First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 100

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M221 — Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act, 2025

Gavin Dew

Bill M222 — Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Gavin Dew

Bill M223 —

Interpretation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Elenore Sturko

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Statute Repeal Act

Jordan Kealy

Post-Secondary Institutions Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Prohibition Act

Tara Armstrong

Members’ Statements

Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims

Amna Shah

International Justice Mission

Bryan Tepper

Alcoholics Anonymous

George Anderson

Jody Toor

Vancouver Goldeneyes

Stephanie Higginson

Remembrance Day Ceremonies and Youth Participation

Harman Bhangu

Oral Questions

Oil Tanker Policy and Pipeline Projects

John Rustad

Hon. Adrian Dix

Emergency Health Care Services in Tumbler Ridge

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Josie Osborne

Youth Mental Health Support and Freedom-of-Information Report Delivery Policy

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Josie Osborne

Post-Secondary Student Housing Funding and Use by International Students

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Complex Care Supportive Housing Model and Role of Local Governments

Linda Hepner

Hon. Christine Boyle

Oak Street Bridge Encampment

Teresa Wat

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Funding for Angel Flight East Kootenay Medical Transport

Scott McInnis

Hon. Josie Osborne

Access to Emergency Services in Fraser Health Region

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Josie Osborne

Interior Health Authority Management and Staffing Issues

Gavin Dew

Hon. Josie Osborne

Issues in Health Care System and Salaries of Health Authority Executives

Trevor Halford

Hon. Josie Osborne

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Petitions

Larry Neufeld

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Reporting of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

David Williams

Hon. Adrian Dix

Donegal Wilson

Sheldon Clare

Jeremy Valeriote

Kiel Giddens

Peter Milobar

Rob Botterell

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Linda Hepner

Hon. Christine Boyle

Tony Luck

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Tony Luck

Hon. Christine Boyle

Linda Hepner

Sharon Hartwell

Rob Botterell

Scott McInnis

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Sheila Malcolmson.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Rohini Arora : I would like to welcome some amazing constituents from the most amazing riding in

the province, Burnaby East.

Dr. Nicole Gladish is a health policy research scientist at Stanford University. Ms.

Wendy Colling is a Burnaby social studies and special education teacher. Ms. Amanda

Kurowski is a registered nurse and UBC graduate student in genome sciences and technology.

Ms. Megan Carver is a community mental health coordinator and social work student.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome today.

Lorne Doerkson : It gives me great pleasure to introduce a fellow by the name of Murray Wilson today.

Murray is a retired professional forester with more than 40 years of experience in

managing forests across British Columbia.

Since retiring, he has become a strong advocate for wildfire resilience and proactive

forest management. He is the producer of an independent documentary called B.C. Is Burning . This film examines the root causes of B.C.’s escalating wildfire crisis.

I am pleased to invite you all to a screening of this film this evening. Mr. Speaker

and myself are hosting this event. We’ll be hearing from our Forests Minister as well,

this evening. You are all welcome. I’m told there might be free chicken wings, so

please come.

This is a very important film to all members of this House, so please come tonight.

It will be my pleasure to join Mr. Speaker in hosting that.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : I am very pleased to welcome today a good friend and a very successful businessperson,

Sucha Padda from Surrey. He proudly owns Grand Taj and Grand Empire Banquet Hall in

Surrey. His doors are always open to the community to organize community events, to

bring community together.

Today is a special day for him and his wife, Harpal Padda, because they are joined

by their family members Balwinder Kaur and Manjit Kaur, who are visiting from India.

They’re here to experience question period with us.

I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

John Rustad : It was an honour today to be part of the Métis celebration in the Hall of Honour.

We have a number of the Métis Nation people here today that I’d like to introduce.

Minister Paulette Flamond, skills training–post secondary education, is somebody I’ve

worked closely with over the years in my time when I was a minister. It was great

to see her here today. Minister Debra Fisher, education and child care; and Minister

Susie Hooper, environmental protection; as well as staff person Arsalan Anwar.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. Kelly Greene : Twice a year we have the privilege of welcoming an important guest into our chambers

and across British Columbia, that guest being our emergency alert system test, of

course. In the case of an emergency, these alerts can provide life-saving information

and instructions to the public. It’s one of the ways we help keep people in B.C. safe.

Today at 1:55 p.m., we’ll be testing our emergency alert system. That means people

will be receiving an alert on their mobile device, radio and TV. In order to receive

the alert, you need to make sure that your settings on your cell phone are not set

to do not disturb, that you are connected to an LTE network and that your device is

up to date.

Please help me in welcoming our emergency alert test into the chambers today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Trevor Halford : I would like to introduce the Next Generation Foundation. They support people experiencing

homelessness in the community of White Rock, and they are with us today.

With us are Parminder Singh Wander, Kuldeep Kaur, Babanpreet Singh, Asi Kaur and Jagmeet

Kaur. Both of these wonderful girls actually go to White Rock Elementary and attended

that with my daughter, Alexandra. It’s good to see them here today.

I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Joining us today in the gallery is the Heart and Stroke Foundation, who are accompanied

by other health-related organizations, and together they make up B.C. rehabilitation

and recovery.

It’s a collaborative visiting the Legislature today, meeting with MLAs to discuss

improved neurorehabilitation and recovery support and services, a critical part of

recovery for individuals who are affected by stroke, traumatic brain injury, spinal

cord injury and other neurological conditions.

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

Larry Neufeld : I rise in this place of honour today to correct the record. One of my colleagues

from across the way mistakenly mentioned another riding that was the best in the province,

and everyone here knows that Peace River South is by far the best riding in the province.

To that end, I would very much like to welcome one of the councillors from the beautiful

and amazing town of Tumbler Ridge, Chris Norbury.

Please make him welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I want to join my colleague the Deputy Speaker in welcoming Murray Wilson to the

Legislature and encourage all members from all sides of the House to be able to participate

in the viewing of B.C. Is Burning this evening.

I’ve had a chance to watch it twice, and I’m really pleased that Murray invited the

B.C. wildfire service, in particular our ADM responsible, for the opportunity to be

able to participate in that.

I am really pleased to share with the House that Murray has agreed to serve on my

minister’s advisory council, the Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council, to be

able to take the lessons he is sharing in that film and bring that to help influence

government policy.

Murray, thanks very much for being here and for all that you are doing.

I also want to take the opportunity, as was done earlier this week, to welcome the

Invasive Species Council to the precinct here today and, in particular, to give a

shout-out to their executive director, someone who is working so very hard and wears

a number of hats, Gail Wallin.

In addition, I want to welcome back to the Legislature Steve Thomson, a former Minister

of Forests himself, who has been serving as chair of the Invasive Species Council.

Will the House please join me in making all of these guests feel very welcome.

Sheldon Clare : There are 365 days in a year, and one of them is somebody’s birthday every one of

those days. I would like to draw to your attention the birthday of one of our staff,

Athena Lord-Naswell, up in the gallery there, who worked in the chamber with us last

session.

Happy birthday, Athena.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : As everyone in this chamber knows and can agree, some days are hard here. This work

can be difficult, but what makes it a lot better is when you have your two aunties

visiting you in Victoria.

I would like to introduce to the House my auntie Shelley Thielker and her bestie,

Rhoda Reece. Shelley lives with me in Nelson. We grew up together, all my cousins.

And Rhoda is in my dear friend’s — who is sitting right beside me, and I can’t remember

the name of her constituency right now…. Sunshine Coast. She’s from Texada. We went

on a really lovely walk, and it is so wonderful to be having a sleepover with your

aunties in Victoria.

Will the House please let both Shelley and Rhoda feel very welcome.

Love you.

Ian Paton : It’s been a good week for me. I’ve got two constituents here again today from Tsawwassen,

B.C. They live in a little part of Tsawwassen called Boundary Bay — Andrea O’Leary

and her partner, Kalvin Penner.

[1:45 p.m.]

They were part of a fundraiser, which we have many of in Delta — galas, etc. They

won the opportunity to come here today, hang out, tour the building with Keith Baldrey,

and they’re here in question period. They even had lunch with two celebrities, Vaughn

Palmer and Keith Baldrey, today.

Please welcome Andrea and Kalvin.

George Anderson : Every once in a while, you’re sitting at the Empress, and you look over and see a

shadow walk by. Then you see another shadow, and you find out that it’s two of your

friends from France. And you say: “Wow, what would you like to do on Wednesday but

come to the Legislature?”

I would like to point up here. We have Anita and Jean-Claude Tissier who are visiting

the Legislature. They’re great friends of mine.

I hope that the entire House would make them feel welcome.

Gavin Dew : I’d like to join the member opposite in welcoming my friend and predecessor, Steve

Thomson, to the House.

Anyone who has served in this House for a long time or been in politics and has gotten

to know Steve knows that he is truly the model of a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

He is a wonderful, humble community servant who, after his service as an MLA, continued

to serve our community, including as co-chair of our Memorial Cup bid, and is just

a wonderful fellow to work with and someone that I look to for inspiration as I set

out in this role.

Harwinder Sandhu : Today I am excited to welcome three special guests in the gallery.

First, Anna Caldwell. She is the South Island HEU regional vice-president. Anna has

been with the union for 13 years, and for the past four years, she has served as health

care aide in the ICU at Victoria General Hospital. Born and raised in Victoria, now

living in Sooke, this is her very first time in the gallery watching question period.

Joining Anna is Bill McMullan, first vice-president of the Hospital Employees Union

and dedicated community support worker for 23 years, serving in many roles across

HEU. Bill also lives in Victoria.

Last but not the least, with them is my husband, who I rarely get to see but am delighted

to see here in the gallery, Baljit Sandhu. He’s also a longtime HEU member and health

care worker at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, currently serving as HEU regional vice-president

for the Interior.

Would the House please join me to thank my guests for the tremendous work they do

to help people and to help our health care system and to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Nina Krieger : Earlier today I had the opportunity to meet with Tracy Crawford, who is the regional

manager of western Canada for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. We discussed the incredibly

important work that MADD has done over the last 30 years to support victims, combat

impaired driving and improve road safety across our province and beyond.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank members of the House for wearing the red

ribbon pins to highlight the work of MADD, which is particularly meaningful today

as it is the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to remind British Columbians, as we enter into

the holiday season that we go out to celebrate with family and friends, to join the

pledge to never drive impaired, to plan ahead for your rides there and back. Your

neighbours and your loved ones are counting on you.

Please join me in thanking MADD and Tracy for all the work that they do.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M221 — Short-Term Rental

Accommodations Amendment Act, 2025

Gavin Dew presented a bill intituled Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act,

Gavin Dew : I move that a bill intituled Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act, of which

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

time now.

