Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Reann Gasper.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Jennifer Blatherwick: I stand to introduce four guests from the Service Employees International Union: Tyler Downey, president of SEIU health care; John Klein, secretary-treasurer; Gissel Yáñez, director of strategic initiatives. Tyler, John and Gissel visit us from Ontario, and they are accompanied by their B.C. organizing manager, Krystal Smith.

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

Pete Davis: Well, happy Mining Day, everyone.

On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like to welcome all the companies, suppliers and associations joining us today in the gallery. Mining built this province, and we need it to continue to drive our economy forward.

Thank you for being here, and I look forward to meeting many of you this afternoon and tonight.

Welcome.

Larry Neufeld: With us today on the precinct, and I believe in the chamber with us, are three members from Conuma Coal that are here for Mining Day. They work for Conuma Coal, a metallurgical coal supplier in the southeast that provides some excellent jobs and an excellent-quality product to the world markets.

I’d like to recognize Kendra McGreish, Jessica Simson and Cindy Paymen.

If you can give us a wave, that would be fantastic.

Please welcome them.

I have one more introduction. I see the individual standing here before me, so I’m going to do my best to embarrass him as I can. One of the most tenacious, most ferocious defenders of his…. He’s the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, and he’s been a tremendous proponent for the people of Tumbler Ridge. I was planning to say he’s one tough old fart, but I found out this morning that he’s actually younger than I am.

I will apologize to the Minister of Health that I got to him first, but I would like everyone to help me make Mayor Darryl Krakowka feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Today is Mining Day here at the B.C. Legislature. It’s a great opportunity to learn more about B.C.’s mining sector, their contribution to this province and the help they provide to build the economy of this province and create good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

We have today the whole spectrum of the mining sector here, from explorer to a junior mining company led by a former member of this House, Todd Stone; the Association for Mineral Exploration; the major mining companies led by the Mining Association of B.C.’s Michael Goehring; and the thousands of companies that supply the mining sector, led by the Mining Suppliers Association’s Alec Morrison.

Of course, there is almost everybody from the mining sector here today, and there will be a reception in the evening as well.

I just wanted to say briefly that I’ve been working with them for about a year. I want to say thanks to them for their exceptional contribution to this province, creating jobs, providing critical minerals. The relationships we have developed working together are the best.

I want to say thanks to them. We will work with them to make sure we keep moving mining projects forward responsibly and sustainably.

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

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

Condolences for Victims
of Apartment Fire in Hong Kong

Teresa Wat: I am deeply saddened by the tragic, fatal fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong. As someone who was born, raised and educated and worked in Hong Kong, this heartbreaking news feels especially close to home.

So far, 36 people have died, and 279 people are still out of touch. My thoughts and heartfelt condolences go out to the families, friends and loved ones of the victims.

May the injured recover soon, and may the affected community find strength and support during this difficult time.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: I have two sets of guests that I hope the House will join me in welcoming today.

I have two guests here from Islands Trust to witness the tabling of the 2024-25 annual Islands Trust report: Laura Patrick, Islands Trust Council chair; and Rueben Bronee, CAO of the Islands Trust.

Will the House join me in thanking them for all of their good work and making them feel welcome.

Additionally, I am delighted to welcome representatives from the Thompson-Nicola regional district here: Barbara Roden, chair of the board; as well as Scott Hildebrand, CAO; and Corbin Kelley, the external relations and advocacy adviser. It was great to get to meet with them and talk about the important work and leadership they are providing in the region.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome as well.

The Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Centre.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for stealing a little bit of my thunder. I’d like to echo her comments that we do, indeed, have three representatives of the Thompson-Nicola regional district. We have five MLAs that actually touch and are part of the TNRD.

I look forward to meeting them later. I know they’ve got a lot of important meetings with the government on many concerns.

So again, will the House make the TNRD feel welcome.

The Speaker: That was the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, not North Centre.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to thank all the members of the House. It felt like everybody, every member of the House, was at lunch today with the Council of Canadian Innovators.

We’ve got Benjamin and Kiersten, who helped put the event together. We had representatives from Trulioo, Sanctuary AI, Certn, Global Relay, AltaML, WELL Technologies, Redbrick and much more.

I want to thank them for hosting us all for lunch today and thank the members for attending.

I want to welcome them to the House today. Please join me in welcoming them.

The Speaker: Now the member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: I was Kamloops–North Thompson before, so there you go. You got a break on that.

The Mining Minister mentioned it as well, but as I said the other day, it does seem to be “former MLA returns to the Legislature” week in this building. In question period, sometimes we were compared to certain Muppet characters, since we sat next to each other, in terms of the heckling. But a good friend and former colleague is here, Todd Stone.

Will the House please make him welcome.

Heather Maahs: I would like to introduce Marcus Neels, who is here from Chilliwack. He’s a grade 12 student. He is the membership chair of my riding association. He is working in my office and here for the day in Victoria on work experience.

There’s one more thing I almost forgot. Keep your eyes open for Marcus. He’s a real go-getter in the world of politics.

Please welcome Marcus today.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As we pass the one-year mark of the creation of the Ministry of Infrastructure, I’m very pleased to be able to welcome several members of our small but mighty team to the Legislature today.

These members of the public service come to us from other ministries across government, bringing an incredible diversity and depth of experience that we benefit from as a ministry each and every day and that British Columbians benefit from in their communities.

[1:45 p.m.]

I hope that those joining us will feel comfortable enough to rise as they’re recognized.

We have Josie Midiang’a, manager of divisional operations with infrastructure policy and partnerships; Tasmin Millard, executive administrative assistant with infrastructure policy and partnerships; Sandhya Devkate, project and divisional coordinator with infrastructure policy and partnerships; Ali Prince, executive director, corporate services and community capital development; Joanne Walsh, director of capital financing and reporting with corporate services and community development; and Deborah Gogela, director of capital projects and planning.

We have Niki McVicar, senior executive assistant with the deputy minister’s office; Michael Taylor, documents coordinator with the deputy minister’s office; Nicole Fyfe, manager of executive operations with the deputy minister’s office; Autumn Doucette, senior writer, deputy minister’s office; Dana Eckardt, director of business services and community capital development; Krista Twigg, admin coordinator with community capital development; and Mandy Woytkiw, office administrator with community capital development.

Would the House please join me in thanking them so much for helping to build our communities — the hospitals, the schools, the long-term care homes and the student housing projects that we all rely on — and welcome them to the House today.

Macklin McCall: Yesterday, throughout the day, members of the Conservative caucus participated in scenario-based training with the RCMP at the armory here on the legislative precinct. This training focused on police use of force, officer decision-making and the realities that front-line members face in British Columbia.

It was an eye-opening and important opportunity, because for those of us privileged to serve in this Legislature, understanding what an officer experiences in the field is essential. The pressures, the training, the split-second judgment calls and the responsibility that comes with the lawful use of force are not abstract concepts. They are real, they are complex, and they shape the day-to-day work of the men and women who keep our communities safe.

I want to, again, extend my sincere thanks to the RCMP, to the National Police Federation, to the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Legislative Assembly Protective Services for their assistance, coordination and support in making this training possible.

Will the House please join me in welcoming the RCMP and the National Police Federation to the Legislature.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As a part of Mining Association of B.C.’s delegation that’s here today, Josh Moraes is here. He is here on behalf of the United Steelworkers, who represent thousands of forestry and mining workers across the province, including members at Highland Valley Copper and Red Chris mines.

Josh is responsible for legislative and policy issues at the USW for all across western Canada. He previously served as a staffer in our government for former ministers Harry Bains and Murray Rankin and later supported our full NDP caucus as stakeholder relations. He also was the regional director that got many of us elected in this House in the last election.

If everyone would please join me in welcoming him to this House.

Reann Gasper: Today I want to welcome a special friend. She is here on the precinct all week. She helped me on my campaign. She is the one you want in your corner.

I want to thank her for all her support with the House.

Please make her feel welcome.

Thank you, Shari.

Statements

Condolences for Victims
of Apartment Fire in Hong Kong

Hon Chan: I would like to echo my colleague the member for Richmond-Bridgeport. I have been monitoring the news in Hong Kong, my hometown, for the entire night.

My deepest condolences to the families who have been affected by this tragic fire. I know at least one firefighter has lost his life in the line of duty. It is one of the largest and deadliest fires in Hong Kong history, and the number of deaths is still rising.

May the victims rest in peace, and may we honour the bravery of all the firefighters at the front line.

Introductions by Members

Jordan Kealy: I’d like to introduce a great friend of mine. When I sat on the Peace River regional district board as a regional director, he helped teach me democracy.

He is also currently the mayor of Tumbler Ridge. He is fierce and tenacious at standing up for his community when it comes to the emergency room, when it comes to mining.

I just wanted to give a big thank you to Darryl Krakowka for coming down.

[1:50 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I’d like the House to welcome Mike Bertuzzi. He was a great help to me during the campaign, and he continues to be a great help to everyone on this side of the aisle.

Would the House make him feel very welcome.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I have two introductions today.

First, we have an online school watching question period today. We have the Oak and Orca School — their teacher Rachel Wright and a group of 14 students in grades 10 to 12.

Please would the House make them feel very welcome.

In the gallery today, representing the Career Education Society of British Columbia, is Executive Director Terri-Ann Wynans. She joins us today as we mark Career Education Week across B.C., a week to emphasize the value of career education and helping students discover their future. Terri-Ann and her team are an essential partner to government, and we want to thank them.

I have a fun fact for you, Hon. Speaker, as well. Terri happens to be the mother of — we will all know him in this House — Tim Wynans from PremTech, who helps us all out here.

A big welcome to Terri.

Gavin Dew: I join the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth in welcoming the folks from the Council of Canadian Innovators who are here today.

It was very striking to see the number of people who gathered at their lunch from across the aisle, from all parties. I know that for them and for people in their sector, they’re very big fans of competition. They’re believers that competition makes for better markets; makes for better products; makes for better outcomes for people, for consumers and for businesses.

It causes me to reflect on the fact that this House and this place is at its best when we are actually focused on competing over who can have better ideas and make things better for people. I wish we would do that more often.

Bryan Tepper: Just a quick thank-you to the representatives of the students for post-secondary that are here and met with our caucus today. I’ll be meeting later on with Solomon Yi-Kieran and thank them for being here with their concerns.

Also, I hear it’s the Langley-Abbotsford MLA’s birthday today, so I’ll just wish him a happy birthday, if everybody would give him a hand.

George Anderson: Today is a very special day in that I’d like to wish my colleague from Langley-Abbotsford a very happy birthday. I won’t say how old this person is, but I will note that their first campaign slogan was “Railways are the future.”

So happy birthday.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Okay, if there are no more introductions, I have something to say.

Hon. Members, on Tuesday, November 25, the Third Party House Leader raised a point of order regarding the introduction of a bill by the Leader of the Fourth Party. Specifically, the Third Party House Leader took issue with the scope of the introductory remarks offered by the Leader of the Fourth Party.

The Chair thanks the Third Party House Leader and the Leader of the Fourth Party for their submissions and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

The House may benefit from a historical perspective on the proceedings known as the introduction and first reading of a bill. As members know, British Columbia adopted the Westminster parliamentary system, which is still adhered to in the U.K. House of Commons.

In that institution, the practice remains that a bill is introduced by reading of the short title of a bill and by an order for the bill to be printed. This is as succinct and focused as parliamentary procedure gets. For over a century, this House followed the same practice in accordance with Standing Order 74, which provides: “Every bill shall be introduced upon a motion specifying the title of the bill.”

[1:55 p.m.]

In 1985, that practice changed upon the adoption of recommendations presented by a parliamentary committee. One evolution in parliamentary procedure stemming from that came in the form of practice recommendation No. 5, which states: “Permit a statement not to exceed two minutes by the member in charge of introduction of a bill to explain its purpose. No further debate shall be permitted at this stage.”

As noted in Parliamentary Practice of British Columbia, fifth edition, at page 239, at introduction and first reading, a member is expected to introduce the bill by stating its title and briefly outlining its purpose. This expectation is reflected in other parliamentary authorities that the Chair consulted.

For example, Beauchesne, sixth edition, at paragraph 645, states: “At this stage, it is not permissible to argue the bill. Discussion on the bill’s merits may take place on the motion for the second reading. The member is only permitted to explain the provision of the bill in order that the House will understand its purport.”

As the Chair noted in guidance to the House on Thursday, November 20, the provisions of practice recommendation No. 5 are not to be abused to allow for the introduction of arguments that should otherwise be presented by members in subsequent stages of the debate on a bill.

As is the case with all members of the House, the Chair does not have the benefit of viewing the contents of a bill upon introduction and first reading, so a member’s remarks in relation to the bill’s contents may not always be clear. But it appears to the Chair that any member is perfectly capable of providing a brief, objective overview of the contents of their bill without offering arguments or opinions, which, as noted, can be canvassed in subsequent stages of debate.

While the Chair tends to provide leniency, the Chair again wishes to assure the House that the Chair is prepared to intervene should a member stray from these expectations at introduction and first reading of a bill.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M225 — Secure Procurement in
Respect of China Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Secure Procurement in Respect of China Act.

Tara Armstrong: I move that a bill intituled Secure Procurement in Respect of China Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Every procurement decision made by the government is a choice, a choice about who we trust and who we empower. For too long, British Columbia has been directing public money to a hostile communist dictatorship in China, whose actions threaten our citizens, undermine our democracy and destabilize our allies.

This bill takes a simple, principled stand.

First, it prevents the province from purchasing goods or services from entities owned or controlled by the People’s Republic of China when comparable goods or services are available from Canadian businesses or from our trusted democratic partners.

Second, it requires full transparency. The bill compels the government to publicly disclose the total value of all contracts awarded to PRC-controlled firms.

The need for this bill is clear. The PRC is interfering in Canadian elections, as confirmed by Justice Hogue’s federal inquiry. It has targeted Canadian citizens, like Victor Ho, with multi-million-dollar bounties, as confirmed by Global Affairs Canada. And it has imposed punishing tariffs on seafood and agriculture sectors.

The PRC continues to threaten our democratic allies, such as Taiwan. Why would we reward such hostility with multi-billion-dollar contracts?

[2:00 p.m.]

British Columbia has a choice: stand with Canada or enrich a hostile communist dictatorship. This bill ensures that we choose Canada.

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

Division has been called.

[2:05 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Members, the question is first reading of the bill introduced by the House Leader of the Fourth Party.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 84
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	Kindy
Milobar	Rustad	Banman
Halford	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Valeriote	Botterell	Brodie
Armstrong	Bhangu	Gasper
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Tepper	Mok	Maahs
Kealy	Sturko	Boultbee
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Doerkson	Luck	Block
NAYS — 4
Warbus	Wat	Kooner
	Chan

Tara Armstrong: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Point of Order

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just a point of order, Hon. Speaker.

I listened to your ruling, and I want to quote, “Recommendation No. 5 is not to be abused to allow for the introduction of arguments that should otherwise be presented by members in subsequent stages of debate,” and also your reference that any member is perfectly capable of providing a brief, objective overview of the contents of the bill without offering arguments or opinions.

I think the record would show that the House Leader of the Fourth Party started her statement by offering arguments and opinion and finished her statement by offering arguments and opinion. So I’m just a little confused by the ruling versus what happened immediately after that.

I wonder if the Speaker might share where it is an argument versus where it is fact-based, because this very much was an argument and not so much about the contents of the bill.

The Speaker: Minister, your point is well taken. Thank you very much for the reminder to the House.

[2:15 p.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M226 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Dana Lajeunesse presented a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Dana Lajeunesse: I move that a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Today I wish to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, known as Xavier’s law. The bill is named in memory of Xavier Rasul-Jankovics, a young boy from my community whose life was tragically taken by a reckless driver earlier this year. His family’s advocacy and determination have shaped this legislation and its goal to prevent tragedies like this from happening.

Xavier’s law creates a new 30-day driving prohibition for reckless driving, the kind of extreme, dangerous behaviour that puts lives at risk. It gives police clear authority to act immediately when someone drives in a way that shows wilful disregard for the safety of others.

The bill also requires police to report every reckless driving incident to the superintendent of motor vehicles, ensuring that serious patterns of dangerous driving are reviewed and acted upon using the existing powers of the Motor Vehicle Act.

By defining “reckless driving” based on proven models used in other provinces, this bill closes a gap in our current law and brings British Columbia’s approach in line with some of the strongest road safety standards in Canada. Xavier’s law focuses on prevention, accountability and public safety. It gives police and the superintendent of motor vehicles new tools to protect the public and reinforces that reckless driving has no place on our roads.

I’m proud to introduce this legislation in Xavier’s name and in honour of every family who has lost someone to dangerous driving.

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

Motion approved.

Dana Lajeunesse: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Mining Day

Darlene Rotchford: It’s an honour to rise in the House today to recognize B.C. Mining Day and to celebrate an industry that has been central to our province’s story since the mid-1800s.

British Columbia is home to more than half of the minerals identified on Canada’s critical minerals list. Across our province, advanced exploration and development projects are underway for copper, nickel, zinc, rare earth elements, and so much more.

Mining remains a cornerstone of our economy, supporting roughly 40,000 good, family-supporting jobs in our communities large and small. Today approximately 1,000 mining and mineral exploration companies are headquartered right here in British Columbia, a clear reflection of the confidence that investors place in our skilled workforce, our resources and our regulatory stability.

Last year alone, mineral exploration expenditures reached $552 million, the fourth-largest on record, and mining production was valued at $16.5 billion. British Columbia produces 54 percent of Canada’s copper and is the country’s sole producer of molybdenum.

Our government is committed to building on this strong foundation. Last year we launched B.C.’s critical minerals strategy to seize a new opportunity. In the global clean energy economy, we continue to foster strong partnerships and attract investments through competitive fiscal incentives, such as the mining exploration tax credit, the flow-through share tax credit and the new mine allowance. We’ve also made real progress in permitting efficiency, reducing a regional permitting backlog of 66 percent for mineral explorations and 67 percent for sand and gravel over the last two years.

We recognize the tremendous opportunity in this sector, but we also must acknowledge the risk borne by the people who work in it. I grew up in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, home of the Westray mine disaster in 1992, where 26 miners were killed. That tragedy led to the creation of the Westray law and serves as a lasting reminder of the importance of workplace safety. Recent deaths in British Columbia’s mining sector reinforce the need to continue vigilance so every worker returns home safe.

On this B.C. Mining Day, we will honour the workers, the families, the communities and the partners who make this industry possible.

Thank you to everyone who contributes to the responsible resource development in our province of British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

University of Northern B.C.

Kiel Giddens: This is a special year as the province celebrates the 35th anniversary of the University of Northern British Columbia, an institution born from one of the most remarkable grassroots movements in our province’s history.

The dream of a northern university goes back many decades, but its modern story began in 1987, when a handful of local residents gathered in Prince George to ask a simple question: can the North build a university of its own? Their idea sparked a movement that swept across the region. Communities rallied. Local governments endorsed the vision, and northern British Columbians made it clear that our region was ready.

By 1988, a message was carried here to Victoria. Some 16,000 northerners signed a petition in support of creating a full university for northern B.C. And in a symbolic gesture, each person contributed $5 to show that this institution belonged to the people of the North. Their determination led ultimately to this Legislature passing the UNBC Act on June 22, 1990, officially creating the University of Northern British Columbia.

