Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Korky Neufeld.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: This month is birthday month in the Greene household. I wanted to wish all my children — Will, Tilly, Sully — and my husband, Trevor, happy birthday. They are my whole heart.

Please join me in wishing happy birthday month to the Greenes.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I am absolutely delighted to welcome two people here in the chamber.

One of them is Annika Sparkles, originally from Oregon but actually moving here and wants to work in this beautiful province of ours, currently is in tech and is just transferring. They’ve also never been in a chamber before.

Can everyone here please let them feel welcome.

Also, who invited Annika was JJ Jones, who has been working with the government for almost 20 years now. I am so grateful that I get to work with JJ. They’re an incredibly hard worker and so, so kind.

Will the House please make them both feel very, very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Today it is such a pleasure to be able to welcome to the gallery members of CUPE B.C., who are here on the precinct today having some meetings.

From local government to public education, libraries, post-secondary education, transportation, emergency health services, community social services, community health, E-Comm, in every sector, in every area of our communities, CUPE members are there making our communities stronger. They are our neighbours. They deliver important public services, with more than 100,000 members across British Columbia.

Please join me in welcoming Karen Ranalletta, president of CUPE B.C.; Donald Grant; Jenna Berg-Iverson; Matthew Spaans; Kari Scott-Whyte; Sara Manchester; and David Fleming.

Thank you so much for everything you do for British Columbians. Enjoy your day on the precinct.

Gavin Dew: I know that regardless of which side of the House we sit on, we are all motivated to be here by our desire to make a better world for our children and grandchildren. I know that the hardest part of this job for all of us is being away from those children.

So I’m very excited to welcome my family to the House today and to acknowledge that tomorrow is my son Evan’s fifth birthday.

So with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the House in joining me in singing “Happy Birthday” to Evan.

Some Hon. Members:

“Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday, dear Evan,

Happy birthday to you.”

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Well, that’s kind of hard to top, but I think everyone loves Evan in the House today, and we also love B.C. salmon.

I would love to welcome Chelsey Ellis, the managing director — from my home riding, Prince Rupert — and Megan Eadie, the director of operations for the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council. The council is a non-profit, generic marketing organization for wild B.C. salmon.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Chelsey and Megan to the House.

Darlene Rotchford: As you hear me talk, and my colleagues across, of all of our amazing firefighters, I have a unique situation. I have federal firefighters in my riding.

I have Josh Peterson joining us in the gallery today from the Union of National Defence Employees Local 2100. Josh is not just an amazing advocate for the people of his community, his local, his family, but he is also someone I dearly call a friend.

So can the House join me in making him feel most welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

U.S. Thanksgiving

Misty Van Popta: A lot of us in this chamber have family south of the border, and today, for them, it’s Thanksgiving.

Some of us are not with them celebrating, but I think it’s good of us, as neighbours, to wish them a happy Thanksgiving and to all of our family that we’re not with today, to say we’re thinking of them and that although our nations have differences on how to handle a lot of things, we stand with them in their support of family and country.

Introductions by Members

Steve Morissette: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize and introduce two members from the community of Castlegar. They’re great leaders in the community, great volunteers, and I’m so happy to welcome them here.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Keith Merritt and his spouse, Jean.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always a privilege when constituents come to the chamber, and it’s my privilege to introduce some family members of the late Darshan Singh Sahsi in attendance in the chamber today. I would like to introduce wife and mother Manjit Sahsi, son Arpan Sahsi and wife Gurvir, and son Navi Sahsi.

Would the House please welcome them.

Members’ Statements

Support for First Responders

Lynne Block: I rise today to recognize and honour the dedication, courage and professionalism of our first responders in my riding of West Vancouver–Capilano as well as across British Columbia.

On November 13, in the area of 15th Street and Esquimalt Avenue, our community experienced a serious structure fire. Thanks to the swift response of the West Vancouver fire department, supported by police, paramedics and other emergency personnel, lives were protected and further damage prevented.

North Shore Emergency Management was also on scene, assessing the needs of displaced residents, many of whom have mobility or medical challenges. Their actions demonstrated technical expertise, calm leadership and teamwork under pressure.

This is what our first responders do day after day. Whether it is a house fire, medical emergency or traffic collision, they run towards danger when others may run away.

Communities across the province place enormous trust in them. They continue to earn it through professionalism, readiness and deep commitment to public service.

Behind every successful response is intense training, modern equipment and strong local planning. Honouring first responders means more than praise. It means ensuring that they have the resources, staffing and tools to protect the public and to return home safely. Supporting the health and well-being of first responders is just as important as recognizing their courage in the field.

To the firefighters, police officers, paramedics, dispatchers and emergency staff across our beautiful province: thank you. Your courage and service make our communities safer and stronger every day.

Affordable Child Care

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: This upcoming Sunday marks the National Day of Action for Child Care. On November 30 each year, child care advocates across Canada call on the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government to focus on the need for high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care.

Since 2018, our government has taken action to do that. There are now more than 170,000 licensed child care spaces provincewide. This is 49 percent more than when our government introduced the ChildCareBC plan. Since then, we have funded the creation of more than 42,000 new licensed child care spaces, with a majority of these spaces open and serving families right now.

[10:15 a.m.]

I take great pride in the fact that our government has funded the creation of more than 740 new child care spaces in my home riding of the Cowichan Valley.

Expanding access to child care is only half the story. Child care needs to be affordable for working families. Right now parents are paying less than half of what they would have without the fee reduction programs. In fact, more than $3 billion has gone back into the pockets of hard-working B.C. families since 2018, and there’s more work to be done.

As all parents know, at the heart of child care is the patience, dedication and experience child care providers, educators and staff bring to work each and every day. They create the inclusive, welcoming environment that children need to play, grow and learn.

We see what you do day in and day out. We know the success of child care in British Columbia depends on this.

This Sunday, November 30, I encourage every member of this House to take time to reflect on how you can support and enhance our efforts to deliver high-quality, affordable-access child care for families in your community. Take some time to appreciate the….

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Just a reminder to all members. These statements are supposed to be non-partisan, so please keep that in mind.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. I urge all the members to be careful, not in a retaliatory tone that people are trying to say.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes. Please don’t worry. We’ll be monitoring it.

Queensborough Special Programs
Committee and Community Events

Steve Kooner: Today I rise to recognize the outstanding volunteerism and community spirit of the Queensborough Special Programs Committee and the city of New Westminster.

This dedicated group of volunteers has a clear and meaningful mission: to foster community, encourage local involvement and bring together the many clubs, organizations and residents of Queensborough so they can work collaboratively as a connected whole. Their work strengthens neighbourhood ties and enhances the quality of life for families across the entire community. This year the committee successfully organized major community events that brought hundreds of residents together.

On October 25, they hosted Moonlight Movies: Halloween Edition, providing families with a safe, festive place to gather, celebrate the season and enjoy an evening of connection. Earlier in the year, on June 14, they delivered the Queensborough Children’s Festival, a joyful and inclusive celebration, giving local children a positive, engaging experience, while helping parents and neighbours build relationships with one another.

These events may appear simple from the outside, but they reflect countless hours of planning, coordination and volunteer leadership.

Beyond these signature events, the Queensborough Special Programs Committee continues to create opportunities for residents to participate, contribute and share ideas. What truly stands out is that their work is open to all. Every Queensborough resident is welcome to join and bring forward ideas that help shape the future of local programs and events.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing and thanking the members of the Queensborough Special Programs Committee and its chair, Erica Wong, for their dedication, leadership and remarkable service to the Queensborough community.

