The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Lawrence Mok.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Rosalyn Bird: I would like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege regarding a piece of correspondence that I received from the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Point of Order

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I rise on a point of order to seek a ruling on a private member’s bill and Standing Orders 66 and 67.

Hon. Speaker, you recently gave guidance to this House, and as the Government House Leader, I seek further clarification.

[10:05 a.m.]

Particularly, I rise regarding the admissibility of Bill M219 in relation to Standing Orders 66 and 67, which reads, “The House will not receive any resolution stating an express or abstract opinion of the House on recommending the expenditure of public money unless recommended by the Crown,” and “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

“The House will not receive any resolution stating an express or abstract opinion of the House on recommending the expenditure of public money unless recommended by the Crown.

“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.”

Hon. Speaker, in your guidance given recently, you did not mention the implication of expenditure that is outlined in our Parliamentary Practice, Chapter 12.5.3, where we are guided by a ruling from Speaker Brockelbank, of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on December 23, 1975. In Speaker Brockelbank’s ruling, they reference Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, pages 781 and 782. Erskine May states:

“The most frequent case of expenditure of this type is that of charges upon moneys to be provided by parliament for salaries and other expenses caused by the imposition of novel duties upon the executive government by the legislation....”

Erskine May continues with the following examples of charges imposed. They include: one, the expense connected with the establishment of a new department; two, the expense arising out of the imposition of new duties on an existing department or authority. Three, a charge is also involved by any proposal whereby the Crown would incur liability or a contingent liability payable out of monies voted by parliament.

For ease, my comments focus on the incurred liability that Erskine May points out in point 3. Bill M219 contains subclauses 1(19.03)(2)(a) and (d), which seem to require health authorities to recommend health services anywhere and/or outside of a health authority’s region. The bill, if passed, will impose significant costs on health authorities and on government.

Analysis by the Ministry of Health on M219 on surgical medical imaging, cancer care and cardiac care would cost, at a minimum, $413 million per year, which would not include physician, capital or administration costs for health authorities or the Ministry of Health. A conservative analysis and modelling of surgical operations in B.C., conducted by the Ministry of Health, have shown that Bill M219 would cost the system approximately $240 million in operating time.

This is based on the estimate that each hour of capacity leads to $3,000 of expenditure. It considers the time spent in each part of the hospital, operating and recovery nursing, as well as supplies — for example, implants and consumables used on each case. In the case of hip replacement surgery, the out-of-province cost is estimated at $30,000 per case, and the out-of-country cost is estimated at U.S. $40,000 per case.

If all hip replacement cases that are outside of benchmark waits were done out of the province but in Canada, this would be $75 million. Out-of-country costs would be higher. Similarly, the same would be for knee surgery and other surgeries. Finally, in the analysis, adding required cardiac cases out of province would be $57 million.

Hon. Speaker, it’s our view that this bill includes significant appropriations which are not admissible under the standing orders. I ask that you provide a ruling on the admissibility of Bill M219, at your earliest convenience, prior to its scheduled second reading. Thank you.

Peter Milobar: I didn’t realize we were already jumping into Bill M219 second reading debate, but I thank the Government House Leader for that synopsis of his impression of the bill.

Obviously, this comes as news to the official opposition. Some of the preamble the Government House Leader mentioned would significantly impair anybody in this place that is a private member from bringing a bill forward, because almost everything that at one point he referenced has a cost, in terms of staffing costs as well. Almost anything you try to do in government would have some form of government action after the fact, if the bill were passed.

With that in mind, and the fact that with Bill M219, the earliest it could come up for debate, I believe, would be next Monday, there doesn’t seem to be an extreme rush for the Speaker to rule.

I would ask, on behalf of the official opposition, that we have time to review the transcript of what the government Health speaker just presented and to provide our counter-argument to the Speaker in a timely fashion, because rulings like this, as referenced by the Erskine May example, can have long-standing ramifications in this place, in terms of the ability of the opposition to properly do their job and to advance things forward on behalf of constituents, and other issues out there.

[10:10 a.m.]

So I would ask that ability for us to try to get together a proper response to the Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

and other issues out there. So I would ask that ability for us to try to get together a proper response to the Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Thank you to both members for their submissions. As I understand, the second reading of that bill may happen this morning. So the Chair will let the debate start, and in the meantime, the Chair will consider all the submissions made to the Chair and will make its ruling.

Private Members’ Statements

Extortion Crime Networks and
Right to Safety in Communities

Macklin McCall: Over the past months, British Columbians have watched something unfold in our communities that is deeply unsettling, deeply dangerous and fundamentally incompatible with the values of this province. Extortion, once rare, once unimaginable on this scale, has taken root in ways that should alarm every single person in this chamber.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We are now seeing shootings, arsons, threats, intimidation campaigns, executions in Abbotsford and organized criminal networks targeting families and small business owners with a boldness that tells us one thing: they believe we will not stop them. They are betting on fear and silence. They are betting on the idea that communities will simply learn to live with this.

But British Columbians will not and must not accept that. Because this is not just a policing issue. It is not just a court issue. It is not even just a crime issue. Extortion strikes at the core of what it means to live in a civil society. It attacks the idea that people can go to work, open their storefront, serve their neighbours and raise their families without fear of violent retaliation.

That brings me to the truth we must speak plainly. This is not normal, this is not acceptable, and it cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every person the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Security of the person is not abstract or theoretical. It is the fundamental right to be safe in your home, your business, on your street, taking your kids to school or opening your shop in the morning. It is the right to live without fear of being harmed or terrorized.

When individuals and communities are living under threat, when business owners feel they cannot report crimes because they fear retaliation, when people tell us openly they no longer trust the justice system, then that guaranteed right is not being upheld. The Charter grants the right; government carries the responsibility.

We must confront something many have been afraid to acknowledge. Organized crime networks, domestic and international, are trying to make fear a currency in British Columbia. They are testing the limits of our law enforcement, our courts and our community resilience. They are seeing how far they can push before we push back.

In Surrey, extortion files have skyrocketed more than 100 cases, including gunfire, arson and direct threats to families. The human toll is staggering.

We saw that fear at the recent CBC town hall. People were not angry for the sake of anger. They were pleading, pleading for safety, clarity, leadership and reassurance that someone is in control. When residents feel so desperate that some speak of taking matters into their own hands, that is a flashing red warning sign. It means trust is broken, and once trust is broken, community safety erodes.

As the Public Safety and Solicitor General critic, I say this not as politics but as duty. We must restore trust. We must show that British Columbia is not a place where fear rules the day. We must demonstrate that no criminal organization, foreign or domestic, will ever be allowed to intimidate our people.

[10:15 a.m.]

Restoring trust requires action, visible, effective policing, coordinated intelligence-sharing, strong, consistent prosecution, clear communication with the public and unwavering support for victims. But above all, it requires recognizing that safety is not a privilege for the fortunate. Safety is a right, guaranteed by our constitution, owed to every person in this province.

We cannot allow extortionists to decide who feels safe. We cannot allow

prosecution, clear communication with the public, and unwavering support for victims. But above all, it requires recognizing that safety is not a privilege for the fortunate. Safety is a right guaranteed by our constitution, owed to every person in this province. We cannot allow extortionists to decide who feels safe. We cannot allow fear to become part of daily life. And we cannot allow organized crime to operate as though rules do not apply to them.

My message today is simple. Every person in British Columbia deserves to feel safe, every family deserves security, and every community deserves protection from those who use violence or intimidation to control them. The people of this province are strong, but resilience does not replace responsibility. The responsibility lies with us, all of us in this Legislature, to ensure the systems that protect British Columbians are strong enough, coordinated enough and transparent enough to meet this moment.

This is a defining test for public safety in British Columbia, and it is one we cannot afford to fail.

Sikh-Hindu Unity and
Community Initiatives

Rohini Arora: It was the year 1675. A quiet, yet earth-shattering, moment was unfolding. The ninth guru of the Sikh, Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, made a decision that would echo across centuries. He chose to lay down his life. Not for land, not for power, not even for his own people alone, but to defend the religious freedom of Kashmiri Pandit Hindus, who were under threat of forced conversion by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.

The guru knew exactly what his stand meant, but he also knew that truth is universal, that courage is universal, and that justice can never be measured by the boundaries of identity. His martyrdom that day did not just protect Hindus; it carved a path of interfaith solidarity so strong that it still guides us today.

This was not the beginning of our story, nor was it the end. When Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the Khalsa in 1699, it was not only to defend Sikhs; it was to defend anyone who needed protection – Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or anyone seeking dignity. Sikh missiles later defended Hindu towns from Afghan invasions.

Hindu families, in turn, often raised their eldest sons as Sikhs — the tradition of the eldest becomes a Singh — because families understood that the values of the gurus belonged to everyone. In Punjab, it was common not to ask, “Are you a Hindu or a Sikh?” but rather: “What values do you live by?” Even today, in Sindh, Pakistan, many Hindu families proudly call themselves Nanakpanthis, followers of the Guru’s universal message, because truth, love and oneness belong to no single religion.

The history is not distant. It is not abstract. It is alive. And in this month of Hindu heritage, right here in British Columbia, we saw it with our own eyes. Fast-forward to November 9 of this year. Inside the Burnaby mandir, Swami Ji led a beautiful prayer in honour of Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s birthday, the founder of Sikhi and the voice of universal compassion.