I think I’m setting a record today. The Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment

Act is one of the shortest and simplest bills ever presented.

Communities like Kelowna, tourism-driven and seasonal in nature, face a real challenge

under the current timelines in the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. Under the

existing rules, a municipality that meets the vacancy rate threshold and submits its

opt-out resolution by March 31 must wait until November 1 for the change to take effect.

This means an entire summer season lost for local businesses, visitors, seasonal workers

and hosts.

[1:50 p.m.]

My bill proposes a simple, commonsense change. Keep the March 31 submission deadline

but move the effective opt-out date from November 1 to May 1 of the same year.

In regions like mine, the summer months are the beating heart of the local economy.

Festivals, sporting events, wineries, tourism operators and hundreds of small businesses

depend on the May-to-September season. Being forced to wait until next November to

implement a locally justified opt out means we lose that entire window and opportunity.

It’s poor policy, and it fails to respect the housing and economic realities of our

communities.

Kelowna has built more homes, met our housing targets and raised our vacancy rate

to its highest level in 20 years. Our vacancy rate reached 3.8 percent in 2024 and

is currently estimated at over 5 percent.

If this government genuinely believes in made-in-community partnerships with municipalities

and not just top-down direction, then this change should be non-controversial. It

gives local governments the ability to implement decisions based on real data, real

vacancy rates and real seasonal demand without waiting through another entire year.

Given how simple and commonsense this bill is, I hope that it will enjoy unanimous

support and a speedy passage through this House.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M222 — Short-Term Rental

Accommodations Amendment

Act ( No. 2), 2025

Gavin Dew presented a bill intituled Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2025.

Gavin Dew : I move that a bill intituled Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act (No.2),

2025, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and read a first time now.

In the interest of making it as easy as possible for the government to get to yes

on commonsense changes, I have divided my amendments into two separate bills. I will

now speak to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act (No. 2).

I’m a big believer in subsidiarity, the idea that issues should be addressed at the

lowest possible level, allowing local communities to make decisions for themselves.

In other words, we should treat municipalities like grownups.

This bill gives municipalities something they have been asking for: the ability to

manage short-term rentals during major events in a way that reflects local realities,

not one-size-fits-all dictates from Victoria.

I’m talking about FIFA-level tournaments, world-class concerts like Taylor Swift,

large conferences, cultural festivals — the kinds of events that bring thousands of

people into a community for a very short time, well beyond the capacity of existing

hotels and traditional rental stock.

This amendment creates a municipal event exemption that would let cities temporarily

adjust short-term-rental rules during major events that create sudden spikes in accommodation

demand. My proposed approach would still be capped at an absolute maximum of 45 days

per year.

Municipalities would have to define the event window, pass a resolution and report

to the province. Temporary permits issued for that period would still be tracked and

regulated but could be faster and cheaper to encourage surge capacity to come on stream.

While there is a broader and potentially more divisive conversation to be had around

short-term rental policy, this small change is a constructive and balanced approach

designed to make incremental improvements.

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

Motion approved.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M223 —

Interpretation

Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

Elenore Sturko presented a bill intituled

Interpretation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Elenore Sturko : I move that a bill intituled

Interpretation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, of which

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

time today.

[1:55 p.m.]

The

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2025, aims to repeal

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation

Act. The

Interpretation Act is a crucial piece of legislation in British Columbia

that outlines how laws should be interpreted and applied. It includes

definitions

and rules that apply to all statutes and regulations within the province.

In 2021, the act was amended to include

section 8.1, which makes it a legal requirement

that every act and regulation must be construed….

[Interruption.]

Elenore Sturko : The emergency alert system works, everybody.

The Speaker : Please continue.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you.

Section 8.1 has already contributed to a court decision on Aboriginal title that related

to the private property rights of British Columbians in Richmond. While the

Interpretation

Act was not the only basis on which she reached her decision on Cowichan Tribes v. Canada , Justice Young relied on this to support her conclusion that the Land Title Act does

not protect owners from Aboriginal title claims.

Here are her exact words. “I find support for the view that the indefeasibility provisions

in the Land Title Act do not apply against Aboriginal title in

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation Act, which directs that legislation be interpreted in a manner that

does not derogate from Aboriginal rights. To construe it otherwise would also be inconsistent

with UNDRIP.”

When DRIPA was voted for in this House, I do not believe that British Columbians understood

that this government intended to use it to change their way of life or to change the

interpretation of statutes that protect their rights. Interpreting all laws and regulations

so they must be consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act fundamentally changes the governance of our province and may erode the protection

of rights and interests for all British Columbians.

I don’t believe this government received the informed consent of British Columbians

to change the governance of this province, and for this reason, I believe

Section

8.1 of the

Interpretation Act must be repealed.

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

Motion approved.

Elenore Sturko : I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Statute Repeal Act

Jordan Kealy presented a bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Statute Repeal Act.

Jordan Kealy : I move that the bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Statute

Repeal Act, of which notice is being given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and read for the first time now.

Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, I speak to this bill from the heart and with sincerity.

Reconciliation matters, respect matters and partnership matters. But DRIPA, as implemented,

is dividing people at a time when we need unity. It is pulling this province apart

when we should be building something stronger together.

My brother has four children — two stepchildren who are First Nations and two biological

children. All four he loves equally. As his children grow up, two will receive benefits

the other two will never qualify for — education supports, job opportunities, extended

health coverage, housing programs and hunting and fishing rights.

These children live in the same house, raised by the same parents, but the government

will treat them vastly different. How is he supposed to explain to his children why

they are treated so very differently? The answer is: he shouldn’t. He loves them.

And they are equal and should be treated as such.

Across this province, people feel the ground shifting beneath them. Families, Indigenous

and non-Indigenous, are trying to plan their lives in a system clouded with uncertainty.

Land decisions are inconsistent. Processes are tangled. Ministries are operating under

conflicting expectations. Meetings are happening behind closed doors. Transparency

is missing, and trust is eroding.

This conclusion is causing real harm. It is straining relationships, slowing essential

projects and undermining confidence in government. People are afraid to say the wrong

thing, do the wrong thing or simply not understanding the system that has become too

unclear to navigate.

This bill is a call for courage to put clarity above confusion, unity above division

and fairness above uncertainty. We need to create a new framework that unites us all

together cohesively to look forward and not just backwards.

I end with a quote from George Erasmus, former AFN National Chief: “We cannot live

in the past, but the past will continue to live in us if we do not confront it together.”

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

Division has been called.

[2:00 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Members, the question is first reading of the private member’s bill introduced by

Peace River North.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

NAYS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

Post-Secondary Institutions

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Prohibition Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Post-Secondary Institutions Diversity, Equity

and Inclusion Prohibition Act.

Tara Armstrong : I move that a bill entitled Post-Secondary Inclusion Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Prohibition Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read for a first time now.

Men, get to the back of the line. Whites, Asians and Jews need not apply.

That’s exactly what diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, is. It’s the idea that

jobs should be awarded on the basis of race or sex, not merit or qualifications, and

that discrimination against certain groups is a good thing. It has completely consumed

our universities.

Our bill will rip it from its roots. Here in B.C., Simon Fraser University openly

posted for 15 Black-only faculty positions. The Aristotle Foundation found that 98

percent of 500 academic job postings across Canada contained DEI-based discrimination.

At UBC, two-thirds of job postings required candidates to show their commitment to

left-wing politics, in the name of DEI.

Jobs should go to the most qualified candidate, regardless of sex or race. You want

your plane flown by the best pilot and your scalpel wielded by the best surgeon. You

care about their skills, not their skin colour.

[2:15 p.m.]

Our bill bans race-based hiring, identity quotas and ideological litmus tests at our

tax-funded universities. Any public institution that refuses to comply loses its funding.

Every Canadian should be judged by their merits, not their sex or their skin colour.

DEI must d-i-e, and this bill will kill it.

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

Division has been called.

[2:20 p.m. - 2:25 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

NAYS — 50

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

Sturko

Boultbee

Members’ Statements

Day of Remembrance for

Road Crash Victims

Amna Shah : On November 19, we observe the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims.

This is a solemn day to honour those who have been killed or injured in often preventable

crashes and to stand with the loved ones who are left to cope with sudden and heartbreaking

loss.

This year the province of British Columbia has officially proclaimed November 19 as

the Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims, reaffirming our shared commitment to

road safety and to honouring those whose lives have been tragically cut short.

Speeding, distracted driving and impaired driving remain the leading causes of motor

vehicle collisions. Here in British Columbia, from 2019 to 2023, an average of 288

people lost their lives in crashes. Each one of those numbers represents a person,

a story, a family and a future that will never be realized.

[2:30 p.m.]

Nearly 20 percent of those fatalities happened in November and December, months where

winter conditions and holiday celebrations increase the risks on our roads. Mothers

Against Drunk Driving brings awareness to these increased risks every November 1 to

January 5, with Project Red Ribbon.

As we head into the holiday season, let’s commit to making safe choices. If you’re

going to a gathering, plan ahead for a safe ride home. This could mean assigning a

designated driver, taking public transit or calling a taxi, whatever it takes to make

sure everyone gets home safely.

There is no celebration that is worth the risk of impaired driving. On this day of

remembrance, we honour the lives lost and stand with the families and communities

affected, and we appreciate the incredible advocacy of groups like MADD.

Let’s keep working together to make our roads safe for everyone.

International Justice Mission

Bryan Tepper : Good afternoon, friends.

Imagine a little girl promised a job, handed over by her own family, only to be locked

in a room and sold night after night. Or a boy in an internet café forced on camera

while a stranger thousands of kilometres away pays to watch and direct the abuse in

real time. This is modern slavery. It is happening right now with millions of children.

International Justice Mission exists to end this violence. IJM rescues victims, brings

the criminals to justice, restores survivors to safety and strength and helps local

law enforcement build systems that last.

Today, in partnership with Village Church in my own riding, among many, we in Canada

have a chance to fight back. Disturbingly, Canada ranks as the fourth-largest consumer

of child sexual exploitation material in the world. That means the demand fuelling

this horror is, in part, coming from our own backyard. We cannot look away.

As one example, for 15 years, IJM worked in Kolkata, India, training police, prosecutors

and judges. When they started in 2006, the streets were filled with children being

sold. Today, because of that work, 101 traffickers, pimps, brothel owners and even

customers have been convicted, and those same streets have a 95 percent reduction.

Now IJM is taking everything they’ve learned to Bangladesh, equipping honest police

and courts to protect the next generation of boys and girls before they’re ever sold.

This only happens when people like us stand with them. I’m asking you today to become

a monthly partner with IJM Canada. Even a small amount every month rescues real children,

puts real criminals behind bars and changes entire communities. Will you go to ijm.ca

right now and set up a monthly gift?

