Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Pete Davis.

[10:05 a.m.]

Speaker’s Statement

Christmas Tree in Rotunda

The Speaker: Members, speaking of Christmas, if you haven’t noticed yet, our Christmas tree is up. It’s a beautiful fir tree. It’s very aromatic. So after the question period, go there, appreciate it, and take your pictures with it.

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis: Well, they made it. I have two guests here who are up in the gallery today: my best friend, Emil, and his lovely wife, Courtney. It’s been nearly 24 hours since they departed their home in Sparwood yesterday through multiple delays, closure of the Calgary Airport. Thrilled to have them here.

Courtney is the junior curling liaison in Sparwood, teaching kids the basics of curling. Emil is a processing trainer in Sparwood at the coal plant. I know he’s here with a bit of a heavy heart after the tragedy in the Elk Valley last week.

Would the House please make them welcome for finally making it here to the House today.

Hon. David Eby: A little irregular, but I’d like to welcome back the minister without portfolio, the member for Beacon Hill, Grace Lore, to the House today.

Great to see you, Grace. Welcome back.

[Applause.]

Amshen / Joan Phillip: I’d like everyone to join me in welcoming the folks from the Salvation Army — Lt. Col. Tiffany Marshall, Lt. Col. Les Marshall, Kim Findlay and Peter Cheung.

I want to hold my hands up to them for the progress they’re making on the Harbour Light facility, which will include 300 units, 70 supportive homes, 46 affordable rentals, along with community program space.

Macklin McCall: I rise today to recognize and welcome representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the National Police Federation, the union representing the dedicated police officers from the RCMP.

They are here in our Legislature over the next two days to provide members from both sides of this House with an invaluable opportunity to learn directly from front-line officers about police use of force, the decision-making involved in high-pressure situations and the realities officers face every day in encounters with the public.

Their visit will include an overview of training practices; safety procedures; and, importantly, scenario-based exercises that MLAs who have signed up will participate in firsthand. These scenarios allow members to step into the role of an officer to better understand the complexity, responsibility and judgment required in the field.

I want to extend my sincere thanks to the RCMP, to the National Police Federation and to the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Legislative Assembly Protective Services, who were instrumental in organizing and facilitating this important learning opportunity.

Will this House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Today I rise to introduce four nursing students. Two are University of Victoria undergraduate nursing students in their final student practice education placements, and two are UBC graduate students who are completing capstone projects from the School of Nursing’s health leadership and policy program.

They are working on important policy and programming initiatives for the Ministry of Health. We’re really thrilled to have them as part of the health workforce policy and planning division right now.

Please, would the House join me in welcoming Angela, Sophie, Scott and Alexa and thanking them for their contributions to the ministry.

Kiel Giddens: I want to thank the Premier, actually, for announcing that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill is back. I hadn’t noticed until the Premier’s comments, so I appreciate that.

[10:10 a.m.]

We’ve been friends for a very long time, proof that friendships can happen on both sides of the aisle. We went to UBC together, and the Political Science Student Association. We had many debates in the Pit Pub at UBC, and I look forward to continuing those debates on the floor of the Legislature.

Welcome back.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The new Ministry of Infrastructure is now one year old, the second new ministry I’ve had the honour of being appointed to stand up. We are looking forward to welcoming, this week, several members of the public service that make this ministry go.

Today in the audience we have Randall Gerlach, senior director of intergovernmental relations and corporate planning; Stefan Colantonio, director of cross-government capital projects and planning. They have served in the public service for many years in many different roles prior to joining us here in the Ministry of Infrastructure and bring a depth of experience we are so grateful to have.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome and in acknowledging their contributions to communities across B.C.

Ward Stamer: This person that’s in our gallery again today was introduced yesterday, but I want to have a huge shout-out again to the mayor of Clearwater, Merlin Blackwell.

Merlin has been a fierce advocate on highway safety, as I have, in our roles as municipal leaders, and I know he’s as happy as I am that we were able to get further on Bill M217 last night.

Again, will the House make Mayor Blackwell welcome.

Susie Chant: Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery this morning are two new members of Consular Corps of British Columbia based in Vancouver. Mr. Shahzad Hussain is the consul general of Pakistan in Vancouver, and Mr. Raphaël Dang is the new consul general of France in Vancouver, and they are both with us today.

Mr. Hussain and Mr. Dang are here on their first official visits to Victoria and have many meetings here with the government officials, taking place this afternoon.

Would this House please make them feel very welcome.

Trevor Halford: It’s always great to have friends from White Rock today, and joining us are Janice and Ian Routledge.

I want to say thank you. Welcome.

This is their second time here, so I hope for many more returns as well.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to announce to the House today that it happens to be the birthday of my very capable parliamentary secretary, the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville.

Would the House please wish him a happy birthday.

Amna Shah: It’s very special for me to also introduce Consul General Shahzad Hussain, coming from the country of my birth. I am so pleased to have been able to dine with him and to really learn from his soft-spoken nature and his wisdom.

I thank him for his service. He has served in the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Pakistan since 2005. Incredible journey of extensive service to his country and also to the rest of the global community.

Hon. Randene Neill: I just want to give a big shout-out to two people in the gallery today from Ducks Unlimited Canada. Matthew Christensen and Andrea Barnett, also known as Little Duck, are in QP today.

As you know, Ducks Unlimited is a non-profit, one of the oldest in the world dedicated to protecting wetlands and the waterfowl that goes with it. A big warm welcome to Andrea and Matt today.

Thank you for coming.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I am delighted to bring back, for his second visit ever to the Legislature, the first husband of Coquitlam-Maillardville, my husband, David.

[10:15 a.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Public Flags Display Act

Dallas Brodie presented a bill intituled Public Flags Display Act.

Dallas Brodie: I move that a bill intituled the Public Flags Display Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Dallas Brodie: If you want to preserve a nation, you start by preserving its icons and its symbols — the very essence of its heritage. After years of anti-Canadian rhetoric and the talking down of our proud heritage and national excellence, the Canadian flag and the British Columbian flag are now regularly removed and replaced throughout the year with flags that champion certain ideologies and foreign nations.

The solution is clear. OneBC’s Public Flags Display Act will prohibit the flying of any flags on provincial property other than the Canadian national flag, British Columbia’s provincial flag and municipal flags.

The Palestinian flag was raised over city halls in Toronto, Calgary and others elsewhere across Canada earlier this month. Here at our own Legislature, a provincial flag was lowered last week and replaced with the transgender flag.

This bill will prevent that from ever happening again in British Columbia. Our government and its symbols must represent our people and their heritage, not ideology or foreign states. There is no reason to replace our flags in the name of inclusion. The B.C. and Canadian flags already include all of us in this glorious country and this wonderful province.

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

Division has been called.

[10:20 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15
Kindy	Clare	K. Neufeld
Brodie	Armstrong	Bhangu
Davis	Bird	Stamer
Tepper	Mok	Chapman
Maahs	Kealy	Williams
NAYS — 73
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Wilson	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Dew
Valeriote	Botterell	Paton
Gasper	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	McInnis
McCall	Sturko	Boultbee
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Luck
	Block

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: I rise to seek guidance on the remarks made by the member regarding the introduction of their bill.

Introductions are meant to be a succinct explanation of the purpose of the bill. It’s my understanding that introductory remarks cannot bring other items that have little bearing on the bill that is before the House. The ruling was made last Thursday regarding the abuse of introductory statements and unrelated remarks according to practice recommendation 5.

We seem to be, or we could be, going down a rabbit hole of deviation for precedence. I request further guidance from the Chair on whether the remarks made by the member are inflammatory or argumentative, both to guide the introduction of this bill and future bills, because they may have little bearing on the bill being introduced. In this instance, reference was made to years of anti-Canadian rhetoric, Palestinian flags being raised, the transgender flags being raised.

[10:35 a.m.]

