Hansard — Monday, December 1, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 111

Scott McInnis: I’m really proud to have a special constituent on the precinct today. That’s my dad here from Kimberley. It’s great to have him here. For the last half-century, my dad has been a commercial airline pilot as well as a volunteer pilot locally in East Kootenay, and he’s a union guy.

He was president of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association as well as the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations. That example I saw as a young person for leadership and service really made an impact on me.

Would the House please make him feel welcome today.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Fourteen years ago, one summer when I was living in Creston, on my first day of work at the town of Creston, I was with my mom, and I went to get breakfast at a coffee shop. I looked across the way, and I saw this guy. And I thought: “Wow, I don’t know who that is, but he’s going to be a very significant part of my life.”

Paul Dixon, happy birthday. I’ve known you for 14 years. You have been a very significant part of my life, and I do love you and care about you a lot.

Happy birthday.

John Rustad: I just want to start, first of all, by saying hi to Mr. McInnis. He does some angel flights, and he gave me a flight one time. He does a lot of great work there.

Joining us at the House today is Jeff Morris, who is the president and CEO of Angel Flight B.C. With him is also one of the pilots, Bruce Burley. They do a lot of work, obviously, in helping out.

In 1999, Jeff helped to set up Angel Flight B.C. in Sidney, which now currently has 28 volunteer pilots providing air transportation to children and adults with cancer or other non-commutable medical issues to remote communities throughout Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast. In 2006, Jeff was awarded the Governor General’s Caring Canadian Award for his tireless volunteer work for Angel Flights.

I just want to say thank you for the work you’re doing.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Lana Popham: Today in the gallery, I have a constituent visiting me by the name of Lisa Cordasco. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because Lisa was a longtime media presence here on the Island.

If you listened to CBC radio from 27 years ago, between 1998 to 2015, you would have heard her distinctive voice. Lisa was the first host of CBC’s morning show On the Island. After so many early morning starts, she switched over to day shift, where she produced and reported many Island stories, nationally as well as locally. She is happily retired now in Saanich South.

Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon Chan: I would like to take a brief moment to be on record today. It’s my father’s birthday. While I’m here in the chamber of British Columbia, I am very sorry that I cannot spend the day with him. I want to thank him for everything he has done for my family and for me.

Happy birthday.

I wish him good health.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In the Legislature today, we have a very special guest, my dear friend and mentor Melanie Mark, the previous MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and minister.

Melanie and I got elected in 2016 in the provincial by-elections together. Melanie made history in this Legislature by being the very first First Nations woman ever elected. She was the first First Nations woman in cabinet, and she changed the history of our province.

[1:40 p.m.]

Melanie certainly made a mark on our province. She has made a significant mark on my life. I am a better person, a better woman, a better MLA and a better leader because I’ve gotten to know Melanie and learned from Melanie. I can’t say enough.

I think we were the 101st and 102nd women being elected to this Legislature. It is something I will carry with me until I’m a grandmother and get to tell my story to my grandchildren.

I adore you. There are no words to express the impact you’ve had on our province.

Melanie is joined here today with her business partner, David Carten from Aks Wind Energy Corp., and also Dr. Vidya Vankayala from BCIT.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Melanie and her guests today.

Lorne Doerkson: Mr. Speaker, she lights up a room when she enters it. She has given me more laughs and more entertainment and enjoyment than I have words to explain. I can’t wait until our annual camping trip, and I’m so excited to wish my granddaughter Rayna Couture a happy sixth birthday today.

She’s watching right now, and I hope everybody would join us in wishing a happy birthday to this beautiful little girl.

Statements

Vancouver Whitecaps

Misty Van Popta: Just a few weeks ago members of this House stood united in cheering on the Toronto Blue Jays — something, as a quintessential soccer mom, I did more out of a unity measure than for the understanding of the love of the game.

Now it is time for our hometown soccer heroes to shine, as the Vancouver Whitecaps were winners of the Western Conference this past weekend and, for the first time in franchise history, are going to the MLS finals this coming Saturday.

This isn’t a Messi versus Müller game; this is about national pride.

Although “Elbows up” is a penalty in soccer, I hope you all will join me in raising up your scarves this Saturday and say: “Go Caps!”

Introductions by Members

Teresa Wat: I’d like to give my personal welcome and greetings to Bruce Burley.

Bruce, you really gave me a lot of guidance and help when I was a rookie politician way back in 2013. I really appreciated that. I’m glad that now you are switching from politics to a piloting career. Congratulations.

I also want to say happy birthday to my colleague the MLA for Richmond Centre’s father. I got to know the Richmond Centre MLA 15 years ago, when he was still a kid. I understand his father was born in the same year as I am, so I wish him happy birthday.

But don’t tell them what year we were born.

Stephanie Higginson: It’s clearly an auspicious day to be born. We have another birthday in the House today. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake and our own Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General is celebrating her birthday with all of us today.

If you could all please make her feel so warm on her birthday.

Gavin Dew: I’d like to join the member opposite in acknowledging the presence of Melanie Mark in the chamber. I got my start in provincial politics by getting absolutely whooped by her in that same by-election, in which I arrived with, I believe, 9 percent of the vote.

I also remember distinctly that when I came to visit the Legislature after doing so, I ran into her in the hallway, and she offered to introduce me in this chamber. We’ve always enjoyed a very pleasant relationship that, to me, is a reminder of the collegiality that is possible outside of the sometimes hard-fought nature of politics.

While I’m standing, I’d also like to take a moment to acknowledge another birthday. It is my federal counterpart Dan Albas’s birthday. I just got off the phone with him 15 minutes ago, wishing him a happy birthday in the federal parliament. I innocently inquired as to whether they were going to sing “Happy Birthday” to him in the chamber, to which he replied that he didn’t have that kind of clout.

Nonetheless, a big happy birthday to Dan Albas.

[1:45 p.m.]

Teresa Wat: I also want to give my welcome to Melanie Mark. I remember when Melanie was the Tourism Minister and I was the critic, yet we can remain friends. We talk about it all the time when we see each other in the helijet.

Welcome back to the Legislature, Melanie.

Members’ Statements

World AIDS Day and Indigenous
AIDS Awareness Week

Jennifer Blatherwick: Today marks World AIDS Day and the beginning of Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week, a time where we remember lives lost and honour those living with HIV. Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week was developed by national Indigenous-led organizations, communities, alliances and networks and is now recognized throughout the country, including here in British Columbia.

One local organization that is integral to supporting people living with AIDS and HIV in B.C. is Ribbon Community, formerly known as AIDS Vancouver. We all remember the history of the AIDS epidemic, how fear, prejudice and institutional oppression shaped the unkindness of the early public health response across North America.

Ribbon Community was founded in 1983 and has been an essential organization in British Columbia that works to provide accurate, stigma-free information about HIV today, including information that HIV is treatable, and ongoing efforts to end the stigma.

Today, in honour of World AIDS Day and Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week, a contingent from Ribbon Community is in Victoria, connecting with community members in SȾÁUTW̱ First Nation as they host a recognition walk with Karen Harry to honour survivors of the HIV epidemic and commemorate those who have been lost by laying flowers on graves in the community and walking towards a brighter future.

Today we should honour and respect those lost, the activists, the survivors, and help prevent a resurgence of HIV by supporting medical research and equitable access to care and prevention and ongoing efforts in testing and medical care around this province.

Thank you to health authorities, the Health Initiative for Men and the BCCDC, and the work of organizations like Ribbon Community.

We must continue to support fact-based education, testing, treatment, harm reduction, community-led services and ongoing support for people living with HIV, wherever they are, whoever they are.

Let us honour the resilience of our communities, the memory of those we lost and the work of those who refuse to let fear silence facts or compassion.

Hong Kong Apartment Complex Fire
and Community and Media Response

Teresa Wat: I rise today with a heavy heart to speak about the tragic fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong, which has taken hundreds of lives and left many more injured and displaced. This tragedy has deeply affected people across the world, including Richmond, home to one of the largest Chinese-Canadian communities in the Lower Mainland.

I want to begin by thanking the media — both in B.C., Hong Kong and overseas — for their dedicated work in keeping us informed. Their professionalism has ensured that families abroad, including many in my constituency, can follow developments during this heartbreaking time.

For me, their work brings back very personal experiences and memories. I was once a reporter with United Press International. After graduating from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, one of my very first major assignments was covering the massive 1972 fire aboard the Seawise University ship in Hong Kong harbour. The fire burned for two days, and I remember standing on the shore, anxiously waiting for updates so I could file each report.

Seeing today’s reporter work tirelessly on the Tai Po fire reminds me of the importance and the responsibility of keeping the public informed during moments of crisis.

One of my constituents, Charles Hau, reached out to me. His 90-year-old mother lived in the building that was completely destroyed. She, her daughter and their caretaker were out for acupuncture at the time of the fire. They returned to discover they had lost everything. Though they were fortunate to escape with their lives, they must now live with another daughter, having lost their home and all their belongings.

I also want to thank our local community organizations here in Richmond and across the province for organizing fundraising efforts to support those affected.

As someone who was born, raised, educated and worked in Hong Kong, this tragedy breaks my heart.

I ask all members of this House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to the victims, their families and everyone affected by this devastating fire.

[1:50 p.m.]

Medal of Good Citizenship
Recipient Montana Burgess

Steve Morissette: I am pleased to rise today to recognize a remarkable British Columbian and dear friend, Montana Burgess from Rossland, on receiving the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship.

For more than 16 years, she has been a leader in environmental advocacy and social and civic engagement in the Kootenays, across our province and in the U.S.A. As executive director of Neighbours United, she helped transform how communities work together on some of the most pressing issues of our time.

Her leadership on the West Kootenay 100 percent renewable energy plan stands out as a true milestone. Under her guidance, 14 local governments committed to transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, an achievement that demonstrates what collaboration rooted in respect and community trust can accomplish.

Montana has also been a pioneer in deep canvassing, an empathy-driven approach to building understanding across political divides. At a time when division can feel all too common, she has shown that honest conversations, listening and compassion can bring people back together.

Her commitment to inclusion has been just as powerful, from boosting voter turnout to supporting LGBTQ2S+ students and educators. In 2022, Neighbours United received the provincial diversity, equity and inclusion award, a reflection of the values she brings to every project and every community she serves.

It is my pleasure to congratulate Montana Burgess, a 2025 recipient of the Medal of Good Citizenship, and thank her for everything she has contributed to our province.

Watch Lake Lodge

Lorne Doerkson: I rise today to recognize a true gem in the crown of Cariboo-Chilcotin’s great resorts, the Watch Lake Lodge, which this year celebrates an incredible 75 years in operation. Since opening its doors on November 1, 1950, Watch Lake Lodge has been a welcoming home away from home for generations of visitors.

Family-owned and -operated, it sits on an absolutely stunning shoreline, offering guests a chance to experience the warmth, the community and the hospitality that define Cariboo-Chilcotin. At the helm today is Dimps Horn who, along with her sisters Doreen and Rita, quite literally grew up with the lodge’s guests. Over the decades, they have built not just a business but a community where 90 percent of the visitors return, year after year. Friendships have lasted a lifetime and, of course, generations.

Through challenges like wildfires and the pandemic, the Horn family’s dedication has never wavered. When the doors did reopen, the families returned, often bringing the next generation to experience the same magic that’s been shared for decades.

I had the honour of joining the 75th celebration on November 1, a wonderful evening filled with stories — some very interesting stories of pranks and hijinks; fond memories; laughter; great food that was produced by the Interlakes CattleBelles; and of course, music and dancing, including some lively square dancing called by Dimps herself.

I invite all members to visit Cariboo-Chilcotin and to stop by the Watch Lake Lodge, enjoy a trail ride, perhaps a day of fishing or maybe a hike. I guarantee you’ll be welcomed as family and, yes, that will include a hug from these three.

Happy 75th anniversary to the Watch Lake Lodge. What an absolutely amazing achievement.

Congratulations.

Cowichan Watershed Board

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: The former late Chief Seymour voluntold me to this board, which I was part of for nine years. The Cowichan Watershed Board is a unique, locally rooted partnership that brings Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley regional district together to care for the Cowichan and Koksilah watersheds. It exists to provide leadership for sustainable water management, protect eco-health and safeguard the quality of life for everyone who calls the Cowichan Valley home.

[1:55 p.m.]

Today the Cowichan watershed stands as a leading example of what shared leadership can look like in the era of reconciliation and climate change. It is a co-governance model and co-chaired by the Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley regional district, reflecting a simple but profound truth: water connects us all, and decisions about water are strongest when Indigenous law, local government, science and community knowledge stand side by side.

In recent years, the board has shown what proactive, climate-ready leadership can be. One major focus has been the growing need for this increase of storage in the Cowichan Lake. Working with partners like the Cowichan Lake and River Stewardship society, it has also supported the Cowichan Tribes and the province in co-led, watershed-sustainable paths for Koksilah.

The board offers a trusted place for collaboration, shared learning and consensus recommendations, and it engages resident, school and stewardship groups and local governments so that watershed thinking can become part of daily life in the Cowichan Valley. The board creates a table where many jurisdictions and voices can come together for the sake of the river, the lake and the salmon.

Para Cup Hockey Tournament

Larry Neufeld: I am humbled this afternoon to highlight and commend the 2025 Para Cup being held this week from November 30 to December 6 at the Ovintiv Events Centre in Dawson Creek, a proud moment indeed for northern British Columbia and for all of us who value sport, inclusion and community.

This event brings together elite para-hockey teams from around the world, including Canada, the United States, China and Europe. They’re together for a tournament that serves as the final international competition prior to the 2026 Paralympic Winter Games. Hosting the Para Cup in Dawson Creek marks the first time the tournament returns to the west coast since 2007, a strong recognition that northern B.C. can and does stage world-class sporting events.

For the community of Dawson Creek and the broader Peace region, this event is more than sport. It is an opportunity for tourism, local economic stimulus and regional pride. The city of Dawson Creek has proclaimed November 30 to December 6 as Para Cup Week to celebrate this community achievement.

Most importantly, the Para Cup sends a powerful message about inclusion, accessibility and respect for para-athletes. I encourage all British Columbians, whether in Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Vancouver or anywhere in our beautiful province, to follow the tournament, to show support and to celebrate the athletes who have worked so hard to represent us.

I encourage this House to consider how we, as a group, can continue to support para-sport events, accessible venues and inclusive recreation across British Columbia.

Darlene Rotchford: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford: I just want to recognize that in the gallery we have the Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry and their teacher Emma Wilde joining us here today.

Everyone in the House, make them feel welcome.

Oral Questions

Security Incident at
Surrey Neonatal Unit
and Safety at Hospitals

Reann Gasper: A woman was arrested for breaking into the neonatal intensive care unit at Surrey Memorial and making skin-to-skin contact with three vulnerable infants who were not hers.

While front-line workers are overwhelmed and burnt out, people are now able to walk into our NICU and assault newborn babies. As a mother, I cannot imagine the terror and trauma these families are facing right now.

How on earth was something this horrific allowed to happen in a B.C. hospital?

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

What took place is extremely distressing, and I share the member’s concern about even the possibility that someone might be able to enter a unit like that and have contact with children — precious children, newborn children.

That is why Fraser Health has taken quick action. They are looking into this and reviewing this. This is why the RCMP, the police, have investigated. They have laid charges in this case.

[2:00 p.m.]

That is exactly the appropriate reaction, and I know that Fraser Health will continue to look at this to take everything that they can to learn from this. They have already updated their security protocols and procedures to ensure that something like this never happens again.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Reann Gasper: We’re glad an arrest has been made, but the question about safety in our hospitals still stands.

Let’s recap what we have in B.C. hospitals today. Nurses aren’t safe, doctors aren’t safe, patients aren’t safe, and now even newborn babies aren’t safe.

Can the Premier tell us who exactly is safe in this province under his NDP government?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Safety of patients and of health care workers is our top priority in hospitals. Health care workers need to know that they are supported and safe to be able to concentrate on the work that they do, delivering exceptional care to the people of British Columbia.

That’s why we have brought in the relational security initiative program. That’s why we have hundreds of relational security officers working on sites across British Columbia. That’s why, when incidents like what the member is describing take place, investigations are undertaken, lessons are learned, and improvements are made. That is the system working the way that it ought to.

But we cannot stop. We have to continue that focus on worker safety. We will continue to work with the nurses on minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, for example, because that is one way to ensure that there are sufficient nurses on site, safe and able to deliver the care that they can do in the working conditions that they deserve and expect.

Granville Street Supportive Housing
Sites and Community Safety

Bryan Tepper: A man was stabbed and killed across from the Luugat single-room-occupancy, Vancouver’s 25th murder this year.

The Hospitality Vancouver Association said: “It is increasingly clear that the B.C. Housing decision to locate over 300 SRO beds into a concentrated two-block stretch of Granville Street is a failed experiment.”

This question is an easy one for me, but if the minister stood where that man was stabbed, would she feel safer on that sidewalk where drug use runs rampant or where once again outlawed? Please, pick one.

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member likely knows or would be able to read in the news, we’re working closely with the city of Vancouver on the relocation of tenants at the Luugat to ensure that we are working with tenants to find good housing alternatives that work for them and meet their needs.

The Luugat was an emergency COVID measure, and we understand that it hasn’t worked well in the community. We’ve been in conversation with the city and with the business owners there, and that’s why we’re working to relocate those tenants by June of this year.

We’ll continue to work in partnership with the city of Vancouver, the Downtown Vancouver Business Association and others.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Bryan Tepper: Well, the Luugat is not the only problem. Granville Street has become a government-run disaster zone. Three SROs have racked up 6,600 police and fire calls, overdoses, stabbings, fires and businesses being flooded from those SROs over 100 times so far.

Vancouver’s mayor is pleading with the Premier to shut them down, saying people are dying in the streets, don’t feel safe, and the financial fallout from this government’s policies is astronomical.

Why is the Premier forcing people to live in the Granville Street war zone his NDP government created?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, we’re working with the city on the relocation of tenants at the Luugat. The other two SROs are part of an ongoing conversation.

We understand that we can’t just move these tenants onto the street. That would be a worse situation for everyone. That’s why, unlike members on the opposite aisle, we continue to support and expand supportive housing beds across the province. We’ll continue to do that work to ensure people have a good place to live.

We have been, again, in conversation with the city of Vancouver.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle: They put forward a number of sites. None of them are move-in ready for residents. We will not move these tenants onto the street, so we continue to work on plans to relocate them in a way that supports them and improves safety, not just in the Granville district but for everyone.