Together we can make sure no child is for sale. Not on our watch.

Alcoholics Anonymous

George Anderson : There are moments in life when a person looks in the mirror and no longer recognizes

the face that is staring back, when hope feels distant, when tomorrow feels too heavy

to carry. But there is also a moment when someone decides to reach out and ask for

help. Alcoholics Anonymous is there in that moment.

Across British Columbia in church basements and community halls, people gather — no

status, no judgment, just courage, just honesty and just the shared belief that life

can get better one day at a time. There is no cost to attend, no paperwork to fill

out, no conditions to prove you are worthy, because every single person is worthy,

every single person deserves a second chance, and every single person deserves to

be seen and believed in.

In Nanaimo, from Ladysmith to Lantzville and on Gabriola Island, there are close to

50 groups, a central office that answers the phone 24-7, free brochures, outreach,

seminars, all with one purpose — to help people reclaim their lives.

I want us to think for a moment about what actually happens in these rooms. A person

stands up and says: “My name is” and “I am an alcoholic.” And the room responds: “We’re

glad you’re here.” What a profound act of humanity. What a declaration that nobody

— nobody — is defined by their worst day. That is what I saw this summer when I attended

as an observer.

[2:35 p.m.]

The sponsors who answer the phone at midnight, volunteers who set out chairs and members

who share their most vulnerable truths — they are heroes, quiet heroes, heroes who

save families, who restore dignity, who keep people alive.

AA tells us something different from despair. It tells us: “You are not alone.” It

tells us: “You matter.” It tells us: “Recovery is possible, and we will walk with

you until you believe it to be true.”

To every person on a sobriety journey, whether it’s been ten years or ten minutes:

your resolve strengthens our province. Your courage inspires me. Your voice deserves

to be celebrated in this chamber.

To everyone involved in Alcoholics Anonymous across British Columbia: thank you for

your quiet leadership that saves lives. Your example strengthens our province, and

your commitment to one another gives us all hope. Thank you.

Keep going, and we are all cheering for you.

New Directions

School in Langley.

On October 28, something extraordinary took place. More than 700 LINC students filled

a local theatre in the morning, afternoon and evening ceremonies to celebrate their

graduation. Over 60 countries were represented, all united by a beautiful theme song,

“We are Unity.” We are from all around the world.” It was a powerful reminder that

our diversity is one of this community’s greatest strengths.

Today New Directions operates 54 classes, from Monday to Saturday, mornings, afternoons

and evenings. This is impressive, considering the school began in 1989 with just one

classroom, founded by president Yvonne Hopp. Her vision and dedication have built

one of the most impactful newcomers programs in our region.

Supported by IRCC, New Directions ensures newcomers have access to high-quality language

instructors as they begin their Canadian journey. But these instructors do far more

fully in Canadian life. Students often share how improved communication has helped

them find work, support their children’s education, access community service and prepare

for citizenship.

The recent graduation brought together many community partners, each offering congratulations

and support. These partnerships show how deeply New Directions is rooted in our city

and how valued it truly is.

This work strengthens the priorities I care deeply about: improving health by helping

newcomers navigate care, supporting housing stability and providing to our local economy

by preparing newcomers to succeed. New Directions is more than a school. It is a bridge

to belonging, opportunity and hope.

To the staff, partners, volunteers and students: thank you for everything you do to

make our community stronger.

Vancouver Goldeneyes

Stephanie Higginson : I rise in the House today to recognize that November 21 marks an incredible day for

hockey and an even better day for women in sport in British Columbia. This Friday

night is the inaugural home game of the Vancouver Goldeneyes, British Columbia’s very

own team in the Professional Women’s Hockey League. We are so proud to have the first

PWHL team in Western Canada.

This is a huge win for professional hockey, not just for women’s hockey but for the

entire game, for its fans and for every young girl who dreams of lacing up her skates,

hitting the ice and making a living doing the sport that she loves.

The Goldeneyes also bring more opportunities for fans to come and visit Vancouver

and beautiful British Columbia. The Goldeneyes are a testament to the skill, to the

leadership and the perseverance of women who have pushed boundaries in hockey and

beyond to make this dream a reality.

In the past 20 years, the number of girls playing hockey in British Columbia has more

than doubled. This incredible achievement is what happens when we invest in opportunity,

especially for women. That’s why our government’s work toward gender equity incorporates

a more inclusive sport culture in B.C.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Goldeneyes logo is inspired by the fiercely protective common goldeneye, a bird

native to Vancouver’s waterways, coastlines and mountain vistas. Drawing inspiration

from its speed, strength and precision in flight, the goldeneyes reflect our team’s

unbeatable and unified spirit as they soar to new heights.

To the entire Vancouver Goldeneyes team and B.C. players Jenn Gardiner, Hannah Miller,

Kimberly Newell, Chanreet Bassi and Nina Jobst-Smith: welcome home.

To all the members of this House: I ask you to join me in recognizing this opportunity

for women in sport and cheering on the Goldeneyes as they take on the Seattle Torrent

at the Pacific Coliseum this Friday night.

Let’s go, Goldeneyes.

Remembrance Day Ceremonies and

Youth Participation

Harman Bhangu : During the Remembrance Day break week, across Langley-Abbotsford and throughout our

province, British Columbians gathered to honour the men and women who gave everything

for our country. I had the opportunity to attend several ceremonies, including the

No Stone Left Alone event at Aberdeen Cemetery.

Walking through the headstones, reading the biographies placed on the graves, I was

reminded that many of these fallen heroes were the same people who built this province,

long before they wore the uniform. They worked in our forests, our mills, our mines,

our farms, our jobsites. They were the people who literally got British Columbia off

the ground, the ones who built the resource industries, the early communities, the

foundations of prosperity we enjoy today.

When war called, they answered that call. Some of them never returned. Those who did

come home went right back to building the British Columbia we know today.

One of the most powerful moments this year was seeing youth participate in remembrance.

At Aberdeen Cemetery, teachers, parents and fifth-grade students from Shortreed Community

Elementary School came out as part of No Stone Left Alone. They walked the roads,

placed poppies on every veteran’s headstone and took a few moments to learn who these

people were and what they sacrificed.

Seeing those young students carefully placing each poppy, acknowledging men and women

who lived, worked and raised families and then served their country, is a reminder

that remembrance is being passed to the next generation. Events like this teach our

youth that the freedoms and privileges we live with today were paid for by the people

who built this province with their hands and defended it with their lives.

Their legacy is in our communities, our industries and the opportunities we enjoy

today, and now it’s being carried forward by the next generation, who are learning

what service truly means.

Lest we forget.

Oral Questions

Oil Tanker Policy and

Pipeline Projects

John Rustad : This Premier has made it very clear that he does not support an oil pipeline from

Alberta through to the north coast.

He has also made it very clear that he will not support the lifting of the ban on

tankers.

Given that Alberta and the federal government seem to be approaching an agreement

to do this, is the Premier prepared to change his position and support a nation-building

project?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The oil tanker ban on the coast protects B.C.’s community and B.C.’s economy. The

Coastal First Nations have spoken strongly of it. The Premier has. Every member of

our caucus supports that oil tanker ban on the north coast.

With respect to possible agreements, and I understand there’s speculation about that

today but no obvious agreements, I’d say this. A pipeline across northern B.C., a

bitumen pipeline, has no proponent, no route, no plan. No possibility of take-or-pay

contracts would be subsidized publicly by tens of billions of dollars.

Yes, our position is that we should support nation-building projects like the North

Coast transmission line that are in the interests of British Columbia. And I would

like the hon. Leader of the Opposition, whose own riding would benefit from the North

Coast transmission line, to stand up in this House and say he supports it.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : If the minister would love to ask a question, we can switch sides anytime you like.

[2:45 p.m.]

When the Trans Mountain pipeline was built, this Premier and this government said

they would use every tool in the box to stop that project from moving forward. When

that project was moved forward and approved, they created delays and cost overruns

to the tune of billions on that project because of their opposition to this, a nation-building

project.

Now we are in the same situation. There’s a project coming forward. There are First

Nations supporting it. We’re going to see this come forward in an agreement between

Alberta and the Prime Minister, with regards to moving oil and a nation-building project.

The question I would have to the Premier is this. Does he plan to use every tool in

the box to stymie and cost overrun yet another nation-building project?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, it’s good to see that the British Columbia official opposition doesn’t support

nation-building projects in B.C., opposes nation-building projects in B.C…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, order.

Hon. Adrian Dix : …and supports them from other provinces. A project has to exist. It has to exist

in time and place.

But I can tell you. You look at British Columbia, and you see four nation-building

projects approved by the federal government. I don’t know where the opposition stands.

We named 18 major projects; they opposed 12. I think that MLAs in British Columbia…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : …should support British Columbia, and certainly, the opposition isn’t doing that.

Emergency Health Care Services

in Tumbler Ridge

Larry Neufeld : After-hours ER closures in Tumbler Ridge nearly killed both the mayor and a councillor

on the same night. Both suffered abdominal emergencies, and both ended up requiring

emergency surgery.

The mayor was sent to Fort St. John, a two-hour drive away, during an emergency.

Will the minister commit today to restoring after-hours ER services in Tumbler Ridge,

or does someone need to die first?

Hon. Josie Osborne : It’s been a really tough time for the people living in Tumbler Ridge to know that

emergency services had to be stopped at night and on the weekends. Having a shortage

of physicians in the community meant that the stress and the burden placed on those

remaining staff people was too much to bear, and Northern Health made a very difficult

decision.

But to make sure that people get the help they need when they present at the health

centre or when they call 911, they added ambulance resources to the community and

to the region, because it’s vitally important that people get the care they need,

when they need it…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …where they need it, as quickly as possible.

I know that the community is working closely with Northern Health, and I appreciate

the member’s interventions, the conversations that he has had directly with me and

with Northern Health, working together with the mayor.

I’ll be meeting with the mayor when he’s down here next week. We’re going to continue

to do everything we can to support Northern Health in recruiting more physicians so

that we’re able to move towards restoring services in Tumbler Ridge and, in the meantime,

do everything possible to make sure people have that care when it’s needed.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Larry Neufeld : Northern Health leadership publicly said that there were too many ER visits and that

the ER should be reserved for dire emergencies, those such as shortness of breath

or chest pain. Clearly, for Northern Health, an abdominal emergency does not count

as dire. Local doctor Charles Helm has publicly called Northern Health’s advice “irresponsible.”

Adding insult to injury, Northern Health told residents that closing the ER after

hours was actually good for them because they would supposedly get faster care.