I was blessed to be there, witnessing Hindus and Sikhs sitting together, praying together, remembering the message of Naam, Dhan and Seva. It didn’t feel like two communities; it felt like one family, remembering its ancestor. And then just a week later, November 16, the Vedic Hindu Cultural Society hosted a gathering for Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji’s Day of Martyrdom. Hindu associations, United Sikhs, and senior members of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Abbotsford came together to honour the Guru, who gave everything to protect the freedom of others.

I was unable to go, but I asked a member of Burnaby East, Parikshet Tahlan, to attend and convey my support. He shared how powerful it was to see leaders, elders, youth, Sikh and Hindu alike sitting side by side. There were no divisions in that room, only gratitude, only admiration, only unity. And that warmed my heart more deeply than I can express.

Why does that matter? Because today in B.C. and across Canada, we cannot allow misunderstandings, politics or distant conflicts to divide us. We have come too far together. Our ancestors paid too high a price for unity, courage and freedom. As someone born into a blended Sikh-Hindu family, I do not stand partially in either community. I stand wholly in both. I am a product of the shared history, the shared love, the shared path.

[10:20 a.m.]

And I know this truth. When we judge each other, when we distance ourselves from one another, we are not walking toward enlightenment. We are walking away from the sacrifices that built the very foundations of our spiritual traditions.

Our gurus taught us that no one is above or below. Our Vedas teach us that truth is one. Our

I know this truth. When we judge each other, when we distance ourselves from one another, we are not walking toward enlightenment. We are walking away from the sacrifices that built the very foundations of our spiritual traditions.

Our gurus taught us that no one is above or below. Our Vedas teach us that truth is one. Our ancestors proved that unity is not a slogan; it’s a lived reality.

What do we do now? We honour that history, we build on it, and we protect it. We teach our children that Sikh and Hindu stories are not parallel; they are intertwined. Remember that we are more than neighbours. We are branches of the same ancient tree. And we carry forward the spirit that Sikhs and Hindus alike embody, the courage to stand for one another even when it’s difficult, the grace to accept one another, even when we disagree, and the wisdom to see the divine light in every human being.

We will choose unity, not because it’s easy but because it’s who we are. We walk the path of our gurus and our rishis. We celebrate each other, protect each other, support each other and ensure that in B.C., Canada and beyond, the bond between Sikh and Hindu communities remains a shining example of shared faith, shared values and shared humanity.

Infrastructure Investment and
Support for Industrial Projects

Larry Neufeld: I want to speak today about a crisis created by this government, one that threatens the long-term prosperity of British Columbia and the future economic health of this province. I am speaking of the collapse of investor confidence and the stagnation of major industrial projects that have happened on this government’s watch.

For years, this Premier and his government buried this province in layer upon layer of bureaucracy and red tape. They created permitting delays that stretch into years, introduced regulations that shift so often, undermining investor certainty and politicizing major project approvals to the point where proponents no longer know which set of rules by which they will be judged.

Now, after eight years of damage, they are attempting to backtrack and present themselves as champions of getting things built. The facts are obvious. This government created the problem, and in doing so, they have driven billions of dollars of private investment out of British Columbia.

I reference forestry. Canfor’s permanent closure of the Polar mill and the cancellation of a major reinvestment in Houston were attributed directly to policy changes and regulatory complexity. That’s not partisan commentary. That’s the CEO of one of B.C.’s largest forestry employers explaining why a major company can no longer justify long-term capital investment in this province.

I reference mining, construction and infrastructure. The Vancouver Board of Trade has warned repeatedly that regulatory burden and early-stage permitting delays are stalling exploration, slowing construction and driving capital to other jurisdictions where governments actually want investment to succeed.

Closer to my to my own heart, I would reference energy. The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association has concluded quite publicly that this Premier’s accelerated CleanBC plan is 2.5 times more damaging to B.C.’s economy than imposed U.S. tariffs ever were. CleanBC has hobbled the economic engine of this province, increased costs, undermined competitiveness and has choked off private sector growth.

This government knows it. That is why they are quietly retreating from their own policies. After years of insisting that a 100 percent electric vehicle sales mandate by 2035 was achievable, they now admit that it was not realistic. They have abandoned their provincial EV rebate program and even walked back the mandate itself. Yet another ideological experiment collapsed under the weight of reality.

While the government is retreating on EV mandates, they are also scrambling to undo the bureaucratic mess that they created: bills 14 and 15, forced through this House as last-minute attempts to streamline the very same permitting processes that years were spent turning into an impenetrable maze.

[10:25 a.m.]

Nowhere is this hypocrisy of which I speak more clear than with respect to the current northern pipeline proposal. While this government stands in front of cameras and claims to support LNG and TMX, their policies tell a very different story. They delay permits, add new regulatory conditions mid-process, create uncertainty around land access, environmental timelines and consultation requirements. Refusing to provide a clear, predictable decision-making

claims to support LNG and TMX, their policies tell a very different story. They delay permits, add new regulatory conditions mid-process, create uncertainty around land access, environmental timelines and consultation requirements, refusing to provide a clear, predictable, decision-making pathway that major pipeline proponents require.

The result? Exactly what investors have been saying for years. British Columbia has become too risky, too unpredictable and too unstable for long-term energy infrastructure investment. And as the province dithers, other jurisdictions — Alberta, the U.S. Gulf Coast, Australia — are capturing these projects, the jobs, the global market share that should have been ours.

The Premier’s actions do not match his or his government’s words. They tell northern communities they support jobs but have spent eight years erecting barriers to block the very projects that would sustain those communities for decades. They tell British Columbians that they support affordability while pursuing policies that drive industry away and shrink the tax base that funds our very public services.

The official opposition Conservatives believe in a different path, a future where job creation in the North is celebrated, not politically discouraged or only available to a few.

Kootenay Gallery of Art, History
and Science

Steve Morissette: Today I rise to celebrate a cherished cultural institution in the West Kootenay, the Kootenay Gallery of Art, History and Science, located in Castlegar, and to recognize an exciting new chapter in their journey.

For decades, the Kootenay Gallery has been so much more than a place to view art. It is a gathering space, a learning space and a creative hub where local talent is nurtured and where world-class exhibitions are brought to a rural setting. With a dedicated board, passionate staff and strong community partners, the gallery has worked tirelessly to ensure that artists, families and visitors all have access to meaningful cultural experiences close to home.

Their exhibitions showcase regional, national and international work, giving emerging creators a platform and bringing new perspectives into the community. They offer workshops and public programming for people of all ages, from children discovering art for the first time to adults exploring new creative skills later in life. Even their gift shop plays an important role, supporting dozens of local artisans and helping keep arts-based livelihoods sustainable in our region.

The Kootenay Gallery has always punched well above its weight in terms of cultural impact, but today they are poised to do even more. Recently the gallery finalized the purchase of a new building in downtown Castlegar. It’s a major milestone and a transformative step for the entire community. Moving from their current site near the airport into the heart of the city will dramatically increase accessibility, visibility and engagement. It positions the gallery not just as a destination but as a cornerstone of downtown revitalization and a catalyst for renewed economic and cultural activity.

This new location provides room to expand, more space for exhibits, workshops, studios, community events, gatherings and collaboration. It opens the door to strengthen partnerships with schools, local businesses and community organizations. And by renovating an existing building rather than starting from scratch, the gallery is taking a thoughtful and sustainable approach to growth.

This move is not happening in isolation. It is supported by a network of partners, including the city of Castlegar, the regional district of Central Kootenay area J, provincial arts funding bodies, Columbia Basin Trust and the broader community. But perhaps more importantly, it’s happening because of years of planning, consultation and visioning. The board, staff and volunteers took the time to bring people into the process, to listen carefully and to design a plan that reflects local needs and values.

[10:30 a.m.]

This relocation represents more than bricks and mortar. It reflects a belief in the power of art to bring people together, to spark dialogue and to strengthen our sense of place. It reflects confidence in the creative economy of the Kootenays and in the resilience of our communities. It reflects a commitment to ensuring that

mortar. It reflects a belief in the power of art to bring people together, to spark dialogue and to strengthen our sense of place. It reflects confidence in the creative economy of the Kootenays and in the resilience of our communities. It reflects a commitment to ensuring that culture is not an afterthought in rural regions. It is a foundation.

As the project moves into renovation and fundraising, the excitement is palpable, the potential is enormous, and the community is ready. I want to acknowledge and thank everyone involved in this achievement — the board, the staff, the volunteers, the artists, the funders and the supporters, past and present. Your work is building not just a gallery but a legacy.

The Kootenay gallery is creating a home for creativity, for learning, for gathering and for belonging, right in the heart of downtown Castlegar. I look forward to seeing this vision come to life, and I’m confident it will serve the region for generations to come. Congratulations to the Kootenay art gallery.

Health Care Access
for Women and Families

Kristina Loewen: Across British Columbia, women and families are carrying a burden they should never have to bear. Fighting, sometimes publicly, sometimes desperately, for medical care that should be there when they need it. We all know our health care system is strained, but when women, mothers and even children must turn to the media, to MLAs and to public pressure just to access the most basic care, the system is no longer strained; it is failing them.