[2:05 p.m.]

Health Care for Complex Chronic
Diseases and Virtual Group
Medical Visit Model

Jeremy Valeriote: For years in our province, patients with complex health conditions leading to debilitating pain and fatigue have struggled to find appropriate care. Given the demands on family physicians, it’s often difficult to get a diagnosis, never mind treatment.

Based on Bowen Island in the riding I represent, the B.C. Centre for Long COVID, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia became a lifeline during the pandemic and currently serves 6,000 patients across the province. This innovative, multidisciplinary model of virtual group medical visits is under threat of being curtailed as of January 1, reducing group sizes to the point where the model is no longer viable.

Virtual group medical visits are efficient, cost-effective and save the health system money — over $2 million a year, according to an analysis by the accounting firm MNP. We know the health care system is in crisis and health spending represents roughly one-third of the government’s budget.

Why is the minister not supporting models like this that are proven to both increase care and save costs?

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

First, I want to say that group medical visits are a really important way of supporting people who are living with some very complex conditions, often debilitating conditions like long COVID or chronic fatigue syndrome. These are models that are helping patients get more time with care providers. It’s enabling them to stay at home and access care. It’s a way of improving support and continuity of care.

During the pandemic, these were temporary measures that were introduced to expand access to virtual care. In this post-pandemic era, the Ministry of Health has been working with Doctors of B.C. to strengthen virtual care visits and also to be able to design fee codes that are a way of supporting care by setting some limits on group size and clarifying the billing rules.

I have heard from members of all sides of this House, I have heard from physicians, and I have heard from patients about the benefit of these group medical visits. That’s why we put a pause on a decision that had initially been taken, and we are working and hearing from providers and from patients.

I’ll have more to say about this soon. I understand that people are waiting to hear an update.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the pause. I’m asking this question now because people are trying to plan their lives beyond January 1. Unless the minister acts soon, the clinic will need to reconfigure on January 1 to do more non-group patient visits, which will add to wait times.

Smaller group sizes mean physician-only care, which restricts the volume of patients who can be seen. Some patients will be forced to seek out care in emergency rooms, from family doctors and from specialists as a consequence of reduced clinic care. This will severely disadvantage rural and remote patients and those bed- and housebound by disability. Patient volumes will be restricted at a time when complex chronic disease patient numbers are on the increase.

Will the minister intervene with the Medical Services Commission to do the right thing and modify the group size cap to allow these expert practitioners to continue to help these patients in need?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member has done a great job of describing why these are of benefit, again, expressing some of the interventions I have heard directly from physicians, from patients and from other care providers. That’s why we paused on the decision. That’s why we are consulting directly with Doctors of B.C. and hearing from other care providers. That engagement is important so that we can make a good decision, moving forward. I’ll have a lot more to say on that in the future.

Again, I just want to acknowledge that I understand that people are waiting to understand what the decision is. At the heart of this, again, is that we understand that group medical visits are really helping people, particularly those who cannot leave home and those people who are living in remote and rural areas. It’s important to be able to continue these.

Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Dallas Brodie: The Premier’s government is pushing changes to the Heritage Conservation Act that create the preconditions for rampant extortion and further destabilization of private property rights in British Columbia.

This is how it will work. A local tribe can decide that your property is their sacred ground. Then you won’t be able to put a single fence post until you pay that tribe’s company thousands of dollars to come to your home to dig for artifacts.

[2:10 p.m.]

But even if they don’t find any, they can use dreams or stories or traditions to label your property a heritage site, thus triggering yet more costly studies, delays or outright work stoppage, all because the new rules remove requirements for physical evidence.

Will the Premier categorically denounce these proposed changes to the Heritage Conservation Act that allow tribes to block work on private property with absolutely no physical evidence?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member’s question, first the member refers to changes that are being made and then mentions proposed changes. There are no changes. We are having a conversation with British Columbians. We are having a conversation with First Nations, with industry, with local governments — bringing them all to the table to talk about a piece of legislation that is archaic, that has last been amended over 30 years ago, that is not working for British Columbians today.

We have major projects on this side of the House that we want to move forward. The Heritage Conservation Act is getting in the way. We have communities like Lytton that have been devastated with wildfires and that are challenging rebuilds. The Heritage Conservation Act is getting in the way.

Then you have First Nations who want to be involved in discussions about their ancestors. I think all of us can agree that if those were our ancestors, we would want to be part of that conversation.

I can assure the member opposite that we’re going to bring everyone to the table to ensure that we get this legislation right and do it in a way that is going to move British Columbia forward.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kamloops Residential School
Burial Site and Deaths of
Indigenous Children

Dallas Brodie: Speaking of claims without any physical evidence, it has been over four years now since Chief Rosanne Casimir of the Kamloops Indian Band accused Canadians of murdering 215 children from the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

An accusation of mass murder requires evidence, but there isn’t any — no reports of missing children, no names and no bodies. Despite receiving $12.1 million to investigate, Casimir has refused to conduct excavations and has asked the RCMP not to do any excavations either.

My question is to the Premier. Will he show leadership, defend innocent Canadians and join me in calling on the RCMP to finally investigate this grotesque accusation that has gone on and on and has gone on for far too long?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s unfortunate that one member decides to divide this House, to divide this country, to divide this province.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s unfortunate that her colleague has decided to chime in on this hateful behaviour.

We know that some children did not come home. Whether that was from tuberculosis, starving, drowning or getting attacked, we know that there are thousands of children who never came home. That’s the fact; that’s the truth. We know they were taken from their families without permission. We know that they were harmed, that they were hit if they dared to speak their own language, if they dared to practise their own cultural traditions.

I spoke with a man the other day whose brother was going to die by drowning because he took a rowboat so he could escape from the residential school where he’d been locked up so that he could get home to his family. He had not been allowed to see his family.

For the member to suggest that these things didn’t happen, it’s not only gross. It’s offensive, and it’s wrong. I’m not going to ask her to dig up her grandparents to prove they died, because that would be offensive.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: That would be wrong. That would be horrendous and inhumane. Yet for the fact that she goes on to call on any First Nations person in this province, that they have to go and dig up the bodies of the children that were killed, children who died in residential schools…. It’s gross. It’s wrong.

The member should be ashamed of herself, and I know her grandchildren would be ashamed of her, because you do not treat other people like that. It’s shameful.

Langley Memorial Hospital
Surgical Facilities and Upgrades

Misty Van Popta: Fraser Health just announced that Langley Memorial Hospital earned international recognition for top surgical outcomes, a rare good-news story in B.C.’s health care system.

[2:15 p.m.]

Ironically, these are the same surgeons who just last September wrote the Minister of Health, warning: “The unparalleled chronic neglect of surgical infrastructure at Langley Memorial Hospital cannot continue. We are long past being able to deliver the standard of care and experience our patients and the community deserve.”

They’re right. The OR hasn’t seen a major upgrade in 35 years — that’s older than some members of this chamber — and the repeatedly announced hospital expansion may not include the OR.

When will the Infrastructure Minister commit to upgrades to the surgical ward at Langley Memorial Hospital, or do our doctors need to keep performing world-class results in third-world conditions?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Health care infrastructure here in British Columbia is so incredibly vital to our collective ability to serve communities and to serve the people who need the kind of services that our hospitals provide.

We have been undergoing the single largest investment in health care infrastructure upgrades in B.C. history. These are absolutely record-breaking investments that have so far meant at least 30 major capital projects involving hospitals, long-term-care homes and urgent primary care centres right across the province.

However, we also know that there is more to do, which is why we are committed to continuing this work, including in communities like Langley. This work is underway as Fraser Health works with their communities to understand the needs, and we’re going to be looking forward to next steps.

Emergency Health Care Services
in Northern B.C.

Larry Neufeld: In Tumbler Ridge, Coun. Nicole Noksana was so worried that there were not enough ambulances for her community that she did not call 911 when she became seriously ill. She ended up needing emergency surgery that same evening.

Now the same danger is spreading across the North. Stewart lost so many paramedics it had zero ambulances for the entire region. Gitwangak’s only ambulance station is literally derelict.

How does this Premier justify leaving whole communities with no ambulance, no ER and no way to get help when someone’s life is on the line?

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

Ensuring that when you call 911, an ambulance is there to deliver the care that you need is absolutely essential, no matter how large or small your community is. That’s why our government has taken unprecedented steps in investing into rural communities, ambulance services, new stations, new ambulances, more paramedics.

Nothing could be more important than ensuring that those smaller communities like Tumbler Ridge, like Stewart, have access to the resources they need. I spoke directly to Mayor Krakowka just last week about the ambulance services in Tumbler Ridge.

I know that B.C. emergency health services is constantly monitoring coverage and monitoring the outcomes of calls, always in an effort to allocate resources to the best place possible, but I do not want a single British Columbian to hesitate to call 911 in your time of need.

They are there. They are highly trained, highly capable people doing amazing work in our communities. They are there to serve us and to care for us.

Sharon Hartwell: Well, that’s really interesting. On Highway 37, a woman sent me a letter, and her husband died in her driveway because there was no ambulance for over two hours. His partner did everything right: called 911, tried to get him help, but the help simply was not there.

Will the Premier admit that under his watch rural British Columbians are being left to die without proper emergency care?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We continue to work with health authorities, with the B.C. emergency health services and are investing more than ever in the B.C. Ambulance Service.

[2:20 p.m.]

There are more paramedics working here in B.C. than ever before. Staffing has increased 40 percent since 2019. We have invested, from $475 million back when we took government in 2017, and increased that to over $1 billion in the last fiscal.

We are going to continue to do the work that is required to ensure services are there in remote communities, to ensure that when people call 911, the help is there for them.

Access to Emergency Health Care
Facilities and Temporary Closings

Ian Paton: In Delta, the mayor is so fed up he’s talking about running his own hospital because of this broken health care system.

This isn’t just a Delta problem. In the last week alone, Fort McLeod ER closed and 100 Mile House ER closed. Port Hardy’s ER has been closed overnight for nearly three years, and the minister’s own ER and ICU in Port Alberni is shut down indefinitely because they don’t have the staff to run it.

How can doctors expect to do their jobs in this province and save lives when this minister cannot keep emergency rooms open?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is really hard on communities when their emergency room closes. We know that we’re facing workforce challenges across the province.

I do want to correct the member. He is correct that the intensive care unit has been diverted at West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni, but the ER does remain open.

Nonetheless, when you’re counting on emergency services, you know that they need to be there for you. That’s why we are doing everything we can in the short term, working with health authorities who find locums, who are working the phones, who are calling out to find people to come and take these shifts in emergency rooms. But to build up that workforce, we need more doctors.

That’s why we’re opening a new medical school in Surrey through SFU. That’s why we’ve expanded the seats at UBC. That’ll take a few years, I know, to realize that. That’s why reaching out to other jurisdictions and inviting people to come work here in British Columbia’s universal public health care system is absolutely integral.

It is working. We are seeing physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners choosing to move to British Columbia. We are fast-tracking their credentialing. What used to be years is now months for doctors. What used to be months for nurses is now a matter of weeks or even days.

We’re not going to let up. We know how much work there is to do to rebuild and strengthen this health care system, and we are not going to stop.

Community Safety Issues in Kelowna
and Action on Repeat Offenders

Kristina Loewen: A downtown Kelowna shop had its windows smashed three times this year. After the latest axe attack, the offender laughs and says: “It doesn’t matter. I’ll be out tomorrow.”

Kelowna businesses are fed up with the crime and chaos while this government hands out drugs and releases violent offenders the same day.

Will the Premier finally admit that nobody, not even businesses, is safe under his watch?

Hon. Niki Sharma: British Columbia has been leading the country on pushing for bail reform across this country. Right now, in front of Ottawa, sits a bill that contains many of B.C.’s ideas that are focused around circling around those offenders that are causing the most repeated harm to communities — to tightening up those bail laws to keep them off the street.

I heard from mayors about these individuals and what’s needed in the Criminal Code to make those changes, and that’s what’s before Ottawa right now. I’m really proud of our leadership in making those changes, and I hope that they pass quickly.

Government Action on
Drug Toxicity Crisis

Claire Rattée: Respectfully, the only thing this government is doing right now is leading the country in chaos. In one day, Vancouver firefighters had to respond to 54 overdoses, the highest ever recorded. Firefighters are now responding to an average of 45 overdoses a day, pulled away from other emergencies to chase this government’s chaos around.

According to the First Nations Health Authority…. They say that the week of November 17 broke every provincial record for drug-related 911 calls. We know that firefighters at Hall No. 2 are now being pulled off duty early because of the trauma and the human suffering that they’re forced to deal with every day. Similar to what we are seeing going on with nurses right now, the burnout is happening for first responders.

A very simple question to the Premier. Are these the kinds of records that this Premier wants to be remembered for?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The toxic drug crisis continues to devastate communities across B.C., families who are losing loved ones, people who are brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. Every single life lost is one too many.

That’s why we are going to continue to take every action that we can to connect people to care, to help intervene early and often and to separate them from a toxic, dangerous, poisonous drug supply. That drug supply is changing quickly. It is evolving, and we are adapting as well. We’re going to continue with harm reduction efforts that keep people alive so that we can help connect them to the care that they need.

I want to say thank you to every single first responder in the fire department, across the ambulance service, in communities. These people are doing heroes’ work in responding to tragedy.

We are going to continue to build out a system of care to support people, not to stigmatize people. It’s so vitally important that they get connected to the care they need.

That’s why we’re going to continue with Road to Recovery. That’s why we’re going to continue to add treatment beds. That’s why we’re going to continue to help people in their recovery and aftercare that they need.

I look forward to working with this member on that together.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: The problem is that the first responders and the firefighters don’t want the thanks or the praise right now. They just want what they’ve been asking for. They want this government to take it seriously and to fix these problems.

The issue that I’m having…. This morning I was at a symposium on recovery. A lot of colleagues were there, nobody from the government side, to hear what needed to be heard about the issues that we’re facing right now. A very prominent Metro Vancouver mayor was asked a simple question: if he could have one thing from this Premier, what would it be? His response was that he hoped he would keep his promises.

We’ve been promised involuntary care. We’ve been promised — what? — over 100 beds about a year ago. Nothing is moving forward there. We got, I think, ten beds.

We’ve been promised that decriminalization was a failed experiment, yet decriminalization remains in place, and there’s no commitment from this Premier on when they’re going to roll that back.

We were promised, back in the spring, that changes were going to be made to SROs and supportive housing because of the tragedies that we’re seeing playing out in them right now — no changes there. We can pay for every consultant, every czar, every whatever, but we’re not seeing changes on the ground. That’s the problem. Nobody is seeing anything change.

If the ideology behind harm reduction was working, we would see some changes, but we don’t see those changes. We see a province that is struggling the most with overdoses, with crime, with all of these things. I’m sick and tired of compassion being weaponized. I think that most people are.

Will this government do the right thing — the actual, compassionate thing for people that are struggling — and make sure that we have access to involuntary care, make sure that we build out a system of recovery for people, make sure that we’re actually supporting getting people lifted up from the place that they’re at right now, rather than keeping them under the government’s boot and keeping them in supportive housing that isn’t actually helping them?

Again to the Premier, is this the record that this Premier wants to be remembered by?

Hon. David Eby: I appreciate the member’s passion about this issue. I feel passionate about it too.

Every British Columbian deserves a safe community and to be safe at home. People who are struggling with addiction need the treatment and supports they need. It’s the same with people struggling with mental health issues and brain injury.

Now, what the member was incorrect about was a number of her allegations related to the record of this province. In British Columbia, 2024 versus 2023, crime severity is down 11 percent, and the overall crime rate is down 7 percent. We led Canada in crime reduction. That’s because of innovative programs.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: I’m not saying we’re done. We’re still doing the work, but we’re pointing in the right direction. We’ve opened….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, come to order, please.

Hon. David Eby: We’ve opened involuntary mental health care in our prisons, where many people are struggling who have addiction issues, brain injuries, mental health issues. We’ve identified a site in Surrey and a site in Prince George where we’re working to open additional involuntary care beds.

[2:30 p.m.]

At 17 different hospitals across the province, we’ve either expanded or renovated involuntary care beds. So what the member says simply is not correct. We’ve opened 760 additional addiction beds, voluntary addiction beds, in this province to provide people with the care they need.

We’ve amended the decriminalization initiative to make sure that if someone is at home when they’ve overdosed, they feel secure calling for an ambulance — they’re not worried they’re going to lose their job; but to keep people safe in our parks and our streets by criminalizing public drug use.

We’re going to continue to do this work. This is not an easy issue. It’s not an issue we’re going to solve overnight.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members.

Please continue.

Hon. David Eby: The drugs are more toxic than they have ever been. This recent batch was mixed with, I’m told, horse tranquilizer. These drug dealers have no conscience, they have no shame, and they are killing their customers.

We’ll do everything we can to support people, those who haven’t died but have suffered serious brain injury or are struggling in our communities. We’re going to do the hard work with compassion and care to make sure people are safe.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Á’a:líya Warbus: I would like to follow up with a report and a letter regarding infill information on the point of order that I raised last week of question period and the time disparity between the two sides.

If it pleases the House, I’d like to table the letter.

The Speaker: Does the member have the leave to table that?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please do.

Petitions

George Anderson: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society, dated 1 October, 2025.

The petition represents 15,000 students of the University of B.C. and transit advocates across Metro Vancouver, requesting that the provincial government expedite work on the business case for the future extension of the SkyTrain to UBC and prioritize pursuing a joint funding agreement with the federal government.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4),

a. the deferred division for the motion for second reading of Bill (No. M 219) intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025, be further deferred until the start of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025; and,

b. any division called in Section B during the afternoon sitting on Monday, December 1, 2025, and the morning sitting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, be deferred until the start of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025.]

The Speaker: The member doesn’t need leave to make that motion.

Division is called.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Members, those who are participating remotely, please make sure your cameras and your mics are on.

[2:45 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

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

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

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Members, we’ll call a brief recess while we get our teams together for continued committee stage of Bill 29. We’ll be in recess for about five minutes or so.

The committee recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 2:52 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. We will call the chamber back to order where we are on committee stage of Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act of 2025, where we have been having a conversation about clause 3.

On clause 3 (continued).

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to start by revisiting a question from Thursday afternoon. I had asked the minister about 19.5, paragraph (2), which states that the director can withdraw verbally, but it doesn’t state in the following subparagraphs that a verbal withdrawal must be put in writing.