Does the minister agree with Northern Health leadership that ER closures are good

for the people of Tumbler Ridge, yes or no?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : I totally disagree with the member’s characterization of this. There are professionals

at Northern Health working closely with local medical staff to make the best decisions

possible with the resources and the shortages and the strains that they’re facing.

It’s inappropriate to speculate on individual cases and to speculate on what may have

happened. What’s vitally important is that Northern Health continues to work closely

with the community, that recruitment efforts are ongoing and that, more broadly, British

Columbia continues, our government continues, to focus on these recruitment efforts,

because we know that the strain being placed on rural ERs is incredibly difficult

for local communities to bear.

That’s why we’re taking action to recruit more physicians and nurses from places like

the U.S. That’s why we’re speeding up credentialing. It’s why we’re going to continue

to build more medical training seats for the nurses and doctors that we need in the

years to come. Whether you live in a small town or whether you live in a large urban

area, you deserve to have the care that is there for you. And that’s why we’re going

to stay focused…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …on this work at hand.

Youth Mental Health Support and

Freedom-of-Information

Report Delivery Policy

Jeremy Valeriote : I rise with a heavy heart today, and I would like to warn the House that the subject

of my question is distressing. I am humbled to have been given permission to share

this story.

Two years ago, Bowen Island teenager Maya Cassady made a request under the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to receive her medical records. The records

pertained to recent hospital visits where she was admitted for treatment of a mental

illness.

The FOI request was made without her parents’ knowledge. After receiving her records,

Maya went online to look up terms related to her diagnosis. The search results indicated

that her illness was untreatable. That information was the last thing found on Maya’s

phone. Her mother, Hilary, believes that she interpreted her situation to be hopeless.

Maya died by suicide later that day.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why are vulnerable minors being left to

interpret potentially harmful information without support from mental health professionals?

Hon. Josie Osborne : First, to the member, to Maya’s family, what a tragic and heartbreaking circumstance

this is. It’s difficult for the House to hear, and I know that it’s difficult for

the member to bring this up. The death of any child is absolutely devastating, and

I know that our hearts go out to her family, her friends and her community.

I will be pleased to talk with the member more about this particular case. We always

want to learn from tragedies like this and do everything we can to prevent them from

happening again.

It is also why we have to continue focusing on the supports that youth need so that

no youth like Maya feels hopeless about their situation and that they know there is

a place to turn to, to reach out for help.

That’s why we’re going to continue our work to create a youth suicide prevention network,

a way of assisting clinicians in helping to identify issues, providing supports for

youth. We are going to continue our investment into Foundry, providing one-stop shops,

places that are safe for youth to come in and seek the supports that they need. Nothing

could be more important.

This government is so committed to this work, and I will be very pleased to work with

the member following up from this.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you to the minister.

With respect, this isn’t just a particular case. Since their daughter’s death, Maya’s

parents have become fierce advocates for youth mental health. They are calling for

systemic change to ensure Maya’s death is not repeated. They report that FOI requests

are common amongst minors hospitalized for mental illness. Other children are at risk.

We must ensure that these reports are delivered with the support of mental health

professionals.

As my constituency staff have worked with Maya’s parents to advocate for change, they

have been directed first to the Ministry of Health, then to the Ministry of Citizens’

Services and then back to the health authority. No ministry seems to want to touch

this.

My question is for the Premier. Which one of your ministers will take responsibility

to ensure this doesn’t happen again?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I don’t want Maya’s parents to have any challenges reaching out to our government

for help. My commitment to the member, regardless of what ministry I represent, is

to make sure that Maya’s family has access to the people that they need to talk to,

so that we as a government, regardless of which ministry, learn from this tragedy

and make the changes so that we can do everything possible to prevent this from happening

again.

[2:55 p.m.]

Post-Secondary Student Housing Funding

and Use by International Students

Dallas Brodie : What if I told you that the government has a foreign welfare program where they take

money from citizens and give it to non-taxpaying guests.

The B.C. government is spending $2 billion on university student housing, but half

of this money, nearly $1 billion, is given away to foreign student housing, students

who don’t even call Canada home. This government is prioritizing and spending money

on guests instead of our own citizens.

Will the minister act immediately to cut this $1 billion foreign student subsidy and

give this money back to British Columbians?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I am happy to rise for my first time in this House to answer a question in question

period. It’s unfortunate that the question has to be riddled in such rhetoric about

the diversity of our province and of our post-secondary institutions that truly makes

our province so great.

On this side of the House, we know that the diversity of our post-secondary sector

is what truly contributes to the growth, the innovation and what is going to lead

B.C. to being the engine of Canada. That is what we invest in.

If we want to talk about student housing, I’m happy to do that, because we have invested….

Our government has invested over $2 billion in creating student housing for students

across our province so they have access to accessible, affordable student housing

that is safe for all students.

We will continue to invest in students, we will continue to invest in our post-secondary

sector, and we will not back down from ensuring that all British Columbians have access

to relevant, accessible, affordable post-secondary education whenever they want to

access it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Dallas Brodie : Foreign students are meant to be a net benefit to our country. We bring in the best

and brightest so that they can enrich our experience, not to subsidize theirs at the

expense of B.C. taxpayers.

Meanwhile, our own students can’t find jobs and can’t afford homes. It is a $1 billion

betrayal.

My question again. Will the minister act immediately to cut this $1 billion foreign

student subsidy and give this money back to British Columbians?

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I am truly perplexed at the line of questioning when we know that international students

have funded so much of our post-secondary institutions for so long. They have paid

disproportionate amounts of tuition to uphold our post-secondary institutions, and

this is something that is…. We are seeing the effects of it from international student

cuts at the federal government level, and we are seeing the impact it’s having on

our post-secondary sectors.

I am not sure where the member is getting her information, but we know, again, that

the diversity within our post-secondary institutions, that the access that we have

to post-secondary is the reason that B.C. is a world-class post-secondary sector where

people from all around the world are coming to get an education.

We will continue to ensure that B.C. is leading that charge. We will continue to ensure

that we are training the best and brightest in our province to ensure that we are

that economic engine of B.C., and we will continue to lead B.C. and Canada always.

Complex Care Supportive Housing Model

and Role of Local Governments

Linda Hepner : Local governments are forced to be the backstop for this government’s failings, left

to fend for themselves in neighbourhoods they don’t recognize anymore, the latest

being Surrey mayor Brenda Locke and council unanimously rejecting the B.C. Housing

proposal that would see seniors mix with people that have needs that far exceed the

community’s capacity and nowhere near the supports they needed. Hundreds turned out

to oppose this proposal.

The evidence is clear. This model attracts dealers and petty criminals. People are

seeing and experiencing escalating crimes on a daily basis. More and more cities and

mayors are rejecting these proposals in a desperate bid to keep their communities

safe.

Will the minister commit today to stop the mix of drug- and alcohol-abuse housing

and public disorder tearing apart communities by immediately pivot away from this

failing model, yes or no?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle : While I disagree with the characterization of the question, I welcome the opportunity

to talk about the important work that we’re doing across the spectrum to provide housing

and supports to people who need it most.

Actually, I’ll note that the member opposite was supportive of this type of housing

during her time as mayor, because in that role, as we do, folks understand that the

alternative to encampments, the alternative to people sleeping in streets or doorways,

is providing shelter beds, supportive housing beds and the supports that go along

with them — mental health supports, addiction and recovery supports.

This allows our most vulnerable neighbours….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Members. Order.

Please continue.

Hon. Christine Boyle : These types of housing and supports allow our most vulnerable neighbours to come inside

and get back on their feet. It improves safety for those individuals and safety for

our broader communities. Without these supports, as members across the….

Interjections.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I can wait.

The Speaker : Members.

Members, the minister has the floor.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Members across the aisle have cut funding to these supports, have opposed shelter

and supportive housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Members, come to order.

Hon. Christine Boyle : You can take all the time you want, folks. It was your question.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle : Without supportive housing, more people remain outside. More people remain in encampments.

Those are not safe options for communities.

We will continue to work alongside local governments, alongside community-serving

organizations, to bring people inside and support them along their paths to recovery.

Oak Street Bridge Encampment

Teresa Wat : Two years ago a person tragically died in a fire at the Oak Street Bridge encampment,

and the situation has become worse since then.

The city of Richmond wrote to the Ministry of Transportation, asking for action, yet

this NDP government has failed to take action. Families with newborn children now

walk through that area to reach the nearby SkyTrain station, facing needles on the

ground and aggressive behaviour on a daily basis.

When will this NDP government finally act to ensure the safety of our citizens, respond

to the concerns of the city of Richmond and the concerns of my constituents and provide

real — I’m talking about real — support to the homeless individuals under the Oak

Street Bridge?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Shhh.

Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question from the member.

I want to assure the member that we take these issues very seriously when it comes

to encampments, whether they are on provincial road rights-of-way or in other areas.

We work with communities, and my ministry works with the Ministry of Housing, to find

solutions, whether it’s to start to move people on and into the kind of housing that’s

required or to get them to supports. We work with communities to identify some of

the causes of the situation for that encampment starting.

If it means closing things down, as we are doing at Cole Road in Abbotsford, we will

do that. We will take the measures to do just that.

[3:05 p.m.]

At the same time, I must admit that I find it somewhat fascinating that the member

stands up and demands action to provide services for people and places where they

can get the help and the housing that they need, and just before that, a member of

the same party…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …is saying: “We don’t want this kind of housing…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …in our neighbourhood.” Talk about hypocrisy. They want to have it both ways. You’re

either in favour of helping people, as we are, or you’re all over the place, like

the opposition.

Funding for Angel Flight

East Kootenay Medical Transport

Scott McInnis : Sadly but not surprisingly, locally elected officials from my riding received a lot

of big fat noes from this government this past September at UBCM.

Angel Flight East Kootenay, my constituents’ only free transportation to medical appointments

in Kelowna and Vancouver, have their government funding running out very soon. This

is an essential service, for those tens of thousands of East Kootenay residents, that

is run by volunteers at Angel Flight East Kootenay and generally supported by private

donations.

Will the minister commit today to a long-term funding model for those that need care

hundreds of kilometres from their home?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for speaking up for rural residents

that deserve the same access to health care as any resident in this province.

That’s why we are working to support communities like those that the member represents,

knowing that they face particular barriers and challenges in accessing health services.

Having to cross mountain passes, travelling in the winter, the cost and the time is

something that rural residents deal with. It’s very real, and it leads to worse health

outcomes for people.

That’s why we’ve established the travel assistance program. That’s why we expanded

the travel assistance program a couple of years ago. It’s why we are proud to have

been able to support services such as the one the member is speaking about.

