Nos. 98 and 99 VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE Legislative Assembly of British Columbia First Session of the Forty-third Parliament

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

Ten o’clock a.m.

Prayers and Reflections by the Hon. Jennifer Whiteside.

Order called for “Members’ Statements.”

The Speaker made the following statement:

Honourable Members:

The Chair has been reflecting on Private Members’ Time and notes that the Standing Order changes that took effect in the Forty-third Parliament have run the course of nearly a full parliamentary calendar year. Based on the Chair’s observations to date, it is an opportune time to provide guidance to the House on limitations attached to Private Members’ bills, for the benefit of all Members.

The Chair will first offer guidance on the application on Standing Order 67, which provides, “It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by Message of the Lieutenant Governor in the Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed.”

In the Westminster parliamentary system that we adopted in British Columbia, only the Crown can propose a tax or an increase in tax or propose the spending of public funds. The provisions of Standing Order 67 stem from constitutional obligations prescribed in the federal Constitution Act, 1867, with application to the provincial legislative assemblies, which are also prescribed in section 47 of the provincial Constitution Act.

The Chair is aware that Members often ask what constitutes a money bill, which would be out of order in the hands of a Private Member without an accompanying message of the Lieutenant Governor, or Royal Recommendation. To assist the House, the Chair has examined parliamentary customs and usages in Canada and the United Kingdom as it pertains to the Royal Recommendation and the provisions of Standing Order 67. The parliamentary authorities hold that a Royal Recommendation is required if any provision in a Private Member’s bill would authorize a new and distinct charge to be effectively imposed on public money.

A Royal Recommendation is required for any bill whose implementation would necessarily entail new or increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, other than incidental costs already authorized by an existing appropriation. When deciding whether a Private Member’s bill introduces a new and distinct charge, the Chair will assess the financial impact of each provision to determine whether it introduces a new charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In making that determination, the Chair will examine each clause to determine whether it specifically authorizes any spending for a distinct purpose or contains language that indicates that public funds are being appropriated.

In clear terms, Beauchesne, 6th edition, at paragraph 613 states, “A bill, which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by Parliament, is not a money bill, and no Royal Recommendation is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.” At paragraph 600, Beauchesne also states, “The principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of money drawn for the public revenue applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue.”

Next, the Chair will offer guidance on the application on Standing Order 76, which provides, “Any Bill affecting the Constitution must be introduced by a Member of the Government or with the sanction of the Government.” As the Chair noted in a ruling on April 14, 2025, a Private Member’s bill may be ruled out of order on the grounds that it offends Standing Order 76 by touching upon provisions in the provincial Constitution Act, or the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, being Canada’s Constitution.

Private Members are bound by these constitutional and procedural limitations on Private Members’ bills, which apply equally to amendments proposed by Private Members — whether to a government bill or a Private Member’s bill. Members will no doubt be well served by advice from the Clerks at the Table on the application of these rules. The Chair urges Private Members to undertake their due diligence in respect of these obligations, and to seek procedural advice as early as possible, prior to the introduction of a bill or an amendment.

The Chair wishes to assure the House that the Chair examines every Private Member’s bill for its procedural admissibility. The Chair has no hesitation to rule on the admissibility of a Private Member’s bill before it proceeds to consideration at second reading, in accordance with the precedence assigned to Private Members. If any Member wishes to seek direction from the Chair or otherwise raise arguments for the Chair’s consideration, they are welcome to do so by raising a point of order.

Finally, Members are reminded that the authority of the Chair is limited to interpreting matters of parliamentary procedure and not matters of public policy or law.

HON. RAJ CHOUHAN, Speaker

Order called for “Oral Questions by Members.”

The Hon. Raj Chouhan (Speaker) tabled the Ombudsperson Annual Report, 2024/25.

The House proceeded to “Orders of the Day.”

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of the Whole.

The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 25) intituled Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On the motion of Claire Rattée, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

(In Committee — Section A)

Bill (No. 31) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, was again committed.

A proposed amendment by David Williams to clause 1 of Bill (No. 31) was ruled out of order.

Clause 1 of Bill (No. 31) passed on the following division:

On clause 2 of Bill (No. 31).

Section A of Committee of the Whole reported progress on Bill (No. 31) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

And then the House adjourned at 12.01 p.m.