The minister indicated in an earlier response that all reasons and the background information for the withdrawal are written into MCFD documentation.

The minister stated: “All of the decision-making of a director is documented in our integrated case management system. If a director withdraws an agreement with a family, that withdrawal happens verbally. The family can request that that withdrawal be documented and the reasons for the withdrawal, and that can be provided to the family.”

This raises concerns regarding both transparency and accountability. A family should not have to request a verbal withdrawal decision to be documented and provided. It should be automatic.

[2:55 p.m.]

Except for the withdrawal for safety reasons, does the minister not agree that providing a copy of the safety plan to the primary party with documented reasons for withdrawal better aligns with transparency and accountability for the ministry, particularly as this is intended to be a voluntary and collaborative process?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s really important to note that putting a “must” in legislation or requiring something to be in writing removes the flexibility and the ability to be responsive in a range of situations.

There may be situations where a child is at risk. There may be situations where there are court proceedings happening. It doesn’t preclude it. It says that a director may withdraw from a safety plan agreement at any time, verbally or in writing. So it allows that flexibility because the nature of this work requires that type of flexibility.

Rosalyn Bird: I don’t dispute anything that the minister has just said. If an agreement is made verbally in an emergent situation, that makes sense, particularly if it’s in regards to the safety of a child. I would certainly hope that somebody wouldn’t wait to write it down in order for a child to be safe.

However, I do believe, and I believe parents would want to know, that that verbal decision, why it was made and in regards to what — that it should in fact be documented and provided to the parent.

So I’ll ask the minister again. Except for a withdrawal for safety reasons, does the minister not agree that providing a copy of the safety plan to the primary party, with documented reason for withdrawal, better aligns with transparency and accountability for the ministry?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Providing reasons for a withdrawal from a safety plan in writing is good practice in many circumstances but not all circumstances for the many reasons that I’ve already provided.

Rosalyn Bird: I just want to clarify. The minister did state on Thursday that if a director withdraws from an agreement with a family and that withdrawal happens verbally, the family can request that that withdrawal be documented and the reasons for the withdrawal.

So whether the minister does or doesn’t agree, depending on the circumstance, that the family should or should not be aware of some of the situation regarding the withdrawal, does she or does she not agree that if that was originally a verbal agreement, that agreement should, in fact, be documented without the family requesting such documentation?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s important to note that our child protection workers and our ministry staff take documentation very seriously. The decisions that are made with families, or made about children or about families, are documented in our integrated case management system, as I have expressed prior.

As I have said before, providing reason for withdrawal is good practice in many circumstances, but not all circumstances. Because a director may be withdrawing to protect a child in accordance with statutory obligations under the CFCSA, the provision permits but does not require them to provide advance notice. However, it requires directors to tell parties afterwards, recognizing the importance of other parties’ awareness of the agreement is still in effect or not.

Rosalyn Bird: I am going to request clarification because the minister has said two separate things. One is that if a director withdraws from an agreement verbally, it doesn’t get documented unless the family requests it. Those are her words on Thursday.

She just stated that if there is a withdrawal from a director, it actually automatically gets documented inside MCFD’s integrated documentation process.

I want to confirm one last time. If the withdrawal is verbal by a director, can the minister confirm whether it is or is not provided to the family that the reason for that verbal withdrawal is, in fact, documented within MCFD integrated documentation software?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: As I have said, yes, everything is documented in our integrated case management system. Written documentation to parents may occur, or parents may request that the verbal agreement to end a safety plan be provided in writing.

Rosalyn Bird: Will the minister give me a little leeway and explain to myself and anybody watching today what happens after a safety plan is, in fact, withdrawn from? Does the family remain in the family development process, or does that complete the family’s interactions with MCFD?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Fundamentally, it is very situation-specific and very case-specific.

There could be a court order that occurs, which would dictate what steps need to happen next. There could be a family development plan that is continuing with the family to support ongoing programs and services in the community. There are various types of family preservation and reunification programs delivered by non-profits. That could be a part of it. There could be no longer any need for support, and that would end the relationship.

So it would be very situational and specific to the individual family that the ministry is working with.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you to the minister for that question. It actually is very helpful regarding some of the questions I have later.

The last question I asked the minister on Thursday…. What is the process if any of the individuals that are party to a safety plan want a director, social or caseworker removed that are party to that safety plan? The minister’s response was that mandatory parties of a safety plan can revisit the terms.

My question was not regarding the terms. It was regarding ministry staff that the parties are working with or may actually have an issue with. What is the process if a party to a safety plan has an issue with ministry staff that they are working with?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things.

Our ministry staff, child protection workers, team leads — the entire team that works in these situations are trained to exhaust every effort possible to ensure that there are constructive, collaborative, good relationships with families.

We know that people are human, and that can sometimes go in a different direction. When I spoke about terms, the terms of our agreement are about who is a party to the agreement. Like I said, every effort is made to exhaust what can be done to ensure that there’s a collaborative relationship.

Then, if the parties to the agreement don’t agree with people who are in the agreement, there are other options. A team lead could step in, or the staff could appoint different ministry staff. There are options to families if they have different views or a disagreement with the ministry staff that they are working with.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the answer.

If someone from the ministry staff is, in fact, removed from a safety agreement for whatever reason — as we’ve stated many times, these are complex, emotion-driven situations — what is the impact, actually, on the safety plan?

I have heard from parties that when a ministry front-line worker, for whatever reason, is changed, the plan or agreement reinitiates from the beginning once the new worker has familiarized themselves with the case.

To the minister: are you aware that this may be happening?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: That is not our policy. If there were a staffing change during the duration of a safety plan, that would not change the timeline of the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: It may not be policy, but, in fact, Minister, this is actually happening in practice. I have spoken with several families and several family advocate groups that state that this has been a problem and continues to be a problem.

How is this going to work, now that safety plans are going to be legislated to not exceed 45 days, if this situation does actually happen?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things.

I think the first thing that’s really important is that with this legislation, we are enshrining these parameters in law. What that does is it strengthens our policy. Any time we make amendments to law or create a new law, our protection workers and our staff are trained on the parameters of the law, so our child protection workers will be trained to know and understand that if there is a change in staff, that does not lengthen the term of a safety plan.

I have to just emphasize that in our 169 ministry offices across the province, every effort is made to exhaust every possible option to ensure that families, parents and caregivers have an opportunity to work with local ministry staff where there are disagreements that occur. Team leads, directors of operations and executive directors of service make every effort to work with families when they have a concern or disagreement. If there are instances where families want to pursue providing my ministry with information on policy not being followed, there are also avenues for that.

Rosalyn Bird: I ask the question not because it just happens with personality conflicts. Unfortunately, the ministry is well aware that there are some staffing challenges across the ministry. Case files or cases do actually get moved from one social worker or one front-line worker to another.

That was one of the reasons that I asked the question. Like I said, I am aware of several families and family advocates that have raised this point, so I wanted to make sure that the minister understood that it wasn’t just a question regarding personality conflicts.

With that, I’d like to table an amendment to clause 19.5.

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 19.5, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding the underlined text as shown:

Director’s withdrawal from safety plan agreement

19.5 (1) A director mustmay withdraw from a safety plan agreement if an assessment or investigation referred to in section 19.1 (2) has concluded and any of the following circumstances apply:

(a) the director is not applying for an order described in section 19.1 (2) (b);

(b) the director withdraws an application for an order described in section 19.1 (2) (b);

(2) A director may withdraw from a safety plan agreement at any time, verbally or in writing, if, in the opinion of the director, the agreement

(a) is no longer necessary to protect the health or safety of the child to whom the agreement relates,

(b) is not adequate to protect the health or safety of the child to whom the agreement relates,

(i) the director’s information about who should or could have been a party to the agreement under section 19.2 (1) (b), (2), (3) or (4) (a), or

(ii) the custody of the child to whom the agreement relates, or

(d) fails to adequately reflect a change in the circumstances of a person in relation to the person’s

(i) willingness or ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a parent with custody of the child to whom the agreement relates, or

(ii) right to contact or access the child to whom the agreement relates, as described in section 19.2 (4) (a).

(3) In withdrawing from a safety plan agreement, a director

(a) must not inform a party in advance of the director’s intention to withdraw if the director considers that it could put the health or safety of the child to whom the agreement relates at risk, and

(b) maymust inform a party in advance of the director’s intention to withdraw if paragraph (a) does not apply, and.

(c) must, if a party was not provided information in advance under paragraph (b), inform the party of the director’s withdrawal as soon as practicable.

(4) In withdrawing from a safety plan agreement, a director

(a) must inform a party referred to in section 19.2 (1) (b) or (2), as applicable, of the reasons for the director’s withdrawal, and

(b) maymust provide that information before withdrawing from the safety plan agreement or as soon as practicablewithin 24 hours after withdrawing from the agreement.]

The Chair: Would you take a moment to speak to that amendment, and we’ll take a brief break after that to circulate it.

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: The amendment is basically the same thing. I have made some changes in the language.

Paragraph (1). We’ve gone back and forth and back and forth. It actually now says: “may withdraw.” It actually reflects the same language that is used in 19.1.

I have struck “in the opinion of the director.” The pieces that are required under (2) for a director to withdraw from a safety plan are obvious. There is no reason for there to be opinions in there. They’re evidence-based.

And there is some language in paragraph (2)(d) that is, quite frankly, just confusing to most people that would read it.

Yeah, I would like to table the amendment now.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess while we get this distributed to all of the members of the House — probably about five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:19 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thanks, Members. Sorry about that. We were just waiting for a couple of extra copies. We are contemplating an amendment to clause 3.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do not support the amendments for a number of reasons.

The first amendment we’ve canvassed thoroughly in our conversations over discussions of the bill. There are times when a director must withdraw. There are times when a director may withdraw. Those distinctions are laid out for a reason, and they’re very important because it outlines parental rights and enshrines those in the legislation.

The second amendment. We’ve discussed at length why “in the opinion of the director” is important language. Firstly, striking that out could threaten the safety of a child. It could also impede the director’s ability to make a decision with all available information at the time.

[3:30 p.m.]

The third amendment. “A person in relation to” is important about the individual’s circumstances. That’s a really important language piece of the bill.

The rest of the amendments, at the end, have been canvassed thoroughly through our questions and answers through debate of the bill.

Heather Maahs: In terms of language, which we all agree is important, we need to have clarity, especially if you’ve got laymen or parents or caregivers looking for information in this bill, so they go and they read it. It needs to be clear.

I think these amendments give more clarity, especially in terms of the second amendment, striking out “verbally.” Of course it’s always preferred in writing, because documentation of anything that’s going on is important to the families and to the structure itself.

Striking out “in the opinion of the director” — “in the opinion” is always subjective. We know that these people move around for various reasons, but an opinion should be based on tangible evidence. If that’s not happening, then just strike out “in the opinion,” and that lessens that need.

Then the last one is confusing. It’s confusing to anybody reading it. If you want to give clarity to this bill, I think that’s what this achieves.

The Chair: The question before the House is an amendment that has been brought forward by the member for Prince George–Valemount to Bill 29, clause 3, multiple different subsections.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: Members, we will continue on clause 3. Shall clause 3 pass?

Interjection.

Rosalyn Bird: Not quite fast enough. Yeah, she’s very enthusiastic to be finished.

Okay, so we’ll move on to 19.6(1).

I’ll just save everybody some time, and I’m just going to raise the same concern. I will ask the minister. Can she please confirm, even if a third party or another party is withdrawing from an agreement, that that is in fact documented in the MCFD’s integrated documentation system?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Absolutely.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that.

One last question about paragraph (1). It is talking about informing the director in advance. We’ve kind of gone back and forth on this. It’s part of 19.3 that it’s going to be written into plans in the future.

Is there a specific time or are there special considerations that you would actually make in regard to another party withdrawing from an agreement and on why there would be a necessity for them to give advance notice on that?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It would be outlined in the terms of the agreement, what everybody agreed to as being reasonable timelines for things.

[3:35 p.m.]

One of the examples I gave last week was, as a part of a safety plan, that maybe grandma is driving children to and from school or to and from appointments. If grandma is withdrawing from the safety plan for whatever reason, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that within that safety plan, it would be outlined that there is a certain amount of time where the parties can come back together to talk about alternate options for transportation or anything that might be going on for that family.

That’s a concrete example. Also, it would be important to outline that in case there are significant safety or well-being concerns with respect to the children.

Rosalyn Bird: I think we’re probably going to come back to this again in clause 6. However, I’ll move on to 19.6(2). My understanding is that this is referring to Indigenous children or Indigenous community support agencies as per 19.2(3).

Does the minister, in support of DRIPA, intend to capture reasons for withdrawal around safety plans relating to First Nations, Indigenous, Métis and Inuit children and support agencies to better understand and support these communities in their efforts to take over children and family development management?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Safety plans, as we were discussing in this legislation, are about services provided and actions taken under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. When a nation strikes their own law and resumes jurisdiction of child and family services for their community, their laws come into force.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the answer. I’m not disputing any of that. It’s a question on if it’s something that the ministry has considered.

As she is very well aware, it is an extremely complicated process coming up with Indigenous laws and then, once you have the laws, what the policies, the procedures and the actual practices are to put all of that in place.

I asked the question. I won’t re-ask the question, but I would suggest that it is something that the ministry may want to document and take note of, just in support of those communities that are making the move to looking after their own children and families. I think there could be some valuable data in there that could help them make those choices.

With that, I’d like to table an amendment to 19.6.

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 19.6, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding the underlined text as shown:

Withdrawal from safety plan agreement by other parties

19.6 (1) Subject to informing the director in advance as required under a safety plan agreement, a party other than the director may withdraw from the agreement verbally or in writing and such withdrawal must include the reason for withdrawal.

(2) The withdrawal from a safety plan agreement by a party referred to in section 19.2 (3) or (4) does not terminate the agreement as it applies to the remaining parties.]

The Chair: Member, would you take the opportunity to explain your amendment before we circulate copies?

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: The amendment is basically stating — so that it’s on record — that in fact any withdrawal by a third party will be documented in writing.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess of about five minutes to circulate the amendment.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The amendment has been circulated. I would call on the minister to make comments.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m a bit confused by this amendment for a couple of reasons.

Earlier I gave an example of grandma agreeing to aspects of a safety plan, driving their grandchildren to and from school. If grandma verbally told us that she could no longer do that, we would immediately act on that. This would require grandma to sit down and provide a child protection worker in writing with a reason for withdrawal.

[3:45 p.m.]

I just want to also reiterate that a child protection worker would document any party’s withdrawal to a safety plan in the integrated case management system. For that reason, I do not support the amendment.

Heather Maahs: Paper trails and documentation are so important in some of these cases. I know over the last year, I’ve seen cases where families have had situations where they couldn’t go back and follow a paper trail because there wasn’t the necessary documentation available to them. So I think if everything is in writing, then everybody’s bases are covered.

The Chair: The amendment proposed by Prince George–Valemount has been circulated to everyone in the House, and it is an amendment to clause 3, subsection 19.6.

Amendment negatived.

The Chair: We are going to return to clause 3.

Rosalyn Bird: Moving on to section 19.7. In para (1) (a) currently, in chapter 3, it states that when parents live in separate households, if the safety plan signed by one parent in a household infringes on the parental responsibilities of the parent in the other household, that consent needs to be obtained of that parent.

This would indicate, currently in the policy, that there actually may be different safety plans for different parents, different households, and this has been discussed and agreed upon throughout committee.

Can the minister confirm if, in this clause, a safety plan is terminated in one household — whether it does or it doesn’t terminate the safety plan in the other household and what that termination may look like in regards to the impact for the remaining safety plan?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: When a safety plan is terminated, it is terminated for all parties of that plan. If there is a separate safety plan with a separate issue, that’s separate. But as soon as a safety plan is terminated, it’s terminated for all parties of that plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I understand what you just said, so I would just like to clarify, actually.

How and when is a development like this communicated to all of the parties, especially if you have two separate plans and two separate households that are sharing responsibility for a child or children?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: That’s very circumstantial and would depend on the individual circumstances and the reasons for termination, which we have talked about extensively. There are multiple different reasons for termination. There are ways that protection workers can terminate a safety plan.

It’s all really based on the unique individual circumstances of that family and what is going on in that moment.

Rosalyn Bird: If one safety plan is in fact terminated by one household and the other safety plan remains in place, the circumstances are looked at, the reasons for that termination are examined, and the safety plan that is from the one household remains….

[3:50 p.m.]

Are the reasons for the other household safety plan documented within the first safety plan’s MCFD integrated system?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Everything is documented in the integrated case management system.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the answer.

I just want clarification. If you have a family that has multiple households and the children are moving back and forth between those households and safety plan A remains in place and safety plan B is terminated, is it documented within MCFD integrated documentation in safety plan A’s documentation that safety plan B was terminated?

The reason I’m asking that question is that families unfortunately — I wish it wasn’t the case — often come in and out of the system over multiple years. I understand that the disclosure and very specific information needs to remain within the purview of certain individuals.

I just would like the minister to confirm that those things are actually documented between both case files so that if a family, unfortunately, does come back to MCFD, whether it’s six months later or two years later, there is a history contained within both of those files.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: As far as records go, the record and the case is around the child. Anything that occurs around the child is included in that case file. So every party to interaction with that child that was concerning is a part of the child’s file and would be included in that file.

Can I please ask for a quick bathroom break?

The Chair: Absolutely, Minister. We can take a few moments’ recess. How about seven minutes?

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order. We are continuing committee stage on Bill 29, and we are on clause 3.

Rosalyn Bird: What is the process or what are the next steps if a safety plan is terminated because it was violated?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do believe that we did canvass this. It would really depend on the circumstance. Sometimes breaches happen accidentally. Sometimes a protection worker may have concerns about escalation. We do have standardized next steps for escalation. Decisions are driven by the best interest of the child, so again, it would really depend on the circumstance or the violation of the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m aware of several cases where safety plans have actually been violated more than once. In a circumstance when a safety plan has repeat violations, is that safety plan, at that point, automatically terminated?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things.

Would a safety plan be automatically terminated? No. In practice, if a safety plan was not working, being violated over and over again, that would mean that the safety plan is not working, so child protection workers have other tools, as canvassed extensively in our debate on the bill.

I do want to also reiterate that many members of this House do not always have all information obtained under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, so I just have to continually caution making sweeping statements or assumptions based on information provided to an MLA office or a member that may not contain all information that would be obtained under an act, under any specific circumstance.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you to the minister.