With respect, I don’t see how that relates to the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill can be stated very succinctly without raising these pejorative and argumentative and inflammatory references.

As this is new territory for the whole House, I seek the guidance of the Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. The Chair takes it under advisement, and the Chair will come back and provide further guidance.

Dallas Brodie: Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to speak in response to this, or would you prefer I didn’t?

The Speaker: Go ahead, Member.

Dallas Brodie: Thank you.

First of all, I would say that many of the things I hear in this House on a regular basis are inflammatory and argumentative, in my view. I find many of the views I hear repugnant and completely distasteful, but I listen to them because this is meant to be a marketplace of ideas in this chamber, and we are not meant to be….

We’re supposed to be erring on the side of allowing freedom of speech, not limiting speech in some kind of fascistic effort to say that only certain opinions are allowed and that other opinions are not allowed. My view is that when I’m introducing a bill, we need to present a mischief that the bill is trying to cure. If I can’t describe the mischief, then there’s no purpose in presenting a cure.

The mischief that we’ve been seeing in our society — that’s a legal term that we use in law school — the mischief that we’re trying to cure is that there are flags now being regularly presented….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, the Chair has heard your concerns. We are not debating here now, as I indicated earlier. The Chair will take it under advisement, and I’ll come back and provide further guidance.

Dallas Brodie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members’ Statements

Salvation Army Christmas
Kettle Campaign

David Williams: Today I rise to recognize a remarkable Canadian tradition, one that has quietly contributed, close to home, for generations. The Salvation Army has launched its annual Christmas kettle campaign, its 135th. The campaign directly supports over three million visits for assistance in communities throughout Canada.

The Christmas kettle is far more than a familiar holiday symbol. It is a lifeline for families struggling to put food on the table, for seniors facing isolation, for individuals working to rebuild their lives and for anyone who simply needs a warm meal or a helping hand.

In my riding of Salmon Arm–Shuswap, the Salvation Army provides essential, year-round support to some of our most vulnerable residents. Whether it’s through emergency food hampers, winter clothing, counselling, shelter or addiction recovery services, their staff and volunteers meet every person with dignity, compassion and a belief in their potential.

This year your support is more important than ever. Rising food costs, housing pressures and economic challenges continue to strain families as well as local service providers across our province. The need is growing, and organizations like the Salvation Army are stretched to their limits, yet they continue to show up, day after day, with grace and kindness.

The Christmas kettle campaign matters. Every donation — whether a few coins, a folded bill or a tap of a credit card — makes a difference. These contributions keep food banks stocked, shelters warm and local programs running throughout the year with every donation staying within the community where it is given.

I also want to thank the volunteers who ring the bells, the donors who give what they can and the teams who dedicate their hearts and energy to serving our communities.

I encourage all British Columbians to support this year’s campaign. Together we can help deliver hope, stability and dignity this Christmas season.

Council of Senior Citizens
Organizations of B.C.

Susie Chant: Thank you for the chance to amplify a truly fabulous organization and one of the many dedicated people who make its work possible.

First, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, particularly the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm, to whom I’m always grateful for the wisdom they share with this House.

At home in North Vancouver–Seymour, I also honour the stewardship and teachings of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Peoples.

[10:40 a.m.]

Early in October, COSCO, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., held their 2025 conference, celebrating an incredible 75 years of advocacy for seniors. More than 300 participants attended, representing health organizations, social policy leaders, researchers, advocates, service providers and government partners.

Their shared purpose is clear: to foster age-friendly communities across British Columbia and to remain alert to the current and emerging challenges that face seniors. Organizations such as COSCO play an essential role in this province. Their voices help us understand what matters most to seniors today and what will matter in the years ahead. I have the privilege of speaking with them, and I want to echo my sincere thanks for their dedicated work.

One of the powerhouses behind COSCO is Barb Mikulec, a 25-year champion for seniors in our province. As general vice-president and a former board member since 2019, she has spearheaded the Care for the Caregiver workshops in partnership with the Jewish Seniors Alliance and L’Chaim adult day centre.

These workshops have addressed essential topics such as fraud prevention; medication safety; caregiver burnout; and, most recently, Stay on the Road, offered last week in collaboration with ICBC. Delivered both online and in person, these sessions are consistently well attended and led by skilled volunteers committed to keeping seniors safe, informed and supported in their communities.

Thank you, Barb, and thank you, COSCO, for everything you do to support the seniors and elders of British Columbia.

Tania Willard and Achievements
as Indigenous Artist

Ward Stamer: Dear Ms. Tania Willard, it gives me great pleasure to extend my warmest congratulations on your remarkable achievement as the winner of the 2025 Sobey Art Award, Canada’s most distinguished contemporary visual arts prize, which also provides $100,000.

Your practice — grounded in Secwépemc knowledge, language and intergenerational teachings — continues to inspire communities across B.C. and Canada. From harvesting natural materials for ink to your collaborations through the BUSH Gallery, you offer a powerful model of connection, resilience and artistic leadership.

As a Pacific region artist based on and in Neskonlith, you have brought tremendous pride to the Secwépemc Nation, the Interior of British Columbia and the artists and culture workers throughout the province. Your recognition by the National Gallery of Canada underscores both your individual talent and the importance of Indigenous artists in preserving and celebrating cultural knowledge.

On behalf of the Kamloops–North Thompson region, please accept my heartfelt congratulations and thanks. Your accomplishments are an inspiration to emerging artists, to Indigenous youth and to all who look to art as a source of truth, beauty and connection. I wish you continued success and look forward to seeing your future contributions to contemporary art in Canada.

Yours truly.

Men’s Shed Activities
in Vernon and Lumby

Harwinder Sandhu: November is Men’s Health Awareness Month, and today I want to shine a light on two groups making a tremendous impact in our region, Men’s Shed Vernon and Lumby Men’s Shed.

Men’s sheds are more than workshops. They are safe, welcoming places where men can connect, build friendships, share skills, talk openly or simply be themselves. At a time when so many men struggle quietly with loneliness, stress or health concerns, these spaces are truly life-changing.

In Lumby, I want to acknowledge president Glenn Bouzek along with Keith Rawcliffe, Kirk Biccum, Kim Greenizan, Nick Hodge, Paul Fisher, Stan Neumann and Steve Elliman. We also honour Ernie Hurd, whose vision and determination started this entire project.

Thanks to the support of the village of Lumby, they’ve had a home on Shuswap Avenue. Since then, they have given back tirelessly, building a wheelchair ramp for local residents, signage for the arena, picnic benches for Lumby Lions Campground, beds for Sleep in Heavenly Peace and shelving for the museum.

One project truly captures the spirit of mentorship and creativity. A senior member, Gerald Laviolette, is building a stunning cedar canoe, while teaching younger generations the craft, working side by side.

[10:45 a.m.]

In Vernon, I want to acknowledge Ray Verlage, John Wilson, Pat Broschart, Nels Carlson and their entire team for their dedication. Their work not only strengthened men’s health and well-being; they even helped encourage creation of a local She Shed, showing what community really looks like — supporting one another, rather than dividing.

As we mark Men’s Health Month, let’s remember that good health is not only about medical care; it’s also about connection, camaraderie, purpose and having a safe space.

To Men’s Shed Vernon, Lumby Men’s Shed and Men’s Sheds Canada: thank you. Your compassion, mentorship and community spirit make a real difference.

Golden Women’s Resource Centre

Scott McInnis: Today I rise to speak in alliance with the Golden Women’s Resource Centre, a beacon of hope, safety and empowerment for women and children in our community. In a world where too many face isolation, violence and other barriers, this centre stands as a lifeline.

The Golden Women’s Resource Centre offers a wide range of vital programs and services that directly address the needs of women in Golden. From the women’s shelter and outreach support to the sexual assault response program, the centre provides compassionate, confidential assistance to those experiencing crisis. Their 24-7 crisis line ensures that help is always available, no matter the hour.