Magazine Day and
Role of Journalism

Dana Lajeunesse: Today I want to recognize B.C. Magazine Day, a celebration of the vibrant magazine publishing community here in British Columbia. This is a day to acknowledge the creativity, dedication and tireless work of journalists, editors, photographers and all those who contribute to the rich tapestry of stories that connect our province.

In an era where information is abundant but not always accurate, the importance of reliable, trustworthy journalism cannot be overstated. Social media platforms have given everyone a voice, but too often questionable information and misinformation circulate unchecked.

[10:20 a.m.]

In this environment, the role of professional journalists and reputable publications is more crucial than ever. Magazines in British Columbia play a unique role. They dig deeper, investigate thoroughly and present stories with nuance, context and integrity. They bring us the voices of our communities, showcase local talent and provide a forum for thoughtful discussion on issues that matter.

This commitment to truth and accuracy stands in stark contrast to the fleeting and sometimes misleading content we encounter online. We owe a debt of gratitude to our magazine publishers and journalists for upholding the standards of their profession, fostering informed citizens and enriching our cultural landscape.

On B.C. Magazine Day, let us recommit to supporting quality journalism and ensuring that the stories which shape our province are rooted in fact, fairness and respect.

Small Business Saturday
and GivingTuesday

Rob Botterell: I’m thankful that the rampant consumerism of Black Friday is almost behind us, making way for Small Business Saturday and GivingTuesday.

Small Business Saturday is a reminder to shop local. For every dollar spent at a small business, 66 cents stays in the community. Compare that to the 11 cents from every dollar spent at multinational corporations. Buy B.C. is definitely more bang for your buck.

Small businesses provide essential services in my riding, from Twin Island Cider on Pender, Mayne Island Brewing Co., Sage Hayward Vineyards on Saturna, Salt Spring Brewing and Victoria Distillers in Sidney and many non-alcoholic businesses too.

When the shopping is done, we’ll turn our attention to GivingTuesday, when British Columbians step up to support B.C. non-profits. It’s B.C.’s non-profits who pick up the slack. What’s more, they employ 377,000 workers and contribute billions to local economic activity. Non-profits are stretched thin, responding to complex challenges in these increasingly difficult times.

Food banks didn’t even exist in Canada until 1981. Now they’re an essential part of our social safety net. The Saanich Peninsula food bank is a cornerstone of my constituency. It shouldn’t have to be this way. In a perfect world, food banks would be deemed redundant because everyone already has enough to eat.

Strong donations on GivingTuesday are essential, and in the spirit of the season, I encourage all members of the House to give as much as they can.

In our legislative work, we continue to strive for flexible, unrestricted, multi-year funding for this vital sector.

Role of Construction Industry
and Support for Workers

Garry Begg: This Sunday, November 30, is National Construction Day, a day where we celebrate all of the skilled and talented construction workers across our province.

In many ways, construction means creating opportunity. Opportunities for new schools to strengthen our education system. Opportunities to build more housing and tackle housing crises. Opportunities to create stronger and safer public services. Most importantly, opportunities for people to build a life here in British Columbia.

This day is also a reminder of the diversity and innovation that shape the industry. Construction is welcoming more women, Indigenous workers and newcomers and embracing technologies that make projects safer and more sustainable. These efforts strengthen our workforce and help meet the growing demand for housing and infrastructure in Surrey and across British Columbia.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Surrey Infrastructure, I’ve gotten to meet so many incredible construction workers in my community, dedicated to building up Surrey and making it the best city it can be. Over the past few months, I’ve been able to tour 15 brand-new classrooms at Woodland Park Elementary School, celebrate the roof-topping of Guru Nanak Diversity Village, see progress made on the SFU School of Medicine and go to the grand opening of the Cloverdale Sport and Ice Complex.

[10:25 a.m.]

All these projects are making Surrey better, and none of it would be possible without those hard-working labourers.

To all construction workers: your skill and commitment ensure that families have safe homes, businesses thrive and that our communities remain strong and resilient. Thank you for building British Columbia.

Oral Questions

Shooting in Abbotsford and
Action on Extortion Crime Networks
and Community Safety

Korky Neufeld: Today the Sahsi family is here in the Legislature, wife and sons of Darshan Singh Sahsi, who was murdered in Abbotsford on October 27 in front of his family home.

During Darshan’s vigil, more extortion shootings were happening in real time.

The family has said it plainly many times: “We do not need more promises. We need strong, immediate, enforceable action. The government is failing in its most basic duty to keep its citizens safe.”

Can the minister stand up today and explain directly to this family why Darshan’s killer is still at large and communities are still under attack?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite, to the family.

I’d like to begin by speaking directly to the Sahsi family, who I had an opportunity to meet at the vigil earlier this month, to extend my heartfelt condolences on the loss of your beloved husband and father.

I should also confirm, though, that Mr. Sahsi’s murder remains under investigation by the integrated homicide investigation team.

At the vigil, I heard directly from community members about the impacts that extortion is having on communities, not only in Surrey and Abbotsford but in communities across Canada as well. An attack on residents of Surrey or Abbotsford really feels like an attack on all British Columbians. People safety and feeling of safety is our top priority, and it’s this that is guiding our urgent and steadfast response to extortion crimes, standing up the B.C. extortion task force to ensure coordinated and comprehensive response, surging additional resources on the ground to deter and prevent these crimes.

Tomorrow the Premier and B.C. will be hosting a first in Canada, a trilateral meeting dedicated to the topic of extortion that is tormenting our communities, not only in B.C. but across Canada. I had a chance to connect with my federal counterpart today, who reflected that he is looking forward to learning from B.C., who is leading the country in our coordinated response with law enforcement and also with Canada Border Services Agency to ensure that every tool is available to stop these crimes, disrupt these crimes, hold perpetrators to account.

I know that communities are looking for arrests, charges, deportations. That is what we are looking for and our expectation and why we are standing with police and standing with communities every single day and will continue to do so until our communities are safe and perpetrators are brought to justice.

The Speaker: Member, you have a supplemental.

Korky Neufeld: Well, let me just make it very clear. Darshan Sahsi’s murder was not linked to extortion.

The police in our city and in Surrey are looking for more tools. They want more tools, and one of them would be to name the names of the people that were extorted so they know who they are.

On an extortion note, another constituent who has come into my office, Jas Arora, owner of Highway King Transport, has received over 100 extortion calls and attacks on his property after refusing a $2 million demand. The Sahsi family has warned us: “Communities are now openly discussing how to defend themselves. People have lost faith in their government’s ability to protect them.”

[10:30 a.m.]

To the Premier of this province, how did community safety collapse so badly under this government that families feel abandoned, criminals feel untouchable and British Columbians are now talking about defending themselves personally because this NDP government will not?

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

Every day, police are closing in, and my message to those perpetrating these crimes is that police are coming for you. We will not stop until there are arrests, charges or deportations in accordance with laws, as appropriate.

My message to community is that we are standing with you. Our number one priority is your safety. We will continue our work with urgency and with steadfast collaboration with all levels of law enforcement and all levels of government until our communities are safe.

Government Position
on Pipeline Projects

John Rustad: I want to start by thanking Prime Minister Carney. He stood up today and said that the movement of oil from Alberta through to the coast is a priority, it’s nation-building, and it helps to strengthen us as Canadians. It took a lot of courage to do that, and I want to thank him for doing that.

The Premier of Alberta is also clearly on Team Canada, standing up for what needs to be done to strengthen this country — all of us in this country.

The Premier of Saskatchewan has also stood up and said, clearly, he’s on Team Canada. He wants to see these things happen. He wants to see what’s going on.

Yet we have a Premier in this province who’s perfectly comfortable with subsidizing the Americans. We’ve got a Premier in this province who will not stand up for the unity and strength of this country.

