Hansard - Monday, March 31, 2025 Morning, Issue No. 27

I introduce Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025. The bill amends the Carbon Tax Act to cancel all scheduled rate increases and set the carbon tax rate to zero dollars per tonne of emissions as of April 1, 2025. This will effectively end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.

As a consequential, the bill also amends the Income Tax Act to establish that no climate action tax credit payments will be issued for the benefit year beginning in July 2025 and every year following. This will effectively end the climate action tax credit. People will get the final payments in April.

This bill also includes various amendments to the Carbon Tax Act that will help facilitate the removal of the tax. For example, a new refund and crediting mechanism for retail dealers of natural gas will come into effect on April 1, 2025, and retroactive regulation-making authorities will allow us to end certain administrative requirements and designations as of April 1, 2025.

Finally, the bill includes consequential amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act. These amendments will ensure that designations under the Motor Fuel Tax Act are not affected by changes to designations under the Carbon Tax Act. They will also allow us to amend refund rates for the international fuel tax agreement licences to reflect the end of the carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of this government to seek your approval to allow the bill to advance through all stages this day.

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

[10:10 a.m. - 10:20 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 89
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Sturko	Kindy
Milobar	Warbus	Rustad
Banman	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Luck	Stamer	Maahs
Tepper	Mok	Wilson
Clare	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Chapman
McCall	Valeriote	Kealy
Armstrong		Brodie
NAYS — 1
	Botterell

The Speaker: Members, given the precedents of the House for requests for accelerated consideration of a bill pursuant to Standing Order 81, the House will be in recess while the bill is distributed to all members.

Once the House is called back to order, the Chair will receive submissions from the government and opposition for accelerated consideration of Bill 8. The House will thereafter again stand in recess while the Chair prepares the ruling.

We’ll be in recess for a few minutes, and we are going to be distributing the bill now.

The House recessed from 10:23 a.m. to 10:32 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, I call the House now to order.

I will now recognize the Government House Leader to make his application and will also receive a response to a submission from the opposition.

Standing Order 81

Bill 8 to Proceed Through
Two or More Stages in One Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I rise to request a ruling from the Chair pursuant to Standing Order 81 that Bill 8 advance through all stages this day.

The application of Standing Order 81 following the introduction of a bill is uncommon. It is to be used sparingly and by necessity in this chamber on urgent and extraordinary occasions.

As is frequently the case, hon. Speaker, you and this House may seek guidance regarding the interpretation and application of our standing orders from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Standing Order 81 is considered at page 260 of the fifth edition.

I would note that Erskine May notes there are numerous precedents in the United Kingdom House where bills, after first reading, have passed through all remaining stages in one day. And in cases of extreme urgency, the stages of finance bills have been accelerated, chapter 33.

I would hold that this legislation is tax legislation and constitutes a ways-and-means motion that is both referred to in Erskine May and in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, our Canadian equivalent. Ways-and-means motions are concerning the budgetary policy of the government. As such, government is declaring that this is a matter of confidence.

[10:35 a.m.]

Here in B.C., the practice of Standing Order 81 is refined by rulings from Speaker Barnes in 1996, B.C. Journals, April 26, 1996, page 9; Speaker Hartley in 2000, B.C. Journals, April 2, 2009, pages 92 and 93; Speaker Richmond in 2004, B.C. Journals, April 28, pages 92 and 93; and the most recent ruling, which I will focus most of my comments on, made by Speaker Barisoff in 2009, B.C. Journals, January 17, 2009, pages 156 to 157.

It seems clear that there are two tests that must be met. The first is that the legislation must be focused and specific to the circumstances at hand, and secondly, those circumstances must be urgent or extraordinary. Speaker Barisoff quotes, in page 13,416 of the B.C.Journals: “The bill must be sufficiently limited in scope to qualify under Standing Order 81” and “The second test which applies under Standing Order 81 is that the matter involves an urgent or extraordinary occasion.”

In addressing these two tests, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer you and the House to three documents that I will submit to you as part of my submission. I submit and ask you to consider federal OIC 2025-0446 and OIC 2025-0447, dated March 15, 2025, and associated forms signed by the Prime Minister upon the recommendation of the federal Minister of Finance and the federal Minister of Environment.

I will quote from those documents: “Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, makes the annexed regulations amending schedule 2 to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the fuel charge regulations under sections 166 and 168 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act,” and “Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, makes the annexed regulations amending the output-based pricing system regulations under sections 192 and 193 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.”

These regulations amend schedule 2 to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the fuel charge regulations in order to set applicable fuel charge rates for all types of fuel and combustible waste to zero after March 31, 2025.

And regulations amending the output-based pricing system, the OBPS, regulations in order to (1) ensure that on-site transportation emissions currently reported under the OBPS continue to be reported; and (2) shorten the compliance period for voluntary facilities where designation as a covered facility is cancelled by the minister in 2025 to align the compliance period for these facilities to end when the fuel charge rate is set to zero dollars.

Hon. Speaker, these two OICs change the nature of the federal backstop put in place by the federal government, and our government has promised to act immediately once the federal government removed the consumer carbon pricing imposed by the federal government.

The third document that I will submit is a petition from the official opposition that calls on this government to scrap the carbon tax. The petition goes on to read, and I quote: “We demand the government scrap the carbon tax immediately.” Well, without getting into the debate on the legislation, we are moving to do just that. This legislation is narrow in scope. It sets the legislated increase to zero dollars and changes the consumer carbon tax to zero dollars. Concurrently, it also amends the Income Tax Act to eliminate the climate action tax credit.

On the urgency test, this is the first instance that this government has had to address these changes, as the House was adjourned by order on March 13, and this is the first instance that we have been able to table this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, if you were not to grant the application of passing this legislation, that would cancel the proposed increase which was previously required by federal law. Fuel producers are looking to this House to provide certainty, and swift passage of this legislation ensures that fuel producers are collecting the correct tax rate and one that the federal government no longer requires to be paid.

Hon. Speaker, if your ruling is in the affirmative, I recognize that such a ruling does not constitute a conclusion of the will of this House. As such, government does not seek to curtail debate on this legislation. Government has been clear to the public and to the opposition parties that this legislation would be tabled today, and advance notice of this application was given to the Opposition House Leaders.

[10:40 a.m.]

In keeping with the above, if your ruling is in the affirmative, I will move a motion to allow the House to sit beyond the fixed hour for adjournment of the House until such time that the House may hopefully consider and approve all stages of consideration of Bill 8 and receive the Lieutenant Governor to grant royal assent to this bill, thereby ensuring that all members who wish to debate this bill at all stages are provided ample opportunity to do so.

I also recognize that other standing orders remain in place, and it is not government’s intention to displace other business of this House — namely, afternoon routine business and other items that government may call.

I would also like to inform the House that concurrent to debate on Bill 8, I also intend to call items of debate in both Houses, including ministerial estimates and the remaining stages of Bill 6, and royal assent is scheduled at 5:30 for several bills waiting for Her Honour.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the opposition member, I again want to caution members that when we are dealing with submissions made pursuant to Standing Order 81, they must be strictly relevant to the two factors prescribed in the standing order, being urgency and extraordinary circumstances.

Peter Milobar: The only thing extraordinary about this is how long it took the government to actually bring Bill 8 forward. It is certainly not urgent, or should not have needed to be urgent had this government operated with any sense of urgency for the first four weeks that we sat in this Legislature, including when the budget was presented.

The Government House Leader brought forward several dates around March 15 when there was an OIC signed by the federal government. I would point out, however, that every federal politician that would reasonably be seen to be the Prime Minister or the next Prime Minister, from January 31 moving forward, had talked about removing the consumer carbon tax should they become Prime Minister, including our current Prime Minister. That was the first day that he started speaking about removing the consumer carbon tax.

Yet you spring forward to the beginning of March, when our budget was presented, and not only did this government not bring forward legislation like this with an enabling clause to allow for things to be done by OIC so we could have debated this very technical bill over the last four weeks in this chamber….

In fact, they presented a budget that showed an ever-increasing carbon tax over the next three years, fully expecting — despite what all the federal leaders were talking about, of removing the consumer carbon tax — budgeting for and projecting consumer carbon tax to continue on in British Columbia.

I would also point out that the government had it within their powers to have recalled the Legislature any time over the last two weeks to deal with Bill 8. Yet here we are, jammed up as an opposition, duly elected members of this Legislature, to try to deal with a very technical piece of legislation as it relates to charts and fees around carbon tax.

The carbon tax bill itself is 83 pages of legislation. This is another six pages of legislation. I would point out that we have all sorts of government taxation policy right now, in front of this chamber, that is retroactive.

In fact, in Bill 5, which is the Budget Measures Implementation Act, which carbon tax was not mentioned in and any changes made there, we have section 3, January 1, 2013, a retroactive clause; section 4, January 1, 2018; section 7, January 1, 2022; section 8, March 28, 2023; section 9, January 1, 2024. We have some into the early parts of 2025; section 35, January 1, 2019; section 38, January 1, 2019.

This government has had a long history of bringing in retroactive tax changes around lots of things to do with income tax and other taxes in this.

I would also point out that part of the reason we’re here is this government hard-baked in the increases on a yearly basis, a couple of budget measure implementation bills ago to match the march to $170 a tonne. About this time last year the Premier was very emphatic that B.C. would continue to go to $170 a tonne regardless of what happened provincially, and we have a budget that bears that out.

It was only in the fall the Premier changed his tune, and it was only recently that this bill got presented — again, a technical bill.

[10:45 a.m.]

Despite this, and despite very public proclamations by the Premier last week that, in fact, this would be happening, there was no providing of the bill in advance to opposition to properly vet and read through and figure out exactly what is or is not going to happen both on the consumer and the industrial side of carbon tax. We are essentially left to spend a couple of hours trying to quickly cobble together a cognizant response to something that has been in the public conversation for quite some time.

If this is the government’s attempt at trying to exhibit urgency to a piece of legislation, it sorely misses the mark. Again, Standing Order 81 is meant to be for those issues that are of extremely urgent matters, not for government incompetence on bringing forward a legislative schedule of things for this House to work on.

We could have very easily over the last four weeks been dealing with provisions in Bill 8 that would have actually had a commencement clause at the very end that said that as federal laws change by order in council, we would allow ourselves to make the changes, and we would understand what those changes are.

It’s quite ironic that we are talking about these potential powers needing to be with the government, given the walk-back on Bill 7 that we’ve recently seen in terms of the all-encompassing powers, given how ham-fisted this has come forward with carbon tax.

In short, when you look at the dates, when you look at the precedents, when you look at legislation on the floor of this House right now to do with budget measures and implementation and you layer that with the actual budget document we have and the total disregard by this Premier and this government to take any substantive action on carbon tax until the very literal eleventh hour of the conversation nationally, this is an urgent matter because the government has created an urgency to it, not because they did not have the time to reasonably foresee what was going to be happening, nor the legislative tools available to them to try to be able to react to that.

I would suggest to you that the fact that the government has now fumbled this attempt would indicate that we do not need to have Standing Order 81 enacted today. We need to let this legislation flow through to its natural course in this chamber.

The Government House Leader insists that everyone in this chamber shall be afforded the opportunity to speak to Bill 8. Well, with half-hour time limits and an official opposition of 41, that would be 20½ hours. We’d be well past April 1 by the time this bill got to committee stage, let alone debate ending on second reading.

So the actions and the words, once again, of this government do not match what Standing Order 81 is supposed to represent. By that measure, if it is critical this be passed by midnight tonight to meet the April 1 deadline, what the government has failed to tell us yet again, in an open and transparent way, is that they would be willing to bring in a guillotine motion later today to ensure that all debate was cut off in time for the Lieutenant Governor to get back here before midnight to be able to make this law.

In that case, I guess it would be fitting, given that there’s been a lot of talk about Henry VIII clauses recently from this government, that they would be bringing forward a guillotine motion later that they refuse to acknowledge today.

The arguments by the government simply are not to be believed in terms of the urgency, the timelines involved and the fact that, by the Government House Leader’s own admission, everyone in this chamber shall be afforded the full right to fully speak to and fully question a bill that is supposed to be passed by April 1, which is midnight tonight.

There does not seem to be the urgency. This has been something the government could have brought forward to this chamber over the previous four weeks. They could have recalled us over the last two weeks.

I do look forward to it being a confidence vote, however, because the Premier seems to be angling and wanting an election to happen sooner rather than later. So I guess it will be interesting, when we ultimately get to a final vote on Bill 8, to see whether we’re into our own provincial election or not.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Jeremy Valeriote: We have been informed that this is a matter of urgency, that the government has no choice but to bypass standard legislative process to pass this bill in a single day. The Third Party caucus is not satisfied with the reasons given.

[10:50 a.m.]

Leaving aside the issue of predictability going back to September of last year, British Columbia was the first province in Canada to introduce a carbon tax. For 17 years, we recognized that our actions have consequences, that corporations and people should not be able to use the atmosphere for disposal of their carbon pollution for free.

The Green caucus can’t support passing this in one day. Carbon emissions are an existential threat to our future. As such, this piece of legislation has consequences for the future of the planet, consequences for millions of British Columbians who rely on quarterly carbon rebates and consequences for the solvency of the province, with $2.8 billion expected to be raised this financial year through the carbon tax.

This huge impact means that as opposition members, we need time to seek answers from the government about how they intend to resolve these issues: how we can be assured that polluters will pay, as promised; that families will continue to receive rebate funds they rely on; how the government will meet a $2.8 billion gap.

We don’t consider that meeting the convenience of fuel producers or aligning with other provinces is sufficient grounds for urgency. We have seen, previously, the good that has come from B.C. being a pioneer and an outlier, one with a green tax sector, where the lowest-income people receive support, where we can be world leaders — 17 years, and a single day to scrap this legislation.

Why not take the time that’s required to bring forward a well-thought-out substitute for carbon price signals, revenue and rebates?

We also note the precedent for a removal of government revenue, which is actually a diminishment of supply, not requiring a royal recommendation and not being considered a matter of urgency or confidence. This bill could be introduced as a private member’s bill. There is no requirement for it to proceed in this manner.

Mr. Speaker, we do not support moving this bill under Standing Order 81 urgency. We would ask that you do not support it.

The Speaker: I don’t see anyone else. Seeing no further speakers from the floor to speak on this motion, I thank all the members who have spoken on this for their thoughtful submissions.

In accordance with the practice of the House for such an application, the House will continue. I’ll take a recess myself. The Chair will step out to look at all the submissions made by the members and make my ruling.

In the meantime, I will ask the Deputy Speaker to continue the debate in the House on the agenda of Monday morning.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right. We are about to get underway here. I will ask everybody to please clear out if you’re not going to be joining us, and I call the committee back in session.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Safety of Nurses in
Health Care System

Anna Kindy: On March 13 at the in-patient psych unit at Vancouver General Hospital, a nurse was strangled unconscious by a patient. It took several minutes for the security staff to get from the emergency department to the psych unit. The nurse, who was new at her job, had to be dragged away by her colleagues.

[10:55 a.m.]

In November 2024, a 48-year-old male patient stabbed a student nurse at VGH with a pocket knife. Fortunately, her injuries were non-life-threatening.

It was not in the too distant past when an internal memo was circulated at one of the B.C. hospitals that if a knife had a blade under four inches, it was not to be confiscated.

If you know a nurse, you know she or he has a story about verbal abuse, being spit at, punched, bit. Our nurses have had their hair pulled or were sexually harassed and had hospital equipment and even urine thrown at them.

There have been over 1,800 WorkSafeBC claims of workplace violence in the health sectors in 2023, and the figures don’t even capture physicians who are not employees of the health authorities. We all agree that our nurses are everyday heroes. And that’s how you get thanked, with assault, violence and trauma?

Nurses who experience and report violence often end up having to take the violence prevention program, which makes them seem like they’re the problem. Often nothing happens to the perpetrators of that violence. Imagine being asked: “What could you have done differently to prevent this incident from happening?” Ultimately, most health care workers choose not to report their incident unless they’re severely injured.

Weapons are becoming common in hospitals. Back in January in Port Moody Eagle Ridge Hospital, a man pulled out a machete and made a very aggressive gesture while screaming and uttering threats. The man was under a court-ordered weapons ban at the time of the incident.

According to the Nurses Union, 39 percent of nurses have been exposed to weapons. No wonder over 32 percent of nurses quit before the age of 35. Violence against nurses and hospital staff happens most often in the ER. This is not surprising. There’s a perfect storm brewing there.

Many people still can’t find GPs, so ER wait times are anywhere from eight to 18 hours. This type of wait time challenges the best of us.

Illicit substances have been decriminalized, so you are allowed 2.4 grams of heroin, fentanyl, crack, meth and all their toxic additives, and you are allowed to use these toxic drugs in any private residence, indoor shelters or outdoor encampments.

It was not in the too far past that we were actually fitting our nurses with gas masks. I was told not to call it a gas mask. I was told to call it a full-face respirator with charcoal filter. They were being fitted with those gas masks because they were being exposed to crack, fentanyl or meth fumes.

So in emergency, now we see aberrant behaviour because you are high on crack or meth. You come in with a drug-induced psychosis or brain injury because of repeated overdoses. I’ve been an addiction doc for over 20 years. You don’t stigmatize against the addict, but you stigmatize against the drug.

Doing drugs is not okay. You are injuring yourself, and you are injuring the people around you.

Most hospitals in B.C. have a sign posted saying “Harassment, threats or abuse will not be tolerated.” B.C. Nurses Union has been sounding the alarm for months. Government must take immediate action. It’s only a matter of time before somebody gets killed. We should have a zero-tolerance policy for violence against hospital workers. We can’t eliminate it completely, but we should be able to dramatically decrease it.

We need more trained security officers in our hospitals, especially in high-risk areas like ERs and psych units. Weapons cannot be allowed in hospital. Information-sharing needs to be streamlined so health care workers are immediately aware when a patient has a history of violence. We need to get a handle on the substance use epidemic and start using some commonsense strategies. We need to find solutions to staffing issues and decrease the burnout and attrition rate of our nurses.

[11:00 a.m.]

I want to end by thanking all the nurses and health care workers of B.C. Many of them are everyday heroes who deserve better from us, who deserve policies that will help keep them safe.

Transgender Day of Visibility

Jennifer Blatherwick: Every year on March 31, we celebrate Transgender Day of Visibility here in B.C. and across the world. Transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit people are our friends, our family members, our colleagues and our neighbours, and today we raise them and their voices.

This is a wonderful moment to find someone in your community — a craftsperson, a scientist, an activist, a teacher, a worker, a fellow human — and appreciate their journey. Be curious and not judgmental.

A long time ago from today, someone who knew utterly and completely who they were, who stood firmly rooted in themselves, quoted Maya Angelou to me: “When people show you who they are, believe them.” I had always taken it as a warning to trust yourself when someone does wrong by you, but they shone that light right into those words for me that the world is not just about fear and doubt but also faith and love. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Transgender Day of Visibility is about celebrating and uplifting the lives of people who have chosen to live their truthful selves despite the harshest of criticism and the most dire of risks. That’s why today we recognize the more than 18,000 British Columbians who identify as transgender, gender-diverse or two-spirit. With a population of five million in B.C., that’s a very small percentage, less than 1 percent. It can be easy to miss the vital contributions of such a small segment of our population.

This day of recognition was started in 2010 by Rachel Crandall-Crocker. He wanted to shift the focus away from violence and the devastating impacts of transphobia on trans people’s lives. Today is an opportunity to shine that light on positive stories of the transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit community.

Everyone benefits when we can all be our most authentic selves and be seen and loved for who we are. B.C. is a diverse province. Visibility matters, because everyone has the right to see themselves represented in our communities and our society. I want to take a moment to recognize some amazing organizations that support the transgender community here in B.C.

QMUNITY offers a variety of resources and supports for 2SLGTBQIA+ people, including a counselling program, gender-supportive-wear programs, peer groups and a legal clinic that offers pro bono services for queer, trans and two-spirit people.

In my community, the Tri-Cities Pride Society works to support people through sharing information, education, connecting families, local events and advocacy. The Tri-Cities Pride Society has a pride and allies book club, as well as a monthly walking group called Out and About.

To keep us grounded in history, the University of Victoria hosts the world’s largest transgender archives, which spans more than 120 years of records, including material in 15 languages from 23 countries and six continents. The transgender archives play an essential role in preserving and highlighting trans history and are a reminder that transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit people have always been here and will always continue to be, ensuring that people look forward to a future in which they belong and are valued.

If anyone is looking for resources in their community, Trans Care B.C. has an overview of provincial options for organizations that are doing vital work across this province.

In the present, I would highlight the words of Alok, a South Asian non-binary, trans-feminine person from “In Defense of Misfits.” “Love is a commitment to one another’s perpetual and perennial mystery. Love says, ‘I will never understand you. I will never get you. But I don’t need to understand or to get you, because I am here to be alongside you, not consume you.’”

This Transgender Day of Visibility, we can elevate, we can believe, we can walk alongside, and we can hold people in respect.

Forest Industry

Ward Stamer: First off, I would like to appreciate the Forests Minister visiting parts of the southern Interior of B.C. a couple of weeks back. Considering how bad this government has mismanaged the forest industry in this province in just a few years, it was welcome to see him actually in our region.

[11:05 a.m.]

As a reminder to all in this House, including the Premier, in 2021 we had 55,700 direct jobs in our forest industry. We had a GDP of $5.9 billion. We had direct revenue of $1.9 billion right direct to our treasury — not to even count the taxes that are paid by the 55,700, all the thousands of indirects.

Then in 2024, that dropped down to probably 30,000 to 35,000 jobs. I don’t have the GDP numbers, but I know that our revenue was only $501 million. A drop of 75 percent in less than four years. Shocking.

Now, I know we have heard both from the Premier and this Forests Minister that they have guaranteed, as far back as January of 2025 at the TLA convention, that they will increase the cutting in this province, the harvest level, to 45 million cubic metres this year. The last previous year was 32, and back in ’21, it was 52.

Let me ask a straightforward question. How exactly is this going to happen?

Now, we’ve heard from the Forests Minister that he was on a listening-and-learning tour — a tour, mind you, to announce previously announced B.C. manufacturing job funds in many of our communities, much-needed and appreciated funds to help boost our forestry industry. However, these funds were announced in 2024 and November of 2023, way before any tariffs were on the horizon.

My question is: what is the government planning in 2025? We don’t see anything specific in the budget. All we do see is a broken promise of that 45 million cubic metres that are supposed to be harvested this year. But unfortunately, the budget says 30. So what is it? Forty-five? Thirty? The numbers don’t lie.

Let’s look at those numbers. This year’s budget is being projected at 30 million cubic metres with $635 million in revenue, and the only way that’s going to happen is with higher fees. Now, again, the minister said this was his listening-and-learning tour, and this is what I’ve been hearing, so I’m hoping he’s hearing the same thing — that we have the highest cost structure in North America for our timber and our forest products, highest in North America.

What else did he hear on this tour? This is what I’ve heard. I’ve heard that licensees and mills have been told that their timber supply areas are going to be reduced anywhere from 10 to 13 percent with these new biodiversity standards, right off the press on February 28. No consultation with industry, no consultation with stakeholders, no consultation with community members or the public — only First Nations.

We have direct changes coming down, unstatutory changes, yet with Bill 7, they could turn around and change this and make this into law tomorrow. That is why we have to kill Bill 7 — not bits and pieces of it, all of it. All of it, Madam Speaker.

I know time is short, but other things that the minister probably heard over and over again: certainty of supply, cutting red tape, revamping our stumpage system, compensation for licence-taking-away, fast-tracking the permit approval, prioritizing land use, mandating public sector funding.

This new draft policy doesn’t mention any of that. Nothing. All it does is put more emphasis on these companies to try to survive — more red tape, more time, less engagement. So how are we supposed to be able to turn this economy around when on one side, they tell us that they’re trying to improve things, and on other things, all they’re trying to do is work behind our back?

In closing, now is not the time for this. Now is not the time for Bill 7. We should kill this bill, and we should kill it right now.

[11:10 a.m.]

Sikh Heritage Month

Jessie Sunner: It’s an honour to rise today to recognize the beginning of Sikh Heritage Month, starting tomorrow, on April 1. This month is a time to celebrate the incredible history, resilience and contributions of the Sikh community here in B.C. and across Canada.

Over the weekend, I had the privilege of attending Sikh Heritage Society B.C.’s opening event, where I was reminded once again of the deep sense of community and commitment to justice that defines Sikhism. It was moving to see people of all backgrounds come together to learn, to celebrate and to recognize the impact of Sikhs and the impact they’ve had on this province and country for decades.

As a Sikh, I carry these teachings with me every single day. Sikhism is built on the principles of equality, justice and selfless service. Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of Sikhism, taught us that we are all equal regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or background and that our purpose is to serve humanity. These teachings have guided Sikhs for over 500 years, and they continue to guide us today.

The Sikh story in Canada is one of perseverance. Sikhs have been in this country for over 125 years, arriving in the late 1800s to work in industries like forestry, manufacturing and agriculture. Despite facing racism, discrimination and exclusion, our community has never given up. We have always fought for our rights — for the right to vote, for the right to belong and for the right to fully contribute to this country we call home.

Today Sikh Canadians are leaders in every single sector: health care, education, business, law enforcement, non-profits, politics. We in Surrey-Newton are also home to the largest Vaisakhi parade, or Nagar Kirtan, outside of India, an event that brings together hundreds of thousands of people in celebration of the Sikh community.

The contributions of Sikh Canadians go far beyond any one sector. Sikhism teaches the principle of seva, selfless service. This is why every gurdwara around the world has a langar, which is a free kitchen that serves meals to anyone in need, regardless of their faith or background.

The service of Sikhs extends far beyond the walls of our gurdwaras. In times of crisis, Sikhs are often among the first to step up. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sikh organizations like the Guru Nanak food banks, Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen and Khalsa Aid mobilized across British Columbia and Canada to deliver food, provide medical supplies and support those who were most affected.

When the B.C. floods devastated communities, Sikh volunteers worked around the clock to provide shelter, warm meals and assistance to those who had been displaced. And during some of the worst wildfires in our province’s history, Sikh gurdwaras opened their doors to evacuees, offering food, supplies and a warm place to stay.

But Sikhism teaches us something deeper, that justice is not just for Sikhs. It is for all people. Our gurus taught us that if we see oppression, we must stand and speak out against it, no matter who the victim is. These teachings are not just history. They continue to define how Sikhs engage with the world today.

I have seen these values in action firsthand throughout my life. Sikh Canadians have stood on the front lines of labour movements, fighting for fair wages and better working conditions for all workers. Sikhs have spoken out against racism and discrimination, standing in solidarity with Indigenous, Black and other marginalized communities. Sikhs have fought against Islamophobia, antisemitism and all forms of hate, recognizing that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Sikh Heritage Month is not just a time to reflect on the past; it’s a time to shape the future. We must commit to fighting hate and intolerance, recognizing that many racialized communities, including the Sikh community, continue to face discrimination today. We must continue to live our values: to serve, to uplift others and to always stand up for what is right.

As I stand in this House today, I do so with immense pride, not just in my own Sikh identity but in the contribution of Sikhs across this province and across our country. Sikhism is more than a faith. It is a call to action, a commitment to justice and a way of life that seeks to build a more equal, inclusive and compassionate world.

To all those celebrating and to all those taking the time to learn and engage, happy Sikh Heritage Month.

[11:15 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to all members that the opportunity to discuss and debate bills before the House is at different times but not during private members’ time.

Langley Senior Resources Society

Jody Toor: Today I want to take a moment to highlight the invaluable roles that organizations like the Langley Senior Resources Society, or LSRS, play in our community.

Founded in 1982, this non-profit organization has been at the forefront of enhancing the quality of life for seniors and adults aged 50 and older in the city and township of Langley. As we all know, our population is aging, and with that comes increasing need for dedicated resources and support systems for our seniors. The importance of centres like LSRS cannot be overstated, and I’d like to share several key reasons why they’re essential.

First and foremost, social connection. One of the challenges faced by seniors today is social isolation. Many older adults find themselves disconnected from their peers and communities, which can lead to feelings of loneliness and depression. LSRS provides a welcoming environment where seniors can not only connect with others but also participate in a variety of social activities. These interactions are important for mental and emotional well-being, helping to foster meaningful relationships and a sense of belonging.

Next let’s talk about the recreational opportunities that they have. Engaging in recreational activities is vital for maintaining physical health and mobility. At LSRS, seniors can take part in fitness classes, arts and crafts, and group outings. These activities are dedicated not only to promote physical health but also to stimulate brain function and creativity. In essence, they help our seniors stay active and engaged, which is fundamental for a fulfilling life.

Another important aspect is lifelong learning. Centres like LSRS offer a wide range of educational programs that enable seniors to expand their knowledge and skills, from technology training to health and wellness workshops. These classes ensure that seniors remain informed and engaged with the world around them. Lifelong learning is not just a pursuit, but it is a way to maintain a vibrant and active mind.

Help and support services are also critical as individuals age. LSRS provides tailored health services that respond to the unique needs of seniors. This includes wellness programs, nutritional guidance and access to essential health care resources by helping seniors manage their health. More effectively, LSRS enables them to maintain their independence for as long as possible.

Speaking of health, nutrition support cannot be overlooked. Proper nutrition is vital for maintaining health, especially for older adults who may have dietary needs. LSRS ensures that seniors have access to balanced meals, which can impact their overall well-being. Beyond the nutritional aspect, community meals serve as a wonderful opportunity for social gatherings, reinforcing the bonds within our community.

For caregivers, LSRS also offers adult day programs that provide a safe and engaging environment for seniors during the day. Finding trusted care for loved ones can be a daunting task, and these programs offer caregivers while providing structured activities and socialized opportunities for seniors. This dual benefit cannot be underestimated.

Finally, let’s not forget about the community engagement. LSRS fosters a sense of community by bringing together seniors from diverse backgrounds. This inclusiveness promotes understanding, respect and collaboration among different generations. Moreover, it encourages volunteer activities, participation in community events and enriching the community as a whole.

In conclusion, the Langley Senior Resources Society demonstrates the importance of having dedicated centres for our seniors by offering social, recreational and educational programs, as well as health and support services.

LSRS plays a crucial role in enhancing the lives of older adults in the Langley area. These centres empower seniors to lead fulfilling lives while strengthening the fabric of our community.

As our population continues to age, the need for these invaluable resources will only grow. It is very important that we support and sustain organizations like LSRS, ensuring that our seniors receive the care, connection and community they deserve.

Business Organizations in Burnaby

Paul Choi: As MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown and Parliamentary Secretary for Asia-Pacific Trade, I have seen firsthand the remarkable spirit of collaboration that defines our city’s entrepreneur landscape.

[11:20 a.m.]

Burnaby is home to several dynamic business organizations, each dedicated to fostering local commerce, with community engagement and sustainable growth.

Today I want to highlight three such organizations, the Burnaby Board of Trade, the Burnaby North Road Business Improvement Association and the Heights Merchants Association.

At the forefront of local business advocacy is the Burnaby Board of Trade, uniting diverse sectors under one umbrella, and I personally have been a member there for the last seven years. From establishing firms to small start-ups, the BBOT connects its members with resources, networking events and strategic partners.

Led by CEO Angie Whitfield, the organization focuses on initiatives that help businesses adapt and prosper in an evolving economy. Through professional development seminars and roundtable discussions with the government, the BBOT serves as a vital bridge between the enterprise and policy. Angie’s leadership emphasizes sustainability, inclusivity and global outreach.

By championing programs like the Burnaby Business Excellence Awards and forging ties with international markets, the BBOT boosts our city’s standing as an innovative place to invest and grow, and this ongoing advocacy ensures that Burnaby businesses stay competitive and well supported.

For BIA, spanning a culturally diverse corridor near Burnaby’s Lougheed Mall, the Burnaby North Road Business Improvement Association celebrates a rich tapestry of global influence. Known affectionately as Korea-town, the district is home to shops, restaurants and services that reflect the neighbourhood’s multinational character. I’ve also been involved in BIA for the last seven years as a director and the last three years as the president.

Under the current executive director, June Park, and the president, Calvin Lee, the North Road BIA brings the area to life through marketing campaigns, beautification projects and festive events. June’s leadership fosters cohesion among local entrepreneurs, spotlighting the unique heritage that sets North Road apart.

Street fairs and cultural festivals draw visitors from across the region, boosting economic activities and showcasing Burnaby’s multicultural roots. And by enhancing infrastructure and encouraging collaboration, the North Road BIA creates a warm environment for both long-standing residents and first-time guests.

Another cornerstone of Burnaby’s commercial tapestry is the Heights Merchant Association, commonly called the Heights BIA. Stretching along Hastings Street, this historical district combines small-town charm with urban amenities. Executive director Isabel Kolic leads the association in preserving the area’s character while promoting new business ventures. Community events, including popular car shows and seasonal celebrations, infuse Hastings Street with energy and draw visitors who support local shops and restaurants.

Through coordinated marketing and networking, the Heights Merchant Association safeguards the Heights’ proud heritage while allowing modern growth. As a result, the district remains a lively destination that thrives on both tradition and innovation.

These organizations share more than geographic proximity. They share a dedication to building thriving, inclusive neighbourhoods. Their efforts extend beyond commerce as each one invests in programs and events that uplift families, celebrate cultural diversity and reinforce a tie between business and the broader community.

Looking ahead, the Burnaby Board of Trade, Burnaby North Road BIA and the Heights Merchant Association will continue shaping our city’s future, and their emphasis on sustainability, innovation and respect for heritage ensures that Burnaby remains a desired place to live, work and invest.

I encourage everyone — residents, visitors and prospective entrepreneurs — to explore these unique commercial districts. Each reflects a distinct blend of tradition, culture and progress that sets Burnaby apart. By supporting local businesses, attending neighbourhood events and encouraging these organizations, we can all contribute to Burnaby’s ongoing success.

[11:25 a.m.]

In celebrating these achievements, let us look into the future with optimism. Through the dedication of business leaders and residents alike, our city continues to flourish, offering a bright future for generations to come.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — Mental Health
Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the Member for Surrey-Cloverdale to move second reading of Bill M205, the Mental Health Amendment Act, 2025.

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

The Mental Health Amendment Act, 2025, if passed, is a piece of legislation that could help save lives. This bill aims to improve communication between close relatives and doctors and nurse practitioners during a mental health crisis where a person has been apprehended under the Mental Health Act, and also when they are released from a designated facility under section 34 of the Mental Health Act.

This bill aims to fix a critical gap in our mental health system by ensuring that doctors and nurse practitioners have the information that they need to make informed decisions about involuntary admissions. It’s a simple idea, really, to require medical professionals to reach out to those who know a person best before deciding whether to certify or to release someone in crisis. It’s a simple change, but it really could mean the difference between life and death.

The truth is that — it’s very emotional for me — I have been working on these changes since 2009, because in 2009, when I was an RCMP officer with Langley RCMP, I was witness to a suicide of a young man named Todd Marr.

Todd had gone to the hospital in distress with suicidal thoughts. But they released him. His mom, Lorraine, had picked him up. She knew that he was at risk because he had tried to take his life the day before, but the hospital didn’t ask her for critical context before releasing him, and shortly after Todd was released, he ran from his mom’s car into traffic and died.

I was at the scene, and it’s a moment that has haunted me ever since. That’s what drives me to push for this bill. If the doctor had spoken to Lorraine and heard about Todd’s recent attempt, would the outcome have been different? We don’t know for sure. We don’t. But what we do know is that Lorraine wasn’t given a chance to speak. The bill would have changed that, making sure families like the Marrs aren’t silenced.

I anticipate that there will be members of government who might respond to this legislation and report that doctors and nurse practitioners already have this ability. It’s true that there are some provisions within guidance for practitioners, and there are forms within the Mental Health Act itself that do facilitate some communication with close relatives.

But, as confirmed by the 2022 update to the Ombudsman’s report on involuntary care in B.C. entitled Committed to Change, these forms were only completed 28 percent of the time. The Ombudsman’s report also made several recommendations, some of those completed, some ongoing and some still incomplete.

One of those incomplete ones is a change to section 34. Section 34 is also in Bill M205 and amendments, and I would like to encourage this House to advance the bill so that we can look at implementing that recommendation from the Ombudsman as well.

In addition to the Ombudsman’s report, there have been multiple coroner’s inquest recommendations to improve communication with close relatives during a mental health crisis.

One tragic example of this was in 2019, when Vancouver police constable Nicole Chan took her own life just hours after being released from Vancouver General Hospital’s access and assessment centre. She had been brought in under the Mental Health Act in obvious distress, with a history of suicidal thoughts. Her fellow officers had pleaded with the hospital to keep her, but just 80 minutes afterwards, she was sent home.

The coroner’s inquest into her death concluded in 2023, and it laid bare the failures in communication that contributed to this tragedy. The jury made 12 recommendations. One of those most critical was improving communication, including speaking to those who know the patient best.

[11:30 a.m.]

The Mental Health Amendment Act, 2025, Bill M205, directly addresses these recommendations. It mandates that physicians or nurse practitioners make reasonable efforts to gather additional context about a person’s psychological history before making a decision about certification or release.

The second amendment in this bill addresses the notification of a close relative of a person who has already been certified and treated. Currently the close relative is to be informed after the patient is released. This amendment would change it so that notice is given prior to their release.

On February 9, 2023, James Zimmer took his own life within hours of being discharged from Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria. His sister, who had been supporting her brother during his mental health challenges, had been receiving updates from doctors. However, she wasn’t informed of his release and only learned he was out of care when police showed up at her door to tell her that her brother had taken his own life.

Then there’s Aaron Sanio. His story echoes the same pain. Aaron was admitted to Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, struggling with mental illness and a history of suicide attempts. His family called the hospital repeatedly, desperate to share what they knew, but they weren’t able to get through to anyone directly involved in his care. They weren’t told when he was released, and shortly after, Aaron took his own life. His sister Kayla felt like “the door was shut in our faces.”

The Ombudsman’s report could have been written about Aaron’s case — families excluded, communications stalled and tragic outcomes. Bill M205 would force that door open, ensuring that families like Aaron’s get a voice and not just a busy signal.

This bill doesn’t only align with the coroner’s inquest for better communication, but it puts it into action, ensuring that no one slips through the cracks because of a lack of context.

Let’s widen that lens. In 2022, the Ombudsman released his report titled Committed to Change examining involuntary care, and it found systemic issues, including a lack of transparency and poor communications. The report highlighted cases where loved ones were left in the dark, unable to share vital information about a person’s condition or history. It’s not just a bureaucratic oversight; it’s a barrier to effective care.

These changes would ensure that families do have an opportunity to provide that information. Nicole Chan’s inquest showed us the cost of silence. The Ombudsman’s report laid out the stakes of exclusion, and the stories of Todd Marr, Aaron Sanio and James Zimmer remind us that human lives are behind these failures.

This bill isn’t just a policy tweak. It’s a promise for all of us to do better.

It’s a promise to Nicole’s sister Jenn, who stood by me in the Legislature, tears in her eyes, asking us for change.

It’s a promise to Aaron’s family, who deserve to be heard.

It’s a promise to Lorraine Marr, who hugged me before this bill was introduced the first time in 2023.

This isn’t about politics; it’s about people. Private members’ bills rarely pass. But this one…. Please do not let it be another casualty of a partisan gridlock. The Premier said he’s open to improving information for physicians in these tough decisions.

We have a chance to come together to turn recommendations into reality, to make sure that the next Nicole, Todd, James or Aaron get the care that they need. Let’s honour their memory not with more reports and regrets but with action.

Please pass this bill. Make it law and save lives.

Amna Shah: I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill, and I want to appreciate the member opposite for sharing some of those heartbreaking stories and accounts of challenges that individuals face, and their families and their loved ones as well, in the event of mental health crises.

This bill proposes to amend the Mental Health Act to require health care providers to consult with near relatives of individuals when they are being admitted involuntarily to mental health facilities and to shift the notification requirement for relatives to before a patient is discharged.

As I begin, I want to outline our shared commitment to strengthening information-sharing with families in ways that are safe and appropriate, also in a way which works for families, patients and health care providers.

[11:35 a.m.]

When families are involved in mental health care, they can help enhance communication between patients and health care providers, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the patient’s needs and progress. Families offer emotional support, creating a foundation for patients to rely on during tough times, which helps in recovery and overall well-being.

Families can help identify external factors that may be affecting the individual’s situation, such as stressors at home and the workplace, leading to better overall care for the individual. Family members have the ability to observe changes in patient’s behaviour and well-being, providing insights that may not be noticeable to health care professionals.

I agree with the member that these insights can be critical in making good decisions about care and discharge and, as a result, in saving lives.

In short, our caucus sees the value of increased family involvement in many cases, and we are supportive of action to strengthen information-sharing to better involve families and save lives. I’ll have more to say about the actions we’re taking on that front in a moment.

I will say that we have questions about how the details of this specific bill are written and how they would work.

First, the bill proposes that health care professionals such as physicians and nurse practitioners must take reasonable steps to consult with a near relative before involuntarily admitting someone to a mental health facility. In the vast majority of cases, family involvement is a good thing and provides important support and information to improve someone’s care. But we also know that people have very different relationships with the relatives and loved ones in their lives.

What would happen if a person asked for someone to not be contacted for specific safety reasons? These amendments appear to indicate that health care workers must still make effort to contact someone.

Some people are estranged from their families, sometimes for good reason. Sometimes a person may experience intimate partner violence, and contacting family members may actually jeopardize their safety, escalate the risk of retaliation and undermine their recovery.

What if a person was especially isolated and didn’t feel that they even had anyone they could call? Many people in crisis — for example, someone experiencing paranoid delusions — may not be able to identify a person to contact or figure out how to contact them.

It is vital, even as we take action to strengthen family involvement, that our laws leave room to recognize the unique situations each person faces when they are in crisis.

Secondly, I think we would all want to avoid a situation where an increased emphasis on family involvement deters a person from seeking help, concerned that their family could be contacted if a doctor or a nurse practitioner is considering admitting them.

For too many people of all cultural backgrounds, there is still a lot of shame and stigma around mental health. In some communities, especially with certain immigrant populations, family members knowing about mental health struggles can lead to feelings of shame and dishonour. I know the members of this House, including myself, believe that there should not be any shame around seeking help, but this is a reality for far too many people. This stigma can result in people hiding their struggles, refusing treatment altogether, for fear of their family finding out.

I think we all also agree, in this House, that it is still essential that we strengthen family involvement and continue to support and create an environment where individuals feel safe asking for help.

Third, I would be interested to learn more about the chronology. When an individual is in crisis, every moment counts. I would be interested to know more about whether the bill’s blanket requirement for consultation for anyone a health care worker may admit, before admitting them, could also delay necessary treatment.

[11:40 a.m.]

In the time it may take to track down a near relative, the opportunity to provide timely and appropriate care could be lost, and we all know that the window of opportunity is absolutely crucial in helping an individual be treated and recover.

This could also lead to a deterioration in the individual’s mental health state and, in some cases, may even increase the risk of harm to themselves or others. We want to ensure that even as we strengthen family involvement in these cases, the focus of health care in these situations remains on providing urgent care without delay.

We’re taking action on this front so that there are resources in place for families and that families can call to get help for loved ones in crisis by trained mental health professionals. We’re making significant strides in this area, actually. Specialized teams consisting of police officers and mental health–trained nurses are available in more communities throughout British Columbia to respond to mental health crises.

These teams are trained to assess and provide immediate care for individuals in crisis, and they also work closely with health care providers to ensure that patients receive the support that they need. That means that family members who need to intervene when a loved one is in severe distress can contact 911, which can mobilize these specialized teams.

In short, while we have some questions about the specifics of this bill, we acknowledge the spirit and the importance of it. We acknowledge that family involvement can be extremely valuable, but it must be approached with flexibility to recognize the very different situations that people are in.

On our end, we are working on the issue of suicide prevention after discharge as well. The Ministry of Health is working with the Canadian Mental Health Association of British Columbia to develop the provincial suicide risk reduction framework to address a number of key issues concerning post-discharge suicide prevention. We look forward to having more to share on that work.

There is important work still left to do in this area to better protect people and save lives. During the committee stage, I look forward to discussing the amendment in a more fulsome manner and further discuss the important role that that training and guidance can also play to strengthen family involvement.

I want to recognize the member’s shared commitment to strengthening suicide prevention and family involvement. I would be more than happy to meet further with her to discuss the work the ministry is undertaking in that area.

I am determined to work with the Minister of Health, the Canadian Mental Health Association and health care workers across the province to strengthen family involvement to improve mental health care for people and save lives.

Jody Toor: I rise today in support of Bill M205, the Mental Health Amendment Act. I want to start by thanking my colleague the member for Surrey-Cloverdale for bringing this bill forward.

Mental health is a priority for me not just in conversations we have here in the House but in the work I’ve already undertaken of my own work with Bill M204. While that bill focused on a different aspect of care, the goal remains the same: to improve how we support individuals and families who are navigating mental health.

This amendment builds on that broader effect. It focuses on a very important but critical piece of the system, communication. Communication between medical professionals and people who often know the patient the best. It makes sure that families aren’t left out of decisions that directly affect their loved ones’ care, safety and the future.

Mental health is something I hear often about. It affects people in every corner of this province, including in my own riding. I’ve spoken with families who are doing everything they can to support someone they love. They’re trying to get help, trying to understand what’s going on, but too often they feel disconnected from the very system that’s supposed to help them. Whether it’s parents, siblings, partners or even close friends, too many are left without answers at the moment they need them the most.

[11:45 a.m.]

That disconnection doesn’t just create confusion; it creates risk. Because when care decisions are made without input from people who know the individual best, we miss important details. We miss early warning signs, and we miss opportunities to prevent harm.

At the same time, that communication is also very critical for health professionals. They often make decisions in a limited window of time, under pressure and with incomplete information. Hearing from someone who has been very closely involved, who’s seen the changes in behaviour or mood or who can speak to the past challenges and make a real decision, it gives a fuller picture. It helps ensure that decisions are grounded in not just what’s seen in the moment but in what’s been happening over time, because when it comes to mental health, the devil really is in the details.

Sometimes it’s small changes in routine, a conversation that felt off, a pattern that only someone close would recognize. Those small pieces of information can be exactly what a physician or nurse practitioner needs to make at the right time.

This bill closes the communication gap between the care that’s delivered and the people who are most connected to the person receiving it. The current Mental Health Act allows involuntary admission when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others or when they’re clearly unable to care for themselves. That’s a heavy decision, but right now that’s a decision that can be made without ever speaking to people who have been witnessing the decline or who have been known to that person the best.

This bill changes that. It would require physicians or nurse practitioners, before issuing a medical certificate, to take responsible steps to consult with either a near relative or an individual who raised the concern in the first place.

It doesn’t create red tape. It doesn’t delay care. It brings more voice into the room, the voice of someone who may have important information.

Let’s be clear. This is not about undermining clinical expertise; it’s about improving it. When you’re making a decision about someone’s mental health care, especially when the care involves removing their liability even temporarily, it’s vital to have the full picture. That includes medical history, recent behaviour, changes in mood or language, missed medication or prior episodes. Families often carry this information and the history very near to them. They live it day by day, and it goes both ways.

This bill also makes it mandatory that families be notified when someone is being discharged and that if the patient chooses to withdraw consent for that communication, the family must be informed. That creates accountability that prevents blindsiding families when someone walks out the door of a facility and is suddenly back in a crisis.

I think of a story someone close to me shared about a cousin who had stopped taking his medication. He was able to walk out of a facility without anyone realizing just how serious the risk was. There wasn’t enough information shared, and because of that, that precaution wasn’t in place. He went missing, and to this day, his body was never found. This could never happen again if we have bills such as M205 in place.

These are preventable gaps, gaps caused by a lack of communication between the system and the people who know the individual best. That’s exactly what Bill M205 is trying to fix. It’s respectful of patients’ rights. It’s mindful of privacy. It brings a small but powerful shift towards more collective care.

That’s the direction we need to be going in, especially when we confront rising rates of depression, anxiety, substance use and a complex mental health need across British Columbia.

I support this bill because it puts people first. It brings compassion and common sense into our mental health system. It gives individuals who are struggling and the families and friends who care about them a chance to be heard before it’s too late.

I urge every member of this House to support Bill M205.

Jody Toor moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[11:50 a.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Bill 8 to Proceed Through
Two or More Stages in One Day

The Speaker: Members, earlier today we heard the motion from the Government House Leader regarding Standing Order 81. At that time, the Speaker decided to take some time to put the ruling together and look at all the information.

Hon. Members, the Chair has considered the application made under Standing Order 81 by the Government House Leader as it pertains to Bill 8, intituled Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

The Chair thanks the Government House Leader, the member for Kamloops Centre and the Leader of the Third Party for their thoughtful submissions on this matter.

Standing Order 81 places one decision in the hands of the Chair: whether to allow a bill to proceed through two or more stages of consideration in one day on account of urgent or extraordinary circumstances that may necessitate the normal rules for the consideration of legislation by this House to be suspended.

An application for accelerated consideration of legislation by this House must be weighed with great care by any presiding officer, who must always balance the rights of the majority to transact public business and of the minority to be heard. As noted by my predecessors, it is a request that must be made sparingly out of respect for this House and the democratic values that we all cherish.

On the application under Standing Order 81, the Chair has consulted the precedents of this House, previous Speakers’ rulings and Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition. In so doing, a two-part test is evident on the consideration of a request under the Standing Order, the first requiring the bill to address an urgent or extraordinary matter and the second requiring the scope of the bill to be limited.

A key decision that relates to the matter at hand transpired after the House adjourned on Thursday, March 13, until Monday, March 31. The decision of the federal government to eliminate its consumer carbon tax, which has been described as a federal backstop, was realized by a federal order in council on Saturday, March 15.

Earlier today the government introduced Bill 8 and immediately sought the application under Standing Order 81, which was done at the first opportunity upon the resumption of the House. The question becomes whether the timeliness and circumstances at hand are extraordinary.

While the government has publicly indicated its intention to eliminate the consumer carbon tax, that decision ultimately rests with this House. British Columbians, both citizens and industry, no doubt want certainty on the will of the House, and that certainty can only come through the legislative process. It is the view of the Chair that these factors point to extraordinary circumstances and meet this test of request under Standing Order 81.

The intent of Bill 8 is to eliminate the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia, a topic of much debate in this House in the first four weeks of this session. In pursuing the bill, the Chair is of the view that the bill is sufficiently limited in its scope and intended outcome to meet this test of request under Standing Order 81.

In consideration of the above, it’s the ruling of the Chair that Bill 8 will be permitted to advance through all stages of consideration this day.

[11:55 a.m.]

Motions Without Notice

Amendment to Standing Orders
for Monday Sitting Hours

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit beyond the hour fixed for adjournment for the afternoon sitting of Monday, March 31, 2025, until all questions pertaining to the remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 8) intituled Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025, are put and decided, and, should the bill pass, until the House has received the Lieutenant Governor and the said bill is presented for Royal Assent.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Contents