Among the early leaders who shaped the future of the institution was UNBC’s first chancellor, Iona Campagnolo, who would later serve as British Columbia’s 27th Lieutenant Governor. Her leadership helped anchor the values of excellence, integrity and service that continue to define the university today.

UNBC has grown into one of Canada’s leading small research universities, and as the main campus is in my riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, I am so proud of the legacy those early citizens created.

To everyone involved — from the founders, the petition signers, to all of the faculty and staff, to the students and alumni: thank you for shaping a university built by the North for the North.

Please join me in recognizing UNBC on its 35th anniversary.

Career Education Week

Sunita Dhir: I rise today virtually to recognize Career Education Week in British Columbia, a week dedicated to celebrating the importance of career exploration and skill development in our K-to-12 schools.

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Terri-Ann Wynans, executive director of the Career Education Society of B.C., who has joined us in the gallery today.

From November 24 to 28, students across B.C. will have opportunities to explore career options and plan for their future through local, regional and provincial career education events and activities.

Career development is one of the three pillars of our education system, helping every learner become an educated citizen. It goes beyond preparing students for a job. It is about helping them discover their interests, build their skills and understand how they can contribute to a healthy society and a strong, sustainable economy. Our school system aims to help learners reach their full potential and develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to thrive beyond the classroom.

Through partnership with stakeholders, our government supports career programs that connect diverse fields — from technology to trades, health care to arts — gaining the skills that will serve them wherever life takes them. Through counselling, guest presenters and career fairs, students build confidence, curiosity, experience and leadership.

Now in its second year, Career Education Week gives schools, communities and employers a chance to celebrate this important work. I want to thank the educators, mentors, counsellors, organizations and families who guide students on their career paths and strengthen our economy.

Dress for Success Event and
Career Development for Women

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise to honour Dress for Success. On November 1, I had the privilege of attending their annual event, Watch Her Soar, where we gathered to celebrate the organization’s successes and the very real impact it has on lives. It was an evening filled with stories of courage, gratitude and hope. The evening featured makeovers, fashion shows, auctions, a speakeasy and even a casino.

[2:25 p.m.]

I really wish I had a slideshow running behind me so you could see the makeovers — but not just the hair, makeup and clothing — to see how the countenance of the women changed. That was the transformation. It was more than clothing. It was confidence, dignity and a renewed sense of possibility.

Behind every outfit is a team of volunteers and mentors who stand behind women as they rebuild, re-enter the workforce or reinvent their path forward.

In Kelowna, where the cost of living and housing pressures put real strain on families, especially single mothers and women re-establishing financial independence, Dress for Success fills a critical gap. They help clients move from surviving to thriving by offering career development programs, mentorship, networking and ongoing support long after the clothing appointment is over.

At the November 1 event, I heard stories of women who walked through their doors uncertain and overwhelmed and walked out feeling seen, valued and equipped to succeed. One of the volunteers, now a successful woman in leadership, shared her own story of living in a bus shelter and having to plead for a job.

Well, that manager that she pleaded with gave her a challenging interview, made her work for the job, and also bought her two outfits and a chance to regain her dignity. That transformation is something a program alone cannot replicate. It comes from community, compassion and human connection.

I want to extend my sincere thanks to the volunteers, donors and organizers who make Dress for Success Kelowna possible. Their work strengthens our local workforce, our families and our communities.

To the women they serve: your resilience inspires us. We see you, we support you, and we celebrate your successes.

Cedar Yellow Point Artisan Tour
and Ladysmith Festival of Lights

Stephanie Higginson: It is a magical time of year, and in Ladysmith-Oceanside, that’s marked by two annual events that highlight the very best of the holiday season.

The Cedar Yellow Point Artisan Tour runs for three weekends in November and December. For more than four decades, this self-guided tour has been a vibrant showcase of the creativity, skill and spirit of our local makers and producers. There are 17 stops for visitors to travel through the winding roads of Cedar and Yellow Point and step inside the workshops, studios, barns and galleries where art and agriculture come to life.

Whether it’s hand-turned wood, pottery, textiles or local farm products, every stop on the tour reflects the talent and character of this remarkable community. The Cedar Yellow Point Artisans Tour strengthens our local economy, supports livelihoods rooted in creativity and is a testament to the power of art and agriculture to bring community together.

This Thursday marks the beginning of the Ladysmith Festival of Lights, which will run until January 10. Since 1987, the Festival of Lights has been one of Vancouver Island’s most magical traditions. Every year the town of Ladysmith transforms into a breathtaking display of more than half a million lights, illuminating not just our streets but our sense of community and our shared holiday joy.

The festival is powered by volunteers — people who give countless hours to string lights, creating a celebration that brings families together from across the Island. Their dedication reminds us that the brightest lights in Ladysmith-Oceanside aren’t the ones on our buildings but the ones in our communities.

As we head into the holiday season, I invite you all to Ladysmith-Oceanside to experience the Cedar Yellow Point Artisans Tour and the Ladysmith Festival of Lights. Let’s support the artisans who give our regions their character and charm and remember what the Festival of Lights represents: generosity, connection and the spirit of holidays at its very best.

Parade with a Purpose
Fundraiser for Youth Mental Health

Gavin Dew: Parade with a Purpose began with something very small: Pam, Shadia and Santa Claus driving through Kettle Valley, collecting food and lifting spirits in the darkest days of the pandemic. What started with just three humble floats on neighbourhood streets has quickly grown into one of Kelowna’s most meaningful holiday traditions, lighting up downtown and drawing thousands of people to Bernard Avenue.

From its humble beginnings in Kettle Valley, this parade has been about more than lights and music. Partnering first with the Bridge Youth and Family Services, Parade with a Purpose helped bring the youth recovery house to life, raising over $700,000 to support a live-in program for young people facing substance use and mental health challenges.

[2:30 p.m.]

Now in partnership with the KGH Foundation, every dollar raised supports critical youth mental health care in our region, from new services in West Kelowna to mobile outreach and Georgia’s wish, creating safe spaces for conversation and support.

For the Turgeon and Doty families, this is not abstract. The purpose behind the parade comes from real loss — Ryan’s story, Cody’s story and Georgia’s story.

Georgia died before her 19th birthday, after battling mental health struggles without the support she needed. Ryan died from mental health and addiction after being given fentanyl by a neighbour. Cody passed away from an accidental overdose. These are not statistics. These are our kids, our neighbours and part of the fabric of our community. Their light continues to guide this work.

This parade is their families’ prayer in motion, a way of turning grief into purpose, sorrow into service and heartbreak into hope. And 100 percent of the funds raised go to youth mental health care. It’s not done for recognition or rewards. It’s done because it matters.

So if you live in or near Kelowna, please show up. Bring your family downtown on December 6. Line the parade route. Make a donation. And keep talking to the young people in your life.

When we lift our youth together, we honour those we’ve lost and help make sure fewer families have to walk the same road.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Members, before we start question period, the Chair has a ruling on another point of order.

Hon. Members, on Tuesday, November 25, the Minister of Finance raised a point of order regarding remarks by the Fourth Party House Leader that she viewed to be unparliamentary.

The Chair thanks the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Fourth Party for their submissions and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

Words spoken in this chamber no doubt garner much attention and can shape broader dialogue about the issues of the day. This is a place of debate, where members must be able to exchange views and ideas passionately and fiercely, and the Chair firmly believes that can be done in a respectful manner.

As noted in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, at page 151: “The codification of unparliamentary language is impractical, as the Speaker must consider the context in which the words were spoken — that is, the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and whether or not the remarks created disorder in the House.”

If a member believes that unparliamentary language was used, I invite them to rise on a point of order at the appropriate time to bring the infraction to the attention of the Chair so that it may be assessed on these criteria.

In the case of submissions by the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Fourth Party on the point of order raised yesterday, arguments offered amounted to debate, as they introduced various opinions unrelated to a breach of decorum. The perceived infractions could have been simply stated with the request that the Chair determine whether language used was unparliamentary.

As the Chair has stated many times before, the role of the Chair is limited to upholding the rules that govern the conduct of parliamentary proceedings and to assessing whether they have been breached. To preserve the impartiality of the office the Chair holds, it is inappropriate to intervene in disputes between members that, to put it in simple terms, amount to tit-for-tat submissions to the Chair.

The Chair implores all members to conduct and hold themselves to a standard that befits the high public office that they hold.

Oral Questions

Cowichan Tribes Land Title
Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad: Because of the Cowichan court ruling, I think we’ve seen something unprecedented in British Columbia, which is a new class action lawsuit that is actually being brought forward against the province and the federal government by property owners because the governments “failed to properly defend the rights of property owners.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Furthermore, it alleges that governments misled property owners by claiming their land was safe, marketable and free from material qualifications, when these governments knew that wasn’t true.

A simple question through to the Premier. Does every private property owner in the province have to go forward and join this class action suit to get this government to finally protect private property rights in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to start by being perfectly clear to those that are listening at home. Land titles across British Columbia and Richmond are valid. It is simply inaccurate to suggest otherwise. People own their properties, regardless of where it is located in the province.

I’ve talked many times, in this debate, of the province’s strong stand in protecting the private property rights of those individuals during this Cowichan claim. We’ve canvassed many times the steps we’ve taken as a government to stand up for the uncertainty that was created by the decision that we strongly disagree with, and we’ll continue to do so.

In contrast, what we’ve had from the other side is confusion, mixed messaging, sending fundraising emails over this issue to try to earn money for their political party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve had the opposition leader say mixed things, both to get maybe fundraising emails from their political party and to the news.

Recently, when asked about what he was hearing from Indigenous leaders, the opposition leader said:

“They know section 35 rights exist. They’ve been fighting all their lives, fighting for 170 years, 160 years for their land to be returned to them. That’s what they would like to see. The question becomes: how do we do that as part of reconciliation?

“Our approach has always been to talk about what I call economic reconciliation, because yes, lands need to be returned. But we can do it in a way that is achieving a goal that is different than just land. We’ve got to get to this place where Indigenous people are fully engaged and prosperous, and returning land is going to be part of that, to be able to unlock that potential.”

What he says between what we hear in this House often, with the misinformation and fearmongering, and what he says in the media is all mixed and complicated.

We are going to stay focused on the issues that matter to British Columbians to resolve issues that we know are complicated and stand with both the Indigenous people of this province and the private property owners of Richmond.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

John Rustad: Sure, Mr. Speaker.

I do find it entertaining that the minister seems to be completely dismissive of the concerns of landowners. So let’s read something else from this lawsuit. It says that the landowners suffered economic and psychological harm and that the government conduct was unlawful and contrary to their duties of good faith and candour.

This is pretty straightforward. The city of Richmond has been very clear in saying that the province did not argue to protect private property rights. The landowners are now saying very clearly that the province did not argue to protect private property rights. Even the judge made the case that the province did not stand up and argue to protect private property rights.

Perhaps a simpler question. Why does this Premier think that everybody else is wrong and that he’s right?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What the opposition leader just said is simply not true. I invite him to read the 800 pages of that decision where it lays out what the province’s arguments were, what we said about upholding our Land Titles Act and defending the property rights of individuals in this province. I invite him to read that, because I think he would come to a different conclusion if he did.

What we won’t do is send….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What we won’t do and what is dismissive is to use this as a fundraising tactic for their own political party, to use this as something to fearmonger across this province.

We’re going to be focused on the issues to resolve this matter…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will come to order. Members will be quiet.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …and not participate in what the other side is doing, which is just going to create more chaos.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Speaker: Before the Chair takes the next question, I want to caution all members not to use electronic devices during the question period.

Residential Tenancy Legislation and
Supportive Housing Safety Concerns

Peter Milobar: Well, supportive housing providers have been begging this government for quite some time now to change the rental tenancy act rules so their units do not apply, because they are not able to protect the vast majority of their tenants from violent tenants and drug-dealing tenants.

In the summertime, the former minister committed to look at this and bring forward changes by October. It is now almost December.

Question to the new Minister of Housing. Is the government still committed to removing supportive housing units from the rental tenancy act, and if so, when can they expect those changes?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is important work for us as a government because we are working so closely with communities and local governments all across this province to continue to build badly needed supportive housing that improves safety for individuals and communities.

We set up a working group with supportive housing providers. We continue to be in conversation and are working through details of how we address safety concerns in these buildings for tenants and staff while continuing to support and protect tenant rights and to continue to expand supportive housing in every community where it’s needed, for the safety of all.

Members across the aisle have been spreading misinformation about supportive housing, have been unsupportive of this badly needed housing in communities. That is greatly concerning, because we know that the greater safety risks are when people are left to….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Order, Members. Order.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The greater risk to communities is when people are left to fend for themselves in encampments or on the street. We will continue to work with providers, with communities and with local governments on tangible solutions.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar: That answer right there very clearly demonstrates how this government tries to tell stakeholders and other providers that they’re doing one thing, and their actions are the complete opposite.

I wouldn’t want to be accused of spreading misinformation, so I’m going to read directly from appendix E, the minimum requirements checklist for the negotiated request for proposals of supportive housing–operated services in Kamloops, B.C., an addendum that is now part of B.C. Housing, housing packages for supportive housing.

It says: “Please note. Only organizations who agree to the following requirements for supportive housing operations will be considered for this site.” This has been launched recently by this government.

Let’s look at a few things you have to agree to. “Will residents be allowed to use substances on site at this site, yes or no?” If you say no, you’re out. “Do you agree to operate this model under the minimal-barrier harm reduction model, yes or no?” Has to be a yes, or you’re out.

Now, that creates the environment for drug dealers to move in, and the rental tenancy act is why it needs to be changed.

Let’s look at the last….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Peter Milobar: Let’s look at another clause: “Do you understand that residents of permanent supportive housing are entitled to the tenancy protections outlined for permanent supportive housing in the B.C. Residential Tenancy Act and regulations?”

It doesn’t sound like a government trying…

The Speaker: Question.

Peter Milobar: …to remove this from supportive housing operators.

Why is the minister doing one thing out in the real world and saying something completely different in this House?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members. Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I will reiterate that we’re working closely with supportive housing providers to understand the challenges that are being faced. We know that there are housing providers that are facing greater challenge due to a higher level of mental health needs, brain injury and more.

We’re working alongside those providers…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister answer, please. Be quiet.

Please continue.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: …to ensure success in this housing for the residents and tenants in these houses, as well as staff and communities. We want to make sure that our vulnerable neighbours have a safe place to call home, to rest their heads.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let’s be courteous to each other.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We want to make sure that our most vulnerable neighbours have a safe place to call home and to connect with health services, addiction supports, mental health supports and more that will help them get back on their feet and recover.

We know that is what makes a difference for individuals and communities, and we’ll continue that work.

Government Action on Homelessness

Rob Botterell: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, when I seek to get answers from the other side of the House, I don’t seek to create chaos based on unread decisions. I read the Cowichan decision. My question is focused on getting answers to questions that are important, that don’t foster chaos but foster a sense of collaboration and solutions.

On December 6, the mayor of Sidney has been invited to spend the night in the winter cold alongside advocates from St. Andrew Anglican Church, Greater Victoria Acting Together and Homes for Living.

Earlier this year the Sidney council voted against installing an extreme weather shelter in the community. Part of the problem is the province’s ad hoc approach to shelter, which often forces municipalities to reopen what is a difficult debate on shelter locations every year. In Sidney, we need rapid response in addition to systemic change.

My question is to the Minister of Housing. Are you ready to provide rapid wraparound housing and support to the unhoused community in Sidney if the mayor and council reverse their decision?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to thank the member opposite, both for the question and his advocacy on this….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to thank the member opposite for his advocacy on this front and for vulnerable and homeless populations.

Absolutely, we are ready to work with local governments who want to work with us on solutions, particularly where there are good solutions on the table. There are local governments all over this province who have been excellent partners in making land or spaces available, in reaching out to the province proactively to find good solutions.

I’m incredibly grateful for the level of leadership that we see from communities all over this province in working alongside us, and we stand ready to continue to do that work wherever we can.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: There’s a phrase sometimes used among social advocates: “Displacement equals death.” Tragically, last week Cowichan exemplified the phrase.

On November 17, residents of an encampment were violently evicted. The next day Cowichan saw a terrifying spike in drug poisonings. This isn’t a coincidence. When communities are ruptured and people are separated from supports, people die.

Similar sweeps at the Abbotsford highway rest stop and communities across B.C. amount to violence and exacerbate social disorder. Perhaps city police departments wouldn’t have ballooning budgets if residents had access to dignified housing.

My question is to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. It is clear that displacement solves nothing and causes great harm. As winter sets in, what other tools will this government use to take care of its citizens?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks again to the member opposite for that question. We know that encampments are not a safe, long-term option for residents. That’s why we’re working so strongly on providing other options.

In North Cowichan and Duncan, B.C. Housing is currently funding 52 shelter spaces for people experiencing homelessness. An additional temporary winter shelter with 24 beds is set to open any day now.

As well, the province and Duncan are partnering together on homeless and encampment response temporary housing solutions, with a 34-unit tiny-home village that welcomes people who are transitioning out of homelessness.

We know that these are the answers that provide good, long-term supports, and we’ll continue to do that work.

[2:50 p.m.]

Government Spending Priorities

Dallas Brodie: Record deficits, record debt, stagnant wages, rising costs — and productive people are fleeing our province. The B.C. Business Council reports that since 2019, public administration has grown a massive 44 percent in this province. This is a staggering number, and what have we gotten for it?

Health care has gotten worse. Schools are more crowded. Streets are terribly unsafe. The Premier has maxed out the credit card on ideological wars on climate, race and gender.

My question to the Premier is this. When will he put an end to this grotesque government waste, fraud and abuse and let the public service actually fix what’s broken?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

When this government came in, in 2017, there was an incredible deficit of services that people in British Columbia needed — hospitals, schools, additional safety. We have been building that infrastructure.

At the same time, it is true that economic conditions have been very challenging, with the pandemic, what happened in terms of supply chain, interest rates and now a trade war. We have faced serious economic challenges globally. It’s not unique to B.C. It’s not unique to Canada.

In this context, we must be absolutely certain that every dollar we spend is supporting British Columbians to the maximum possible. That is why we are doing the work to ensure that every ministry is evaluating their programs. Our efficiency review is fully underway. We’ve put in a hiring freeze. We’ve already seen 1,000 less public servants.

At the same time, we must protect the services that British Columbians rely on, and we’ll do that.

The Speaker: Supplemental.

Dallas Brodie: With the Premier in charge, the only thing growing is government debt. The Fraser Institute reported yesterday that our debt will increase by more than $80 billion over the next four years. A jump from $115 billion in 2024 to $208 billion by 2028. That’s just four years.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. Well, we’ve run out, and the productive, hard-working people of this province are running out of B.C. Last year 70,000 people left British Columbia, another sad record set by this government.

My question for the Premier is this. How many people need to flee British Columbia before he reverses course and makes the necessary deep cuts to taxes and government waste?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: While I thank the member for the question, I think I should clarify a few things. We’ve added nearly 200,000 private sector jobs in British Columbia since 2017, over 27,000 private sector jobs just last year. We’re one of the leaders in the entire country.

