First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 84

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

Scott McInnis

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act

George Anderson

Members’ Statements

Fort Langley Cranberry Festival

Misty Van Popta

Cowichan Urgent and Primary Care Centre

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

Small Business Week

Gavin Dew

T’Sou-ke Nation Community Complex and Health Centre

Dana Lajeunesse

Chase De Balinhard

Macklin McCall

Toronto Blue Jays

Garry Begg

Oral Questions

Forest Industry Conditions and Trade Issues

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Education Funding and Staffing

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Lisa Beare

Student and Family Affordability Fund Replacement

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Lisa Beare

Health Worker Vaccination Policies

Tara Armstrong

Hon. David Eby

Hon. Josie Osborne

Forest Industry Conditions and Support for Forest Workers

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Community Safety Issues in Prince George

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Nina Krieger

Government Action on Issues

Bruce Banman

Hon. David Eby

Petitions

Jody Toor

Scott McInnis

Lorne Doerkson

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Kiel Giddens

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Macklin McCall

Hon. Nina Krieger

Hon Chan

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Jessie Sunner.

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis : I’ve been wrongfully accused in the past of embarrassing my family, so I’m going

to try really hard not to do that today.

My lovely niece Emily is here from UVic, where she studies museum studies and history.

She’s at the aviation club. We’re really proud of her. I’m just so glad that she’s

here today.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

[10:05 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : In the House today, I’d like us to welcome the Family Resource Programs of B.C. board.

We have Heather Jo, the chair, and the entire board — Tara, Dana, Tim, Chantille,

Katrina, Casey, Aaron and Delanie.

Family Resource Programs are near and dear to my heart. They are crucial community

hubs that provide support for families and play-based learning for children. I remember

that when my kiddos were little, I would walk in and meet other families and just

get connection and the support I needed. They’re crucial in our communities. I’m so

grateful that you’re here. I’m looking forward to meeting with you later.

Will the House join me in welcoming them.

Anna Kindy : It is my honour to introduce to the House Nora and John Koury, lifelong partners

who have lived and raised a family in the beautiful Cowichan Valley for over 30 years.

Nora and John are well known in the Cowichan Valley for their public service to families

and to the pillars of democracy.

Nora received her degree in nursing from the University of Calgary. She began her

nursing career on Vancouver Island and has served as a registered nurse in B.C. for

over 35 years. Tonight Island Health will award Nora with her 30-year service recognition

pin, a testament to her dedication, compassion and long-standing commitment to the

well-being of others. Over the decades, she has cared for thousands of families in

the Cowichan Valley, first at Cowichan Lodge and since 2008 as a hospital liaison

nurse at Cowichan District Hospital.

John is an integral member of our Conservative caucus staff here in the Legislature

and has served in public life both locally and nationally for more than 30 years.

He has run in eight elections on Vancouver Island, including twice as the federal

Conservative candidate and most recently in 2024 as our candidate in Cowichan Valley.

John is a former two-term councillor for the municipality of North Cowichan.

Thank you, John and Nora.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I’d like to take a moment to welcome some new and returning guests to our Legislature,

joining us all the way from Duncan today.

First is my father-in-law, Darshan, who has recently retired after serving 35 years

working in the Doman Sawmill, which is now Western Forest Products. He continued a

proud family legacy in forestry that began with his father, who worked in the same

mill for over 50 years.

My mother-in-law, Jackie, who has had a dedicated career in the Island Savings union,

is also now retired, although neither of them are really good at retirement, because

they are both working again.

They are also joined by our really good family friends Cathy and Barry Waters, who

have very deep roots in the Cowichan Valley and are partners in the Red Arrow Brewing

Co. in Duncan. Barry also sits on the board of the Cowichan District Hospital Foundation.

I know that despite all of these many accomplishments, their biggest accomplishments

and excitements are their grandchildren that they get to spend so much time with.

I’m so grateful that they’re here today, and they get a very special tour later today

from Keith Baldrey.

If the House will join us in making them feel welcome.

Kristina Loewen : Today I would like to welcome to the gallery some amazing ladies from Starbright

Children’s Development Centre. I got to speak about Starbright Children’s Development

Centre last year in a two-minute statement. It is a non-profit registered charity

that provides early intervention therapies and programs to children zero to school

age.

They have been doing this for a very long time, 59 years in the Central Okanagan.

They are highly trained and skilled. They have 60 staff, and they work with approximately

1,200 to 1,400 children a year.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Rhonda Nelson. She has been the executive director

since 2013. Her career spans a diverse range of roles. She has an incredible list

of her education and her roles. She brings deep appreciation for the passion and dedication

that drives Starbright’s mission to make a meaningful difference. An amazing woman.

Carol Meise, as well, currently serves as the board chair and association president

for Starbright, a role she has embraced with dedication and vision. She was recruited

to Starbright in 2003, following years of impactful advocacy on behalf of parents

and children with invisible disabilities within the school district. In addition to

this work, she’s also had a thriving business in Kelowna for 33 years.

Please join me in welcoming them today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I encourage the Legislature to welcome the B.C. Road Builders to the precinct today.

Collectively, we invite you to come over lunchtime and see the RoadShow trailer that’s

funded through my ministry, where we use federal money to help people that need a

little bit of an extra hand to get into the job market.

The RoadShow…. You can talk with them about bringing it to your school district. They’ll

bring their trailer to your high school. Young people get to test-drive what it is

to be a backhoe operator or a snowplow driver, and right there they can enrol kids

into trades training. It’s brilliant.

We’re grateful to the partnership, and everybody is invited to check out the B.C.

Road Builders RoadShow.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act

George Anderson presented a bill intituled Professional Reliance Act.

George Anderson : I move a bill intituled Professional Reliance Act, of which notice has been given

in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Across British Columbia, local governments, workers and professionals are working

hard to build the homes, infrastructures and communities our province needs. However,

good projects are delayed because qualified, provincially regulated professionals

are required to have their work reviewed multiple times at the local level.

The Professional Reliance Act is a practical solution to this problem. It allows local

governments to accept certified work from professionals — engineers, architects and

others regulated under the Professional Governance Act — so that projects can move

forward faster without sacrificing safety, quality or accountability.

This legislation strengthens local governments by freeing up their staff to focus

on planning, community engagement and long-term vision, while reducing duplication

and cost. For young people, it means more homes coming to market sooner. For families,

it means a better chance to live in the community they love. For local governments,

it means more results and more time to serve people.

At its heart, this bill is about using every tool we have to make housing more attainable.

This bill is about helping build the future of this province together — faster, smarter

and with hope.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of this House after today.

Motion approved.

John Rustad : I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

John Rustad : My guests have arrived. Being that we’re in the season of Diwali celebrations, it’s

great to have guests here from the mandir in Surrey, great individuals that have come

over here to celebrate Vaisakhi and to be here and to witness what’s going on here.

I also just want to, before I introduce them all, highlight in particular Satish Kumar.

Satish has been a community leader, particularly in his fight against extortion. He

has, himself, had extortion threats. His business has been shot at. He has been a

real community leader in bringing together people in Surrey to fight against this,

to raise a level of awareness about this and to fight for the changes that are needed.

Along with Satish, also, are Aman Kumar, Anish Kumar, Amit Vasudev, Madesh Loomba,

Narender Singla Kumar, Raj Veauli, Munish Goel, Abnash Chandel, Sanjeev Kaushal, Vineet

Aggarwal, Pardeep Mahindru, Vinay Sharma, Krishna Singla Devi, Seema Garg, Herpal

Kandota Paul and Ankush Arora.

Will the House please make them all very welcome.

Thank you for coming today.

[10:15 a.m.]

Sunita Dhir : I seek leave to make an introduction as well, please.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir : This morning, we are joined in the gallery by the board members of Shri Lakshmi Narayan

Temple in Surrey along with their president, Mr. Satish Kumar.

I am especially happy to welcome a good friend, Mr. Vinay Sharma, managing partner

at Keyways Mortgage, founder of the Times of Canada news media and a well-known community

leader in Surrey. Vinay plays an active role in the management of the Shri Lakshmi

Narayan Mandir and supports many local initiatives and helps new immigrants and families

find their footing here in B.C.

We’re grateful for all of them to join us in the gallery, and let’s give them all

a very warm welcome.

Members’ Statements

Fort Langley Cranberry Festival

Misty Van Popta : This past October 11 marked a significant milestone in the little village of Fort

Langley, my hometown, the 30th anniversary of the famous Cranberry Festival. Always

held on the Saturday of the Thanksgiving long weekend, it’s a community cornerstone

festival.

Once a little neighbourhood event organized by local community members, in the past

dozen years or so, it has exploded into a regional draw of 30,000 to 50,000 people,

rain or shine. This year’s damper-than-usual weather was no exception. It was still

a packed event rooted in family tradition and an undeniable draw of fresh produce,

flowers, baking and other artisan goods.

