Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Susie Chant.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Community Engagement
and Role of Government

George Anderson: If this last year has taught me anything, it’s that good policy begins with listening and great policy begins with understanding how people actually live with the systems that we design.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Across Nanaimo-Lantzville and across British Columbia, I’ve been welcomed into classrooms, cultural celebrations, seniors homes, research labs, non-profit hubs and major economic gateways. Everywhere I went, I heard a consistent message: make services predictable, make approvals simpler, make transit more connected, and build a province where people feel government is working with the same urgency that they live their lives with.

[10:05 a.m.]

Some of the clearest lessons came close to home.

At Longlake Chateau, seniors told me about wanting to age in place with dignity and how a safe, connected community can be the difference between isolation and belonging.

At the groundbreaking of the new B.C. Cancer centre in Nanaimo, I saw hope — real, tangible hope — for families who will finally get life-saving care close to home.

At Uplands Elementary, students asked me thoughtful questions about leadership, reminding me that young people are not waiting for the future; they are already shaping it.

At cultural gatherings, from the Japanese-Canadian new year celebrations to the lunar new year event — where I shared that throughout wind and rain, we will be able to work together through difficult challenges — I saw how culture strengthens community and how belonging strengthens our very democracy.

At Vancouver Island University’s Applied Environmental Research Laboratories, researchers showed me how local innovation protects our water and environment, proof that investing in knowledge is investing in our shared future.

And at the Nanaimo Port Authority, I saw how competitiveness, infrastructure and clean growth transform local opportunity into provincial prosperity.

But one of the most powerful lessons didn’t come from a major institution at all. It came from a small group of volunteers in the Kootenays. In Castlegar, I learned about the volunteer driver program, neighbours driving neighbours to medical appointments, often hours away, simply because they refuse to let anyone fall through the cracks. No headline. No big budget. Just people standing up because someone needs to get to a doctor’s appointment or a checkup that they just can’t afford to miss.

That program taught me something essential about British Columbia. Community fills the gaps while government works to close them. It reminds us that transit in all its forms is not just buses and routes. Transit is about dignity, access, connection and care. Whether it’s a volunteer in Castlegar, a researcher in Nanaimo, a front-line worker in Prince Rupert or a young person in Surrey, the message is the same: show up, listen, and deliver.

British Columbians are not asking for perfection. They are asking us for presence. They are asking us to build systems that are simple, predictable and centred on the people they serve; systems that make it easier to build homes, easier to get around, easier to access care and easier for businesses to create jobs.

This is the work I bring to the Legislature: government that listens, policy that is predictable, transit that is connected, innovation that is supported and communities that are heard.

Every visit this year, from the cancer centre groundbreaking to the Castlegar volunteer drivers, taught me that leadership is not measured by how loudly we speak in this chamber but by how clearly people feel the impact in their daily lives. As we look ahead, I carry those lessons forward, grounded in community, driven by policy and guided by the unwavering belief that British Columbia’s best leadership comes from its people.

Emergency Health Care Services
in Northwest B.C.

Sharon Hartwell: I’d like to share a story with you from a constituent up on Highway 37.

“On October 7, I lost my best friend. I lost half of my life and the hope of more time with my life partner of over 20 years. I’ve been lucky to have had that time, and it leads to many wonderful memories, but I feel it was a mistake to have lost more time for us to continue and make future memories together.

“On October 7, I suddenly was dealt with the biggest blow of my life. My spouse, Rod, the picture of health and happiness, passed away from a heart attack. It was a beautiful autumn day. With no warning or telltale symptoms, he was overtaken by chest pains.

“A doctor friend with him recognized the signs and reacted immediately, making him comfortable and calling 911 — calling 911, to be told there wasn’t an ambulance readily available and it would be some time before one could reach us.

[10:10 a.m.]

“The decision was taken to try and get Rod on the road to meet the ambulance at the PetroCan station at the junction of Highways 37 and 16. It could possibly be there in time to meet us, thereby getting him equipment and drugs that could possibly save his life more quickly.

“With as much assistance as possible, he made it to the car but did not make it out of the driveway. On October 7, a beautiful autumn day, our life together ended.

“Could this have been prevented? No one can answer that question. Could anything have made a difference? Again, no one can answer that question. Could we have had a better chance of changing the outcome on that beautiful autumn day? Possibly.

“I have to wonder. If we had known there was an ambulance half an hour away instead of two hours away, would we have had to try to move Rod? Would he have had to exert himself, putting more stress on a heart and body already in dire distress? If help with drugs and equipment had been able to reach him in half an hour instead of two hours, would the wait be manageable and a move have been unnecessary?

“No one can predict the future, and no one can answer these questions, but I believe that an ambulance being closer to us would have changed decisions and given us a much better option. Whether it would have made the outcome different or not, we can’t say, but there could have been a better chance.

“Rod and I were very happy to hear that the community of Kitwanga has initiated a process to bring emergency services to our area. It sounded to us like they are well into the process, and we were hopeful it would be expedited by support from surrounding communities. I believe there can be no one in disagreement that having emergency services located closer than Hazelton or Terrace can do nothing but enhance the outcomes of health and fire emergencies.

“Kudos to those who are working hard to make this project happen. Congratulations and thank you to those people who have stepped up to be trained, provide critical skills and service to their neighbours and families in an underserviced area.

“Perhaps there have been other plans. Unfortunately, time has not been on the side of other plans coming to fruition. But time is not on our side. Time was not on Rod’s side that beautiful autumn day.

“A plan in the hands to bring it to life needs to be supported, encouraged and applauded. We hope that we could see communities come together to help each other to cooperate and collaborate so ground could be broken as soon as possible on a project that is nothing but a win-win for our area.

“It’s too late for us, too late for Rod. I hope that our situation highlights the need for emergency services to be located closer than Terrace and Hazelton as soon as possible. Our lives matter, and one more lost is too many. How many more will be lost before services arrive?

“If we all work together and support our neighbours and communities, it can only help funds and plans come together faster. We live in a world where the word “community” has been losing its meaning, but we live in an area where people still know what the sense of that means. Come together, collaborate, cooperate, and celebrate what we can do to work together.

“Rod was a man who reached out continually to help his neighbours, his family and his friends and strangers. I know he would love to see us all help each other now, thinking of how we made a difference to the people he helped. But I can’t help but knowing each other will now make a huge difference.

“Make a difference for him and yourself and for our area. Let it be known that we are communities that can work together. The funds will come faster, and we can sooner make a beautiful autumn day simply more beautiful again instead of a bad memory.”

The NDP continue to ignore the voices of people in my riding.

I will not stop until the ambulance station is fully funded and operational in Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

Dana Lajeunesse: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Dana Lajeunesse: Joining us today in the chamber is the family of Xavier Rasul-Jankovics, a young Cobble Hill resident whose life was tragically and senselessly extinguished by a reckless driver while rollerblading with his dad and his brother.

To Xavier’s parents, Zahra and Josh; siblings Qais and Kira; and grandparents Drs. Firoz and Saida Rasul: thank you for your courage, for your unwavering commitment to the preservation of Xavier’s legacy. The courage you’ve demonstrated through your willingness to repeatedly share your heartbreaking story is truly admirable.

[10:15 a.m.]

Members, please join me in extending the warmest House welcome to Xavier’s incredible family.

Private Members’ Statements

Coquitlam Heritage Society

Jennifer Blatherwick: The Coquitlam Heritage Society is relatively new in the story of Coquitlam, founded just 32 years ago, but they are dedicated to discovering, preserving and sharing the long history of our area from the past and into the future.

Let me tell you a little bit about what the Coquitlam Heritage Society has helped preserve. Before the 1800s, Coquitlam was home to the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm People, whose name means “red fish up the river,” and included in the traditional lands of the səlilwətaɬ, the qiqéyt and the q̓ic̓əy̓ First Nations.

In the mid-1850s, Coquitlam experienced the gold rush. Prospectors and workers from all over drawn to the glint of possible treasure. Rather, Coquitlam experienced the gold rush passing us by, as no gold was ever found in our area. However, some of those people stayed, including European and Chinese immigrants who worked in the Fraser Mills.

The Royal Engineers, who were stationed close by in anticipation of a possible American invasion, settled in Coquitlam when they were discharged, and many of our streets are named after them, like Gatensbury and Clarke.

The Canadian Pacific Railway made it to Coquitlam in the 1870s, construction made possible through the efforts of Chinese labourers. Just before the turn of the century, the first group of South Asian people arrived, with many Sikh soldiers coming to work, again, at Fraser Mills.

In the early 1900s, the French Canadians arrived and settled into southeast Coquitlam in the area still known as Maillardville. The influx was so sudden and so large that houses couldn’t be built quickly enough, and in that first rush, some French-Canadian families made temporary homes out of train cars.

In the first half of the century, Coquitlam stayed mostly rural, with a thriving lumber mill and farming of produce and livestock. In the second half, Coquitlam urbanized.