I wasn’t referring to any specific case. As a matter of fact, it was a generalized question that if a safety plan is violated on more than one occasion or numerous occasions, in fact, that does warrant it being terminated. So whether an MLA office has information or doesn’t have information, this isn’t specific to any case. It’s a general question.

Again, if the minister could clarify. If a violation has happened multiple times, or how many times…? I’ll ask a new question. How many times does a safety plan have to be violated before it will be terminated once and for all?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I was speaking specifically to the member’s comments that she is aware of multiple times where safety plans are violated. I will caution the members again. When we make sweeping statements to say that we are aware of something, there is also quite a bit of information that they may not be aware of, obtained under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, that they are legally unable to obtain and that I am legally unable to provide. That was my caution around using that type of language.

We have canvassed the aspect of termination of safety plans multiple times.

[4:05 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you to the minister for the points.

Again, they weren’t sweeping. I have, in fact, been provided information or I have information that safety plans have been documented as being violated. That was where the question came from.

Section 4.2 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act states: “If there is a conflict or inconsistency between this act and an Indigenous law in a circumstance where an Indigenous authority is providing, or intending to provide, Indigenous child and family services under Indigenous law, the Indigenous law prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.”

Will the minister help me and those watching? How may this impact withdrawal, termination or extensions of safety plans?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I believe I’ve answered this before. Safety plans are pursuant to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. If there was a child protection response pertaining to an Indigenous child and that Indigenous child belonged to a nation exercising jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction would come into force.

Rosalyn Bird: That’s why I’m asking the question. If there is Indigenous law in place, does this prevent or does it change the ability for any party of a safety plan to either terminate, withdraw or change that plan, or is it left with the Indigenous authority?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: When an Indigenous governing body is exercising jurisdiction, they would be intervening pursuant to their laws.

I think I want to clarify for a moment, though, for the member opposite. We can provide some more information in general about jurisdiction and what that means.

There are a variety of pathways that nations take to exercise jurisdiction. If there is a coordination agreement, an Indigenous governing body…. All of the procedures, all of how that Indigenous governing body is going to provide services to children would be outlined in that coordination agreement and would be worked through that process.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the answer. You’re right. This is extremely convoluted, and I don’t completely understand it.

One last question in regards to this, and then I will move on. When you actually do involve an Indigenous governing body or a social service agency, and there are Indigenous laws in place, is there an added layer to help families and parties to safety agreements understand that entire process?

[4:10 p.m.]

I mean, I’m challenged learning it all. For the families that are involved, when you start to overlap between MCFD and Indigenous law and governing bodies, it can be extremely confusing. Is there a process or is there something in place to ensure, similar to legal advice, that everybody involved in those actual plans is aware of how they work?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, policy explains how directors work with a parent to understand the steps involved with respect to jurisdiction. Our directors and staff are trained on Indigenous jurisdiction and Indigenous governing bodies and when that process takes place.

If a child is involved in a protection concern and if the nation is exercising jurisdiction, the ministry no longer has a role to manage that child protection concern.

Heather Maahs: If I’m to understand this correctly, once a child goes into the jurisdiction of the nation’s portion…. They have different laws than MCFD has, in legislation.

If that is the case, what and where can we access this information so that we can see what that looks like?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Chair, I’m struggling to understand how this question is relevant to this clause of the bill.

Heather Maahs: We were just discussing the jurisdiction, in your own words, so the difference in the question that my colleague raised was discussed, the different laws around that. That’s why I’m asking.

[4:15 p.m.]

If nations have jurisdiction that’s different from MCFD, what does that look like and where can we access that?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Again, this is outside of the scope of the bill. I’ve provided some latitude around it.

The safety plans are part of the CFCSA. Jurisdiction of child and family services, when an Indigenous governing body strikes their law, is outside of that. We have canvassed that. And I would just say that nations are responsible for ensuring that their members are aware of the laws that they strike.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate you giving some leeway with that.

I’m going to go out on a limb. I’m going to make the assumption that the reason my colleague is asking the question…. You talked about actual jurisdiction and community agreements or agreements that were made with Indigenous communities. Are those agreements public knowledge? Is that something that parents and/or individuals who are curious about what those agreements look like…? Is that actually available to the public?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder about the word “you” again.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The repository of agreements is posted publicly.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m going to move on to paragraph (2). From my perspective, this paragraph is actually not talking about terminations. It’s talking about extensions or continuations of safety plans. In the section, content of a safety plan, 19.3(e) states that a safety plan is not to exceed 45 days.

I raise concerns regarding this language “not to exceed.” Yes, safety plans are in principle supposed to be short-term measures used to address safety concerns. However, for many reasons — a change of circumstance, staffing shortages, court backlogs, complex investigations or assessments — the reality is that very often that is not what happens, and they aren’t actually short-term agreements.

I’m aware of several cases where safety plans have been in place for over a year, in one case over two years. Currently chapter 3 allows for multiple extensions. This bill has the language “not to exceed 45 days” indicated.

Will the minister explain how replacement or continuations or new safety plans will be determined based on the explicit language used in 19.3(e)?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I have explained multiple times the circumstances when a new safety plan can be entered into. We discussed it at length in 19.1 and 19.3 — for example, if a child protection investigation has not concluded.

Rosalyn Bird: I am very aware that we have gone over this and over this. However, the example that she just gave actually does put a safety plan beyond the 45 days that is being documented in the bill. The language is quite explicit that a safety plan shall “not exceed 45 days.” It shall not exceed 45 days.

Again, this is problematic language on how this is going to be interpreted, how it is going to be used and how it is going to be understood, not just by the ministry and the ministry staff but also by families.

Will the minister tell us: what is the maximum time outside of that 45 days, then, that a safety plan will be allowed to continue to be in effect?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We’ve gone over this over and over again. We’ve canvassed the aspect of successive safety plans. We’ve canvassed why we would need to enter into a new safety plan. I believe that we’ve canvassed this topic quite extensively.

Rosalyn Bird: With all due respect to the minister and probably for families, I still don’t have an understanding of this, based on the explanations she has provided and based on how current policy reads.

In chapter 3, section 3.2(12), it states that the FDR protection phase should conclude within four months of starting. A supervisor can provide a one-time, three-month extension to FDR services.

The 3.3 investigation section, re-evaluating a safety plan, states that if a safety plan cannot be discontinued at the end of an investigation — we covered that last week on Thursday, that there are exceptions where a safety plan will continue after an investigation ends, which this is referring to — advise the family that it should remain in effect until it is integrated into a family plan developed in the ongoing protection services phase, and confirm parents continue to provide their consent to the plan.

[4:25 p.m.]

The ongoing protection services phase, again, reverts back to 3.2. That allows a safety plan to be extended up to 120 days, and then there is the option for a director or supervisor to do a one-time extension for four months.

Will the minister confirm that this is or is not the case, once this bill is legislated?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The member is speaking to current policy. When our bill reaches royal assent, policy will reflect the legislation that we are enacting.

I have spoken at length to the limited circumstances in which a safety plan can exist. I’ve also explained that successive safety plan agreements may be entered into if a safety concern persists and the assessment or the investigation phase is still underway or the director is waiting for a decision respecting their application for a court order.

We’ve provided numerous examples of this. We’ve talked previously about how policy changes once the bill reaches royal assent.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Rosalyn Bird: I don’t disagree with the minister. My question is: can the minister tell us, again, what is going to be the maximum time outside of 45 days that safety plans can be extended or continued?

You’re telling me that the policy is going to be updated. I am telling you what is currently in the policy. I’m asking what the new policy under this legislation is going to look like and what protection families continue to have.

If necessary, those plans will be extended. To a maximum of what amount of time are those safety plans going to be extended?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The limits of time are driven by the length of an assessment or, in intervention, as outlined and discussed at length in 19.1.

Rosalyn Bird: Based on current policies, based on comments that the minister has made, based on the fact that I have not received actual clarification as to what those timelines may or may not look like and whether they do or don’t have maximums, I would like to table an amendment.

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

Content of safety plan agreement

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

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

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

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

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

(d.1) a listing of any renewal or extension of the agreement in respect of the same child to whom the agreement relates;

(e) the term of the agreement, which must not, together with the term of any renewal or extension of the agreement in respect of the same child to whom the agreement relates, exceed 45210 days;

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

(g) prescribed content, if any.]

The Chair: Member, you can speak to the amendment.

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: Again, chapter 3 states that in both scenarios where parties may withdraw from a safety plan at any time…. This amendment would change the explicit language used in clause 3, section 19.3(e), and it will allow more flexibility for both families and ministry staff — which, the minister has continuously stated, is important in these situations because they are fluid, they are complex, and we can’t apply the same logic and/or steps to every single family because they are all unique. I don’t disagree with the minister on that.

The amendment, like I said, gives some options to families. It says that safety plans may not extend beyond 210 days. As a safety plan, there is an ability for any party to withdraw at any time.

The amendment gives, like I said, both families and the ministry the flexibility for the complex assessments and investigations and various circumstances that actually may impact families that are in these situations.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess as we make copies and circulate.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order. I’ve ruled that the amendment is in order.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do not support these amendments for a number of reasons.

So (d.1), a couple of things. Renewals of safety plan agreements are discussed in another part of the bill, so it would make it redundant. It also is included under a “must” provision, and under that provision it is not workable.

Then the second amendment under (e). I mean, a previous amendment was asked to extend to 180 days. I spoke at length about how that would not align with the spirit of the bill and that the safety plans are supposed to be short-term and voluntary. So that changes…. This amendment makes it even longer. For those reasons, I just don’t support the amendments.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on the amendment from the member for Prince George–Valemount to clause 3.

Division has been called.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House earlier today, the division is deferred to tomorrow afternoon.

[4:40 p.m.]

As the committee cannot continue debate on clause 3 without yet knowing whether the amendment is carried or defeated, we will need to stand down the clause until the House decides on the amendment tomorrow.

Is there agreement to stand down the clause?

Clause 3 stood down.

The Chair: Okay. Clause 3 is stood down, and we will move to the next clause.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Rosalyn Bird: Under paragraph (4) of “Transition,” which is clause 6…. Under the current policy in chapter 3, parents can withdraw at any time.

Should I and others assume that this is what para (a) means — “in accordance with the agreement”?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Sorry. Can I just ask the member to clarify her question?

Rosalyn Bird: Paragraph (4) in clause 6 says: “A party other than a director may withdraw from a prior safety plan agreement in accordance with the agreement.” I need the minister to confirm that I and others would assume that includes that they can withdraw at any time, which is how it is written in the current policy.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just to clarify, this part of the bill pertains to current safety plans and is a transitional provision of the bill. In a current safety plan, if it outlines how parties may withdraw, then (a) applies, and if it doesn’t, then (b) applies.

Rosalyn Bird: I do realize that we’re talking about safety plans that are currently in place, and this is how we’re going to transition from safety plans in play now to what safety plans are going to look like and how they’re going to be actioned or the policies around them once royal assent comes into play.

[4:45 p.m.]

What I want clarification on from the minister is that after royal assent, a current safety plan, which anybody can withdraw from at any time…. It’s what the current policy says.

Is that still in effect after royal assent?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In safety plans that are currently in place, the voluntary nature of the safety plan exists, except that if there are provisions in the safety plan for withdrawal — like in the example I gave earlier, where a grandma may be part of a safety plan, and it is outlined in that safety plan; and if they’re going to change their involvement in that safety plan, they need to provide a timeline around that. That is what this part of the clause does.

Rosalyn Bird: I asked a number of questions regarding the three days during section 19.3 discussion. We were told that there would be a solid explanation provided during this clause, actually.

Does the ministry think it is fair to use a specific time frame for safety plans initiated under current policy but not to use that time frame moving forward? Is the minister able to explain where the differences between new plans and old plans come into effect and where there would be a requirement for para (b)?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: This really is about operationalizing the ability for us to move from existing plans to new plans. If we did not have a specific set of days, then a protection worker would have to go and renegotiate every single plan. As I mentioned earlier, this provision exists only for 45 days after royal assent.

[4:50 p.m.]

For every new plan entered into, all of the other provisions of the bill are applicable to every new plan, where a protection worker would discuss with a family reasonable timelines, time frames and what works for that family. This is really just about being able to operationalize the change from what we have currently and what we’re moving to once royal assent occurs.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m a little confused with what you actually just said because you talked about a 45-day time frame. It does actually speak to that in paragraph (5) when we’re talking about termination of safety plans, but it does not actually speak to that in paragraph (4) when we’re talking about current safety plans.

I am trying to understand why there is a necessity to now retroactively insert a time frame requirement in safety plans that are currently in place. If there isn’t going to be a time frame requirement on brand new safety plans moving forward, why is there a necessity to have a time frame requirement on safety plans that are currently in existence?

Under current regulations, safety plans end at the 30-day mark, unless, of course, there is a requirement, as we have spoken about many times — a continuing assessment or a continuing investigation. Again, I’m very confused as to the necessity for this, especially when somebody has made an agreement, signed an agreement, understood an agreement, and they may be able to withdraw from that agreement at any time.

Now, as soon as this receives royal assent, you have basically retroactively inserted a clause into agreements. I’m trying to understand why the minister thinks that is a requirement.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Because we are trying to align all of our existing safety plans to ensure that our existing safety plans reflect the principles of the bill, the easiest way for us to do that and to operationalize that is to have a default notice period of three days. I think that it is really important that that notice period and that default really align what we currently have with what we’re going to have, and it only exists for the provisionary period of the 45 days.

Rosalyn Bird: I apologize, Chair. Can I request a five-minute bathroom break, please?

The Chair: Sure. We can give a recess of five minutes if you need it.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I’ll call committee back to order.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m very conflicted with this particular paragraph. Your current policy is quite specific in regards to how safety plans currently work. They’re on 30-day time frames. They get renewed. You can withdraw them from any time. Like you said, they’re voluntary. So it seems…. It makes no sense to me that you are now going to, like I said, retroactively insert this.

If the minister is intending on doing that, how is she going to communicate to both her ministry staff and to families that there is now a retroactive clause and a time requirement to withdraw, that it’s not any time? How is that going to be communicated to everybody?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just to emphasize that the withdrawal provisions in this legislation and in safety plans are really important to provide the space and opportunity for the director to really collaboratively plan with the family. I think we’ve kind of talked about a couple of different examples of that.

I’ve talked about this being very provisional in the transitional provision of the bill. All child protection workers and ministry staff will have caseloads and are able to look at their caseload, do caseload planning. Because safety plans are not new pieces of work — they are existing — protection workers would be aware of the safety plans that they have within their caseload.

Where there is not a timeline around withdrawal, the three days provides opportunity for that protection worker to enter into the space to plan with that family around that default notice of three days.

Rosalyn Bird: In the example that you gave with the grandmother driving kids to and from school, daycare, whatever it happens to be, that I understand.

What I don’t understand, what I’m confused about and what I’m actually concerned about is that it doesn’t state the 40-day provision for this particular part in the transition section. It does in paragraph (5), but it does not in paragraph (4).

If a party of a safety plan that is currently in place makes a decision that they are going to withdraw, for any reason whatsoever, and they have not been told about the three days, would that be considered, in the director’s opinion, a violation of the safety plan?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Absolutely not. This is a transitionary provision in the bill, and the director or the child protection worker would work with the family on the next steps or other least intrusive measures or other tools that needed to be used or come to an agreement with the family if there was a disagreement about timelines.

Rosalyn Bird: If I understood you correctly, you just said there is no requirement for a three-day notification. If somebody wants to withdraw from a safety plan, then they are able to do that. Again, I’m confused about this clause.

At this point, I would like to table an amendment.

[CLAUSE 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(4) A party other than a director may withdraw from a prior safety plan agreement at any time.

(a) in accordance with the agreement, or

(b) if the agreement does not provide for withdrawal, by informing a director, verbally or in writing, at least 3 days before the party withdraws.]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to the amendment, Member?

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: Yes, I’ll speak to the amendment.

Basically, the amendment says that a party that is involved in a safety plan at this current time within the transitionary period, and it does not state 45 days…. If somebody is currently part of a safety plan, they are allowed to withdraw at any time and that there is no requirement to give three days’ notice.

For me, this is a retroactive clause. If this was a business contract, if it was any other contract, you don’t retroactively insert things. I think this is extremely unfair to families, and quite frankly, I think it’s somewhat unfair to your staff also.

This was going to be a difficult thing to manage, and it’s something that not everybody is going to understand, and that’s why I’ve tabled the amendment.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess as we make copies and distribute.

The committee recessed from 5:09 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order. Everybody has got the copy of the amendment.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s really important to emphasize again that safety plans remain voluntary at any time. That is one of the main principles of the safety plan. They are voluntary. They are time-limited.

The concept of giving notice exists so that necessary planning can occur with parents around the required safety and well-being of children. The inclusion of three days here reinforces the concept of planning. It exists for the best interests of children that we have put in place in other parts of the bill. It exists currently to ensure that there are no gaps in what happens in the transition period of this bill.

For those reasons, I am not in support of the amendment.

Heather Maahs: Why is this retroactive and not in any other place in this bill?

The Chair: Member, we’re on the amendment.

Heather Maahs: Yes. Right. I don’t have the amendment in front of me. Sorry.

In this amendment, I’m just asking: why is this withdrawal not in any…? Sorry. I’m just going to sit down.

Rosalyn Bird: I believe what my colleague is trying to ask is: based on the minister’s explanation of why the three-day clause is there, why has it not actually been implemented in the legislation moving forward?

Based on her explanation, they required it for planning purposes, and it continued to make the process voluntary and collaborative, yet it has not been built into the legislation for new safety plans.

That was what my colleague was trying to ascertain. If the minister could help her understand that, that would be appreciated.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just wonder if we are on the amendment, or if we’re going back to asking questions. If I could ask for clarity from the Chair.

[5:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Yeah. We’re continuing discussion on the amendment to clause 6.

Rosalyn Bird: I understand what the minister asked. However, it actually does pertain to the amendment, based on her explanation as to why she has it in there. She said that she needs to have the three days in order to have families prepared and actually plan for withdrawing from plans. What we don’t understand is why it’s only necessary for previous safety plans and not safety plans moving forward, based on her explanation.

I do actually believe that it does pertain to not only the amendment but the legislation itself.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I believe I have spoken to the amendment and spoken to the reasons why I do not support the amendment. I believe now we are to vote on the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on the amendment from the member for Prince George–Valemount to clause 6.

Amendment negatived on division.