My kids and myself have volunteered for the past 15 years, every morning starting

at 6 a.m., doing vendor logistics and setup. But that is just a drop in the bucket

of the hundreds of hours of preparation and organization done by current event lead

Rachelle Cashato and past organization lead Meghan Neufeld. Now it’s a well-oiled

machine of dozens of volunteers and sponsors, and the boost to the local businesses

in the village is enjoyed.

I am sure it is a friendly rivalry between my Richmond colleagues and myself, representing

Fort Langley, as the cranberry capital of B.C. We are very thankful to Ocean Spray

for their yearly contribution and donation of 10,000 pounds of cranberries for this

event.

My fiancé was a first-time attendee this year and commented on how good it was to

even see the mayor volunteer for hours at this event, as he always does. This event

wouldn’t be the same without the community pancake breakfast hosted by the Lions Club,

featuring a once-a-year delicacy and highly coveted Freybe cranberry brat.

If you’ve never been, make sure you block out October 10, 2026, in your calendar and

bring the whole family down for a fantastic day of good fall harvest fun in the township

of Langley.

Cowichan Urgent and Primary

Care Centre

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : It is with great pride that I rise today to mark the opening of the new Cowichan

Urgent and Primary Care Centre, located at 940 Government Street in the heart of Duncan.

This facility represents a significant step forward in our commitment to improve access

to health care for residents across the Cowichan region.

The Cowichan UPCC will provide timely, team-based care seven days a week, offering

both urgent and primary care services, whether it’s for a high fever, a minor injury

or a need for ongoing support. This centre ensures that individuals and families can

receive the care they need when they need it most.

This project is the result of a strong collaboration between Ministry of Health, Island

Health, the Cowichan primary care network, Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan division

of family practice. Together we created a space that is culturally safe, trauma-informed

and designed to meet the growing needs of the community, which I saw last week firsthand.

Once fully staffed, the centre will be home to approximately 30 full-time health professionals,

including family physicians, nurse practitioners, mental health clinicians and support

staff. It’s a sound investment in our region’s health and well-being and a testament

of what we can achieve when we work together.

Thank you to everyone who helped bring this vision to life. The Cowichan UPCC, more

than a building, is a promise of health for all.

[10:20 a.m.]

I also wanted to add a thank-you, since I have 40 seconds left on the clock, to my

surgeon, Dr. Levy, and the staff at the Cowichan District Hospital. I have recovered

fully from my double hip surgery on July 11. It would’ve been sooner. I’ve been suffering

since I was, at 18 years old, diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis. Stubbornness

kept me from getting it done until it was just too much for me.

Thank you to everyone in the health care profession.

HÍSW̱ḴE .

Small Business Week

Gavin Dew : This week we celebrate Small Business Week, a time to recognize the entrepreneurs

who keep our communities and our economy moving.

More British Columbians earn their paycheques from small business than from any other

employer — over 1.1 million people, representing 41 percent of our workforce. In fact,

small business makes up 55 percent of all private sector jobs in our province, the

highest share in Canada.

Starting a small business has always been

an act of optimism, a belief that hard work,

grit and risk-taking can still carve out a better life for people and families. That

spirit is the Canadian dream in action, but right now that dream feels increasingly

out of reach for too many.

Across the province, business owners are facing rising costs, workforce challenges

and heavy regulatory burdens that make it harder to keep the lights on. The CFIB Business Barometer shows that less than half of small business owners feel confident in their immediate

future.

According to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, newly introduced policies have

added more than $6.5 billion in cumulative costs to B.C. businesses, everything from

payroll taxes to wage mandates to new reporting requirements.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce recently reminded us that a thriving economy requires

more than resilience from business owners. It requires a shared commitment to reduce

costs, cut red tape and create the conditions where the entrepreneurial spirit of

British Columbians can come alive.

That is exactly what this week is about: renewing our commitment to the people who

make the spirit of enterprise real, the ones who hire young people, sponsor local

teams and turn ideas into opportunity.

During Small Business Week, let’s do more than just say thank you. Let’s stand shoulder

to shoulder with the people who keep our communities strong, and let’s work together

to save small business and everything it represents.

If we want to keep the Canadian dream alive, we must stand with the small business

people who are still out there building it every single day.

T’Sou-ke Nation Community

Complex and Health Centre

Dana Lajeunesse : One of my most memorable moments of this past summer was being invited to participate

as a witness to the grand opening of the T’Sou-ke Nation’s long-awaited community

complex and health centre on September 15.

This remarkable new facility is much more than a building. It’s a cornerstone of community

life. The spacious hall will host large gatherings and cultural celebrations, while

a fully equipped kitchen offers opportunities for both meal programs and culinary

training.

With several meeting rooms and spaces for community activities, the centre supports

everything from governance to family health services. It brings together the nation’s

administration, children and families, health, and lands and environment departments

under one roof.

The CCHC features brand new doctors’ offices, laboratory space equipped with tools

needed to provide holistic health care. This centre is designed to address the physical,

emotional, spiritual and mental health needs of the community, ensuring that T’Sou-ke

members have a well-equipped space for healing and well-being.

The grand opening was an inspiring day, marked by cultural ceremony, art unveilings,

tours and a shared meal. Among the beautiful artworks revealed was a butterfly-themed

tile mosaic by T’Sou-ke artist Shelley Davies, created alongside more than 20 T’Sou-ke

youth, an inspiring symbol of cultural teaching and the bright future ahead.

[10:25 a.m.]

The T’Sou-ke Nation’s new community complex health centre stands as a testament to

the community’s strength, resilience and vision. It will not only serve as a place

for governance and health but also will be a vibrant heart of culture, learning and

connection for generations to come.

Chase De Balinhard

Macklin McCall : Earlier this year, in February 2025, 15-year-old Surrey teen Chase De Balinhard lost

his life following a standoff with law enforcement.

This is an immense tragedy. A young person with a long life and bright future ahead

was taken from his family and friends far too soon. I stand here to offer my deepest

condolences to Chase’s parents, loved ones and the entire community affected by this

heartbreaking loss.

Chase’s family recently shared a deeply moving letter expressing their gratitude that

his story is being heard in this Legislature. It described Chase as kind, thoughtful

and funny, “a young man with the heart of a philanthropist and the budget of a student.”

Their words remind us that behind every tragic statistic is an individual — a son,

student or friend — and a family whose world has changed forever.

The family also shared their pain of being left in the dark during the ongoing investigation.

While we wait for the outcome, it is vital that the IIO investigation is open, fair

and comprehensive. The people of British Columbia are watching. Chase’s parents deserve

maximum transparency and a clear understanding of exactly what happened to their son.

We must learn from this tragedy not to point fingers but to make sure we do everything

possible to prevent such a tragic loss of life from ever happening again.

Toronto Blue Jays

Garry Begg : The crack of the bat, the roar of the crowd, the song we all know that we sing out

loud. Root, root, root for your ball team. They are the $500 million man and the injured

pending pre–agent shortstop awaiting his payday. They are prized free agent signings,

a 41-year-old future hall-of-famer and a 22-year-old wonder kid who flew up five levels

to be the star in these playoffs.

They are trade acquisitions, minor league free agents, draft picks, an international

sign-up discovered by accident when we were scouting a different player and another

waiver claim. Put them all together: they are Blue Jays.

The Blue Jays are heading for their first World Series since 1993. They completed

an incredible comeback in more than one way last night by defeating the Seattle Mariners

by a 4-3 final in game 7 of the American League Championship Series. They, the Blue

Jays, will host game 1 of the World Series Friday against the mighty defending championship Dodgers.

This is a moment that is much bigger than baseball. It’s bigger than a single team.

My humble submission is that this is a moment for our nation. This is for Canada.

From Vancouver to St. John, from small-town diamonds to packed bars, Canadians everywhere

have watched this team grow, grind and believe. We have seen our players rise to the

moment. We’ve seen our flag fly high in visiting ballparks, and now we see another

dream within reach.

This team didn’t just earn a title. They reminded us of who we are — a country that

doesn’t back down, a people who fight hard, stay humble and never stop believing in

something bigger than ourselves.

The Blue Jays may not be based here, but they represent all of us. This World Series

berth isn’t just a chance to win a trophy. It’s a chance to show the world what the

Canadian heart looks like.

Hold your heads high, wear the maple leaf with pride and know this: Canada is going

to win the World Series. Let’s finish the job.

Go, Jays, go.

[10:30 a.m.]

[Applause.]

Oral Questions

Forest Industry Conditions

and Trade Issues

Ward Stamer : Yesterday in his speech, the Premier said that B.C. mills are slowing down. Well,

I’ve got news for the Premier and the minister. Mills are closing under these broken

promises.

Forest companies have simple demands. Expand the timber-harvesting land base, reduce

policy red tape, improve access to fibre, mandate B.C. Timber Sales to actually achieve

their targets and reset the culture of distrust created by this NDP government.

Will the minister commit to these five simple demands?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question and for his own advocacy

for our forest sector as well.