When the member gets up and spews misinformation, which is a daily occurrence, I think it’s important for us to correct.

Now, the member also gets up in the House and says people are fleeing. The next day she says: “There are too many people. Let’s get rid of all the immigrants. There are too many immigrants.”

This member needs to clarify, I think, what their position is. Do they want more people? Do we want to be able to attract the best talent in the world, to be able to support innovation, to support our companies, to support our economy and our communities, or do they not want those people? It’s not entirely clear to me, given their changing position day to day.

Post-Secondary Tuition Policy

Gavin Dew: With so many student leaders on the precinct today, I’m reminded of my own time in student government at UBC.

The 1990s NDP froze tuition, for politics, but their failure to fund the freeze brought the system to its knees and led to sharp hikes when the freeze came off.

[2:55 p.m.]

Student leaders, myself included, pushed for the 2005 tuition limit policy, which capped domestic tuition increases at 2 percent and gave students 20 years of predictability across multiple governments.

When will the Premier release Don Wright’s buried public post-secondary funding formula review, and will he give students certainty today and commit to maintain the 2 percent cap on domestic tuition increases?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Thank you to the member for the question.

We know that right now our public post-secondary sector is struggling. We are seeing significant revenue losses, and they’re still coming off the impacts of COVID and what they had to deal with then. We’re seeing declining domestic enrolment. We’re seeing global inflation that is not affecting just B.C. but our country and across the world right now.

This has been significantly exacerbated by the federal government’s unilateral cuts to international student visas. By cutting these student visas by 70 percent without speaking to provinces about what their needs are and without allowing institutions to prepare for these effects, it’s having significant impacts, where almost all of our public post-secondary institutions are facing significant pressures and declining revenues.

This is why our government has instituted a holistic review of the public post-secondary sector, which we announced yesterday, to ensure that every dollar that is in the sector is going to ensure accessible and affordable post-secondary education for students. Whether you live in the Lower Mainland, on the Island or in the Interior, wherever you are in the province, you need to have access to education. That is what this review will do.

This is going to ensure that we are dealing with the circumstances that are today’s. What happened two years ago or three years ago is not where we are today. We do not see the 70 percent cuts….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Please conclude.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: It’s a different situation. At the end of the day, this review is necessary in order to know how we move forward, holistically look at the sector and ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector in a way that will keep education in B.C. a top-quality education while ensuring that our public post-secondary institutions have the support they need and that students are getting an affordable education.

Emergency Health Care Services
in Tumbler Ridge

Larry Neufeld: Last week I spoke of how several prominent members of Tumbler Ridge nearly died while the ER was closed. The minister attributes the ER closure to recruitment efforts, while Northern Health told residents that ER closures were good for them.

The mayor is in this House today. Will the minister stand up and guarantee that his residents won’t have to go through the same thing under this NDP’s crumbling health care system?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

I’m really glad that the mayor of Tumbler Ridge is here in the House today, and I welcome him. I look forward to meeting with him tomorrow for the ongoing discussions about what’s taking place in Tumbler Ridge.

It is really difficult for residents. This change has been very unsettling. People have very deep opinions. But the positive side of this is that people are coming to the table. I know that Northern Health continues to work with the MLA, with the mayor and with the community to do everything possible to help address the workforce challenges that Tumbler Ridge and too many communities across B.C. are facing.

That’s why we have to continue our efforts to attract more physicians and nurses into British Columbia. That’s why we’ve reached out into the U.S. to ask physicians, nurses and allied health professionals to come practise here in our public universal health care system, where they are welcomed. And they are coming.

We also have to plan for the future. That means expanding the UBC medical school, which we’ve done. It means building a new medical school at SFU, which we are doing and which the Leader of the Opposition turned down at a time when we might not have been in quite the same situation that we are today.

My commitment to the mayor of Tumbler Ridge and to the communities across this province that are facing these shortages is to continue to do everything that we can to build the workforce that we need to deliver health care for British Columbians when they need it and where they need it.

Closing of Forest Industry Mills
and Production Facilities

Ward Stamer: Yesterday the Forests Minister stood in this House and claimed that his government is building a strong, prosperous forest sector. When?

[3:00 p.m.]

The people of 100 Mile heard those similar words the very same day their major employer, West Fraser, shut its doors, wiping out 500 jobs. Families, contractors and whole communities are now wondering how they’re supposed to survive.

Regardless of the never-ending reviews and task forces, when will this Forests Minister take some responsibility and not just keep blaming the Americans and everyone else and admit that it’s his government’s policies that have put more and more people out of work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Firstly, I want to take the opportunity to speak directly to the people of 100 Mile. This is devastating news, to lose that sawmill when West Fraser made the announcement about that closure. Devastating news for those workers, over 165 unionized workers, but also for that town. A major employer, the direct and indirect impact.

I’ve been in conversation with the mayor of 100 Mile. I’ve spoken to Brian O’Rourke, the union president. We’ve said to them very clearly, as has the Premier, that we’re going to be there with them during this very challenging time.

Now, the members opposite really do have trouble right now with understanding what’s going on in forestry. We have….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Please complete.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Members opposite haven’t realized we’re in a trade war right now. We have 45 percent duties and tariffs….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor. Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We have 45 percent duties and tariffs on our softwood lumber. There are more duties and tariffs on British Columbian lumber heading down south than on Russian lumber.

Now, there’s a lot of spunk from the opposition today, a lot of spunk in their….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There’s a lot of spunk from the opposition today. I’m not sure where that’s coming from. Maybe they had a really good caucus meeting last night or today. But I wish they’d use that same energy, that same spunk, to join us on this side of the House in fighting for our forestry workers.

The Premier of our province led the fight to Ottawa and delivered literally billions of dollars in funding to help protect forestry workers. On this side of the House….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: On this side of the House, our message is clear. We’re going to fight like hell for forestry workers. That’s our record. We are pleased that Ottawa is joining us on that effort, and we’re going to continue that effort in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Lorne Doerkson: That’s devastating to hear that answer.

Last week the West Fraser mill in 100 Mile closed. We lost hundreds of jobs. That’ll have ripple effects through the entire region. This morning Drax announced a permanent closure of its pellet plant in Williams Lake. Devastating blows to our region.

Both companies pointing to the same crisis. No fibre, no by-product, nothing to run on, because this government’s policies and curtailments in other operations have choked the entire supply chain.

We’ve raised solutions here. We’ve brought them to this House, we’ve shared those with the minister, and still nothing. This is a full-blown crisis — full stop.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Lorne Doerkson: Hundreds of people in Cariboo-Chilcotin are going to be out of work by Christmas. When will this government stop the rhetoric that we just heard and treat this like the emergency it really is?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it sounds like a music festival.

Interjections.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members. The question was asked. A serious question was asked. Let’s hear the answer from the minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is going through a really challenging time with significant news coming out of 100 Mile, and also….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re talking about people’s livelihoods. The members opposite can heckle all they want. I would appreciate the opportunity to talk about the work that we’re doing and also provide my sympathy to the people of 100 Mile and Williams Lake.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Really disappointing that they would take this tone, but not surprising.

The Speaker: Members, please. Let’s….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, enough.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I want to quote from West Fraser’s media release made on November 6, 2025: “The 100 Mile House lumber mill is no longer able to reliably access an adequate volume of economically viable timber. Challenging softwood lumber demand, higher duties and additional tariffs have compounded the situation.”

Duties and tariffs….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member opposite says: “Read the first line.” The member opposite maybe hasn’t been up to the Cariboo in a while, but devastating wildfires have impacted the land base there.

West Fraser, in the year 2025, submitted seven permits for harvesting. All seven were approved. In my conversations with West Fraser, it was very clear that duties and tariffs compounded the situation that led to the closure of that facility.

In the case of Drax and the facility in Williams Lake — I encourage the members opposite to go and read the release — they were unsuccessful in securing a contract that another proponent, Atlantic Power, received. That made a huge factor in their decision to curtail and close their operations. My deputy minister will be speaking to Drax shortly, this afternoon. I look forward to the conversation as well.

We on this side of the House recognize the challenge that we are facing in forestry, but we also recognize the opportunity to ensure that no worker in British Columbia and Canada is ever put in this position again. It’s why the Premier has been leading the national fight for forestry, and that fight has been successful in literally securing $1 billion from the Prime Minister today in supports for our forestry workers.

We have more work to do to transform this sector to ensure that no worker is ever put in this position ever again.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today on a point of order regarding standing orders, “Oral Questions,” subsection 47A(b), which states: “Questions and answers shall be brief and precise and stated without argument or opinion.”

As I have carefully taken note for our question periods during this entire session, questions on this side that are 30 seconds are often mirrored and reflected by triple the answer, often going into scripts and rants and tirades that are not related to the question at all.

I would like a ruling in regard to how that is going to be handled. For example, three times today, before the heckling started, we had double the size answer of the question consistently. I’ve had my team clock these things as well, and I can show you all of those statistics for the entire session.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from my colleague across the way. I would remind the Speaker that question period in this chamber has been characterized by just as long questions on many occasions by the opposition and, often, by short answers on this side. It happens on both sides of the House.

I know the Speaker does….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for making my point there, Member, in terms of the heckling.

I know the Speaker does keep a record in terms of the time that each side takes. I know that you review that on a daily basis, so I would trust your judgment in the actual records that I know the Speaker — not just you but previous Speakers before you — has always kept in this chamber.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members. The Chair will take this under advisement and get back.

Steve Kooner: I have a petition to present. Can I seek leave to present the petition?

The Speaker: You don’t need leave. Just proceed.

[3:10 p.m.]

Petitions

Steve Kooner: The petition is from over 1,000 signatories from Queensborough, New Westminster, and the surrounding area.

There is currently a school bus service from Queensborough to New Westminster Secondary School. That school bus service is coming to an end in June 2026, and the petitioners are calling on the Legislative Assembly and this provincial government to make the school bus service from Queensborough to New Westminster Secondary School permanent.

There was a campaign promise by the government in 2024 that stated that….

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. Your petition is accepted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Christine Boyle: I have the honour to present the 2024-2025 annual report of the Islands Trust.

This fulfils the trust’s statutory obligation to prepare an annual report that includes a summary of Trust Council, executive committee and local trust committees’ operations, along with an annual report of the Islands Trust Conservancy and audited financial statements.

The annual report outlines the diversity of work the Islands Trust and the Islands Trust Conservancy undertook over the past year to support communities, safeguard sensitive ecosystems and manage development in this special area of British Columbia. They have done great work.

I’m going to shorten it because we have taken a long time today. But as I was able to welcome them, I want to thank Chair Laura Patrick and CAO Rueben Bronee for the good work that they and their teams have done on this report and their public service year-round.

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on
Democratic and Electoral Reform

Jennifer Blatherwick: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled Toward a Stronger Democracy in B.C.

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

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I move the report be adopted, and, in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

This report relates to the first part of the committee’s mandate and examines topics associated with democratic engagement, voter participation and models for electing members of the Legislative Assembly.

To inform our work, the committee held public hearings across the province and virtually and received written submissions over the summer. In total, we received input from 987 participants, including 186 presentations and 801 stand-alone written submissions, covering a range of opportunities to improve our democracy.

On behalf of all the committee members, I would like to sincerely thank the individuals and organizations who took the time to engage with the committee and share their ideas, experiences and perspectives.

Following the consultation period, our committee considered all the input to develop our 36 recommendations. These recommendations aim to strengthen B.C.’s democracy by supporting British Columbians’ participation and engagement, examining the efficacy of legislation and policy and enhancing the responsibilities of and resources for Elections B.C., political parties and MLAs.

The committee also recognized the significant level of input received during our presentations regarding electoral reform, while also acknowledging the need to have further conversations with British Columbians on this topic to ensure there is support and trust in any political changes. As such, the committee recommends considering establishing a people’s assembly to examine and make recommendations in consultation with experts on the model for electing Members of the Legislative Assembly.

In the course of our deliberations, our committee had wide-ranging discussions on what we heard. While the committee members shared varied perspectives on different issues, we are in strong agreement that democracy is a living system that requires ongoing work and investment to ensure its health and resiliency.

I would like to sincerely thank all of the committee members for the debate and dialogue we had throughout our deliberations and for their dedication and engagement in this work.

I would particularly like to thank and recognize the support of the Deputy Chair, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would also like to express my appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office who supported our work, including Karan Riarh, Katey Stickle, Mary Heeg, Jared Brown, Aza Bryson, Jonathon Hamilton, Hanna Kim, Danielle Migeon, Alexa Neufeld, Emily Andrews and Kayla Wilson.

Thank you, as well, to the staff in Hansard Services for their assistance with our work.

Ward Stamer: I, too, would like to extend my gratitude to our committee members — including the Chair, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville — for their work, diligence and for the extensive discussions we had on this part of our work in the last several months.

I’d also like to recognize everyone who took the time to provide input to this committee. We sincerely appreciate hearing from people across B.C. about their experiences with and perspectives in our democracy and the various institutions that support it and how we can all work together to improve it.

In particular, throughout our work, we heard some of the challenges facing the province’s democracy, and we’ve considered many ways to strengthen it. In particular, committee members recognize that democratic participation is both a right and a civic duty and that we all have an active role to play in the health of our democracy. To that end, we highlight the need to strengthen civic education and enhance the information and education provided to British Columbians.

The committee also identified opportunities to increase democratic engagement and bolster voter participation. Additionally, we agreed that accountability and transparency are fundamental democratic principles and that measures to reinforce these principles are critical to maintaining a vibrant democracy.

Finally, I’d also like to thank the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard who supported our work around the province.

Rob Botterell: I rise today to also speak in support of this report as a member proud of the work we did together as a committee.

Thank you to my fellow committee members, to the staff who advised, coordinated and researched and, especially, to the 987 people and groups who took the time to submit to the committee. We are so fortunate to have access to so many experts and so many British Columbians who took the time to share their knowledge, ideas, experiences and perspectives on strengthening our democracy. I’m grateful to all of them for prioritizing this important work in their lives.

In these times, democratic and electoral reform is some of the most important work that this House can undertake. It speaks directly to how decisions are made, by whom and with what supports. It impacts how our society is organized, how all perspectives and interests of British Columbians are represented in this chamber and what we teach our children about civic responsibility.

I’m so glad, therefore, that this report represents the efforts of all parties in this House, that members from across this House have put aside their partisan interests, which are very partisan at times, and looked directly at what’s best for the future of the province.

I look forward to hearing of timely implementation of all the recommendations in this report.

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

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Kelly Greene: It’s my pleasure to be able to stand in the House to present the British Columbia disaster climate risk and resilience assessment, in accordance with the Climate Change Accountability Act, pursuant to section 4.3 of the act.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m honoured to present the final report of the CleanBC independent review panel, a review completed under the terms of the cooperation and responsible government accord between our government and the B.C. Green caucus.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just sneaking in a tabling of a report. This is the Public Guardian and Trustee 2024-25 annual report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 29.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 32.

[3:20 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 29 — Child, Family and
Community Service
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I’m going to call a brief recess while we wait for the minister and the team for continued committee stage.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will call this committee back to order, where we are contemplating Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act of 2025.

We are on clause 1. However, this afternoon we will start by discussing an amendment that was brought forth by the member for Prince George–Valemount. That is: “Clause 1, by adding the underlined text: ‘guardian’ has the same meaning as in the Family Law Act.”

On clause 1 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to thank the member for the amendment, and I think I understand the spirit in which it was brought forward. I do not support the amendment for a number of reasons.

The CFCSA definition of “guardianship” already includes guardian within the meaning of the Family Law Act and further includes all of the rights, duties and responsibilities of a parent. So a guardian is a person with guardianship.

The Family Law Act generally applies to relationships between private parties, while the CFCSA applies to relationships between government and private parties, with its focus being the protection of children.

The CFCSA establishes how a director or another person may receive guardianship in child protection matters. The Family Law Act only establishes who is a guardian and what guardianship entails within a family’s private sphere.

The CFCSA uses a broad definition of guardianship so that the law can work as intended. If we change that definition, it would consequentially affect many other parts of the act, which would ultimately impact how children’s needs are met. For example, this definition amendment would likely alter sections of the CFCSA that address when a director is made guardian of a child through a continuing custody order.

For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay. I appreciate the explanation, Minister.

The Chair: Members, we have a question before us then. It is the amendment to clause 1, “by adding the underlined text as shown: ‘guardian’ has the same meaning as in the Family Law Act.”

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: The first section of clause 3, 19.1. I would like to start with paragraph (2). It reads: “A director may make a safety plan in accordance with this division.”

Yesterday you stated that a safety agreement or a safety plan is necessary and initiated during any assessment or investigation period. The B.C. government news bulletin states that these agreements mitigate safety concerns in a way that supports the children or youth to remain safely with their parent or trusted adult, as arranged by their parent, while awaiting the outcome of a child protection assessment or an investigation or a decision on a court order.

To the minister, why does the language in this paragraph, “a director may make a safety plan,” contradict what she stated safety plans were used for yesterday and in the actual news bulletin that MCFD released to the public?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The term “may” is used because a safety plan is just one tool available to directors to use. Safety plans are not a “must” to be used by directors. They may be used as one tool available to them in a situation.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to table an amendment on section 19.1.

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 19.1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

When safety plan agreement may be made

19.1 (1) In this section, “assessment or investigation” means an assessment or investigation conducted under section 16 (2) (b.1) or (c).

(2) A director maymust make a safety plan agreement in accordance with this Division and the regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any of the following circumstances:

(a) the director is conducting an assessment or investigation in relation to the child;

(b) further to an assessment or investigation in relation to the child,

(i) the director has applied under the Act for a court order that the director considers adequate to protect that child,

(ii) the director has not withdrawn the application, and

(iii) the court has not made a decision with respect to the application.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We’ll get staff to pick up the amendment for clause 3, and we will take a brief recess while we circulate that amendment to all members.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will call this chamber back to order.

We are discussing a motion this afternoon in amendment to clause 3, section 19.1(2), changing that a director “may” to “must” make a safety plan agreement “in accordance with this Division and the regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any of the following circumstances.”

I would ask that the member for Prince George–Valemount explain her motion to the House.

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: It’s my feeling that as I stated, the bulletin actually explains what the safety plans are for, as did the minister multiple times yesterday, saying that safety plans were put in place when there was an order put forward, when there was an investigation and an assessment and awaiting for decisions from the court.

I believe that the amendment does validate the word “must,” and I believe that the language in the bulletin is actually misleading for parents without the change.

The Chair: The motion is in order, and I would call on the minister for her comments.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I thank the member for the amendment.

I do not support the amendment for a few reasons. The amendment would force a process where every single situation is unique and different, and directors may need to use more or less intrusive measures in any single situation. There are other tools also available when there is a protection concern. Using the term “must” would also take away the voluntary nature of safety plans.

For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.

Heather Maahs: The word “may” is very subjective and could be interpreted by different people in different ways.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know from experience that a lot of things are not necessarily documented. I think in this situation, it would force a path of documentation that would enable workers to be able to follow the path that they’re on.

The Chair: Members, the question is an amendment to clause 3, section 19.1(2), a director “may” being changed to “must” make a safety plan agreement “in accordance with this Division and the regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any of the following circumstances.”

You’ve heard the question, Members.

Division has been called.