So my question, quite frankly, is pretty simple. Why is it that everybody else, including us as the Conservative Party of British Columbia, is standing up for Team Canada and this Premier is standing up for Team Trump?

Hon. Adrian Dix: At this moment in Canadian history, we need, I think, for young people, for people struggling in the economy, people facing the consequence of an unprecedented action against our country by the United States, to invest in real projects. That has been and will continue to be our focus.

Projects like the North Coast transmission line, which will unlock tens of billions of mining opportunities and jobs for people for generations to come. Projects like Indigenous-led projects, like Ksi Lisims and Cedar LNG, which are breaking through in a challenging time and building investment. Projects like LNG Canada 2, facing a final investment decision this year — a real project with real processes.

I understand the value of performative politics and MOUs about projects that don’t exist, but the way you’re on Team Canada is to support real jobs, real mining jobs, real jobs in British Columbia. This province is leading the country in projects because we are focused on the real, and we will continue to do so.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

John Rustad: One thing I did also see that came out of this, which I think is a good thing — out of the MOU and the announcement by the Prime Minister as well as the Premier of Alberta — is that British Columbia would be invited to partake in conversations with First Nations in British Columbia. At least British Columbia will get some part of being at the table.

When we talk about Team Canada, we need to be talking about the benefits for British Columbians, the substantial benefits for British Columbians. This government has said very clearly that they don’t see benefits of an oil pipeline coming through British Columbia. They’ve said very clearly they don’t see how British Columbia would see the opportunities that come from this.

[10:35 a.m.]

Yet the Prime Minister himself stood up today and said: “Substantial economic benefits for British Columbia will come from this MOU, will come from this project coming forward.”

So a simple question, quite frankly, to the Premier of this province. Is he calling the Prime Minister a liar?

Hon. Adrian Dix: You know, I think this time — as all times do, but this time in particular — requires seriousness. That’s why this government is behaving seriously to promote the economic interests of British Columbia and Canada.

There is a difference between a real project, like the LNG projects that didn’t happen before this government came to office and have happened now…. There’s a difference between the North Coast transmission line, which they oppose, a project of national interest, which members of the opposition from the….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, order.

Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The North Coast transmission line, which unlocks the future for British Columbia and which they oppose…. They oppose it. They are against it. They are in favour….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: They are in favour, because of some ideological opposition to clean energy, which has powered B.C.’s economy for generations…. They are against the North Coast transmission line. They are against…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: …power projects in British Columbia...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: …truly of national interest. They are against the substantive actions we’re taking.

Well, we are fighting for the future and for hope for young British Columbians, and that means projects like NCTL. That means Indigenous-led projects like Cedar LNG.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: That means mining projects across the province. That means real projects with real prospects for success. It is not a project….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.

Minister will conclude.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, you know, I hope their screaming doesn’t come out of my time, but I would say this.

We in British Columbia are fighting for a better future for B.C. and for Canada, and that means fighting for real projects that exist in time and space. We will continue to fight for that, defend the interests of our coast and defend the interests of British Columbians.

Government Action on
Drug Toxicity Crisis and
Overdose Deaths

Rob Botterell: Talk about nation-building projects. Let’s talk about a B.C.-destroying project that we need to address. Drug poisoning is now the leading cause of death for British Columbians aged 19 to 59, killing more people each year than homicides, suicides and car crashes combined.

The B.C. Human Rights Commission has been unequivocal. They’re independent. This crisis is a human rights violation driven by toxic supply, structural inequities and systematic discrimination, not voluntary substance use.

The solution is simple, and my colleagues in the opposition will probably react the wrong way. The solution is a regulated alternative to the toxic supply.

So to the Minister of Health, will this government listen to the experts, evidence and science and expand access to prescribed or regulated alternatives?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

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

Thank you for the focus on a toxic drug supply that is killing people, that is impacting families, communities across this province and that continues to devastate us all.

That’s why we must all turn our attention to everything that we can do to help separate people from the toxic drugs, the street supply that is out there. That’s why this government has been so focused on expanding access to treatment and recovery options for individuals.

[10:40 a.m.]

Prescribed alternatives are part of a suite of strategies to help keep people alive so that we can help move them into treatment and recovery, so that people can get on the road to recovery. At the same time, it’s vitally important we continue to use every tool. This is one tool.

We’re committed to building out this continuum of care for people, to expanding the number of bed-based treatment beds, to expanding the options for people living in rural communities, to making sure that youth get the intervention and the prevention, the education that they need to understand that drugs are bad.

We’re going to continue this work as part of that continuum of services for people so that we can do everything we can — keeping people alive; getting them on the road to recovery; helping them heal, recover and be the people that they need to be and want to be with their families and in their communities.

Rob Botterell: Last week in the Cowichan Valley, a shelter ran out of naloxone after an estimated 80 toxic drug poisonings in just 24 hours.

We’ve spoken with pharmaceutical manufacturing companies here in B.C. that are prepared to create nasal naloxone in this province at a fraction of the cost we’re currently paying. While British Columbians pay up to $80 for a dose, other provinces offer it free. This is totally unacceptable.

Over 6,000 people in this province have died since this Premier became the leader of the NDP. Each one of these deaths was a policy failure.

To the Premier: will you work with local manufacturers to produce nasal naloxone in B.C., and if not, how will you ensure that every service provider has enough?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for pointing out another important tool in that suite of strategies to combat the toxic drug crisis, and that is take-home naloxone kits. Whether intramuscular or nasal naloxone, we want to make sure that everybody who needs it and who wants it has access to it.

What happened in the Cowichan Valley last week was just devastating to see and another example of how the illicit drug supply is changing all the time. That is why we have to continue. We have to double down on the services that we’re providing to people to separate them from that toxic drug supply.

I want to make sure that the member knows that Island Health looked into that directly. They ensured that the shelter, the housing, the suppliers, the providers have what they need.

We have undertaken a pilot study looking at nasal naloxone. I’ll have more to say about that soon. We are willing to work with manufacturers to look at the options for producing that here in B.C. to make sure that it is in the hands of people to save people’s lives.

Curriculum Guidance in Schools

Tara Armstrong: What happens when left-wing fanatics take over the union representing your province’s teachers? Well, you get “Queering Outdoor Education,” the latest module made by the BCTF for kindergarten students.

I quote: “Colonization and white supremacy culture have worked in opposition in nature, land theft, anti-Indigenous racism, resource exploitation and seeing nature as objects from which to profit. As well, colonization has offered a pseudo-science narrative of binary gender, as exemplified by the saying ‘birds and bees.’”

Did you catch that? The birds and the bees. Well, they’re racist now.

My question is to the minister. Does she agree with the BCTF that kids should be queering the outdoors?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I really have to begin by saying that it is truly such a shame that this member continues to use their place of privilege in this House to ask these types of questions.

[10:45 a.m.]

We here on this side of the House believe that every student in every school should feel welcome. They should feel loved, and they should feel included, no matter where they come from, who their parents are, what their race is, what their background is, what their gender is. We’re going to continue to stand up for that diversity here in B.C., because that’s what makes us special.

We are going to support children who are the most vulnerable in our schools, who are the most likely to self-harm, to commit suicide, to do damage. We are going to stand up for those kids. We are going to tell those kids that we love them, we see them and we support them.

I’m so disappointed that this member continues to use their position of privilege to bring these children down.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: A shocking response, yet not surprising.

The NDP is indoctrinating your kids too. Their own curriculum guidance instructs that students should “challenge and de-centre colonial structures, knowledge systems and hierarchies.” Our province was a British colony. This Legislature is a colonial structure, and the Premier is at the top of its hierarchy.