There is no question in our eyes that British Columbia’s forest sector is going through

many challenges right now. Mills are being squeezed. Workers’ livelihoods are on the

line because of the actions that Donald Trump has taken on our forest sector, 45 percent

duties and tariffs that currently exist on our lumber going down south. It is horrific.

It is absolutely absurd that there are more duties and tariffs on Canadian lumber,

on British Columbian lumber, heading down south than Russian lumber. Absolutely absurd,

absolutely shameful.

On this side of the House, our number one priority is to stand up for workers, to

stand up for their paycheques. The Premier, on this side of the House, has been leading

the national fight for forestry here in British Columbia.

As the Premier said yesterday, this is a time for unity. This is a time for all of

us to come together, to stand up for forest workers, and that’s what we’re going to

do on this side of the House.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Ward Stamer : The biggest challenge is this government’s incompetence.

While the minister plays dress-up, I bleed for this forest industry. Complex regulations

and policy chaos are killing this industry.

Why are the government’s broken promises…? Why are they going to continue to start

strangling the B.C. forest sector under their own red tape?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s a shame to see the member across the way not do what the Premier did yesterday,

and that was condemn Donald Trump. In fact, not once….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : In fact, the Premier has condemned Donald Trump for the actions he’s taken.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was given the same opportunity to stand up

in this House and to condemn the actions of the President of the United States, but

instead….

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, shhh. Members, take it easy.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : But instead we have a Leader of the Opposition….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, you can raise your point of order later on.

Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : But instead….

Interjections.

The Speaker : The minister will conclude.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’m trying to, Mr. Speaker.

Instead, we had a Leader of the Opposition that stood up in the House yesterday, and

instead of condemning Donald Trump, he defended Donald Trump throughout his speech.

On this side of the House, we know whose side we’re on. We’re on the side of Canadians.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We’re on the side of British Columbians. We’re on the side of forestry workers here

in British Columbia. We’re going to fight like hell for their paycheques every single

day.

John Rustad : It’s a shame to see that lying has now become commonplace in this House by this government.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Members, both sides. Let’s behave. It’s a question period only for 30 minutes.

There’s no need to get personal. Just stick to the point. Let’s talk about the issues.

There’s no need to talk about personal issues.

Thank you so much.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, just listen to what the Chair has said.

Both sides, please.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

John Rustad : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

“Standing up for forest workers.” Those were the words just used. Those were the words

that were used by this Premier yesterday in his statement.

[10:35 a.m.]

Rather than apologizing for a decade of destroying our forest sector, rather than

offering a reset, he deflects and blames Donald Trump and the Canadian government.

Yes, I condemn Donald Trump’s actions. I did yesterday, and I will continue to do

that.

But the reality is this. Mills are closing. Workers are being laid off. Families are

being devastated. Families don’t know if they’re going to be able to put presents

under a tree for Christmas. Communities are being devastated. That is the record of

this government on forestry, and they’re trying to deflect and blame.

Shame on you. Shame on this government.

A simple question: will this Premier admit that under his watch, this government has

overseen a more than 60 percent reduction in the forest sector, the greatest demise

of our forest sector in B.C.’s history?

Hon. David Eby : Our government will always stand up for forest workers, stand up for workers across

this province.

How quickly the member across the way forgets his time in government — 45 mills closed,

70,000 forestry jobs lost, the removal of the requirement that trees close to the

mill go to support local jobs, the mass privatization of our forest lands, sold off

to corporate donors to his party.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. David Eby : It puts us in a difficult position responding to pine beetle kill, forest fire and

the understandable desire of the majority of British Columbians to protect our precious

old-growth forests, of what’s left. These are not easy issues. These are hard challenges

the government’s grappling with.

On top of that, to face 45 percent duties on wood going to our biggest market, the

United States, with worse access to the United States than Russia has….

The member can deny it, but it’s true. It’s on the record. When we’re fighting these

things, members in the opposition are saying that Donald Trump’s requests to us are

simple neighbourly requests, that we should just do what he says. These are literal

quotes from the opposition.

The member for Langley–Walnut Grove: “It’s a simple neighbourly request to make. Fix

the border. It doesn’t need to be tariffs.”

Then the member for Langley-Willowbrook….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby : I know it’s uncomfortable. But when we cut off the liquor from the United States,

they said it was a mistake. When we took action against Trump and the Americans, they

said it was a mistake. When we stood up for British Columbians and Canadians, they

said it was a mistake. They welcomed bloggers in here who called the proposal to cut

off electricity to the U.S. a war crime.

Well, I’ll tell you this. We’ll stand up for Canadians and British Columbians every

single time.

The Speaker : The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, the Premier’s idea of standing up for British Columbians is to see 70,000 of

them leave last year, to see the worst economic conditions this forest sector has

ever seen since 1981-82 devastation. That is his record on this.

He likes to talk about the past? From 2009 through to 2017, when they took power,

more than 30,000 jobs were added to this sector. All of those and much, much more

have now been lost.

I can tell you something. This government stood in a place like Merritt and said:

“Mills like this will never close.” Yet they’ve closed. This government has done everything

it can to oppose the idea of help for the forest sector.

The forest sector itself has come in and said, “Please, just do this. Stop with changes.

You’re killing us,” year after year, and zero response from this government, except

for more problems, more delays. They can’t get permits. They can’t get through a process.

This government says he’s standing up for forest workers. Well, I tell you what the

Steelworkers have actually said about this: “We are sick and tired of bridges to retirement.

We want jobs. We want our mills open.” That’s what they want.

Last year before the election, we warned this government, and we brought forward policies,

because we saw these additional duties and anti-dumping were coming, which is going

to take to 35 percent.

[10:40 a.m.]

What did this government do? Nothing, zero. Matter of fact, they did worse than zero;

they compounded the problem. Yes, there’s an additional 10 percent tariff that’s come

on with Donald Trump. But the reality is that this softwood lumber problem has gone

on under their entire time, and they’ve done nothing — except for one thing I will

say about this.

They did go and talk to the forest workers. They did go and talk to the union down

in the United States and brought home a $650,000 cheque that I’m sure they’re embarrassed

to have given them, given the devastation they’ve delivered on that money that went

to the NDP.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

John Rustad : My question, quite frankly, is simply to the Premier, the same question as I just

asked. Will the Premier admit that this is a challenge that has been now created under

his government, and will he commit to a reset?

He’s promised 45 million cubic metres. We’re not even going to be able to cut 30 million

this year. Why is he misleading this forest sector? Actually come true with them and

offer some hope instead of blaming others.

Hon. David Eby : We’ve been taking action since forming government to ensure that we’re responding

to the major challenges that the forest sector faced.

I mean, 45 mills closed, 70,000 jobs lost. Apparently, it’s a record that the other

side celebrates. I think that’s a tough record. This is an industry that has faced

major challenges and faces them now. It requires creative solutions and finding a

path forward. We’ve taken those.

We’ve created over 2,100 jobs. We’ve protected 2,700 more through the manufacturing

jobs fund. It’s giving mills additional tools to add value to our timber, something

that could’ve easily been done before. We’re expanding our offices overseas to sell

timber products to markets other than the U.S.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Order, Members. Order.

Hon. David Eby : It’s work that has to happen.

The member mentioned salvage logging permits out of wildfire-damaged woods. We’ve

cut the time for approval of that from 40 days to 25 days.

When the member was in government in 2017, the leader of the forest sector said that

the previous government had been asleep at the wheel when it came to softwood lumber

duties. We’ve been fighting since day one to get a deal on softwood lumber.

At the same time, we’ve had to endure the other side saying things like Canada’s western

provinces should be a protectorate of the United States. That’s the member for Salmon

Arm–Shuswap.

The member for Chilliwack North: “Eby needs to comply with Trump for the greater good.”

The member for Langley–Walnut Grove: “A simple, neighbourly request to make from Donald

Trump.”

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby : Abbotsford West: “I agree with Trump.”

Langley-Willowbrook: “We must take urgent action on Trump’s requests.”

On and on and on.

We’re fighting for Canadian workers. We’re fighting for British Columbians. We’re

getting more value from our wood products. We’re expanding markets overseas. At the

same time, the opposition is calling for us to kiss the ring of the man who is attacking

our foundational industry in the province.

The Speaker : Members, let’s be a little bit courteous. When a question is asked, no one should

be interrupting. When the answer is provided, equally, no one should be interrupting.

Education Funding and Staffing

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m going to try and bring the temperature down a bit by asking about education,

something I think we can all agree on.

It’s clear we’re in a period of austerity leading to broken election promises. I won’t

list them all, but one of the most concerning is this government’s broken promise

to educators.

School districts are cutting staff. Education assistants and teachers are stretched

to their limits, and every year the share of our provincial budget that goes to K-to-12

education gets smaller and smaller.

We’re in the midst of a youth mental health crisis, but the counsellors this government

promised in every school last election are still missing. So are the education assistants

who support students with learning needs.

Teachers have been without a contract since June, and based on the current situation

with the BCGEU and PEA, British Columbians should prepare for a teacher strike.