I’ll be happy to continue talking to him and his residents about the ways we can continue

to support that, because nothing could be more important than making sure that rural

residents have access to the health care services that they need.

Access to Emergency Services

in Fraser Health Region

Harman Bhangu : I’m really hoping to get more than the usual word salad of a response from this minister.

Families across Fraser Health are facing a crisis. Delta ERs have seen repeated closures,

forcing patients into Surrey Memorial where wait times stretch longer than 14 hours.

In Abbotsford, it isn’t much better. People are waiting 12 hours just to be seen.

Yet the Fraser Health CEO is paid over half a million dollars.

How is it possible with that level of executive compensation that Fraser Health still

can’t deliver the most basic level of emergency care for our residents?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I know that long wait times in emergency rooms are incredibly frustrating for people.

When you are sick or when someone you love is sick and you need to wait in an emergency

room, it creates a lot of anxiety and angst for people.

I want to be clear that we know wait times fluctuate, and it depends on the time of

day. But every patient is triaged with the acuteness of what they are facing, and

they are seen quickly when the severity of their illness or….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member. Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. The question has been asked. The minister is answering now.

Hon. Josie Osborne : The sickest people are always seen first and fastest, and that is the way that it

should be. But we know there’s more work to do.

One of the ways that we can prevent people from having to go to the ER in the first

place is to build up our primary care system. That’s why we have taken steps like

developing the longitudinal family physician payment model, one that has seen 1,000

new family practitioners come to this province and practise here, attaching hundreds

of patients every single day.

It’s why we’ve expanded the scope of practice for pharmacists so that people don’t

need to go to a doctor and, if they don’t have one, go to an ER to do simple things

like refill a prescription or talk about something like a urinary tract infection.

There’s more work to do. You can bet we’re going to continue doing this, because we

know how important it is to build up the health care system here to ensure people

have the access to a family practitioner, to a nurse practitioner, to the people that

they need to see to get the care that they deserve.

[3:10 p.m.]

Interior Health Authority

Management and Staffing Issues

Gavin Dew : Talk about a functioning health care system. The Ambulance Paramedics say there have

been 250 hospital and ER closures across the province this year. Lillooet alone has

had 45. Doctors, nurses and patients tell us they’re at their breaking points, and

nothing has actually changed.

Even as the CEO of Interior Health left, the CFO stepped in as the interim CEO, then

became the permanent CEO, all handpicked by a board chair who is himself the former

CEO.

When will the Health Minister recognize the pattern and make an actual regime change

to get Interior Health back on track?

Hon. Josie Osborne : First, I want to say that the leadership in Interior Health has my confidence. I

know that they are doing everything they can to strengthen the health care system

in interior communities.

Despite the fact that the member would have us all think that everything is falling

apart…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …he completely ignores the progress that we’re making. We did not get into this situation

overnight. We’re not going to get out of it overnight. We are going to get out of

it by determined work.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, order.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We have seen the progress that this government has made, seeing ER disruptions reduced

by 25 percent over the same period last year.

The member brings up Lillooet. I want to talk about Lillooet, because Lillooet is

a success story. It is true that Lillooet has had emergency room disruptions, but

they have not had a disruption since July 28.

Why? It’s because of the leadership that is being shown by the community and by Interior

Health. It is by the recruitment successes that they have had with four new practice-ready

assessment physicians arriving in Lillooet in 2025, one in March and three in September.

They are supporting primary care. They are supporting the emergency room, and that

emergency room has not closed since.

That is an example of success. That is the result of hard work, and that is the work

that we’re going to continue to do.

Issues in Health Care System and

Salaries of Health Authority Executives

Trevor Halford : Wow. That’s the bar for health care in this province. Absolutely staggering that

an emergency room has not closed since July. And that minister takes a victory lap

on that? Absolutely pathetic.

The fact is this: 250 hospital closures this year. We’ve had 55 closures in….

Interjection.

Trevor Halford : If you want to stand up and answer a question, go for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : The member has the floor.

Shhh, the member has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, please.

Please continue.

Trevor Halford : Well, maybe this minister should actually start listening to health care workers,

because what they would say is that the progress, which this minister takes victory

lap after victory lap for, ain’t working.

The fact is that we’ve seen Delta close time after time. We’ve had 14-hour waits at

Surrey Memorial. We had an absolutely tragic story told in this House because somebody

couldn’t access medical equipment at the right time. We hear stories about seniors

having their health care cut. We hear stories about Angel Flights being cut.

This minister’s disconnect is completely staggering. The fact remains. Health care

in this province has gone down, while executive compensation has gone up. If the minister

is one day going to listen to health care workers — whether it’s in her caucus, this

caucus or anywhere else across this province — she’s going to hear the same thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Question, Member?

Trevor Halford : Sorry if this is an inconvenience. I imagine it would be for these guys.

The Speaker : Let’s have the question.

Trevor Halford : The question is this. How can this minister defend compensation this year that exceeds

$13 million for executives and health authorities, when the fact is we’ve got health

care workers that are saying this minister is failing her job every single day?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : I know this member would like to deny the progress that’s being made in hiring 1,000

new family doctors, in tripling the number of nurse practitioners…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …and adding 175 new cancer doctors.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Hiring over 900 internationally trained doctors — that is the result of progress,

of hard work, of work that we are not going to stop.

I know what they would do if they were given the chance, and that is to make sure

that those people that we are hiring into our publicly funded universal health care

system would be drawn out into two-tier private medical care. I dare them to say they

wouldn’t.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I will be calling Committee of the Whole on Bill

31. I would just like to inform the House that when committee is done and the bill

comes back for third reading, it will be a confidence vote.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 25.

[3:20 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 3:23 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

(continued)

The Chair : I’ll call the committee to order. We’re continuing on Committee of the Whole for

Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, on clause 41.

On clause 41 (continued) .

Misty Van Popta : I just wanted to go into this clause a little bit, because I’m not overly legally

technical, to understand why this particular clause is included as part of the bill

and not actually put into regulation.

The “minister may” is the piece that kind of caught my eye — “may designate a person

as an adjudication authority.”

I was wondering if I could get just a little bit, for public record, of an understanding

of why the minister may do this and why it’s actually built into the bill and not

used as part of regulations that we would have the adjudication authority created.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I did answer the “may” question earlier on this provision. But just to repeat, it’s

a drafting convention that uses that type of language there.

I think to the question about why here and not regulation, this

part is an important

pillar of the act. So also having the legal authority to do it, for the minister to

designate an adjudication authority, was just considered very essential to put in

the legislation.

Misty Van Popta : Will there be consultation done in regards to designating a person as an adjudicator,

and if so, who would that consultation be with?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We have committed to, and I’ve spoken about, consulting on the development of phase

2 of this bill, so the regulations and the implementation components of it.

For this one in particular, the process of adjudication authority would be that we

would have to search for somebody. So we would put out a job description, put it out

into the field and see who is able to and evaluate the criteria of whether or not

we feel like they’re able to meet what’s in clause 42.

Misty Van Popta : Is it meant to be a singular person, or is it used…? Is the verbiage here more to

create an actual authority body with multiple members in it, or is it just a singular

person that is the adjudication authority for this purpose?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have gone through this clause in quite a lot of detail. One of the questions that

I did answer already was the definition of “person.” That means a person under the

Interpretation Act.

Misty Van Popta : So prior to the designation, then, will the ministry make the decision public to

ensure that it is publicly accepted? What would happen in the case that the industry

was not happy with the person or the people or entity that was appointed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes, there will be a public selection process related to this. We will be, as I mentioned

before…. In phase 2, we’ll be in contact, as we were in the development of this, with

industry leaders.

Steve Kooner : The Attorney General mentioned earlier something about a job description, a job description

being posted somewhere in terms of the adjudication authority. Since a job description

was mentioned…. Usually, in job descriptions, there are criteria.

Last time we were here, we talked about: would there be criteria? I think the Attorney

General explained that there will be criteria. But today the Attorney General mentioned

that there’s going to be a job description. What’s in that job description for the

adjudication authority?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think there are many words to describe it. I think it’s selection criteria, job

description, and, essentially, also asked and answered because we went over this yesterday

in detail about how clause 42 sets out what the criteria would be for evaluation.

[3:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Another thing that we did cover last time, but we didn’t get into it in elaboration….

We talked about the definition of “person.” A person can include a corporate entity,

as per the Attorney General.

Now, when someone is being selected…. We talked about a corporate entity, but there

are also government bodies. There are private organizations. There are not-for-profits.

There’s a wide span. And we talked about corporate entities. Has the Attorney General

anticipated whether that definition for “person” also incorporates not only corporate

entities but not-for-profits as well as some public bodies? What’s the extent of it?

I know we talked about the corporate entity, because when I was getting at individual,

I was…. You can have a corporation at that point. But I did not follow up with asking

the question. Could it be a not-for-profit? Could it also be a public body that exists

right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I think I mentioned yesterday, we’re not predetermined in our selection criteria

at this point. This is just the legislative process to clarify what the criteria will

be. Once that’s passed, of course, we’re open. We haven’t predetermined anybody’s

participation.

Steve Kooner : I know that we’ve discussed criteria. We’ve discussed job description. But we have

not gone into details. Maybe the Attorney General doesn’t have that description, doesn’t

have that indicia right now. Maybe it’s going to be formulated at a later time.

I would like to know whether it exists right now. If it does not exist right now,

how will it be formulated? Will it just be formulated through regulation, or will

it be formulated at the cabinet table? How will it be formulated?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m going to suggest we get to clause 42 because it’ll become very clear then.

Steve Kooner : Are there any circumstances…? We know that an adjudication body can be appointed.

We know that it could be appointed as a result of looking at criteria, a job description.

A minister may designate an adjudication body. But what we have not heard is: what

if an adjudication body gets chosen?

Is there discretion there to actually revoke for some reason, say, if it turns out

that the adjudication authority that’s chosen is not the proper one? You need to kind

of revoke that, and you need to appoint a different one. Is there a process for that

as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Inherent in that, and that’s also part of drafting, is that in the power to designate

is also a power to undesignate.

Steve Kooner : So the power to designate is also a power to undesignate? I don’t get it.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just in terms of the principle in the drafting, it’s implicit that if you have the

power to give something to somebody, you have it to take away.

Steve Kooner : Has the Attorney General’s department considered consequences of revoking? There

may be contractual stipulations once an adjudication authority is chosen. If they’re

a corporate body, they may have a contract. If it’s a person, they may say that they

weren’t provided enough notice. I would suggest that choosing or designating an adjudication

body is easier than revoking a designation, because revoking a designation can actually

have consequences.