My challenge is for the Premier himself. Will he take his own minister’s advice, de-centre himself and vacate this oppressive colonial structure?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Last year or the year prior — I can’t remember offhand — we had to bring in access-zone legislation to protect children in schools, to protect educators in schools from being bullied, from being harassed, from being shouted at, full of hate, full of misinformation, while in their school.

It’s to protect them from people like these members in this House that the Leader of the Opposition brought into this House. We have to protect our kids from that.

We’re going to continue to do that. We are going to continue to focus on policies that are grounded in the human rights codes of British Columbia, which protect these kids from those kinds of questions and that kind of hate.

Police Services in Surrey
and Transition Process

Elenore Sturko: There’s a discrepancy related to the Surrey policing transition timeline. In a statement released November 19, Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald said the RCMP will provide services in Surrey “until our full withdrawal by November 2026.” In fact, the agreement for the RCMP to provide policing support in Surrey, which was signed by the province, the RCMP and Public Safety Canada, ends in November 2026.

Surrey police service says that phase 3 of policing transition won’t be complete until 2027, and their chief has stated that he did not agree to the province’s timeline. Not only will this discrepancy have significant cost implications for taxpayers, but it also increases uncertainty for front-line officers and municipalities who are waiting for these RCMP officers to transfer.

Can the Premier tell Surrey residents when the policing transition will be complete? Has the province secured a new formal agreement to have the RCMP continue to provide their support?

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

Public safety in Surrey is a top priority for our government, and the province continues to supervise this transition. The transition is progressing with the SPS now in three of five districts. There are now over 600 SPS officers on the ground, and 160 have been hired this year. There are over 350 RCMP officers. In fact, there have never been more police officers on the ground in Surrey. We have had an agreement that the RCMP will be in place as long as needed to ensure the safe transition and the safe takeover of the SPS of the remaining districts.

[10:50 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko: I thank the minister for the answer.

Yet there is no formal agreement to keep the RCMP supporting services in Surrey beyond November 29, 2026. It’s this government’s mishandling and incompetent oversight of the police transition that’s caused a recruitment, retention and training crisis. The extended timeline is going to cost taxpayers and add uncertainty for front-line officers, all while they’re trying to deal with an unprecedented extortion crisis.

There are now more than 100 cases of extortion in Surrey. We have an increase in shootings of more than 100 percent year to date, three people injured by gunfire in extortion-related shootings, victims attacked more than once, their homes and businesses repeatedly shot.

Puneet Sandhar, vice-president of the South Asian Business Association of B.C., says that…

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Elenore Sturko: …the recent extortions have caused fear from owners of businesses who no longer question if but when they will be targeted.

Will the Premier admit today that his government has completely botched the police transition and put our local police behind the eight ball?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I disagree completely with the member’s characterization of the transition, which, as I’ve said, is continuing to progress and continuing to be overseen by the province.

I’d also like to emphasize that all parties — the SPS, the RCMP, the city of Surrey, the federal government and the province — have been around the table throughout the transition and will continue to be so as we continue to oversee the transition and ensure that the safety of residents is a top priority.

The member also touched on extortion. I recognize the fear that this has caused for all residents of Surrey and communities facing extortion, the very real impacts on families and businesses. Nobody should feel intimidated or unsafe on the streets, in their homes or in their workplaces.

This government will work every day with our policing partners and all partners of government. This is precisely why B.C. has convened…

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Nina Krieger: …the trilateral meeting that we are hosting in Surrey tomorrow, bringing together all levels of government.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Nina Krieger: British Columbia is leading this work and will continue to do so.

Government Policies on
Energy and Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld: British Columbians, especially in the North, are watching while billions in potential investment leave because this government continues to send mixed and contradictory signals on resource development. While serious discussions were underway regarding a northern pipeline corridor, British Columbia was once again not at the table.

Can this Premier explain why his government was excluded from recent high-level negotiations on northern pipeline development, negotiations that directly affect jobs, investment certainty and long-term export capacity for our province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think I noted in the previous answer to questions from the opposition that what we’re focused on…. I want to talk about the North, because I believe the northwest will be the centre not just of economic development in British Columbia but in Canada.

What we’re focused on are projects that are real and tangible and will go forward, projects like the North Coast transmission line, which my friend in the opposition opposes, which will lead to mining projects my friends in the opposition oppose, which leads…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: …to the electricity required to ensure that Indigenous-led projects that are approaching final investment decisions will go forward in our country and in our province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We are focused. We are focused on the real. We are not focused on MOUs that I’m sure will help the Premier of Alberta get through her weekend convention but MOUs that are not about real projects.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: You look at the MOU, and you understand the project doesn’t exist in time and space today.

We’re going to fight for jobs for British Columbia, for our coast in British Columbia, for our economy in British Columbia, and we’re going to lead Canada in economic development. We’re not talking about imaginary projects here in B.C. We’re talking about real projects.

[10:55 a.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Well, it’s pretty on brand for the member who delivered the Kinder surprise to oppose oil and gas infrastructure.

The Prime Minister had to put B.C. projects on a federal fast-track list because this NDP government has broken B.C.’s permitting system. The federal list includes LNG projects and now a new pipeline declared in the national interest.

Meanwhile, the B.C. NDP excluded all oil and gas infrastructure in their own so-called fast-tracking bills. During Bill 15 debate last spring, the Infrastructure Minister said: “There are literally thousands and thousands of backlogged permits in government right now.” With that in mind, permits for LNG projects and pipelines will languish at the back of the line.

Why is this Premier risking B.C. jobs and making Canada weaker by standing in the way of getting our nation’s energy to global markets?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In the spring, we introduced legislation to improve access to decisions and to get projects going in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We introduced legislation. What did the hon. member do? He opposed it for some sort of strange ideological reason.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, it’s almost over. Calm down.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’re against the North Coast transmission line, which serves the member’s constituency and constituencies across the North. They’re against it. They’re against clean energy policies. The Leader of the Opposition calls them unicorn farts. They’re against those….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Hon. Speaker, I can wait a long time to speak. We’ll let them calm down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members will come to order now.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Of course, the hon. member was, like many of his colleagues, a Liberal before he was a Conservative. He knows and I know that there were no LNG projects in B.C. when the B.C. NDP took office — zero. A lot of noise, like you hear when you talk about MOUs, but no action, no results. The party of no results. Since we came to office….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, stop it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, quiet, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member asked about LNG. His record is zero dollars for zero projects. Our record is four projects for $60 billion under construction. That’s the difference between noise and action. And that’s why they’re going to be over on that side of the House for a long, long time.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Legislative Assembly Management Committee report 2024-25.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have the pleasure to rise to table government’s second quarterly report 2025-26, as required by section 10 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Orders of the Day

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

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 11:00 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Members, we’re going to have a brief recess while we wait for the minister’s team to show up here. I believe we’re waiting on our critic as well, so we’ll be in a recess for about five.

The committee recessed from 11:01 a.m. to 11:04 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will call this House back to order. We will continue committee stage on Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

[11:05 a.m.]

On clause 3 (continued).

Rosalyn Bird: I just want to go back to where we finished off yesterday, Minister. I believe there’s confusion. You had stated that safety plans were not being used for children or families that were involved in either abuse or neglect that was of significance. I believe that the current policy actually states differently.

The minister had asked to table an answer for that. If I could better understand this, that would be appreciated.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think one of the things that we’re struggling with a little bit is that these decisions are not linear. There are a lot of very grey areas and areas where there are multiple points of decision-making, with different pieces of information that are provided.

I just want to go through a couple of examples for the member opposite and take her through a bit of the process.