As I said, reliability…. A reliable government invests in the future, especially in

setting up the next generation for success. Instead, this government continues to

make decisions reactively.

To the Minister of Education, will this government keep its promises to our province’s

educators?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare : I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know he’s a fierce advocate

for public education, as we are on this side of the House.

We’ve had many conversations about the values of public education in supporting the

system, which is why we as a government protected education funding in our budget.

In light of very difficult times fiscally around the globe and here in Canada, we

made the choice here in British Columbia to not only protect our education budget

but also to increase it by $319 million. This is in light of the challenges that we’re

facing globally.

I want to assure the member that we’re working closely with all of our partners in

the K-to-12 sector to meet our promises to educators. We have the K-to-12 workforce

table, which is actively working on these commitments, like counsellors in schools.

We continue to work with the TF. We continue to work with CUPE, with BCGEU, with all

of our union partners and all of our sector partners to make sure that we are meeting

the demands of the K-to-12 sector and supporting our kids and our staff in that system.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Student and Family

Affordability Fund Replacement

Jeremy Valeriote : To clarify, I understand that the budget is protected, but what I was saying is that

the proportion of public money we spend on education is less and less.

The government says it values public education, but the funding model for B.C. schools

hasn’t been updated since 2002. Instead, life is more expensive, and families are

being forced to make difficult choices about where to spend their money.

Instead of supporting them, this government quietly cut the student and family affordability

fund, a program that was designed to cover basic school fees, clothing and field trips

for those in need. Parents in this House know how important these are, and it was

touted by school districts and this government as transformative.

The minister told the public that this three-year fund was never intended to be recurring

and that a replacement was coming. Well, the school year, as we know, is well underway,

and parents in need have yet to see the replacement.

To the Minister of Education, when will this government replace the student and family

affordability fund?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I want to thank the member for highlighting the supports that we were able, as a

government, to give during COVID-19.

There were significant needs all across our province, and we stepped up in a number

of ways through time-limited funds, three-year funds, to support families in their

affordability measures — things like school supplies, things like field trips.

We continue to invest in those things.

Just recently we announced our commitment and a partnership with the federal government

for our national school food program, which combines with our Feeding the Future.

We now have every single district in this province offering breakfast, lunch, or a

combination of, and snacks in schools.

This not only provides parents relief for those who are facing those affordability

challenges; it takes away the stigma for families who need to access those supports.

And really, it makes our schools a more welcoming, caring, loving place.

We know a student can’t learn and can’t succeed if they’re going to school hungry

and they’re not being supported. We’re going to keep investing in programs like that

to meet those needs.

Health Worker Vaccination Policies

Tara Armstrong : Over the last four years, this government’s reckless and unscientific COVID mandates

have driven more than 7,000 health care workers out of the system, gutting front-line

care and putting British Columbians’ lives at risk.

Even after walking back these mandates, the government doubled down, forcing workers

to disclose vaccine status, reapply for their own jobs and return to work with not

a penny of back pay. And unbelievably, they’re still holding the threat of new mandates

over their heads. Our health care system has crashed and burned under the weight of

critical staff shortages that this government has created.

My question for the Minister of Health is this. Will she finally admit that her government’s

COVID mandates damaged our health care system and that it was an unforgivable betrayal

of the very people we rely on to keep us healthy and alive?

Hon. David Eby : It’s hard to think of a better example of the challenge of discussing public health

care, the need to protect vulnerable kids and seniors who are in health care environments

and long-term care and hospital.

[10:50 a.m.]

It’s hard to think of a better example of how hard it is to have these conversations

in this House with an example of the ideology that has been brought into this House

by the Conservative Party.

This anti-vax philosophy, which has no grounding in science, proposes…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. David Eby : …to send unvaccinated workers into our long-term-care facilities and hospitals with

children who are fighting cancer, with seniors who are clinging to life, and expose

them to COVID and the flu and measles.

It is incomprehensible. It is unforgivable, raising anxiety among British Columbians

about vaccination right at the beginning of flu season, when we need people to go

out and get vaccines to protect vulnerable populations,

an act of service for all

British Columbians. To attack that act of service, to say that it is problematic and

wrong, is a betrayal.

That ideology was brought into this House by the Conservative Party, and I think they

owe British Columbians an apology.

The Speaker : Thank you, Members. Thank you.

That member who asked the question belongs to OneBC, not the Conservative Party.

Please have a supplemental.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Thank you.

Tara Armstrong : I actually do appreciate that myself, for the distinction. Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong : This government, that Premier treated British Columbians like guinea pigs, forcing

experimental procedures on them without their consent.

Let’s face it. The numbers don’t lie. All seven doctors in the obstetrics department

in Kamloops are gone. The pediatrics unit in Kelowna, gone. And that’s just the tip

of the iceberg. The devastation here is far and wide.

If the Health Minister and the Premier are expecting an applause for the careers wrecked

and the lives upended by these unscientific mandates, they won’t be getting that from

me. I stand in this House for the voice of those who don’t have a voice here, the

thousands of health care workers this government cast aside.

Here’s one other question that deserves an answer. Maybe I can get it. Will the Premier

himself apologize to the health care workers whose lives were derailed by this government’s

punitive COVID policies?

Hon. Josie Osborne : This government will always follow scientific, evidence-based policies and the advice

of experts in our medical system. This government will always put patients first.

That’s why it’s so important to correct the record. There are no doctors who have

left the job. Departments have not closed.

This government continues to put the long-term stabilization of our health care system,

the strengthening of our health care system as a top priority. It is the job that

the Premier has mandated me to take. That is why we are taking so much action to strengthen

that health care system; to recruit and train more doctors and nurses; to bring them

in from the U.S., a place where people feel pushed out because of the anti-science

policies and rhetoric of that federal government south of the border.

We’re going to continue to do this work regardless of what members of the Fourth Party

think.

Forest Industry Conditions

and Support for Forest Workers

Donegal Wilson : Interfor Grand Forks mill is now closed indefinitely, leaving hundreds of families

in my community in limbo. Industry has warned this government about fibre shortages,

overlapping policy chaos and the lack of progress for years.

Will the Premier go to Grand Forks, look the people in the eye and explain how they

will pay for their bills and put Christmas presents under the trees this Christmas?

The Speaker : Minister of Forests.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Wow.

Just before Thanksgiving, the workers in Grand Forks got devastating news. I think

we should respect that news that they got and talk about it in a respectful way while

the opposition continues to heckle.

[10:55 a.m.]

Let’s talk about that news. They got the call that impacted their livelihoods. The

member opposite talks about the impact on Grand Forks. I also talk about the impacts

on Chase, British Columbia, with the Adams Lake division.

We’ve had conversations regularly with the mayor of Grand Forks. In fact, my colleague

the minister of local government was on the ground meeting not only with the mayor

but with workers and with industry as well to talk about the impact that Donald Trump’s

tariffs are having on that sector.

The members opposite don’t seem to like it when we are standing up to Trump because

they like to defend Trump.

Let’s hear directly from the mayor himself, Mayor Baker — who, I might add, is in

Ottawa right now fighting alongside us for our forest sector. He said: “I’ve spoken

to the mill manager, who said that due to the current market conditions and another

10 percent duty on softwood lumber, bringing it to 45 percent, the mill has shut down

indefinitely.”

I’ll take it to another level. This is coming directly from the CEO of Interfor, and

I quote Ian Fillinger: “We continue to believe that long-term industry stability cannot

be achieved without a durable and fair resolution on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber

dispute.”

We are working hard on this side of the House to ensure that we can have a strong,

sustainable, robust forest sector that delivers the certainty and predictability that

industry and workers are looking for. But we cannot resolve that with 45 percent duties

and tariffs — more duties and tariffs on British Columbia, the second-largest exporter

of softwood lumber in the world, than there is on Russia.

On this side of the House, we’re going to keep standing up for our forest workers.

We’re going to keep standing up for those workers in Grand Forks.

Community Safety Issues

in Prince George

Rosalyn Bird : Last week I attended a Safe Streets rally in Prince George, unlike the Premier and

his ministers. Over 1,000 people packed into an arena, pleading for help as street

disorder and violence crush their livelihoods. One downtown business owner broke down

in tears and said: “I give up. I don’t know if I can keep going.”

Will the Premier agree to meet with the business owners of Prince George and find

a solution, yes or no?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. We appreciate and understand

the concerns of Prince George residents, of business owners. The Minister of State

for Community Safety and Integrated Services has spent time in Prince George with

the mayor, with council and with business owners.

I know that we all have the same goal, which is to keep people, businesses and communities

safe. That’s why our government is taking real action to support police in doing their

vital work on our streets.

We have set up something called the ReVOII program, the repeat violent offenders intervention

initiative, which consists of teams of police, of prosecutors and of probation officers.

They’re actively monitoring 40 prioritized individuals who have been causing challenges

on the streets of Prince George.

We’ve also stood up a program called SITE, the special investigation and targeted

enforcement program. Prince George has applied for funding and received over $800,000

in funding to support targeted investigations into repeat violent offenders.