In the 1980s, Korean immigrants arrived; in the 1990s, Chinese; and in the 2000s, a wave of Iranian people — all bringing with them new energy, new experiences and new food.

The Coquitlam Heritage Society started its operations in this time, in 1993, in the lower level, the basement, of Mackin House, which had been the residence for the upper brass at Fraser Mills, rebuilding it and opening the house as a museum.

The CHS believes that heritage not only celebrates our past accomplishments but also rejoices in the values, achievements and experiences of the people all around us today. Coquitlam Heritage is actively collecting objects, stories and digital material from our local community to celebrate what makes us who we are — who we are today and who we’ll become in the future.

One of the best ways to have people experience museum collections is to go directly to them. The Coquitlam Heritage Society is dedicated to bringing its collection to the public. Recently they curated an exhibit on the evolution of music in the Coquitlam Public Library, showing how our tastes have changed but also the way in which we experience music has grown. I hear there were some kids who encountered the mysteries of an eight-track for the first time.

I am delighted to say the local MLA constituency office hosts a rotating collection of local artifacts and art. You’re welcome to come and see the artifacts, which include a stereoscope, newspapers from the turn of the last century, a leather medical bag from one of our very first doctors, books, mementos and an antique typewriter restored by one of my own kids.

The best way to celebrate heritage is together. The Coquitlam Heritage Society brings us together all the time. In this last year, they’ve hosted events for lunar new year and Black History Month. The society hosted a UNESCO-listed traditional Korean dance performance during Asian Heritage Month, an annual Mid-Autumn celebration and a Diwali celebration.

They are looking at how we preserve our experience now for future historians, with seniors and residents conducting memoir-writing workshops, an up-cycling exhibit and a sewing workshop; a number of free drop-in events like postcard-making, pin-making, comic sales, ornament-making and other creativity-centred events; and day camps for students.

The Feasts of Coquitlam highlights a series of cultural foods, this year specifically featuring Ukrainian, Filipino and Indian food. I will see you there.

The Coquitlam Heritage Society sees their mission to preserve the history of Coquitlam and its people. But as their president, Al Lau, says: “What is culture now is heritage later.” They truly succeed in their efforts to preserve our connection to the past by bringing history into the present and helping us enjoy the rich diversity of our culture now so we can be guardians of our heritage into the future.

[10:20 a.m.]

Process Mineralogical Consulting Ltd.

Lawrence Mok: I rise to speak about the accomplishments of a Maple Ridge business called Process Mineralogical Consulting Ltd., PMC for short, and highlight what can be achieved in British Columbia when government reduces regulatory hurdles. PMC proves that innovation, expertise and hard work are thriving in this province, despite relentless political roadblocks.

PMC is a B.C. company specializing in upright mineralogy, metallurgy and analytical testing for the mining and mineral-processing industries. They provide integrated analytical and testing services to help clients optimize recoveries, reduce losses and enhance project performance, the kind of work that should be propelling a strong mining economy, if this government were not burying resource development under red tape, delays and ideology.

PMC was founded by Geoff Lane after a long career in the mining industry. Geoff graduated from college in Ontario as a geological technologist and began his career in 1987 at Lakefield Research, now known as SGS Minerals. He spent 19 years working with Lakefield Research, continuing his geological studies at University College London, where he earned a bachelor of science.

His project experience covers operations across the world and proves that investment flows towards jurisdictions that encourage growth and away from governments that suffocate it. In 2007, Geoff joined Rio Tinto in Australia, where he managed mineralogical programs for multiple business units before returning to Canada in 2009 and starting PMC in 2010 in his garage in Maple Ridge.

PMC’s goal is simple: to deliver world-class mineralogical and metallurgical services for small and large mining companies, the kind of expertise that resource producers rely on today, even as provincial policies make it harder to expand operations or plan for the future.

PMC supports one of the most economically significant sectors in British Columbia and in Canada. Mining and mineral processing contribute tens of billions of dollars annually to the Canadian economy, with high-value jobs, infrastructure and essential materials for manufacturing, construction and technology. B.C. is a major part of this economy, home to copper, nickel, gold, molybdenum and metallurgical coal operations, while serving as a hub for mining expertise.

British Columbia’s mining industry depends on continued improvements in mineral-processing efficiency. Our province should lead the mining world because of private sector strength. But under this government, projects have stopped, regulatory uncertainty has intensified and investment has fled to other jurisdictions with clearer and more predictable pathways to development.

PMC undertakes work for operations and exploration development programs from around the world — proof that B.C. talent is world-class, despite the fact this government routinely treats mining as a political inconvenience rather than an economic pillar. PMC recently celebrated its 15th anniversary, an example of how Canadian ingenuity, creativity and hard work build something lasting when government gets out of the way.

But their success has not been without challenges, made worse by the province’s ideological regulatory expansion that makes it harder for small resource companies to operate, innovate and hire. Despite these hurdles, PMC has persevered and grown from a one-man operation to 16 employees with millions of assets across three commercial units in Maple Ridge.

This is one of many stories of B.C. businesses striving for success and overcoming unnecessary hurdles.

It is up to us to ensure companies like PMC are supported and incentivized to stay, invest and hire here.

[10:25 a.m.]

Response to Racism Against
Indigenous Persons in
Health Care System

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Five years ago, on November 30, the In Plain Sight: Addressing Indigenous-Specific Racism and Discrimination in B.C. Health Care report was released.

Informed by the voices of nearly 9,000 Indigenous patients, family members, health care workers and an unprecedented analysis of health data, the report found clear evidence of racism in the health care system, harming both care experiences and long-term health outcomes for Indigenous People in our province.

This report included 24 recommendations that aim to make culturally safe health care a reality for all people in B.C. Though there is more to do when it comes to eradicating Indigenous-specific racism from our health care system, our government has made significant progress on these recommendations in achieving a more equitable, culturally safe health care system for everyone in our province.

One way our government is doing this is by increasing access to Indigenous-led health services, particularly in mental health, wellness and substance use care. We know the toxic drug crisis has disproportionately impacted Indigenous Peoples and First Nations communities, so we have made unprecedented investments in the Indigenous-led treatment programs. The B.C. government in the 2023 budget allocated $171 million for Indigenous-led treatment, recovery and aftercare services to address the mental health and substance use challenge faced by Indigenous populations in British Columbia.

When it comes to Indigenous-led treatment centres, we’ve renovated six and built two new state-of-the-art facilities. Just a few months ago, the province announced $8.3 million committed to fund the Tŝilhqot’in healing and wellness model, developed in partnership with the Tŝilhqot’in Nation Government and Red Road Recovery. The centre will provide supportive recovery, treatment and transitional homes, all rooted in Tŝilhqot’in culture and land-based healing for First Nations people living with substance use challenges.

On top of this, our government has made a commitment to open 15 nation-led primary care centres throughout B.C., with five open and the remaining ten in various stages of planning, implementation and completion. These primary care centres are community-led, culturally safe and trauma-informed, with Indigenous-led knowledge integrated into the health care services. They not only bring quality and primary care close to home but also connect many First Nations and communities to mental health and substance use support, helping more people begin their healing journey.

We’re building new hospitals in our province alongside First Nations. The new Fort St. James hospital, Nats’oojeh Hospital and Health care, was built in deep collaboration with the surrounding Indigenous communities. The hospital name, Nats’oojeh, meaning “everyone’s healing” in the Dakelh language, was chosen with guidance from Elders and language experts of the Nak’azdli, Binche, Tŝilhqot’in, Yekooche and Tl’azt’en First Nations.

Indigenous partners were closely engaged throughout the design processing to make the hospital welcoming and culturally safe, incorporating features such as spiritual space, smudging, healing gardens and the use of traditional plants.

The building integrates Indigenous art signs in the Dakelh language and design inspired by nature and the changing seasons. The partnership ensures that the hospital is not only a modern health centre with expanding emergency, diagnostic and long-term-care services but also a safe place for healing, rooted in traditional wellness.

Experiences of racism and discrimination in the health care system continue to be reported, with barriers to access care in B.C. for First Nations and Indigenous People. Indigenous healing liaisons are now a part of the care teams in the hospitals throughout B.C. Since the In Plain Sight report, now Indigenous healing liaison positions have been funded to support culturally safe navigating advocacy within the health system.

[10:30 a.m.]

Today, together with Indigenous People and First Nations communities across B.C., we are making transformative change and are on the path to building a healthy system that is more equitable, more accessible and truly safe for Indigenous Peoples and all people in British Columbia.

Affordable Housing and Management
of B.C. Housing Facilities

Reann Gasper: Today I want to highlight an issue that sits at the heart of everyday British Columbians: housing. For years, people have been told that help is on the way, that the housing crisis is being tackled with urgency and that the government has a plan. Yet after eight years, British Columbians are still waiting, and all they see are press releases, photo ops and another announcement about future housing that never seems to materialize.