Beyond emergency support, the centre fosters empowerment through practical resources, free internet access, GEM, a clothing exchange and a welcoming lounge where women can connect and heal. Their virtual legal clinic and third-party reporting services offer pathways to justice, while the community coordination for safety in relationships program builds a safer, more informed community.

None of this would be possible without the extraordinary leadership of the executive director, Alycia, and the incredible team of staff and volunteers who bring these programs to life. Their dedication, empathy and tireless advocacy make the centre not just a place of service but a place of transformation. They meet each woman with dignity and care, and their work ripples outward, strengthening families and the entire Golden community.

Let us continue to champion the Golden Women’s Resource Centre, and let us ensure it has the resources it needs to thrive. When we support women, we uplift families, we strengthen communities, and we build a better future for all.

Support for Non-Profit Organizations

Amshen / Joan Phillip: Today I rise to celebrate the many non-profits and service organizations that make our province a better place to live. I lift my hands up to the community organizers for their tireless work, but particularly, of course, the Vancouver-Strathcona. They prioritize the dignity and well-being of Downtown Eastside folks.

Supporting our most vulnerable is a measure of the values we have as a society. I’m proud of our government for taking significant action to lift up folks through important strategic investments, over $90 million since 2022, to support unrestricted multi-year grants to non-profits through the Vancouver Foundation. We’ve provided $600,000 to Vantage Point to support the development of a B.C. non-profit network to strengthen the capacity of non-profits to support and advocate for their communities.

Although I applaud the work we’ve done as a government, we know that there’s so much more that needs to be done. We cannot do this alone. While our government has been increasing supports for people through the non-profit sector, I’m sad to say that….

The Speaker: Member, we’ve lost your audio. Member, you have to unmute.

Okay. Thank you.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[10:50 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Niki Sharma: He snuck in after introductions, but in here is a former MLA for Richmond-Queensborough, Aman Singh, our newly elected president for the B.C. NDP.

I just want to welcome him and thank him for all the work that he does on behalf of so many communities across the province on behalf of our party.

Welcome.

Peter Milobar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Peter Milobar: It appears to be “come back to the Legislature for former MLAs” day. My understanding is, and I’m having lunch with her shortly, we have another former MLA and colleague of mine and many in this House. Stephanie Cadieux is here today as well.

Stephanie transitioned from being an MLA to — I’ll get the title wrong — essentially the head of accessibility for all of Canada, for the federal government.

On behalf of all of us, will we please welcome Stephanie back to the precinct.

Oral Questions

Government Management of Trade
Opportunities and Resource Projects

John Rustad: The Premier says he has his elbows up, but let’s look at the results.

Trade with the U.S.A. is up. It’s down with Asia. Ships are being built out of British Columbia. The ability to move our oil and get international prices is being blocked. Seventy thousand people left this province. And now Nutrien just chose Washington state for over a $1 billion project, driven out of this province, walking away from an opportunity for people in this province to prosper.

The Premier of Saskatchewan warned the Premier, saying that he needs to stop his dangerous political rhetoric, saying it’s “disappointing and not being part of Team Canada.” It’s obvious nobody seems to want to work with this Premier.

Why has the Premier’s elbows-up approach driven this kind of an investment out of B.C. into Washington state?

Hon. David Eby: First of all, just so that the member and everyone in the House is clear. His supposed list of offences by this government, just to choose one: the idea that the population of this province has been decreasing. I mean, every single person in British Columbia knows that we have seen epic population growth in this province over the last few years, and, in fact, it has resulted in huge demand for schools and hospitals and other services and also brought huge opportunities for our province as we grow.

He is wrong on a number of counts. But here’s one where, and this might be surprising, we may share a perspective. It is unacceptable, it is deeply disturbing and problematic, that Nutrien decided to go to Washington state instead of coming to British Columbia.

On multiple occasions — just for the member’s knowledge, for all members’ knowledge — I specifically raised the issue of potash with the Premier of Saskatchewan, saying how happy I was that his products were coming through British Columbia, how excited I was about expansion work they were doing in Saskatchewan and how we had to work together to get that product to international markets; with the Prime Minister, on multiple occasions, advocating for port expansion in Prince Rupert, in Deltaport and the RB2 expansion; support for the Canada West proposal to address bottlenecks across the country, limiting trade access to our ports and slowing productivity at the ports.

Relentless advocacy for our ports, for expansion, for Saskatchewan’s goods to get to market. Despite that, never once did the Premier of Saskatchewan raise with me that Nutrien was considering Washington state, that there was an issue that we had to work together on. Instead, he and the leader of the Conservative Party were having secret meetings with the Premier of Alberta about a nonexistent pipeline project that undermines support for major B.C. projects that will employ thousands of people and bring billions of dollars into this country.

I am disappointed that we didn’t have the opportunity. I am advocating with the Prime Minister and with the Premier of Saskatchewan that we work together to expand our ports to get goods to market.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, the Premier has the ability to spread fertilizer, but he doesn’t have the ability to distort facts.

[10:55 a.m.]

The fact is very clear. There are no secret meetings. I didn’t fly out to Alberta or to Saskatchewan. I had a few phone calls with Premiers, and we didn’t even talk about a particular project. We talked about the need to move this. But the Premier seems to like, like I say, making up his own facts.

Here is something, though, I think, that is really worth talking about. The Premier talks about Nutrient and about talking to the Premier of Saskatchewan about trying to get this project in B.C. I find that interesting, because I actually spoke with the Premier of Saskatchewan as well, who expressed their significant concerns about the challenges of trying to get something done in B.C.

Nutrien itself cited congestion; bottlenecks; labour issues; reliability; and, the most important issue, uncertainty about dealing with British Columbia. That is purely a failure of this government and their policies and approach and the incompetence in not being able to land a project like that in British Columbia.

I’ll ask the Premier a simple question. Why didn’t he use every tool in the toolbox, the same types of tools he used to block projects, to actually make sure this could be delivered for people in British Columbia?

Hon. David Eby: The name of the company is Nutrien, not Nutrient.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: The member is just wrong. British Columbia has four times more major projects on the board than any other province in Canada. The reason we are able to do this is that we take the exact opposite approach of what the member has advocated.

We’re working with First Nations. We’re having conversations with them. The member repeatedly advocated that this government terminate all conversations with First Nations.

The member wants uncertainty. He wants us not to have major projects on the board. The only possible reason why I can think that he continues to talk down our province, talk down our economy, advocate against our interests as a province is that he thinks it serves his interests. That is a deeply problematic approach to the governance in his role as the Leader of the Opposition.

If he had concerns about Nutrien, he could have easily raised them in this House while we were advocating for port expansion, while we were advocating for bottlenecks to be removed and for the federal government to prioritize those things.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: The Premier of Saskatchewan never once raised this issue with me, but that is of no import at this moment.

What is most important right now is that the federal government, the Premier of Saskatchewan and I work together to get those goods to market, because that is a real project that will create real jobs, and that’s what we should be working on.

Government Action on
Gun Violence and Gang Activity
in Fraser Valley

Bryan Tepper: Another shooting in Surrey, resulting in another adult woman being shot and transported to hospital. But it could have been so much worse.

How many more women need to be shot for this government to take gang violence seriously in Surrey?

Hon. Nina Krieger: That shooting incident that the member mentioned is deeply concerning, and I want to assure that the matter is under investigation. I’m not able to speak to the specifics of that case.

The member also mentioned the protection of women. We know that women are vulnerable in every corner of this province. Gender-based violence knows no bounds. And we know that some communities are more vulnerable than others, including Indigenous and First Nations communities.

That’s why this government is continuing to ensure that those who perpetrate gender-based violence are held to account, that we’ve been advocating for tougher bail and sentencing laws. We have commissioned Dr. Stanton’s report and are enacting recommendations to combat gender-based violence across the system.