I could go on about the investments that we’re making to support police and communities.

I know that there’s more work to do. We are committed to doing that work, to standing

with the people of Prince George and ensuring that businesses can thrive, families

can feel safe and the communities in Prince George and across the province remain

strong.

Government Action on Issues

Bruce Banman : Let’s just recap today.

We have an NDP government that is destroying confidence and hope in every corner of

our economy and every corner of British Columbia. We have the forestry industry, once

the backbone of this province, closing mill after mill after mill. The kiss of death

is that when the photo-op king shows up at your mill, I’d be very worried.

Interjections.

[11:00 a.m.]

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Bruce Banman : Small businesses are buckling, pleading for help. We just heard, in Prince George,

over 1,000 people pleading for help from the chaos that this Premier caused with his

“let’s hand out drugs for free” policy.

Crime is rampant. Businesses are buckling. Homeowners don’t even know if they still

own their homes because this government sat on its feet and did nothing. Investors

are vanishing, running for the hills, running for anywhere they can actually make

a profit, because they can’t do it in British Columbia anymore due to this government’s

incompetence.

Yet what does this government do? They blame everybody else but themselves. They talk

about this side when we were in government. Hey, here’s a news flash. We haven’t been

in government yet. But you watch. We soon will be.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Bruce Banman : We can even hear the chants.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Bruce Banman : I have a question. The chants outside every day as disgruntled BCGEU members don’t

know whether they’ll be able to put Christmas gifts underneath their trees because

this government sat on its hands for over six weeks…. We’ve got families begging for

relief.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Bruce Banman : What do we get from this side of the government?

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Bruce Banman : Nothing but pointing fingers at everyone else. My question….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Please ask.

Bruce Banman : I’ve got all day.

The Speaker : Don’t worry about it. Just ask the question.

Bruce Banman : My question to this Premier, the Premier of inaction: Will he stop for once, today,

pointing his fingers at everyone else and finally take responsibility for the close

to a decade that his government has been in business…

The Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Bruce Banman : …destroying people’s lives? Will he actually do what’s required to get people in

this province working and running again?

Hon. David Eby : Thank you to the member for the question.

This is a hard time for Canadians, for British Columbians. Lots of people are struggling.

The silver lining, I would say, is that the steps we’re taking here in British Columbia

are showing incredible promise and are showing results.

In the last year….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members. The Premier has the floor. Let him finish.

Hon. David Eby : In the last year, we led Canada in year-over-year private sector job growth, with

55,000 jobs added in British Columbia. Not only did we lead the country in private

sector job growth in the last year, but we led the country in women’s job growth,

with more than 15,000 jobs.

It’s a hard time out there for youth. We’re working hard for them, and our youth unemployment

rate is lower than much of the country and lower than the national average.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. David Eby : Crime is challenging in many communities. We’ve got this extortion challenge we’re

taking on with a special task force, with special funding, in Surrey. We’ve got challenges

in Prince George. We’re working with local authorities on that.

But comparing us across the country, we’re leading in crime reduction, an 11 percent

reduction in the crime severity index and a 7 percent reduction in the overall crime

rate. Our actions are showing results.

On housing, we’re leading the country in the reduction in rents, meaning that people

are able to find a more affordable place to live.

We’re recruiting and adding hundreds of doctors which are connecting thousands of

families to a family doctor. It’s something that we committed to do and that we’re

delivering on.

We’re working hard for British Columbians every day. It is a challenging environment,

but there is no place that I would rather be than British Columbia to face these challenges.

The resources we have in this province that we are bringing to global markets, tens

of billions of dollars in private sector investment.

[11:05 a.m.]

It’s not a surprise to me that in the major projects office of the federal government,

40 percent of those major projects are British Columbia projects. It could have been

the whole list.

You know what the member of the opposition says, the leader of the Conservative Party?

He says: “Put all the discussions with First Nations on hold.” That means putting

every major project on hold, which means putting tens of thousands of jobs and billions

of dollars in prosperity not just for British Columbia but for the whole country on

hold.

What is he doing? Entering private discussions with the Premier of Alberta to undermine…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Hon. David Eby : …the oil tanker ban off the coast that enables us to do this work.

He wants our economy to fail. I don’t know why.

We’re standing up to grow our economy, create jobs for people, create prosperity for

families. We are delivering.

We’ve got a lot more to do, but we will do it, and we’ll make sure British Columbia

leads this country’s economy into the future we promised. And we’re going to stand

on our own two feet.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Jody Toor : I rise to present a petition.

The undersigned of 1,007 community members are writing to petition for an establishment

of a dedicated seniors hospital, focusing on the health care needs of individuals

aged 65 and above in our community. As the population ages, it is very important that

we address the unique health challenges faced by seniors, ensuring they receive the

specialized care they require.

Point of Order

Hon. Mike Farnworth : This is the appropriate time to raise a point of order because as Speaker, you are

aware that we don’t raise them during question period. But during question period,

the Leader of the Opposition did use non-parliamentary language. The word I think

used was “lie.” I would ask that he withdraw that.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. We will look into it.

Petitions

Scott McInnis : I have a petition to present today from 487 residents of Marysville, B.C., who would

like to see a more robust crosswalk in a school-dedicated speed zone along Highway

95A for the child care facility as well as Marysville Elementary School.

Lorne Doerkson : I rise today, also, to present two petitions.

The first petition is regarding the state of roads in the Spout Lake Road area in

Cariboo-Chilcotin. The petition concerns a high-traffic road that continues to deteriorate.

I’m presenting this petition on behalf of 64 residents that are very frustrated and

demanding action to make road improvements to this very busy corridor.

The second petition is also regarding roads and the state of infrastructure in the

103 Mile area of my riding. The petition concerns infrastructure within their subdivision

that is in a dire state of repair. I’m presenting the petition on behalf of residents

of the 103 Mile area who are calling for long-overdue repairs and proper maintenance

of their roads and related infrastructure after years of what they feel is neglect.

One hundred and three residents have signed this petition.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Members, before I recognize the member for Cowichan Valley, I am advised and other

people have also heard that the Leader of Opposition did use the word “lying,” so

the Chair would ask him to withdraw.

John Rustad : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : I just wanted to acknowledge that we had the grade 5 and grade 6 students from the

École Mount Prevost school here earlier witnessing question period. Along with them

is their teacher Wanda Younge. They’re out having a tour of the Legislature right

now.

If the House can make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 20.

In

Section A of the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill

12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

[11:10 a.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : All right, we’ll resume.

Steve Kooner : I was last discussing that the intent of this legislation is good, but there are

some issues that need to be dealt with.

Specifically, I was talking about the regulation section. The intent is good. We need

to have prompt payment in the construction industry. We need to make sure people are

getting paid. That part of that intent needs to be strongly enforced.

I’m going to come back to this, but I want to kind of go through the sections of the

bill. Once I go through the sections of the bill, I’ll come back to some points that

I feel need to be really addressed in this bill.

Just taking the House through this bill, Bill 20, the first

section deals with the

definitions, so we have many

definitions from many different terms here.

Then in clause 2, you actually get into the substance of the bill. You start getting

into what this applies to. It starts talking about contract positions. This bill talks

about not only owners and contractors; it talks about owners, contractors and subcontractors.

It not only talks about owners, contractors and subcontractors; it talks about there

might be other subcontractors down the chain. So there might be a chain of people

that you may have to deal with, that the owner may have to deal with, that a contractor

may have to deal with, as well as a subcontractor.

The first clause is an important clause in regards to setting down positions in terms

of what the positions are versus owner, contractor, subcontractor.

Clause 3 goes into substituted owners. It talks about…. If there was a contract and

it involved an owner, and there was somebody else put in that place of that owner,

how would this bill apply to them?

Then this bill goes further into clause 4. In clause 4, we get into division 2, the

application of this particular bill. This particular clause talks about what this

bill actually applies to, what this act will apply to and also what it will not apply

to.

Going further, we move into

part 2, which deals with regular invoicing. I briefly

touched upon invoicing in my speech on yesterday’s date. In the regular invoicing,

we see division 1 talking about regular invoicing in clause 5. It talks about the

contractor must give proper notice to the owner monthly. So it sets up a monthly scheme

of providing a proper invoice.

[11:15 a.m.]

The contractor must provide a proper invoice, so there’s some sort of regular interval,

although there might be an exception in this case, as well, if there’s a specified

different period of time in the contract or, say, for example, the timing of the invoice

is in correlation to an actual milestone in an actual project.

Then the bill goes further into clause 6. It talks about approval and testing, and

it goes further, in division 2, with proper invoices.

This

section is probably an important

section for this particular bill, because it

talks about what needs to be included in a proper invoice. It spells out such things

as names and addresses of contractors, dates of invoices, period of time that’s covered,

information identifying that contract, description of quantity of services supplied

or materials supplied, amounts payable for services or materials supplied, payment

terms and those types of things.