B.C. Housing has failed to deliver the results people were promised, and the B.C. NDP has let British Columbians down. This government campaigned on affordability. They came into office saying housing would be their top priority. But under their watch, housing has never been more expensive. Rents climb faster than wages. Home ownership has slipped further out of reach for young families. Even long-term renters now face instability and uncertainty as supply continues to fall far short of demand.

The consequences of this crisis reach even further. A new report shows domestic abusers are now weaponizing the housing crisis against their victims, telling women: “If you leave, you will have nowhere to go.” Survivors are being trapped in violent homes because they cannot find affordable, safe housing. Transition houses are full, wait-lists stretch into the thousands and the protection orders are delayed because the system doesn’t have enough affordable and safe housing options to support the women who need them.

We have record-high prices, and one-third of young people are leaving this province. Why? Because life here has become unaffordable for them. Municipalities have been left in the cold, delivered empty promises and forced to navigate housing projects with little provincial support.

Last week I met with the mayor of Mission, and his message could not have been clearer: “We need help from the province. We cannot do it alone.” While communities struggle, and the stories coming out of B.C. Housing buildings are nothing short of horrifying, we now have multiple cases of families forced out of their homes or left living in unlivable conditions — cockroaches, mould, mice and repeated flooding — that no British Columbian should ever have to endure.

One mother in East Vancouver described more than 20 floods in her subsidized townhouse. Another was told by B.C. Housing to move her children back into a cockroach-infested unit. This is a symptom of a system collapsing from mismanagement and neglect. It is deeply troubling that under this government, cockroaches and mould have become the staple image of B.C. Housing — not safe homes, not dignity, not stability.

Families are living with chronic illness, dizziness, fatigue and constant fear of the next flood or electrical failure. Families are living in damp, mould-ridden units where rodents chew through wiring and cause fire alarms to blare at all hours. When these families ask for help, they are ignored, dismissed or told there’s nothing B.C. Housing can do. No one in this province should have to beg the government for a home that isn’t full of cockroaches, mould and sewage.

But it doesn’t stop there. B.C. Housing quietly changed its policy for new buildings to enable drug use on site, directly exposing families and seniors to real, serious risk. These shifts increase the likelihood of crime, disorder and emergency calls in and around these buildings. Local governments were not properly consulted, residents were not warned, and British Columbians never agreed to having drug consumption rules built into their housing.

This is the result of a government that prioritizes ideology over safety and headlines over real outcomes.

Today British Columbians are asking a simple question. After nearly a decade in power, why has this government failed to deliver the housing they promised?

[10:35 a.m.]

The truth is clear. This government has focused more on announcements than outcomes, more on headlines than homes, more on political narrative than the lived reality of the people they serve. But it is time for accountability. It is time for real results. It is time for a government that treats housing as a responsibility owed to every British Columbian. People deserve safe homes.

Point of Order

Hon. Christine Boyle: Chair, I’m hoping for some direction. The member stated that rents have never been higher, when, in fact, they’ve been falling for two years in a row now. I just want to make sure the record is correct on the facts of the matter and wonder, as a point of privilege, if you could provide direction on that.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, technically, it’s not a point of privilege but a point of order. In my ruling as Chair, I don’t weigh in, in terms of debate and discussion. The member is entitled to express her view.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks. I appreciate the guidance, as I am learning the process. I guess I’m just wondering about clarification between a view and an incorrect fact in this matter, but again, I will leave it to you on that.

Trevor Halford: Madam Chair, this is private members’ time, and it’s very highly unusual that we have a minister get up and challenge people in private members’ time — incorrectly, in my view. Whether it’s doing so on a point of privilege, the fact is that there are other speakers that are speaking.

We’ve heard talk before. If we’re going to challenge everybody on every single topic, I guess we can do that, but I’m disappointed the minister would do that today.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will continue second reading of Bill M219, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M219 — Health Authorities
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Jody Toor: I rise today to speak in support of Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025. This bill is grounded in four simple but essential principles — transparency, respect, compassion and accountability. These are the foundations of a health care system worthy of the people it serves, yet too often, British Columbians are not experiencing them.

I want to begin on a personal note, because this is not an abstract policy discussion for me. I have lived this. Several years ago I was diagnosed with cancer. As anyone who has received that diagnosis knows, your entire world stops. Everything becomes urgent, every day matters, and every unanswered question feels like a risk you cannot afford to take.

During those first days, the only thing I wanted, the only thing I needed, was clear information. How long will I wait for surgery? When will I get diagnostics? What are my options? Is there somewhere else I could go to get help sooner?

I wanted to say something. I was diagnosed in an era when British Columbia was thriving in its cancer care. We were looked at as the gold standard, not just in Canada but internationally. Our cancer treatment pathways were some of the best in the country. Our wait times were among the shortest, and British Columbians could have confidence that when their lives depended on quick action, the system would be there for them. Back then I received timely diagnostics, timely treatment and timely surgery. That is one of the biggest reasons I’m standing here today. I’m alive because the system worked.

That is no longer the case in British Columbia. The level of care that saved my life is not the care people are receiving today. Wait times have grown longer. Staffing shortages have deepened. And the fear and uncertainty that accompany a diagnosis are now amplified by the lack of communication and dangerously long delays.

[10:40 a.m.]

What I experienced, what every British Columbian once expected, is now slipping further and further out of reach. That is precisely why Bill M219 matters. This bill is not radical. It is non-partisan. It is common sense. It does three critical things.

It establishes medically recommended time frames for diagnostics and treatment. Patients will finally know what the standard is and how long they should expect to wait. When a delay becomes unsafe, right now people are left guessing. This bill replaces confusion with clarity.

It requires health authorities to notify patients when timely care is not possible — not after months of silence, not after families have begged for updates, not after a condition has worsened but proactively, early, clearly and with all available options laid out. Importantly, those options include access to treatment outside their health authority or even outside the province. When a life is on the line, nothing should be off the table.

It mandates reporting when a patient dies waiting for care. These tragic stories, 4,516 of them last year, cannot remain hidden. Government must acknowledge them. Health authorities must acknowledge them. And British Columbians must be able to see the full picture through an annual public report so we can fix what is failing. This is how accountability begins, with truth for patients and families.

I’ve heard from families across Langley-Willowbrook and across the province who say the same thing: “We just want to know what’s going on. We can handle the truth, but we can’t handle silence. We shouldn’t have to fight the system when we’re already fighting for our lives.”

Bill M219 changes that. It ensures every patient receives timely compassion and communication so they know how long they’ll wait, what their options are, when they need to act and where else they can turn if delays become dangerous. It restores dignity. It restores confidence. It restores the basic respect that every person facing an illness deserves.

Communication should not be a privilege you get only if you push hard enough. Communication should be a right, and this bill makes it.

Let me be very clear. This bill supports health care workers. Doctors, nurses, diagnostic technicians, surgeons, paramedics and over 70 specialized professionals are stretched to exhaustion. They are doing everything they can in a strained system. This bill does not make their job harder. It makes the system responsible. It clarifies that communication with patients is the duty of the health authority, not an unpaid burden dumped on already overworked front-line staff.

With clear benchmarks and clear reporting, resources can finally be targeted when they are needed the most. Health care workers want patients to be informed and empowered. This bill makes the system-wide support to make that possible.

If the system is failing, people deserve to know where and why. Transparency means medically recommended wait-time benchmarks will be published, accessible and understandable. No more guessing games. No more secrecy about what is normal versus what is dangerous.

Accountability means ensuring that the government and health authorities track, report and take responsibility for delayed care, not ignore it. Action means that when delays are identified, resources follow. That is how we ensure that this bill does more than record problems. It helps solve them. You cannot fix what you refuse to measure, and you cannot improve what you refuse to acknowledge.

I cannot overstate this: 4,516 British Columbians died while waiting for care last year — 4,516. These are not statistics. These are real people — parents, grandparents, neighbours, co-workers, friends, siblings. Some of them were waiting for surgery, some for diagnostic. Some never even received a timeline at all.

This is unacceptable in a province that once led in the nation in cancer care and diagnostics, a province that once saved my life with timely care, a province that is capable of so much more.

When a system is under this much strain, transparency becomes even more essential. People deserve to know: “How long will I wait? Why am I waiting? What are my options? Can I get care somewhere else faster? What is the government doing to fix this?”

British Columbians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for honesty. They are asking for clarity, and they’re asking for the dignity of knowing the truth. Bill M219 delivers that.

My commitment, as MLA for Langley-Willowbrook, to the people of Langley-Willowbrook who sent me here, is to fight for the health care system that works for them and for every British Columbian.

I survived cancer because I received timely care. I stand here because I had access to diagnostics, surgeries and treatments without dangerous delays. I believe deeply and personally that every British Columbian deserves nothing less. No one in the province should receive worse care today than I received years ago. But that is exactly what is happening, and it must change.