When a child protection report is received and it is suspected that there is severe abuse or neglect, the response is immediately escalated to the highest level of urgency. It’s important to know that if at any time there is credible information that a crime has been committed, it is expected that the police be informed immediately.

In the very first step, called screening, if there is an indication that there is a life-threatening or dangerous situation, the screening assessment must be completed immediately and passed on to a child protection worker for immediate action. This commonly means that a local office protection worker or after-hours worker goes out as soon as possible to collect additional information.

The ministry’s evidence-based, structured decision-making tool guides the decision-making process in these types of cases. If there is a clear indication that a report has merit and that risk cannot be mitigated, a removal may proceed very quickly. If there is an issue like bruising and it is unclear how the bruising occurred, a common step at this juncture is to insist the child receive immediate medical attention or examination. If there is not a clear indication of harm or if risk can be mitigated effectively, a safety planning agreement might be used, and an investigation begins.

It’s important to remember that situations with families are not linear. These situations are complex, and they change. This means that a safety plan could be created from a situation that had involved abuse initially but that no longer was assessed at the same level of urgency.

I’m going to give a couple of examples.

One example is where the perpetrator has been arrested and is no longer in a position to cause harm. Here, it is a very strong option to safety-plan with the remaining parent.

Another is where a child might reside with another trusted individual outside of the home, where severe abuse is not occurring. Here, safety planning may be an option.

It’s important to note that whenever there is high risk and uncertainty, it is not reasonable to leave a child in the family home on a safety plan agreement.

Rosalyn Bird: I do appreciate that and how you explained that, although I’m actually not in disagreement with you. I understand that situations are very linear and that families are complex, which is one of the reasons I’m asking the questions I’m asking also.

Like I stated yesterday, 3.3 does actually refer to safety plans, and you actually gave an interesting example. I’ll counter with a different one, just so that I make sure that I’m on the same page.

For example, you have a family residence. Even if there are two separate parents living in two different places, and there has been a report — I’ll use something egregious — of a sexual assault on a child, it is obviously going to initiate an immediate response. At least, I certainly hope it does.

[11:10 a.m.]

Then the circumstances are going to be looked at, an investigation is going to commence, and there may be an immediate action by a director or somebody on your team. A court order may be put in place in an emergency situation, so that that parent, until they can figure out the details of that situation, does not have access to that child.

I’m assuming that, in conjunction with a type of court order, there would be a safety plan initiated for the other parent and the child that is engaged in this issue. Am I correct in that?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, any time there is a credible report of sexual abuse or assault of a child, the very first and immediate step is to notify the police. If that occurred and it was credible and there is a protection order against a perpetrator and a protection worker felt that they could reasonably enter into a safety agreement with a different protective guardian or parent, they could do that.

Again, it would be decided upon using evidence-based, structured decision-making. And as I’ve mentioned many times, any of those decisions…. The guiding principles of the act around best interests of the child, child well-being and safety are paramount to all of the decisions that are made.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. That was actually what I was hoping you were going to say, and that was my understanding.

That brings me back to the 45 days, which is where this entire conversation actually initiated, because we were talking about safety plans being in place during assessments and during investigations. I had reservations with the 45-day time frame, and I was concerned because the way it is worded in the act is that it is a one-time 45-day plan and that the safety plan can’t be extended. That is why I was asking how you came to that conclusion, which you said was with partners and with organizations that you had reached out to.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’m just expressing back that I find that to be an extremely short time frame based on some of the situations that we are actually referring to.

Is there any flexibility — which I don’t see currently in the legislation, unless I’m misinterpreting something — as to whether or not that 45 can be extended, how many times it can be extended, similar to the current policy where the 30 days can be extended up to 120 days, and then it’s at the director’s discretion, depending on circumstances? I would assume it would be in a fairly egregious situation, like the ones we’ve shared with each other, that that may actually happen.

If the minister could explain one more time if she feels or why she feels that 45 days is an appropriate time frame.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to assure the member that…. Investigations can take less than 45 days; they can take more than 45 days. If an investigation was taking longer than 45 days, the bill, through 19.7, actually allows for successive safety plans to be entered into with families.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you to the minister. We can look at it again when we get to 19.7.

I wanted to…. Paragraph (1)(g) states: “prescribed content.” Currently, under chapter 3, safety plans will provide clear contact information for a worker about who the family may contact or assist with any additional safety or well-being concerns. This and other requirements currently necessary under chapter 3 are not actually listed under the “must include” in the legislation.

Will the minister please provide an explanation as to why all the current requirements listed are not actually in the “must” section of Bill 29.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A few things.

So (a) to (f) in this part of the clause need to be consistently applied. And (g) is written the way it is based on other voluntary agreements in the act as well. If we were to add any particular prescribed content, it would be in regulation, and we aren’t contemplating that at this time.

What I will say is that if there is anything that parents do want to add into a safety plan, they absolutely can do that.

Rosalyn Bird: Paragraph (2)(a): “the care of, and access to, the child to whom the agreement relates.” I’d like to better understand. I know that safety plans are voluntary and that parents work in collaboration with the ministry.

Can the minister help me understand, and the public that are watching? If they engage in a safety plan and they are challenged with financial means, how can a parent set out to meet the requirements in the safety plan if they are financially struggling?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Really good question from the member opposite.

What we’ve talked about before is that a director is a party to a safety plan. In a safety plan agreement, there are terms and conditions of the safety plan agreement, which would include any actions that a director is required to take. Financial challenges that are impacting the safety and well-being of a child could be considered in a safety plan.

Some examples of what the director could put into a safety plan are that a worker will transport a child to and from school or provide transportation for a child to something or will provide short-term access to food security. There are a number of things in relation to financial supports that can be included in a safety plan and what the director’s actions are within addressing those challenges.

Rosalyn Bird: Well, that brings us to (b), which this…. I would be curious, based on the explanation that you just gave, if the actions in subparagraph (2)(b) are actually those of a director or are referring to all parties that are engaged in a safety plan. It states in here: “actions that a party will take or refrain from taking to protect the health and safety of a child to whom the agreement relates.”

[11:25 a.m.]

If you are not to participate or not to do something or are to do something, as part of the agreement…. I’m trying to figure…. To me, that’s the whole premise of a safety agreement, so I’m confused as to why that clause is under “may” and not the “must” section of paragraph (1) under 19.3.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It does refer to every party in the safety plan, so that would include the director and anyone else, any other guardian on the plan.

As I’ve mentioned before, using the term “may” ensures that we are able to be flexible in any situation. Because every situation is different, we do not provide an exhaustive list in the bill on everything that can be in a safety plan or that may be in a safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: The content, whatever it might be, in paragraph (2), if it is not in the safety plan, where would those things be documented outside of the safety plan? How would any party within that safety plan, if they’re not on there, understand that they are part of the process?

You know, you have parents that come from all different levels of education and different ages. We discussed that yesterday. It could be somebody quite young. It could be somebody quite mature, if we’re talking about a grandparent, quite frankly.

I just want to have a good understanding of…. Some of the stuff that is pertained in (2) is fairly important. So can the minister help me better understand or tell me where that information is documented and how the participants in the plan would understand what the requirements are?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: All things that are included in a safety plan would have to be documented and provided to all parties that are a part of the safety plan. There needs to be written confirmation of that, and that plan needs to be uploaded to the integrated case management system.

Anything that happens with a family that isn’t in a safety plan, whether that be a family development plan, family planning or meeting notes, those are all available to families who are a part of those processes as well and uploaded into our integrated case management system.