We’re also standing up supports for victims. When the opposition was in government, there was a rollback of support.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members. Members. Members will come to order.

Please conclude.

Hon. Nina Krieger: We know that women are uniquely vulnerable, and that’s why we’ve restored funding for sexual assault centres, so that survivors can have the support they need.

[11:00 a.m.]

There is more than $1 billion in funding for transition and safe homes as well, second-stage housing….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Members.

Please conclude.

Hon. Nina Krieger: We’ll continue to ensure that perpetrators of gender-based violence are held to account and that victims have the supports that they need.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Bryan Tepper: Well, thank you for those comments, but it’s not just gender-based violence, because nothing is getting better in Surrey or the Fraser Valley.

Houses shot at, innocent people being injured and upstanding citizens murdered.

How many attacks does it take for a politician to act?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The safety of communities, families and businesses of Surrey is a top priority for this government. We invest more than $100 million a year…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Nina Krieger: …in anti-gang activities to go after illegal weapons. We, on the extortion front, have stood up the largest task force to combat extortion in the country and one of the largest task forces in B.C. history. Our government is using every possible tool to go after gun violence and, in particular, extortion, ensuring that we can disrupt and stop crimes and hold perpetrators to account.

We are starting to see results on the extortion front with charges and deportations, and we will continue….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let the minister conclude, please.

Hon. Nina Krieger: We recently announced a surge of strategic and intelligence-led resources that speak to the fact that our government is doing everything possible to coordinate across law enforcement and across levels of government to keep people in communities safe.

My message….

The Speaker: Thank you.

Protection of Old-Growth Forests
and Logging Deferrals

Rob Botterell: This House knows that what we’re seeing in our forest sector is not what a healthy industry or a healthy ecosystem looks like. Deferrals are failing. Old growth is vanishing. Mills are closing. Forests are burning. Communities are suffering.

One-third of B.C.’s forests are degraded. Logging is four times more likely inside so-called deferral zones. Second growth has been so mismanaged that it can’t sustain the industry.

Will the minister be open with British Columbians: is this government’s plan really to cut the last of our old growth?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s a really disappointing question from the member opposite. We’re jointly working together to bring industry, First Nations, environmental organizations all to the same table to talk about the future of forestry, to talk about a strong, sustainable sector that delivers for people in every corner of our province.

Right now we are facing significant challenges in forestry because of the actions of Donald Trump and the duties….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Now, it’s no surprise to those of us on this side of the House that the official opposition uses every opportunity in their toolbox to defend Donald Trump. We, on the other hand, are going to stand up for the forest sector.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite who asked the question, there has been a significant decline in old-growth harvesting in British Columbia. We are moving towards more value-added forestry. That is something we’re proud of.

We’ve seen record investments. I think of Kalesnikoff in my colleague from Castlegar’s riding. I think about the investments in coastal British Columbia to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by this province to be able to help build that strong, sustainable sector so 100 years from now we can be proud of this sector and the jobs it’ll produce and the prosperity it’ll produce for all British Columbians.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[11:05 a.m.]

Government Action on Sustainable
Timber Harvest Recommendations

Rob Botterell: Thank you to the minister for the answer to the question.

Yes, it is absolutely fundamental, the work we’re doing together across the aisle for the Provincial Forest Advisory Council.

British Columbians deserve the truth about what’s happening in our forests. They’re tired of only learning that truth from leaked reports. A leaked technical review makes it clear the province is massively overestimating how much timber can be sustainably harvested, relying on wildly extreme assumptions, and that’s a quote, and may be cutting almost twice what is sustainable.

Will the minister agree that it is vital that we complete the work of the Forest Advisory Council and implement the recommendations to make the paradigm shift we need?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite.

I also want to give a shout-out to the Millstream Bees from Langford, who are in the House this morning as well.

The member opposite talks about a leaked report. It wasn’t a leaked report. The report has been on a website for the past year. It was a report commissioned by the Takla First Nations. It had no connection to the government of B.C., so I don’t know how that somehow references it being a leaked report.

The report talked about it being a collaborative effort. Many of the nations that sit at that forest landscape planning table vehemently oppose the points of view that have been brought forward at that table.

The last piece that I’ll just share with the member opposite — there has been a significant reduction in the amount of old-growth harvesting in British Columbia. We are working hard with First Nations across the province to develop plans to be able to talk about harvesting on their territories.

I just want to give a couple of shout-outs. I think of the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ First Nations, as an example, that are true stewards of forestry in their territories. They are developing their own integrated resource management plan. I know the member opposite knows that nation well. They are finding ways to be able to continue harvesting that meet the needs of their stewardship plans and meet the needs of their cultures.

Again, on this side of the House, we are going to build a strong, prosperous forest sector that delivers for all British Columbians.

Government Position
on Pipeline Projects

Tara Armstrong: Well, the Premier called it an imaginary pipeline and denounced it as a fictional dream, yet all signs point to the pipeline being a very real project.

Just last week the Globe and Mail reported that Ottawa and Alberta are close to a deal, but B.C. wasn’t even invited into the conversation. The Premier’s response? Well, it was to whine about being excluded from talks on a project he pretends isn’t serious.

My question to the Premier. We know he doesn’t like pipelines. Why doesn’t he just get up and say it?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’re talking about a project that has no proponent, no route, no possibility because of the massive cost it would entail of any kind of contract to pay for it. So it will require tens of billions of dollars of public subsidy. It’s a project that would undermine the tanker ban, which is a linchpin for literally tens of billions of dollars of projects, real projects, here in British Columbia.

You bet the Premier is standing up for British Columbia. He’ll always stand up for British Columbia. We’re also standing up for the interests of Canada, which B.C. is leading on economic development right now.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: That answer is exactly why B.C. needs not only a new government but also a new constitution. Our Premier believes oil is bad and tribal vetoes are good. But you can’t run a province on windmills and drum circles. The reality of this anti-civilizational ideology is that capital flees, prices soar and its hard-working citizens suffer.

Will the Premier admit that his government is taking this province back to the Stone Age?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Given what we have heard from this party in recent weeks, I think the Stone Age is way more advanced than that part of the world.

[11:10 a.m.]

Here in British Columbia, a province that has been built in its modern era by electrification, we’re seeing, like in the 1960s, an unprecedented investment in clean energy — clean energy that will fuel our province’s growth in the coming years, clean energy that will help us meet our economic and our climate objectives.

Since this government came to office…. There was no LNG project in B.C. — everybody knows that — when this government came to office. There are now four LNG projects under construction. We are leading this country in economic development. Four major projects are on the federal government’s project list. That’s what they think of the situation.

We’re not talking about MOUs or anything like that. The reason why they’re on the project list is that they’re real projects with real investors, real plans and real consultation with First Nations. That’s why we’re succeeding, and we’re going to continue to do it.

Government Funding of
Drug User Organizations and
Response to Drug Trafficking

Kristina Loewen: At the Damian Hudson murder trial, a former safe injection worker testified that she was told: “Drug dealers are part of our community. Without them, we don’t have clients.” She admitted she regularly worked with the dealers, tested their drugs, referred users to them and even helped one of them flee after a shooting.

Why is this government funding sites where staff enable trafficking instead of protecting communities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Every dollar of our public funding goes towards solving problems for people, and that’s our commitment. The DULF example is an example of our system working as it should. There was a trial and a prosecution of individuals that were found to be trafficking drugs.

When we found out, as a government, that public money…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …was used to purchase illegal substances, we ended that public funding.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an example of the system working, and we’ll continue to do that work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Conditions at B.C. Housing Facility

Linda Hepner: A disabled single mom in East Vancouver says she pays with trauma, not rent, because her B.C. Housing unit is full of mice, mould and cockroaches. She’s had more than 20 floods. Her kids are chronically sick, and she says B.C. Housing just hangs up on her when she calls for help. She decorates for Christmas just to make the place feel livable.