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Brodie	Armstrong	Gasper
Chan	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Rattée	Davis
McInnis	Bird	McCall
Stamer	Day	Tepper
Mok	Maahs	Kealy
Sturko	Boultbee	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Luck
	Block
NAYS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Valeriote	Botterell

The Chair: We’ll take a quick recess, Members.

The committee recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order. We are on committee stage of Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, where we are contemplating clause 3.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to draw the attention of the minister to section 19.2(1)(b), where it states: “in the director’s opinion….” An opinion, by definition, is a judgment, viewpoint or statement that is not conclusive or opposed to facts, which are true statements.

Would the minister please explain the definition of “in the director’s opinion.”

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The director takes their authority from the CFCSA. The CFCSA requires the director to use their authority in ways that align with certain guiding and service principles that are outlined in the act. These principles shape how the director makes decisions.

[4:00 p.m.]

The principles instruct the director to prioritize the safety of the child and also to prioritize keeping families together and preserving cultural and family relationships. They also tell the director to make and implement decisions about children in a timely way.

The CFCSA empowers directors to make decisions as a part of their role. In this way, they have discretion to make choices they feel will promote the policies and the objectives of the act. This allows them to respond to the specific circumstances they are faced with on the ground and in real time.

Every family and every situation is unique, and the CFCSA routinely asks directors to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Under the act, section 92, it also says that directors can delegate their powers: “(1) A director may delegate to any person or class of person any or all of the director’s powers, duties or functions under this act. (2) A delegation of the powers, duties or functions of a director must be in writing and may include any terms or conditions the director considers advisable.”

I’d like to ask about evidence-based practice. It’s a sequential, structured process for integrating the best available evidence into making important decisions. The practitioner applies the decision-making process by using the best available evidence while informed by pragmatic perspective developed from working in the field, using critical thinking skills, the best available evidence and an awareness of the interest of the party.

Though I appreciate what the minister says regarding the director specifically, as the powers can be delegated down, my concern in regard to this is for front-line workers and the decisions they’re making day to day.

Will the minister confirm whether ministry staff, particularly those working directly with B.C. children, youth and families, are actually provided with evidence-based practice training?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The short answer is yes. There are a number of trainings that child protection workers take, both within the first six months of probation and in an ongoing way. An example would be training around structured decision-making and using that tool in individual circumstances.

Rosalyn Bird: I’ll stick with my line of questioning here. That phrase, “in the director’s opinion,” can present several challenges. Subjectivity — it still signals that the statement is based on personal judgment rather than objective fact, which can weaken the authority of formal documents. It’s ambiguous. If there are multiple directors, it’s unclear whether this refers to one director or a board collectively. It can create interpretive issues.

There’s also a legal risk with this statement. Contracts, governance documents…. Wordings like this can affect obligations — meaning, does the director’s opinion trigger a right or a duty? Is the opinion discretionary, or is it reasonable? Courts often scrutinize such language because it can shift liability.

There’s also perceived bias within this statement. It may imply that decisions are based on personal views, rather than established criteria, which can raise governance concerns.

Considering these challenges, does the minister still consider “in the director’s opinion” appropriate language inside the bill?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things in relation to this question. I thank the member for the question.

First and foremost, all directors are bound by sections 2 and 3 of the act. All of the guiding principles of the act — the safety and well-being of children, what’s in the best interests of children — are all outlined in the very beginning of the act.

We talked yesterday about all of the layers of oversight that exist within the ministry and externally. I will also point out that we’re talking here about the director’s opinion of persons that must be parties to a safety plan. To determine which parents are necessary parties to a safety plan or which individuals are parties to a safety plan agreement, the director must rely on information available at the time to assess guardianship responsibilities and who may be party to a plan.

They have to make that decision with the information that they have in the moment. Sometimes that could be in the middle of the night. Sometimes it may require some time to gather more information. That is why the language around each parent who, in the director’s opinion, meets all of the following criteria is important for this section of the bill.

Rosalyn Bird: The criteria in section 19.2(1)(b) are actually quite specific. Can the minister provide an explanation or an example of when or how a parent, in the director’s opinion, would not meet the criteria listed, as it’s extremely specific?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I believe I understood the question, so I’m going to attempt to answer it for the member.

There are situations that arise, individual situations, where the director must make a decision based on the circumstance. A director may arrive on scene where there is a child with adults present, and maybe one of the parents can’t be located. That is one example.

Another example could be that a director arrived at a home, at any point in time, and the parent that is there is intoxicated. In the director’s opinion, the parent would not be able or willing to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a parent with custody.

Those are a couple of examples. We can provide some more as well.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister.

I accept your answer for that, although, if I’m not mistaken, you don’t have to have both parents participate in a safety plan, so in the circumstances that you’re referring to, if all of those criteria were met, that still raises the question, in my opinion.

You mentioned that a parent can’t be located. So section (1)(b)(iii), I actually have a question about that — in the opinion of the director, if a parent “can be located.”

Does the minister have any protocols or guidelines for what is a locatable parent, and what kind of threshold for inaccessible or unlocated does a parent have to be for this clause to be in effect?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s a helpful question from the member opposite.

Steps that a protection worker must take in order to locate a parent will be outlined in policy and practice — a number of steps outlined for protection workers.

Also, just to remind the member, safety plans are living documents. They can be adjusted so that when a protection worker is making efforts to locate a parent — let’s say they located a parent the next day — that safety plan can be adjusted with the inclusion of that other parent.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that answer, and this is one of the reasons that we’re examining, or I’m asking more questions about, the criteria.

[4:15 p.m.]

My understanding is that in accordance with chapters 3, 3.2 and 3.3, depending on the circumstance for the safety plan, it has to be documented within 24 hours. So there is, actually, a substantial, although it may not seem like a substantial…. Twenty-four hours can be very long here, maybe not in other places.

However, as you stated, there is time. Again, I have a serious issue in and around the language, due to the fact that there is a 24-hour period where these things can be addressed. Even the example that you gave, which I’m assuming is for…. If somebody was on site or shows up to assess a complaint that has come in, and you’re correct…. You have a parent that is intoxicated. I would hope that we aren’t going to have an intoxicated parent sign a safety plan, anyway.

Again, to me, these criteria are quite specific, so I have huge concern with the wording, instead of it not saying something more around evidence-based decision-making.

Do you know, off the top of your head…? I cannot find it in chapter 3. I actually looked for it. However, there are regulations that I can’t locate because they’re on the internet. Can you tell me what the time frame is to find a parent? Is it six hours? Is it eight hours? Is it the 24 hours that you actually have to document that safety plan?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There is no set time frame to need to locate a parent. That is a part of an ongoing process that a child protection worker would take to try to uncover the whole picture of a child’s situation.

The 24 hours is the amount of time required to obtain written confirmation. So if an agreement is made, like I said, in the middle of the night or in extenuating circumstances, there’s written confirmation that is needed within the 24 hours, but the location of a parent would be an ongoing piece of work that a direct service staff would have to do in their holistic approach to working with a child and a family to understand the entire picture of everything that’s going on.

Heather Maahs: Obviously, opinions have to be justified. And a paper trail, obviously, is a good way to justify these opinions.

[4:20 p.m.]

If we have a situation where, in the director’s opinion, a parent is given custody of their child, but they’ve broken a safety plan twice, how do we ascertain how that director then provides the information that is pertinent to the situation, any situation where…?

It’s a fast-moving situation, obviously. But how is that opinion justified, for all intents and purposes?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Again, safety planning is just one tool that is available to protection workers that is also subject always to the guiding principles of the act. The guiding principles of the act are paramount.

Then, in addition to that, safety plans are standardized forms. They are uploaded into case files. They include the reason for the safety plan, the goals of the safety plan, protective actions, commitments. If the safety plan changes or situations change or a parent isn’t able to follow a safety plan or doesn’t agree with the safety plan, there is case planning that occurs, and there are other tools that protection workers can take.

It might include involving the courts. It might include more rigorous family planning. It is individual and based on each individual case.

Heather Maahs: Perhaps I didn’t really make myself clear in my question. I was asking about documentation justifying the opinion so that whoever is involved in this case has an opinion in front of them that they can actually count on to be justified through the documentation.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We put all documentation into our integrated case management system.

Jeremy Valeriote: If I understand correctly, this legislation authorizes scenarios where a parent with custodial rights and responsibilities could be cut out from the safety planning process. We’re concerned about the possibility of a parent being cut out because they’re not viewed as “able and willing,” under subsection (iv), to exercise their custodial rights and responsibilities. MCFD workers already hold so much power over parents, and this is a subjective determination.

I have three questions I’ll ask all at the same time. I think they’re related to one another. First, how will “able and willing” be determined? Second, will there be judicial oversight in this determination? And third, if a party is determined to not fit this criteria, what recourse mechanisms are in place?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s a really good one, and I hope that I will answer all aspects of it.

First and foremost, the starting place for protection workers is that all parents are willing and able, so the threshold to determine that a parent is not willing and able is quite limited. I gave an example before, where a parent may be intoxicated. Those interactions are guided by clinical judgment and are subject to practice reviews; are subject to, as I mentioned yesterday, our external oversight bodies; and would be subject to judicial oversight as well.

I think that answers the question.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Minister.

I got two out of three. If a parent is determined not to fit the able and willing criteria, is there a recourse mechanism beyond the judicial oversight, as mentioned?

[4:30 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes. There is recourse, a couple of different things. The parent can go through the complaints process, which would include a couple of different options: complaining to the team leader, director of operations, executive director of service or our ministry complaints line. It could also be subject to an administrative review.

Also, just to emphasize that it is a living document. So in the example that I gave, where potentially a parent is intoxicated, the protection worker would be able to go back the next day or at a suitable time for the parent to be a party to the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I need to understand this process a little better so that this is more clear to me. Safety plans are in two sections of the regulations, 3.2, which is where kids are not…. There’s no egregious thing happening immediately. Then under the investigation part is when it’s obvious that there’s severe physical abuse or severe neglect.

If we go back to 3.2, where somebody reports…. I’m trying to figure out what the timeline is when somebody responds to a complaint or a report that doesn’t have severe physical abuse or severe neglect. Based on what you’ve said here, you instigate or a worker within your ministry actually initiates a safety plan immediately, as soon as they….

Okay, you’re nodding. That’s what I’m trying to get clarification on: how that process works and what that timeline is.

In the example that you give, if a parent is intoxicated, I would assume that at some point within the next 24 hours, the ministry would return to the house and there would be an assessment made and the children would be also questioned. I’m trying to figure out what this timeline looks like.

Like I said, if you show up at a house and you say, “Okay, there’s nothing major going on here right now,” obviously, that safety plan is not initiated immediately. How, in that circumstance, could this criteria not be made when somebody is coming back? It doesn’t have to involve both parents either.

I’m trying to understand this process better so that I can follow what it is that you’re trying to achieve with this particular piece of the legislation.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just a couple of things for the member.

I want to clarify that chapter 3 is policy, not regulation. That’s really important to clarify. Also, in 19.1, this clause really outlines when a safety plan agreement may be made. It says:

“A director may make a safety plan agreement in accordance with this division and regulations, if any, for the protection of a child’s health or safety in any of the following circumstances:

“The director is conducting an assessment or an investigation in relation to the child. Further to an assessment or investigation in relation to the child, the director has applied for, under the act, a court order that the director considers adequate to protect that child. The director has not withdrawn the application, and the court has not made a decision with respect to the application.”

I also just want to provide the members with the list of least intrusive measures that protection workers may make. We know that removal of a child from their home and from the care of their parents is highly disruptive. Unless a child’s or youth’s health or safety is in immediate danger, the director must look at all available options to protect the child that are least disruptive.

Aside from safety plans, some of the other options include informal or formal support services; a court order authorizing necessary health care; taking charge of an unintended lost or runaway child for up to 72 hours while efforts are made to locate or notify a parent or guardian; a supervision order setting out terms and conditions for maintaining the child’s safety; a protective intervention order, which may prohibit an individual from contacting, interfering with or residing with the child; an arrangement for the child or youth to live with an extended family or another individual who has a significant relationship with the child or youth, through an extended family plan agreement; an agreement with the parents for the child or youth to live under the care of a director through a voluntary care or special needs agreement or a youth agreement, potentially.

Safety planning has least disruptive measures available through policy. With the legislative changes, there will be clear and statutory authority and legislative safeguards to support the use of safety planning as a least disruptive measure.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

You named off quite a number of options there, and I understand that there is an escalating continuum that can be used, depending on the circumstances.

However, I’m asking the questions because we’re supposed to be examining the bill together to make sure this is the correct way to go. Even in the circumstances that you just described, I would certainly hope that every effort would be made that the parties of the agreement actually do meet these criteria and that it’s not just an opinion of somebody that is validated.

That being said, I will move on to another question. Is there any recourse for a parent or a guardian to request a second opinion if the director doesn’t think that a parent does meet the criteria that are set out here?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I have answered this question a number of times with respect to the options that parents have to disagree with an opinion through a comprehensive complaints process. Parents also have the ability to obtain independent legal opinion.

Rosalyn Bird: I just wanted a clarifying question on what you just stated. If a parent does want to initiate a complaint process or something similar to that, does that put the safety plan on hold, or does it continue forward?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things. Every director is empowered under the act with the guiding principles and the service delivery principles. If there is a disagreement about content of the safety plan, then there are a number of tools, as I outlined earlier, that directors can use that are not the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to draw the minister’s attention to paragraph (1)(b)(i): “A parent is apparently entitled to custody.”

“Apparently” is an adverb. It is used to indicate that something seems true based on what you’ve heard, observed or understood, though it’s not completely certain. Does the minister have a different definition for the word “apparently”?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s a good question. A parent apparently entitled to custody is a parent that apparently at least has the rights, duties and responsibilities of a parent described in the Family Law Act. They also have at least some parenting time where they have physical care and control of the child. The CFCSA already uses the term “parent apparently entitled to custody” in other circumstances, so it’s a familiar concept for protection workers.

To protect a child and act quickly to put a safety plan in place when needed, a director must be able to make an agreement with each parent who, by court order or by the apparent fact or reality, is a parent with guardianship, which includes parental responsibilities and some parenting time with the child.

The director, at first instance, may not have access to undisputed proof about parental rights, such as family law court orders, before taking steps to protect the child’s safety. Where a director considers it is apparent that a parent is a guardian of the child with parental responsibilities and at least some of the parenting time, the parent will presumably be entitled to custody, and they will be a necessary party to any safety plan respecting the child.

[4:45 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: That’s actually concerning to me, the information you just provided. The word “apparently” has a number of nuances in the English language.

It can be used when something has been told or read and you’re not sure if it’s true. “Apparently, he’s the father.” It can have contradicting expectations when it’s used in reality differing from what you thought. “She looks like the mother, but apparently, she’s the girlfriend.” It could be seemingly a truth, used when something appears to be true though it may not be. “Apparently, it’s a happy marriage.”

With all due respect to the minister, and I mean that quite literally, whether a parent is or is not entitled to the custody of a child, it shouldn’t be uncertain or seem to be true. It should be apparent and documented.

To the minister: do you still consider the language “apparently” appropriate?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes, I do agree with the language in the bill.

Rosalyn Bird: I have one last question about paragraph (1). Current policy under chapter 3 indicates that when there are age-appropriate children involved in the FDR process, the ministry is to seek input from children and youth.

Will the minister provide an explanation as to why age-appropriate youth are not actually being included when they are determining a safety plan? It’s not listed under “parties to the safety plan” in the bill.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: First and foremost, again, I go back to the guiding principles of the act. In the guiding principles of the act, it states that the child’s views should be taken into account when decisions relating to a child are made. These situations are incredibly complex and involve a lot of competing information and a lot of situations where judgment needs to be made about what is in the best interests of the child as well.

Always the act establishes that the safety and well-being of a child are paramount considerations for a director. The interplay of these principles factors into how a child’s views may be incorporated into a safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: Paragraph (2) is talking about children that don’t have parents. In this section, is the area of the bill…. During clause 1, I was referring to a proposed amendment. In the Family Law Act, 53 says the guardian may appoint a person to be a child’s guardian on death.

[4:50 p.m.]

In para 2, is it correct to assume that “in the director’s opinion” means that the director has the authority to determine, based on personal judgment rather than objective fact, who is considered to be a parent and who should be party to a safety agreement?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: If the question is about the word “opinion,” I have answered that question. However, if it’s about who is a necessary party to a safety plan, then when we determine which parents must be a party to a safety plan agreement, the director needs to use information available at the time to assess the potential impact on the parents’ responsibilities as outlined in section 41 of the Family Law Act.

If a family law order or agreement specifying parents’ arrangements is readily available, the director may be able to make a clear assessment that proposed safety plan agreement terms and conditions for one parent would not impact the other parent’s parental responsibilities and would not require their involvement to proceed with a safety plan agreement. If such an order or agreement is not available to the director, it may be less clear.

The same is the case for circumstances where the parents have informal parenting arrangements. In this case, section 40 of the Family Law Act likely applies, which authorizes each child’s guardian to exercise all parental responsibilities with respect to the child. If the director has uncertainty with respect to the impact on Family Law Act parental responsibilities, they may err on the side of caution to seek to include all parents who meet necessary party criteria set out in the legislation.

If new information becomes available respecting who should or could have been a party to the agreement, the legislation authorizes the director to withdraw from the safety plan agreement on that basis. The director could then look to enter into a new safety plan agreement with the appropriate necessary parties moving forward.

Rosalyn Bird: We may cover it. Just excuse me if you want to….

If it’s a child that is, let’s say, mid-teens, and they have no parents…. It’s more of a curiosity question, really.

If there’s a safety plan that is required because they’re living with a friend or they’re not living with somebody that’s designated as a parent…. Is that possible? Are you allowed to have safety plans with young adults that don’t actually have any living biological relatives?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: If there was a situation where a youth, a teenager, a young person had someone in their life who was in a guardian role, we would plan with that person.

[4:55 p.m.]

If not, it would not be an appropriate tool to use. We would have something like a youth agreement or something else.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay. I appreciate that.

This clause confused me because you’re talking about a child that has no parent, and then in (a) it says, “at least one parent,” and then in (b) it says: “at least one parent.” The language is confusing, so I needed clarification on that, because if it’s confusing to me, it may be actually confusing to others, which is, again, one of the reasons I like the word “guardian,” particularly in cases like this.

Paragraph (3) indicates that if there are Indigenous children involved, the First Nation, the Nisg̱a’a Nation, the village, the treaty Nation or the legal entity representing that child’s community should be subject or part of a safety agreement.

My question to the minister is: how much weight is a director expected to give if the community’s opinion differs from the parents or the director themselves?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: For the member, the sections of the act, 19.2, sections (1) and (2), outline who “must” be a party to a safety plan. Section (3) outlines who “may” be a party to a safety plan. If a parent is uncomfortable with any party being a part of a safety plan, they can determine that that party not be a part of a safety plan.

[5:00 p.m.]

Heather Maahs: My question is along the same lines but a little different.

Are the criteria for a safety plan for an Indigenous child, parent applied to the nations — Scw’exmx or Xyólheméylh, whoever — or do they have their own provisions for safety plans?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Safety plan agreements are agreements when the province is exercising jurisdiction over child and family services. So it would apply to when we are exercising jurisdiction.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that clarification.