Rosalyn Bird: Moving to subparagraph (5)(d). If I understand this subparagraph correctly, I actually have huge concerns around this. I’d like to provide the minister with a scenario.

If a safety plan is currently in place for 60 days, because the family and the workers regarding that particular case are awaiting a court decision regarding an application and the court date has been set…. If the court date is beyond the 45 days post-royal assent, then what happens in that scenario when the safety plan terminates automatically and we are still awaiting a court decision?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: If safety concerns persist and an assessment or investigation of a child protection report is underway or the director is waiting for a court decision on an application for an order, the director may enter a new safety plan in accordance with this legislation.

Rosalyn Bird: Based on the scenario I just gave, the time between…. So at the 45 days after royal assent, the current safety plan is actually completely terminated and ministry staff are actually going to re-establish a new safety plan that is 45 days. So it will be re-documented. It will be re-signed. It will be an entire new safety plan. Is that correct?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes, that is correct.

Rosalyn Bird: Scenario No. 2 is if you are currently participating in a safety plan or a party to a safety plan which is 30 days, in accordance with the regulation or the policy now, and a family is on day 21 of 30 days, this subpara now, essentially, extends that safety plan by an additional 45 days.

Again, these safety plans are voluntary. They are written out with the understanding of the family at the time. Basically….

[5:25 p.m.]

If the minister can confirm that in a scenario like that, ministry staff would have to go back to the family, that they would need to express or explain that this safety plan has now been extended by an additional 45 days and that they are now required to…. Actually, I’m not sure if they’re required to give three days’ withdrawal because that’s…. That’s a good question.

I’ll ask the first question first. Based on that scenario, is the ministry required to go back to that family and have them re-sign a safety plan again with the agreement that they are comfortable with the 45-day extension?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: So (a) through (d) can be read on what would apply first. So a prior safety plan agreement is terminated on the earliest of the following dates, and (b) would apply to what the member just gave an example of, the date agreed to by all parties.

Rosalyn Bird: If you are in a safety plan currently and it is 30 days and you are in the middle of that safety plan, you haven’t agreed to withdraw from it. Your intention is not to withdraw from it and to review it at the end of the 30-day period. You are on day 21 of that plan. If I read this paragraph correctly, at the date of royal assent, it automatically increases the plan by 45 days, as this paragraph is currently written.

Can the minister confirm?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: No, that is incorrect. It is not being read correctly. A prior safety plan agreement is terminated on the earliest of the following dates. If a family has a safety plan agreement, and they are on 21 days of a 30-day agreement, (b) would apply, the date agreed to by all parties.

Rosalyn Bird: Again, the last piece of that paragraph states that the date is 45 days after the day of this section. Many, many people that read that, through her staff, are going to understand that a current safety plan is to be extended by 45 days under this legislation. That raises huge concerns for me.

Can the minister tell me currently, or has she conducted a review of the ministry to determine, how many safety plans this may actually affect?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to put on record to clarify what the member just stated. Again, I’m going to read it: “A prior safety plan agreement is terminated on the earliest of the following dates.” Then it lists out the dates when it may be terminated.

The last point says, “if the agreement does not provide for a term” — so only if an agreement does not have a set term in it — “or provides for a term of more than 45 days,” (d) would come into place. So it’s really about what’s at the earliest of the following dates, and then it really outlines how that would apply.

Rosalyn Bird: Again, Chair, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but this is why language is extremely important.

Under current regulations, safety plans are 30 days. Unless there is a specific situation in regards to a court date or something else, they currently are not required to have an expiry date. It’s assumed it’s at the end of 30 days. If the agreement does not provide for a term….

Again, I will respectfully disagree with the minister’s perception, or I may have the completely wrong perception. I’m not sure.

[5:30 p.m.]

What resources are being provided to front-line ministry workers to communicate these changes and physically revise, if necessary, all the current safety plans that parents may need to re-sign or document the agreements that these changes will actually force?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Well, there are numerous things that are implemented to support implementation of legislation.

First, there is an update to our policy, as we’ve discussed. After royal assent, all policy is updated.

Then there is practice guidance provided to ministry staff and ministry teams. There are training materials that are deployed across teams with respect to the legislation and any policy changes.

Then we have practice teams that remain in place for ministry staff, who can call at any time to get practice guidance around the implementation of policy and legislation.

I would also say that the importance of this clause of the bill, having these transitional provisions, is exactly to ensure that there is the least amount of impact to the number of safety plans that child protection workers have to go back into and make changes to. That’s the very reason we have these transitional provisions.

In addition to that, all of the resources that I have outlined in the way of training, practice guidance, team leads and ministry staff are available for child protection workers.

Rosalyn Bird: Chair, in the scenario I gave when I asked the first question for paragraph 5(d), that if you have a safety plan currently that actually does have a term…. In that particular case, the safety plan in place was for 60 days. This takes effect as of royal assent, which reduces it to 45 days. She said that in that particular instance, a new safety plan would in fact need to be drafted and signed under the new terms.

Has the minister or her staff conducted a review? Does she have any idea how many safety plans may actually fall into the situation where there is an agreement in place, and this may actually impact that agreement time frame?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Because with an existing policy it outlines 30 days, it shouldn’t be the norm. It should be the exception.

Rosalyn Bird: That wasn’t the question that I asked.

Is the minister aware, or has her staff conducted a review, of current safety plans that actually may be impacted by the 45-day time frame if the agreement provides a term for more than 45 days?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Safety plan counts change daily. Every child protection worker would be acutely aware of their caseload and how many safety plans that they have in place as a part of their caseload. For the previous reasons that I outlined, this would capture a small number of safety plans.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to table an amendment at this time.

[CLAUSE 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(5) A prior safety plan agreement is terminated on the earliest of the following dates:

(a) the date on which any of the following withdraws from the agreement:

(i) a director;

(ii) a parent who is a party and who is apparently entitled to custody, or has care, of the child to whom the agreement relates;

(b) the date agreed to by all parties;

(d) if the agreement does not provide for a term, or provides for a term of more than 45 days, the date that is 45 days after the date that this section comes into force.

(6) Termination of a prior safety plan agreement terminated pursuant to subsection (5) must be documented in writing and include the reasons for termination.]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: Basically, the amendment states that…. It strikes paragraph (d) because I believe it raises large concerns for not only the ministry but also for families.

The amendment addresses the concerns regarding extension or shortening of existing safety plan agreements and termination dates, thereby ensuring not only flexibility for both families and ministry staff. It also allows for the continuance of safety around assessments and investigations that are currently underway and complex in nature.

This change, the minister states, actually impacts very few safety plans. But without being given an actual number of what that is or isn’t, and considering the current shortfalls in staffing, court backlogs and other challenges that the ministry is currently facing, I do not believe that this paragraph is in the best interest of British Columbian families.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess as we copy the amendment and distribute to all members.

The committee recessed from 5:38 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I will call the committee back in session. Everyone should have a copy of the amendment.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m not in support of the amendment for a couple of reasons.

Again, we need a transitional provision in this bill for when royal assent occurs and for current safety plans that are in place, outlining that if an agreement does not provide for a term or provides for a term of more than 45 days, the date that is 45 days after the date that the section comes into force would create certainty and eliminate ambiguity for families. I think that’s really important.

[5:45 p.m.]

As far as amendment 6, I want to just put on record that we document everything in our ICM, as we have discussed previously. And as we have discussed previously, there are instances where providing in writing may not be in the best interest of the child or may not hold up the guiding principles of the act.

For those reasons, I am not in favour of the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the question on the amendment from the member for Prince George–Valemount on clause 6.

Division has been called.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House earlier today, the division is deferred to tomorrow afternoon.

As the committee cannot continue debate on clause 6 without yet knowing whether the amendment is carried or defeated, we will need to stand down the clause until the committee decides on the amendment tomorrow.

Clause 6 stood down.

Clause 7 approved.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:48 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 29 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like to call Committee of the Whole on Bill 24.

The Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed at 5:48 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 6:00 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: We’ll call the House back to order. We are in Committee of the Whole for Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, on clause 2.

On clause 2 (continued).

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to introduce my staff. I have a little bit of a mixup from before. Jasmine Dadachanji is here again — senior policy analyst, policy and legislation division. I appreciate her expertise. And today I have Jake Todd, legal counsel, with me.

Brennan Day: What data sets or models will government rely on to calculate aggregate harm?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It really depends on what type of lawsuit is launched in terms of the specific data set that would be needed to respond, but I can give the member a high level of how it’s approached generally based on past experience.

Aggregate-level data is at a population level. It would be working with the Ministry of Health. You look at population-level impacts, like how much was spent on smoking cessation programs or certain types of illnesses, so you can get a better population-level sense of what the harm was to the health care system. Of course, it would depend on the specific type of litigation you launched as to what exactly you were getting at and what your data set was.

Brennan Day: How will the Crown distinguish harms from legally sold compliant products versus illegal or unregulated imports?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we had a discussion about this earlier on in the debate about how nothing in the definitions or the approach distinguishes between illegal or regulated markets for vaping. The focus is on the wrongdoing. If there’s a wrongdoing, like deceptive marketing to youth or those kinds of things, that’s the trigger. Once that happens, you would get data on those impacts of that on the population at an aggregate level.

Brennan Day: Given the difference in compliant products, which would have quality control and be sold in the regulated market here in B.C. under government regulations that they’ve set out…. If we’re talking about harms from unregulated imports, which could potentially be different or worse than the regulated market, how would the ministry handle those, and how would they qualify those harms?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: If you made your case against, say, a range of providers, then it would be up to the finder of fact, the judge, to say how liability is apportioned and to what degree. One party might make the case that they’re less liable for the harm because they were less responsible for wrongdoing or whatever. So it would be up to the determiner of fact in the context of litigation to decide those matters.

Brennan Day: I’d like to propose an amendment to Bill 24.

[CLAUSE 2 (5) (a) is amended by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(a) it is not necessary

(i) to identify particular individual benefit recipients, or

(ii) to prove the cause of disease, injury or illness in any particular individual benefit recipient, or

(iii)(ii) to prove the cost of health care benefits for any particular individual benefit recipient,]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to your amendment, Member?

On the amendment.

Brennan Day: It will be striking out the second section. Clause 2(5) is, without question, one of the most consequential provisions of this bill. It authorizes government to sue without identifying a single British Columbian who was harmed. That is not a small drafting choice. It’s a profound departure from how damages actions have worked in Canada for more than a century.

Clause 2(5) effectively tells the courts that evidence is optional, that government may proceed on behalf of a theoretical population, that the existence of real identifiable plaintiffs is unnecessary.

In every other area of civil litigation — whether it is personal injury, product liability, negligence, medical malpractice or wrongful death — one foundational principle is consistent. If you are suing for harm, you must demonstrate that someone was harmed. You can’t sue on behalf of a hypothetical person. You cannot sue on behalf of a mathematical projection. And you cannot sue on behalf of a population that may or may not exist. But that’s what clause 2(5) allows.

It opens the door to what only can be described as phantom plaintiffs, individuals who are statistically inferred rather than medically identified as being harmed. Entire claims could be built on modelling and not evidence. Health care costs could be assigned to defendants without tying those costs to any specific patient or any specific injury.

This is not about shielding bad actors. This is about protecting the integrity of our legal system. This amendment does not stop class actions. It does not limit the government’s ability to recover legitimate costs. It does not require naming every single plaintiff or revealing personal details.

What it does is restore the minimum evidentiary threshold that every private litigant in this country must meet. If you want damages for harm, you must show harm to actual people.

Without this amendment, the bill allows the government to bring actions where no identifiable British Columbian is named or even located. No causal link is demonstrated for any individual person. No proof is required that alleged health care costs were actually incurred due to the specific product in question. That is not evidence-based litigation. That is not fairness to defendants, large or small. And that is not the standard Canadians expect courts to apply.

There is also a very practical concern. If the government proceeds on theoretical harms, the resulting awards become theoretical as well. Damages built entirely on modelling and projections will be far more vulnerable to challenge, appeal and reversal. That undermines the very purpose of the act, to recover real costs tied to real outcomes.

Requiring the Crown to identify actual harmed individuals, even in anonymized aggregate form, protects the credibility of the claim. It ensures the courts have something concrete to assess, and it ensures defendants have the ability to answer the case against them.

If the government is confident in the strength of its evidence, then meeting this basic threshold should not be a problem. If the evidence is compelling, then identifying real harm should be straightforward. And if the goal is fairness, then this amendment helps achieve it.

This is not an ideological amendment. It is not an attempt to weaken this bill. It is an attempt to ensure that what we pass in this chamber is durable, defensible and consistent with the principles of justice that British Columbians expect.

Clause 2(5) gives government power that no private citizen, no business and no other party in a courtroom has ever had: the ability to sue without establishing the existence of a harmed plaintiff. This amendment corrects that imbalance. It prevents theoretical lawsuits, and it prevents speculative damages. It also ensures this act remains grounded in real-world evidence and not abstraction.

I urge the minister and everyone here in this chamber to support this amendment. It is a small change with enormous consequences for fairness, due process and the integrity of this legislation.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess to provide copies of the amendment to everyone.

The committee recessed from 6:10 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. We will call the committee back to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t support this amendment. I think there are some clear reasons why it would actually move this backwards rather than forwards, and I’ll just explain that.

First of all, this similar provision was in the opioid recovery act and the tobacco recovery act, or similar wording, and to remove it now for this act would actually move our tools and our ability backwards. Our legislation for the opioid recovery act was tested in court, so these are tools that have been before triers of fact.

Just to the question about whether or not this ability is something that we can do: yes, we can do it, and we have done it before.

I would say that it’s not uncommon in class action style lawsuits where you have representative…. The court is asked to figure out, rather than individualized claims, how to deal with a whole collection of people that have had similar experiences.

What we’ve designed with this type of class action is something that helps us do that at an aggregate population level, that helps governments do it, because governments step in the role of those population-level responses all the time. I think it’s actually designed with that in mind in a very effective way.

For those reasons, removing this, I think, would only just shield bad actors, and it would prevent us from being able to do this type of population aggregate-level harm analysis that’s so important to these types of lawsuits. So I don’t support the amendment.

Anna Kindy: When we’re talking about aggregate — again, I’m not a lawyer — it means taking the whole population into account and coming up with a population-based injury, I would imagine. When we’re looking at population-based injury to the lungs, for example, if we’re assuming vaping is related to lung injuries, how do we take into account injuries to the lung by other factors?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m acting House Leader. I just recognize that there is an amendment on the floor, and the member is moving to a separate question. I wonder if we might address the amendment.

The Chair: Member for North Island, is your question with respect to the amendment on the floor? We’re discussing the amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay, so no. No further discussion on the amendment.

We’ll call the question on the amendment moved by the member for Courtenay-Comox on clause 2.

Amendment negatived on division.

Anna Kindy: I’m going to go back to my question regarding the aggregate. The question is…. Again, looking at a population-based level, there are multiple factors related to lung injury.

How do we take into account the percentage of vaping versus every other possible injury?

[6:20 p.m.]

We’re looking at smoke inhalation from pollution; smoke related to other diseases, like cigarettes — some people vape and smoke cigarettes; asthma; viral illnesses that cause sequelae; pneumonias that cause scarring in the lung. How does the government decide?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way this would show up, to the member’s point, is that it wouldn’t be government that decided what the responsibility is. It would be a trier of fact or a negotiation that would determine that.

When you’re looking at the aggregate-level harm, it’s at the population level, and an expert analysis would probably be required — and was, in the tobacco and opioid litigation. Presumably in that scenario, for example, the party that’s alleging would make their claim and try to get it on a balance of probability that causation was proved. And then I’m sure the evidence from the other side would be: “It wasn’t only us. It was other factors.”

The way this is designed is that if the government has proven that the defendant breached a duty or obligation owed to people in B.C., that use or exposure to the vaping product can cause or contribute to disease, injury or illness and that the vaping product was offered for use or sale in B.C., then the government benefits from a presumption in the legislation that the breach led to the use or exposure and that that use or exposure caused or contributed to disease, illness or injury.

This presumption helps us cut through very complicated cases. In that situation, the side opposite that presumption or subject to it would show…. It would be up to them to show the evidence to the trier of fact that they weren’t the only contributors of whatever that harm was, and that would be up to a decision-maker to decide in terms of apportionment.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: We stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:24 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 24 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, to order. We are on clause 1.

On clause 1 (continued).

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll ask for a bit of indulgence as I take over from my colleague here, but I will start where he finished off.

The Premier is on record saying that nothing operationally will change. It’s our belief that there will have to be changes to the system. Shifting where consent is and where liability shields can be found is inherently and deeply connected with systems change and change management.

Form 5, titled “Consent for treatment (involuntary treatment),” currently references sections 8 and 31 of the Mental Health Act. The director gets authority to authorize and direct treatment for involuntarily admitted patients under sections 8 and 31 of the Mental Health Act. Changing the laws which give validity to form 5 is concerning.

The question is: how will the minister provide guidance to the health care system for these changes?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Welcome back, everybody. I would just like to take the opportunity to introduce a new staff person who is supporting me today, John Tuck. He is the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and I welcome him.

Thank you for being here.

The amendments don’t impact clinical practice or operation of the act. Section 8 contains the authority for involuntary treatment, as I have described in multiple answers. Forms like form 5, which the member references, will be updated, and if these amendments pass, then, of course, updates will be sent out to health authorities and clinical providers, etc.

Jeremy Valeriote: As we understand, front-line health care workers will reasonably be impacted and concerned by the rollout of these changes. How will the minister ensure that the entire system will be ready to adopt the changes?

Hon. Josie Osborne: There will be no operational changes. We are moving an implicit liability shield to an explicit liability shield. There will be no operational changes that health care providers need to be informed about. But of course, I’m sure they are aware of what’s taking place right now with respect to discussion about these amendments.

Notifications will be sent out, again, through health authorities and other health care partners to ensure that people are aware of what the amendments were. But again, this does not impact clinical operations.

Jeremy Valeriote: We’ve heard that even these discussions around changing where protection liability is found and the potential declaration of invalidity of deemed consent have stirred up some uncertainty. As it’s currently written, this bill will come into force upon royal assent. What is the plan to communicate these changes?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, repealing section 31(1) and replacing that implicit liability shield with an explicit declaration in section 16 does not change the operation of the act. Regardless of the outcome of the court case — I think that’s where the member is getting to — the operations of the act don’t change.

Therefore, I think I’ve answered the question about how we will be notifying health authorities.

Jeremy Valeriote: I apologize for any repetition.