How many more B.C. Housing families need to spend Christmas with cockroaches before this minister cleans them up?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is an incredibly troubling situation, absolutely unacceptable. The health, safety and well-being of residents in B.C. Housing units is incredibly important, and it’s concerning to hear such situations.

B.C. Housing responds quickly, as in this situation. Treatment by qualified pest control technicians began early. During the last treatment, no cockroaches were found. But I can reassure the member opposite, because I know we share a concern about this, that in this particular case, a private pest control company attended the unit on five separate occasions. That work continues.

The residents are offered respite units when needed…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Please.

Hon. Christine Boyle: …while cleaning supports are provided and pest control treatments are provided. B.C. Housing has access to capital funding for improvements of buildings where needed. We will continue to work alongside tenants, alongside B.C. Housing, to ensure good, safe and dignified living conditions.

Grizzly Bear Population
and Risk Management

Scott McInnis: Tragically, last week a class of kids in Bella Coola was mauled by a grizzly bear on a nature trail. This is the latest in a string of grizzly attacks, including a fatal one in the East Kootenay.

[11:15 a.m.]

No matter who you speak with, guide-outfitters to scientists, grizzly bear populations are growing quickly. The 2017 ban on hunting wasn’t based on science. It was based on politics. As Jesse Zeman, executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, said: “With no hunting pressure, grizzlies and humans will increasingly occupy the same spaces, with inevitable consequences.”

My question to the government is a simple one. What is their strategy to manage the grizzly bear population?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is a horrific situation. Children are in the hospital, and a whole community is being asked to stay in their homes. The fear and the trauma are profound.

I really want to thank the teachers, who are the real heroes in this story.

Right now our focus with the conservation officers that are in Bella Coola is to locate the bears that did this attack. That’s what we’re focused on. We’re focused on keeping the community safe. Any time there’s a conflict with a bear, it’s a reminder that we share the outdoors with these wild animals.

We ended the grizzly bear trophy hunt following the requests of tourism operators, First Nations and a significant majority of British Columbians. When the hunt was open, bears were not typically hunted in the same areas where conflicts are occurring. When the hunt was open, it was not used as a management tool for population.

Our hearts go out to the community of Bella Coola and the Nuxalk Nation, and we’ll continue to work with the conservation officers, the RCMP, the school district and the First Nations Health Authority.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title
Court Case and Property Rights

Steve Kooner: Montrose Properties said they never got a chance to defend themselves in the Cowichan title case, even though their private land is in the affected area. They have now asked the Prime Minister and Attorney General of Canada to reopen the case. They say that this ruling could affect private property owners across B.C. and Canada.

This Premier keeps saying that he will protect private property rights. Will he stand with Montrose and ask the court to reopen the case so that private landowners can finally have their day in court, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, we were the first out of the gate as a government to say that we were pursuing a stay application and an appeal of this case. We made arguments in…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …this at the trial, asking the court to give notice to private landowners to make sure that they were notified of any consequence of the case. What the court told us was not to worry, because there wouldn’t be any consequence. We strongly disagree with that.

I want the House to know that we are working with all lawyers, all parties…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …and their counsel and strategizing based on the best way to make sure that the private property rights of these landowners are protected, and we’ll continue to do that work.

It’s a very serious matter. We take it very seriously. The other side…. The day after the case came out, they sent out a fundraising email to try to make money off of this for their political party. That’s not a sign of taking this seriously.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re going to focus on how to do the work that needs to happen on this matter, which is very important.

Community Safety Issues
in Williams Lake

Lorne Doerkson: On top of shootings and prolific offenders terrorizing our communities in British Columbia, Williams Lake just yesterday had our courthouse evacuated due to a bomb threat.

The Public Safety Minister insists that British Columbians are safe, while people in this province see the exact opposite every single day.

Why is this minister claiming we are safe while bomb threats have terrorized my community?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by thanking all of the people that are on the front line of our courthouses across this province, especially the sheriffs. I’m always grateful for the work that the sheriffs do to keep our courthouses safe and running smoothly in this province. I’m especially proud of their work when incidents happen in our courtrooms. I just want to thank them for the great effort that they do every day.

Public safety and our courthouses are of key importance to our government. We’ve been investing in sheriff resources in unprecedented ways. We have, I think, amongst the fastest-growing sheriff workforce that we’ve had in decades, to make sure that they are on the front line to keep our courthouses safe.

Again, I appreciate the work that they do. We’ll continue investing in them to make sure that we can continually add to the public safety of our courtrooms.

Comments by Human Rights
Commissioner and Government
Position on Drug Decriminalization

Misty Van Popta: This is a quick one that should get a quick answer.

The Premier now says decriminalization was his “failed experiment.” In a stunning contradiction, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner has stated that drug prohibition violates human rights.

Does the Premier agree with his handpicked Human Rights Commissioner?

Hon. David Eby: I do realize that if I had to stand up and correct the opposition every time they said something wrong, I’d be here on my feet the entire day. The member is simply incorrect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: The Human Rights Commissioner is selected by an all-party legislative committee. This specific Human Rights Commissioner was selected not once but twice, unanimously, by members on all sides of this House. The commissioner has an important job to do: to defend human rights in our province. We support her in that important work.

That doesn’t mean that we always agree. On this issue and on issues of involuntary care as well, we have significant disagreements with the Human Rights Commissioner, but we do it respectfully. She has an important role to play, and she continues to have the support of this side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I’d like to raise that the House Leader of the Fourth Party in question period, in my opinion, made two comments that I think are unparliamentary in this House.

First, the member said that we can’t run a province on drum circles. I think it is extremely unparliamentary to use the power of this place to make unjustifiable jabs at a person’s culture. It’s unjustified.

Secondly, the member said that B.C. needs a new constitution, not even recognizing that our constitution is Canadian, 1867 and 1982 repatriated.

The vitriol and ignorance that this party brings into this House is unacceptable. The entire House gets meaner and dumber every time these words come out. British Columbia deserves better, and this House deserves better.

Dallas Brodie: Mr. Speaker, those comments were directed at my House Leader, but we are not the ones introducing the inflammatory language in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Dallas Brodie: We hear language regularly, coming from your side of the House, calling people names, all the time, instead of dealing with the arguments.

The Premier regularly engages in extremely snide, condescending language, even directed at the leader of the opposition party. Anyone who questions him is met with an arrogant, condescending tone that is extremely dismissive, when we are here to ask valid questions of you.

You are the government. You are holding the files, and you are responsible. It’s your job to answer questions, and we do our best to bring questions to this House. The rudeness that we are confronted with is unbelievable. You should see what goes on down at this end of the bench here.

I will just make those comments and say that it’s not us who is bringing inflammatory language. It is you.

The Speaker: The Chair will take it under advisement and will get back to the House.

Anna Kindy: I’d like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[11:25 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Anna Kindy: I’d like to welcome Alexander Mader and Matthew Moore. Two grade 12 classes are visiting from a Campbell River high school, learning about law and government, on tour.

I would like to please welcome these people from Campbell River.

Reports from Committees

Statutory Officers
Appointment Committee

Janet Routledge: I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Special Committee to Appoint Statutory Officers.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Janet Routledge: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Janet Routledge: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, it is my pleasure to share some comments in my role as Chair of the committee.

This report contains the committee’s unanimous recommendation to appoint Sandy Hermiston as B.C.’s next Ombudsperson. Our committee conducted a rigorous and thorough recruitment process, during which we received 61 applications and interviewed five candidates. Throughout the process, we were particularly impressed by Ms. Hermiston.

Ms. Hermiston most recently served as the first Ombudsperson and Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner for Prince Edward Island. Prior to that, she served as the inaugural Ombudsperson for the Cayman Islands. In both roles, she oversaw complex and sensitive investigations, demonstrating deep experience and understanding of how to navigate these matters to achieve the best possible outcomes.

The committee was impressed by Ms. Hermiston’s success in establishing these two new Ombudsperson offices and appreciated her dedication to promoting awareness of their work. The committee is confident that her experience, guiding values and employee-centred leadership approach will be assets as she takes on the role of Ombudsperson in our province.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Ms. Hermiston.

On behalf of the committee and all Members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to thank Jay Chalke for his public service and advocacy as Ombudsperson for the past ten years and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. Chalke also joins us in the gallery today.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the Deputy Chair, the member for Surrey–Serpentine River, and all committee members for their thoughtful contributions and collaborative spirit they brought to our work.

Linda Hepner: I would also like to extend my appreciation to all members of the committee, particularly the Chair, the member for Burnaby North.

Throughout the course of her career as an Ombudsman, Sandy Hermiston has worked to increase the public’s understanding of her role and to promote transparency and accountability. Ms. Hermiston has accomplished this by adopting a solution-focused approach and delivering clear and concise reports to communicate her findings and recommendations.

Ms. Hermiston is also highly respected within the ombuds community, both nationally and internationally, and has worked as co–course director of “Advanced Issues in Ombuds Practice,” offered through Osgoode Hall Law School.

The committee recognizes the critical role that the Office of the Ombudsman plays, and we’re really confident that Ms. Hermiston’s experience, perspective and insights make her exceptionally well positioned to promote fairness in government services.

Welcome, Ms. Hermiston.

The Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

[11:30 a.m.]

Janet Routledge: I ask leave of the House to move a motion recommending the appointment of Sandra Hermiston as Ombudsperson for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Ombudsperson

Janet Routledge: I move:

[That the Legislative Assembly recommend to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor that Sandra Hermiston be appointed as Ombudsperson, pursuant to section 2 of the Ombudsperson Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 340), for a term of six years commencing on January 31, 2026.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I extend my sincere congratulations to Sandra Hermiston.

I welcome you to British Columbia. Thank you so much for your service.

I also would like to say a sincere thanks to Jay Chalke for his service to British Columbia.

Thank you so much.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 32.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 30.

In the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 24.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Mental Health
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Deputy Speaker: I’ll call the chamber to order and recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to speak about amendments to the Mental Health Act that were introduced yesterday. I want to begin by providing some background about how people who are in need of mental health care but do not voluntarily seek out or agree to that care become admitted to and treated in mental health facilities under the Mental Health Act.

Under the act, a person who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder can be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility designated under the act. This can only happen if certain requirements under the act are met.

The person must be examined by a physician or a nurse practitioner, and that physician or nurse practitioner must complete a medical certificate confirming the examination. If the physician or nurse practitioner are of the opinion that a person has a mental disorder, this must be stated in the medical certificate, along with the rationale for that diagnosis.

In the certificate, the physician or nurse practitioner must also state their opinion that the person needs treatment in a mental health facility to prevent substantial mental or physical deterioration or for their own protection, for the protection of others.

Section 8 of the act creates an obligation for the director of a designated mental health facility to ensure that all patients who are admitted to the facility are given appropriate professional services, care and treatment. It also enables directors, for those purposes, to authorize treatment for involuntary patients and, to that end, sign consent-to-treatment forms.

This authority, though, is limited only to safe and effective psychiatric treatment that is appropriate to the particular client’s circumstances and condition. The director may not authorize any other treatment, including non-psychiatric treatment related to the mental disorder for which the person has been admitted as an involuntary patient. This involves an assessment of the patient’s circumstances, including their appreciation and insight into their own condition and need for treatment.

Before beginning their treatment, patients, including involuntary patients, are asked to sign consent-for-treatment forms, which are prescribed in the mental health regulation.

[11:35 a.m.]

Under the act, the director of a designated mental health facility can authorize treatment and can sign consent-for-treatment forms for involuntary patients. This occurs in situations where the patient is incapable of appreciating the nature of treatment and their need for it and, therefore, does not have the capacity to give consent.

There is currently a provision in the act, subsection 31(1), known as the “deemed consent to treatment” section. This section has been in place for over 40 years, and it provides that where a mental health facility director authorizes treatment of an involuntary patient, that treatment is deemed to be given with the patient’s consent.

Subsection 31(1) is being challenged by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities in a matter that’s before the court. Counsel, in that case, is seeking to have that provision, among others, declared unconstitutional and struck down.

Over the years, the language in subsection 31(1) has sometimes resulted in uncertainty about its purpose. Although subsection 31(1) is often called the “deemed consent to treatment” provision, what it actually does is protect nurses, physicians and other staff working in mental health facilities from liability for damages, having provided involuntary mental health treatment, authorized by the director, in good faith and with reasonable care.

If the court, in the Council of Canadians with Disabilities matter, makes a declaration that subsection 31(1) is unconstitutional and is struck down, this may potentially lead to uncertainty for the people working on the front lines to provide mental health care in British Columbia’s mental health facilities, in terms of the legal protection they are afforded for doing their job. This could jeopardize the safety of patients and of others.

To mitigate this risk and alleviate the uncertainty that has emerged with respect to the role of subsection 31(1), government proposes amending the act to repeal subsection 31(1) and replace it with a more explicit, robust liability protection that is consistent with other protections in the Mental Health Act and in other legislation.

Section 16 of the Mental Health Act already includes protection from liability for certain types of actions taken under the act. These range from physicians and nurse practitioners signing medical certificates to enable involuntary admission of patients, to directors of mental health facilities recalling patients on leave back to facilities for further treatment.

However, until now, section 16 did not explicitly cover actions taken by health care workers and staff in administering treatment that is authorized by the director. That is what subsection 31(1) did, albeit through the “deemed consent” language which has caused this uncertainty.

The amendments proposed will harmonize liability protections in the act, will modernize the language and will ensure health care workers and facility staff are afforded adequate legal protections for providing essential and life-saving treatment. The liability protections in section 16 only apply to actions that are taken in good faith and with reasonable care.

The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act also includes liability protection for people involved in the provision of health care in B.C. Like section 16 of the Mental Health Act, the protections provided in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act also use a “good faith and reasonable care” threshold. However, this act does not apply to the provision of involuntary psychiatric care or treatment under the Mental Health Act.

In addition, there is a second provision in section 31 of the Mental Health Act that government is proposing to amend. It must be amended because it is linked to subsection 31(1), which is being repealed.

Sometimes involuntary patients may not agree with the treatment that they are receiving in a mental health facility. For example, perhaps the medication they are being given causes side effects that can’t be managed. Subsection 31(2) of the Mental Health Act provides these patients with an opportunity to request and obtain a second medical opinion on the appropriateness of their treatment.

This opinion can be provided by a physician chosen by a patient, as long as that physician is licensed to practise here in British Columbia. It could be another psychiatrist or the patient’s family physician, for example.

Involuntary patients can request second medical opinions periodically throughout the duration of their admission in a mental health facility. For example, one month following their initial admission, a patient can request a second medical opinion. If their initial admission is renewed for a further month, then at the end of that month, the patient is again able to ask for a second medical opinion.

[11:40 a.m.]

Once the director of the mental health facility receives a second medical opinion regarding an involuntary patient’s treatment, they are obligated to consider whether the patient’s treatment should be changed and, if so, to take action to make those changes happen.

Currently section 31(2) refers specifically to patients described in subsection (1) of section 31. These are patients detained on an involuntary basis under the authority of several different sections of the act, as well as involuntary patients who’ve been released on leave or transferred to a home approved under regulations.

Since we are proposing to repeal section 31(1), minor amendments are needed in the language of section 31(2) to ensure that that section continues to operate as intended so that involuntary patients’ right to a second medical opinion is preserved.

In conclusion, these amendments will not affect the constitutional claim that is currently before the court, nor will they impact how mental health care is provided to patients in British Columbia. Involuntary admissions and treatment will continue to be administered and provided in the same way as they are currently. People in British Columbia who need involuntary mental health treatment in order to prevent harm to themselves or others will continue to be able to receive that treatment.