[10:45 a.m.]

Bill M219 is a meaningful step towards that change. The Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025, is not about blame. It is about responsibility. It does not attack health care workers; it supports them. It does not shame the system; it strengthens it. It does not point fingers. It shines a light.

This bill is about ensuring that British Columbians are never again left waiting in silence. It is about ensuring that no family faces unavoidable loss because they weren’t told about their options. It’s about ensuring that our health care system once again becomes something we can be proud of, something worthy of the people who rely on it.

Transparency, respect, compassion, accountability — these are not political values. These are human values.

Today I’m proud to stand here as a survivor, a representative of Langley-Willowbrook and as a British Columbian to support Bill M219 and to urge every member of this House to do the same.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak to Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act. While transparency in health care is important, this bill does not solve the problems that it claims to address. Instead, it risks making life harder for patients, it adds layers of administrative burden and bureaucracy to front-line workers, and it opens the door to privatization.

Under this bill, health authorities will be required to notify patients when they cannot receive care within a medically recommended time frame. But what does that actually mean in practice? It means that someone in a health authority is spending their time on this administrative task rather than focused on supporting the patient with the medical care that they need.

Bill M219 provides no guarantee of faster care, no additional resources, no new doctors, no new nurses. For patients, this is not a solution. At a time when we are working to reduce administrative burden for physicians through meaningful legislation, such as the recent employment standards amendments aimed at reducing the requirements for doctors to write sick notes, this bill adds new layers of administrative burden onto physicians and health authorities, which reduces time available for local care coordination, exacerbating system strain.

This bill creates systemic inefficiency, and it risks duplicating existing frameworks. This bill ignores the fact that cancer care, cardiac services and transplant services already have provincial oversight. This bill threatens to interrupt and impact existing provincially coordinated services.

Cancer care in B.C. is coordinated provincially by B.C. cancer care, with support from local health authorities. My family is experiencing this. We were into the system and experiencing timely care really soon after our diagnosis, and that was just this summer. So some of the statistics and stories that were just mentioned from across the aisle should be taken with a grain of salt, because they are not reflective of everyone’s situation.

Cardiac Services in B.C. already manages specialized cardiac care and wait-lists provincially. Assigning cardiac referral services and responsibilities to the health authorities risks disrupting this highly effective coordination.

B.C. Transplant services oversees organ donations and transplant services across B.C. Shifting transplant coordination to health authorities could impair provincial wait-list management and monitoring.

Adding to the duplication of services, out-of-province and out-of-country care is a service that is already available to patients in British Columbia. This determination is already delegated to the Medical Services Commission, which outlines the criteria for out-of-country and out-of-province medical care. Residents who are enrolled in MSP may use medically necessary services in another province or territory under these guidelines.

We know that demands on health services have increased exponentially in recent years due to COVID-19 pandemic, climate disasters, population growth and aging population. This requires our regional health authorities to coordinate more efficiently and effectively. This is why we are working tirelessly to reduce wait times with proven strategies, not political gamesmanship.

Adding mandatory reporting, compliance requirements and ministerial oversight will divert time and money away from front-line care. Every hour spent filling out forms is an hour not spent treating patients and is resourcing work away from the front line.

[10:50 a.m.]

Finally, the most troubling aspect of this bill is the risk of privatization. This bill allows health authorities to suggest options outside the region when they cannot meet timelines. What does this mean in practice? It means patients may be encouraged to seek private care or go out of province if they can afford it.

This undermines the principle of our universal access and creates a two-tiered system where those with means jump the queue while others wait. For communities like the riding of Ladysmith-Oceanside, where many of the residents are retirees on a fixed income, this is not a choice. It’s legislated inequity.

I am reminded of how undermining the two-tiered education system is in British Columbia to a robust public education system, when those that can afford it, those without complex learning needs, can simply pay for an alternative that does not accurately reflect the demographics of the communities where they live.

This government knows that there is work to do to improve health care in British Columbia. We know that British Columbians deserve real solutions, and that is what we are working on — investment in workforce recruitment, expanded surgical capacity, better regional autonomy to innovate and improved timely access to primary care. Bill 219 offers none of these. It offers optics, not outcomes.

The member from Vancouver Island north referenced the Fraser Institute during her opening. That reminded me of the school ranking system published annually by the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute says that this creates transparency in education by providing families with information to ask questions and create change in neighbourhood schools.

However, after 27 years of ranking schools, the Fraser Institute cannot point to one school or one neighbourhood that has had a positive outcome as a result of these rankings. What can be attributed to this ranking system are real estate agents using them to woo families with means, into and out of certain neighbourhoods or schools, and a lot of wasted time every year in the education system explaining why the rankings are not reflective of the good and effective work happening each year in schools.

The member opposite just quoted a stat about the number of people who were waiting for medical care that died in B.C. I have to say that I don’t think it’s reflective and appropriate. My dad died waiting for care, but he was 82. His heart was the size of a walnut. There were multiple options that could have happened. There were many reasons why he passed away, and most of it had to do with his heart being old. This list and these numbers that they’re quoting are not reflective of the complexity associated with people who are seeking medical care.

Let’s not let our health care system go down the same path that has happened with the privatization of our education system.

We’re focused on solutions and not optics, and for these reasons, I urge the House to reject Bill 219 and instead focus on measures that truly strengthen public health care for all and support our front-line workers in the work that they’re doing.

Kristina Loewen: When my colleague asked me to speak to her private member’s bill, I was in the middle of working with Lyndsay Richholt. You will recall that she’s a 42-year-old mother in my riding in Kelowna Centre. Lyndsay is an incredible human with a beautiful family and a tenacious spirit. Although patient and willing to wait her turn, Lyndsay was running out of time in her wait on B.C.’s transplant list. Despite being her own best advocate, Lyndsay was getting almost nowhere until her local MLA went public.

As someone who has always believed that we need to advocate for ourselves in the medical system and who has been a patient advocate, I do believe that the need for advocacy has reached unacceptable levels. In fact, there are too many examples of impossible advocacy. If you can advocate until you’re blue in the face but there are no available services for your needs, then your advocacy is, in fact, impossible.

At a time when — actually, correction — 4,620 British Columbians are dying in one year on a wait-list, we have to ask ourselves: do we even value the sanctity of life anymore? No one in a civilized, compassionate society should die while waiting for surgery or diagnostics, but 4,620 British Columbians did.

[10:55 a.m.]

That’s double the amount of overdose deaths in B.C. in one year. We are outraged over the amount of overdose deaths, and we see the evidence of this tragedy in all of our respective downtowns. But the truth is that we have a silent epidemic that is much deadlier, and no one is talking about it. We owe it to British Columbians to bring these facts to light and to have the conversation.

The purpose of Bill 219 is simple and practical. It lays out exactly what a patient can expect and would need to know.

First, patients will be told exactly how long they have to wait. No more wondering if it will be six days, six weeks or six months. The patient will be told exactly if their wait time is unsafe or unreasonable for accessing their care. And third, this bill will achieve transparency.

By sharing real wait times versus the recommended wait times, a new plan can be developed in all the cases where wait times exceed recommendations.

This bill will inform the patient they can make a choice to travel outside their health authority or province to access the necessary care, rather than just waiting. This bill restores transparency, respect, compassion and accountability to a system that desperately needs that.

So this bill shares medically recommended timeframes, it sets clear evidence-based timelines for diagnostics and treatment, and it gives patients something they’ve been missing. No more waiting in the dark. It requires notification when timely care is not possible, and patients must be told when their wait times become unsafe.

Here is the beautiful part. They must be given real choices, including care outside their health authority, care outside the province and alternative pathways or providers. I believe it’s beautiful because it restores informed choice, puts the patient first and in the driver’s seat. It restores the patient to a place of helping to choose the path forward for themselves. It restores dignity.

Contrast that with my friend Lyndsay, left in the dark on wait times, calls not being returned, and then, when she called, she was treated adversarially. There is no dignity in that.

This bill ensures transparent reporting of deaths on wait-lists. Health authorities must report when a patient dies waiting for a specialist or a diagnostic or for a surgery. The minister must publish an annual public report. These numbers can no longer be buried or minimized.

So what does this mean for patients and families? Patients gain the right to know: how long will they wait when delays occur, and what are their options? No more being left in the dark, this restores dignity for families who currently feel invisible. Communication becomes a right, not a privilege.

I believe this is a step in the right direction, a way to restore confidence and build back trust. Isn’t that what everyone wants? No one wants to be kicked when they’re down and that is what it feels like for far too many British Columbians in the health care system these days.

For health care workers, it supports the overworked professionals by making communication a system responsibility, not an added chore for them. Doctors and nurses want patients to be informed. This bill helps the system catch up to their professionalism. It provides data that helps target resources and reduce burnout.