You remember Lindsay Reichelt, a young mother from Kelowna who has been on the liver transplant wait-list for more than 10 months. In April, doctors told her that without a transplant, she had six months to live. Six months — an already devastating timeline for any family.

October came and went, her time had expired, and still nothing had happened. Despite her prognosis, despite the urgency and despite her deteriorating health, Lindsay waited and waited and waited. It took media attention and direct MLA involvement before a date was finally set on November 10. Her surgery is now scheduled for December 10. This family has lived month after agonizing month knowing that hope depended not just on medical need but on whether someone in the system could be compelled to act. No one, no one should need a media campaign to stay alive.

Then there is nine-year-old Charleigh Pollock, now ten years old, a child with Batten disease, a rare and fatal disease, whose family was thrust into a battle no parent should have to fight. Instead of spending their energy caring for their daughter, they found themselves navigating bureaucracy, appealing, advocating and ultimately going public so she could receive the medication that her medical team knew — they knew — would prolong and improve the rest of her time.

A life-enhancing medication for a child should not require headlines before it’s approved. Her parents did what any loving parents would do. They fought; but they shouldn’t have had to.

Then we have the everyday stories that never make the news. A woman in Kelowna, likely facing cancer, recently learned that the wait time for her diagnostic ultrasound is six months — six months just to find out what she’s fighting; six months of fear, uncertainty and potentially lost time, time that could mean the difference between early intervention and late-stage disease.

A woman from here, on this island, fled, not once, but twice to the U.S. to access life-saving care. Torva Logan — her story is public. She is speaking up because she doesn’t want this to happen to anyone else.

These stories are not outliers. They are symptoms of a system that is asking British Columbians to carry too much of a burden. Women, in particular, are being told implicitly and explicitly to wait longer, to push harder, to accept wait times and delays or to come back if it gets worse. And far too often, it does get worse.

[10:35 a.m.]

Women should not need to take binders of documents to be taken seriously. Parents should not have to stand in front of cameras to secure care for their child. A mother should not have to watch the calendar tick past her own medical deadline before the system moves. Women should not have to run to the U.S. or Mexico to access care.

This is not what trust in the health care system looks like. This is survival through advocacy. Advocacy born not out of empowerment

to watch the calendar tick past her own medical deadline before the system moves. And women should not have to run to the U.S. or Mexico to access care.

This is not what trust in the health care system looks like. This is survival through advocacy. Advocacy born not out of empowerment, but desperation. British Columbians should never have to rely on advocacy to access essential medical care.

A health care system is supposed to catch people when they fall, not make them prove their worthiness or persistence before offering help. Lyndsay did everything right. Charleigh’s parents did everything right. The woman waiting six months for an ultrasound is told that help is not likely to come in time. Torva knows she is one of the many that the system has failed, but she is one of the few that can still speak.

When British Columbians must rely on public pressure, political pressure, or media pressure to get the care they need, that is not a functioning health care system. That is a system that has stretched past its moral limits.

Women and families in this province deserve more than words. They deserve timely diagnostics, equitable treatment and a system that listens the first time. Not after a crisis, not after an exposé and not after an MLA steps in. Because at its heart, the truth is painfully simple. It should not be this hard. Not for any person in British Columbia.

Harm Reduction

Darlene Rotchford: First, I would like to acknowledge that I am on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known as Songhees and xʷsepsəm and thank them for allowing me to do the work I do.

I rise today to speak about harm reduction, what it is, what it is not and why it matters. I do this because in recent debates, some members of this House have used the term “harm reduction” in ways that misrepresent its purpose and unfortunately shame the very people it is meant to help. I do not talk about harm reduction lightly, just like I don’t talk about abstinence lightly.

As someone who has worked in the field for over 18 years, I have worked under four different governments. So I can tell you that harm reduction works. I started my career out working at the Sobering Assessment Centre. I spent a long time there. I then moved on and was one of the original founders of opening our Victoria Detox, a 20-bed program.

As a fun fact, before that, under the Clark government, we did not have a detox within our hospital setting. We had a community detox that wouldn’t, ironically, even deal with the people who had opiate addiction. It wasn’t until the Horgan government and the investment that we actually had a detox in Victoria.

I then worked at the Sobering and Assessment Centre a little bit longer, then on to our stabilization program. After that, I worked in our recovery programs. I bring those things up, not just to talk about what I’ve done, but to loop in the importance of harm reduction all the way to harm reduction, because you can’t have one without the other.

Harm reduction is a public approach focused on reducing the harms associated with substance use through evidence-based interventions. It is not controversial. It is not new. And it is certainly not limited to people using illicit substances.

So let’s consider a few every day example. If you use a nicotine patch, chew nicotine gum or medication for quit smoking, guess what? You’ve done harm reduction. If you use any type of anti-craving medication or cut back on your drinking to reduce your alcohol use, guess what? Shocker. Harm reduction. If you live with chronic pain and rely on any type of medication or other support to support your pain management, you as well are practicing harm reduction.

You cannot stand in this House and say you support workers and not support harm reduction. These are normal, accepted and widely used tools that help people’s lives be healthier and safer.

During my ten years, I saw firsthand how many people struggled with dependence on medications. I can bet I’ve actually held the hands of one of the most people in this building for people who unfortunately have died to the opiate crisis, but I’ve also held the hands of people who have died from alcohol abuse. I have seen what alcohol abuse can do to people. People who depend on pain management often do so because pain was never properly treated or supported.

For much of my time, the Leader of the Opposition, who I served under the Clark government, many people actually fell through the cracks. They rolled back services. They contracted them out. They made them harder for people in the public to access to actually get help.

[10:40 a.m.]

So when you talk again about those tradespeople you support, again you can’t do it without harm reduction.

But I also witnessed what change can do when our government has access to evidence-based care. I saw trade workers get back to work

They made them harder for people in the public to access to actually get help. So when you talk again about those tradespeople you support, again, you can’t do it without harm reduction.

But I also witnessed what change can do when our government has access to evidence-based care. I saw trade workers get back to work, health care workers get back to work, first responders — who, again, the opposition say they support — get back to work and so many others. Injured on the job, living with chronic pain or managing your addiction — you need to receive the support. These people did receive that support. They received their support through opioid replacement therapies like methadone and Suboxone.

I have seen seniors be very successful on methadone medication for their pain management if properly administered and properly supported with evidence-based education. I’ve watched people regain stability, return to work, reconnect with their families and rebuild their lives because of harm reduction.

I stand here today with people who use drugs, people living with chronic pain, people affected by addiction, because every single one of them deserves dignity, compassion and access to care so they too can live a better life.

And I will say this very clearly, that on this side of the House, we will always stand up for a public health approach that saves life, reduces harms and supports people in recovery and well-being, because on this side of the House, we do support British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will continue second reading of Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act
(continued)

Hon Chan: I will continue speaking on this M217 and the privacy concerns that I actually ended with. Privacy concerns can be addressed through clear regulations on data use, storage and access. I have heard members on the other side express concerns about privacy or even hacking.

But let’s remember, there are already thousands of dashcams on the road today and countless of intersection cameras streaming live across many cities and highways. Many vehicles, including Tesla sentry mode, have built-in recording systems saving footage in a USB storage locally. ICBC also collects thousands of minutes or even hours of footage every year to investigate accidents.

So if there’s a problem with that, I would very much like to hear the minister responsible for ICBC explain whether, based on their own colleague’s concern about hacking, they are now prepared to ask ICBC to stop collecting dashcam footage as well.

I also do not see why dashcam footage cannot be stored locally for just a short period of time, a few days to a week, before it is automatically deleted as permitted by law. This is not something new or unusual or difficult to do.

Furthermore, the bill includes a provision empowering the LG in Council to establish clear standards through regulations, including the camera quality, recording duration and, of course, privacy safeguards.

Members on the other side also raised concerns about out-of-province or out-of-country trucks being unable to comply with our requirements. That argument is even more straightforward to address. For example, Canada and the U.S. use two completely different speed-measuring systems. Yet, no one would suggest that drivers cannot comply with our speed limits because of that metric difference.

If you want to operate in B.C., investing less than $100 to meet our safety requirement is hardly unreasonable or unachievable. It is just a basic expectation, and I hope this addresses the concerns raised by the member on the other side.

However, I also want to acknowledge the government’s efforts to improve commercial vehicle safety in recent years. We have seen many commercial vehicle-related accidents, including overpass strikes and other serious incidents, and the government has implemented some measures, such as the maximum work hours to reduce driver fatigue, height warning systems, maximum speed controls, etc. I believe these steps show how members of all sides of this chamber share the same goal: making our roads safer.

[10:45 a.m.]

So today, adding a dashcam requirement strengthens these results and efforts, and we are more than willing to collaborate with the government to support this direction. This bill is about safety, truth and accountability. It is about ensuring that when something happens on our roads, we have facts, not speculation.

In closing, I urge this House to support Bill M217 and let us move beyond words to action. Let us equip our road safety system with more than tools that protect lives, clarify responsibility and make our roads safer for everyone

We have facts, not speculation.

In closing, I urge this House to support Bill M217. Let us move beyond words to action. Let us equip our road safety system with more tools that protect lives, clarify responsibility and make our roads safer for everyone. That’s no matter…. That’s motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and professional drivers alike.

