

was certainly heroic. The costs to the system were significant. The costs to the family

are beyond calculation.

If negligence is found, the public should be repaid for care, but how do we do that

without turning one grieving family into a case management office? What does that

cooperation look like for somebody who is working two jobs, doesn’t have a lawyer

and is still processing trauma? Could the province adopt a help-first approach?

Could we write proportionality directly into the statute so that the scope of requests

must fit with the issues and the dollars that are at stake? Could we state, in black

and white, that privileged materials are off-limits and that privacy is not an afterthought?

We also need to consider small businesses, as liability waivers have certainly been

brought up here. What will be the impact to insurance on small businesses, which will

be passed along to consumers that certainly cannot afford increases? Think about a

local gym, rink, pub or café that might get pulled into a third-party claim after

an incident in a shared space. Some of these businesses already run on razor-thin

margins. If they get a government request for records with a two-week deadline during

their busy season, what then?

Could we allow batching, reasonable schedules and published service standards on the

government side too? If the province expects records in 30 days, could we commit the

same on the other side? People need to know if they will be made whole before they

spend money that they just simply do not have.

Another practical question is on settlements. If we want clean settlements with clear

allocations for health care costs, could we provide a template clause or a standard

form request to the province for a quick estimate? Could we say that the interest

on the health care portion starts when the estimate is provided or when it is unreasonably

withheld after proper notice? That encourages timely, fair allocations, reduces disputes

and saves court time.

On the amendment window, now that courts can allow late additions of health care claims,

should we give judges factors to consider — length of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice

to the other side, impact on trial dates? All of that clarity would help both sides

plan, reduce ambushes and speed up the process.

Coverage limbo needs a clean fix. If an insurer, reciprocal or captive, later accepts

coverage, could the duties and reimbursement shift automatically as of the date of

acceptance, with the province required to redirect correspondence within a fixed number

of days? That would certainly protect individuals who acted in good faith while the

grownups figured out who was actually at risk.

Here’s where I land. The principle of Bill 9 is certainly sound. The taxpayers should

be repaid when the public system pays for harm caused by private negligence. The execution

is what we have to get right. I propose we take this bill to committee with an open

mind and a practical list.

I will ask, first, why did the government pick now for this change? It certainly seems

driven by financing rather than efficiency. Could we build in a real grace period

around the 60 days’ notice, accepting substantial compliance up to 90 days when there

is no prejudice, with a simple online form that actually works? Could we require plain-language

guidance with every request, including a one-page extension form and clear explanation

of privilege and privacy? There are many other issues that will need to get sorted

out at the committee stage.

[3:40 p.m.]

People in Courtenay and Comox expect two things. They expect us to recover public

dollars when private negligence imposes costs on the system. They also expect us to

do it in a way that is clear, proportionate and humane.

The family of that NIC student deserves a system that honours their loss and recovers

public costs without subjecting the family to an unavoidable bureaucratic ordeal.

The small business owner on 5th Street deserves a process they can actually follow

while they keep their doors open.

Bill 9 strengthens recovery. Done right, it could protect the public purse while respecting

due process. Done without guardrails, it can pile risk and cost on the people least

equipped to carry them.

I’m ready to send this to committee with a clear invitation. Let’s hammer in the guardrails,

answer the honest questions and design a system that collects what is owed without

grinding down the people that can least afford it. If we want compliance, let’s design

for it. If we want fairness, let’s write it in. If we want trust, let’s earn it through

clear rules, practical support and public reporting. Let’s make sure we’re protecting

the little guys from the potential abuses of these changes.

We want to increase tax dollars recovered, but we have to make sure that the juice

is worth the squeeze and not merely an employment exercise for legal professionals.

That’s how we protect taxpayers and keep faith with our constituents. That’s how we

honour both sides of the ledger, dollars and dignity, and how we make sure that a

law that looks tidy on paper actually works in the lives of British Columbians.

I am very much looking forward to a thorough investigation at the committee stage

so that we can ensure we are protecting the public purse as well as the little guys

from what I see to be serious, unintended consequences for individuals and small businesses.

Deputy Speaker : I know it’s the first day here, but just a reminder to all members that we shouldn’t

be consuming any kind of food in the House or online.

Stephanie Higginson : I rise to speak in support of Bill 9, the health care recovery act, which is quite

technical in nature, I will say. I agree with the statements so far. The current act

was implemented in 2009, and it’s clear through experience that it is time for an

update for this act. The act has largely been successful, and as we’ve heard, recoveries,

year to year, vary, but this past year it was around $6.6 million that was recovered.