Transparency means clear publication of benchmark wait times for diagnostics and treatment. Accountability means tracking where delays are happening; reporting deaths; and, most importantly, acting on the data. This bill forces the system to confront bottlenecks instead of hiding them.

I think we all know what it’s like to get behind on something, to be embarrassed by it to the point of hiding it. Whether it’s a late bill or a late homework assignment or that dinner that you promised a friend, knowing that you’ve failed in a responsibility or a promise is a highly uncomfortable situation.

I know. I had a particular situation that taught me a valuable life lesson. When I was a young mom with young kids, I was behind in a bill and I was avoiding the other mom that I knew I owed it to. Finally, she confronted me and developed a plan with me to make it work. There was no judgment in her confrontation, just collaboration. There was so much freedom in that moment. A plan to deal with the backlog brought freedom to both the one who was owed and the one who owed the money. That’s powerful.

This bill seeks to bring freedom, power and connection back to both parties — the patient who needs the care and the system that owes the care. And that includes the front-line workers who want to provide the care and want to do it well.

Why this matters: wait times are worsening across nearly every category; staffing shortages continue to grow; doctors, nurses and more than 70 specialized professionals are stretched to exhaustion. When the system is strained, honesty becomes essential, and sometimes that’s counterintuitive. Honesty is the only way forward.

[11:00 a.m.]

I recently wrote an article entitled “When Waiting Becomes a Death Sentence.” In it, I talked about how as Canadians we have a Stockholm-type syndrome love affair with our system. It’s ingrained in us as Canadians that we have great health care and that it’s free and that the only way to talk about it, the only acceptable way, is with gratitude.

But on the contrary, the truth is that we pay nearly $19,000 in taxes for each year for a family of four. We also wait for services. We wait in the ER. We wait in the referral queue. We wait for diagnostics. Many of us will die waiting this year. We must begin a much more honest conversation about health care in B.C. that includes all of the uncomfortable facts.

British Columbians deserve clear information, clear options and clear responsibility. This bill ensures patients are informed, supported and respected because timely information is part of informed care.

Every life has inherent worth. This bill recognizes that patients are not numbers. They are humans deserving of honesty and dignity. All humans deserve care in a timely manner. All British Columbians deserve to be given other options if that care cannot occur in a timely and local fashion.

Today I invite all members to support a bill that strengthens transparency, builds trust and honours the people that we serve. Bill M219 does not cost compassion; it restores it. It ensures that British Columbians are never again left waiting without answers, without options and without respect. It’s time to choose accountability, dignity and the sanctity of life.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Like my colleagues, I am also rising to speak to Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have many conversations over the years with senior health care administrators who are also doctors about how to improve care in the medical system. It’s a privilege to have those conversations, and it has helped me understand so much about the cogs and the gears of the medical system here in B.C. — what works to provide quality, streamlined care, and what puts grit into the machine and grinds it down. What are the kinds of things that help?

One of the questions we’ve discussed over the years is: are there places that technology can be helpful? It turns out that even for grumpy senior doctors who are a little afraid of new technology, using a laptop to take notes during a consultation is a good thing. Tracking prescriptions across the system, following the patient is an excellent development.

Were there places that other health care professionals could expand their scope? Midwives, nurse practitioners, pharmacy clinics, associate physicians — they have deepened and improved our capacity to respond to medical needs.

How do we eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic processes that don’t improve health outcomes? Less sick notes. They didn’t provide a benefit to patients. They didn’t change health outcomes. They put sick patients into doctors’ offices. So then, no more. From family physicians, I recently heard a collective sigh of relief.

How should we effectively spend our health care dollars to recruit and retain the family physicians that are foundational to our medical system? Physicians told us a new contract would allow them to create a more sustainable practice and help us recruit new family practitioners. Done.

How do we decrease any unnecessary work, retain useful functions, ensure we’re examining all the steps to capture best practices?

We’ve talked about how to improve service in the health care system, how to shift practice to better support health care practitioners to deliver better care. So much of that discussion centred around how we make the system, the everyday process and procedure that happens behind the scenes, better. Many of the data tracking and organizational burdens are invisible on the front line, not because those processes aren’t important — they are — but because physicians have a different job, and one that they should be concentrating on entirely.

Waits to see specialists continue to be a concern. But if we are expecting physicians to do another assessment, another process…. If we are expecting administrators to do another process, another bureaucratic burden, how long does that take? If we add a process that doesn’t free up more time for physicians to see patients but adds more bureaucratic time, that’s a problem.

This proposed change doesn’t add additional resources or changes that will correspondingly reduce administrative time somewhere else. It just results in taking more time away from patients. As the member opposite stated when they introduced the bill, physicians and specialists triage those on their patient list, and they receive new patients all the time.

[11:05 a.m.]

What is the expectation when a new patient is received? Who reassesses the wait-list, and how much time does that take from the specialist actually talking to their patients? Do we ask support staff to re-inform patients every time there is a shift on the wait-list?

One of the things I hear over and over in organizational systems, any system, is a very human impulse to create reporting, especially when you care about the problem but it’s not your job to do the tracking. To be clear, this doesn’t result from not caring that someone else needs to do the work. It’s often about seeing a very real challenge from one perspective and not understanding how much work you are asking someone else to do. But again, it equals more time and more resources away from the problem.

When I’m struggling with an element of a large, complex system, I go to the people who do the work. Checking in with the people with whom I work most closely is a great start, but as my scope has changed and the systems I deal with have become so much bigger, so has the scale of the required consultation.

If I’m proposing to make a change to the whole system, it is good practice to consult with large professional organizations and advocacy groups, employee groups. And always, always remember that every story is important, every patient is important, but every story must be looked at in aggregate together.

This bill would create hundreds of millions of dollars per year across the system in costs if it’s passed, without creating additional better patient outcomes. It’ll create two-tier care. If you can pay, go to the front of the line.

I have heard people describe that as: “Good. Take the wealthy out of the public line, and then it’ll move faster.” But our limited resource is physician time. Private money does not create more trained professionals. It just reserves their time for the rich.

I don’t know any group of health professionals that are calling for a tremendous administrative and operational burden to be added to the system. This bill would do that. It would create new work for triage, documentation and reporting, more work for physicians and administrative staff to process out-of-country applications, gather specialist endorsements and coordinate with tertiary programs and health authority panels. And it’s redundant because the Canada Health Act and B.C. Medicare Protection Act already permit out-of-country and out-of-province care that is sustainable.

It begs the question: what is the purpose other than to introduce two-tier, private-public partnership health care with government paying private clinics?

Reducing wait times continues to be a complex challenge because it affects every aspect of how health care services are delivered. Every easy solution often hides the complexity of the challenge. Political responses are not health care responses. Our focus must remain on building and investing in the public health care system.

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Island closes debate.

Anna Kindy: As I close the debate on Bill M219, I want to return to the principle at the heart of this legislation. No one in British Columbia should die waiting for care without being empowered with information.

This bill is about bringing openness into health care, making sure that no barrier, no delay and no lack of communication stands between the patient and the information they need to make an informed decision about their own care. When time matters most, having clear information can be the difference between fear and hope, life and death.

The bill is built on four simple principles — transparency, respect, compassion and accountability.

Transparency means patients deserve to know how long they’ll wait and when options are available when care is delayed. For a vast majority of patients, not knowing adds an incredible amount of anxiety and suffering for patients and their families.

Respect means treating patients as partners in their own care — informed, empowered and given a chance to act. It’s about respecting the health care workers who dedicate their lives to patient care.

Compassion means remembering the human side of this crisis, the suffering behind a wait-list, the fear of the unknown and the heartbreak that follows when tragedy strikes.

Accountability means mandating real action, tracking and reporting so that we can see where our health care system is failing British Columbians and work together to fix it.

[11:10 a.m.]

I want to thank the members of this House who have spoken during this debate, the MLA for Langley-Willowbrook, who navigated cancer herself when health care was timely.

I’ve also heard from families, from nurses and from my colleagues in medicine, patients and people who have lived this pain firsthand. They’ve told me about loved ones who waited months for cardiac surgery that never came. I heard about mothers who learned too late that their cancer had spread.

A 2024 study of ovarian cancer pinpoints the fact that if more than 30 days pass between diagnosis and treatment, the five-year survival drops from 54 to 32 percent. That’s a staggering statistic. Imagine being a young mother navigating our medical system with ovarian cancer, not knowing if she is going to be seen in time.

Every story is different. Some have managed to get timely care, while others have not. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is that too many patients and their families are not getting the information they need until it’s too late.

The data is there or how would this government make the decision to send women with breast cancer to Bellingham for radiation treatment? They need to share this data with patients.

We also know that part of this crisis stems from a health care workforce stretched beyond its limit — doctors, nurses and specialized professionals working themselves to burnout. Their dedication is extraordinary. This bill is one of the steps we can take to ensure that patient care and access are not compromised by the staffing crisis. Transparency can help bridge the gap as capacity catches up so that no patient is left waiting without answers as the system rebuilds.