Darlene Rotchford: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to acknowledge that we have a lovely class joining me from my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood. We have École Victor Brodeur joining us today with a group of grades 5 and 3 students. I would just love the House to make them feel more than welcome.

Debate Continued

Paul Choi: Everyone who uses our roads and highways deserves to get home safely at the end of the day.

Before I became a lawyer and a MLA, I served as a police officer working on our roads, pulling over unsafe drivers and responding to collisions in the middle of the night. I have stood on the shoulder of the highway at 3 a.m. with flashing lights behind me and twisted metal in front of me, trying to piece together what went wrong so that a family could have answers. So I want to start by recognizing the member opposite for bringing forward Bill M217 and for his advocacy on road safety in the wake of serious crashes on Highway 5 North.

As someone who has written traffic tickets, knocked on doors after collisions and later practiced law, I understand why dashboard cameras look like an appealing solution. As a police officer, I saw how video footage can help us understand what really happened in those few critical seconds before a crash. Sometimes a short clip can clear an innocent driver or show that a pedestrian never stepped into a crosswalk. It can cut through conflicting stories and give investigators, insurers and courts something objective to work with.

Bill M217 proposes to require all commercial vehicles operating in B.C. to have front-facing dashboard cameras installed and recording at any time the vehicle is in operation. On the surface, that sounds simple. More cameras, more evidence, more safety. But as legislators, our job is to look beyond first impressions and ask three questions. Will this actually make people safer? Is it fair and practical to enforce? And is this the right level of government and the right tool to achieve the goal?

Our Ministry of Transportation and Transit has already been doing a great deal of work to improve commercial vehicle safety. In recent years, government has brought in some of the toughest penalties in Canada for overpass strikes, including large fines, suspension of entire fleets and the ability for courts to impose very significant penalties where warranted. We have brought in mandatory entry-level training for new class 1 commercial drivers and required electronic logging devices to reduce fatigue-based incidents, speed limiters on heavy commercial vehicles to curb speed-related crashes and in-cab warning devices to prevent overheight collisions. Despite the cost of these changes, industry has, by large, implemented them with professionalism and a shared commitment to safety.

Following the tragic incidents on Highway 5 North beginning in late 2022, the ministry stepped up enforcement and safety improvements along the corridor. Commercial vehicle safety enforcement officers have been on that stretch of road regularly, and they have issued $1,000,000 in fines to non-compliant drivers and carriers since early 2023. Road safety upgrades like brushing along 70 kilometres of highway to improve visibility, reduced winter speed limits through Fish Trap Canyon, rumble strips, LED curve warning signs, overhead changeable message signs and the new road sensors tied to flashing signage have already contributed to having fewer serious collisions in that area.

[10:50 a.m.]

At the same time, the ministry has been studying dashboard cameras on commercial vehicles. Surveys show that about half the respondents from the B.C. Trucking Association already use dash cameras today because they see the safety and liability benefits. Industry has told us that these devices can promote better driving habits, support post-incident reviews and even exonerate drivers who are falsely blamed for a collision. As a former police officer, I absolutely recognize these benefits.

dash cameras today because they see the safety and liability benefits. Industry has told us that these devices can promote better driving habits, support post-incident reviews and even exonerate drivers who are falsely blamed for a collision.

As a former police officer, I absolutely recognize these benefits. But I also know that, both from police work and law practice prosecuting traffic violations, the presence of a camera is not the whole story. Where is the footage stored? Who has access to it? How long is it kept? And what else is it capturing?

Our independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised serious concerns about dashboard cameras under our privacy laws, including risk of overcollecting personal information, faces of pedestrians, license plates, GPS trails where people travel, even audio of conversations inside and outside the cab. That includes school buses and kids’ faces, potentially.

There are also risks when footage is stored on cloud servers outside cameras beyond the full reach of our privacy protections, potentially vulnerable to breaches or hacking.

In 2024, an arbitration decision found the use of certain rear-facing cameras in the workplace context to be unreasonable, underscoring that organizations remain responsible for safeguarding personal data even when using third-party vendors.

There is another crucial point. B.C. would be the only jurisdiction in North America with the legal requirement for commercial vehicles to carry dashcams. No province, no state and no national government has gone this far except in limited training contexts. That might sound bold, but it might also raise serious issues.

How do we enforce a B.C.-only mandate on out-of-province carriers rolling through our borders? And what does this mean for harmonization with federal safety rules and with our provincial neighbours?

As a former police officer, I know that any law we put on the books must be enforceable on the side of the road at 2 a.m. in the morning. A requirement that applies only in one province to vehicles that regularly cross provincial and national borders is hard to police consistently and fairly.

We risk creating a patchwork where B.C. drivers and companies are operating under different rules than the ones in neighbouring provinces and states. That has consequences for competitiveness and for compliance and could result in B.C. trucking companies simply leaving, setting up in different provinces and losing those businesses and good jobs to other provinces.

We also have to think about cost. Depending on the system, installing and operating dashcams can run from a few hundred to over $1,000 per camera, not just consumer cheap ones that you can use. And that’s not including ongoing data storage and subscription fees. For a small family-owned trucking company with a handful of trucks or a regional carrier running on tight margins, that is not a trivial expense, especially if we are not offering government funding to support it.

This is why the ministry’s advice is that any move towards mandatory dashboard cameras should be led at the national level through Transport Canada or Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators so that we have consistent standards across Canada, a level playing field for carriers and enforcement tools that make sense cross-border.

My policing background makes me very open to technology that helps us catch dangerous drivers and learn from tragic incidents. I have seen collisions where a few seconds of video could make all the difference in understanding what happens. But that same background also makes me curious and cautious about quick fixes.

A camera that helps an investigator after the fact does not replace good training, strong enforcement or smart engineering on our roads. And the law that looks simple on paper can be more complicated when we are the officers trying to apply it on roadside or the driver who has to live with its implications every single day.

I want to be clear. I share the sponsoring member’s commitment to safer highways, and I’m grateful for the advocacy that has brought attention to Highway 5 north and similar corridors. I support the ministry’s ongoing work to study dashcams, to improve enforcement tools and to pursue a harmonized approach to our federal and provincial partners.

[10:55 a.m.]

But after looking at the evidence, listening to privacy experts, industry and our own officials, I don’t believe that Bill M217 as drafted is the right path forward for B.C. For this reason, I will be voting against Bill M217 at second reading, and I encourage all members to do the same, while staying fully committed to the hard work of making our roads safer through strong training, smart enforcement, better infrastructure and a coordinated national approach to new technologies like dashboard cameras.

I’ll be voting against Bill M217 at second reading, and I encourage all members to do the same, while staying fully committed to the hard work of making our roads safer through strong training, smart enforcement, better infrastructure and a coordinated national approach to new technologies like dashboard cameras.

Macklin McCall: I rise today in strong support of this legislation, because it represents a practical, commonsense step forward in public safety — one that protects drivers, supports law enforcement, strengthens trucking companies and, ultimately, benefits every British Columbian who shares our roadways.

Commercial trucks move the goods that keep our province running. Those trucks travel through dense urban corridors, through small towns and across long stretches of remote highway, where there are often no witnesses, no cameras and, sometimes, no cell service for hours.

When something goes wrong on those roads, when a collision occurs, when a reckless driver puts others at risk, when a crime unfolds, evidence is everything. That is why dash-mounted video cameras are so important. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is invaluable.

Video helps police reconstruct collisions, with an accuracy that simply did not exist 15 to 20 years ago. It helps determine what happened, when it happened and how it happened. It shows vehicle behaviour leading up to a crash, the number of occupants, the time and direction of travel, and key details that often make the difference between a solved case and an unsolved tragedy.

It also protects commercial drivers, who are often the ones blamed. simply because they’re in the largest vehicle involved, even when they’ve done nothing wrong. Video evidence ensures fairness, it ensures accuracy, and it protects livelihoods. It helps trucking companies reduce liability and insurance costs, costs that ultimately shape the price of every single product that British Columbians buy. When collisions can be resolved faster and with clearer evidence, everyone benefits, including consumers.

Now, I want to illustrate exactly why this matters, with an example from my own experience. In my past career, I personally investigated a fatal collision on a provincial highway in a remote part of British Columbia. It was approximately two in the morning, the road was pitch-black, there were no houses, no street lights, no witnesses and miles of trees and rock in every direction.

The only evidence available came from a commercial truck that had been passed moments earlier by the vehicle involved in the crash. The vehicle had approached at a dangerously high rate of speed. It passed the truck in a reckless manner and then disappeared down the highway. Moments later, the same vehicle lost control, fishtailed, struck the side of the mountain and rolled over several times before coming to rest in the middle of the road.

The next person to arrive was another truck driver, alone in the dark, going the opposite direction in the middle of nowhere. When police and emergency crews reached the scene, both truck drivers described what they had seen, but what truly allowed investigators to understand what had happened was the video — cameras mounted on the front and the rear of both trucks.

Those videos showed the dangerous pass, they showed the speed, they showed how many occupants were in the vehicle, they established the timeline when the car went by the first truck, and when the second truck came upon the wreckage. They documented the moments leading up to the crash with a clarity that human memory simply cannot provide.