I have a question around the criteria used to determine a child or parent identifying as Indigenous. If there is a parent who is constantly having issues with their safety plan and is failing it but still wants to retain visitation, and suddenly that parent declares that they identify as Indigenous, what are the criteria around understanding that that may be a way of circumventing rules or time factors?

I actually am aware of a situation. What did happen was that everything stopped, and there was no contact with the parents for another six months because it flipped into the nation’s piece.

My question is: what are the criteria around a declaration of identifying as Indigenous?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A few things.

First and foremost, the province does not arbitrate someone’s indigeneity, nor do we ever step away from a child protection concern until we know and are sure that those concerns are appropriately being dealt with through programs and services. Those situations can be incredibly unique.

How we interact, on decisions that we make when there are Indigenous children involved, is outlined, in part, in the act. I can provide that to the member opposite. I do know that all of our offices receive correspondence and we’ve interacted with people in our community who have a variety of experiences.

I would caution members of this House to know that there are limitations in what can be shared by way of information under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. I think there are a number of circumstances where members of this House, or the public, do not have all of the information available that’s obtained under that act, and I’d just caution around that.

Rosalyn Bird: I understand the challenges with First Nations, Indigenous communities and Métis taking over their own child welfare. It’s a very complicated process. With policy, procedure and law, it’s a big, big piece.

I do have one question, though. In the process of developing what those relationships, policies and procedures, etc., look like, what happens if you have two parents that are living in separate households and they each have safety plans that they’ve engaged in? One is involving a First Nations or an Indigenous community or a support agency, and the other parent’s doesn’t. If there’s a conflict between those two plans, can you help me understand what happens in a circumstance like that?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just a couple quick things.

Jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of child welfare services are outside of the scope of this bill, firstly.

Secondly, we have situations all of the time where parents are separated and there are disagreements. That does not have to do with, necessarily, a child who’s Indigenous, and we would not have competing safety plans. We wouldn’t have different safety plans that compete with one another. We would work with the family on a joint safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I wasn’t suggesting that you would have different, competing safety plans. That’s not what I was suggesting at all. I was saying that families are families and humans are humans. People don’t always agree, and circumstances change, and things can erupt or explode on the fly. That’s why I was asking the question. I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful.

This is, as I said before, a very complicated process. I was just trying to understand, if that particular situation does arise, is there a process that we engage in? You know, is it a family conference? Is it…? That’s why I’m asking the question. I don’t mean any disrespect.

I know the ministry is doing good work, but this is something that has happened. It will probably continue to happen, hopefully not frequently. Again, is there a process for that?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a number of processes that the ministry undertakes frequently to manage conflict with families. Those processes are included in ongoing training for child protection workers. Some of those things could include a collaborative planning process, mediation, dispute resolution. And intertwined is, really, trauma-informed practice.

We know that when there’s conflict between parents, that impacts children. So at every opportunity, protection workers work with families to mitigate that conflict in any way they can.

I’m just going to ask if we can take a brief bathroom recess.

The Chair: Sure. We’ll take a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. I’ll call the chamber back to order.

Rosalyn Bird: I have one last question about para (3). It’s just basically a confirmation question. In (3) (d), at the end of the sentence, it says “the child’s Indigenous community.” I just wanted to confirm if this includes Inuit and Métis people.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for clarifying that.

I’d like to draw your attention to para (4)(a)(ii). Now, I believe…. I’m going to read something from the FLA. I want to confirm this is the paragraph that it’s actually referring to, because if not, I’m a bit confused.

Under the FLA, the guardians can have parenting responsibilities and parenting time. If you are not a guardian, then you cannot have any decision-making for children, but your care of a child can be officially designated as contact time.

Can the minister provide a list or an example of who would fall under this clause or this statement, and is this who we’re referring to in section (4)?

It goes back to, again, the parents without children, so I’m just trying to clarify.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It would pertain to anyone under section 44 of the Family Law Act.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I will go back and review that.

Just for my own sake, would an aunt or uncle, those individuals, qualify under that particular part of the act?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Under 44 of the Family Law Act, it includes:

“Two or more of a child’s guardians may make an agreement respecting one or more of the following: (a) the allocation of parental responsibilities, (b) parenting time, (c) the implementation of an agreement made under this section, (d) the means for resolving disputes respecting an agreement made under this section.

“(2) An agreement respecting parenting arrangements is binding only if the agreement is made (a) after a separation or (b) when the parties are about to separate, for the purposes of being effective on separation.

“(3) A written agreement respecting parenting arrangements that is filed in the court is enforceable under the act if it were an order of the court.

“On application by a party, the court must set aside or replace with an order made under this division all or part of an agreement respecting parenting arrangements if satisfied that the agreement is not in the best interest of the child.”

Rosalyn Bird: I apologize. Thank you for reading the list. That’s not exactly what I intended with my question.

I am hoping that the minister can provide an example of an individual in a young person’s life that this would actually apply to. Would it be an aunt or an uncle? Would it be a child that had a guardian appointed under a will and estate?

I’m just trying to really understand this.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Under the Family Law Act, there is a parenting agreement. If a parent agrees to another party to be the guardian, then yes, under that act, the example that you provided of an aunt and uncle or a grandparent could be a party to a safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I just wanted to clarify. In (4)(a), it says “a person who has a right to contact or access a child through a court order,” but then it states that that person may not actually be a parent. Is that specifically family members? Is it family friends?

I’ve never seen a circumstance like that, so I’m just trying to better understand how these safety plans work, because that individual wouldn’t fall under the criteria that we were speaking about earlier. So a circumstance that would actually be in play….

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a couple of examples that I think will be helpful here.

One example might be, let’s say, a parent passes away. Let’s say a mother passes away, and the maternal grandparents seek a court order for contact with a child, and that contact is granted. They could potentially be a party to a safety plan.

Another example might be that a parent no longer has custody of a child, but they have a visitation or they have a contact order. That would also be an example where that party could be a part of a plan but they don’t actually have custody of the child.

[5:35 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that answer. I was trying to wrap my head around that one.

Para (5). I want to make sure I understand this paragraph correctly also. It’s talking about a person under section, I believe, 19.1(2). I’m assuming this is a parent that’s actually under the age of 19 that you are initiating a safety plan with.

I can see the nodding. Okay. Thank you for confirming.

That raises a question. Are there any legal considerations to be considered when you are entering into these types of agreements with people that are not technically adults? Although they’re parents, they actually aren’t of legal age. Are there any legal considerations that need to be considered before moving into these agreements with a parent who is a child or youth?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s a little bit of a personal question for me, because my mom had me when she was 15 years old. I will say that this is definitely a case-by-case scenario and that it would be very individual circumstances.

Someone under the age of 19 who has a child would have the rights of a child, and they would also have the rights of a parent. If there was a concern, and there was a requirement for there to be a safety plan in place, I think that the director would have to work very individually in that circumstance to see what would be appropriate for who was involved in the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate the answer. I didn’t mean to…. It wasn’t my intent to trigger anybody.

You’re right. Hopefully, this isn’t a circumstance that is dealt with on a regular basis. But if you’re talking about somebody that is younger — 14, 15, 16 — who ends up in a position where they are a parent, which can be problematic, I’m sure….

[5:40 p.m.]

Are there discretionary funds available through the ministry that that young person — I would hope with somebody in their presence — would absolutely be entitled to or given some sort of legal counsel prior to signing a safety plan?

It’s one thing to sign a safety plan with two mature adults that have life experience. It’s a very, very different situation to be signing a safety plan with somebody that barely qualifies as a young adult and is actually still acting as a parent also. I know it’s a complex question, but I’d like to ask it.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I appreciate the question. There are a number of tools and support opportunities for protection workers to provide, typically on an individual basis. Sometimes that might include discretionary funding, depending on the individual circumstances.

As far as legal advice, all parties, regardless of age, have opportunity to obtain legal advice before agreeing to a safety plan. The director will explicitly inform parents who are necessary parties that they have this opportunity. If parents aren’t able to access that advice right away, they may do so at any time after agreeing to the safety plan.

Parents, regardless of age, may receive legal advice through several means, including if they are eligible for legal aid and government programs, and also may seek advice through privately acquired counsel.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that answer, and I know that the legal advice comes under the next section, so I’ll have a few more questions at that time.

At this time, I would like to table an amendment for 19.2.

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 19.2, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding the underlined text as shown:

Parties to safety plan agreement

19.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following persons must be parties to a safety plan agreement:

(a) a director;

(b) each parent who, in the director’s opinion, meets all of the following criteria:

(i) the parent is apparently entitled to custody of the child to whom the agreement relates;

(ii) the parent has rights and responsibilities as a parent with custody that may be affected by the agreement;

(iii) the parent can be located;

(iv) the parent is able and willing to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a parent with custody.

(2) If a child has no parents as described in subsection (1) (b), then the first of the following that applies at least one guardian with care of the child to whom the agreement relates must be a party to a safety plan agreement:

(a) at least one parent who, in the director’s opinion, would be a parent under subsection (1) (b) except that the parent has no rights or responsibilities as a parent with custody that may be affected by the agreement;

(b) at least one parent with care of the child to whom the agreement relates.

(3) A parent described in subsection (1) (b) may only be a party to a safety plan agreement if, in circumstances in which the child is of an appropriate age, the child has been consulted.]

The Chair: Okay. We’ll take a short recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 5:45 p.m. to 5:51 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. Everybody has a copy of the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister, we’ve gone through a lot of questions in this particular section. I’ve made it quite clear that I have some very serious reservations around some of the language that’s contained in this particular section, specifically “in the director’s opinion” and the word “apparently.”

Again, in section (2), somebody with no parents, this just specifies that somebody needs to be part of that plan.

And (3) — we did talk about this. If you’re talking about children that are of an appropriate age, it might be six, but it would certainly be 17 if they weren’t suffering from any sort of mental health or other types of issues that would not make them able to participate in a safety plan with a family.

I think it’s important that children within a family should be able to participate. So that is why I’ve brought these amendments forward.

The Chair: I’d like to advise that the amendment is in order.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Can I just get some clarity from the member opposite? The amendment has 19.2, sections (1), (2) and (3). Is (3) actually (5) in the bill?

Rosalyn Bird: I missed that. No, that’s not what I meant. I meant mature children actually participate in a safety plan. So that is my mistake. I apologize. I didn’t catch that.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Sorry, still need clarity on the last point, (3), a parent described in subsection…. I’m not sure which part of the bill this is pertaining to.

Rosalyn Bird: I missed it. It isn’t written correctly, (3). The intention of paragraph (3) was to actually add “members,” to mature or appropriate-aged children to be participatory as members of a family plan. I missed that it wasn’t written correctly. I apologize for that.

The Chair: Okay, so clarifying that the motion seems to be unintelligible, I’m going to rule it out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Rosalyn Bird: Is there an opportunity to withdraw and resubmit?

The Chair: The amendment has been ruled out of order, but you are certainly able to table an additional amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay. Just to clarify, though, if we move past the clause, are you still able to table an amendment? That’s not my understanding.

The Chair: Correct, but we’re still on clause 3.

We’ll take a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6:06 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will call this committee back to order, where we are contemplating Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025. We’re on clause 3.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Chair, and I’ll apologize to the House. I’d like to table another amendment.

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 19.2, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding the underlined text as shown:

Parties to safety plan agreement

19.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following persons must be parties to a safety plan agreement:

(a) a director;

(b) each parent who, in the director’s opinion, meets all of the following criteria:

(i) the parent is apparently entitled to custody of the child to whom the agreement relates;

(ii) the parent has rights and responsibilities as a parent with custody that may be affected by the agreement;

(iii) the parent can be located;

(iv) the parent is able and willing to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a parent with custody.;

(c) a child, if the child has been consulted and is deemed of an appropriate age by the director.

(2) If a child has no parents as described in subsection (1) (b), then the first of the following that applies at least one guardian with care of the child to whom the agreement relates must be a party to a safety plan agreement:.

(a) at least one parent who, in the director’s opinion, would be a parent under subsection (1) (b) except that the parent has no rights or responsibilities as a parent with custody that may be affected by the agreement;

(b) at least one parent with care of the child to whom the agreement relates.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Would you like to speak to it or introduce that before we go to a brief recess?

Rosalyn Bird: You saw the previous one. I’ve just added a paragraph under 19.2, which is (c), indicating that if a child is of appropriate age, they can participate as a party in a safety plan.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just for time purposes, I wonder if I could speak to the amendment now.

The Chair: Sure.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Okay. For a number of reasons, I do not support the proposed amendments. The first few amendments. where we’ve struck out “apparently,” “director’s opinion” — we’ve canvassed those extensively in our questions to the amendment around (2).

Your previous amendment that was struck down, and the reasons for that, make this amendment not workable.

For the amendment around (c), I would say that it’s already apparent in the guiding principles of the act that children’s views should be taken into account when decisions relating to the child are made.

For those reasons, I do not support the amendments.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. It seems as though the House is in agreement with respect to continuing debate on this amendment.

Are there any other speakers?

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to withdraw the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

The Chair: Members, is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

Rosalyn Bird: I would like to move to 19.3, para (1). In para (1), are there any limits on what can be mandated within a safety plan?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The parameters of the agreement are outlined in this part of the act. There’s a lot of flexibility with respect to the terms of the agreement. The agreement, as mentioned earlier in our canvassing of this, is that they are voluntary, so guardians must agree to the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: You had mentioned earlier that there is a template when you’re drafting safety plans.

Can the minister confirm, and would she be willing to table a copy of the template used for safety plans so that I can confirm what is and isn’t on the template?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes, we have a form, and we can provide it to the member opposite.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to go to (1)(d), and we’re just going to go back to some of the legal stuff that we were referring to earlier.

You did state, and you have stated more than once, that everybody is counselled or that it is explained to every individual that does participate in a safety plan that they are welcome to, and encouraged to, get legal advice.

My question around that is: if you have a family that is impoverished or does not actually have the funds to do that, is there any mechanism for them to get that legal advice?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I did answer this question earlier when we were talking about parents who are also minors. That is relevant to any person receiving services through the ministry. Subject to eligibility, there are a number of places where families can obtain legal advice.

Rosalyn Bird: That wasn’t what I was asking. I’m very aware that there are multiple places that you can obtain legal advice. What I am asking about is: if a family cannot afford that legal advice, are there discretionary funds available for that?

As a matter of fact, in accordance with a report that the Canadian Bar Association of B.C. put out in 2021, one of the recommendations was: “Providing the right resources at the right time requires adequate funding to Legal Aid British Columbia by the Attorney General of B.C. so that lawyers are available to assist particularly vulnerable families.”

[6:15 p.m.]

In conjunction with this recommendation that was made a number of years ago, was there collaboration with the Attorney General to increase funding to Legal Aid to ensure that vulnerable families that would not be able to afford that advice otherwise do actually have access to that advice?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, I can’t speak to another ministry’s budget. Maybe I’ll just clarify my answer again. There are a number of community and government programs that are available to families to access legal support and advice.

Part of the role of ministry…. We canvassed it earlier around family development plans and supporting families. Referrals are a part of that. In many of our communities, we have non-profits that deliver things like a family law advocate, a poverty law advocate. There are a number of community-based programs and services, Legal Aid, that are available to families that would be captured in the situation that you are speaking of.

Rosalyn Bird: I know that you can’t speak to somebody else’s budget, but I would certainly have hoped that there would have been interaction with that ministry in regard to this particular topic. These are decisions that can have massive ramifications on a family, as you stated. Safety plans are intended to be very non-intrusive. However, they can escalate, and they can move to a situation where court orders are requested, further investigations are made and families can be facing the removal of a child or the removal of a parent.

These plans actually have massive implications for families, so it’s extremely important that they are able to access legal advice. Accessibility to legal advice does not actually mean that somebody gets the applicable advice that they’re supposed to get. That is of huge concern to me, particularly when these plans are intended to be voluntary. However, they can have very significant ramifications if anything goes wrong. So if families don’t attain that advice, it can be problematic.

I’m just wondering how the ministry feels about that. What are the mechanisms to ensure that they are very clear on what this plan could or couldn’t mean and what those ramifications could look like long term?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would say that I’ve already answered an access question around programs and services that families are able to access. I agree with the member that anything that we are doing in my ministry is an incredibly serious and important piece of work. I will add that we have regular meetings with the Attorney General monitoring access to independent legal advice.

Jeremy Valeriote: Subsection (e) — term of the agreement, 45 days. As I understand it, current policy sets the safety plan limit at 30 days. This allows for more regular reviews and expeditious investigation and assessment processes.

Can the minister explain what the considerations were in setting the duration limit 50 percent higher than the current protocol?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s important to note that safety plans are primarily used during the assessment and investigation process. In practice, this phase of the child protection process takes more than 30 days, often because the director is waiting for information from a third party.

Extending the maximum limit to 45 days creates stability for families and reduces the number of new safety plans that might be needed over the lifetime of an assessment or an investigation if circumstances don’t change. Also to note that parents may withdraw or develop a new plan with the director at any point in time if circumstances do change for any reason.

Jeremy Valeriote: Subsection (f). Current policy allows for a party to a safety plan to withdraw at any time without notice to the director. These changes would require a parent to give notice before withdrawing. The notice period would be defined in the safety plan.

The right to withdraw from a safety plan at any time is an important right, especially when parents are asked to sign safety plans in emergency situations before they’ve talked to a lawyer. A notice period could increase the amount of time that an arbitrary, unfair or harmful safety plan applies.

Can the minister explain the approach under subsection (f), please?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s really important that a notice happen. The notice provides the director time to step in if the withdrawal from the plan could seriously endanger a child.

[6:25 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: On paragraph (f), I’m just curious if the ministry has a number of days that they have considered and why this particular bill does not actually list the three days that they refer to in the transitionary period at the end of the bill, because it does state that later in the bill. So if she could provide an explanation as to why that hasn’t been put in this subparagraph.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Thank you for the question. I think it’s a good one.

The reason that we don’t specify, in this part of the bill, a specific number of days is for the ability for flexibility between the director and the parent and to take into consideration the unique circumstances of any particular circumstance.

There’s a number of factors to take into consideration when thinking about number of days of advance notice. The reason why there is the provision later is because of the fact that this doesn’t currently exist in our current safety plans. We can speak more to that in clause 6.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the answer, Minister. I actually don’t agree.

When you add in, at the end of a bill, a transitionary period and you increase a withdrawal time from three days from a voluntary withdrawal and it’s a transitionary thing, you are actually putting forward a bill that this is how safety plans are going to be interpreted and rolled out moving forward.

The minister has set a precedent there with three days during the transition period, so I don’t know why that period would be different, moving forward, once the legislation is actually enacted. I don’t disagree. An individual currently can withdraw any time.

If that is going to be staying, that they can continue to withdraw any time, I still don’t understand that number. They are related. I know it’s in a different clause, but I need to understand why this particular section has not been amended to have that number in it.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do really think that more clarity will be provided to this in clause 6, but I’ll do my best to answer the member opposite.

The need for flexibility remains in this clause of the bill. A parent can still withdraw at any time. The transitional provisions later on in the bill are only in force for 45 days after royal assent. There are pieces here about how we actually operationalize this, and more clarity will be provided when we discuss clause 6.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay. I’ll leave that for now. We can come back to it during clause 6.