Our duty on both sides of this House is to protect all British Columbians. Let us unite around a shared duty. Let us say together that no one in this province should die waiting for the help that never came. Transparency alone will not heal our health care system, but it’s one part of the repair and the foundation upon which access can improve for every British Columbian.

Let’s give everyone in B.C. the dignity of knowing where they stand in their care. Bill 219 is about empowering patients and saving lives.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M219, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

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

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member for Juan de Fuca–Malahat to move second reading of Bill M226, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

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

Dana Lajeunesse: I move that Bill M226, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, unofficially known as “Xavier’s law,” be now read a second time.

Let me begin by extending my deepest appreciation to the family of Xavier Rasul-Jankovics, who are here with us today to witness the debate on this important piece of legislation.

To Xavier’s parents, Zahra and Josh; siblings Qais and Kira; and grandparents Drs. Firoz and Saida Rasul: thank you for your courage and presence and for your unwavering commitment to the preservation of Xavier’s legacy and for your efforts to prevent such tragedies in the future. The courage you’ve demonstrated through your willingness to repeatedly share your heartbreaking story has been instrumental in bringing this bill to the floor. Your commitment to saving lives serves as an inspiration to us all.

This bill is not just a set of amendments to our motor vehicle laws. It’s a response to a tragedy that affected not only one family but an entire community. Xavier’s story, like too many others’, reminds us of the urgent need for action.

[11:15 a.m.]

It was the events leading up to the loss of Xavier, a completely avoidable and heartbreaking incident, that galvanized both public sentiment and legislative will. Xavier’s law is intended to ensure that, in future, no other family will be forced to endure such tragic and preventable loss and that our roads become safer for everyone.

The primary aim of Xavier’s law is to address gaps in our existing traffic safety regulations. Over the past several years, we’ve seen mounting evidence and community concern regarding reckless driving, distracted driving and the increased risks to vulnerable road users, especially children and pedestrians. Xavier’s law seeks to raise the standard of accountability for drivers and empower law enforcement and the courts with stronger tools to prevent future tragedies.

Key provisions of the bill include enhanced penalties for reckless driving. For example, the bill introduces stricter and more immediate penalties for drivers found guilty of reckless or dangerous driving by empowering law enforcement officers to impose immediate 30-day driving bans.

Additionally, all incidents of reckless driving must be reported to the superintendent of motor vehicles to ensure that they can be recorded, and if deemed necessary or appropriate, an additional driving ban of up to 36 months can then be imposed.

Furthermore, Xavier’s law complements federal Bill C-14, which provides judges more authority to impose even longer-term bans for reckless or dangerous driving that causes serious injury or death under the Criminal Code.

This proposed legislation is the result of broad consultation that began in October after a meeting with Zahra and Josh in my Cobble Hill office, where it became overwhelmingly clear that more needed to be done to create laws to prevent such senseless and utterly tragic losses from occurring in the future.

With much consultation and concentrated effort by staff from within the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General’s office, Bill M226, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, Xavier’s law, was placed on an accelerated timeline in an effort to bring it into existence sooner rather than later.

By passing Xavier’s law, we send a clear message. Reckless and inattentive driving will not be tolerated. We can expect to see a reduction in preventable accidents, especially those involving pedestrians, cyclists and others who might otherwise be vulnerable to out-of-control motorists on our roadways. Schools and neighbourhoods will be safer. The resulting safety improvements on our roads will reflect our government’s commitment to the well-being of all citizens.

Some may ask if these measures are too stringent or if they place an undue burden on drivers. To them I say that the cost of inaction is far greater. No penalty or educational requirement compares to the pain of losing a loved one. This bill balances fairness with necessity, and it offers education and support alongside enforcement.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, Xavier’s law. Let us honour Xavier’s memory by making our roads safer for everyone. Let us provide families with the reassurance that their voices have been heard and that through their advocacy, meaningful change is possible.

Once again, thank you to Xavier’s family for your courage and for your presence here today.

Together we can prevent future tragedies and create a legacy of safety and compassion on our roads.

Trevor Halford: I want to begin my remarks by thanking the member opposite for the work that he’s done on this bill and the passion and thoughtfulness and the advocacy that he’s done on behalf of his constituents.

[11:20 a.m.]

I think we can all agree that…. Above that, I want to begin by offering my condolences to the family of this young individual. The fact that they have the courage to be here today, I think, speaks volumes to who this individual was and the family that is here to represent him today.

As a dad of three kids — two of which are now on the road, and my middle got his licence last week — these conversations are incredibly difficult but incredibly necessary. You look at it…. As a kid, actually, I spent almost my entire time out of school on my rollerblades up and down the streets, kind of no care in the world. It really hits close to home how a tragedy like this could occur in any community.

Again, I want to thank the member for bringing that.

I think that the idea of strengthening the laws on reckless driving is of critical importance. It is. It’s one that I think we all know that we need to do, need to strengthen and put sizeable teeth in.

A few worries that I have with this…. I mean this with the utmost respect. I think when you’re talking about something as important as what we’re discussing today, it’s very, very important that we get this right — extremely important.

Speaking as somebody who can put forward a private member’s bill myself — and our colleagues have, on both sides of this House — this is fairly…. You know, when you look at what’s proposed here, a lot of it is fairly black and white, which I appreciate, because it needs to be incredibly transparent. It needs to be very direct, which it is. But there are aspects of this that are incredibly technical in nature — very, very technical.

The legalities. It’s almost like when you’re pulling a thread on a sweater. What I mean by that is because of the legalities that are involved in different changes to the Motor Vehicle Act and things like that, it would be something that you would…. Maybe “expect” is not the right word. Encourage that piece of legislation to come from, perhaps, the Attorney General’s office, where they have that legal structure and background in terms of doing the exact consultation with all the parties.

I know that the member opposite talked about the consultation that he began, and I do believe that he would have done that in a way that would strengthen this. But we’re talking about some very, very technical aspects, legal aspects, that — myself, I’m not a lawyer; I know there are lawyers in here — are so in-depth that when we’re looking at a piece of legislation like this, I think it’s important that we have that lens on it. I know that there could be a possible time where we could have that lens put on by the Attorney General’s office, and I would welcome that.

I think it’s very critical here, too, that when we’re talking about the ways of what reckless driving is and the definition of it, it’s important that we match that and that we get that right. I think that there are some challenges that are in here as well. I know that when we look at the definition of reckless driving, a lot of the offences are found under the Motor Vehicle Act. But to the member’s point, that doesn’t mean they can’t be expanded. I think that is something that we have to look at.

[11:25 a.m.]

Again, that would be something that we would want to be doing in depth in committee, to make sure that we get this legislation right. When we don’t, what happens is that it gets challenged and we’re not accomplishing what we are trying to set out and do.

Again, I think that this piece of legislation that this member has brought forward is exactly one of the reasons why we’re supposed to be in this House. The fact that he took leadership in his community on such a tragic incident and has now used that as a way to come into this House to invoke that change, I think, is exactly why we need to be here.

We need to make sure that we support each other in ways where we get this right. We do that. And that is not meant to be any disrespect to the member or any disrespect to the tragedy that unfolded. We on this side of the House want to get a piece of legislation like this right. We do.

I don’t care who it comes from, whether it’s a private member or a minister or anything like that. I care that we get it right. I care that we have everything we possibly can in a piece of legislation like this, where it makes sure that we are accomplishing what we’re setting out to do. I think that is highly important.

I want to thank the member for the work that he has done. I want to thank the family for being here today.

I look forward to this debate. I look forward to ways that we can work together to make sure that we are trying to accomplish exactly what is intended here. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Stephanie Higginson: Before I begin, I want to thank Xavier’s family for being here to witness this important debate.

Zahra, Josh, Qais, Kira, grandparents — our hearts are with you. Your strength is incredible.

I’d like to begin by reading a letter of support for Xavier’s law from a constituent in the Ladysmith-Oceanside riding.

“My name is Oakes Wayne Winterhalt, and I am 12 years old. I have been a friend of Xavier’s for seven years. One of my favourite memories of Xavier was when we went to the river by his house, and we went jumping off the cliffs and swimming in the water.

“Losing my friend is very hard for me to talk about, but I want to say that I think it is important to pass Xavier’s law. I think Xavier’s law is important to pass, because I think everybody who is killing people in cars should be held accountable for their actions. I wish that I could be Xavier’s friend for another seven years.”

This is a young person from my riding who, like so many others who existed in Xavier’s sphere, has been personally impacted by this tragedy. Much like Xavier, Oakes is a bright, beautiful, energetic, compassionate young person. He wanted to make sure that he did everything he could in his power to make sure that Xavier’s law passed. I promised him that all of us would listen carefully to his words and do our best to honour his friend.

What I find most moving about Oakes’s words is his clear focus on action and accountability. This is what Xavier’s law hopes to achieve. It is recognition that reckless driving has immediate action and immediate consequences. Oakes is 12 years old, and he sees this issue with clarity. I hope that everyone in this House can see this issue with the same clarity and compassion.

The riding of Ladysmith-Oceanside includes several rural communities with winding rural road networks. These winding country roads are beautiful. They’re lined with large trees, creating a canopy that draws many of us to live in these parts of the world. Unfortunately, those same winding roads with their rural charm are also fraught with danger for those of us who want to walk, bike or stroll along the roadways where we live.

[11:30 a.m.]

Three weeks ago, I attended a different vigil for a different young person, a vibrant young man who was connected to both of my children through sport and who was killed in a different speed-related car accident.

This was the fourth person in three years in our community to lose their life in road-related incidents. Some were pedestrians. Some were speed-related. All were tragic. When you live in a rural community, losing a community member to road-related incidents is becoming all too common. We must do better, and with Xavier’s law, we can start.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are more than just small tweaks to an existing act. This bill aims to strengthen road safety in British Columbia and prevent tragedies like the one that took Xavier so prematurely from his family and his friends.

Under current laws, dangerous or reckless drivers may remain on the road while investigations and trials drag on, even after causing death or serious injury. These gaps leave communities exposed to further risk. Xavier’s law proposes practical tools to close those gaps.

The bill grants police the authority to immediately impose a 30-day prohibition on drivers suspected of reckless driving. This immediate response measure empowers authorities to remove high-risk drivers from our roads before further harm can occur.

It requires that every reckless driving incident be reported to the superintendent of motor vehicles, and that means that repeat offenders and dangerous patterns can be tracked, enabling early and necessary intervention. By clearly defining reckless driving, including extreme speed, loss of control and racing, the law provides clarity so that police can consistently identify when a prohibition should apply.

When drivers know that reckless behaviour may lead not just to fines or eventual court hearings but to immediate loss of driving privileges, it raises the stakes. It sends a strong message that reckless driving, especially speeding, racing or loss of control, will not be tolerated.

Implementing Xavier’s law is about protecting lives, especially of children, pedestrians, cyclists and families using our roadways.

In the words of Oakes Wayne Winterhalt, it is about accountability for actions. We can no longer allow dangerous driving incidents to slip through the cracks unnoticed. If Oakes, at 12 years old, can see it so clearly, then so should we.

Let us honour Xavier’s memory by making our roads safer, our laws stronger and our communities more secure.

Hon Chan: I rise today to speak on Bill 226, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2).

Before I begin, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing forward such a very important bill. I want to pass this bill and want to acknowledge that Xavier’s family is in the precinct.

Before I begin, I need to establish something very important right at the outset. Many members in the chamber will recall my strong and vocal opposition during the debate on Bill 12, when I raised serious concern about weakening the graduated licensing program.

I fought very hard and even voted no to the minister’s bill because I think that we need to ensure that inexperienced and unprepared drivers would not be able to obtain their full licence too quickly. We fought hard because I believe road safety must be taken seriously. I fought hard because I believe unsafe driving puts all British Columbians at risk.

I say this because I want members to understand clearly that I take road safety extremely seriously. My record shows that. My debate on Bill 12 shows that. I’ve never hesitated to stand up for stronger road safety standards even when it was inconvenient or unpopular.

When I speak today, I speak as someone who has consistently supported measures that make our roads safer, and today I want to begin by saying something plainly. I completely understand the intent behind the bill. I, too, want to stop reckless driving. I, too, want to prevent tragedies. I also want to ensure that drivers who are putting lives at risk can be removed from the road immediately. I want to support this bill. I want to work towards any measures that prevent dangerous driving and save lives.

[11:35 a.m.]

But intention alone is not enough. A good idea must be drafted into very good legislation. While the intention behind M226 is commendable, and I wanted to pass Xavier’s law, the way this bill drafts this is deeply flawed. Unless this bill is rewritten, it will harm innocent people, violate rights, create confusion for police and undermine public trust.

We must be extremely careful with legislation that gives the state or one police officer the power to take away a person’s driving privilege.

For many British Columbians, a licence is not just a card in their wallet; it’s their livelihood. It is the way they feed their family. It’s how they get to work, how they transport their children and how they care for their elderly parents.

So yes, we must remove truly reckless drivers from the road, but we must not create a system that punishes innocent people or gives police powers that are so broad and vague that they become arbitrary.

Let me begin with the definition of “reckless driving” as this bill describes it. The definition contains many subsections. Unfortunately, some of them are poorly drafted. Many of these subsections use the phrase “in a manner that indicates the driver or operator’s intention.”

Intention is extremely difficult to determine at roadside unless a full police investigation has been done. To prove intention, an officer would need statements, witnesses, video evidence and a proper investigation. That is how we normally prove charges, and that’s how we prove mental state.

I must ask: how does the government expect an officer to determine intention at roadside? Is this supposed to be at the officer’s discretion? What threshold must be met? What evidence is required? This bill gives no answer, no guidance. It is unacceptable in legislation that allows police to prohibit driving with no appeal. I repeat, no appeal allowed.

Several behaviours listed in this bill are already covered under the Criminal Code as stunting or dangerous driving. Here the bill introduces a second system. That might sound like a useful tool for the police, but it is also an open invitation for arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement.

Even worse, several behaviours listed here are not offences under the Motor Vehicle Act at all. So if the behaviour is not unlawful, then the officer has no grounds for the initial stop. If the stop is not lawful, then the detention is arbitrary, which violates the Charter. That alone could make the entire regime unenforceable.

Either the government must create matching offences in the Motor Vehicle Act or use the existing wording from the Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act. But as written right now, this bill does neither. This creates enormous legal risk.

Another problem — the bill never states that reckless driving applies only to public highways or industrial roads. It never defines where the conduct must occur. This is serious drafting oversight. Laws must be precise. They cannot be so broad that they apply anywhere and everywhere.

Let me give some examples of the poor wording. Section 90.5(j)(iii) prohibits driving “as close as possible to another vehicle, a pedestrian or a fixed object.” What does that mean? One inch? One foot? Ten feet? Police across the province will be interpreting this differently, and a law cannot rely on guesswork.

Section (j)(iv) tries to describe a very specific dangerous left-turn manoeuvre, but the wording ends up capturing ordinary behaviour. In fact, I have seen this kind of situation many times. There are two scenarios.

First, the bad driver is trying to beat the oncoming traffic. But is this truly reckless driving? Maybe.

Secondly, I’ve seen many times an oncoming driver failing to react, perhaps distracted or not noticing the green lights. After some time, the left-turn driver decides to turn. I believe the one deserving the ticket is the driver not paying attention, not the patient left-turn driver. But under this bill, the left-turn driver becomes a reckless driver and loses their licence for 30 days.

One of the most alarming lines in the bill states: “No appeal lies in respect of a prohibition issued under section (2).” No appeal. No review. No second opinion. Nothing. This is extremely concerning.

We actually have seen this before. The automatic roadside prohibition law passed in 2010 for alcohol had major constitutional issues. Let me remind the House how that went. The lawyer involved said: “The province’s objective was a valid objective, but it needed to be balanced by Charter rights.”

The courts were specifically concerned about the unreliable breathalyzer device and the fact that drivers had too few ways to challenge the result. In the end, the law had to be adjusted. Drivers have to be given a second test. The prohibited level has to be above 0.08. Safeguards have to be put in place.

[11:40 a.m.]

In comparison, in this bill, no requirement. No second test. No requirement of proof. No requirement of any criminal charges. No requirement even for a motor vehicle ticket.

I must say this again. If someone is truly reckless, if their driving is truly dangerous, why is this bill encouraging police to prohibit them without laying a criminal charge? Why avoid the court system if the behaviour is genuinely serious? This is contradictory and troubling.

Let me show how easily this bill can be misused. One section says that reckless driving includes any action that causes tires to lose traction during a turn. Every year, when the first snow hits, thousands of drivers lose traction, especially when turning in an intersection. I have experienced that personally myself. We see ICBC claims skyrocket. Can you tell me whether that rear wheel slide was intentional or not? Some might be, but some might not.

Under this bill, the officer has the full power to prohibit anybody, and no charge, no ticket, is needed. Just take their licence away for 30 days and give it back and never lay a charge. Is this the justice system that we want?

Clause (g) defines reckless driving as exceeding 40 kilometres per hour over a limit under 80 kilometres per hour. Currently, we have the excessive speeding law for that.

Clause (i) states 150 kilometres per hour. But as the member will know, on the Coquihalla Highway, where the speed limit is 120, the 150 kilometres per hour threshold would classify as reckless driving before excessive speeding even applies. Again, this contradicts with our current law right now.

Let us compare this to what we currently have in B.C. We have a few laws for street racing, for stunting and for dangerous driving. Many of the offences can be found and are punishable under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Careless driving is prohibited under section 144, which states that a person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway without due care and attention; without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway; or at a speed that is excessive relative to roads, traffic, visibility or weather conditions. And excessive speeding, a person who drives a motorcycle more than 40 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, is already addressed.

These are criminally chargeable offences, and they’re not arbitrary. They’re based on clear, observable conduct, such as two cars racing each other, deliberate exhibition of speed and deliberate loss of control. These offences require evidence. They require proof, and they require an intention that can be seen and verified. But this bill, unfortunately, sees a simple loss of traction, something that can happen to ordinary drivers every winter, as now reckless driving.

We need to strike a balance between innocent drivers and true stunt drivers. Remember, stunt driving and street racing can already be prosecuted as careless driving under the Motor Vehicle Act.

There are lots of clauses that I would like to address, but with the ten-minute speaking limit, I cannot.

Laws like this require collaboration with the ministry, legal counsel, police groups and safety experts. It requires careful drafting, not a rushed private member’s bill. I hope this bill can actually be introduced by the ministry instead of the private member.

Garry Begg: I acknowledge the family of Xavier, who are here today.

You’re very brave. You’re very strong. And I salute you for that. Welcome to the Legislature.

It’s important to note from the outset that we’re roughly confusing the Criminal Code of Canada and the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia, which are two different statutes. I’m speaking today in support of an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act. This amendment, in my view, signals the intent of this government to strengthen the rules surrounding the needless deaths and injuries on our roadways that happen all too often in this province and across this country.

It is time, I think, for us to face the reality of our times. Reckless and dangerous driving puts at risk and causes devastating loss for families and communities throughout the province.

Many years ago, as a recruit RCMP member, the first few years of my policing life made me aware of the harsh realities that needless and, in most cases, preventable deaths…. I say preventable because, as I quickly learned, the reason for the accident was often predictable. It could not truly be called an accident. The steps that led up to it happening were often preventable and indeed predictable.

[11:45 a.m.]

It is time, in my view, for us to change the laws so that they more properly reflect the consequences of reckless and dangerous driving to prevent needless deaths and catastrophic injuries to our citizens along with pain and grief to their families and to their loved ones.

This bill, I am reminded, is named in honour of Xavier Jankovics, whose family has shown incredible courage and advocacy after they lost their son because of the actions of a reckless driver. Twelve-year-old Xavier was struck by a car while rollerblading with his family near his home in the Cowichan Valley. That is why MLA Lajeunesse stepped up to help ensure that penalties be adjusted to be more reflective of and responsive to the enormity of the crime.

It’s important to understand that the intent of this amendment is to make the penalty immediate while the superintendent of motor vehicles further reviews the case. The law, if amended, creates an immediate 30-day driving prohibition for reckless driving, allowing police to take dangerous drivers, in a more timely way, off the road.

The bill also requires the police to report every reckless driving incident to the superintendent of motor vehicles so that patterns of dangerous behaviour can be identified and acted upon. This new approach closes a major gap in existing legislation provincially by ensuring reckless driving is monitored and addressed before it leads to another tragedy.

I should say that the province of Ontario has introduced similar, if not the same, legislation within the past week that allows the same process to take place in Ontario.

To review the amendment, at any time a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has driven or operated a motor vehicle in a manner that constitutes reckless driving, they may serve the person with the notice of prohibition, prohibiting the driver from operating or driving a motor vehicle in British Columbia, and require that person to immediately surrender their licence. A prohibition continues in effect for 30 days after the date in which the prohibition is served.

It’s important to understand that the superintendent of motor vehicles of the province of British Columbia is empowered under the act to prohibit anyone in British Columbia from driving. Upon reasonable grounds, the superintendent can act on his intuition and the facts before him.

I urge everyone in this House to support this amendment to help bring change that makes our roads and highways more safe for everyone.

Korky Neufeld: First of all, I would just like to extend my condolences to the family.

I rise to speak to Bill M226, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

I want to start off with a personal story. I will never forget the day when the phone rang. There was an officer on the other end of the line. “Hi. Is this Mr. So-and-so?” I said: “Yes. It is.” He said: “There has been an accident. Can you tell me your address?” I gave him my address, and he said: “You need to come to Richmond General Hospital.”

No other information. I had a two-year-old daughter and a five-year-old son. I’m thinking in my head: “What possibly could have happened?”

Well, it was a beautiful, sunny day, and my five-year-old son was playing with a neighbour in the front yard. Then they heard the music down the block, music of an ice cream truck driver. Now, this is a side street with no sidewalks, just ditches on either end, in Richmond. As the truck pulled up, my son darts into the house and asks my wife for some money to buy an ice cream. She obviously gave him that.

[11:50 a.m.]

He went across the street, grabbed his ice cream, and as he was walking behind the ice cream truck with his ice cream in hand, a car came by and hit him and threw him 70 feet down the street. He was severely injured. He had head injuries the size of a softball on his head. His femur was shattered, ribs broken, collarbone broken. When I saw him in the hospital….

No parent should have to see that. I can’t even imagine losing a child.

Mine survived. He had to relearn how to talk, tie his shoelaces, ride his bike. Thankfully, today he’s the vice-president of a bank. He has owned many companies. There is something, though, with math. There’s a certain math that he is unable to get because of some long-term damage. But he was young enough that the brain regrew, and I’m very thankful for that.

So I fully understand and support the intention of this bill. The member bringing this forward is trying to prevent reckless driving. So am I, 100 percent. The member wants to reduce tragedies. Absolutely. The member wants police to have tools to immediately remove dangerous drivers from the road. Yes.

These are goals every one of us should support. I want to support these goals. I want to support any measure that improves safety on our roads. However, good intentions are just not enough. Good intentions must be translated into good legislation. In other words, we need to get it right.

As drafted, this bill contains serious structural, legal and constitutional challenges that undermine its very purpose. Unless this bill is rewritten comprehensively, it risks punishing innocent people, violating Charter rights, creating unworkable situations for police and eroding public trust.

Let me explain. When government gives the state the power to take away a person’s licence, we must be extremely careful. For many British Columbians, a driver’s licence is not just a piece of plastic in a wallet. It’s their very livelihood. It’s how we get to work; support our families; transport children; care for aging parents; attend medical appointments; and, in many cases, maintain employment at all. Losing a licence for 30 days can mean losing their job entirely.

Yes, we must remove truly reckless drivers from the road — full stop. But we must not create a system so vague or so broad that it captures innocent people or gives police powers that cannot be exercised fairly or even constitutionally.

The definition of “reckless driving” is too vague to enforce. The bill attempts to define reckless driving through a long list of subsections. Unfortunately, many are drafted in ways that are ambiguous or impossible to enforce. Let me just read some of them.

Wheelies. Drifting. Donuts. Spinning out the vehicle. Single-track-road passing. Travelling in left lane of two lanes and that prevents passing. Exceeding the speed limit by 40 kilometres on a limit that’s 80 kilometres or under. Exceeding the speed limit by 50 kilometres in the limits of 80 kilometres or over. Driving faster than 150 — absolutely. Some of these should absolutely be driven….

Driving with a passenger in the trunk of a car. Driving with the driver not in the driver’s seat. I mean, I don’t know — in an electric car, I guess.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Turning left on a highway intersection. If the driver is at a red light and there’s a car facing the driver stopped at a red light, the driver turning left at the red light colour. Other ones as prescribed. There are challenges with this. Repeatedly the bill uses the phrase “in a manner that indicates the driver’s or operator’s intention.”

Intention is not something an officer can reliably assess at the roadside without a full investigation. To prove intention, an officer typically needs witness statements, evidence, possibly video — investigative procedures that simply do not exist at a traffic stop.

Yes, this bill requires officers to determine intention immediately, without guidance, without thresholds, without clarity. Now, how exactly is a police officer supposed to determine a driver’s mental state in seconds or minutes?

This is not a drafting issue; it’s a constitutional one. A law that gives broad discretion without clear limits risks arbitrary enforcement and charter breaches. Even more concerning are the several behaviours listed under “reckless” that are not offences under the current Motor Vehicle Act at all. That creates a major legal contradiction.

[11:55 a.m.]

If the behaviour is not unlawful, police have no grounds for the initial stop. If the stop lacks lawful grounds, the detention becomes arbitrary under the Charter. That means the entire enforcement regime could collapse in court. The government would need either to mirror existing Criminal Code or vehicle act wording or to create corresponding MVA offences. As written, this bill does neither.

The bill does not specify where the offences occur. Shockingly, nowhere does the bill state that reckless driving must occur on public roads, industrial roads or highways. As written, it could apply literally everywhere and anywhere in British Columbia. Legislation must be precise. This bill, as it is written, is not.

I reserve my right to continue debate and move adjournment of debate.

Korky Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.