Video, in that case, turned a tragic mystery into an understandable event. It ensured accuracy, it ensured fairness, and it allowed investigators to give answers to grieving families — answers they deserved. This is why video matters. These cameras protect the public, protect the drivers and protect the integrity of police investigations.

There is another important public safety benefit I want to highlight: the role of dash cameras in AMBER alerts and missing-person investigations. Commercial vehicles travel every corner of British Columbia. They are often the only vehicles present on long road corridors during the night or early morning hours. A dash camera on one passing truck can capture what no human might ever see — a licence plate, vehicle make and model, how many occupants, direction of travel and the exact time the vehicle is passed.

During an AMBER alert, when a child is missing and every second counts, that information is invaluable. It can be the critical lead that allows police to narrow a search area, confirm a suspect vehicle, or issue real-time updates. This is not surveillance; this is not government monitoring. This is simply the same as any private citizen holding up a cell phone camera on a public street — perfectly lawful, fully constitutional and already accepted across Canada.

[11:00 a.m.]

When applied to commercial vehicles already travelling our roadways, the safety benefit becomes extraordinary, and it costs the province nothing.

Now, the government has raised concerns related to privacy and the applicability of privacy laws, such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act. I want to address that clearly.

already travelling our roadways. The safety benefit becomes extraordinary, and it costs the province nothing.

Now, the government has raised concerns related to privacy and the applicability of privacy laws, such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act. I want to address that clearly. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to government bodies, not private companies. The Personal Information Protection Act applies to private businesses collecting, using and disclosing personal information.

Dashcamera video on trucks is video that records only what is visible on the public roadway. It does not violate anyone’s privacy rights. Why? Because people don’t have an expectation of privacy when they are travelling on a public roadway. The courts have been clear on this. This type of video is comparable to a citizen standing on a sidewalk with a cell phone. People film in public places every day. A private person can take a video on a street, and no law prevents that. A truck driver or trucking company should have the same right.

Unlike government-held data, this video remains the property of the driver or the company, not the state. The government will have no authority to access this footage without lawful process. If police need it, they must remain Charter compliant, meaning the driver can voluntarily provide it or police can seek judicial authorization if they believe the evidence is necessary and justified. This is how it should be. That protects rights. That protects privacy. And that protects public safety.

However, I want to be absolutely clear on one point. If this bill passes, I do not and will not support any future attempt by government to amend it in a way that gives the state automatic access to this footage. The video must remain the property of the company or the driver, because this legislation must never be used to compel private citizens to hand over video without proper legal process. That balance between public safety and rights is essential, and this bill achieves it.

Now, the government has said: “Well, no one else in North America is doing this.” They argue that Ottawa should lead. They suggest British Columbia shouldn’t act because other jurisdictions haven’t acted yet. This is not leadership. This is following. We know this is a good idea. We know it improves public safety. The government itself has admitted as much. So the question is simple. Do we wait for someone else to go first, or do we show courage, show vision and lead?

British Columbians expect us to be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to protecting lives on our highways. If we have the ability to improve safety, reduce collisions, support police investigations, protect drivers and strengthen the trucking industry, then we have the responsibility to do it. British Columbia has an opportunity to be a leader in North America. We have an opportunity to set the standard. We have an opportunity to do what is right, not because someone else did it first but because it makes sense, protects people and saves lives.

Let’s not wait. Let’s lead. Let’s be the province that steps up, not the one that stands back. I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kootenay-Monashee. You’ve got about six minutes.

Steve Morissette: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I rise today to speak to private member’s Bill M217.

I appreciate the intent behind this proposal. It’s a great idea. The desire to prevent tragedies on our highways and improve safety for commercial drivers and the travelling public — fantastic. I do have concerns with the bill as drafted, and I cannot support it at this time.

I want to acknowledge the context that brought us here. In 2022, a series of heartbreaking fatal crashes on Highway 5 north sparked important conversations about commercial vehicle safety. Those incidents left families grieving and communities shaken. They prompted meaningful work by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to strengthen safety practices across the province.

Since that time, the ministry has been carefully assessing the potential benefits and challenges of dashboard camera technology, looking at the evidence, speaking with industry and studying what other jurisdictions are doing. And we’ve learned that dashboard cameras do offer real benefits.

[11:05 a.m.]

Many carriers already use them voluntarily. They can promote safer driving. In some cases, they can help exonerate drivers who did nothing wrong. About half of B.C. Trucking Association members who responded to a recent survey already have dashcams in their fleets.

But the conversation cannot end there, because the challenges are significant. Privacy

exonerate drivers who did nothing wrong. About half of B.C. Trucking Association members who responded to a recent survey already have dashcams in their fleets.

But the conversation cannot end there, because the challenges are significant. Privacy, it’s been mentioned, is a challenge. Most systems store footage on servers outside of Canada, and the AI-generated safety alerts produced by these systems are retained indefinitely by their U.S.-based vendors.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has warned clearly about the risks of over-collection, the security vulnerabilities of cross-border data storage and the need for strong legislative safeguards. Yet, Bill M217 does not consider these issues. It doesn’t offer a privacy framework, no data protection standards, no limits on recording and no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.

The other challenge is harmonization. If this bill is passed, British Columbia would become the only jurisdiction in North America — the only one — to mandate dashboard cameras for commercial vehicles. That would create serious inconsistencies across provincial and international borders.

Industry stakeholders themselves have been very clear. If dashboard cameras are ever to become a requirement, the approach must be national, led through Transport Canada or the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators to ensure consistency and avoid creating a B.C.-only mandate.

A third challenge is practicality. For government to mandate these devices, we would need new legislation, new regulations and clear operational standards. We would need to address privacy, procurement, compliance, enforcement in the integration of new technologies across thousands of vehicles. This is a major undertaking requiring collaboration across provinces and territories in consultation with federal regulators and industry.

Finally, there are also cost implications. Depending on the system, yes, the province wouldn’t face expenses, carriers would face expenses, ranging from $200 to $1500 per vehicle, not including installation, maintenance and subscription fees. For many small operators, particularly in rural and northern communities, these costs are not insignificant.

All of us in this chamber share a commitment to improving road safety and preventing tragedies, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that legislation is workable, compliant with privacy law, aligned with national standards and grounded in evidence. Bill M217, though well-intentioned, does not meet that threshold.

The responsible path forward is to continue our work with federal partners, with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and with industry across the country. A national, harmonized approach, not a B.C.-only mandate, is how we ensure fairness, safety and consistency for commercial drivers and for the travelling public.

While I appreciate the member bringing forward this bill, for the reasons I’ve stated, I will not be supporting Bill M217 at second reading.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson closes debate.

Ward Stamer: I rise today to speak in strong support of the mandatory dashcam bill legislation that I believe represents a commonsense, modern and urgently needed step towards public safety in British Columbia. Our highways, our communities and our justice system all stand to benefit from this measure, which aligns technology with accountability and puts British Columbia’s safety first.

[11:10 a.m.]

Every day, thousands of drivers — commercial truck drivers, commuters, tourists, travellers — travel our B.C. highways. And every day, our enforcement agencies face the challenge of piecing together what happened after a collision, near miss or an incident of reckless or impaired driving. Too often these investigations rely on partial statements, unclear witness accounts or evidence that is contradictory or simply unavailable.

Dashcams change that. They provide impartial, real-time footage of driving conditions and driver behaviour. Around the world, they have proven to be one of the most effective tools in modern road safety enforcement. In fact, trucking firms that have implemented dashcams for commercial fleets have seen reductions, in some cases 50

simply unavailable. Dashcams change that. They provide impartial, real-time footage of driving conditions and driver behaviour. Around the world, they have proven to be one of the most effective tools in modern road safety enforcement. In fact, trucking firms that have implemented dashcams for commercial fleets have seen reductions, in some cases 50 percent, in collision rates, fraudulent insurance claims and costly legal disputes. This bill seeks to bring those benefits home to British Columbia.

This legislation is not about surveillance for its own sake. It is fundamentally about truth. When an accident occurs, the truth should never be left to speculation. Dashcam footage gives investigators clarity, it gives insurance companies accuracy, and more importantly, it gives victims justice. Too many families in this province have found themselves fighting uphill battles after a collision simply because the evidence was incomplete. This bill helps ensure that no British Columbians find themselves in that position again.

Another critical aspect of this bill is deterrent. When drivers, particularly commercial operators of large trucks, know their behaviour is being recorded, this tendency towards risky driving decreases significantly. Studies in transportation sectors show amplified improvements in lane discipline, braking distances and adherence to speed limits once cameras are installed. For B.C., where commercial vehicles travel some of the most challenging terrain in this country, from mountain passes to remote northern corridors, the safety gains cannot be overstated.

This is also a bill about cost savings and efficiency. In recent years, ICBC has confronted rising costs, complex liability disputes and a host of fraudulent exaggerated claims. Dashcams help address each of these issues head-on. By providing clear, indisputable evidence, they reduce the length of insurance disputes, lower administration burdens and ultimately contribute to reducing costs borne by every taxpayer.

But this bill is simply not about compliance; it’s about partnership. The vast majority of B.C. drivers are responsible, conscientious and committed to safety. This legislation ensures that those who follow the rules are better protected from the actions of few who do not. It leaves a level playing field for commercial carriers who already invest in safety technology, ensuring they are not undercut by contractors who ignore best practices. It strengthens public confidence in enforcement agencies by replacing ambiguity with documented emphasis.