Earlier in committee debate, the member for Skeena asked some excellent questions around consent, treatment and liability protection. I’d like to reference a question posed on Thursday afternoon about whether or not the government received legal opinions on whether or not these changes could increase litigation risk. The minister responded to say this is privileged information.

Without putting pressure on the minister in any matter that cannot be shared publicly, I’d like to shine a light on the heart of this question. Although there have been some improvements to compliance for completing the required forms for involuntary admission and treatment in designated facilities, we know that compliance is far from 100 percent.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’ll reiterate that these documents include forms outlining reasons for detention, treatment, consent, notifications of patients’ rights and notification to relatives.

These feel quite consequential. When we’re discussing matters as serious as consent, health care delivery and forced treatment, I think it’s important that we understand the full scope of these proposed changes, especially as they pertain to the intent of this legislation. The minister has stated that it is to ensure liability protection for health care workers is explicitly included in the Mental Health Act if section 31(1) is declared unconstitutional.

It appears that deemed consent is no longer explicit but implicit in that health care workers receive authority to deliver professional services or treatment or care under section 16, of which they are protected from liability when delivering this treatment in good faith. This clause references section 8, which allows a director to authorize treatment and requires them to fill out all required forms.

The question is: could protection liability be weakened now given the noncompliance of required forms?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I believe this is beyond the scope of the amendments that we’re proposing. Nothing changes about the authorization process. References to section 31(1) would be removed, however, and forms and things would be updated.

I do want to take the opportunity…. Last week, when speaking with the member for Saanich North and the Islands, we did canvass the subject of compliance, and it’s a very important one. I’m going from memory, but I believe he cited the number 28 percent of forms being completed.

I just wanted to correct, for the record, that in 2017, for example, there were 76 percent of admissions where form 5 was completed. By 2020, that had risen to 82 percent. That’s five years ago. We continue to work with health authorities to ensure that forms are filled out adequately and completely and understand the importance of that to the process.

I know that the health authorities and care providers take this matter very seriously, as do we, and that’s why we’ll continue to do this work with health authorities.

[3:10 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Minister. I understand the scope issues. I’m still going to ask.

Thank you to the minister for the form percentages from the last few years.

I’ll continue. Harm Reduction Nurses Association and Doctors for Safer Drug Policy released a joint statement to express their opposition to involuntary treatment for people with substance use disorders. I’ll read some highlights from the statement for the record.

“Canadian Nurses Association code of ethics requires nurses to ‘respect the inherent dignity and autonomy of all people’; provide care only with voluntary, informed consent; support capable people’s right to refuse treatment; and uphold human rights as protected by the Canadian Charter. The Canadian Medical Association code of ethics similarly requires physicians to respect autonomy, avoid harm and maintain integrity even in the face of political pressure.

“Forced treatment is incompatible with these standards. To participate in involuntary treatment for substance use disorders is to violate the core values of our professions, including non-malfeasance, do no harm, respect for persons and justice. No government can legislate away these obligations.

“Nurses and physicians across B.C. already experience extreme moral distress due to the ongoing crisis, chronic system failure and the daily, preventable deaths they witness. Involuntary treatment would force us to act against our ethical commitments, inflicting profound moral injury and exposing us to liability even with legislative shielding. We cannot say we are on the right side of medical ethics when the government needs to amend a law just to shield us from lawsuits for our activities. Coercion of practitioners mirrors the coercion proposed for patients. Both are unacceptable.

“This legislation emerges from election season moral panic rather than public health evidence. Research on moral panics shows predictable features: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality and volatility. The current framing of people who use drugs as ‘unable to make decisions’ is not evidence-based. It is stigma that fuels criminalization and further harms. Misinformation and disinformation about safer supply, decriminalization and voluntary treatment have circulated widely, but policy must be driven by evidence, not by fear, political pressure or manufactured outrage.”

These physicians, nurses and allied care workers are calling on the province to withdraw these proposed amendments to the Mental Health Act. We believe the Charter challenge must proceed without political interference.

So the question is: will the minister consider the impact these changes will have on front-line workers and the entire mental health system in B.C. and stand down these proposed changes?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I disagree with the member’s characterization that proposing a bill of this nature is political interference. It makes what is implicit now explicit and continues to provide that liability shield for health care workers delivering treatment.

I also want to be very clear that nothing about the main substance of the Mental Health Act changes with respect to the criteria that must be met when a clinician makes an assessment of whether somebody should be involuntarily admitted.

[3:15 p.m.]

This is not about involuntarily admitting people with a substance use disorder. This is about providing care through involuntary care and admitting people who have serious mental illnesses and are not in a position to be able to make decisions about their care. They may have a concurrent substance use disorder, but this does not focus on people who only have a substance use disorder.

Section 22 very clearly outlines the criteria that must be met. There are a number of safeguards in the act so that people have the right to a second opinion, people have the right to be advised about independent rights advice.

I understand how serious this matter is. I appreciate the member’s question, but it does not pertain to this bill, these amendments, and we are not changing the scope and nature of the act.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s our perception that these changes could be perceived as consent to harm — not only consent but protection in case patients advocate for themselves, appeal a detention or claim harm or malpractice thereafter.

What is the minister’s vision for reducing the harms experienced under the Mental Health Act?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I believe this is a question that is out of scope.

Clause 1 approved.

Claire Rattée: I’d like to move an amendment that would go between clause 1 and 2.

[NEW CLAUSE 2.01, by adding the underlined text as shown:

2.01 The following section is added:

Treatment

16.1 Nothing in section 16 (b.4) may be interpreted as authorizing treatment provided contrary to the requirements of applicable provincial consent and capacity laws.]

The Chair: You can speak to the amendment, and then we’ll determine whether or not it’s in order.

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: The amendment that I’m moving is that the following section would be added as 2.01.

My belief is that this avoids any argument that immunity itself becomes a backdoor source of treatment authority. It forces the government to ensure that whatever treatment regime exists is consistent with any future capacity framework.

I think that if the government claims this is self-evident, then writing it into statute simply confirms that what they say is already true and reduces any future Charter risk.

The Chair: Okay. The committee will take a brief five-minute recess and return at 3:23 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:17 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

George Anderson: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order.

We’ve deemed that the amendment is in order, and we’ll look to the minister, if you have any comments.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for bringing forward the amendment.

I’m not going to support the amendment, for reasons similar to last week, in that it is redundant, and it’s just simply not good legislative drafting practice to have redundancy built into the legislation that way.

This provision already exists in the act. If a person asserts that care isn’t properly authorized, the recourse is the court, which would consider the specific situation at hand and make a decision.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions or comments, I’ll call the question on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Claire Rattée: I have one other amendment I’d like to move in between clauses 1 and 2, please.

It would be section 2.01, around immunity.

[NEW CLAUSE 2.01, by adding the underlined text as shown:

2.01 The following section is added:

No immunity

16.1 Section 16 (b.4) does not apply to negligent actions or to acts taken in bad faith or in a manner inconsistent with this Act or other applicable provincial consent and capacity laws.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: For me, this ensures that the new immunity clause cannot be used to shield negligent, malicious or clearly unlawful conduct. It reassures the patients and families that liability protection is not a blank cheque while giving clinicians confidence when they act in good faith and within the law.

The Chair: Okay. We will take a brief, five-minute recess and return at 3:32 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

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

The amendment has been deemed in order. I’m recognizing the Minister of Health has comments.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes. Thank you again to the member.

I won’t be supporting the amendment, because section 16 starts out with wording that speaks to the fact that persons must act in good faith and with reasonable care. So that requirement is explicit there. Adding this, while I appreciate the intention, is redundant and inconsistent with sound legislative drafting principles.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I’ll call the question on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

On clause 2.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Skeena.

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for continuing to indulge me on these. Can’t hurt to try, right? I keep trying to put those things in there.

On clause 2 here, I know it’s difficult because the two clauses are very closely linked. We’ve talked about that, and I appreciate the leniency that the minister has given on bouncing back and forth on these questions over the last couple of days.

[3:35 p.m.]

So on clause 2, I would like to ask why the government chose to not consult with provinces such as Alberta or Ontario, whose models successfully replaced the deemed-consent provisions. I’m asking about that because, obviously, we are on clause 2 now, and it’s about repealing deemed consent.

Just for my benefit here, knowing that these are provinces that had a similar experience of having to go through repealing that and then basically putting in either a new piece of legislation or making an amendment to existing legislation to replace that portion…. I would like to understand why we didn’t look to models that already exist out there, why we didn’t speak with other provinces to understand how they handled it and what their experience has been like since and how that has been implemented.

Hon. Josie Osborne: These amendments are very focused on the liability shield, moving from an implicit expression in section 31(1) to an explicit, more robust expression in section 16. They don’t change the consent regime in the act. They don’t repeal consent. They don’t touch consent.

I understand why the member is asking the question, but the appropriate place for that will be in the review of the Mental Health Act.

Claire Rattée: I understand that 31(1), which is obviously what we’re talking about here with clause 2, was added to address a previous court case, and it was to address liability issues. But in my opinion, it ignores the fact that, in practice, 31(1) also served as the statutory override to consent.

I’m wondering if the minister would agree with that characterization, and if so, then why these decisions are being made in the way that they are being made.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I wouldn’t agree with the framing of the member’s question. On Thursday or Friday last week, maybe both days, we did talk about this provision being added to the act in 1981. I think it’s important to remember, again, that involuntary treatment was provided for decades before the addition of 31(1).

I actually think this conversation is very indicative of the confusion that exists generally, and that is exactly why we wish to address this, so that there is not confusion for those health care workers who are providing care to people who have been involuntarily admitted under the act.

[3:40 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that. I think that that ties in well to my next question then.

I know this may be potentially more difficult to answer just because I’m asking you to go back to 1981, when you weren’t in government, to, I guess, pontificate a little bit on what the idea was behind this, but I’m hoping that the minister could advise on why section 31(1) was added after the court case, rather than adding to or expanding section 8.

If there is any information that the minister might have access to that could help me and others to understand what the purpose of that was then, and what the thought process was at the time. I would agree with the minister’s characterization that this has become very challenging and very confusing for people, but I’m hoping to understand why that decision was made.

I would assume there must have been a reason behind the decision to add section 31(1). I’m hoping that we can come to an understanding about what that decision was, why it was taken and how that plays into the decision to bring forward the amendments that are being brought forward.

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is a challenging question to answer. All I can say is that the provision was added in 1981 through a miscellaneous statutes amendment act after the Supreme Court released its decision on medical consent in Reibl v. Hughes, 1980.

It was intended to provide protection for individuals who administer treatment to involuntary patients under the act against liability for the tort of medical battery. We don’t have insight into what the government or the drafters of the day were thinking specifically with an amendment to the act in that way.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate the response. I understand that it’s difficult to really understand what was going through the minds of the other MLAs of the day that made this decision, but I’m hoping that the minister can answer it for me. Again, it’s a similar question to one I asked last week.

I understand that legal opinions that are provided to cabinet are confidential and that they can’t be disclosed. Can I at least understand whether or not legal opinions were obtained on this, to ensure that there won’t be unintended consequences and, regardless of whatever was in those legal opinions, at the very least, that cabinet did obtain those legal opinions, to understand the real implications of this decision?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The contents of legal opinions, or whether they even exist, is privileged information.

Claire Rattée: Thank you.

Could the minister please explain how section 8 authorizes treatment when there isn’t any specific language in section 8 that references consent, refusal or capacity? Just for my benefit, so I can understand how a clinician is supposed to interpret that when there isn’t any specific language around it, where are they looking to understand that this is the section now that authorizes them to provide that treatment?

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

Hon. Josie Osborne: Section 8, which has been in existence since 1964 when the act was first introduced and passed, provides the core of the act…. I’m just going to read from the clause itself:

“A director must ensure (a) that each patient admitted to the designated facility is provided with professional service, care and treatment appropriate to the patient’s condition and appropriate to the function of the designated facility and, for those purposes, a director may sign consent to treatment forms for a patient detained under section 22, 28, 29, 30 or 42.”

If the member’s concern is that this bill would risk that treatment, if there’s a risk that treatment is no longer authorized, we do not believe that to be the case at all. We’re not touching section 8.

As for the fine points of interpretation, those are matters that are discussed in the court, but I will add that no court has ever found that involuntary treatment in B.C. is, generally speaking, unauthorized.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that response. I do think it helps to understand where the ministry’s thought processes are behind this.

My concern here, and I think the minister has stated it a number of times already, is that there already exists a lot of confusion around involuntary treatment of psychiatric patients. This is something that already exists with clinicians. It’s something that clearly already exists within the court, and it exists in this room.

Part of what I’ve been trying to get at here is around the specificity of language and why there was not a decision made, when bringing forward this piece of legislation, to attempt to clear up a bit of that ambiguity and to make things clearer, moving forward, for clinicians and patients alike, and for the courts. A lot of my questions today do centre around that. I hope that the minister will understand why I’m asking them.

It’s simply because I understand that we’re looking at undertaking a mental health review, and maybe some of those things will be part of that. I just am struggling with the timeline here. My understanding is that this piece of legislation, with these amendments to the Mental Health Act, is being brought forward simply in relation to or in response to the current Charter challenge.

My next question would be: what specific problem is the repeal of subsection 31(1) intended to actually address? Given that we do not yet have a ruling from this Charter challenge, I don’t understand why we’re moving forward with this and proceeding with this repeal before we’ve completed the Mental Health Act review.

The timeline, to me, is part of what I’m struggling with, because I feel like it’s premature. We don’t have a ruling yet. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that even once a ruling was brought forward, government would still have time to respond and make the amendments that are necessary to the Mental Health Act.

Am I correct in assuming that the only problem that the repeal of subsection 31(1) is intended to address is this Charter challenge? If that’s the case, again, why didn’t we wait and do it as part of the Mental Health Act review, knowing we still have time to be able to prepare for that?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think this question is very similar to questions already asked and answered. I will say, one more time, that we cannot predict the outcome of the court case and whether a suspension would be granted and that it is the prudent and responsible thing to act now with these narrow amendments, focused just on the liability of health care workers and the provision of treatment for patients who are involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act.

Claire Rattée: Getting to the crux of the timeline concern here, again, I think it’s reasonable to assume that maybe there’s something that I’m missing here, given that this is not a new Charter challenge. This has been going on for a very long time. The timing is what I’m struggling with. This is a piece of legislation that’s being brought forward very late in the session, with very little notice and, it feels like, very little preparation.

[3:55 p.m.]

You know, we’ve canvassed already a lack of consultation on this. I understand what the minister is saying, that it wasn’t necessary here. My interpretation is different, but it’s not up to me.

What I’m failing to understand is: is there something new that came forward last week or the week prior in this Charter challenge that has precipitated the decision to move forward with this?

I understand wanting to be prudent, but I also am struggling to understand why, then, this wasn’t already on the table at the beginning of the session, why this isn’t something that we even could’ve looked at back in the spring session. The timing is just something that I’m struggling to understand as far as why this is being brought forward now.

I guess the simple way to put it is: is there something the public doesn’t know about this Charter challenge right now that is making this suddenly necessary?

Hon. Josie Osborne: With respect, this is a subject that we did canvass last week, so asked and answered.

Claire Rattée: I would ask if the minister considers this repeal a temporary measure or a permanent policy shift.

Hon. Josie Osborne: These are permanent changes until changed by a future Legislative Assembly.

Claire Rattée: Could the minister please confirm for the record, after section 31(1) is repealed, whether a capable involuntary patient can refuse treatment and block it?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think the simplest way to answer this is that this bill does not change the consent regime in the act.

Claire Rattée: I would ask why the government chose not to amend section 8 to clarify treatment authority when removing section 31.

I understand this is similar to questions that have been asked before, but I think, specifically on this clause, that I would like to better understand why the determination was made to add clause 1 and to remove 31(1) but not to touch section 8 at all.

Again, getting to the crux of providing clarity for clinicians, for patients, and so on and so forth, why was the decision made to not go back into section 8 and look if there was anything that we could possibly do there to provide further clarity?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, we have canvassed this. Section 8 contains the authority for involuntary treatment. These amendments make explicit and implicit liability waiver.

Claire Rattée: I understand that we’ve discussed the practical mechanism for providing treatment to an involuntary patient who refuses. I’m wondering if we can talk about the legal mechanism now.

After repeal, what would the legal mechanism for providing treatment to an involuntary patient who refuses look like?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The legal mechanism remains unchanged.

[4:00 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Why was a psychiatric-specific definition of “capacity” not included in this bill? Again, just looking to clear up ambiguity. Were there any conversations about the potential of trying to put something like that into this legislation so that it’s clearer what those definitions are?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, this is outside of the scope of these amendments. These amendments are focused on the liability shield for health care workers.

Claire Rattée: I’m curious if the minister could please answer how many additional capacity assessments will now be required.

I understand that the response has been given that this doesn’t practically change anything, but I do think that the lack of consultation with clinicians opens up a bit of a loophole, where we could potentially end up in a position where it is now going to be more difficult to make determinations. So I’m curious if any thought has been given to the potential reality that we may be looking at new capacity assessments.

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is outside the scope of the amendments again. These are about the liability for those health care workers delivering care assessments, etc.

Claire Rattée: With the repeal of deemed consent, does treatment now require substitute decision-maker consent for incapable patients? Does that affect that at all?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No. Again, the consent regime remains the same.

Claire Rattée: Does the minister acknowledge that repeal may create situations where a person is detained but cannot be treated?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, the consent regime remains unchanged.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll start off with an easy one. I’m not sure who determines the titles of each of these sections. I’ll note section 31 is amended but the title reads: “Deemed consent to treatment and request for a second opinion.” So will the legislation change remove the “deemed consent to treatment” portion of that title for section 31?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, the section title does change and becomes “Request for a second opinion.”

Jeremy Valeriote: Did the government consult with Dr. Daniel Vigo in drafting these amendments, please?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Asked and answered.

Jeremy Valeriote: Seven months ago the chief scientific officer issued guidance for health care workers on the use of the Mental Health Act for involuntary treatment. In this guidance document, Dr. Vigo referenced section 31 of the Mental Health Act 22 times. He did not reference section 8 once in this guidance. He clearly stated that the authority and protection of providing involuntary treatment does not need legislative changes.

Can the minister explain the validity of the chief scientific officer’s guidance issued seven months ago and its reliance on section 31, given the decision to repeal section 31?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Asked and answered.