Any aspect of any planning that happens would be a part of a safety plan, though. So if there is a family planning meeting and there are components of the safety plan, that needs to be captured in the safety plan and there needs to be written confirmation from all of the parties of that plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I have not seen any provisions in here in regards to what actually happens if somebody violates a safety plan. I know there is some information in chapter 3, but I am somewhat concerned about that because, particularly in this section, 19.3, it doesn’t state that it has to be included in the safety plan.

[11:30 a.m.]

Very similar to my last question, you know, we are dealing with families that come from very different backgrounds, very different ages. I think these plans, like you said, are voluntary. They are supposed to be collaborative. But in order for them to be successful, the individuals need to know what the exact content is, what their roles and responsibilities are. That would include violating a safety plan.

If the minister could help me understand why there aren’t provisions in a safety plan in regards to what happens if it is actually violated.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In policy, the safety plan will clearly state that if new information shows that a plan is not being followed, the director will evaluate the situation and will contact the parent to talk about what happens next. Even if the terms and conditions were breached accidentally, the director must consider whether a safety plan is still sufficient to keep a child safe.

The director will work with the family to review all safety concerns and may consider amending the safety plan or taking other steps to address the risks of a child. If the parents do not agree to follow a safety plan, as per policy, the child protection worker will speak with their supervisor to see if there are other less disruptive ways to keep the child safe before considering removal.

I think it’s important to really know that there are not standardized next steps because of the complexity of each and every situation and competing information that is often gathered. Again, we use evidence-based, structured decision-making and always go back to decisions that are driven by the best interest of the child.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the answer.

I hope that there wouldn’t be standard next steps, because paintbrush solutions, particularly in this ministry, certainly wouldn’t be very helpful.

I do have a question about that though. You indicated “in policy.” The policy actually states that if a safety plan is violated or is not being followed, it actually will be terminated. You stated that it could be revised, which I don’t have an issue with.

My question is: if the safety plan is, in fact, revised, when we go back to the 45 days, do the 45 days commence at the revised safety plan? If a safety plan is terminated and it’s determined, “Okay, it was accidental; we will reinitiate the safety plan,” does that start another 45 days?

Again, I’m sort of going back to the 45-day thing because it’s problematic for me. If the minister could help me…. What does that look like for timelines?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to emphasize that the timeline, the 45 days, is about the investigation. A safety plan ends when an investigation ends. Timelines are also outlined in 19.1. If a protection worker revises the terms of a safety plan with a family, technically, that safety plan would start at day 1 and could extend to 45 days. However, if a safety plan was revised and a week later, the investigation concluded, the safety plan would end. Again, it’s not linear. It’s about the investigation, not necessarily the 45 days.

Rosalyn Bird: The timeline, actually, is not addressed in 19.1. It indicates that a director may make a safety plan if the court orders, and there’s an application made, but the court has not made a decision. But in 19.3(1)(e), the language actually states that the term of the agreement, referring to a safety plan agreement, must not exceed 45 days.

Again, I know you’re frustrated, but this is why this language is problematic for me. So I will ask one more time what these timelines look like with extensions, particularly when investigations in very egregious situations can take far more significant time than 45 days.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: So 19.1 is really important because it outlines the terms of the agreement, which state that when an investigation is completed, the director must withdraw.

Then 19.3 outlines that a safety plan agreement must not exceed 45 days. We’ve canvassed also quite extensively that successive safety plan agreements can be entered into if an investigation is not complete. The timeline for a safety plan agreement is not finite. It’s about the terms that are outlined in 19.1 and what the director must do in relation to the safety plan. So if a safety plan is entered into and in 15 days the investigation is completed, they must withdraw from the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to table an amendment for 19.3:

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 19.3, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding the underlined text as shown:

Content of safety plan agreement

19.3 (1) A safety plan agreement must include all of the following:

(a) the reasons for which the agreement is made;

(b) the name of each party and a description of each party’s role;

(c) if, under section 19.2 (3), a party is included in the agreement, the conditions on the use, disclosure and security of information provided under the agreement to the party;

(d) an acknowledgement that each party may seek independent legal advice at any time with respect to the agreement;

(e) the term of the agreement, which must not exceed 45180 days;

(f) a requirement for a party other than the director to inform the director, within the number of days in advance stated in the agreement, before withdrawing from the agreement;

(f.1) terms and conditions respecting the care of, and access to, the child to whom the agreement relates;

(f.2) the actions that a party will take, or refrain from taking, to protect the health or safety of the child to whom the agreement relates;

(f.3) the provision or receipt by a party of referrals, services and support;

(g) prescribed content, if any.

(2) A safety plan agreement may include terms and conditions respecting, without limitation, any of the following:

(a) the care of, and access to, the child to whom the agreement relates;

(b) the actions that a party will take or refrain from taking to protect the health or safety of the child to whom the agreement relates;

(c) the provision or receipt, by a party, of referrals, services and support;

(d) prescribed matters, if any.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Would you like to speak to that amendment while we circulate it?

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: We’ve gone back and forth and back and forth on this. You have actually stated…. Everything I’ve asked about you have repeated back and said: “That is part of a safety plan. It is part of a safety plan.” I did ask the minister yesterday if she could table a copy of the template that we use for safety plans.

I did not actually see the template, so it’s very difficult to have a look at and understand when we’re going back and forth and I ask you a question and you say, “Yes, that is included into a safety plan,” but it doesn’t state in the legislation that it does have to be stated in a safety plan.

So my concern is that this is going to get enacted and that the policy is not going to be updated immediately, and there are going to be different ways that these safety plans are going to look, how they’re going to be prescribed and the content of those safety plans. My amendment covers all of those things.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We are going to take a brief recess to circulate the amendment. We’ll be about five minutes or so.

The committee recessed from 11:40 a.m. to 11:46 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members. We’ll call the chamber back to order. We are considering an amendment to Bill 29.

I just wanted to ask if the minister wanted to respond to the comments that the member for Prince George–Valemount made regarding the clause.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We have canvassed extensively the rationale for 45 days; 180 days is far too long. Then it makes the agreement not a short-term agreement. So I do not support that amendment.

Also we canvassed that using the term “must” for the points that the member has included would make it too inflexible. For all of the reasons we’ve discussed before, I do not support the amendment.

The Chair: The member needs to be in your chair to be addressed.

Heather Maahs: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the reminder.

The minister has told us several times that these safety plans can be withdrawn at any time. But if the days numbered are 180 days, then we’re covered. It can still be withdrawn at any time, but the child is covered. That is what we’re talking about, the safety of the child, which, of course, is paramount.

There may be situations that people are not aware of, and it takes time for these things to happen. This absolutely is paramountly important.

The Chair: Members, the motion is in order. We are contemplating clause 3, subsection 19.3. That would remove items from subsection (2) and put them under the “must” category in subsection (1), and also contemplating the number of days from 45 to 180.

It is in order, and I would put the question.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: Members, we’ll return back to clause 3.

Rosalyn Bird: So we move to 19.4, and I’m going to be very candid about this straight up front.

I understand why this language is in here, but I have huge concern with the fact that safety plan agreements may be made verbally. I understand why that is in principle or in spirit. I understand that this is language that gets put into legislation, because verbal contracts, in some cases, are legally binding. There’s real estate, corporate law, those types of things. I understand that also.

What I have a serious issue with is if an agreement is made verbally, particularly when that agreement may be made in a situation where children and parents are under distress.

[11:50 a.m.]

Even in a situation, quite frankly…. Your staff is extremely worked…. Their caseloads are huge right now. So that could include, in actual fact, a director being under distress. Verbal agreements have huge consequences when we are talking about children and families and the safety of those individuals.

That being said, I understand why it is in here, and there are subclauses that indicate that things need to be put in writing. But I do want to state for the record that, particularly, withdrawal of a verbal agreement can be made. You know, somebody can be in a very high state of emotion and say something they don’t mean. It can be put on record that they withdrew and, in actual fact, that isn’t actually what they intended to do or what they meant to do at the time.

I will move to paragraph 2. I’ve asked several questions yesterday around legal advice. We went back and forth on that for quite a while. We heard repeatedly that families are guided as to where to get legal advice, but we were not told clearly how families would be guaranteed access to such advice pertaining to an agreement that may potentially have long-term implications to a family union. That remains a significant concern for myself, parents, advocates and the legal community itself.

In ’22-23, a parents’ counsel working group conducted a survey. Twenty-five parents’ counsels from across the province participated. The survey results that were shared with the ministry raised serious concerns regarding inconsistent and inadequate disclosure pertaining to information regarding safety plans.

Some of the things that were included in the concerns: policies with respect to disclosure are not available to parents’ counsel; disclosure practices and policies are not standardized across the province; parents’ counsel does not always receive timely disclosure in advance of meetings; parents’ counsel does not always receive complete disclosure, even in cases where requests for specific records have been made to the director’s counsel; parents’ counsel does not always receive ongoing disclosure; all parents’ counsels do not receive a list of documents which would enable them to assess the comprehensiveness of the disclosure.

The ministry’s response in regards to the letter that was sent containing this information stated: “The ministry is conducting or they are having meaningful, engaged and have considered the British Columbia Law Institute’s recommendations about disclosure and that the director’s counsel continue to monitor developments in jurisdiction and best practices.”

The response also advised that the government continuously considers to improve how children and family services proceed and are conducted through potential changes to training, policy, legislation.

So the British Columbia Law Institute assumed that there were changes being made, and the advocacy group that created the survey did another one. In June through August of 2025, two years later, a second survey was conducted. Nineteen parent counsels participated, and the same results showed up.

The findings from the most recent survey demonstrate that parents’ counsel continue to report inconsistent and inadequate disclosure practices and to observe the harmful impacts of these practices on procedural fairness and access to justice, delayed and incomplete disclosure impacts, procedural rights and access to justice in the children and family system.

Notably, parents’ counsel are hindered in their ability to provide effective legal advice, and the parents are hindered in their ability to make informed decisions.

How does the minister reconcile with the fact that you have a piece of legislation that you have tabled, that you have suggested…? You tell parents that they should seek legal advice; however, those protections have not been placed into the legislation.

The Chair: Maybe I could encourage the minister to move a motion.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is in adjournment.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:55 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Steve Morissette: Section A reports progress on Bill 32 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

On clause 1 (continued).

[11:10 a.m.]

Claire Rattée: I want to start out by going back to the very last question that we had yesterday.

Yesterday the minister was asked to clarify that these amendments to the act would have no impact on the processes that the clinicians currently use to section individuals under this act. My concern comes from her response. I looked back through Hansard, and the response was that that was not the intended outcome.

I can appreciate that the minister might be nervous to speak in absolutes on this, but I think that British Columbians require certainty right now. I’m hoping that the minister can please clarify whether or not she meant to say that these amendments will not have any impact.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, these amendments will have no impact to the operation of the act.

Claire Rattée: Can the minister provide a single government-issued document that states section 8 as the authority for involuntary treatment?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Form 5, the consent for treatment, refers directly to section 8.

Claire Rattée: Is that the only one, or is that just an example of one that refers to section 8 as being the authority?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The mental health guide also refers to section 8.

[11:15 a.m.]

Claire Rattée: Those examples refer to section 8. Do they also refer to section 31 or just to section 8?

Hon. Josie Osborne: They do refer to both. As I’ve described in previous answers, section 8 and subsection 31(1) together work as the scheme of involuntary treatment. Coming back to the purpose of the bill that we have proposed to put forward to amend by removing subsection 31(1) and that implicit protection of liability for health care providers and moving it into section 16, with a much more explicit and robust statement….

Again, it’s because section 8 contains within it also the authority for the involuntary admission of people when they are deemed to have met the criteria under the Mental Health Act for admission and when a medical director of a mental health facility deems it necessary for the application of psychiatric treatment.

It is incredibly important for the safety of those patients and for the comfort of their families to know that that treatment can happen and for the workers themselves, the health care providers themselves who are providing that treatment, to know that they are protected when providing that care in good faith and with reasonable care.

Claire Rattée: I’m hoping that the minister can answer for me why the government’s chief scientific adviser, in the “General Guidance for Physicians on the Use of the Mental Health Act When Treating Adults with Substance Use Disorders,” published on March 12, 2025, has stated that section 31 was the authority, if section 8 always was.

I have that guidance here. Again, this is very recent. It’s from March of this year. It does very explicitly refer to sections 22 and 31, actually — not section 8 — in the introduction here, as being the authority on that. There we go. There’s another reference to sections 22 and 31, another reference to 22 and 31, and, it seems, repeatedly.

Now, obviously, this document is very specific to substance use disorders and involuntary treatment, but I cannot find here a single instance where section 8 is referenced. Being that Dr. Vigo is the ministry’s and the government’s chief scientific adviser on this matter, and given the prevalence of the issues we have right now around concurrent substance use disorders and psychiatric disorders and the need to be able to move forward on involuntary treatment….

We know that that is a priority, I think, on both sides of the House, with the exception of maybe two members, to be able to move forward on that, given the scope of the problem we’re having right now. I think this really gets to the crux of where my hesitancy comes with this piece of legislation.

I’m struggling to understand, if section 8 has always been the section of the Mental Health Act that gives the authority to treat involuntarily, why the chief scientific adviser is giving this advice in such a recent document, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, stating very clearly that section 22 and section 31 are the sections that give the authority to treat involuntarily. I really just want to make sure I can understand why we are striking that section and why we are moving forward with this.

Perhaps if there was a way to get on the record specifically what the chief scientific adviser’s advice was on this matter, to be read into the record on the matter of changing the Mental Health Act, that would be helpful. I really am struggling to understand how this plays together with the involuntary treatment of substance use disorders and to ensure that this is not going to have any material change on the way that physicians can currently treat involuntarily on the matter of substance use disorders.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I want to answer this question from two perspectives and first talk about the medical guidance that Dr. Vigo issued on the application of the Mental Health Act for adults experiencing concurrent disorders of severe mental illness and substance use disorder.

This is medical guidance but not a legal document. Therefore, it doesn’t replace the law in any way, and it would be inaccurate to interpret the absence or presence of the mention of section 8 as altering the original authority, which is found in section 8 of the Mental Health Act.

I just want to be clear. The absence of the mention of section 8 in the medical guidance does not nullify the existence of section 8. The authority derived from section 8 remains. It is in the law.

The second line is to remember that section 8 existed before the amendment of the act and the addition of subsection 31(1). Since 1964, section 8 has existed, until 1981, when, as the result of a court case about suing a health care provider for damages, the Mental Health Act was amended to add subsection 31(1), to provide protection for health care providers administering treatment.

The wording of subsection 31(1) provides this protection implicitly, and we want to ensure that that protection is explicit, hence the amendments proposed to remove subsection 31(1) and add a clause to section 16 to make that clear.

I think I understand that the member wants to be assured that the removal of subsection 31(1) does not in any way impact the ability of the act to work as it is intended to work in that for those individuals who are not able, not in a position, to make a decision for themselves and for those individuals, following the criteria of the law, deemed admissible are admitted under the Mental Health Act and that, again, the medical director of a mental health facility deems that they must have psychiatric treatment applied.

[11:25 a.m.]