I also want to emphasize that this bill includes strong privacy safeguards. Footage will be securely stored. Most of it is already on the cameras. It is not up on the cloud, it is not in other jurisdictions where it can be data-hacked, and it is retained only for defined periods and for legitimate or investigative purposes.

Furthermore, this bill complements and reinforces our autonomy in setting our own highway safety standards. Across the country, provinces have adopted new technologies to respond to increased traffic volumes, climate-related hazards and evolving patterns in commercial transportation. We do not have to fall behind. Speed limiters are only in Quebec, Ontario and B.C. It is not a federal responsibility. It is something that B.C. embraced, and we’ve been able to do it very seamlessly.

British Columbians expect leadership when it comes to road safety, and they deserve it. That’s why we should have bipartisan support in this House. Let’s take it to committee. Let’s make sure that we can work out the nuts and bolts and make it legislation that’s made in B.C.

In closing, the mandatory dashcam bill offers B.C. an opportunity to lead with innovation, to enhance public safety in a meaningful way and to support our law enforcement partners, to reduce insurance costs and deliver justice more efficiently. When used wisely, it can make our roads safer, investigations clearer and our communities stronger. Let’s take this step forward. Let’s give our enforcement agencies the tool that they need, and let’s reduce harm, costs and raise the standard of safety in British Columbia.

For these reasons, I am proud to support this legislation, and I would encourage the House to do the same.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6:00 p.m. today.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the North Island member to move second reading of Bill M219, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

[11:15 a.m.]

And, Members, the Chair will permit debate on Bill M219 to begin but will not put the question on the motion for second reading until the Speaker has returned to the House with a ruling on the point of order raised earlier this morning.

And in a moment, we will recognize

on Bill M219 to begin but will not put the question on the motion for second reading until the Speaker has returned to the House with a ruling on the point of order raised earlier this morning.

We’ll be underway momentarily.

All right, recognizing the member from North Island to a second reading of Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M219 — Health Authorities
Amendment Act, 2025

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Anna Kindy: I rise today to speak to Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025, a bill born out of both my experience as a physician and my conviction as a legislator that truth and transparency in health care saves lives.

Every single day British Columbians place their trust in our health care system. They believe, as they should, that if they or their loved ones fall critically ill, the system will be there for them. But too often that faith is betrayed, not by the skill of our doctors and nurses, but by a wall of silence.

Today, patients are dying on wait-lists while waiting for life-saving tests and treatment. A report commissioned by Second Street showed that over 4,500 British Columbians died waiting for treatment in B.C. between April 2023 and March 2024, a staggering 34 percent increase. According to the Fraser Institute, wait times for diagnostic tests in B.C. have worsened dramatically. As a physician, I have seen what those numbers look like in real life — patients whose conditions worsen while waiting for care, families left holding on to hope as precious time slips. They’re waiting in fear and anxiety. Time often is the difference between life and death.

It is part of a growing crisis in B.C. Patients with serious medical conditions — cancer, cardiac disease, organ failure — are waiting far beyond the recommended timelines. In some cases a delay is not just measured in weeks but in lost lives.

Part of the problem is the system’s stretched to its limit. Access to primary care is still an issue in B.C. There are more than 1.2 million British Columbians currently waiting to see specialists as well. Waits to see specialists can be measured in months to years, and people waiting are not only suffering, but they also are dying. These specialists do their best to triage and see urgent cases, but people often fall through the cracks.

What we must remember here is it’s not only doctors and nurses, but there are more than 70 specialized health professions that support diagnosis, treatment and recovery. These professionals are exhausted, overworked, burnt out. Now one in three says they’re going to quit. This strains our health care workforce and is one of the leading drivers on the growing wait times that are costing lives.

What this bill does: it’s simple; it’s powerful; it’s long overdue. It brings compassion for patients, information to our health care workers and accountability to government. It says that when a patient’s life is at risk, when a delay could mean death, they have the right to know, so they can seek life-saving assistance before it’s too late.

Under this bill, health authorities will be required (1) to determine the medically recommended timeframe for care; (2) to inform the patients if they cannot meet it; (3) to provide options, including where the patients might seek equivalent care elsewhere; (4) to report to the Minister of Health when patients die prior to receiving these services; and (5) the Minister of Health is obliged to table a report every calendar year that is publicly accessible on how many people in B.C. died waiting for life services.

This bill is about respecting our health care workers. They entered this profession to save lives, not to watch people deteriorate while trapped on a wait-list. It makes it clear that it’s the system’s responsibility, not the clinician’s alone, to inform and report.

[11:20 a.m.]

Here, I’d like to talk to you about Brian Dally. Brian was an energetic father and grandfather who looked much younger than his age. He had recently retired from a job as a logistics controller for Suncor in Fort McMurray and moved to

clear that it’s a system’s responsibility, not the clinicians alone, to inform and report.

Here I’d like to talk to you about Brian Dally. Brian was an energetic father, a grandfather, who looked much younger than his age. He had recently retired from a job as a logistic controller for Suncor in Fort McMurray and moved to Nanaimo, where all his family were, including his two daughters that are nurses and his six grandchildren. Brian was very active, golfing, walking his dog and helping the family store.

On May 2025, he went to the ER with chest pain. Ten years previously, he had two cardiac stents put in. He was referred to a cardiologist who he saw in July. That cardiologist put a referral in to do an angiogram, which is a diagnostic procedure to see if blood vessels in the heart are narrowed or blocked. During the coronary angiogram, a treatment called angioplasty or stenting can be done to open up the block.

Brian was again assessed in a hospital in August for increased shortness of breath. On September 28, three months after seeing the cardiologist, he received a letter stating that he was on the schedule for an angiogram and should expect a call within three to six months.

On October 7, while in his vehicle, Brian had a cardiac arrest and was resuscitated by a fireman. There was no neurological damage after his arrest. Then he was transferred to Victoria where he finally got his angiogram on October 11, which showed a severe blockage in many vessels of his heart and that he would need four bypass surgeries. Unfortunately, he passed away on October 12. He was 68 years old.

It took over six months for Brian to get an angiogram after presenting to ER with chest pain. Brian and his family would have looked for an alternative location to get an angiogram if they had known he would die waiting.

The backdrop of this tragedy reflects a health care system that failed to support the very people it was designed to protect. This bill is about bringing transparency and accountability to the public who deserve to know whether the health system is saving lives or losing them.

The importance of reporting cannot be overstated. This Bill 219 will require annual reporting of the number of patients who have died while waiting for care. Right now, that number is not properly tracked. It is not published. It is only in whispers, media reports, hallway conversations and sometimes if you look online.

How can we fix what we refuse to measure and report? The bill is rooted in a simple principle. When patients are informed, outcomes improve. When patients know the reality of their wait times, they can make choices to seek care in another health authority, another province and another country if necessary.

By ensuring a province-wide database of wait times for diagnostics and life-saving procedures that is updated in real time, it will enable targeted policy and resourcing decisions by the health authorities.

Now I want to talk about…. First of all, I want to say that, as a physician, I took an oath to do no harm. As this Legislature, I believe that withholding information that could save life is harm.

I’d like to talk about a success story of a patient who did find out. Her name is Melanie Leeson. She was a very active 72-year-old when she was diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis in January of 2023. This is a stage 4 cancer from somewhere in your abdomen that has spread to the lining of your stomach. This is a very poor prognosis, but new treatments have significantly improved outcomes, but time is of an essence here.

Melanie went through many tests and procedures, including a biopsy, in the next couple of months, but all findings were inconclusive as to where the cancer came from. There was a delay in the second biopsy. Her abdomen became more tense with fluid, called ascites. She was in pain.

She saw on Facebook a woman with a similar issue who had been treated by a surgeon in Baltimore. So being the go-getter that she is, Melanie contacted that surgeon in Baltimore, and within days, had another laparoscopic biopsy, which showed late-stage ovarian cancer. He told her to go back immediately to B.C. to get chemotherapy and surgery.

Back in B.C., Melanie was referred to the cancer agency and told that it would be a 9- to 11-week wait to see an oncologist. They told her that they would have to cancel someone in their 20s for her to get in sooner. Melanie then contacted an MLA she knew, and the appointment was moved to three weeks.

[11:25 a.m.]

She decided to go back to Baltimore anyways for her surgery, where they were doing a procedure that had a better outcome and significantly improved five-year survival rate — up to 45 percent survival rate for 5 years. This surgery was called CRS, cytoreductive surgery, combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy or HIPEC.

She was told by her local B.C. surgeon that although the surgery had a better outcome, it was “a lot of fuss and money for someone your own age.” Melanie’s treatment in the States ended

with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, or HIPEC. She was told by her local B.C. surgeon that although the surgery had better outcome, it was “a lot of fuss and money for someone your own age.”

Melanie’s treatment in the States ended up costing $240,000. She had to fundraise, go through GoFundMe. Some family friends donated money, and she used part of her life savings. Melanie now is feeling healthy. She’s now being very active and climbing mountains.

When people have information, they can act. They can advocate for themselves. They can live.