Jeremy Valeriote: Section 31 has been a keystone of Dr. Vigo’s guidance. Again, it was referenced 22 times in his 11-page guidance document from March 12. Section 8 wasn’t referenced once. Is the chief scientific officer aware that his guidance might have limited validity given these changes?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Asked and answered. He will update the document.

[4:05 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: We recognize that additional guidance on the use of the Mental Health Act is still coming from Dr. Vigo. How will the removal of 31(1) impact the trajectory of the chief scientific officer’s work?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Outside the scope of these amendments.

Claire Rattée: Given the fact that…. I know we’ve canvassed the need to now update these guidance documents, and they’re substantial. There are a lot. Almost every single document that the government or health authorities produce does reference section 31 as being the section that provides the authority to treat.

I am still, personally, at odds with the fact that that always seems to have been the interpretation, that that section is the section that provides the authority. I understand that, from a legal standpoint, it’s actually providing the liability protection, but the understanding is that that was the section that provided it.

Knowing that we’re going to have to go through this whole process now of updating all of these guidelines, I would assume, of retraining staff, I’m wondering if the minister could please provide an estimate on costs associated with this and what the timeline is going to be like to actually see that change rolled out.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Notifying staff is certainly going to be required, and retraining staff is not going to be required. Changes to documents will be updated as quickly as possible, and the costs will be minimal.

Claire Rattée: I mean, I think “minimal” may be subjective, considering the fact that, like I said, there are a substantial number of documents. I’m assuming many of them are in print. Obviously, updating stuff digitally will be fairly simple to do.

I do have some concerns around the thought that staff wouldn’t have to be retrained because, again, all of the clinical guidance has said that section 31(1) is the section that provides that authority. I could imagine that if I was a clinician, I would have some concerns around these changes being made without any sort of ability to be able to speak to the ministry on that prior to the decision being made.

We canvassed this already, around the lack of consultation with those clinicians. So I would, personally, struggle a little bit to believe that it’s going to be a very minimal cost and that there wouldn’t be any retraining of staff that would be required.

One thing I would ask is: how will the government protect clinicians from legal vulnerability during this transition? I do have some significant concerns that this could create a fair bit of uncertainty and legal vulnerability for them. So what is the government’s plan to be able to address that?

Hon. Josie Osborne: With respect to the transition, in effect, it’s almost instant, and it is instant upon royal assent. As the bill is currently drafted, the protection for health care workers, that liability waiver…. Provided that they are delivering care in good faith with reasonable care, that liability provision is explicitly stated in section 16.

There is no introduction of legal vulnerability. I would maintain that, in fact, this strengthens and makes more robust the protection that is there. That really is the heart of these amendments.

[4:10 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to briefly return to the chief scientific officer for a moment. I understand the perspective that it’s out of scope, but the doctor has been referenced by the government hundreds of times when questioned about the guidance, intent and consultation of these changes. It’s important to understand the implication of these proposed amendments when they appear to differ from the minister’s expert’s own research and guidance documents.

I will move on. For decades, this ministry has used section 31(1) as a deemed-consent provision, not simply a liability shield. What will start to happen in units of practice if this change is made?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As answered previously, these amendments don’t impact clinical practice or the operation of the act.

Jeremy Valeriote: This act authorizes detaining people for an indefinite amount of time and confers an extraordinary amount of power for directors and health care workers to deliver treatment regardless of patient consent. Consent is deemed to be provided without a determination of capacity.

It seems like the chief scientific officer, medical professionals, the Premier and this ministry are uncertain where this enormous power to detain and treat derives from.

Can the minister explain where the power comes from and how the scope of the power is determined?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Asked and answered.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s been articulated in mental health guidance in 2005, referencing section 31, as deemed consent to provide psychiatric treatment to an involuntarily committed patient, and has been articulated in guidance as recently as seven months ago.

Why is the government arguing only now that the intent behind section 31(1) was just protection against liability for health care workers?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Asked and answered.

Jeremy Valeriote: Coming into this at this point, I’m trying to imagine why these supposed issues weren’t addressed any time in the past 45 years or even in the past decade while this court case has been underway. This government only just switched its court strategy a few months ago. It seems like the government is content knowing that there is no strategy and therefore is unaware of the potential impacts of such a change.

How is this government ensuring that involuntarily admitted patients have access to independent rights advisers amidst these changes?

Hon. Josie Osborne: That is outside the scope of these amendments.

Jeremy Valeriote: There are over 75 facilities where this act is applied. There are over 3,000 people in the province on extended leave. When the Lieutenant Governor nods her head, will the system be ready to adapt to these changes?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes. Again, this is the movement of an implicit liability shield from section 31(1) to an explicit, more robust waiver or shield, provided again that that treatment is provided in good faith and with reasonable care.

Jeremy Valeriote: We may disagree about the future of psychiatric health care in B.C., and we may have different ideas for the parameters of involuntary treatment, but we should return to process. Any changes to legislation so consequential should be done with a clear plan guided by the voices of experts, health care professionals and people with lived experience.

The Charter challenge is fundamentally about an act that needs better safeguards in place. This is to ensure people get treated who need it and that they are treated with dignity when they receive care. The mental health treatment regime in B.C. provides enormous power to health care workers to deliver professional services or care or treatment to involuntarily admitted patients.

[4:15 p.m.]

For decades, section 31(1) has been seen as the authority to provide treatment through deemed consent. Any changes to this regime must be done with a clear plan, and removing section 31(1) seems to be a very big change with limited understanding of the impacts, as no consultation with health care workers has taken place.

Through extensive debate on this bill, is the minister confident that these proposed changes won’t have unintended consequences on the mental health care system in B.C., particularly as it relates to the way clinicians provide treatment and to patient safety?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As canvassed previously, these amendments are focused on the protection of health care workers and a provision of a liability shield when delivering health care in good faith and with reasonable care. Nothing about the operation of the act, the delivery, the clinical practices that take place under the act are changing.

If or when the court requires changes, I concur with the member that that would need to be done with the utmost care, the engagement, the thoughtfulness that British Columbians would expect of us, in an act as important and sensitive as this one.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the reply that many things won’t change, including clinical practices. My concern is the sowing of confusion.

My question for the minister is: does the uncertainty that may be inherent, whether it’s perceived or real uncertainty, perception of uncertainty…? Is it possible that it causes treatment decision paralysis, as no professional wants to make a decision on patient safety, on patient treatment?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, this is about making that protection an explicit statement in section 16 of the act, should these amendments pass. This is about providing assurance to health care workers who, under the authority of the director of a facility, are providing treatment in good faith and with reasonable care — that they are protected, that they can continue to deliver the care to those individuals who have been assessed and for whom it is deemed that involuntary treatment is required.

Claire Rattée: Has the ministry assessed the Charter risk that could be arising from this repeal?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We actually think that this provides clarity, that it adds clarity, not adding uncertainty.

Claire Rattée: Would the minister be willing to table that assessment, which I’m assuming has been done, on the potential Charter risk arising from this?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, I cannot answer this explicitly. Any legal opinion is privileged.

Claire Rattée: What is the government’s plan if section 8 is struck down next? Has there been thought given to the potential implications of moving forward on this? It could potentially make it so that the Charter challenge now moves to section 8.

Has the government planned for that? Was there thought given to how to better protect that with the drafting of this legislation? Was that put into place? I would just like a clearer understanding of where the thought process is on how we’re going to approach that if that is the next reality that we’re facing.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Technically, I think this is outside the amendments again. But we did canvass this last week, and I did answer this question.

Claire Rattée: Respectfully, I think that this is within the scope of what we’re discussing, simply because, again, it gets to the crux of the issue around timing. Knowing that we’re facing this Charter challenge right now, knowing that potentially this could be fairly well outside of our hands regardless in very short order, I think that it’s important to understand what could or could not have been done in the drafting of this legislation to try and prevent a potential decision that could mean that involuntary treatment was no longer considered constitutional.

I know that we canvassed this last week, and I know that I asked the minister about the use of the notwithstanding clause as it relates to this, but I would just like to better understand, before I feel comfortable voting on something as consequential as this, whether or not there was anything else that could have been done to ensure that we are protected, that involuntary treatment of psychiatric patients is going to be protected. I know that that is the intention.

I would just like to better understand whether or not there was something more we could have done or if that avenue was at least explored, to ensure that we are protecting this from a Charter challenge as much as possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I’ve sat and listened to a lot of the debate that’s gone back and forth. The minister has answered this question, and she has talked about the work that’s been done, so I’d ask that you go down a new line of questioning.

Claire Rattée: I do understand that I’ve technically asked this question already. I feel as though it hasn’t been answered. Again, the reason that I think it’s relevant is because before I’m comfortable voting on something personally, I need to understand how this impacts everything that actually happens in practice.

I understand that the minister has unequivocally stated that this doesn’t change anything about the way that an incapable involuntary patient is treated, that this is not going to change clinical practices in reality and that everything will remain the same.

I would just like to ask again: after repeal of section 31(1), can a capable involuntary patient legally refuse treatment?

The Chair: The minister has answered that question as well, very clearly, especially with respect to providing legal opinion. Please go down another line of questioning. Thank you.

Claire Rattée: Respectfully, I don’t think I have received a response on this because I didn’t get a yes or no about whether or not a patient that is involuntarily detained but is considered capable can receive involuntary treatment under this act with the amendments. I still don’t have that clarity, and that’s why I would like that answered.

Again, I think it’s relevant in the sense that before I can comfortably vote on something, I need to understand whether or not those people are also going to be included in what’s actually going to be able to be carried out.

The Chair: I certainly hear your concerns, Member, but having sat and watched the debate and listened to it, that is a question that’s been answered.

Now recognizing the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Elenore Sturko: You got it, Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for allowing me time to ask a question.

With the change where we’re repealing subsection (1) of section 31 and now installing this new wording, is there some policy or other educational materials that will go part and parcel with these changes so that any health care workers…?

I know when we were debating this on second reading that many of us had deep concerns that the power for us to give involuntary came from section 31 with the wording that was there with the deemed consent.

Are there other materials that subsequently will be accompanying these changes to make sure that health care providers understand that nothing is changing for them and that the power to give involuntary care is coming from section 8 of the Mental Health Act?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Nice to see the member here. She wasn’t here when the question was asked previously by her colleague sitting to her right, so I will just, in a short way, say yes, health authorities and their staff will be notified of these changes and what they mean.

Elenore Sturko: I do appreciate that you have had to repeat yourself. I do know we’ve been canvassing this bill.

As my colleague has noted, these are changes…. We have a lot of people watching in British Columbia right now, trying to find out what we’re doing, trying to find out what the consequences of the challenge in court will be on the Mental Health Act. I’m happy to find out that, yes, there will be other educational components to this. But in terms of an overall, I guess….

Can the minister speak a little bit on what types of overarching educational, maybe, programs and stuff, going forward, might be available so that even British Columbians themselves understand a little bit more about what involuntary care is?

Where I will, I guess, qualify this is that even in our second reading debate, which we’ve moved on from, a lot of people don’t understand what the Mental Health Act even does. Oftentimes when we even talk about addiction, a lot of people immediately will see a lot of things coming into the media and a lot of social media talking about how people are against certain forms of treatment for addictions.

Right now in British Columbia, our primary way of treating people is under the Mental Health Act for mental illnesses. I know Dr. Vigo has himself talked, even…. He was at a conference we were at today, and he was talking about the ability to treat people with addictions under the Mental Health Act as well.

In terms of these changes, is there anything beyond health care workers that will help British Columbians understand where we’re going, what these changes are meant to be, so that we can actually bring the public along with us on this journey as these kinds of changes under the Mental Health Act get made?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I take the member’s point. It’s not my intention to obfuscate, but in respect of the process that we have in committee stage, that we are at on Bill 32 with these amendments, I would respectfully say that’s outside the scope of those amendments.

At the same time, I do want to acknowledge the concern that she expresses and generally agree that it is always important to bring British Columbians along in their understanding of what involuntary care is and, as importantly, what our system of mental health supports and voluntary care is in the province.

Claire Rattée: I have just a few more questions on this clause. My first one would be: when will the repeal come into force? I know that that is outlined in clause 3, but just for the record, when will this repeal come into force?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As currently drafted, upon royal assent.

Claire Rattée: Will treatment authorizations that were issued before this repeal remain valid?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes.

Claire Rattée: Does the minister anticipate all psychiatric patients, both in hospital and in community, to now need to undergo new capacity tests?

Hon. Josie Osborne: No.

Claire Rattée: I understand we’ve canvassed whether or not clinicians and similar types of positions will need training, moving forward. Again, I will just state for the record that I understand that the minister has stated that they will not need any new training, and I will state for the record that I have concerns around that.

I also would like to ask, around police and paramedics, any kind of first responders: will there be any new training that is needed on the new legal framework, again, to avoid any situations in which we may have some hand-wringing going on and concerns around whether or not they still have the ability to treat?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s important, as the member notes, that any health care provider or care provider providing treatment under the direction of the director of a mental health facility, again, in good faith and with reasonable care, understands what these changes are and what they mean. To that end, the communication that’s required to go out to all those types of providers will be undertaken.

The member and I may just disagree on what the difference is between training and understanding or being notified and knowing. But I take the member’s point, and yeah, that’s very important, and it will happen.

Claire Rattée: Similar to my previous question, have we done any kind of an analysis on what the cost is going to look like for putting out these materials for — I guess it wouldn’t be considered retraining them — just notifying first responders and clinicians about the changes? Has there been any analysis undertaken about what those costs are going to look like?

The main reason that I’m asking this is because, again, we’ve gone over this before, but at this point in time, we don’t know what is going to happen with the Charter challenge. We don’t know what’s happening with the Mental Health Act review. So it could be considered, as I think it is by most of my colleagues on this side, a bit premature for us to be moving forward with this.

I understand the minister has stated that these costs are not substantial, but I would like to really understand what they are. We’re in a time of fiscal constraint right now in this province. So any actions being taken that are going to have a monetary implication and that could be taken prematurely….

If we’re going to, then, three months from now, six months from now, even a year from now have to reprint all of these materials, have to redistribute, I would like to understand what those costs actually look like before we move forward with something like this, in case there is any potential that down the road we’re going to have to do it all over again. I think the chance of that is quite likely.

Again, are we looking at $100? Are we looking at $100,000? I would like to have a bit of an understanding around what the actual cost implication is.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It would be impossible to provide a precise estimate of what the costs are, but I would note that updating materials digitally, of course, comes at the lowest cost. Printed copies of things do have a cost associated with them.

Government is continually in the process of ensuring that materials are updated — websites, printed materials, digital forms, items of that nature. It is part of the normal course of business and important to do, so that people understand what the changes are.

Claire Rattée: Given the fact that it was just in March of this year that this guidance for physicians on the use of the Mental Health Act when treating adults with substance use disorders was brought forward by the chief scientific adviser to the ministry, that’s fairly recent.

Again, I know we’ve talked about this a little bit, but I’m curious. At that point, my assumption has to be that the Ministry of Health did not foresee these changes being necessary, this upcoming…. If they did, then why was a decision not made to advise Dr. Vigo on not referencing section 31(1) in this document before it was put out?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We canvassed the timeline of the development of this legislation last week.

Claire Rattée: I would like to move an amendment on clause 2.

[CLAUSE 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 31 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1), and

(b) in subsection (2) by striking out “A patient to whom subsection (1) applies,” and substituting “A patient who is detained in a designated facility under section 22, 28, 29, 30, or 42 or is released on leave or is transferred to an approved home under section 37 or 39,”., and

(4) for certainty, nothing in this section limits the authority of a director under section 8 to authorize treatment without consent of a patient detained under this Act where treatment is necessary to prevent serious deterioration or harm to the patient.]

The Chair: If you’d like to speak to the amendment, please go ahead.

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: In my opinion, this prevents a legal vacuum by confirming that section 8 does, in fact, include treatment authority for detained patients where necessary to prevent serious deterioration or harm.

[4:35 p.m.]

The minister has repeatedly claimed that section 8 is already the source of treatment authority. If that is true, this amendment simply clarifies their own interpretation and stabilizes law. If it’s considered unnecessary, it is harmless, in my opinion, and there is no reason to reject clarity on such an important topic. If it’s considered out of scope, directly consequential to the repeal of section 31(1), clarifying the effect of the repeal within the same statutory scheme is important.

I’ve spoken to this quite a bit already, but I do believe that clarity is more important than ever right now. Both the minister and I agree that part of the reason that we find ourselves in this challenging mess right now is because there is not enough clarity around the Mental Health Act, around involuntary treatment of psychiatric patients, and it has created quite a few problems for clinicians, for patients and for the government.

That is the whole reason that we’re facing this Charter challenge right now. It’s the whole reason that this two- or three-clause amendment to the Mental Health Act has taken a significant amount of time, because there are really serious potential implications here if we don’t get this right.

I think that for the sake of clarity, for the sake of the clinicians that are going to have to now interpret these changes, this does provide that clarity that section 8 is the section that provides them the authority to be able to treat involuntarily.

If they had been consulted on this, I believe that most clinicians would agree that this kind of amendment is welcome to make sure that they feel very confident that these liability protections will, in fact, protect them and that these amendments are welcome because. given what we’re facing with the Charter challenge, this will provide clarity for them.

For those reasons, I would like to see this amendment move forward.

The Chair: The committee will take a brief five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order. We’re on the amendment to clause 2, which has been deemed in order.

Minister, do you have any comments?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, I appreciate the intention of the member here, but similarly with several of the past amendments, it adds a redundancy that really is inconsistent with legislative drafting principles.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will call the question.

Division has been called.

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall the amendment to clause 2 moved by the member for Skeena pass?

[4:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3
Kooner	Mok	Williams
NAYS — 6
Routledge	Osborne	Kang
Choi	Greene	Valeriote

Claire Rattée: I understand what the minister had said previously about how the amendment that I put forward seemed like a redundancy. I do understand that there are basic principles that need to be adhered to when you’re drafting legislation, and I understand that redundancy can cause a problem.

But again, I would say that both the minister and I seem to be in agreement on the fact that there is a lack of clarity currently around these sections of the Mental Health Act and where the authority comes from to provide involuntary treatment to psychiatric patients.

I am wondering if the minister could advise me on whether or not, if I moved an amendment that was worded slightly differently to remove some of the extra stuff about where it’s necessary to prevent serious deterioration or harm to the patient, and we kept it very simple — that nothing in this section limits the authority of a director under section 8 to authorize treatment for a patient detained under this act — that would be something that the minister would entertain.