What these amendments will do is support an effective mental health care system in the province by clearing up ambiguity and misconceptions about how the Mental Health Act functions and better protecting physicians, nurses and other mental health facility staff who are working in good faith and with reasonable care to provide mental health treatment that has been authorized by the medical director.

Our government will continue to do everything possible to protect B.C.’s Mental Health Act and its emphasis on caring for patients whose mental condition has deteriorated to the point where they have become a threat to themselves or to others.

I look forward to committee stage of this debate.

Claire Rattée: As the opposition critic for Mental Health and Addictions and as someone who has lived through addiction and mental illness myself, I take no pleasure in saying that I’m deeply uneasy about the direction that the government has chosen here.

I appreciate some of the clarification that has come from the Health Minister’s comments, as I suspected that this bill is more to do with the Charter challenge that is before the courts right now than actually making changes to the Mental Health Act that would help when it comes to involuntary care, specifically as it relates to drug treatment and concurrent disorders, which is, I believe, what the original intention might have been.

At least that was the way that the government wanted to couch this to the public. But if we’re being honest, it seems like this is just a direct result of the current Charter challenge.

This is a short bill — on paper, only a few lines altering the language in sections 16 and 31 of the Mental Health Act — but the implications of this bill are anything but small. What we are really debating today is whether this government is prepared to make meaningful reforms to mental health law in a way that protects rights; protects clinicians and, most importantly, protects the lives of people whose illnesses put them at the greatest risk of death or serious harm.

Unfortunately, this bill does not accomplish any of those goals. It seems that what we are doing is tinkering around the edges to manage the government’s legal risk while leaving patients, families, clinicians and the public in a dangerous grey zone.

I want to begin by grounding this debate in the reality that British Columbians are living right now. Since the declaration of the toxic drug public health emergency in April of 2016, more than 16,000 people in British Columbia have died. That is an unfathomable number, and those deaths are not abstract or distant. They are family members, loved ones, co-workers, young people with potential, parents raising children and community members who deserve better from their government.

I don’t think anyone in this House needs convincing that we are in a mental health and toxic drug crisis. What I find particularly challenging here is…. I run quick math on it, and, if we don’t have legislation coming forward in this session that is going to allow us to approach involuntary treatment of concurrent mental health and drug disorders, then we are likely going to lose another 450 people before we’re going to come back here in the spring to be able to legislate that.

As I’m reading this legislation currently, I have concerns that it’s actually removing our ability to be able to treat patients involuntarily, at least in many situations.

[11:45 a.m.]

Over roughly this same period, we have seen approximately a quarter of one million overdose events involving around 100,000 individuals. Fentanyl, which used to be detected in fewer than 5 percent of deaths, is now present in three-quarters of them.

Brain injury from repeated hypoxic events is now so widespread that experts describe it as the province’s largest emerging neurological epidemic.

Among nearly 13,000 overdose events involving children and adolescents, the outcomes are devastating. A single overdose in a young person can mean a 15 percent chance of another within a year and a 7 percent chance of a diagnosed brain injury.

The unrecognized injuries, the cognitive impairments that do not make it onto the medical chart, are even more widespread.

We have also seen the consequences in public safety. Between 2016 and 2024, violent and property offences in Vancouver’s central business district — meaning downtown, Yaletown and Gastown — rose sharply. Assaults increased by hundreds of cases. Robberies, offensive weapons charges, mischief and arson all rose significantly.

Many of these incidents involve people in acute psychiatric distress, people living with brain injuries from repeated overdoses and people whose illnesses have gone untreated for far too long. Mental illness, toxic drugs, homelessness and crime are colliding in our communities.

Families are desperate. Health care workers are burnt out. Police and paramedics are responding to the same people over and over again. The public sees this. Families see this. Health care workers, police and paramedics are living it every single day.

And into that reality, we are now being asked to make a very specific change to how we authorize involuntary psychiatric treatment in British Columbia. What concerns me is that I don’t think we’re being asked to make this change because we think it’s going to improve care for patients in British Columbia. I think that we’re being asked to make this change to shield the government from the outcome of this Charter challenge.

I think, particularly, the fact that Dr. Vigo gave the opinion eight months ago that no changes were needed to the Mental Health Act to be able to begin with involuntary care for people that are suffering from concurrent psychological disorders and substance use disorders tells me enough — that we don’t need to make these changes if we want to see involuntary care move forward, which means that the only option left is that this is to shield the government from potential outcomes from this Charter challenge.

This is being publicly framed as a small legal cleanup, but if it’s passed as written, it will have substantial consequences for the people we are supposed to be trying to help. To understand those consequences, I think we must understand what the law says today.

Under the Mental Health Act, a person may be detained involuntarily if they meet the criteria in section 22 or section 28. That determination is based on whether the person has a mental disorder, whether there is substantial risk of harm or deterioration and whether they cannot be suitably treated as a voluntary patient. That is the authority to detain. It does not, by itself, authorize treatment.

The ability to treat involuntary patients, including when they object, comes from section 31. Section 31(1) states that if someone is detained under certain sections of the act or placed on leave into an approved home, then any psychiatric treatment that is authorized by the director of the facility is deemed to be given with the consent of the patient.

In other words, the law treats involuntary patients as if they have consented to treatment, even if they have clearly refused it. The usual rules about consent and capacity in health care law do not apply here. There is no requirement to assess whether the person is capable of making a treatment decision, and there is no requirement to involve a substitute decision-maker. There is no statutory right for a capable involuntary patient to refuse psychiatric treatment. That is the reality of mental health law in British Columbia today.

There are legitimate concerns with that approach. The Ombudsperson has criticized it, people with lived experience have criticized it, and legal scholars have criticized it. British Columbia is the only province in Canada that still uses this status-based model. Everywhere else the law either requires capacity assessments, involves substitute decision-makers or provides tribunal oversight for treatment over objection.

That is why the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and other organizations are challenging section 31 in court. They argue, with some justification, that deemed consent violates life, liberty and security rights in section 7 of the Charter and the equality rights in section 15.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I want to be very clear. These concerns matter. There can be genuine harm when the law treats someone as having consented to treatment that they did not actually consent to, especially if they have experienced trauma in the mental health system or have a history of coercion.

The fact that British Columbia is unique in Canada on this point should give us pause, but that does not mean that the solution is simply to repeal section 31(1) and leave everything else untouched. That is what this bill does, and that is where my concern lies.

[11:50 a.m.]

If the “deemed consent” provision is removed, the Mental Health Act contains no framework for how treatment decisions are to be made for involuntary patients who refuse care. In that situation, the system defaults back to the general law of consent in British Columbia, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act.

That act says that every adult is presumed capable, unless proven otherwise; that a capable patient has the right to refuse treatment; and that the only time treatment can proceed without consent is in a narrowly defined emergency or through a substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable.

That sounds reasonable in theory, but it does not reflect the clinical reality of the people who are most often certified under the Mental Health Act. Many involuntary patients are not incapable in the narrow legal sense. They can understand information. They can repeat back risks and benefits. They can explain side effects. But they cannot appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment because of a condition called…. I apologize, because I am not a doctor….

I’d like to reserve my right to continue debate, noting the hour.

The Speaker: You’re moving a motion to adjourn the debate?

Claire Rattée: Yes.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 30 and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

Sunita Dhir: Section C reports progress on Bill 24 and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:35 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 30 — Employment Standards
(Serious Illness or Injury Leave)
Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 30, Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

We’ll begin by recognizing the minister if she should have any comments to make.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I look forward to the opportunity to debate a bill that is, I think, very important for working people in this province.

I wanted to introduce the team that will support us through these discussions: Lorie Hrycuik, our deputy minister in Labour; and Michael Tanner and Jake Ayers from the ministry policy branch.

I’ll leave it at that so we can get into it.