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

One-thirty o’clock p.m.

The House proceeded to “Orders of the Day.”

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of the Whole.

The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 25) intituled Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

The debate continued.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

Bill (No. 25) read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 20) intituled Construction Prompt Payment Act was again committed.

Clause 39 and clause 40 of Bill (No. 20) passed.

On clause 41 of Bill (No. 20).

The Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered at the next sitting.

(In Committee — Section A)

Bill (No. 31) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, was again committed.

Jeremy Valeriote moved a proposed amendment to clause 2 of Bill (No. 31) which was defeated on the following division:

Larry Neufeld moved a proposed amendment to clause 2 of Bill (No. 31) which was defeated on the following division:

Jeremy Valeriote moved a proposed amendment to clause 2 of Bill (No. 31) which was defeated on the following division:

Larry Neufeld moved a proposed amendment to clause 2 of Bill (No. 31) which was defeated on the following division:

Jeremy Valeriote moved a proposed amendment to clause 2 of Bill (No. 31) which was defeated on the following division:

On clause 2 of Bill (No. 31).

Section A of Committee of the Whole reported progress on Bill (No. 31) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

2  Reply to Macklin McCall from the Hon. Minister of Forests in response to written questions on notice: —

Wildfire Preparedness and Response

1. Given that wildfires since 2016 have burned an area larger than Vancouver Island, devastating timber supplies and ecosystems, why does Budget 2025 allocate only a modest $8 million increase for wildfire management? What is the Ministry’s plan to bridge this gap given the record-breaking costs of wildfires (over $1 billion spent in 2023)?

Response:

Since 2018 the Fire Management budget has been raised from $63.986 million to where it stands today at $238.047 million.

2. How will the Ministry ensure robust wildfire pre-season planning when Budget 2025 funds focus predominantly on reactive firefighting measures? Specifically, what proactive strategies (e.g., fire breaks, equipment, training) are being funded to prevent megafires rather than merely respond to them?

Response:

During the 2024 season, BC Wildfire Service (BCWS):

a. invested $16 million to expand BC Wildfire Service’s on-the-ground firefighting equipment;

b. acquired two additional mass water systems;

c. acquired additional structure protection units;

d. began the process of establishing a new equipment depot in Prince George to support northern operations;

e. increased the number of First Nations partners for initial attack for indigenous communities to respond to wildfires; and,

f. increased from 149 to 162 initial attack crews (4 person).

There are 88 cultural and prescribed-burn projects planned for 2025, with 48 completed in 2024.

3. With B.C. having spent a record $1.1 billion on fire management in 2023 (exceeding the budget by $401 million), what safeguards does the Ministry propose to avoid such under-budgeting in 2025? Does the Ministry anticipate relying on the $10-billion contingency fund for wildfire costs, or will core budgets be adjusted to reflect true firefighting expenditures?

Response:

Voted appropriation represents fire management spending during a mild fire season, for example 2019 was $182.5 million and 2020 was $193.7 million, any additional costs are funded through statutory spending through the Wildfire Act.

4. Budget 2025 shows the Forests Ministry’s spending falling from $1.4 billion to $891 million, partly due to lower forecast wildfire expenses. How can the Ministry justify this reduction after 2023’s worst wildfire season, and what risk assessments support the assumption of significantly lower firefighting costs in 2025–26?

Response:

The annual budgets do not account for statutory appropriation related to wildfire spending. Budget 2024 had a total operating budget of $845 million compared to Budget 2025 where it was increased to $891 million. The $1.4 billion referenced would have been the total Ministry of Forests spending (forecasted at Q3), which also includes costs associated with the statutory spending through the Wildfire Act.

5. In light of year-round wildfire threats, how is BC Wildfire Service’s staffing and training being enhanced? Specifically, given record recruitment interest (1,700 applicants for ~200 crew jobs in 2025), will Budget 2025 accommodate more full-time positions or training programs to leverage this surge and improve wildfire response capacity?

Response:

The BC Wildfire Service will enter the 2025 wildfire season with approximately 1,300 firefighters, 600 permanent support staff and 300 seasonal support staff.