So in conclusion, the bill is about patience, families, our health care system, trust and accountability. We may sit on different sides of this chamber, but illness does not choose sides. It does not discriminate by party, by income or by region, and neither should a bill that seeks to save lives. When a loved one dies waiting for care, it is up to all of us to fix us the failure. So I ask all members to see that Bill M219 is meant to protect all British Columbians. Transparency is a lifeline.

Susie Chant: I’ll begin by respectfully acknowledging that I’m speaking to you from the Indigenous territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Esquimalt and the xʷsepsəm. And when I’m in my own riding….

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me. I just want to recognize the member for Esquimalt-Colwood.

Susie Chant: Oh, my apologies.

Darlene Rotchford: No worries.

I seek leave.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford: I have another lovely school from my riding. Again, École Victor Brodeur is here, the second group of class from grades 5 and 3. Would the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

The member from North Vancouver–Seymour continues.

Susie Chant: Good morning, students. Glad you’re here.

Moving right along. When I’m in North Vancouver–Seymour, I’m very fortunate to be in the territories of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Peoples, and I am very grateful to be able to live and learn there.

I am also very eager to rise today as a registered nurse. I have decades of experience in the health care system, and I’m hoping to critically discuss the purposes of Bill M219, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025, and the implications that it might have on our public health system.

To begin with, I really want to thank the member for North Island for introducing a bill that is about wait times and that is about a patient’s right to know when a required health system service is not available to them locally within the public health system and if other options are available to them outside B.C. or elsewhere.

However, I have not encountered a proposed law that would require a public administrator to keep track of people who die because they are on a wait list. Not only does this seem morbid, but it’s also pointless without understanding the cause of death. I’d speak about the implications of this requirement and the concerns of privacy towards the end.

In the first reading of Bill M219, the member said that the bill did not intend to criticize the diagnosing of physicians for their recommendations. She went on to say that doctors should be encouraged to be honest. In response to that, I’d say I’ve worked with many, many doctors, and I know they treat patients with integrity in spite of the stress of the system that they work within and are under and of the things that they face every day with critically ill patients.

The stated objective of this proposed private member’s bill is to require the health authorities to determine the medically recommended time period for providing health services to patients with serious medical conditions. In this, it seems to me they want to hold the health authorities responsible for any patients dying from the moment they start waiting for a life-saving treatment to before the moment they receive it.

Start date for wait-time measurements was defined as follows: “Waiting for a health service begins with the booking of a service, which is when the patient and the appropriate physician agree to a service and the patient is ready to receive it.” Finished date for wait-time measurement was defined as follows: “Waiting for a service ends when the patient receives the service or the initial service in a series of treatments or services.”

[11:30 a.m.]

Can you imagine how complex that is to track?

And it also holds the health authorities accountable in a rather punitive way, let alone the clients themselves, the patients themselves, and the doctors themselves and the staff themselves. Is the member proposing to transfer the responsibility for making clinical decisions about a life-saving treatment from a physician to the board of a local health authority?

I’d be interested to know if the member has consulted with her professional peers when

and the doctors themselves and the staff themselves. Is the member proposing to transfer the responsibility for making clinical decisions about a life-saving treatment from a physician to the board of a local health authority? I’d be interested to know if the member has consulted with her professional peers when drafting this bill.

If you are not a health care professional or if you’ve never received major medical care — which is defined in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act as major surgery, any treatment involving general anesthetic, major diagnostic or investigative procedures — you may not know that doctors and the local health authorities work closely together to get patients the services that they need.

Doctors make clinical recommendations for surgery. Medical imaging or preliminary examinations by specialists might be required to determine treatment. A patient could experience multiple wait times, and they must be willing and ready to receive care.

There are many people that don’t want to know. I have met them. I’ve worked with them. They are challenging, and they may not be ready to receive care in the way that is recommended.

If patients end up in the emergency department, they will be triaged. The health authority, as a public administrator of health services, makes facilities and supplies and works with the offices of the physicians and surgeons to coordinate the time of treatment.

Health care is a complex ecosystem. It requires everyone to work together. Just surgery scheduling itself is a shared responsibility between health authorities and physicians, with existing standardized wait-list management.

I’ve actually had the fortune in the last couple of months to tour not only the new St. Paul’s in Vancouver but also the new Lions Gate tower in my own community of North Vancouver. Both of those have made huge steps forward from when the original hospitals were built before in how their surgical systems are set up and how their surgical suites are set up, which is remarkable when I think about being a nurse 20, 30 years ago and what we did around surgeries and what we’re doing now.

What’s baffling about this bill is that it requires health authority boards to make determinations of the clinically recommended time period for patients to receive health services. What is the logic for requiring people who may not be qualified to make clinical decisions take on that responsibility? One can’t help but wonder about public safety.

With regards to establishing benchmarks and baselines, the federal government began this work in collaboration with provinces and clinicians since 2005. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, CIHI, the comparable indicators of access subcommittee developed a pan-Canadian definition for wait-time measurement in 2005 that was adopted by the federal, provincial and territorial ministries. Therefore, it’s important to note that working on establishing benchmarks and baselines began two decades ago by the federal government and in collaboration with provinces, territories and clinicians.

The member’s desire to request reporting by health authorities means more administrative staff, and coordination with patients and physicians must be added. It will require new work flows for triage, documentation and reporting. Additional reporting requirements by health authorities may impact access to care for non-urgent patients, such as those needing surveillance, diagnostics or less urgent treatments.

Reducing administrative burden in B.C.’s health care system is a shared goal of many organizations. The government established an Administrative Burdens Working Group, which includes representatives from the health authorities, the Ministry of Health, Health Quality B.C. and Doctors of B.C., to discuss ways to reduce demands on busy physicians and their teams, including reducing administrative burdens such as the processes and reporting expected in this bill. Preliminary analysis and modelling show that Bill M219 will impose hundreds of millions of dollars per year across the health system.

The other purpose of this bill is to compel the public administrator of our health services, the health authorities, to notify patients when services cannot be delivered within a recommended time frame.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’ve talked to many patients and constituents dealing with serious medical conditions. Those who are attached to a primary care or medical team are usually in good hands compared to those who are not. People understand that they can consult with their care team for clinical and treatment discussions and decisions.

As a nurse, I can tell you that having access to primary care is critically important for early detection of illness and getting treatment. That is why our government has made

those who are not. People understand that they can consult with their care team for clinical and treatment discussions and decisions.

As a nurse, I can tell you that having access to primary care is critically important for early detection of illness and getting treatment. That is why our government has made significant investment to improve access to primary care, from training and recruiting more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, to establishing UPCCs, nurse practitioner clinics and community health centres.

I also know that most people can feel stressed when they are sick and waiting for treatment, which is why I’m opposed to the proposed idea of sending patients a note when timely care is unmet. It can create negative feelings and worries for patients and cause them to be disappointed in the health system.

Let me be clear. Reducing diagnostic, treatment, surgical and hospital wait times is a complex challenge because it affects every aspect of how health services are delivered.

In British Columbia, the Provincial Health Services Authority, PHSA, provides provincial coordination of many specialized clinical services, including cancer, cardiac and transplant services. It is governed by the B.C. Society Act and PHSA constitution and bylaws. Amendments to the Health Authorities Act would apply legislative mandates to the regional health authorities for services that fall under the scope and the responsibility of the province.

In conclusion, I am opposed to the spirit and the goals of M219 because it mandates additional reporting and notification requirements which will strain resources and complicate defining medically recommended timetables. And it will violate….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Brennan Day: I’d just like to take a moment to respond to the member.

We are disappointed on this side of the House, and I speak for all British Columbians and the 1.4 million British Columbians that are currently without a primary care physician in saying that.

Firstly, we have to understand that you cannot resource what you do not track. This is the primary importance of this bill. The government earlier today suggested liability because of the scope of this problem — nearly $1 billion I heard cited this morning. That is the scope of the problem we are dealing with here in British Columbia, of British Columbians not being seen in a timely manner and dying on wait-lists.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for North Island, for bringing Bill M219 forward. She’s taken her experience, her compassion and her frustration with a system that hides more than it reveals and turned it into real legislation that will save lives. That’s what leadership looks like in this chamber. She’s worked in it, and she’s experienced it. That alone should add significant weight to this bill’s ultimate importance.

The government’s concerns add weight to this urgency, and the scope of the problem they outlined today underscores the need for this bill. This bill is built on one clear principle. When people are fighting for their lives, they deserve the truth, not spin, not silence, not a polite brush off from bureaucracy — the truth. And I can tell you, that truth is urgently needed in the Comox Valley and across this province.

We are living through a health care crisis where families are being left to guess — guess how long they’ll wait for a scan, guess whether the ICU will be open in their riding, guess if they will be seen in time. Transparency is not a luxury. It’s the bare minimum British Columbians deserve in delivering publicly funded health care.

People stop me on 5th Street or at the grocery store because they’re desperate for answers. They’re not asking for perfect. They’re asking for honesty. “Should we go to Nanaimo?” “Should we go to Victoria?” “What do I need to do?” “How long until my father can get that MRI?” “Did the specialist even receive my referral?” “Are we even on the right wait-list?” These are life-and-death questions. Right now, this system leaves families in the dark.

I’ll give you a personal example, and it’s not serious. My son, who was four at the time, needed a simple tubal ligation for a plugged ear, a 30-second procedure. We’re lucky enough to have a family doctor, but despite that, we waited 18 months for a referral to go through to an ENT.