The reason is that I think it’s much simpler and much clearer. Personally, I do not see any redundancy here, simply because I think that it clarifies for clinicians exactly where that authority comes from. Given the fact that this is the current piece of legislation in front of us, and this is what people are going to be paying attention to, clinicians included, I think that it would provide a greater level of certainty.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just before I provide an answer, I want to be clear that while I would share the assertion that there’s a lack of clarity around the liability shield, I would not share the assertion that there’s a lack of understanding or clarity about where the authority for involuntary comes from.

As we canvassed quite a bit last week, the way that section 8 and section 31(1) have come to work together in a scheme of involuntary care…. Again, I want to assert that nothing in this bill defeats the Charter challenge that’s before the courts right now.

With respect to the questions, Member, around an amendment, it is not for me to…. It is her decision as to whether or not to bring an amendment forward, and I will, of course, listen to the case that she makes should she choose to do that.

Claire Rattée: I don’t have a ton of questions left, but I would like to just shift briefly here to the amendments that were made to the Mental Health Act in 2022 and how that interplays with what’s before us today.

My understanding is that many of those amendments are going to be coming into force very soon but haven’t yet. I’m wondering if there is anything that could potentially be in conflict between the two pieces of legislation, if there’s any bearing that either has on the other.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Respectfully, this is out of the scope of today’s proposed amendments.

Claire Rattée: The reason that I’m asking it, just to provide context for why I think it is in scope, is that I’m curious if…. Given the fact that some of those new pieces haven’t actually come into effect yet, was there thought given to how this may potentially impact those changes that are going to be forthcoming before drafting this legislation?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, these amendments are very specific to the liability waiver for the delivery of health care by professionals and health care workers, so the question is outside of the scope of that amendment.

Brennan Day: Respectfully, the 2022 amendments are taking effect on the third, which is a couple of days from today. So I’m just wondering. They focused on rights and patient rights and involuntary care and what the duty of the province was to inform patients of what rights they had under the bill. The bill we’re talking about today is firming up liability for those people that are getting sectioned under the bill.

So I guess I’ll try and ask the question slightly differently. If the 2022 amendments that are coming into effect two days from now are aimed at safeguarding patient rights and autonomy, why wasn’t provider immunity addressed then, or is this to make up for that change?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The question around timeline of the bill has been asked and answered.

The Chair: I do encourage the members to move on to a different line of questioning at this time, please.

Claire Rattée: At this point, I would like to try and move another amendment, please, that has slightly different, slightly softer wording compared to the amendment that I brought forward previously, and again, for the exact same reasons that I had stated before.

[CLAUSE 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 31 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1), and

(b) in subsection (2) by striking out “A patient to whom subsection (1) applies,” and substituting “A patient who is detained in a designated facility under 22, 28, 29, 30, or 42 or is released on leave or is transferred to an approved home under section 37 or 39,”., and

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: I do think that there is a significant lack of clarity around where the authority is actually given within the act. I struggle with the idea that both sections have always worked in tandem to provide authority, yet, section 8 isn’t referenced in any of the materials that have been put forward by the government, by the health authorities, by the chief scientific adviser.

So I apologize. I know that this probably feels very redundant, but I really would urge people to give thought to how important it may be in the long run to actually clarify this for clinicians, for patients and for the legal community about where this authority is actually coming from.

The Chair: This committee will go into recess very briefly while copies of the amendment are made for the members. I have 17:03. If I can see everybody back in their seats by 17:07, please.

The committee recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

We are in discussion around the amendment to clause 2 as moved by the member for Skeena.

Do you wish to make any comments, Member?

Claire Rattée: I think I’ve made most of the comments previously, because obviously, this is very similar to the amendment I already moved. I would just, again, state for the record that the reason I’m bringing this forward is to try and clear up some of the ambiguity that I do believe exists around where treatment authority comes from. I would really like to provide clinicians with that certainty.

I do appreciate that the minister and the Chair have indulged me to try and go through this process again here. Really, quite simply, I still have significant concerns at this point that that authority piece is not clear.

Again, I understand that I’m not a doctor and that I wasn’t trained as a doctor, so my interpretation of this act may be different from what a doctor’s is, but I would still say that I spent a significant amount of time researching and preparing for this and reading through the Mental Health Act, and my interpretation is still exceptionally unclear about where that authority is actually coming from, and I really want to try and avoid any possible negative, unintended consequences.

I will state that I understand that that would not be in the intended consequences from this ministry. I do have fears that it could potentially result in that, so that is why I’m hoping that this amendment will pass.

The Chair: This amendment has been found to be in order.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I want to spend a little bit more time on this and not just give the same answer that I’ve given for the previous amendments, although the answer is effectively the same.

First of all, I really want to thank the member for…. She has put a lot of time and effort and thought into this. What I am seeing is a consistent request to reduce the ambiguity or to feel more certain that the core scheme of involuntary care indeed does lie in section 8 and that placing a reference to that in the act somewhere provides peace of mind.

It is a challenging situation to be in, I think, when reviewing legislation and making amendments. I, of course, as minister, have the benefit of lots of different minds and legal advice, and that is not the same for all members of the House.

I would maintain again that the authority does exist in section 8 and that it does not need to be referred to, and that this amendment, if passed…. Actually, what remains in section 31, then, is the wording around second opinion. The additional section actually might be viewed as being incongruent with that, but it doesn’t take away from the intention, I think, of the member.

Again, from 1964 to 1981 in our province, we have had involuntary care that has operated with the authority coming from section 8. In 1981, as the result of a court case in the Supreme Court of Canada, an additional measure was taken to assure health care workers who provide treatment were protected from tort claims of assault and battery. Why they chose to do it in section 31 and not in section 16 I guess we may be left wondering for a while, but that is what they chose to do.

Over time, section 31(1) has come to be colloquially known as the deemed-consent provision, and it has created confusion. It is the confusion that is the source of the amendments that I am proposing through this bill, in order to make that implicit liability shield that exists explicit. That is the sole purpose of these amendments.

Nothing about this bill defeats the Charter challenge that is before the court. As we have canvassed previously, it is possible…. Although, obviously, the province is hopeful to win, it is possible that involuntary care, the regime, could be struck down entirely, in which case, one of several things may happen.

What we are doing is mitigating the risk that a health care worker feels a chill effect or is uncertain about care that they would provide because that implicit liability provision could be struck as part of the involuntary care regime, the Charter challenge. We don’t want that to happen.

So again, coming back to this amendment, we believe that the authority exists, that it exists in section 8 and that it is not necessary to explicitly reference it in a way that is redundant and is inconsistent with legislative drafting principles.

[5:15 p.m.]

I understand that’s also a frustrating answer to hear. Like the member, I am not a lawyer either, so I also proceed on the best advice for me as well. Understanding that the finer interpretations of the way legislation is drafted has been the substance of court cases since Canada became a country and we debated and created legislation is a responsibility that every member in this House takes really seriously.

Again, I appreciate the member’s intention, but I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Chair: Members, seeing no further discussion, there is an amendment to clause 2. Shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

The Chair: The committee…. We’ve got everybody here. Is it all right with everybody if we waive?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will waive the remainder of the time.

The question is the amendment to clause 2 moved by the member for Skeena.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Kooner	Valeriote	Mok
	Williams
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Osborne	Kang
Choi		Greene

The Chair: Okay, I’m just going to give the room a moment to reset, please.

Clause 2 approved.

Claire Rattée: I have a couple of amendments that I would like to move that are between clauses 2 and 3.

I will start with the first one here. It would be for a new clause 2.2.

[NEW CLAUSE 2.2, by adding the underlined text as shown:

2.2 The following section is added:

Guidelines

31.2 The minister must publish guidelines in respect of the process for obtaining consent, assessing incapacity, and authorizing treatment of a patient detained under this Act on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the minister.]

The Chair: You can speak to it now if you like.

Claire Rattée: I believe that this is about the safe implementation portion of this. We’ve canvassed this at great length. I think that it’s irresponsible to repeal deemed consent without telling clinicians how to lawfully proceed the next day. I understand that the minister disagrees with my characterization of this, but I do believe that it’s important. Again, I think that this is a step that clinicians would likely welcome.

This amendment does not prescribe the content of the policy. It simply prevents an abrupt legal vacuum. I think that if the minister’s feeling is that there will be guidelines anyway, if that’s the case, then there should be no objection to committing to statute, especially on an issue that is this serious.

A number of the amendments that I have proposed and a number of the amendments that I will propose are along the same vein of trying to make sure that we have legal clarity for clinicians and for patients alike. I think that part of the problem that we’re facing right now is a lack of clarity around how these determinations are made.

I hope that the minister would be in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: Okay, we will take a short recess of four minutes, which, again, gives us to 17:32 on my watch.

The committee recessed from 5:29 p.m. to 5:33 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I call the committee back to order. This amendment has been carefully reviewed and appears to be outside of the scope of this particular Mental Health Amendment Act, Bill 32. So it’s outside of the scope.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Claire Rattée: I have another amendment. I’m worried that maybe the same thing will happen, then, but I will try anyways.

This would be, again, an amendment that would be moved between clauses 2 and 3.

[NEW CLAUSE 2.3, by adding the underlined text as shown:

2.3 The following section is added:

Reporting

31.3 (a) The minister must prepare a report describing the manner in which treatment decisions respect of a detained patient must be carried out.

(b) Upon completion of a report referred to under (a), the minister must, as soon as practicable, table the report in the Legislative Assembly if then sitting, or deposit the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is not then sitting.]

The reason that I’m bringing this forward is because this amendment introduces basic transparency and oversight without interfering in individual clinical decisions. It allows the Legislature, patients and the public to see how often this immunity is used and whether there are recurrent concerns.

It provides a coherent and public explanation of what replaces deemed consent rather than leaving that buried in internal memos or verbal statements. It supports the clinicians and the families who need clarity. I think that at this point, government can’t credibly argue against such minimal transparency where fundamental rights and involuntary treatment are involved.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to speak to the amendment?

Committee is in recess for…. I’ll give you five minutes this time.

The committee recessed from 5:35 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

In reviewing the amendment to the Mental Health Amendment Act, the amendment is found to be, again, out of scope beyond….

Oops. Where’d she go?

We will take a very brief recess while we find the member.

The committee recessed from 5:39 p.m. to 5:42 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. The amendment that was brought forward is found to be out of the scope of this bill.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, I have another amendment.

I’m feeling this one will also be out of order, then.

[NEW CLAUSE 2.4, by adding the underlined text as shown:

2.4 The following section is added:

Designation of substitute decision maker

31.4 (1) A patient, who, during or following treatment under this Act, regains decision-making capacity in respect of consent to treatment may, while capable, designate a substitute decision maker in the event of patient’s incapacity in the future:

(2) Within 1 year of the coming into force of this section, the minister must establish processes respecting making a designation under subsection (1), including, but not limited to processes to

(a) ensure voluntariness of a patient,

(b) permit revocation by a patient,

(d) communicate a designation to a director or prescribed facility.

(3) The minister must, as soon as practicable, publish the processes established under subsection (2) on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the minister.]

The reason that I am bringing this one forward is actually because it’s based on legislation that has worked well in Alberta.

It’s specifically…. I know I’ve made a number of references to the issues around — I hope I pronounce it properly; I’m still not confident that I am, but Google says I am — anosognosia, wherein a patient that has psychiatric illnesses will convince themselves that they are okay, that they don’t need treatment anymore. Specifically, and particularly when they are undergoing treatment that has alleviated their symptoms, they’ll convince themselves that they do not any longer need to proceed with treatment.

I’m hoping that we can bring something in that would try to alleviate those issues and concerns in that they would be able to designate somebody as a substitute decision-maker on their behalf in the event that that might happen. They would be able to ensure at that point that we don’t end up in a situation where people that need treatment aren’t able to access it because of their disabilities.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess. Four minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:44 p.m. to 5:46 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

This amendment is found to be out of order as it is beyond the scope of this bill as was agreed to at the second reading.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: Member for Skeena on clause 3.

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for indulging me. I have another amendment.

This amendment would add a section 3.01.

The Chair: Let me clarify. Is this on clause 3?

Claire Rattée: This is between 2 and 3. I’m almost done with those, I promise.

[NEW CLAUSE 3.01, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Review

3.01 (1) Within 12 months after the date of section 1 of this Act comes into force, the minister must establish guidelines respecting the assessment of capacity for treatment under the Mental Health Act, including guidance of:

(a) fluctuating or episodic capacity;

(b) impaired insight, including anosognosia;

(2) The minister must make the guidelines made under subsection (1) available on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the minister and provide the guidelines to all designated facilities and directors.]

The reason for this is that it’s about modernizing capacity assessment in light of severe mental illness, anosognosia and toxic drug–related brain injury. It does not expand involuntary powers. It simply requires the minister to give clinicians clear, up-to-date guidance on how to assess capacity in psychiatric cases, which is currently a glaring gap, in my opinion.

It directly supports both patient rights and safe, timely treatment by ensuring that capacity decisions are consistent and evidence-based.

The Chair: If I may clarify with the member, it looks like this is 3.01. Are you adding that to clause 3?

Claire Rattée: I apologize. I was also a bit confused. This is advice I was given by the Law Clerk, that those would be between 2 and 3. I also read it as it should be on 3, so I would defer to your judgment on that, because this is new to me. But I also was a little bit confused about that.

The Chair: At this time, we will take a brief recess of four minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:49 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call this committee back to order. My apologies for interfering with conversation.

Having reviewed the amendment to Bill 32, it is deemed to be out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Claire Rattée: I apologize. I’m almost done with these, I promise. Maybe this one will be considered in order.

I would like to move a new clause around the timeline for review of the act, and it’ll be:

[NEW CLAUSE 3.03, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Timeline for review of Act

3.03 Within 6 months after the coming into force of this Act, the minister must publish, on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the minister, a timeline for completing a review of the Mental Health Act.]

I think that it’s pretty clear why I’m looking to include this within this piece of legislation, and that is because I do have significant concerns that the review of the Mental Health Act, in my opinion, should have been undertaken prior to bringing this legislation forward. So I would appreciate clarity around a timeline on the review of that act, because it does directly relate to this piece of legislation.

We canvassed this previously. But the potential implications of going through that review and how that interplays with what’s been proposed here, what was proposed in 2022, the timelines on how long it took even with those amendments from 2022 to actually come into effect — I think that this is all interrelated.

I think that the public would appreciate having the ability to understand when that review will be taking place and what the timeline is going to look like and what the parameters are around it, given the fact that beyond the original announcement of that review, we haven’t really seen anything else further.

I hope that this one will be in order.

The Chair: Very good. This committee will take a five-minute recess while the amendment is being reviewed.

The committee recessed from 5:54 p.m. to 5:59 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. Calling this committee back to order.

I have found the amendment to be out of order — again beyond the scope of Bill 32 as agreed to in the second reading.

Amendment ruled out of order.

[6:00 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I would like to table an amendment, please.

[CLAUSE 3, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

3 This Act comes into force on the date that is 12 months after the date of Royal Assent.]

Can I find out if it’s in order first and then speak to it?

The Chair: Let’s get you to speak to it while we’re doing the initial assessment.

On the amendment.

Jeremy Valeriote: Since its inception, section 31 has been the operative section that enables the director to direct treatment with deemed consent of the patient. This was also this government’s understanding, along with the chief scientific officer’s understanding, of the intent and application of section 31(1). Directives issued by and for this government over the past 20 years have detailed as much.

This government only changed this narrative in the last few months of an ongoing Charter challenge. Apparently, the only intent and application of section 31(1) is protection of liability for health care workers engaging in the involuntary treatment of patients held under the Mental Health Act. But this has not been the case through government directives.

There are over 75 facilities in B.C. that operate under the Mental Health Act. The health system is unprepared to adapt to these amendments. Through the many hours of debates, we have failed to gain clarity on the question: why the rush? And we have failed to understand who was consulted and how these changes will be rolled out.

As the health system and the front-line workers that are responsible for the operation of this act are unprepared to deal with these changes, we believe it is wise for this government to delay commencement. So the amendment calls for delay of 12 months ahead of commencement of this act.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will take a four-minute recess while this amendment is considered.

The committee recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:04 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. This amendment is found to be in order.

Would the minister care to speak on it?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yeah. Thank you to the member for putting forth the amendment.

I think this gives me the opportunity to bring together a number of things that have been said over the past several hours and days of debate about this bill.

Again, I do want to return, first and foremost, to the purpose of the amendments. They are around protecting health care workers with certainty and providing reassurance to patients and families who require care and treatment under the act that they are getting the care they need.

[6:05 p.m.]

As we’ve canvassed several times, these are amendments that will clarify and strengthen the provisions and protections under the act for those front-line workers. We have talked quite a bit throughout the course of this debate around the Charter challenge that is currently before the courts. Again, I want to be very clear that this bill does not negate the arguments in the case.

Section 31(1) remains in the act. Let me put it this way. Should Bill 32 fail and section 31(1) remains in the act until the court rules — it will remain until the court rules — and if the court strikes down section 31(1), health care workers may be exposed to civil liability for claims when they are providing involuntary care.

The government would then rely on seeking a suspension of the court’s decision to allow the time to amend the act, but there’s no guarantee that the court will provide a suspension. There’s also no guarantee or certainty as to exactly when a court decision will be rendered.

Involuntary treatment — the authority remains under section 8, as it has since 1964, but the legal uncertainty in terms of liability could cause operational hesitation amongst the clinicians, amongst the people that provide this care. This is the risk that we want to mitigate through these amendments. Without that explicit liability protection, we would not want to see clinicians delaying or avoiding treatment for involuntary patients. This could create serious risks of deterioration or harm to people.

While I appreciate the argument that the member has put forward in support of the amendment, I cannot support it, because it is imperative that it come into force upon royal assent so that when the court case is decided, regardless of the outcome, we can provide that assurance to health care providers that they can continue that continuity of care for people who are involuntarily detained under the act and — provided, again, of course, that they provide this care in good faith and with reasonable care — that they are protected explicitly from tort claims of assault and battery.

We feel this is the prudent and responsible thing to do. This is why we have brought the amendments forward at this time. I’ll leave it at that.

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 3. The question is: with the amendment to clause 3, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[6:10 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Okay. We have 56 seconds left. If the committee is in agreement, we will waive the remaining time.

Leave granted.

The Chair: We have in front of us…. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall the amendment, as proposed, to clause 3 pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Valeriote	Mok	Maahs
	Williams
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Osborne	Kang
Choi		Greene

Hon. Josie Osborne: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

Contents