On clause 1.

Kiel Giddens: Again, happy birthday to the Chair.

I wanted to really speak about what we heard at second reading. I do think that it is about compassion for workers. That’s one of the reasons we’re discussing this. Our hearts go out to anyone who is in this province who is undergoing treatment for a serious illness, anyone who has been in a serious accident.

These are very challenging and difficult situations to be in. Everyone in this House, I think, can picture one of their loved ones, someone they know closely, that is undergoing cancer treatment or for a serious illness.

At second reading, I did share the story of my own mother, who was the victim of a serious accident back in the 2000s and how that has affected her life since. She has been able to recover, but it’s been a journey. I think that’s partly why we’re going to be discussing this.

Within employment standards, it is also very important that the rules are clear and that we have an employment standards system that works for both employers and employees. So as we get into the questions, a lot of this is going to be about finding out whether all of this can lead to healthy workplaces.

I think that healthy workplace environments are something that we want to foster, that we want to make sure that we don’t inadvertently create tension. We want to make sure that both employers and employees know their rights and that those are respected, again with that compassion in mind as we’re having this conversation.

Obviously, opening up the Employment Standards Act, there is a litany of law firms that have an interest in this. HR departments have an interest. Small business owners have an interest. So it’s important we ask a lot of questions, ensuring that the public can understand what these changes mean, that the rules are clear.

The Employment Standards Act has been amended a number of times over the last seven, eight years, I’m going to say, by this government. This is the second amendment this year. We had a bill in the spring, Bill 11, that spoke to, obviously, the removal of the requirement for sick notes. I know that has just been implemented in the last several weeks to come into force by regulation.

As we’re looking into this next amendment to the Employment Standards Act, I think we’ll maybe start with a question on the fact that this is the second employment standards amendment act brought in this year.

Why did the government choose to separate this from the previous amendment that was brought forward in the spring? Perhaps, in that response, maybe the minister could provide just some overall comments on rationale for the bill.

[11:40 a.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I think maybe I’ll just start with the second part of that question and just discuss the overall rationale for the bill.

This bill responds to a call from patient advocacy organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, who advocate for individuals who are experiencing the most difficult journeys of their lives, whether it’s a chronic illness that they have been diagnosed with and will be living with, whether it’s a cancer. And there are many other chronic conditions.

I would say, as well, circumstances that arise out of harms, that arise out of gender-based violence, for example, where we know that women who experience gender-based violence are likely to walk away with some form of brain injury. And in some cases, those brain injuries, those concussions that result from gender-based violence are devastating.

In these circumstances, all of us in this House heard stories about people living these circumstances who lost their jobs, had their job security threatened, whose employers did not meet their obligations under the Human Rights Act to accommodate their disability.

What we firmly believe is that the people who build our province and the people who contribute so much to our communities deserve to be protected when they are faced with a dramatic diagnosis of such a serious nature that they are required to take time away from their job in order to receive treatment or in order to heal. So significant consultation with employer groups, with a number of worker groups, with advocacy organizations for patient rights…. The result of those consultations was this bill.

With respect to our approach to the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, we passed legislation in the spring session to bring in, again, in response to calls from medical professionals, from doctors who have expressed, for a considerable amount of time, the concerns about the administrative burden imposed on them to engage in fruitless activities like writing sick notes for people who are suffering from very short-term illnesses like a cold or a flu….

Again, as a result of extensive consultation with affected parties and different groups, we brought the regulations for that bill into place just recently, as the member noted. We will always take an approach, particularly…. As the member notes, with respect to how our workplaces operate, there can be a very delicate balance there.

We want to ensure that rights are understood and that obligations are understood by all parties who are working in British Columbia’s workplaces. We want our workplaces in British Columbia to be the safest and most productive that they can possibly be, so we will always take the time that is necessary to ensure that we’re consulting with affected parties to ensure that we strike the right note and the appropriate balance.

[11:45 a.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I’ll add my question, and then, I believe, we’ll take a break for lunch in a moment here.

I appreciate the response from the minister and understanding. The groups that had brought this forward — I think that was also flagged at second reading. Really, some advocacy groups, particularly the B.C. Cancer Society, for example, and other groups advocating for patients…. I think that’s well noted.

I will say that that healthy workplace balance is something that is critical. We are talking about all types of workplaces in this case. Many, many workplaces already have policies in place that would deal with leaves such as the one we’re talking about in this bill. Many collective agreements in unionized workplaces already have provisions on these types of things available. But we are talking about a small, small sliver of challenging workplaces where there may be conflict, for example.

I think the minister was alluding to the fact that there are employers that are potentially bad actors, but I will say that is a very, very narrow margin. The vast majority of the businesses we’re talking about are mom-and-pop shops, small businesses that want clarity. It is important that we make sure that the rights and obligations are understood by both workers and employers in this case.

I appreciate hearing a little bit about the groups that have come forward and that there was a consultation process with both employer groups and worker organizations, along with those health advocacy groups. That’s an important voice.

I’m wondering. Perhaps the minister could describe a little bit more, after the break, on what the consultation process entailed. Who specifically was at the table for that?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:35 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages
and Health Care Costs Recovery Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, to order. We are on clause 1.

On clause 1 (continued).

Brennan Day: I think we left off somewhere around the “problematic product use” definition. I would just like to understand how that term was created and if any scientific body uses that explicitly or if it’s a recognized term in any other legislature, either in British Columbia or more broadly in Canada.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We spent some time last time talking about problematic product use and the basis of it and the reason for it. So what I will say to the question asked by the member is that in the opioid litigation, every province passed legislation that had similar language related to problematic use and a term similar to that.

To the question about does it show up anywhere, language like this shows up in every province across the country related to the opioid case. This tool is also, we think, useful for this matter.

Brennan Day: So if the term doesn’t have a clinical definition, then how can it sustain a damages action?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we have to understand it in terms of the purpose of the legislation and any litigation that might come from the legislation, and that is to capture harms that are done that result in costs.

We talked about some of the things yesterday that government does with respect to products, prevention campaigns in schools that we’ve seen or things like that that are all costs. There’s often, in law where you go after harms done that are not just based on clinical diagnoses…. It’s a matter of evidence in every matter and a matter of proving your case. But it’s not a requirement often that, to show a harm that is caused by a certain action, there be a clinically defined diagnosis in order to pursue that harm.

Brennan Day: I guess that’s a good transition over to the “general deterioration of health” definition. It seems like the general deterioration of health…. I think we can all attest that with this job, we’re all aging a little faster than normal. Why is biological aging included in a cause-of-action definition? Can the government confirm that this will not be used to attribute normal aging-related decline to vaping? It seems extremely broad here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: These questions are related, I think — the line of them, generally — to the concept of causation, which is up to anybody that goes before a court to prove.

If one side can say and prove to the decision-maker that the general deterioration of health was related to that product, and it’s captured, then they proved their case. If instead they can say that actually the deterioration was due to regular aging, then, of course, causation hasn’t been met in that matter. Probably the judge would find that. So it’s all a matter of evidence and how a decision-maker would view that evidence.

Brennan Day: Could you expand on what expert recommended that wording and why it’s included here?

Again, it seems extremely broad when we’re talking about harms related specifically to vaping, and it doesn’t seem like this puts any real limit.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this language is consistent with what was in a similar act, the opioids recovery act. That that language was there. Also, the limitation of every court action is whether or not you have the evidence to prove it.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

On the “wholesaler” definition, it seems like it remains largely undefined. Could you please clarify for us what exactly is meant by wholesaler and how that is distinguishable from a distributor or an importer? It is not clear in this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe we have a difference of viewpoint on that definition. I think, as it reads, “a person who distributes, sells or offers for sale vaping products to distributors, retailers or other persons for resale,” it is a term that clearly sets out what’s contained in “wholesaler.”

Maybe if the member has further specific questions, I can answer them.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.