So is there something in here that also protects against those consequences? I get

it that you may…. The Attorney General has explained that through this one provision,

this clause that we’re looking at right now, you can also revoke, but is there something

there also to protect the government when they do the revocation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : That’s in clause 44.

Steve Kooner : Would the government commit to annual reporting? I know we’re going to be choosing….

There are certain things that…. I know, in the following clauses, we will see what

will be the duties of the adjudication authority. But will there be some sort of reporting

mechanism that can assess whether these adjudication bodies are doing a good job,

or an adjudication body is doing a good job, and maybe we need to revoke it? Is there

a process for that as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes. That may be not something with the level of detail that you would put in legislation.

How Ontario’s functions is there’s an annual report, and it gives us the ability….

We expect that would be the same, that there would be…. In further provisions, I could

show you the regulatory power to do such things.

Clause 41 approved.

On clause 42.

Steve Kooner : Leading up to this clause, we’ve had, in clause 41, a lot of discussion, and a lot

of the questions I asked were deferred to following sections, so I’m hoping that some

of those answers will be given now that we’re getting further into this adjudication

authority. But before we get into it, I want to make sure I’m properly understanding

this particular clause.

The clause reads: “Subject to the regulations, an adjudication authority must….” Now,

earlier we had some permissive language, and the previous clause, which is clause

41, said the minister “may.” But here we have the obligatory language being put in

here that says an adjudication authority “must.”

Is there a reason that we have the “must” in here?

Hon. Niki Sharma : “Must” is very important here because we want to make sure that an adjudication authority

will do all of these things, to make it very clear that that’s required of them.

Steve Kooner : It’s been some time since I read this whole bill. Is there something, as we go further…?

Say, if the adjudication authority does not do something, as per the suggestion here….

It says the adjudication authority must do it. If it doesn’t do it, how do you make

sure there’s compliance?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I mentioned in the previous clause, the way you would operationalize a designation

is through a contract. Of course, the contract would contain terms with expectations,

of performance expectations, and/or ways to have compliance for those performance

expectations and/or leading up to the determination of that if they’re not living

up to it.

Steve Kooner : Leading up to determination — I take that as leading up to a revocation of the designation

if certain standards are not met. Just to confirm that, is that what the Attorney

General meant?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes, the contract would, of course, have sections in it…. Government does this all

the time. They would have provisions in there that talk about how you would revoke.

Steve Kooner : Would disciplinary measures be incremental, or would there just be one? You know:

“You don’t meet these conditions, you didn’t do what we told you to do, so you’re

out. We’re going to revoke your designation.”

[3:40 p.m.]

Will there be incremental discipline, or will it just be revocation, completed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to say that we’re talking about the contents of this clause, not a nonexistent

contract, at this point. All I can speak to is the general terms of contracting, which

I don’t think is very helpful to this particular clause.

But yeah, you could design contracts in many ways, and government usually has pretty

generalized terms when it comes to this about how we measure performance and what

consequences of revoking would be.

Steve Kooner : Part of the path to getting this legislation, to bring it forward, was comparisons.

One example is Ontario. Ontario’s legislation was reviewed.

We were speaking about contracts. There must be precedence, and there might…. We’re

talking about an adjudication authority. This is not a new concept. We have a lot

of adjudication authorities for different subject matters. What would it…?

Say if, yes, the Attorney General acknowledged that there could be a contract and

there could be incremental discipline, what other examples are there that the Attorney

General’s department has looked at that could be applied just prior to revoking the

designation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Of course, contracts between two parties are not public, because there’s information

in there that would be kept private for many reasons, so we don’t have access to the

contracts that are between other governments and their adjudication authorities.

What I can tell you is the clause right now clearly sets out what the expectations

would be for that, and I expect that would be built into the contract.

Steve Kooner : All right. Going further: “subject to the regulations, an adjudication authority

must (

a) develop….” Can the Attorney General shed some light on the word “develop”?

What do they have to develop?

Is that just the commonsense or literal meaning? You’ve just got to create something,

or is there a legal connotation to that that actually has a deeper meaning, that somebody

has to really do something?

Maybe the Attorney General can elaborate.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Ordinary meaning of the word “develop.”

For guidance’s sake, for anybody listening, any word that is contained in this one

clause, like “develop,” or any other subsequent subclauses that we see, if the first

letter is not capitalized, it means it’s not a defined term. The only time you would

define a term is if you want it to have a specific meaning for the statute. Most of

the words in here are not defined terms, and they’re just the ordinary meaning.

Steve Kooner : Just for the public record, because there are a lot of people viewing what we’re

talking about today and a lot of them may not be lawyers, the Attorney General just

explained that if the first letter of a word is capitalized, there may be a specific

meaning. It might be defined in a statute somewhere. If there is no capital, regardless

whether it’s at the beginning of the phrase or in the middle of the phrase, that will

be taken as a literal meaning. It doesn’t matter where the location is of that particular

word.

Is that accurate?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to clarify…. My mistake. The convention has changed on always the capitalization.

What you’ll look for is the

definitions

section of the act, which is at the front.

If a word is defined, it’ll be listed alphabetically in the

definitions

section or

in the

Interpretation Act.

Those are the two guiding sections of a statute related to whether a word is defined

or not. Then if not, it would be the ordinary meaning.

Steve Kooner : Subclause (

a) says: “develop and oversee programs for training of adjudicators.”

What types of programs? Could that be more elaborated? Maybe a descriptive thing because

we are dealing with a subject matter here, and we’re talking about construction disputes.

What types of programs? What would they look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thanks for the question.

The programs that seem to come out of that, with overseeing programs…. From the Ontario

model, it looks like it’s for any prospective adjudicators, and they have people that

could apply from the construction industry, engineers. It makes sense that they might

be interested. Then they oversee and have set up training programs for individuals

so they can take on the role of an adjudicator.

They also have CPD credits. If you are in their roster — their version of it, but

I expect it would be something that would be applicable here — then you have continuing

professional development courses that you take.

Steve Kooner : There was a little bit of confusion in my mind about what the Attorney General was

trying to explain. Is that continuing education within the program, or would they

be going outside to get the continuing education?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I can give you the example of what’s happened in Ontario, but it won’t necessarily

be the same thing that happens up here. Through our designation of adjudication authority,

it says “must,” so we would require that they oversee programs.

I’m told that the similar authority in Ontario has programs itself that are about

certification and ongoing professional development. But, I mean, you could see a scenario

where the adjudication authority that is selected has assured the ministry and the

minister that they are going to oversee programs, so they have a contracted agency

that will deliver them. I think it kind of depends that way, if you know what I mean.

[3:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Why it was a little bit confusing…. I know that there are professionals, and they

are under certain governing bodies. Sometimes they go outside their bodies to actually

get educational training, but the body gives them credits for it.

As I was saying, sometimes there are professions, and they have a governing body,

and that governing body gives the individuals within their organization credits. But

at times, the people that are within that governing body, the members, go outside

to take courses and training. I think the Attorney General is just highlighting that

you could go outside, perhaps, to get educational programs.

Would the adjudication authority…? With different bodies, they sometimes give you

credits. Would this be a credit-based system?

I know that if you’re a lawyer, you will go get some credits from your governing body.

If you’re an accountant, I think the process is fairly similar. There are these educational

standards because you want to comply with provincial legislation and make sure that

there’s a certain competency level. So will there be a requirement to also give credits?

Does it have to be a certain amount of training?

I know that you’ve got to develop, got to create those programs, and you’ve got to

oversee those programs. But what’s stopping an organization from saying: “Hey, we’ll

just teach somebody for a half an hour. We developed that program, we created it,

and then we oversaw it. We saw people learning in that half an hour. It’s done. We

met that requirement”?

Will there be something to say that, no, the educational aspect…. There’s further

criteria for that. It has to be a certain number of hours long. It has to cover certain

aspects of what adjudicators or decision-makers are going to be doing. Where’s that

aspect?

I understand that this is an enabling thing. It’s more than an enabling thing. It’s

an obligatory thing that adjudication authorities have to do. They have to create

that program, or they’ve got to contract it. But what goes in it? What’s the standard?

What’s going to be in that program? How much do you have to teach?

That’s the next question.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Okay, so there are two things at play here. This is the requirement of the adjudication

authority. With respect to training, it’s (a), which is the one we’re talking about.

They oversee programs for training of adjudicators.

We have regulatory-making power, which we’ll get to, that has the ability for us to

set out what the requirements are for an adjudicator, like ten years’ experience in

the construction industry. The Ontario model has a regulation that says “completed

the required educational training of the adjudication authority.” Those are one of

the requirements you can put in regulation.

If you’re an adjudicator that sits on the roster of this adjudication authority, then

you will have this obligation to have kept up your training requirements. We won’t

set out as prescriptively as we would expect the adjudication authority to do the

work of doing, like setting up exactly what the training is, what you would learn

and the types of things. But we would set out the standards, I guess, or what we would

expect of them to do.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : Now the committee will be in adjournment for a few moments.

The committee rose at 3:54 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:55 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore : The committee on Bill 20 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Larry Neufeld : I seek leave to present a petition.

The Speaker : Proceed.

Leave granted.

Petitions

Larry Neufeld : Thanks to my colleagues for granting this.

[The bells were rung.]

The Speaker : Proceed.

Larry Neufeld : I’m humbled today to present a petition from the beautiful community of Tumbler Ridge,

population 2,200. This petition is signed by 1,854 citizens of that community. I’m

humbled because of the resilience and the amazing tenacity of the individuals that

call that beautiful place home.

The petition reads that the community of Tumbler Ridge has recently been affected

by the reduction of emergency room hours, removing access to emergency care after

7 p.m. on weekdays and closing services on weekends.

This reduction in ER service poses significant risks to the health and safety of residents,

workers and visitors, particularly given Tumbler Ridge’s remote location and distance

to the nearest emergency facilities. Timely access to emergency medical services is

critical for saving lives and ensuring equitable health care for all British Columbians,

regardless of where they live.

The petition reads: “Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House

urge the government to ensure that 24-7 emergency room services are restored and maintained

at the Tumbler Ridge health care, providing continuous emergency care to the residents

of Tumbler Ridge and surrounding areas.”

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I call resumption of committee stage debate on Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment

Act.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 3:58 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

(continued)

The Chair : I call the committee back to order on Bill 20, Committee of the Whole, Construction

Prompt Payment Act, continuing on clause 42.

On clause 42 (continued) .

Steve Kooner : The Attorney General was just explaining the educational requirements that the adjudication

authority has to implement and explained that it’s the responsibility of the adjudication

authority to come up with what type of program and how it’s going to look. But there

is going to be a certain aspect that’s going to be prescribed in the regulations on

what minimum standards there are going to be.