Anything that you would probably imagine a proper invoice should have and that’s pertinent

seems to be included in this part of the clause.

The next clause goes into revisions to invoices. There’s an opportunity to have actual

revisions to invoices that have been rendered in certain circumstances.

Then we move into

part 3. That deals with prompt payment. Prompt payment is, I guess,

the substance of this particular bill, which talks about prompt payment.

This particular clause sets out that the owner must pay a contractor within 28 days

after an invoice’s date. It specifies that period, and then it also sets out a chain.

Say, for example, if the general contractor issues the invoice, within 28 days the

payment must happen.

Sorry, there’s a lot of terminology in here.

Basically, if the invoice comes monthly, the payment must be made within 28 days for

the contractor. If there are subcontractors, then those subsequent subcontractors

need to be paid within seven days. Then if there’s a chain of subcontractors, the

seven days will continue in those circumstances.

It seems a bit convoluted, but once you understand the actual numbers and the entities

as well as the periods, you get a proper grasp.

Monthly invoices, must make the payment within 28 days. If there are subcontractors,

first subcontractor needs to be paid within seven days. If there’s further subcontractors

down the chain, that seven-day period keeps continuing.

That seems to be the substance of the prompt payment mechanism: how that prompt payment

is going to work. That’s a very important

section to review in this particular bill.

This particular part,

part 3, “Prompt Payment,” goes further in clauses 10 and 11.

It talks about partial payment, and in clause 11, it talks about the notice of non-payment.

If there’s a reason for not making payment, you can serve some sort of notice in the

prescribed form, setting out why that payment is not due.

Then going further, you go into division 2, “General,” which leads you to clause 12.

It states that certain entities have a right to certain information. Whether that’s

a contractor or a subcontractor, if they request information, how does that work?

Then further, this next clause within this division is important as well. Clause 13

deals with holdbacks under the Builders Lien Act. This clause actually states, “A

requirement under this Part to pay an amount is subject to a required holdback under

the Builders Lien Act,” which states that if something is being held back, a sum of

money is being held back to the extent that it’s being held back pursuant to the Builders

Lien Act, this prompt payment legislation would not apply to that holdback.

[11:20 a.m.]

Going further, in clause 14, it talks about how this legislation doesn’t apply to

pay wages and contracts of employment and collective agreements. Then clause 15 talks

about interest. Then, when we move further to clause 16 and onwards, it gets into

interim adjudication.

So this process actually talks about, say, you don’t get paid. Then what do you do?

Well, there’s a process of adjudication that seems to be codified in

part 4, called

“Interim Adjudication.” Clause 16 talks about interim adjudication.

Clause 17 refers to adjudication procedures.

Then clause 18 gets into referral to adjudication.

Then 19 and 20 talk about limitation issues. Then, as we get further, we look at consolidation,

adjudication, parallel proceedings. Say if there is a court proceeding, can this happen?

It gets into that.

Then we get into division 3, “Preliminary Matters,” which deals with selection of

an adjudicator. How does that all work? Adjudication fees — how does that work, moving

forward into this division?

Then as you go further into division 4, under this part, it talks about the powers

of the adjudicator, what an adjudicator can actually do. Then, going further, it talks

about any sort of objections that can be made on jurisdictional grounds.

Then this goes further, after a few sections, into division 5, which deals with enforcement

of the determination, so what happens after you get adjudication and you have a result.

What can you do with that?

Division 5, in clause 36, talks about…. You can file a certified copy of the determination

with the Supreme Court within two years after a specified period. It also goes further

to talk about interest on late payments and deals with holdbacks again and goes further,

talking about circumstances of a judicial review.

After this particular division, you get into

part 5, which deals with adjudication

authority. The adjudication authority has jurisdiction over how adjudicators get appointed.

Then just before you get to the last part…. Well, when you do get to the last part,

which is

part 6, “General,” it deals with the regulations, what can be set forward

in regulations.

Now, in my last few minutes here, I’d like to spend some time on where I find some

significant issues out of all this stuff that I just referred to.

There’s a specified

section here in this legislation that talks about the

interpretation

period, and it talks about how it will not apply to all parties you can imagine. It

exempts the government. That seems to be a bit of an issue here.

We’re talking about this legislation being a good thing to help contractors, subcontractors,

the construction industry. That’s a good thing, but we need to make sure this legislation

is a very strong piece of legislation for the construction industry. We want to make

sure it will actually do the good that it plans to do. So it should have broad applicability.

It should apply to all parties that get involved in the construction industry. That’s

one part where I see some issues that need to be canvassed.

Another area of this legislation that needs to be canvassed is in regards to the adjudication

authority. There’s a part of the adjudication authority that talks about a minister

can exercise that authority. So then the question prompts….

[11:25 a.m.]

Then the question prompts, like, if there is some element of government kind of involved

in some sort of construction dispute in terms of payment and if the government has

power over deciding who the adjudicators are going to be when a minister can exercise

authority of adjudication authority, will that take away from the independence of

an adjudicator? That is a live issue that I see here, as well, that needs to be canvassed

at the committee stage and needs to be dealt with.

In addition, in the regulation…. The regulations seem to cover a broad spectrum of

things. When you read the legislation in the earlier part, you see it seems to all

line up, and it seems to be a good thing. It talks about owners, contractors. But

then here in the regulations, the regulations talk about how there could be regulations

made in regards to whether a person is an owner, contractor or subcontractor.

Well, if you’re already defining it in this legislation, and now you’re saying that,

well, you can still redefine it, that could be a potential issue. So that really needs

to be canvassed at the committee stage as well.

Also, there’s some discussion on agreements that this legislation referred to earlier.

It sets out what could be the respecting contents of those agreements, respecting

who may have been able to enter into that agreement.

It also talks about…. It specifies, on one side of the act, the calculation of days

in terms of settling disputes, but this part here, in terms of regulation, also gets

into the time periods. That brings another question. Can some time limits actually

be put into question? There might be some ambiguity later on through these regulations.

It’s important to note that these regulations are most likely going to be just made

by cabinet, and there’s probably not going to be much consultation on this, so this

would probably be a concern.

We heard earlier from the Attorney General, when the Attorney General introduced second

reading, that there was a lot of consultation done on this bill. But although there

was a lot of consultation done, will there be consultation done in terms of these

regulations?

These regulations seem to address a lot of the good work that this legislation has

put in and has talked about, but then it talks about…. Well, you can redefine certain

terms. You can look at situations again. So when you get into regulations, a concern

would be the amount of consultation.

The bottom line is this. This legislation has a good intent to protect the construction

industry with prompt payment, but we need to make sure that it will be effective in

that purpose and that this legislation will actually help in that purpose, moving

forward.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : As the Minister of Infrastructure, I am pleased to stand in the House here today

to speak in support of Bill 20, which is the new prompt payment legislation introduced

by my colleague the Attorney General.

As the minister responsible for major capital project planning and delivery, from

schools and hospitals to health facilities and post-secondary student housing, I know

firsthand how critical stability and trust are within the construction sector. In

many ways, we are the ministry of construction, and this legislation demonstrates

that we are here to support and stand up for the people who make our communities possible.

This bill represents an important step forward for British Columbia’s construction

industry, one of the largest and most vital sectors in our province. Prompt payment

will help ensure that cash flow is predictable, that disputes are resolved more quickly

and that projects are less likely to be delayed due to payment uncertainty.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge any partners from the construction sector

who may be listening to today’s debate. Your skills and dedication help build the

communities that we live in.

[11:30 a.m.]

I am so grateful for all of the industry leaders who have advocated for this over

the years and who have sat down with me to empower me to be their voice on this issue

within government and enabled me to help work with my colleagues and help them understand

why prompt payment legislation was needed.

Many industry groups have been involved in the work of advocating for changes over

the years.

I think about the B.C. Construction Association, which represents thousands of contractors

and plays a key role in strengthening our province’s construction industry. I think

of the Electrical Contractors Association of B.C., representing more than 150 companies

who know the importance of having prompt payment legislation; the Mechanical Contractors

Association of British Columbia, whose members are the pipefitters and welders; HVAC

techs, plumbers and more that make buildings in B.C. work by installing, servicing

and retrofitting mechanical systems. They were one of the first organizations to raise

the alarm about the need for prompt payment legislation.

I think of the unions that represent building tradespeople across the province and

whose members bring the expertise and skills to do the physical work that is required

to actually build these construction projects. When it comes to prompt payment for

companies, it’s also about payment of workers and ensuring that British Columbia continues

to be a truly great place to set down roots and to thrive.

Although prompt payment legislation is new to the floor of this House, the idea that

you should be paid for the work that you do is not. At its foundation, this is about

fairness for the construction industry, an industry that has built our province and

powered our economy through difficult times. Whether you are a general contractor

or a subcontractor, prompt payment legislation helps to ensure that the work you do

to build a project is respected.

Smaller contracting companies in particular take on significant risk when they accept

a contract. They’re the ones who have to put tradespeople to work and secure materials

in advance, often months before they can be paid. Reliability of cash flow is critical

to helping manage that risk.

Imagine being a medium-size subtrade and needing to purchase millions of dollars of

materials in advance for a project, with the understanding that you will be installing

it in several months’ time based on the project schedule. So you bid your project

accordingly and take into account the carrying cost of the cash that you will need

to prepurchase the materials.

You win the bid. You’re excited for the project. You secure the labour you need for

the contract and gear up for the job. You work well with the general contractor, and

you do the work to install everything on time. You submit your invoice for payment

and patiently await the flow of cash that you’ve properly earned.

Only it doesn’t come at the end of the month like you counted on. It doesn’t come

the next month or the month after that or even the month after that because somewhere

up the line, someone didn’t pay their bill. There’s no cash to flow down to the subtrades,

and you are left waiting.

In the meantime, you continue to carry the cost of the millions of dollars of materials

that you’ve already paid for, as well as the costs of the payroll that you’ve paid

out to your tradespeople. The interest payments start to stack up and eat into your

profit margin. Eventually, it may even overtake the margin entirely. The next time

that you bid on a project, you build in a much larger buffer to account for the unpredictability

in the cash flow you’ve come to expect. It’s either that, or you go under as a company.

These are the kinds of situations that this legislation is intended to address. This

legislation will help ensure that we can have a healthy and dynamic contracting market

supporting competitive tendering processes. That ultimately means better prices for

projects for British Columbians as well.

With this legislation, we are strengthening the backbone of B.C.’s economy, supporting

our construction industry and helping grow the communities that we all live in and

want to thrive in.

It is an important step that I am very pleased to strongly support, and of course,

we know that there is more work to do.

Kiel Giddens : I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate this morning on Bill 20, the Construction

Prompt Payment Act. This is a very important topic. It’s an important sector for British

Columbia’s overall economy, accounting for about 10 percent of our overall GDP. So

we need to support this sector as we can.

[11:35 a.m.]

I want to begin by saying this. The B.C. Construction Association deserves so much

credit for working on this particular file for years now. I’ve worked with the CEO,

Chris Atchison, in my past life in the private sector and can honestly say he has

been nothing short of persistent.

Congratulations to Chris and his entire team for getting this to the floor. Indeed,

I’ll join the Minister of Infrastructure in congratulating all of the construction

sectors, all of the labour groups who have advocated for this over a period of time.

It is something that we need to get right, though. I’ve said that I’ve worked in the

major projects space. I will bring some of my personal experience with this particular

topic to this discussion as we get into it a little bit further. I do support the

principle of prompt payment. I’ve seen firsthand the complexity of prime contracts

and the layers of subcontracts.

Project owners and prime contractors have to have very stringent commercial contracts

to protect their own interest in those dealings, and there are mechanisms for legal

recourse, but what’s a challenge is the recourse for the little guy. The subcontractor

is down the value chain when a dispute arises between an owner and a prime, and that’s

something that I have witnessed in some of my work.

I don’t think that prompt payment in the construction sector is a partisan issue.

I think it’s a matter of fairness, of basic respect for the people who do the work

and keep this province building. Where I do have concerns is in the delivery and making

sure that this is actually done effectively as intended. As we have seen all too often

from this government, there is a wide gap between a good-sounding idea and a system

that actually works in the real world.

I represent, of course, the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie. It’s a region built

by hard-working people — loggers and millworkers, of course, and many tradespeople

and small contractors — who have spent decades building the infrastructure that drives

this province. Whether it’s roads, schools, resource projects or housing, the construction

sector is, as I’ve said, a massive part of our economy.

I’ll add another thanks to Nicole Bryant from the Northern Regional Construction Association,

who has spoken to me about this file as well, for her work on that, and her contractor

members. I’ve spoken to many of them and know the challenges in northern B.C. I’m

going to get into a few of those as I get into my remarks.

The reality for many of the businesses that I talk to in my community is that getting

paid for completing work can actually be an uphill battle. I’ll get into that.

I worked with the small contractors as one of their advocates when they were caught

in the disputes between owners and primes. These are some of the folks who have maybe

only a handful of employees. They might have just a couple of trucks, a yard full

of tools, local timber marts supplying to a contractor working near their community.

All of them have told me the same thing. They do the work, send the invoice, and then

they wait. Then they call me to give me the updates on their wait times. It’s something

that is a real challenge when you’re a small contractor trying to make ends meet.

The problem isn’t always that people just don’t want to pay or that they’re being

negligent. The money can get held up in layers of subcontracting. There could be approvals

and bureaucracy, and sometimes it is caught in commercial disputes as well. The small

guys at the bottom of the value chain are the ones left carrying the financing risks,

often. They’re the ones impacted the most, I would say. They’re scrambling to make

payroll to keep the lights on and to keep their apprentices working.

If they try to use the current legal tools — we have the Builders Lien Act, for example

— it can be too blunt. It’s a cumbersome process. It can be expensive. With business

relationships, people often don’t want to go that route, because it can harm their

future interests. That act hasn’t been updated in many, many years now, so it is also

out of step with today’s realities.

The builders lien process might make sense for a major dispute on a $100 million project,

but for a small contractor, chasing $50,000 or $100,000 in overdue invoices is not

always practical. With the time, the legal fees and the stress, it might not even

be worth it.

Yes, the principle of prompt payment is overdue. I certainly don’t dispute that, but

what matters is whether this bill, in the way the government chooses to implement

it, will actually make a difference for the people it’s supposed to help.

[11:40 a.m.]

Before coming to the Legislature, the projects that I worked on were big, complex

undertakings with prime contractors, construction managers, engineering firms and

multiple layers of subcontractors, as I’ve said.

When you’ve been working in this world, you learn quickly how one missed payment or

one administrative delay can really ripple down that value chain. There could actually

be dozens of companies down below on these major, major projects. The prime contractor

doesn’t get paid, so they hold back payment from their subs, who hold back, and so

on.

I’ve seen good, competent businesses pushed right to the brink of insolvency because

of those payment delays. I’ve tried to work through those issues with them, but the

system currently as it is has allowed that inertia that is a real problem.

Let’s start with some of the concepts in the bill, and I’ll go into a few specific

key areas of interest that I just want to clarify as we’re moving forward. Let’s start

with the concept of a proper invoice. Under this bill, the clock on payment does not

start ticking until a proper invoice is submitted, and it has to meet certain criteria.

That does sound reasonable, but of course, we need consistency, transparency and all

that in our documentation.

As we’re looking at what a proper invoice is, I think that is important for defining

to make sure that small contractors have the ability to actually not be tripped up

or not be able to fill out that type of paperwork. A large contractor with a team

of accountants and lawyers can handle that paperwork, but let’s make it simple for

the little guys. So will there be plain-language templates, online tools, a helpline

or support desk? I think these details do matter.

Hopefully we’ll be able to hear from the Attorney General, as we get through later

stages of this bill, what the government plans to do to make sure this system is simple,

accessible and fair.

Another area that I want to get further clarification on before understanding further

support for the bill is how this bill is going to apply to the B.C. government itself,

as well as Crown agencies. I’ve heard from many companies in my area that say that

organizations like B.C. Hydro are actually some of the worst offenders in prompt payment

challenges. I’m not that surprised. I know that our government is quite bureaucratic,

and it’s not a surprise to me that it takes a long time to get payment.

I’m looking forward at what’s in front of us right now and the need for this type

of prompt payment to actually be in place. There are big projects in my region proposed,

like the North Coast transmission line from Prince George to Terrace. I attended B.C.

Hydro’s open house and told them that we need fair procurement that actually gives

local companies a fair ability to work, that prioritizes real local contractors and

not just paper joint ventures from Edmonton with no local employment attached to it

and that we need to ensure that local contractors are paid on time for their work.

We also need to look at making sure that BCIB is included. I’ve personally heard from

many in the trucking sector that have not been paid through CBA projects as well.

I think that’s something where we need certainty that it’s going to be included and

applied to all areas of the government and Crown corporations.

Is this something that we can expect carve-outs on for specific projects that suit

the government or specific agencies? I think we need to get those questions answered

before we can understand, for the industry, what this actually means for them.

Now I’ll turn to the adjudication process. I’d say this sounds good on paper. It could

be a faster, more affordable way to resolve disputes instead of spending years in

court. I think the idea has merit. The question is: will it work for everyone in this

case? Who are the adjudicators? What training will they have? Will they understand

construction, or will they just add another layer of bureaucracy that is challenging

for folks to navigate? How much will it cost to bring a dispute forward?

[11:45 a.m.]

I think if all of these things are only prescribed in regulation, it’s hard to tell

for the industry what that actually means for them.

If the government wants small contractors to use this system, it needs to be affordable

and accessible not just in Vancouver but across the province, in northern B.C., in

places like Prince George or Mackenzie or Burns Lake. You can’t hop on the SkyTrain

to go down to an adjudication meeting. You actually need access to it, so it needs

to be fair for everyone. If it’s not really with that regional access in mind, and

if it’s all centralized, then, again, the little guy could be left out.

Another area that I’ve already referenced but I’m going to turn to again is the Builders

Lien Act. I’m wondering how these pieces of legislation will actually interact in

practice. I think that’s an important question. Bill 20 says that the two systems

will operate together, with holdbacks still required under the lien framework. Of

course, 10 percent holdbacks are required under the Builders Lien Act to ensure that

owners hold a financial pool for unpaid contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is something that has been in place for quite some time now, and it’s legislation

that also needs to be updated. But in all layers of the value chain, cash flow is

a major issue for construction. How do the timelines outlined in this new act work

within the existing legislation? There are regulations already in place for the Builders

Lien Act, so are those being changed because of this? I think these are questions

that the government needs to answer to bring some certainty for the construction sector.

Uncertainty, of course, is challenging for investment. It’s challenging for the business

community in general and for the workers that rely on these paycheques. One thing

that’s been common is the progressive release of holdbacks after completing work.

It’s something that’s very normalized in the construction world. What does this all

mean for businesses managing their cash flow?

Noting the hour, I’ll move adjournment of the debate and reserve my time to continue

at the next sitting.

Kiel Giddens moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson :

Section A reports progress on Bill 12 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We’re on clause 3.

On clause 3 (continued) .

Macklin McCall : I’m continuing on from yesterday.

I have one question — I’ll put these questions together; I think it will work very

nicely — about stakeholder consultation.

Has the government consulted with road safety experts, driver training schools and

other stakeholders to gather input on the appropriate periods for requirements, restrictions

or conditions, and can the minister provide details on the feedback that was received

from these consultations and how it has been incorporated into the bill?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you for the question about the engagement process.

RoadSafetyBC and ICBC played a central role in developing and planning the proposed

graduated licensing program model and worked together on consultations that created

two advisory working groups, bringing together key stakeholders and experts to help

shape both proposed changes to the GLP and the MLP models.

The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police was a key group engaged throughout the process

and, as I indicated yesterday, supports the proposed updates to the graduated licensing

program.

The consultations occurred in three phases.

The first was that ICBC and RoadSafetyBC held small virtual sessions with over 20

stakeholders to understand how the GLP is working, identify challenges and explore

improvements.

In a second phase, over 30 participants engaged in deeper discussions about specific

GLP elements that could be changed and focused on reviewing and providing input on

the proposed GLP model and also its implementation.

Then in the third phase, two advisory groups were formed, one for the GLP and one

for the MLP, to provide input on the proposed models and implementations.

[11:25 a.m.]

You asked who specifically was consulted.

In addition to the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, it was the B.C. Trucking

Association, the driver training industry, including ICBC-certified GLP schools and

Indigenous driver training schools; First Nations communities and Indigenous organizations;

health and injury prevention organizations; as well as youth advisory committees.

Feedback, broadly, from these sessions showed strong support for the proposed direction.

test and the stresses involved were identified as barriers to getting a full class

5 licence. This results in what we touched on yesterday, which is people remaining

L drivers for years or even decades.

Among the Indigenous communities that we spoke with, there was consensus that the

exit road test is another barrier in obtaining a driver’s licence and that this presents

the second road test if the driver had a clean driving record and if the amount of

driving time required is extended. That reflects our approach, which is an extended

12-month monitoring period, which is something we heard about during the consultations.

In terms of restrictions, there was agreement with moving drivers to the class 5,

keeping the alcohol and drug restrictions, considering speed restrictions and that

consideration should be given to no restrictions for school or work, because these

are barriers to employment.

There was agreement that the current GLP can be a hindrance for some people in relation

to employment and that a shorter pathway for more mature drivers would be helpful

if it’s supported by data, and indeed it is. That pathway for mature drivers is indeed

supported by the data that we have.

Supervised driving practice was also still considered very important, no matter the

age or maturity of the driver. Among Indigenous communities, there were older people

learning to drive, and many people referenced that often the 25-year-olds have families

and need to get to work — just a general support among Indigenous communities for

pathways for mature drivers.

I think I’ll leave it at that. It was a long answer to your question.

Macklin McCall : Yeah, a thorough answer. Thank you. It was a long one there.

I want to go back to something you said, just so I’m clear on what you’re saying.

You listed off ICBC, the police chiefs association, trucking and other industries,

but you mentioned something that I wasn’t clear on. It was the first part of what

you said there. It was really, if I heard you right, that there were groups of, like,

30, and these groups that were formed kind of gave their view or opinions — before

you started listing the industry and stuff.

Interjection.

Macklin McCall : Yeah, you mentioned groups. I’m just wondering who was in those groups. You mentioned

groups of 30 people and a few other things after the fact. Is that industry? Is that

the general public? Who was in those groups?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Just to recap the specific groups that were included: the Indigenous driving schools,

First Nations communities and Indigenous organizations, representatives from the driver

training industry, including the ICBC-certified schools, health and injury prevention

organizations, youth advisory committees and the B.C. Trucking Association.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister for the thorough answer.

Continuing my question from yesterday, we were talking about ICBC under clause 3.

I can see that ICBC has the ultimate power by discretionary applying of different

tests — knowledge tests, road tests, road signs or signal tests or one or more of

the following.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : In the current Motor Vehicle Act, ICBC already is empowered to deliver driver licensing

programs. With this bill, we’re not adding additional powers per se. We’re clarifying

what those authorities are and ensuring that ICBC could administer the programs identified

in this bill.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister.

What I understand is that right now ICBC already has that discretionary power, and

you mentioned the bill clarifies it. But if they already have this power, why do we

need to deliver something that they already have?

Hon. Nina Krieger : I think we touched on this yesterday. I again reiterate that the new paragraph doesn’t

change ICBC’s existing authority to require a knowledge test, a road test, road sign–signal

tests, and so on. But the new paragraph provides clarity that ICBC can require this

to support the administration of the changes to the GLP and the MLP identified in

this bill. That change is required to proceed with the amendments to the programs.

Hon Chan : Thank you to the minister.

So in (b), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations and continue prescribing

a minimum waiting period. My general question is: why is this bill granting the LG

in Council such broad authority to make, or demanding, regulations affecting driver

licensing?

The reason I need to ask this is I have great concern after this bill is passed that

either ICBC or the LG in Council has full power without letting the House know of

any changes. I mean, they do have the power if this bill passed to make all the changes

with us not knowing anything about it. I want to know why we give this broad power

to LG in Council and also ICBC.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : I think, again, this was a question that we did delve into yesterday. Just to refresh,

the Motor Vehicle Act is an older piece of legislation that’s structured differently

from more recent legislation. It doesn’t set out specifics within the act but refers

to regulations. Bill 12 is drafted within the scheme of the existing Motor Vehicle

Act.

The supporting regulations are developed transparently through engagement with stakeholders,

such as the driver training industry, Indigenous partners, public agencies and law

enforcement, and that will continue. Regulation drafting can be an iterative process,

starting with initial discussions of the intent and then meetings to talk through

drafts to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

We’re committed to ongoing engagements through the regulations process, and then,

once finalized, all regulations are publicly posted, ensuring transparency and accountability.

I’ll just note that this delegated authority that the member refers to has been in

place for 30 years. It is nothing new as a result of this act.

Hon Chan : Thank you for the answer. However, under this bill, we can see that the order in

council or the cabinet actually has full power in the future after this bill is passed

to make any changes.

I’m glad that you mentioned that all the changes in regulation will be or hopefully

will be published. But under this bill, it actually doesn’t have to be published,

because in this bill, it doesn’t say that all regulations have to be published prior

to any changes.

So my question would be: what kind of safeguard will we be able to hold your words

accountable, saying that all future regulations changes will be published prior to

the changes?

and also be able to advance road safety, which I know is top of mind and critically

important to everyone on all sides of the House.

I think what the member is referring to is standard government process. Regulations

are developed in consultation with various stakeholders, and they’re always published

before coming into effect.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon Chan : I would just blanket ask my last question on the ultimate power thing. In sections

(c), (d), (

f) and, well, 10.13 and 10.14, they all have ICBC and LG in Council.

Also in 10.14(a), it also allows ICBC the power to determine the class of driver licence

in other jurisdictions.

Now my question is: once ICBC has this ultimate power, how do we know fairness and

equality will be met? There will be no oversight by us anymore.

Hon. Nina Krieger : Just adding an update to the previous answer I gave around the regulation piece and

the publication of regulations. This is a requirement of the Regulations Act in

section

5 that all regulations are published.

I’ll again reiterate that what is proposed in terms of ICBC’s role is nothing new.

It has been in place for three decades, and the government has confidence in ICBC

to administrate licensing programs.

We touched yesterday that if there is a complaint about anything related to driver

licensing, there is the fairness officer who reports to the minister responsible,

which is the AG. Concerns can also be raised to the Ombudsperson. So those safeguards

exist as they have for this. Just to reiterate that there’s nothing new in this legislation

that relates to ICBC’s authorities to administer licensing programs in B.C.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.