I would actually like to return to the question, though, that the leader of the Green Party asked earlier.

I have some questions, too, about the 45 days. I thought this was quite interesting, and I don’t disagree with what you stated about 30 days — that it’s a very short period of time and that people may not be able to make those expectations. To extend it to 45 days seems odd.

Currently under MCFD you’re challenged with shortages of supports, resources and social workers, excessive caseloads, delayed decisions and court backlogs. Currently a party or all parties can withdraw from a safety plan at any time, as can a director.

Why can a safety plan agreement under Bill 29 not be 30 to 210 days maximum, as per section 3.2 of chapter 3 in the current regulation?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The intention of these agreements is really outlined in the bill around being voluntary and time-bound. The interests of the partners that we engaged with were quite in support of these agreements being time-bound, and having something in place longer than 45 days is a long time to not revisit an agreement or have conversations about the agreement. This time was really driven by the engagement with our partners as well.

Rosalyn Bird: Unless I am misunderstanding the policy, as you said earlier, my understanding is that currently, safety plans can be extended multiple times in 30-day increments, up to 120 days, and then, at the discretion of a director, that could be extended for another three months. That’s why I’m asking specifically about these time frames.

For clarity, in this new legislation — with the exception, which you refer to later in the bill, of a one-time extension because of a court order — is it the intention to have a safety plan as one-time-only for 45 days?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s really important to emphasize that the safety planning tool is not intended to be a long-term strategy. It is intended to be a short-term tool while things are happening, and that’s outlined in 19.1. Directors are able to enter into successive safety plans if required. I think it’s important to take into consideration that many of these situations are not linear.

There may be a different concern that comes to the attention of a director. Also, an assessment could be complete before the 30 days. A court order might happen. That could happen before the 45 days. Again, there’s no explicit limit to how many successive safety plans are put in.

Just to emphasize, a safety plan can only be entered into during two phases of the child protection process: while the director is assessing or investigating a child protection concern — they may assess that concern and no longer have that concern — or while the director is waiting for a protecting court order which they applied for in response to the need identified in their assessment or investigation, and which would be completed at that point.

Rosalyn Bird: Can the minister tell myself and anybody that’s watching what the average time frame is for an assessment or an investigation to take place?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The 45 days was based on averages that we have, and it was also balanced with the interests of our partners.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: could you clarify what that last portion of your answer means, “to balance with your partners”?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The first part was based on our averages and the data that we have. Then the next part was about the interests of our partners and what they told us they felt was a reasonable amount of time.

[6:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder to members to avoid the use of the word “you.”

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Chair.

Just to confirm, during the collaboration process on this bill, was there a consensus that the 45 days is an appropriate time for the safety plan, or is that actually the average time for assessments and investigations to take place? Those are two very different things.

Was that a collateral decision-making process? They are actually two things. They are two separate things.

I’ll ask two clarifying questions. When you did your consultation with various groups, were they all in agreement that 45 days for the safety plan was applicable, or were they in agreement that assessments and investigations did not, on average, take longer than 45 days?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just to clarify, in our engagement, it was very clear from partners, quite a bit of consensus and agreement, that they want to ensure that safety plans continue to be short-term agreements. In conversations with practice, it has become clear that assessments take longer than 30 days. By landing on 45 days, it achieves both of those considerations.

Rosalyn Bird: I mean no disrespect to the minister or her partners. I find it extremely difficult to believe that an investigation involving severe physical abuse or neglect would take less than 45 days.

[6:45 p.m.]

You said safety plans are in place while there is an assessment or an investigation taking place, and you have put a time limit on it for 45 days. You’ve also stated that in the current regulation, they can be extended in 30-day increments, but you had concerns around that, so you came to a conclusion with your partners that 45 days was the amount of time for that to take place.

Either I’m misunderstanding you, or…. I don’t know if we’re not communicating well, but I do believe that is exactly what you said — that safety plans are put in place when there’s an assessment and….

The Chair: Member, I’m going to ask you to refrain from using the word “you,” please.

Rosalyn Bird: My apologies.

The minister did state that safety plans are used for assessments and investigations. She stated assessments took, on average, 45 days, but again, safety plans are used also in investigation in protective services for children.

I do not believe an investigation can take place within 45 days for severe physical abuse or neglect. So if the minister could help me understand what happens at the end of that 45 days, if that plan is extended, or we escalate to another mechanism.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to make it very clear for the member that if a child or youth’s health and safety is in immediate danger, we would not use safety planning as a tool. So how the member just characterized the question is not…. We don’t use safety planning for things like severe neglect or abuse. That isn’t the tool that would be used in that situation.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m confused, because in chapter 3, section 3.3, on page 37, it actually describes developing a safety plan. It describes, on page 38, re-evaluating a safety plan, and this section specifically refers to circumstances involving severe physical abuse or severe neglect. So if the minister could clarify that for me.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There’s quite a bit of complexity involved in this question, so I’m going to ask that we table this question, given the time.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:50 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: The committee for Bill 29 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 32 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:24 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I will call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 32 forward.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I’m going to look to the minister for opening statements and introductions.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Hello, everybody.

I’m going to start off with some introductions. Sitting to my left is Darryl Sturtevant. He is the assistant deputy minister for mental health and concurrent disorders. And joining me are Katherine Dann, chief of legal strategy from the Ministry of Attorney General; and Sharna Kraitberg, who is legal counsel with the Attorney General.

I wanted to start off just with a fairly brief statement about, again, what this bill is but also what this bill is not, in an attempt to kind of help us in our deliberations today.

[3:25 p.m.]

The purpose of the amendment we’re discussing today is, first and foremost, to protect health care workers with certainty and to reassure patients and families who require care and treatment under the Mental Health Act that they’re getting the care they need.

They are amendments that clarify and strengthen protections under the act for front-line workers who deliver this essential health care to individuals who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

The province is currently defending involuntary care provisions in court. This amendment does not impact the court case but ensures staff protection regardless of its outcome.

Currently care at front-line facilities designated as mental health facilities is delivered by front-line health care workers. Section 31(1) of the Mental Health Act exists to legally protect them from being sued when providing involuntary care. The section’s purpose is to ensure that health care professionals know they have legal and government support, not to affect patients’ rights or consent.

What the bill is not. It is not a replacement for the review of the Mental Health Act. That is separate, and it is proceeding. These amendments are also unrelated to the tragic events that happened in April at the end of the Lapu-Lapu festival.

These amendments do not shield government from litigation. They shield front-line workers providing essential psychiatric care, including involuntary treatment. These amendments do not remove or alter the authority under the act to treat patients involuntarily. That authority exists in section 8, which is not impacted by these amendments.

They are not intended to alter involuntary care and treatment under the act but rather to, again, ensure that front-line workers who deliver the care know that they’re fully protected from any liability in the conduct of the very critically important work they do.

Claire Rattée: I just wanted to start out by saying a few words about this before we get into going through it clause by clause. I appreciate the minister’s explanation at the beginning here. I think that both she and I share the same desire to see involuntary care moving forward in this province. We both recognize the urgent need for that.

I think that what I find troubling about this bill, in the way that I’m interpreting it at this point, is that I agree with the minister’s desire to make sure that front-line health workers are protected and that they have liability protection. I think that’s incredibly important. I do understand that repealing section 31(1) would remove some of that liability, which is why it is necessary to put it in another part of the act.

My concern is that we’re going to end up in a position with clinicians doing a lot of hand-wringing and worrying, because the way I’m reading the act with these amendments is that they have a duty to treat but not that they necessarily have a legal right to do so. That’s what I think I really want to understand clearly throughout today.

I worry that we’re going to see a lot of serious deterioration, irreversible harm or death if treatment is delayed as a result of these amendments. I in no way am saying that I expect that this is what the minister’s intention is with this, but I do think that there can be unintended and very dangerous consequences if we’re not careful. I think that, given the scope of where things are at right now in the province, we need to do everything we can to ensure that we don’t end up in that place.

That being said, I know that there is a Charter challenge right now. I do understand the intent behind wanting to make sure that we’re protecting health care workers in the event that something should arise from that Charter challenge. But my understanding is that for years, clinical practice in British Columbia has relied on section 31 as the explicit authority for treatment over objection.

Health authority policies cite it. Rights advice materials cite it. Training manuals cite it. It has been the practical and legal foundation that providers have leaned on when treating individuals who because of illness, trauma or brain injury could not recognize their need for help.

That’s why section 31 is the focus of this active Charter challenge. For better or for worse, it has been the legal pillar on which the involuntary treatment framework has rested since its inception. So if the bill is proposing to remove that entirely and if the intention is to rely on another section of the act for treatment authority, then that has to be made clear in this debate and in the legislation itself.

If the intention is to shift treatment decisions into the general Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, then the consequences of that shift have to be openly addressed.

If the intention is simply to remove a legally vulnerable provision without resolving what stands in its place, then that raises serious concerns about the safety, coherence and constitutionality of the resulting framework.

[3:30 p.m.]

None of these questions, in my mind, have been answered yet, or at least not fully. I’m expecting that’s exactly what we’re going to do in committee stage here and get into it.

I really want to be clear that I support modernizing the Mental Health Act. I do support strengthening patient rights. I support clear standards, proper safeguards and transparent consent frameworks. But modernizing a law doesn’t mean creating a vacuum. Rights and clarity must be strengthened together, not one at the expense of the other.

I’m hoping throughout today in committee that I can get to the point where I understand what legal authority remains for involuntary treatment after section 31(1) is repealed; how the government envisions consent and capacity functioning in psychiatric settings; whether the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act now governs all treatment decisions for involuntary patients; how capacity will be assessed in cases of anosognosia, fluctuating insight or overdose-related hypoxic brain injury; what happens when a patient is detained but found capable and refuses treatment; how substitute decision-makers will be identified, involved or challenged; how youth, Indigenous communities, rural hospitals and facilities without psychiatrists will navigate this change; and whether clinicians and patients are going to be protected in a system that will now be operating without the clarity of section 31.

I think one of the big pieces there is also understanding, like I mentioned previously, this potential hand-wringing of clinicians. Are we going to end up in a situation where we have the ability to detain but not to treat in certain circumstances? I have concerns around that.

These aren’t abstract questions. They are operational realities. British Columbians deserve answers before the law is changed.

I will also be introducing several reasonable amendments, all within the scope, to give British Columbians the clarity that this bill currently lacks, in my opinion. These amendments do not expand government power. They do not diminish patient rights. They simply provide the stability and transparency that a responsible legislative transition requires.

I really hope that the Health Minister, who I consider to be a colleague and a friend, will be open to working with me on these amendments so that we can strengthen this legislation together.

This work is not about political advantage. It’s about ensuring that clinicians are not left legally exposed, that patients are not left untreated and that families are not left navigating uncertainty in the middle of a mental health crisis. When we legislate in this area, ambiguity is not neutral. It is dangerous.

With that, Chair, I’m ready to begin the clause-by-clause examination, starting with clause 1. We’re prepared for that.

The Chair: We’re on clause 1 now, so you can move forward.

Claire Rattée: Perfect. Thank you.

I would just like to start with understanding when the government first began drafting this bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: What I want to do with this answer is, first, just address some of the comments and what I think are some of the fundamental misunderstandings.

I appreciate the member, in her opening statement there, clearly articulating some of the thoughts or beliefs about what the act may be or what may result.

As I noted yesterday in the House, several members in speaking about the bill have a misapprehension that subsection 31(1), the deemed-consent provision there, provides the authority for authorizing involuntary treatment, but it does not. I want to try to explain this so that, hopefully, it can become more clear for the rest of our committee discussion today. It is this confusion that has prompted the legislative reform that I am proposing.

The ability of medical health professionals to authorize treatment under section 8 was introduced in the original act in 1964. It was modified slightly in 1973, but it is government’s position that this is where the explicit authority lies, in section 8. And section 8 is not being amended by this bill.

The statutory authority of directors, and superintendents before then, to direct and authorize treatment for involuntarily admitted patients has been a permanent and consistent essential feature of our province’s mental health legislation — in fact, since the late 1800s and decades before subsection 31(1) was first introduced in 1981.

The deemed-consent provision was added to the act in 1981 through a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, enacted after the Supreme Court released its decision on medical consent in Reibl v. Hughes in 1980. Deemed consent added nothing to the way in which involuntary treatment was provided, which has always been through the authorization by the director.

Nothing in the proposed amendments under Bill 32 will change any of that, just as involuntary treatment was provided without subsection 31(1) for decades in this province prior to it being added in 1981. So, too, involuntary treatment will continue uninterrupted after these amendments.

There will be no operational change. I appreciate that the member brought up a number of concerns around operations, but nothing in these amendments changes the operations, the application of involuntary care.

There’s also been reference…. The member for Skeena talked about other acts. There’s been a suggestion that without this subsection, 31(1), treatment authorization would default to the consent-to-care act, which has a more cumbersome treatment approval regime and that this would mean that some involuntary patients could not be treated.

I want to provide an assurance to the member that this is not the case. It is a misunderstanding, I believe, of how the legislation works. Section 2 of the consent-to-care act specifically says that the act does not apply to psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act for patients involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act.

[3:40 p.m.]

Involuntary treatment for involuntary patients cannot, by definition and operation of the legislation, default to the consent-to-care act.

Without section 31(1), authorization of involuntary care remains where it has always been in section 8. It’s just the protection from the potential liability for health care staff that actually shifts from the current section 31(1) to the new addition in section 16 without the deemed-consent language that some members have found offensive and that has been the source of confusion.

So I hope this helps to explain why we are confident that this does not change the operation of the act. It does not change the fact that involuntary treatment can occur and, in cases where it is deemed appropriate and signed off by the director of a facility, take place.

With respect to the timing of the development of this legislation….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Minister, sorry. I’m just going to….

Hon. Josie Osborne: That’s okay.

The Chair: We have a division in the chamber. So we are going to take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:41 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order.

I will recognize the minister to finish where she was before we took a short recess.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you very much, Chair.

I just want to correct myself for the record. I previously talked about the consent-to-care act, and what I meant to say was the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act when I was talking previously.

[4:00 p.m.]

I was in the middle of just answering the question about when the legislative amendments were prepared. Very recently this was a decision that government took to bring this bill forward to make these amendments and has been spoken about openly by the Premier and others.

This is related to the court case that’s ongoing, brought forward by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Again, it is not intended to defeat that court case. We expect and we know that the judge will make her decision and that regardless of the outcome of that decision, it is to reduce the risk that a health care worker would feel that they were not protected, by specifically enshrining that protection with a more robust liability provision that is being proposed to be put into section 16.

Claire Rattée: Thank you. I appreciate that.

I just want to make it clear. My intention was to talk about and ask questions about 31, under clause 2, because that’s the one that was being referenced. I’ll try and stick right now to just section 16 questions and then get into that a bit more once we’re onto clause 2.

I’m just curious. When I’m looking at trying to understand when the drafting of this bill started, part of the reason is I’m curious if it started before or after the government had announced the review of the Mental Health Act in April of 2025. I’m just hoping I can get some clarity on that, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

The preparation of this legislation occurred after the announcement that we would be undertaking a review of the Mental Health Act.

I’m going to take the opportunity just to talk briefly about the review. I want to be clear that this bill is modest, in a sense, in that it is specific to the provision of protections to health care workers who are providing psychiatric treatment, under the authorization of a director of a facility, but that government recognizes and has every intention to undertake a review of the act itself.

That work will more broadly modernize and reform the act, and we expect that process will lead to more substantial amendments to the act. But it does take time. It does take careful consideration, and it requires a robust consultation process. So that is not something, obviously, that was going to be completed by today and would not be encompassed in the legislation that’s before us now.

Again, it’s still important to clarify and alleviate some of the confusion that currently exists about the operation of the act and ensure that in the provision of care, doctors, nurses and other health care workers are protected.

I just want to be clear. This is by no means the last say that government will have about the Mental Health Act. There’s a significant amount of work that still needs to be undertaken. It is my hope — I’m sure it will be — that members of the opposition will participate in that work as they deem fit as we go forward and undertake that review, more of which I’ll have to say soon but not today.

[4:05 p.m.]

Elenore Sturko: I thank my colleagues for the opportunity.

I wanted to follow up on something that the minister had said in her response to the member for Skeena in acknowledging that this is legislation that comes to help deal with challenges to section 31(1) of the Mental Health Act, and the comment that the authority to give people treatment without consent and have that treatment administered comes from section 8 of the Mental Health Act.

I’m just going to quickly refer…. I have a copy of the Mental Health Act. In section 8, a director must ensure that each patient admitted to the designated facility is provided with professional service, care and treatment appropriate to the patient’s condition and appropriate to the function of the designated facility, and for those purposes, a director may sign consent to treatment forms for a patient detained under section 22, 28, 29, 30 or 42.

For people who may be watching this at home, those sections of the Mental Health Act are for involuntary care, emergency involuntary care, for people who are admitted to a hospital as part of the correctional or forensic psychiatric services.

One of the forms that it refers to, one of the forms for consent, would be form 5 of the Mental Health Act, which is consent for treatment, involuntary patient, which can be signed either by a patient who might agree to sign and consents to their treatment or by a physician or someone authorized by the director to consent to that treatment, authorizing them to give that involuntary treatment to a person.

Given the challenge that the minister had spoken about to section 31(1) and that the public, and even MLAs, thinking back to our debate yesterday, have this belief, and this court challenge is set up on the belief, that the consent to treat people is coming from the section that the minister is repealing, is there a chance that section 8 might be affected by this court challenge?

Really, the premise of the challenge…. When you look at the publications and you look at the communications by the organizations who have brought forward their concerns about involuntary care, it is about having the informed consent of individuals, participation of people like substitute decision-makers to make those decisions.

My worry for our system would be that…. So we’re replacing this. It’s kind of like doing a runner on the court, getting rid of this section, because this is what they’re challenging, but in reality, it is actually section 8.

Is there a chance that this ruling might impact our ability, even under section 8, and that, in fact, there would be a challenge then to our ability overall to conduct involuntary care, depending on what happens in court?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m going to do my best to answer this, given that none of us are lawyers. I think, to be very direct, yes, there is a chance that the court could find the entire scheme of involuntary care to be unconstitutional. So I want to just play this out in two ways.

One is if the bill goes forward and is passed in the Legislature, and the court finds still in section 8 that the entire scheme is invalid or is unconstitutional and then gives us time as a government to make the changes, that will need to happen. Without this bill, the court may still find the entire scheme of involuntary care to be unconstitutional, whether it’s section 31(1) or section 8.

The risk here is that if that sends workers into kind of a grey zone, then things could be affected and impacted operationally, which we do not want to happen, because we understand just how important it is to continue the operations of this act and to be able to apply that psychiatric care that is necessary for those people for whom under the provisions of the act it has been deemed necessary.

Regardless of the bill being here or not, we may be in that situation. That’s why I would say to members on the other side that it’s really important to support this bill. We cannot predict what the judge will say. That is her decision entirely.

We want to do everything we can to protect those health care workers. We want to be able to say to the families of people who are receiving care that that care will continue. We want to do everything that we can at this point to ensure that the provision of care continues, even if government needs to take steps in the months after to make the amendments to the act that the court may dictate we need to do.

Interjection.

The Chair: I’m going to allow the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to finish their line of questioning and then….

Member, if that works? Okay. Thank you.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you, and thank you to my colleague. I just have one follow-up here.

I do appreciate…. Thank you to the minister for what, I think, is a very frank and realistic answer. I do also have the fear, especially after learning a little bit more about this bill, even subsequent to my second reading debate speech, subsequent also to just looking, going back and reading over some of the previous public information about the court challenge.

I, too, have concerns that regardless of section 31(1), there could be consequences because of what the intent of that challenge is, to challenge, as the minister says, the scheme of involuntary care, which is why I think I’d just make a comment to the minister.

[4:15 p.m.]

Maybe echoing some of my colleague from Skeena’s comments from yesterday, the importance, then, of having — even if the government is given some time to respond or to work out what we will do should a ruling declare our way of providing involuntary care to be unconstitutional — a framework put in place that at least has exigent circumstances legislation, such as what, actually, is in the consent-to-care act.

I’m screwing up the name now, but what we discussed earlier, the hospital-admissions and consent-to-care act, that has provisions in it that could possibly be adopted for the Mental Health Act of British Columbia under exigent circumstances to provide treatment in an emergency.

For things…. For example, if there is violence or someone who’s in psychosis and they need to act quickly in order to prevent harm, that those are things that be prepared just in case.

My question is: how is it that the government is hoping that changing the liabilities from section 31(1) over to 16(b.4) will mitigate this issue that has come up with the overall question which is before the court, this constitutionality of involuntary care without deemed consent? What are they hoping the outcome will be? In which way will this change and, hopefully, mitigate problems for us as a province?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: In the event that the judge renders a decision that deems involuntary care to be unconstitutional under section 8, we would seek a suspension of the decision to allow time to pass new legislation to address the issues at the court and the issues that the plaintiffs have brought forward.

In that time, the act would continue to apply, which is why it would be so important to ensure that workers continue to be protected, hence moving this liability provision out of subsection 31(1) and into 16, in that very eventuality.

Claire Rattée: I’m curious if there were any external legal opinions that were requested or relied upon in deciding to draft this bill.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The bill was drafted by legislative counsel with advice from legal services branch at the Ministry of Attorney General and advice from litigation counsel.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Claire Rattée: Thank you for that response.

I’m curious, then. Who instructed the ministry to draft this bill? Was it at the direction of the minister? Was it cabinet, the Attorney General, Dr. Vigo? How was the decision made to begin work on this piece of legislation?

Hon. Josie Osborne: This was under cabinet direction.

[4:25 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Just looking at this from a legal perspective, what has become clear is that there is…. This is not the full review. We’d all like to be doing the full review and not spending time on this, but this is not the full review. What it is, apparently, is a decision that arises from the Charter challenge.

Just drawing on my legal experience, I was trying to create a bit of a timeline of what has happened here. Really, for the past ten years or so at least, certainly since this case was first filed, it appears that the understanding of everyone — in the ministry, in community groups, amongst health care providers…. Everybody’s understanding was that section 31 was the deemed-consent provision that was applicable.

I haven’t read the transcript or seen a transcript, but I understand that Dr. Vigo has mentioned repeatedly up until recently that section 31 is the key, maybe as many as 22 times. Form 5s, the policies, they all refer to section 31.

Then, as I understand it, earlier this spring before the trial got going, legal counsel was changed on the case, and the record shows that Craig James is the counsel. He took his position in court, in his opening statement or in statements, that “Oh, it’s not section 31; section 8 is the operative section,” which was a complete surprise to everybody, certainly to the litigants because they were challenging based on a clear understanding, from many years, that a Charter challenge would involve section 31.

Now what we have is…. We have in front of the court a judge who is considering whether a Charter challenge to section 31 — which section applies, which is the deemed-consent section. We have a situation where the judge will be assessing that. Obviously, the judge…. My experience will be that the judge will rule on the constitutional issues.

So here we are in November of this year. I’m providing this background because I think it helps in the framing of my question. This isn’t question period, so I can take a bit more time. We’re in a place where the judge will have to make an assessment. Where is the court case at? My understanding is that over the next few months — say, into January — there will be case management, there will probably be a couple more days of hearings, and then the judge will have to take it away and make a ruling.

My experience is that a judge in those circumstances is highly unlikely to issue a ruling for at least a few months, if not six months, and that it’s certainly open to the parties, as the minister has mentioned, to negotiate or seek court guidance on a period of time where the ruling, whatever it is, if a section is struck down, whether it’s section 8 or 31 or both — for the government to decide how it’s going to proceed, what alternative provisions it would put in legislation.

[4:30 p.m.]

It would not be unusual that that would be at least six months. For example, in the Cowichan decision, it was 18 months. And I don’t think that you would find any of the litigants involved trying to have a rushed decision, to have a court decision implemented quickly, when there will be health care workers and patients and families and advocates, the ministry, all across the whole system, wanting to make sure that if there are going to be changes, the changes are carefully thought out.

Where does that leave us? Well, January might be the time for a hearing, another three to six months, another six months after that, at least, of a suspension. So if there was a ruling against the government, there would be at least 12 months from the passage of legislation until it came into effect, if it was struck down. So there’s a lot of time.

There’s a lot of time to do the work to respond to an actual court decision rather than what might happen. And there’s a lot of time to do consultation with experts and advocates and people with living and lived experience. There can’t have been any substantive consultation when this hit the airwaves on, I think, Monday, but it probably was, as far as I can understand, drafted pretty quickly.

That brings me to my question, which is: why now? There is no risk, as far as I can see, in not passing this legislation, respecting the court process, letting it go forward. You’ll still have a year to build the changes, but you’ll be basing it on an actual court decision rather than a guess.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: In answering this question, I want to take a step back and again talk about why it is important that we do this now and why we remain so focused on doing everything that we can to support people with complex mental health, serious mental illness, substance use challenges and people who are not able to make treatment decisions for themselves.

We, in doing that, want to make sure that the front-line workers, the people who care deeply about this work that they are doing, are able to execute their duties in good faith and to know that they have liability protection from any kind of wrongdoing. That’s why it’s so critical to us that we do use every tool in the toolbox, to use a phrase, to make sure that involuntary treatment remains part of what we can do to help care for people.

I also want to frame these comments, too, in the toxic drug crisis. This crisis is evolving on such a quick basis and demanding so much of us. I know that every member of the House stands together in knowing that we have to address this as best as we can, that it’s essential that people who need treatment can get treatment and again when they are unable to make these decisions in their best interest.

I appreciate the member for Saanich North and the Islands and his experience. I know he knows, too, that there is no way to predict the outcome of the court case. He has asked: “Why not wait?” Some of the reasons why are because we cannot predict what will happen. There is no guarantee that the court will order any suspension or if it did for how long it would be. We don’t know the substance of the decision. That’s why we have to act now to protect the liability of the health care workers.

Now, in some cases, courts have suspended their declarations to give government time to re-enact provisions that are struck down. Again, as I said, there’s just no guarantee of what could happen in the current case. So even if it does, the effect of the declaration itself is uncertain because there’s never been a civil liability protection declared invalid under section 52 of the Constitution Act. The proposed amendments, again, make it very clear that no matter what happens with the constitutional case, workers in the health system are protected.

[4:40 p.m.]

I want to say again that these amendments do not shield government from anything. That is not the intention, and they do not do that. They shield the individuals who are actually out on the front lines and who are delivering this care.

The Chair: If I can remind the committee that when the minister or the members are speaking, if you could not be speaking during that time, I would appreciate that so very much.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

It would be unprecedented for a court to order that a decision be implemented immediately if the parties to the case are seeking time to review the decision and make amendments as necessary.

I have a series of questions here. Can you provide me some examples of cases where legislation has been struck down in this nature, where the change went into effect immediately without allowing government to make some amendments to its legislation to come into compliance with the decision, or cases where both parties to the case or all parties to the case seek an agreed-upon suspension of the decision for a period of time, and the court has said: “Nope. We’re ignoring the wishes of the parties, and the order goes into effect right away”?

I’d be interested to know some specific examples.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

The simple first part of my answer is that in the time that’s allotted to us in this debate, no, I don’t have examples to present to the member. But I want to say this. The province hopes that it will be successful in this case, but we understand that we may not. It is prudent, advisable and responsible to take the measures necessary to protect health care workers who deliver this treatment.

If section 31(1) remained and was struck down by the judge, then its effect on the civil liability protection is uncertain. That is the risk that we are needing to mitigate because it is so vitally important for health care workers to have that confidence and assurance that the protection remains.

[4:50 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Who, amongst health care workers or advocacy bodies for health care workers, has brought a request for this change to the legislation to you, Minister, or to government? As far as we’ve been able to determine, this has not been brought forward by advocacy bodies or individual health care workers.

I’ll have some follow-up questions, but I’m interested to know whether there were submissions, written submissions or meetings, where advocacy bodies requested this change, and if so, who are they?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, the purpose of these amendments is to clarify the law with respect to the civil liability protections, and we didn’t need specific advocacy in order to identify the risk because it was identified through the litigation.

I will note that the B.C. Schizophrenia Society and Pathways Serious Mental Illness Society, for example, have stood up and agreed with and supported this move.

Rob Botterell: I think it’s probably appropriate right now to make it clear that we certainly want to use every tool in the toolbox. We certainly, in the Green caucus, want to support a full review of the Mental Health Act, and we, too, are extraordinarily concerned about the toxic drug crisis.

We’re also extraordinarily concerned that legislation be developed in a way that’s informed by experts and advocates and people most affected and those with a high degree of interest. So when the minister says, “We have no examples of where a court hasn’t granted time to adjust legislation, but that is not an issue for us where we don’t have the time to do that research,” what we’re saying is: “Well, let’s find a way to take the time.”

If we did a review of suspension judgments across Canada, which I imagine the Attorney General’s ministry is doing right now in relation to the Cowichan decision…. I think you can be 100 percent sure that if the parties both requested a suspension of the judgment, because everybody’s concerned about getting this right, the court would grant that, and they may grant more time. But it’s beyond belief that they wouldn’t, so we would have the time to do the consultation to have legislation that has a broad base of support.

Same with the advocacy bodies. I have family that have schizophrenia. This is not like trying to force something down and make a change. It’s about balancing the need for taking the time to get it right. So when you identify pathway services and a couple of other organizations that are supportive, great. I’m glad they’re supportive. But the fact is they’re supportive because they think that there’s suddenly going to be a big liability situation arising, which we have no evidence of.

The existing legislation is providing…. It needs modernizing, but it works. It’s well understood by everybody in how it works. We all have different views about how it should be changed, but it works. Now we’re going to make a sudden change, and we don’t know how this change will work, because we have not seen it implemented.

[5:00 p.m.]

You make an amendment to legislation like this, and you do it very quickly with a very limited amount, if any, of consultation, right in the middle of a court case. That just seems highly risky to me, far more risky than waiting until we’ve got a judgment. We know what the law says, and we can amend the legislation to reflect the law.

The minister has raised this spectre of hard-working men and women being sued, so we have to make this change to the legislation. We don’t have to make this change to the legislation right now. It’s working.

My question to the minister…. There are no examples of where we can’t get more time from a court and you don’t have time to prepare it. I can assure you there isn’t. If you want me to go and do the cross-Canada search, instead of the Attorney General, I will. I’ll prove it. In terms of advocacy bodies, there are other advocacy bodies out there, I suspect, that are not bringing forward this as a concern. It’s a chimera.

What individual health care workers over the last, say, couple of years have actually suffered damages and have not had protection? You’ve got “deemed consent” here in two spots, and one of them, everybody assumes, is legitimate. Show me the mischief that we’re trying to solve, and prove why we need to do it right now and rush this through.

My experience, the experience of many others, is that you’re going to have at least a year, after the court case closes, to do that work and have everybody supporting the change, rather than this type of lack of collaboration.

The Chair: Member, the Chair has been offering a fairly wide latitude on clause 1 at this time. However, we want to ensure that we’re not re-canvassing the second reading and the principles of this bill, as it was adopted at second reading. If you can just tighten your work up a little bit, that would be really appreciated.

Thank you very much, Member.

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you, again, to the member for his questions. I really respect the background and experience that he brings to this in asking the questions that he is.

I think one of the challenges before us is that this issue is rife with uncertainty and that there are a lot of assumptions we can make and a lot of questions and lines of questioning we could pursue through this.

What I want to say, though, is that the plaintiff, in their own reply, put the consequences of this case in some very stark terms. I want to read from this.

“To be clear, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities accepts that section 31(1) shields health care workers from battery claims. If section 31(1) falls, what prudent health care provider would hold someone down against their will and inject medication then? The practical result of striking down the impugned provision would be the same as striking down the treatment authority provision in the Mental Health Act. Involuntary treatment would then stop unless consent were obtained under the consent act or the Representation Agreement Act or amendments to the Mental Health Act the Legislative Assembly might enact in response.”

In essence, the plaintiff is acknowledging that the risk exists.

So why now? Again, because we cannot predict the outcome of this court case. We feel strongly that it is prudent and responsible to take this action now to ensure that those liability provisions remain for those health care workers.

The member also talked about the need for all voices to come to the table, and we agree. We agree, and that is why the Premier has announced that we’re undertaking a review of the Mental Health Act. That is the place for the deep consultation, for the voices of people with lived and living experience, for family members, for experts, for organizations involved in treatment and support of people living with severe mental illness.

That will take place there. But why now? It’s so that no matter the outcome of this court case, we know that health care workers are protected and that the act will continue to operate as it needs to until such time that future changes are made, whether those changes are required by court decision or come about through the work of the Mental Health Act, for example.

Brennan Day: I have a couple of questions here about retroactivity, on including 8(a) in section 16, because previously it was not. It seems like the reason it is now required to be included is because the Crown is arguing that 8(a) is what you get sectioned under, despite that not being referenced anywhere else.

I think that’s a novel argument here because 22 and many of the other sections are already designated specifically with coverage in 8(a). If we include 8(a) in section 16, will that retroactively release liability for people that would be, then, captured by that?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: To the member’s question, currently under section 31(1), the liability protection is implicit. What this amendment would do is make it explicit in section 16, but there’s no need to make it retroactive, because it’s continuous coverage.

I want to take a moment just to address the member for Saanich North and the Islands around the number of times the court has made declarations of invalidity and a constitutional challenge and been suspended or not. I can give the member a number. The Supreme Court of Canada has made 90 declarations of invalidity in a constitutional challenge, and only 23 have been suspended.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that the minister has clarified now that cabinet was the one that gave the direction for this piece of legislation to start being drafted. What I would like to understand here is if this was direction that came from cabinet and it is directly related to this Charter challenge…. That’s my understanding at this point, that this is why this is coming forward now.

The timing does still strike me as slightly odd. This is a case that’s been before the court for a very long period of time now, and we are very late in the session, as was mentioned previously. So this should be a fairly quick, easy one to answer.

I understand cabinet confidentiality. I understand that I can’t be told what happens at the cabinet table. But is there something that the cabinet knows that the public does not that has made it so that the decision was made to go forward with this now?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I would say there’s nothing that cabinet knows that we don’t all know or that we are maintaining, and that is that there is a risk if subsection 31(1) is struck down. There is a risk to the liability for health care workers, which is why we are making the proposal to have these amendments in place.

Claire Rattée: I’m curious if these section 16 amendments also provide liability coverage to anyone beyond front-line health workers. Does this apply to government cabinet or health authorities?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I just want to read directly from section 16 as it is now. “A person is not liable in damages as the result of doing any of the following in good faith and with reasonable care.” Then what would be added in section (b.4) is: “providing to a patient a professional service, or care or treatment, authorized by the director under this Act….”

Government is not a person, for example, so no, this is not about government. This is about the people who are providing the care, whether they work for the health authority, which is the most likely case, but perhaps not.

Claire Rattée: Now I’m curious. Knowing that Dr. Vigo is the chief scientific adviser to the government on this particular file, was Dr. Vigo consulted on this? And if so, what were his thoughts around it?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you for the question.

Yes, Dr. Vigo was consulted. He is supportive of this, and he joined us at the press conference where we made the announcement.

Claire Rattée: I’m assuming that the response to this is that it’s because of the Charter challenge, but I’m curious if the minister could expand upon why liability protection was chosen as the priority for this bill rather than clarifying treatment authority.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, I want to be clear. The intention of these amendments is not to obstruct the constitutional challenge that’s before the courts right now. To clarify, treatment authority could have an effect in that case. That’s not what we’re trying to do. The court is going to make the decision on the constitutionality of involuntary care as a scheme.

What we really wanted to focus on, what we are focusing on, is the liability protection for workers. That’s why these two amendments are focused solely on that.

Anna Kindy: Sorry, this is a bit of a newbie question because I’m not a lawyer. I just need to understand consent and liability. So for example, prior to getting surgery, you sign a consent form. But if the surgery goes sideways, you’re still liable.

So my question here is: by extending this liability protection, does that extend to treatment that goes sideways, meaning that the condition of the patient worsens? That does happen.

Hon. Josie Osborne: These amendments are around protecting liability. As I previously read from section 16, for care that is provided in good faith and with reasonable care, the ordinary medical liability rules would still apply, regardless of whether treatment was applied voluntarily or involuntarily.

Anna Kindy: Again, in any other practice of medicine, good faith doesn’t waive liability, because you can do surgery in good faith and still make a mistake and have bad consequences.

So are you saying to me that in the world of psychiatry, good faith means that even if harm was done — but you did it in good faith; that’s how you practise — you’re not liable?

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is about acting in good faith and with reasonable care. If a health care provider is….

Section 16, I should say, is not intended to protect a health care provider from liability for negligent acts.

[5:30 p.m.]

Elenore Sturko: Thank you for the opportunity to ask another question.

I guess I’ll just make the comment first that we’ve established in the context of our committee work on Bill 32 in clause 1, the minister has confirmed for us, that this is really about concern related to the ongoing court challenge about the constitutionality about involuntary care. We also established through our debate so far that the government has some concern that the court might find that involuntary care, the scheme under section 8, might be unconstitutional.

So does the government believe that the delivery of involuntary care under section 8 is constitutional?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m just going to answer simply. Yes.

Claire Rattée: Given that the minister has said that this government does believe that the delivery of involuntary care is constitutional under section 8, my question is: would the government be willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, to make sure that involuntary care is delivered, if the Supreme Court finds that it is not constitutional?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I just will answer this simply by saying that as one minister, that’s not a question that I can answer on behalf of government.

It is, in my opinion, Chair, not relevant to the bill and the debate that we’re having here.

The Chair: I will remind the member that we’re trying to stay within the clause of the bill.

Claire Rattée: My next question would be around consultation in the drafting of clause 1. I’m wondering if any clinician group was consulted while drafting clause 1.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Dr. Vigo is an individual who was consulted in this work through his role as the chief scientific adviser on psychiatry, toxic drugs and concurrent disorders.

While other clinicians were not directly consulted in the development of this bill, I can say that Dr. Vigo has been, throughout his work, engaging with front-line practitioners on the use of the Mental Health Act in the provision of involuntary treatment to individuals with severe mental health and substance use issues. He has identified that some clinicians lack clarity on authority with respect to involuntary treatment. So that does form part of the background in this case.