Just a question in regards to those standards. How do you determine those standards?

Where do you get those standards? Are you just going to take them from what Ontario

has adopted and then put that in the regulation? Is the government going to be consulting

with stakeholders, or has the government already consulted, from the consulting that

the government’s already done on this bill?

Does the government already know what the results of that consultation were, and they

already know what they’re going to put in the regulations for basic standards for

these educational programs and training sessions that the adjudication authorities

are going to put on?

[4:00 p.m.]

Going to those regulations that were just mentioned by the Attorney General, what

minimum standards…? And how are we going to get to those standards? Are we just going

to adopt them from a precedent, or are we going to have to adopt them from scratch?

Hon. Niki Sharma : In terms of how we would establish regulation for setting the standards, I’m happy

to talk about that when we get to that clause.

For the adjudication authority, it’s important for that authority to be separate from

government, because the body and the adjudicators have to have, naturally, the respect

of the industry. They have to have the ability to be able to write decisions that

are respected and hold that ability to play the important role in this program.

We would expect and make sure of that standard of training, that the adjudication

authority was able to oversee those programs and keep that standard up to that level.

Steve Kooner : I get that the government wants to give some deference to the adjudication authority

to implement these programs and training, but I also note that the Attorney General

mentioned that there’s going to be regulations coming up with it for minimum standards.

What are the minimum standards? I know there’s going to be some deference made, but

there’s still going to be something put in the regulation for minimum standards, so

what are those minimum standards?

I know we’re going to get into regulations and see how they’re going to work and the

authority for the regulations and all that. That’s going to come later on in this

bill. But right now we’re talking about the adjudication authority, and we’re talking

about its duties. We’re talking about it developing and overseeing programs. We know

that they’re going to create some standards, but the government is also going to expect

some minimum standards.

Where are those minimum standards going to come from? Do we have a precedent for them

already? What are those minimum standards right now, if we know about them?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This process, I think, is best described when we get to the regulatory power that

triggers it. I think the member’s question is rooted in what will be — not what the

adjudication authority will be required to do but, instead, what the adjudicator standards

will be, which are kind of two separate things.

When we get to the

section on adjudication standards, I can explain how we’re going

to be making sure there is at least a minimum standard that’s high enough to make

sure that we have good people that have good qualifications for adjudicators.

[4:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Moving forward to the next subclause here, 42(b), “qualify persons.” How is it expected

that the adjudication authority will qualify persons?

Hon. Niki Sharma : That would just be like a certification. In Ontario, after you’ve met the prescribed

requirements, under that regime you get a certificate that says you are able to do

what’s required of you under it.

Steve Kooner : Did I hear the Attorney General accurately when the Attorney General said it would

be prescribed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This was what I was talking about that comes up later, which is what the prescribed

requirements are for the adjudicator.

Steve Kooner : Okay.

Let’s just move further into this phrase. It says: “qualify persons who meet the prescribed

requirements as adjudicators.” Here, when the Attorney General is speaking of prescribed

requirements, the Attorney General is referring to regulations. Is that accurate?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes.

Steve Kooner : In addition to regulations, could it also apply to certain industry standards that

are policies that are already in place? Could that be a prescribed requirement too,

or would it just specifically be in regulation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, the prescribed requirements is a further-down clause. Although it is included

in this clause, it really is better explained back there.

I’ll just say that we will be doing consultations with the relevant sectors and industry

leaders like we have before, so I don’t want to prejudge what would be contained in

there. Just to say that it’s important that the qualifications, like I mentioned,

of these adjudicators are at a standard that brings confidence to the system.

Steve Kooner : In terms of the qualifications here, because now we’re choosing quasi judges, informal

judges, decision-makers, who would…? We just heard that there’s going to be some further

consultation in regards to the regulations. We’ve heard there’s been consultation

already for this bill. When we were talking about the previous clauses in terms of

judicial review, we were told about memorandums of understanding with the judiciary

and following through with that. We were also told about consultation that was had

with different law firms.

All that consultation was done, but now the Attorney General has mentioned that there

is going to be further consultation in regards to the regulations that we are now

talking about. Who will those further regulations be with? Will it just be with the

legal profession, lawyers or judiciary? Who would that consultation be with?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As we have done before, in the development of this act, we’ve been working very closely

with industry. As I mentioned before, it’s really important that this is a tool that

industry adopts and uses for its effectiveness to be there. It would obviously be

all the industry that we already consulted with. I think we had an extensive conversation

at clause 1 about who they were, so it would be that.

We would want some form of consistency amongst provinces, another thing that we mentioned.

So that’s a principle of it, that we can look at other models and other jurisdictions

to see what was successful there.

[4:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : When we heard about the consultation that happened with the judicial review section,

and it’s also a legal

section of the bill, we were told that there was a list of law

firms that were consulted.

I noted that most of those law firms were of a larger size that were mentioned when

the list was being provided. Now, with these types of disputes, a lot of smaller firms

actually act for a lot of these contractors that have these small disputes. A lot

of the time, they don’t go to the big law firms. They don’t go to the mid-sized law

firms. They go to, you know, sole practitioners, or they go to maybe small outfits

of lawyers, like maybe two or three lawyers or smaller law firms.

That’s the lot of the practices there right now. I know that the prompt payment regulatory

framework is going to take it away from lawyers, so you don’t have to get lawyers.

But we just heard that there’s going to be further consultation, similar to what has

already happened.

Will there be an effort made to also go beyond that list of law firms that was provided?

I think about ten law firms were provided. There are a lot of smaller law firms that

actually do this type of litigation right now. Yes, the bigger law firms get involved,

but most of their clientele is the bigger corporate entities. They handle the companies.

But what about the small guys? Those are the guys that are having problems right now.

I understand ten law firms were consulted, but they were of a larger size. I think

it makes sense if you had some law firms that actually help a lot of these smaller

contractors that will now be utilizing this particular prompt payment regulatory framework.

Will the Attorney General’s department be expanding…? Noting that, yeah, a lot of

the smaller contractors that have the issues right now are dealing with smaller firms,

will the Attorney General’s department make an effort to consult with smaller law

firms as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just sticking to the clause, this is about the adjudication authority. We were talking

about consultation related to the establishment of the adjudication authority and

prescribed requirements, which is further down. I invite the member to go back to

the discussion we had at the beginning that was about our overall consultation related

to that and the bar.

In this specific part, it’s important that the consultation is focused on the relevance

to the industry so that we know we’re establishing a system that is going to be used

by the industry.

Our consultation at this part of the clause that we’re talking about will be focused

on engaging with the industry and maybe arbitration authorities and looking at other

models and how they are set up in other provinces. It’ll likely help inform the level

or the standard that’s required for an adjudicator and how that’s working, which is

what we’re talking about.

Steve Kooner : We were just discussing clause 42(a), as well, in terms of the programs and training.

In regards to this, these programs and these training manuals that might be produced,

will they be made public?

I think it serves a crucial purpose if you make the manuals public so you can scrutinize

those and there’s some level of scrutiny to determine that those policies are actually

good policies.

Whereas if they’re completely hidden, nobody really knows anything

about it, and it’s just the adjudication authority saying that they seem to be of

standard.

Will there be a requirement to actually make these manuals and training programs public?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The way we expect this to work is that…. I mentioned earlier that this is a self-funded

process, and it’s no cost to government. The way that it is working in other provinces

is that if you would like to be an adjudicator under the adjudication authority, there’s

a public side of the information that’s related to how to do that — the steps and

the requirements and, probably, things like that.

If you want to get certified, there’s likely a fee for that service, so a fee for

that educational service provided, and that will help with the kind of cost recovery.

But for the individual taking it, it will unlock the ability to be an adjudicator

and to be paid for those services under the process.

Steve Kooner : Madam Chair, can I ask for a five-minute recess?

The Chair : Certainly. We’ll have a five-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair : I’ll call the committee back into session. We are continuing Committee of the Whole

on Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act, continuing on clause 42.

Steve Kooner : We’re just on clause 42. We’re discussing subject-to regulations and “adjudication

authority must.”

[4:25 p.m.]

We were talking about subclause (a). We were talking about programs, training manuals

and all that. I asked if these manuals are going to be made public.

I think the Attorney General was then trying to explain that a lot of deference is

going to be given, and there are standards that you have to meet and all that. But

I don’t know if I got the answer whether there’s going to be a place where the public

can just go and view these manuals.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think we left off when I was talking about how this is run as a cost recovery process.

So the adjudication authority will establish something, likely it’s proprietary at

that point; they’ve established their own training program or certification program.

It would be a fee to be paid for an adjudicator to go forward and do that course,

as it would unlock a professional opportunity.

I would probably say the contents of the actual lessons or scope wouldn’t be publicly

available because they are probably part of the proprietary nature of what would be

their certification course.

Steve Kooner : So in that answer, I heard “would probably be available,” meaning…. What I take that

as is we don’t really know yet. And they may be available, probably, but they may

also not be available. Will the government take action to make sure they are available?

The action that can be taken maybe we can discuss in the regulation section, but because

we’re talking about this particular clause right now that has to deal with manuals,

I think it’s important to discuss it at this stage. Otherwise, we’re leaving everything

at a later stage. We’re on the subject matter right now.

I don’t mind doing that for some of the stuff that I’m asking for, but if we save

everything, we might miss something, so it’s important to kind of talk about it as

we go.

The Attorney General said that these manuals, these training exercises would probably

be available. So will the government ensure that they are made public?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to be clear, this is in the realm of speculation because we don’t at this point

have an adjudication authority. We don’t understand how to model a self-funded agency.

What I’m assuming is that part of being a self-funded agency, meaning there’s no money

from government flowing in to support this — it just all supports itself — is that

there would be some kind of a fee for access to the training that would be there.

If the training was free and public and available to everybody, then that might take

away from the ability of the authority to be self-funded and to fund their operations

for the industry.

So that’s why I just am speculating at this point about the contents of the training

programs, whether the manuals would be publicly available or not, because that would

be a determining factor of how to sustain the authority as a self-funded agency. It

would be the guiding principle.

Steve Kooner : So just moving further in this clause, subsection (c): “establish and maintain a

publicly available registry of adjudicators.” What does the Attorney General’s ministry

mean by that?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Exactly, I think, what it says is that we would require…. There are no legal meanings

or any other meanings hidden in that. We would just require the adjudication authority

to maintain a publicly available registry of adjudicators. So once somebody’s certified

as an adjudicator, there’s a registry that’s publicly available.

[4:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : With this registry, what type of registry would it be? Would it be a remote online

registry, or will there be an office in, maybe, Vancouver somewhere, or will it be

an office throughout the province where you could do paper filings? What would it

look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think we can just all expect that it will be an online registry.