I just want to be clear. As I speak about this, I am not disregarding in any way all of the other safeguards that exist in the act for the review of their admission, for the independent rights advice that every person deserves and can get, for the right to have a second opinion — all of those matters.

I recognize just how delicate this conversation is, and I want to be clear, too, that again, this government, our government, believes that the Mental Health Act has a purpose and a role in our continuum of supports for people, care for people experiencing severe mental illness, and that this bill is very much focused on those workers who provide that care, making sure that no matter the outcome of the current Charter challenge, those workers are protected to continue the provision of psychiatric treatment for those individuals for whom it is deemed medically necessary that they receive such treatments.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I understand what the minister is saying, and I hope that I don’t come across as being pedantic.

My concern here is just that I’m really struggling to understand what the purpose was of the chief scientific adviser continually using these specific references to sections 22 and 31 when section 8 gives the authority. I understand what the minister is saying, that section 8 has always given the authority, that that is where the authority comes from. I just don’t understand how it is that if clinicians are not reading it as such, if clinicians’ understanding is that it’s sections 22 and 31 that actually provide the authority to be able to treat….

I’m struggling because I can’t find reference, really, to any kind of government documents or any existing advice or frameworks or anything like that that actually is explicitly outlining that. I understand that this is medical guidance. It’s not guidance on the law. But at the end of the day, I don’t think that the clinicians are likely to be reading guidance on the law. They’re likely to be reading this. They’re likely to be reading the medical guidance that’s provided to them.

Maybe I’ll start by saying this quick and easy question. I would assume that the intention is that all of these types of resources will now be updated to reflect that section 8 is the authority to treat and that everything will be recirculated as such and made clear and that there will be training given so that all clinicians are aware.

I’m just going to read a part of this here, this piece of guidance from March. It says: “There are three scenarios in which individuals with substance use disorders may be admitted under section 22 and receive treatment under section 31 of the act.”

So this is where I’m struggling to understand. I cannot fathom why the chief scientific adviser is giving advice that says section 22 allows them to be admitted — again, so that we don’t end up with this detained-without-treatment scenario that I’m concerned about — and receive treatment under section 31 of the act, because as it currently reads, I don’t read clause 1 as actually giving the authority to treat. I understand that it’s giving liability protections, but there’s nothing that explicitly, to me, in my mind, is giving the authority, the legal authority, to treat.

That could very simply be my understanding or my interpretation or the way I’m reading it. But at this time, I just don’t feel confident that that’s actually what it’s saying. Again, my gut is telling me that our chief scientific adviser feels similarly, based on the fact that there is no mention or reference to section 8 in here. And that alone, the separation of that they may be admitted under section 22 and receive treatment under section 31, really leads me to believe that that is also his interpretation or, at least, it was.

Again, I’ll just reiterate. I don’t know if there was maybe something specific in writing that was given from the chief scientific adviser on the drafting of this bill. But I think if there is something specific like that, it would be very helpful for me to understand.

You know, regardless of the fact that I’ve been pretty vocal about my issue, frequently, with government hiring outside advisers and all that kind of stuff, I think for the most part, what I’ve seen Dr. Vigo do so far, I’ve been happy with. I think that he has provided a lot of really solid advice.

[11:30 a.m.]

I am grateful to see that we’re starting the conversations around the involuntary treatment piece for concurrent disorders. I think it’s such an important part of what we’re missing right now in this province. So I would be inclined to believe….

Most of the outreach I’ve done on this, preparing for committee stage here…. The people I’ve spoken to speak very highly of Dr. Vigo, and he’s well respected. I’m just really struggling to understand why he also does not seem, at this point, to me, to interpret section 8 as being the section that actually provides that authority.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the words about Dr. Vigo’s work. I agree. It’s incredibly important, the work that he’s doing for our government and, ultimately, the work he’s doing for people who suffer from severe mental illnesses and concurrent disorders in helping to build that system of treatment here in the province.

Again, the guidance document that Dr. Vigo developed is medical guidance for clinicians who are administering treatment. It may be easier to understand the development of his document in that it is section 8 that provides the legal authority, the power to authorize treatment, but it provides that power to the director of the mental health facility.

[11:35 a.m.]

Subsection 31(1) provides the health care provider, under the authorization of that director, the reassurance that they can provide the treatment if administered in good faith and with reasonable care, and that they are protected from lawsuits.

That may be why Dr. Vigo did not need to reference section 8 in his clinical guidance, in the medical guidance document, because this really is about the administration of treatment by the worker, by the health care provider.

The member has asked what will happen with all of the documents that refer to subsection 31(1) right now. Absolutely, if this bill succeeds and moves through the Legislature and receives royal assent, then all of the documents will need to be updated to be very clear to the public, to the directors of mental health facilities and to the clinicians and health care providers that administer treatment.

Anna Kindy: I have to concur with my colleague here. When I was campaigning and looking at what Dr. Vigo was proposing for addiction care, I thought it was excellent, by the way. I want to reiterate that I think he’s doing a good job. I just want to acknowledge that.

My question, though, is related to…. I’ll go back to 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.” My question is…. If I look at who can be a director, the director of a designated facility is specified individually, usually either a senior psychiatrist or a medical director of psychiatry or a senior health authority administrator assigned to that facility.

So my question is…. I mean, I can see the first two guiding treatment, but I’m just wondering how a non-medical person who’s a bureaucrat can guide treatment.

Hon. Josie Osborne: With respect, this is not pertinent to this bill, so I don’t think it’s an appropriate line of questioning.

Anna Kindy: Just with the liability portion, I’m assuming the director is part of that extension of protection with liability. Is that correct?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I want to refer the member to section 16, which already extends liability provisions to the director, for example, in subsections (b.1), (b.2) and (b.3). The amendment, the addition of the clause to section 16, strengthens the protection. It makes explicit and more robust the protection for the health care provider.

Anna Kindy: As I understand what you’re saying, it strengthens the liability protection for the provider.

Again, I’m just looking at definitions. The director of the designated facility can be a senior health authority administrator assigned to that facility. From section 8, it says: “A director must ensure that each patient admitted to the designated facility is provided with professional service, care and treatment.”

With the role of a director who is not a psychiatrist — I guess a bureaucrat of the facility — he’s directing care to make sure that it’s appropriate, and there’s a more robust liability protection, I’m assuming, for everyone, including the director.

If care was proved to be…. Can the director protect the treatment provider at that point? I’m just confused as to the liability of how the whole thing works. In a hospital setting, I’m not sure the director or the CEO of the hospital would be ensuring that care is provided. I’m not sure that that’s the role, but maybe I’m wrong.

I’m just wondering about this overlap, and I want to make sure that we also protect patients’ right to have liability or protection for, potentially, a certain overreach. I understand that there needs to be certification and we need to make sure that it’s done appropriately. But if we’re overreaching here, can a non-medical person direct care?

That’s what this is saying, and I just want you to, again, answer my question about liability for the director who’s actually directing care.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that we can’t read from electronic devices in the House.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The director of a mental health facility has a set of authorities and responsibilities that are clearly laid out in the Mental Health Act, and they are not the subject of Bill 32. So they are not directly relevant to what we’re discussing here today.

I will say that those authorities and responsibilities are around the administrative decisions on admissions and treatment, but the medical decisions about treatment itself is led by the health care professional.

That health care professional — for example, a psychiatrist — has not only a set of responsibilities and protections under the Mental Health Act but also must ensure that other professional and legal obligations are met under other acts outside of the Mental Health Act, of course, in response to their medical licence, for example, or licence to practise under their regulatory college.

In closing, I don’t think this is a line of questioning that’s directly relevant to this bill itself. I’ll leave it at that.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.