[11:40 a.m.]

Over that time, his eardrum ruptured, putting him at serious risk of losing hearing in that ear. At the time, I was livid, as any parent would be. I still am. That wasn’t life-threatening, but it may have been life-altering for him and us. Had we known in advance how long it was going to take to be seen, we would have looked at other options, as any parent would have.

There are thousands

hearing in that ear. At the time, I was livid, as any parent would be; I still am. That wasn’t life-threatening, but it might have been life-altering for him and us. Had we known in advance how long it was going to take to be seen, we would have looked at other options, as any parent would have.

There are thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of stories like this across British Columbia, and I would encourage those British Columbians to send them to us so that we can bring them forward in this chamber.

We wait to see a GP, then we wait to see a specialist for a referral, then we wait to get a diagnostic test, and then we wait again. In cases where waiting has a serious risk of poor outcomes or death, waiting is not an option. These are people’s lives, and they should have full knowledge and control of their health care options.

The member for North Island laid out the numbers — nearly 100,000 people waiting for surgery, tens of thousands waiting for CTs and MRIs, and we know what’s happening in rural and coastal communities like mine.

In Campbell River, patients wait over a year and a half for a simple pacemaker procedure. On the North Island, life expectancy is now nine years lower than on the South Island, where we stand today — not because people are less deserving but because access to timely care simply is not there. We jokingly call Vancouver Island as God’s waiting room, but it is unfortunately closer to reality these days than we’d like to admit to ourselves.

One of my own good friends, Mel, had a parent preventively pass away recently due to the delays in receiving a simple colonoscopy following the loss of a family doctor. Despite requiring the procedure annually due to a pre-existing condition, a preventable diagnosis was missed too late.

For Mel, her death was tragic, preventable and avoidable. Had the system worked as it was intended, her father would be alive today. Had the system let her know there would be a delay, they would have sought other options.

We have to stop protecting a broken system at the expense of patients like Mel’s father, when care is delayed. Tragic outcomes like this are preventable, and when we aren’t told the truth, they can’t act. They can’t travel for care. They can’t make alternative plans. They can’t get their wills in order. They can’t advocate for themselves. They’re stuck waiting, hoping, praying that the phone will ring before it’s too late.

This bill attempts to fix that. It requires health authorities to tell patients the medically recommended time frame for a procedure. It requires them to notify people when they can’t meet it. It requires them to present real options when delays will put somebody’s life at risk. It requires them to report, publicly and openly, when British Columbians die on public wait-lists. That’s respect, that’s dignity, and that’s accountability.

Our front-line workers want this. They’re exhausted. They carry the moral injury of calling families too late. They want a system that supports honesty, not one that forces silence. This bill shifts the burden off individual clinicians and puts responsibility directly where it belongs: on the health authorities and squarely on the Ministry of Health for its failings.

In the Comox Valley, we’ve seen what the member for North Island is trying to address — the sudden hospice cuts, the quiet ICU closure risks, years-long delays for specialists, families left scrambling, not because care isn’t available somewhere but because no one told them the truth soon enough to seek it.

This bill, let me be clear, will not solve every problem in our broken health care system, but it gives people something they have not had in years — clarity, transparency and the ability to rebuild trust in our broken system. It gives rural, coastal and northern families a fighting chance. It gives seniors and caregivers the information they need to make life-altering decisions. It forces everyone in this system, all the way up to the minister, to confront the reality that people are dying while waiting.

We owe British Columbians a health care system that respects them enough to be honest. That’s what Bill M219 delivers. It’s practical, it’s simple, it’s compassionate, and it’s necessary. This bill may make the health authorities uncomfortable. I am sure the government benches will be instructed to either castrate this bill in committee to appease the health authorities or simply vote it down on second reading to avoid this difficult conversation altogether.

[11:45 a.m.]

This isn’t a bill to force people to look into options outside of our system. It’s a bill that forces our health care system to face reality — honestly, transparently and in the best interests of patients, not of a broken system.

I’d ask you to think about this for a moment. If it were your spouse, your child, would you want to be told the truth in time?

to face reality, honestly and transparently and in the best interests of patients, not a broken system.

I’d ask you to think about this for a moment. If it were your spouse, your child, would you want to be told the truth in time? If the answer is yes — and I know it is for me — then it must be yes on behalf of every family in this province. I, for one, am proud to stand with the member for North Island supporting this bill and caring for all of those who may not have the chance otherwise.

Rohini Arora: Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

At first glance, this bill seems to address something deeply important to all of us, continued expansion of transparency for patients who are on the waiting list for too long for care. But while the stated intention appears straightforward, the consequences of this legislation could be far-reaching and potentially harmful to the fabric of British Columbia’s public health care system.

Bill M219 requires health authorities to create medically recommended timelines, to notify patients when they cannot meet those timelines and to provide options that may include out-of-province or out-of-country care. On paper, while this may look like responsiveness, in practice it invites creeping privatization by normalizing redirection of patients outside of the public system when delays occur. It risks creating a two-tier system, where those who can afford travel or private alternatives move to the front of the line while others fall further behind.

It imposes an immense administrative burden, new triage pathways, expanded documentation, staffing for notifications, appeals and cross-jurisdiction coordination. It shifts clinical responsibilities to non-clinical boards, asking health authority boards to set medical timelines normally determined by physicians. Each case is unique and should not be offloaded to a board who is not directly caring for that patient.

It destabilizes provincial coordination in areas like cancer care, cardiac services and transplantation programs that currently rely on centralized expertise through the Provincial Health Authority.

These risks are not hypothetical. They are based on evidence and experience. We need only to look at other countries to understand what happens when publicly funded care begins to lean on private alternatives. Independent analyses comparing England and Scotland….

Interjection.

Rohini Arora: You know, this is my time, Member, and I do get to speak. I know that’s hard for you, but if you just hear me out, we can have that discussion in a civilized manner.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me. Can I have remarks through the Chair? Thank you. Through the Chair.

Rohini Arora: Thank you for the reminder, Madam Chair.

Independent analyses comparing England and Scotland found that England’s outsourcing of surgical care increased inequality, drawing staff and resources away from public hospitals. One researcher observed: “Private clinics poach staff from the NHS to treat cheaper cases, leaving the public system with more complex cases and fewer resources.” This means the burnout of doctors, nurses, care aides, techs and many other health care workers.

Another study linked to higher rates of avoidable mortality to increased reliance on for-profit clinics for publicly funded services. These outcomes did not reduce wait times overall. They simply shifted them, deepening inequality and weakening the universal system.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The member for North Island has said public commentary, when she brought this bill forward, helps to illustrate the underlying intent. In discussing wait-time reform, the member argued that we need options within our universal system and pointed to international examples, saying Japan has an older population than Canada but still manages to have no wait lists.

[11:50 a.m.]

This member also said our health care system is stuck in the 1970s. But the clearest articulation came when the member described what options would mean in practice. Some people will want to pay, so you get them off the list, so they pay from their own pockets. That is not strengthening universal health care. That is defining, explicitly, a two-tier system, and Bill M219 is the mechanism

described what options would mean in practice. Some people will want to pay so you get them off the list, so they pay from their own pockets. That is not strengthening universal health care.

That is defining explicitly a two-tier system, and Bill 219 is the mechanism that makes that system possible. First by normalizing notifications, then by normalizing alternatives and finally by normalizing payment as a path to faster care. Research shows that inequality deepens. It does not make health care more accessible. When we talk about health care for all, we mean every single British Columbian, not just those who can afford it.

Every MLA in this chamber agrees that wait times must come down. Every MLA agrees that patients deserve information. The real solutions come from addressing root causes, not exporting patients or weakening public institutions.

Our approach focuses on strengthening primary care so that fewer people end up needing urgent or specialist care; expanding the health care workforce through sustained investment in training, recruitment and retention; increasing operating room time and capacity, not outsourcing surgery outside the public system; using private facilities only within public contracts under the Canada Health Act without extra billing and without profit from insured services; improving data sharing and referral pathways so patients move through the system more efficiently and equitably.

These actions build capacity. They support clinicians. They respect patients. They strengthen our public system; they do not hollow it out. Bill 219 presents itself as a transparency bill, but beneath the surface, it risks fragmenting provincial care, overwhelming health authorities with administrative burden, shifting medical decision-making to boards, and laying groundwork for a two-tiered model of health delivery. Health care is and must remain a human right, not commodity. No British Columbian should ever have to pay for faster access to medically necessary care, and no legislation should push us in that direction.

Our responsibility is to strengthen the public system for everyone, not to create pathways that benefit only those who can afford them. For these reasons, I cannot support Bill 219 as it is currently written.

The Speaker: Member, noting the hour.

Rohini Arora: What do I have to say?

The Speaker: Adjourn the debate.

Rohini Arora: Noting the hour, I reserve my right to....

The Speaker: No, just adjourn the debate.

Interjections.

Rohini Arora: Sorry, I can’t hear. There are too many people at once. Sorry, please guide me, Mr. Speaker.

Can I adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker? Or can you adjourn debate?

I put forward a motion to adjourn debate. I am so sorry. This is hard.

Rohini Arora moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Terry Yung moved adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1.30 p.m. this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.