Steve Kooner : Would this work similar to the CRT, the Civil Resolution Tribunal? You can do a lot

of filings online. You don’t have to go to a physical location. Would it work similar

to that, this adjudication authority?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We did cover this already in clause 27, that the conduct of how the hearings are

is up to the adjudicator. Yes, it could be online. It could be in person. It could

maybe just be a paper adjudication.

Steve Kooner : Will there be certain standards when the adjudication authority has certain results,

statistics of how those results went? A lot of times when you go to different arbitration

forums or informal tribunal settings, they sometimes have surveys and stuff like that

to kind of determine how the process is all working out. That allows for the provincial

government to actually oversee it to see if they can make a better system as a part

of the Attorney General’s department.

So will there be some sort of publishing of — I know we talked about annual reports

— some type of statistics, like how these cases are operating, how many wins or losses,

what’s the experience of these people going through the adjudication authority?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The likely model that we would follow is the Ontario one, where the annual report

has statistics that talk about sectors or the range of amounts or values that are

decided upon and different aspects of the adjudication process so we can monitor how

well it’s going.

[4:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : What would be the manner that those statistics would be reported in? Would they be

made public, or where would they be located if they are public? Where would an individual

go to actually see those statistics? Would those just be available to the government,

and then you have to do a FOI to the government to get the results?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I know I have been answering broader questions, but I think at this stage I just

want to make sure that we’re sticking to the clause before us. There is a clause later

on that talks about the regulatory powers to do what the member suggests, but I think

the subclause he’s asking about right now is to establish and maintain a publicly

available registry of adjudicators.

Steve Kooner : In subclause 42(d), it states: “establish a process for suspending or removing adjudicators

from the registry and addressing complaints about adjudicators.” Essentially, my read

of this is that there’s the adjudication authority, and then there’ll be the decision-makers,

the members of the adjudication authority within the adjudication authority. At certain

times, some of these decision-makers might have to be suspended or removed from the

registry after addressing complaints about adjudicators.

What’s the logic behind this? That’s my first question.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just an important part of the authority that we want the adjudication authority to

have, which is that they must be able to suspend or remove adjudicators, because you

need to be able to have a roster of adjudicators that is there and ready and qualified

to do the work.

Steve Kooner : Then what sorts of standards would they be applying to, say, suspend or remove these

adjudicators?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This one is also linked with the regulatory-making power because I think, as we mentioned,

we’d have the power to say, “Here are the minimal standards that we expect of the

adjudicator,” like ten years experience in this, no criminal record — things like

that.

Then the next level would be asking the adjudication authority to establish a code

of conduct so they can have an ongoing role of oversight and expectations for the

adjudicators that are in their roster, and then they would judge them against that.

They would receive complaints, and then if there was a reason to remove or suspend

them, they would have the ability to do that.

[4:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Thank you for that. That was informative, but I do have some follow-up questions

to that answer.

The Attorney General mentioned that there would be certain specific standards, and

then after those specific standards, there would be a code of conduct that, essentially,

the adjudication authority would actually create. That would be the basis for determining

how an adjudicator can be suspended or removed. I get that point.

But the Attorney General did mention two indicia of what would…. Like minimum ground,

no criminal record. There was a list, two or three. Can I get the full list? What

would be the full list put to the adjudication authority as a minimum standard?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes, I didn’t mean to say that there was a list that we have. I was giving examples

based on what’s in Ontario’s regulatory requirements. They say, I think, in theirs,

it’s ten years’ experience in the construction industry and some of those things they

have, but we don’t have our own list at this stage.

I think it would be important to, like I said, show consistency across other jurisdictions,

find what’s working, and also understand from the industry and our local B.C. context

what we would set as a minimal standard. So I’m not going to prejudge the discussions

or consultations there. I was just giving examples of what’s in Ontario’s.

Steve Kooner : Just to go further, because the Attorney General doesn’t want to prejudge the indicia….

It’s important to know how we’re going to get to the indicia. What I heard right now

was that what would be reviewed, in Ontario’s example…. Ontario seems to be a precedent.

A precedent would be reviewed from another jurisdiction, and then in addition to that,

stakeholders will be consulted to determine.

Are those the only two areas that are going to be consulted to come up with the minimum

standards? Am I missing something, other than the stakeholders and the other jurisdiction,

to decide what the minimum standards are going to be?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I believe that I answered this question, because we talked about the prescribed requirements

under (b), and I talked about the consultation that we would have, so it’s the same

for this whole clause.

Steve Kooner : Why I’m going through…. When I receive the answers, and I do have follow-up questions

to those answers, that may be because I’m still unsure, because each subclause talks

about a different subject.

In this particular one, it talks about suspending and removing. When you’re talking

about suspending and removing, it could be quasi criminal. So although it’s part of

the same clause, it involves something separate. For example, when you’re determining

why you don’t want somebody with a criminal record to do that, you may consult with

the industry stakeholders that are the usual ones, but a particular clause that involves

a quasi-judicial disciplinary procedure may involve something further. Sometimes there

might be a reason why you can’t have a criminal record and all that.

The Attorney General mentioned…. I know we’ve gone through some of these other previous

clauses, and we’ve talked about consultation, but I think this is a very important

section. With any sort of regulatory body, there’s usually one big

section given to

disciplinary proceedings. That’s usually a pretty big part of a regulatory body.

That’s why I’m asking a little bit more in terms of this, because we’re talking about

suspending and talking about removing. Right now we don’t know what the indicia are

going to be. We don’t even know what the code of conduct is going to be.

[4:45 p.m.]

These people are going to be dealing with the everyday life decisions or problems

of people that are in the construction industry, many of which are small businesses,

and they have a tough time collecting payment. So when I’m asking a specific question

about this….

A lot of people do complain. They’re like: “I’m not happy with my judge,” or “I’m

not happy with my arbitrator,” or “I feel that that person was biased,” or “I feel

that that person had inappropriate conduct.” Although it may seem like it’s just another

clause, it is actually different, because when you look at regulatory bodies, they

have a specific

section that deals with discipline, suspension and all that kind of

stuff.

Then, also, because we’re talking about decision-making, we’re talking about construction

prompt payment, and we want to make…. A lot of people do complain about their adjudicators.

That eventually sometimes leads to issues with suspension and leads to issues with

removing adjudicators because they’re not properly carrying out their duties. So it’s

important.

I just want to…. I asked this question just right now — that there’s going to be specific

stakeholders. But are there going to be any different stakeholders? This is a very

significant thing. It implies, not to say, if you’re going to consult a lawyer, you

can consult a lawyer, but you might want to consult a lot of different other organizations

as well.

So is there anything specifically different the Attorney General’s department is going

to be doing on this one? Because this is actually a very, very important section.

Even employment contracts have the long

section about discipline and all that kind

of stuff. Then there’s a long process of how to discipline somebody, and even professional

bodies do. It’s a very important section, so that’s why I wanted to spend a little

bit of extra time here and just ask for a further explanation.

I know that industry people will be consulted. Maybe the judiciary might be consulted,

too, through a memorandum of understanding. Then the standard will come in through

regulations. I get all that. Will there be anything more? Because we are dealing with

everyday decisions that are going to affect a lot of people.

I know I’m asking the question, but I don’t feel that I got the right answer, and

I feel that this is such an important subclause that it really requires some attention

here.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think we may disagree on this, but I described a very broad outreach of consultation.

I talked about the bar. I talked about industry. I talked about other arbitration

entities engaging with other models, other jurisdictions, and that we would do the

same kind of engagement that we’ve done to get to this stage.

I just would direct the member to the subject, to the regulations component of 42,

which I think is pretty key, because it allows us, through that process, to set up

the kind of fair process or make sure that a fair process is going to happen under

the adjudication authority.

Steve Kooner : Under the adjudication authority, when you have the adjudicators and you’re thinking

about disciplining them and all that, would these adjudicators be considered employees

of the adjudication authority? What’s the situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No. They’re on a roster, but there’s not an employment relationship.

Steve Kooner : So it’s contractual?

[4:50 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think you can look at it more like a certification process from the adjudication

authority. The adjudication authority certifies adjudicators, puts them on the roster.

The parties look at the roster. They decide who they want to adjudicate.

If they can’t decide on their own, the adjudication authority can decide who the adjudicator

is, but then they take on that adjudication that way.

So it’s the parties that are engaging more in the selection of the adjudicator. The

authority is there to make sure that that roster of adjudicators plays an administrative

role in the process.

The Chair : Richmond-Queensborough on clause 42.

Steve Kooner : Going further on this subclause, it says: “establish a process for suspending or

removing adjudicators from the registry and addressing complaints about adjudicators.”

When you’re faced with complaints, then what becomes relevant is having procedural

fairness and making sure you have an opportunity to be heard. If you’re not happy

with what recourse or what action is taken against you, you have an opportunity to

appeal that.

We’re talking about addressing complaints of adjudicators and them being suspended

and removed. What would be the framework of that? If a decision is made, what recourse

can they have?

Hon. Niki Sharma : How we expect this to show up would be in the code of conduct that I talked about

earlier. It’s very clear what the procedural fairness is, offered to the adjudicator,

if there has been a complaint made.

[4:55 p.m.]

In the selection of the adjudication authority, which is the process that we’re talking

about, the reason it’s a “must” is because it’s very important that there’s a way

of addressing complaints about adjudicators. We do have an accompanying regulatory

power to ensure that we think that they’re meeting the standards of procedural fairness

or those kind of things.

Steve Kooner : Okay, that explains the procedural process for the adjudicators, but what about the

parties that are using these adjudicators? What if they have some grievances? What

recourse can they get? Say they submit a complaint pursuant to subclause (d). The

complaint is there. It gets dealt with, and nothing happens. The person is told: “It’s

being dealt with, but we’re not going to do anything about it.”

Is there a way that this complaint can be escalated to the government? Where do they

appeal if they’re not happy with how this complaint was addressed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, the government would not get involved. This is very important — that this is

independent. Our tool as government is to make sure that whoever we select as adjudication

authority to oversee the process is living up to the standards that we would expect

of them.

If, in the instance that the member describes, we see that the adjudication authority

is not doing things like properly addressing complaints, which is one of the requirements,

then we would have a few tools. One of the tools is to choose another adjudication

authority to administer this program.

Also, we have a regulatory authority if we feel that we need to put stronger regulations

in place to address processes that we think are necessary.

Steve Kooner : I understand that there’s a process, but the process that the Attorney General just

explained seems like it’s pretty long, and it’s going to require time. If you want

to put something in a regulation, that will take you some time. If you want to just