Controlled Burns and Wildfire Mitigation

6. Experts note B.C. must “revolutionize forest practices” by reinstating preventive burns and forest thinning. What dedicated funding in Budget 2025 (beyond the $20 million/year noted for prevention) is earmarked for controlled burns, fuel management, and cultural burning initiatives, especially near highrisk communities?

Response:

BCWS has an annual wildfire prevention budget of $40 million that encompasses various aspects of wildfire preventative treatments, including cultural burning, fuel management and controlled burns, and FireSmart to protect high-risk communities in British Columbia.

7. The Tyee highlighted that New Jersey, with <1% of B.C.’s area, conducts more preventive burns than B.C. How does the Ministry intend to “up its fire mitigation game” in 2025? Are there new targets or inter-jurisdictional partnerships planned to scale up prescribed burns and firebreak projects to match best practices in regions like Australia and the U.S.?

Response:

The Ministry of Forests 2025/26 Service Plan includes objectives and performance measures for expanding the use of cultural and prescribed fire. The BC Wildfire Service has formal and informal partnerships with California, Oregon, Washington, Parks Canada, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Prescribed Fire Training Centre in Florida, and the State of Victoria in Australia.

8. Given that each $1 invested in wildfire mitigation can yield $7 in benefits (especially by protecting watersheds and communities), why does Budget 2025 continue under-investing in prevention relative to suppression? How will the Ministry measure the cost-effectiveness of any FireSmart and Crown Land Wildfire Risk Reduction (CLWRR) projects funded this year?

Response:

A management committee for the FireSmart Community and Supports (FCFS) program, including UBCM, BC Wildfire Service and the First Nations Emergency Services Society, considers community feedback and assesses program efficiency and performance on a year-to-year basis to incorporate improvements. New opportunities for multi-year funding are an example of changes made in response to community feedback.

The Ministry gathers feedback and identifies improvements to the Crown Land Wildfire Risk Reduction (WRR) program annually, and also periodically conducts a third party strategic review of the program. The Ministry will be implementing an expanded role for BC Timber Sales in wildfire risk reduction in 2025, including identifying opportunities to integrate BCTS into WRR program delivery and leveraging BCTS’ expertise and management systems to strengthen program efficiency and performance.

9. After the catastrophic 2023 fire season, many communities have millions of dollars in unmet wildfire prevention needs. How is the Ministry addressing the funding shortfall, for local mitigation projects (e.g., fuel removal, prescribed burns)? Will Budget 2025 increase Community Resiliency Investment grants, given one fire chief’s comment that current funding covers only “one-fifth” of needed work?

Response:

The Community Resiliency Investment (CRI) Program continues to fund priority activities identified in these local plans. Budget 2025 does not increase CRI funding.

10. Cultural burns are a proven tool to reduce wildfire risk and involve Indigenous expertise. What progress will Budget 2025 enable for the Cultural and Prescribed Fire Program, and how many hectares are expected to be treated through cultural burns in 2025? Are any First Nations partnerships or training programs expanding to integrate these traditional practices more broadly?

Response:

The BC Wildfire Service has established a dedicated Cultural and Prescribed Fire program that is specifically focused on expanding the safe use of planned fire on the landscape. The Ministry is actively building partnerships with First Nations in every fire centre across the Province. The Ministry is currently actively engaged in over 130 burn projects across all fire centres.

Timber Loss and Supply

11. As major wildfires sterilize soils and increase erosion, reforestation becomes more urgent and complex. What earmarked funding or programs in Budget 2025 will tackle post-wildfire replanting, land rehabilitation, and erosion control in severely burned areas? Please detail any specific allocations (or the lack thereof) for such recovery work in response to the 2023 wildfires in places like the Okanagan (Westside complex).

Response:

The Wildfire Land-Based Recovery program was launched in 2023 and utilizes statutory spending, on authority of the Wildfire Act, to do whatever is necessary and required to rehabilitate the land base from wildfire suppression related activities. The Forest Investment and Reporting Branch (FIRB) of the Office of the Chief Forester oversees and coordinates the delivery of government silviculture and other investments on publicly managed lands including post wildfire reforestation.

Water Quality in Wildfire Zones

12. Experts warn that burned watersheds lead to debris torrents and sediment in drinking water. In Budget 2025, what resources are allocated to protect water quality after wildfires? Is there funding for catchment rehabilitation (e.g., reseeding ground cover, installing silt traps) in areas like the Shuswap or Cariboo where community water systems were affected by 2023 fires?