Some aspects of the current act prevent the government from recovering health care

costs to the fullest extent, and it’s time for us to make sure that we can address

those gaps. These amendments will allow the government to recover the costs of health

care services of those who have been injured due to negligence. This means shifting

the burden from the taxpayer to the wrongdoer. This bill also allows us to lengthen

the window that a claim can be amended, and it expands the disclosure obligations

for defendants and insurers.

The one part of this bill that really speaks to me, that I’m going to focus on when

I talk today — I won’t talk for very long, I promise — is to clarify the effect of

liability waivers. Folks in this room, some of you may or may not know — I talk about

it a lot because I’m a proud mom — that I’m a sports mom. My child is a high-performance

athlete who plays a collision sport.

As a parent, I accept the risk of that sport. My child accepts the risk of that sport.

As a parent, I do everything I can to protect my child from the risks of those sports.

Financially, we are paying for the best equipment, the most up-to-date safety equipment,

and making sure that he goes out onto that lacrosse box or out onto the field safe

and protected. We do our part. Sometimes this sport actually takes us to other countries,

where the cost of health care recovery can be even greater.

[3:45 p.m.]

In doing our part, I expect that everybody involved is doing their part. But too often

I have seen young athletes critically injured with life-altering injuries and parents

unable to recover the cost despite doing their part, because people hide behind liability

waivers. Not only do they hide behind the liability waivers; they use those liability

waivers as a reason not to do their part.

This act allows us to put the responsibility and the burden on people who are putting

on these activities that may be detrimental and may be harmful and to make sure that

they can’t hide behind a complicated liability waiver and that they are doing their

part to protect people.

Wilful omissions are often a result of people hiding behind a liability waiver, and

this act allows us to address that. In doing so, we’ll have, actually, I think, the

unintended consequence of creating an even more safe environment, because people will

know that they can no longer hide behind a liability waiver.

I have heard a lot of concerns from the members opposite, and I think that some of

them are valid concerns. I think that’s exactly what the committee stage is meant

to do. It’s meant for us to take the broad act, hammer out the concerns and make sure

that we create something that is representative of British Columbians and the concerns

that people have.

I think some of the concerns we’ve heard speak more about how the members opposite

would govern rather than the validity of these amendments, but that’s for committee

stage.

My hope is that we will be able to move the health care recovery act to the committee

stage to ensure the smooth enactment of long-overdue amendments so that we can take

the cost of these wilful omissions off of the taxpayer and put them on the people

who should be responsible for them.

Deputy Speaker : For those of you joining us, we are debating Bill 9 this afternoon.

We will now call on the member for Abbotsford South.

Bruce Banman : Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for that splattering of applause from across the aisle. I appreciate it

very much. That was heartfelt.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I was trying to start the wave.

Bruce Banman : Thank you for trying to start a wave. There were a whole bunch of waves, actually,

on the front lawns. I hope you saw a few of them.

It is always an honour to speak in this House. It’s a privilege, and it’s one that

I don’t take lightly.

I think the goal of this House should be to improve a bill. As the member that just

spoke rightfully said, there were some points that were made on this side of the House,

and I agree that she also made some points as well. This is, after all, the taxpayers’

dollar.

I was a health care practitioner. I was a chiropractor. It always used to drive me

nuts when people said: “How many free visits do I get?” or “Health care is free.”

It’s far from free. Let’s go over a couple of statistics on that. Of the 34 advanced

economies in the world, currently Canada ranks, I believe, No. 6 or No. 8, but let’s

just go with the top ten for cost per capita.

It’s refreshing to see the NDP, for a change, actually talk about the taxpayer and

the burden that the taxpayer has on their back. There is only one wallet — it doesn’t

matter what level of government — and that is each individual taxpayer. So I applaud

them for what appears to be an about-face, where they’re actually considering the

burden upon the taxpayer for a change.

I hope that this is a trend that continues, and I suspect it is because this side

of the House has been relentless at pointing out that often they forget about the

actual taxpayer.

Now, as I said, I had a health care practice. I find some things that are interesting.

The devil is always in the details of what we want to do here.

[3:50 p.m.]

This side of the House, unless there is a monumental change in opinion, plans on pushing

this forward to committee stage so that we can actually ask some hard questions and

perhaps put some amendments on the floor that I hope this government, if they’re truly

concerned about the taxpayer, will take into consideration.

That’s how this House is supposed to work. Sadly, far too often it does not, wh