[5:35 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the government has any intention to make this bill a confidence vote at this point, given the result of the vote on second reading, or if they’re, at this point, willing to possibly let it die and lose the Charter challenge.

The Chair: Member, I’m sorry. I do not find that within the conversation that we would be having around clause 1.

Claire Rattée: I will ask, then: why has the government not attempted to bring back Bill 22, which was pulled for further consideration?

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. We’re going to have to stay within the confines of the bill we’re discussing.

Elenore Sturko: I will move to my question next, but perhaps, first, a comment in relation to the debate that we’re having. We had, and it is relevant to the clause that we’re on, a question by my colleague, my friend from Skeena. Why I believe that her question about whether or not the notwithstanding clause would be relevant….

Please, Chair, with some latitude here. I am getting the look, Chair, but my friend from Saanich North and the Islands already brought forward questions and concerns regarding why now for this amendment to be made, these changes to be made.

The government has really explained that there are some risks involved with this court case. Government workers, in their opinion, need to be better protected in case section 31(1) should be deemed unconstitutional, and they want to be able to protect health care workers. I think I’m summarizing that, hopefully. Very good.

However, the subsequent question, Chair, about whether or not they believe how they are delivering care, is relevant to the overall theme here that we’re talking about, which is legislation that is directly related to a challenge that the court is hearing right now about the constitutionality about the way that we’re providing this care, which is directly relevant to all of these sections of the Mental Health Act.

The question that my colleague here, my friend, asked about whether or not the government is prepared to use its constitutional ability to defend something that they say they believe is constitutional, the way that we are providing this care, also extends, then, to the question that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands had asked about: why now?

This legislation would be sort of moot if the government was going to use the notwithstanding clause to continue to provide care in this manner because they believe it’s important. They would be using their rights under the constitution to set aside this judgment and continue using our legislation as it stands today.

My question, though, related to section 16, is: will these changes add any new protections for any new groups of individuals — care providers, for example, who give care to people who are on leave under the Mental Health Act in community settings?

Let’s say protections for people who provide care, for example, to a young man in his 30s, maybe with a very complex mental health issue, on leave under the Mental Health Act, who seems to struggle and be slipping with their mental health and then subsequently commits a huge tragedy which injures dozens and leads to the death of others?

Would this add any new protections for any groups of people in those categories?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The shift from the implicit protection of a health care provider in subsection 31(1) to the explicit protection in section 16 doesn’t impact the category or type of worker. It still applies to a patient who has been involuntarily admitted, whether they are in a designated mental health facility or on extended leave.

I will repeat something I said at the beginning of today’s conversation. These amendments are unrelated to the tragic events that took place at the end of the Lapu-Lapu festival in April, and they do not shield government from litigation. They shield front-line workers providing that essential psychiatric care, including involuntary treatment. The test still remains: is that care that is delivered in good faith and with reasonable care?

Claire Rattée: Going back to consultation, I’m curious if the minister could please talk about other provinces. Obviously, British Columbia is a bit of an outlier, which is why we are in this Charter challenge currently. There’s no other province that still uses deemed consent.

I’m wondering if, when this legislation was being drafted, any other provinces were consulted if their mental health acts were similar pieces of legislation — I know many use two different acts, one to detain and one to treat — or utilized in the drafting of this bill.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think that’s an excellent question for the Mental Health Act review, but it’s not pertinent to this legislation.

[5:45 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I would assume, then, that most likely, that means that they were not consulted on this. Again, it seems that maybe there was a very broad scope of consultation being done on this, and I understand that’s because there are very simple amendments, in theory.

As I stated previously, I just have a lot of concerns that what may look simple on paper could have unintended consequences. Again, I’m not insinuating in any way that there would be bad intended consequences, but I do have concerns that there could be some unintended ones.

For that purpose, I would like to ask some questions regarding section 8, as it’s referenced in these amendments. I know that the minister had already discussed this in in her opening statements, but I would really like, for the record, if the minister could please explain clearly what her belief is that section 8 of the Mental Health Act currently authorizes. Very specifically, what does it authorize?

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is something that I did address in my opening remarks. I will just repeat part of that, but I think we will be able to move from that after this.

It is section 8 of the act that enables mental health facility directors to authorize treatment for involuntary patients. 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.

For those purposes, section 8 enables directors to authorize treatment for involuntary patients by assigning a consent-to-treatment form that has been established under the mental health regulation. Again, this occurs in situations where a patient is found to be incapable of appreciating or understanding the nature of their treatment and their need for it and therefore doesn’t have the capacity to give consent to that treatment.

[5:50 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Thank you for responding on that one.

My concern here is that I think the key word there is “obligation.” As I had stated previously, we could end up in a situation where, potentially, we have an obligation to treat, but not a legal authority.

What I’d really like clarified now is if the minister believes that section 8 contains the legal authority for involuntary psychiatric treatment.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is the province’s assertion that it does.

Claire Rattée: If it’s the province’s assertion that section 8 contains the legal authority for involuntary psychiatric treatment, I would just like to clearly understand when the ministry first adopted that interpretation.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Section 8 has been interpreted to provide that authority since 1973, and it has been part of our pleadings in the case since the very beginning.

Claire Rattée: If section 8 has always been understood to authorize involuntary treatment, why do existing rights advice materials, clinical policies and ministry guidelines explicitly cite section 31 as the treatment authority?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Section 31(1) works together with section 8 to provide authorization and shield it from liability. They work together currently as a scheme. If these amendments pass, we’ll need to update the document’s references that the member is referring to.

With that, may I ask for the briefest of recesses?

The Chair: Five or ten? Up to you.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Ten is fine. Thank you.

The Chair: I have 17:57 on my clock, which means that I’d like to see you back at 18:07, please, everybody back in their seats and ready to go. Thank you so very much.

The committee recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. We are on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Claire Rattée: Continuing with the discussion around section 8, if section 8 has always been sufficient, can I get some understanding from the minister, please, on why the Legislature ever enacted section 31 to provide the deemed consent?

A little bit of clarity here. Again, I know we’ve somewhat canvassed this already. I just really want, very clearly…. What was the reasoning at the time for that? What was the reason that was given for bringing in section 31?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The section 31(1), the deemed-consent provision, was added to the act in 1981 through a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It was enacted after the Supreme Court released its decision on medical consent, Reibl v. Hughes, in 1980. It was added then.

I explained, in my previous answer, to say that we point back to section 8 and section 31(1) as they’re interrelated and they form part of the involuntary treatment scheme. That’s why removing section 31(1) and replacing that implicit provision of liability with an explicit provision in section 16 provides that protection for workers.

Then to the member’s point in the previous question, references will need to be updated throughout the system and in various documents and guidance to ensure that things are clear.

[6:10 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Now I feel like we have a good understanding that the government’s interpretation is that section 8 provides all of that obligation and that then the legal authority is going to come from the liability protections that are being brought forward here to replace 31(1). I’m just….

Sorry, I’m trying to figure out how exactly I should word this. I might need to think about how to word this properly.

If it’s okay, are you prepared to go with a question?

Is that all right? Is that procedurally okay?

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just taking in the helpful discussion this afternoon and trying to get to the core of the sequence of events that led to today, in relation to enacting or proposing to pass and enact clause 1. I do appreciate the information from the Supreme Court of Canada around the 90 bills invalidated and 23 suspended.

Of course, my question is a bit more nuanced in the sense that…. Mine is that particular situation where both parties to the litigation are submitting to the judge that the bringing into effect of the order is suspended and suspended for an amount of time that gives the government an opportunity to make changes to the legislation, to bring it in accordance with the court case. That reasoning and that rationale is really not something that either of the parties to the litigation would oppose.

When I look at this, the way that this developed is that in May of ’25, litigation counsel changed. The new litigation counsel must have gone: “Holy smokes. Section 31 isn’t the operative section. Section 8 is the operative section.” But all of this litigation is around section 31. Then the fear that may have been, upon review of the case and where it stood, the submissions, and so on, and the precedents would have gone…. And not only that: “It looks like there’s a risk section 31 will get struck down, so we need a fix.”

Then what happened was: “Well, we don’t need to consult with anybody. I mean, it’s helpful if the Schizophrenia Society and one other sort of go along with this, but we don’t really need to check with other jurisdictions.” And then: “We don’t really need to know what advocates think.

We don’t really need to know if there are individuals who can’t take advantage of the implicit protection in section 31. We’ve got litigation counsel telling us that here’s a quick fix. We’ll just pass some legislation, put it in section 16, and Bob’s your uncle” — or maybe George is your uncle — “and we’re all good then, and it doesn’t really matter what the court decides.”

Well, there’s a fundamental flaw in that logic, which is that section 8 may get struck down, and we end up…. Section 31 isn’t the only risk here. So when I look at this, I think that’s where we are. I think the idea is: “Oh, we can go to zero risk by passing this legislation.” Well, there is another path to zero risk, and that is suspension of the decision.

[6:15 p.m.]

Even if there’s no suspension of the decision, it’s going to be well after the spring session before there’s any decision in this case.

So one of my questions is: has the Council of Canadians with Disabilities offered to support a suspension of the bringing into force of, ultimately, the decision? Have they offered to delay the court order being implemented or whatever it ends up being?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No, they have not offered that. I just want to say that I don’t think that the member intends to be cavalier in the way that he’s describing this. I don’t think that at all, because it is a serious matter, and this is something government takes very seriously. It has identified a risk and has put forth these amendments to mitigate that risk for those workers who apply this kind of psychiatric treatment for people.

There are a lot of assumptions, I think, in what the member is describing with respect to what the plaintiff may or may not say, how they may or may not behave, what they may or may not do once the decision is rendered. The decision is not rendered.

These amendments…. This is a good debate. This is a good discussion that we’re having, and we should have that discussion, but the amendments are squarely focused on those health care providers who provide this type of psychiatric treatment.

We may disagree with the logic behind some of this. Again, that is the very purpose of the debate that we’re having here today, and I appreciate it. We may not get to a place of agreement, but we’re going to continue this and, hopefully, also move on to other aspects of the proposed legislation.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The implicit protection is in place right now, so the question I have is: if the litigant, being the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, came forward and indicated through legal counsel and gave undertakings, which are legally binding, that they would support a six-month suspension or eight-month suspension of the decision, once it’s rendered, to allow time for the parties to decide how to deal with it, would that not eliminate the need for this legislation? The implicit liability protection is in place right now.

So if a letter showed up tomorrow saying that the Council for Canadians with Disabilities was prepared to support a suspension of, say, six months or eight months, would the minister consider withdrawing the legislation?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Let me try to answer it this way. We’ve never been in this place before. This has never happened before. We don’t know how the suspension of the declaration of unconstitutionality would affect the question of civil liability. We believe that the prudent course of action is what we are doing now, which is putting forth these amendments to protect those health care providers providing treatment under the act.

Rob Botterell: I’ve been alluded to as being cavalier, and I just want to assure everybody, including those listening in, that I certainly take this matter very seriously. The questions may have included some levity and something a little colourful, but I certainly don’t want to take anything away from the seriousness of this matter.

I do think that…. I have an old saying which is: there’s more than one way to reach your goal. I think that there is a way to create the degree of certainty the minister and all of us seek around ensuring that liability protection is in place as it is now until such time as we’re ready to alter the system following a degree of consultation and other work. The mechanism that is available for that is a suspension of a court judgment. It’s a time-honoured solution, and my line of questioning has been to explore that.

I appreciate the time this afternoon, and I may have more to add on that topic tomorrow.

Claire Rattée: This may be somewhat hypothetical, and I recognize that. I would just appreciate it if the minister wouldn’t mind answering this.

[6:25 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the government recognizes that there could potentially be more risk, and it may be too late, at this point, in moving forward with this piece of legislation now given the Charter challenge, knowing that this could potentially open up section 8 to this challenge.

I’m curious if there was an understanding, moving into this, recognizing that this could potentially mean that this Charter challenge could change — now go after section 8 as a result of the conversations we’ve had here today — and then we could potentially end up losing both sections that provide us the ability to treat involuntarily.

I hope that that makes sense. I’m just trying to understand if that was a risk that was assessed, moving into this.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Because of the relationship between section 8 and section 31(1), I think we’ve always accepted that that is part of the scheme of involuntary treatment and that that is a possible outcome, that the judge may render the scheme to be unconstitutional.

Claire Rattée: The reason I’m asking that is because I’m wondering if the government recognizes that currently the common understanding in the public — it seems to me everywhere; I think that’s why section 31 is the one that is being discussed in this Charter challenge — is that section 31 is the section in the current Mental Health Act that provides the authority to treat involuntarily.

I understand what the minister is saying, that it is not technically so. But in any consultation I’ve done with any other groups, that seems to be the understanding, that section 31 is that section that provides that authority.

So I’m just wondering, now that we’re moving forward with this and trying to clarify that it’s section 8 that actually provides that authority, if that was part of the concern. If that was always the common knowledge, if it was always the understanding, would section 8 not have been part of the Charter challenge in the first place?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think we’re getting back to things that I have said in previous answers. These amendments, again, are about clarifying the provision of liability. They are not about the involuntary scheme. They are not about clarifying whether it is section 8 or section 31(1). I have described how section 8 and section 31(1) work together in an involuntary scheme, which is why by removing that section, we want to ensure that health care providers have that explicit and robust protection for the treatment that they provide.

Claire Rattée: I do understand that.

I think maybe another way to approach this would be…. We’ve talked a bit about consultation and things like that, and I understand wanting to make sure that health care workers have that explicit liability protection. But if we haven’t consulted with those health care providers on this, do we have any real understanding, regardless of whether or not this is legal liability protection, of what those health care workers’ interpretation of this is going to be?

Again, my previous comments about…. Are we going to end up, potentially, with health care workers now hand-wringing and worrying that they’re not able to actually provide involuntary treatment in the right situations?

Hon. Josie Osborne: That’s exactly what these amendments address. We do not want health care providers to be in a position of questioning what they are doing. That is why the explicit provision of that protection by the amendment to section 16 provides that and that they know that protection is there in place.

Claire Rattée: I would like to just quickly mention that I really do appreciate the answers that the minister is giving me.

[6:30 p.m.]

I know that it may seem a little bit repetitive or like I’m getting into the weeds on things or making the minister repeat things over and over again. I promise I am not. I am just new to this, and I’m trying to make sure that I really understand and have that on the record so I can feel comfortable with the understanding that I have of this.

If treatment authority comes from section 8, why does clause 1 reference treatment authorized by the director without clarifying how that interacts with patient consent?

Hon. Josie Osborne: If the member wouldn’t mind…. If she could please ask the question again. We’re just trying to understand exactly what she means.

Claire Rattée: The question was: if treatment authority comes from section 8, why does clause 1 reference treatment authorized by the director without clarifying how that interacts with patient consent?

I think a lot of what I’m trying to get at here is the understanding of why, if we’re going to make these changes to these clauses in the Mental Health Act, we don’t have a bit more clarification, particularly just given the fact, as we’ve already canvassed and gone over frequently, that section 31 is understood by most to be the section that provides that authority.

Making changes like this…. I just am trying to understand the rationale behind not making some of these things a little bit clearer. So that’s where the basis of this question is coming from, just wondering why we didn’t maybe cross-reference more sections of the act to make it clearer what the intended outcome was — also for the purposes of making it easy for the courts to understand what the intended purpose of this was.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I may not entirely understand the member’s question, and I know she’ll let me know if that’s not the case.

Again, to be clear, these amendments are very narrow amendments, solely applied to the provision of protection for health care providers. They are not intended to and would not defeat the constitutional challenge that is before the courts.

[6:35 p.m.]

There is no need to bolster the references — I think that’s what the member is getting at — to section 8, but the language of the bill does refer to consent to treatment under section 8.

The specific language here to be added to section 16, which would become subsection (b.4), is: “providing to a patient a professional service, or care or treatment, authorized by the director under this Act to be given to the patient, including treatment described in a consent to treatment form signed under section 8.”

Claire Rattée: If the amendments to section 16 are enough to provide explicit liability coverage for health care providers, I would like to understand what the purpose of…. If that’s the amendment that needs to be brought forward to provide that, why do we need to strike 31(1)? That I am unclear on at this point.

We don’t know the result of the Charter challenge. I think that it would have been a lot easier for the opposition to support this if 31(1) just remained, and at a later date, it could be removed if it was deemed unconstitutional. But if this clause 1 amendment does everything that we need it to do, I’m not clear on why we have to strike 31(1).

The Chair: Just a reminder that we are on clause 1, and the discussion around 31(1) is predominantly in clause 2.

But you’d like to answer? Sure.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I see the point that she is trying to make.

It is a basic principle of legislative drafting not to have redundancies in legislation. This is moving what is an implicit provision into an explicit provision, and it would just be poor practice to have two clauses in legislation, two sections in legislation, that spoke to the same intent but said it differently. We want to eliminate that kind of uncertainty. We want to eliminate the confusion that exists out there already.

That would not enable us to be more clear. We need to be clear.

Claire Rattée: I think that part of the issue that I could potentially just see with that, just in my estimation, the way I’m reading it, is that, to me, section 31(1) is not the same as the amendments that are being brought forward to section 16.

[6:40 p.m.]

Obviously, they’re not, or else this wouldn’t be necessary. But deemed consent, I think, goes further than what’s being brought forward in amendments to section 16. So I think that’s where my confusion is. You know, we could have potentially looked at framing this differently so that it was a little bit clearer for people.

Maybe what I would ask is, given that the government believes that section 8 is the true treatment authority — again, I don’t have experience drafting legislation, so maybe this is going to be a similar answer: why not make amendments to section 8, or restate section 8 in the section, to reflect that?

I think that would make it clearer for people and clear up the intent behind moving these amendments. I’m just wondering if I can get a clear answer on that, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. We don’t believe that that’s necessary, because the amendment to section 16, as described in clause 1 of this bill, does reference section 8, specifically: “including treatment described in a consent-to-treatment form signed under section 8(a).” We feel that is sufficient.

Claire Rattée: Did the government receive a legal opinion on the drafting of this that stated, effectively, that there would be absolutely no change to how consent is obtained for involuntary psychiatric treatment, in any way, with the amendments that are made here? Were there specific legal opinions that were given on that that state that this will not change the way that consent is obtained for involuntary psychiatric treatment?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Madam Chair, I’m advised that we cannot disclose specific legal advice.

Claire Rattée: I understand that the specific legal advice can’t be disclosed. Maybe another way to word this question would be: is the minister quite certain that these amendments will not, in any way, materially change how consent is currently obtained for involuntary psychiatric treatment?

Hon. Josie Osborne: These amendments do not impact clinical practice or the operation of the act.

The Chair: Noting the hour, this will probably be the last question for this evening.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Chair.

Just to reiterate, because I do think this is extremely important, I’ve been involved in sectioning several individuals. I understand the process and how difficult it is.

For all the clinicians out there that are going to be actively listening to Hansard, I just want to clarify that these changes will have no impact on the processes that they currently use to section individuals in British Columbia under this act.

Hon. Josie Osborne: That is in no way the intended outcome of these amendments. These amendments won’t impact the operations under the act or the application of treatment. They are focused on the provision of explicit and more robust liability protection for those health care providers providing psychiatric treatment in good faith and with reasonable care.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.