Response:

The Ministry of Forests conducts Post Wildfire Natural Hazard Assessments on many wildfires to determine post-wildfire risk to life, property and or infrastructure. This information is shared with EMCR who disseminates it to local governments and communities. Local governments can seek funding from various sources including provincial and federal.

13. Given that smaller communities and First Nations without big filtration plants are “starting to see boil water advisories” post-fires, how will the Ministry work with Emergency Management and Health to address these risks? Are there inter-ministerial funds or programs in 2025 to assist in upgrading water infrastructure or providing interim clean water supplies in wildfire-affected areas?

Response:

This question should be directed to the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

14. The Forests Ministry’s mandate includes land-based recovery. Does Budget 2025 fund any wildfire land-based recovery program pilots aimed at maintaining or restoring water quality (for instance, replanting stream buffers, stabilizing slopes to prevent ash runoff)? If yes, please detail; if not, why was this critical aspect overlooked despite known wildfire impacts on fisheries and drinking water?

Response:

The Wildfire Land Based Recovery program (WLBR) within the BC Wildfire Service is responsible for provincial coordination of Wildfire Suppression Rehabilitation and Post-Wildfire Natural Hazard Risk Assessments. Funding for these activities are authorized under the Wildfire Act. WLBR is not directly responsible for water quality monitoring, managing or recovery for consumption as this falls under the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

15. In 2024, a one-time recovery uplift of $100,000 was offered to six local governments for post-wildfire debris clearing and rebuilding. Will this Recovery Uplift Program continue or expand in 2025, and will its scope include measures to specifically safeguard water sources (like removing charred debris around reservoirs or repairing damaged water intakes)?

Response:

This question should be directed to the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Staffing, Permitting and Bureaucracy

16. With extensive staff demands from wildfire seasons (hundreds of BC Wildfire Service personnel and support staff in emergency operations) and simultaneous needs to advance policy (old-growth deferrals, landscape planning), is the Ministry properly resourced in terms of staffing levels? Did Budget 2025 authorize any increase in full-time equivalents (FTEs) for the Ministry of Forests or the BC Wildfire Service to manage these dual pressures? If not, how will the Ministry avoid burnout and ensure both emergency response and strategic planning mandates are met?

Response:

Budget 2025 provides the Ministry of Forests with $891 million for 2025/26 for programs.

17. In summary, does the Minister believe the 2025 NDP Budget failed the forestry portfolio? Please address how this budget “shortchanges” the Ministry’s ability to prepare for climate impacts (wildfires, floods) and to support an industry in crisis. What commitments can the Ministry of Forests make to British Columbians that, despite the limited new funding, it will innovatively leverage every tool available to protect communities, sustain our forests, and preserve jobs in the year ahead?

Response:

No. 

And then the House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.

HON. RAJ CHOUHAN, Speaker

NOTICE OF BILLS

Wednesday, November 19

Jordan Kealy to introduce a Bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Statute Repeal Act.

Elenore Sturko to introduce a Bill intituled Interpretation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Tara Armstrong to introduce a Bill intituled Post-Secondary Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Prohibition Act.

Gavin Dew to introduce a Bill intituled Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act, 2025.

Gavin Dew to introduce a Bill intituled Short-Term Rental Accommodations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Thursday, November 20

Dallas Brodie to introduce a Bill intituled National Day of Truth and Reconciliation Repeal Act.

Dana Lajeunesse to introduce a Bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

NOTICE OF MOTIONS

Thursday, November 20

71  Á’a:líya Warbus to move —

That Motion 16 be amended by adding “review of the” before the word “speculation” and deleting all words after “tax” and substituting therefor the following: “for inequities and urgent improvements.”

72  The Hon. Mike Farnworth to move —

That a Special Committee on Police Complaints be appointed to conduct an audit respecting the outcome or resolution of randomly selected complaints and investigations, pursuant to section 51.2 of the Police Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367).

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House within one year of its appointment, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Elenore Sturko (Convener), Garry Begg, Steve Kooner, Macklin McCall and Darlene Rotchford.

73  The Hon. Mike Farnworth to move —

That Elenore Sturko and Jennifer Blatherwick be removed as members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Copyright © King’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada