Contents

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Christine Boyle.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: Mahatma Gandhi once said: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” It is my sincere pleasure to make the introduction today of two amazing people and the wonderful organization they represent in Victoria. Kathleen Alexander is the operations manager for the Soup Kitchen, and she is accompanied today by volunteer Rossana Bortignon.

The Soup Kitchen was started by Murray and Edna Black 43 years ago. They had seen two men digging in dumpsters to get food, and they wanted to contribute to those less fortunate. They started making soup, and here we are 43 years later.

The Soup Kitchen is located in the basement of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, yet they are non-denominational. They offer food to anyone who is hungry in Victoria. They make fresh, protein-rich soup each day. They make fresh sandwiches each day. And they are happy to serve donated sweets and bread from Cobs bakery.

The Soup Kitchen consists of about 100 volunteers and one part-time operations manager. They are almost entirely a volunteer-run soup kitchen. Diners consist of older folks who live on a fixed income, the working poor, those living out of their cars and the unhoused. We thank this wonderful organization for all they have done and continue to do.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome, to Kathleen and Rossana, who are here today.

The Speaker: Members, if you can keep your introductions short and concise.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are joined today by another valued member of the public service. Billal Adam is the capital information officer of corporate services and community capital development within the Ministry of Infrastructure.

He is here today with his wife, Kendal Adam, and they are celebrating their wedding anniversary. They have chosen to spend it here with us in question period, so let us all please make them feel very welcome, and let’s show them a good time.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M227 — Business Practices
and Consumer Protection
(Greenwashing Prevention)
Amendment Act, 2025

Jeremy Valeriote presented a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment Act, 2025.

Jeremy Valeriote: I move that a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment Act, 2025, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Burning fossil fuels is linked to 34,000 premature deaths in Canada each year, a reminder that the climate crisis is also a public health crisis. Here in B.C., we are already living with the accelerating impacts of climate change: destructive wildfires that choke our communities with smoke, flooding and droughts that impact our food systems and watersheds and heat waves that put our lives at risk.

Yet despite this reality, greenwashing is everywhere. Companies increasingly describe their products as clean, eco-friendly, low-emission or net zero without any credible evidence. These misleading claims hide the true health and environmental risks of fossil fuel use. They undermine B.C.’s climate commitments, distort public understanding and delay the urgent action we need.

[10:10 a.m.]

Just as tobacco advertising was banned because of its impacts to human health, it’s time to regulate fossil fuel advertising. When an industry’s marketing puts people at risk, government has a responsibility to act.

Today I’m proud to rise and introduce a bill designed to curb false and misleading advertising by the fossil fuel industry. This legislation is urgently needed as the federal government prepares to weaken critical anti-greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. Without strong rules, misleading claims will continue to slow climate action and confuse the public.

This bill establishes clear standards for environmental claims, requires peer-reviewed science to support them and introduces meaningful penalties for false or deceptive advertising. It ensures transparency and accountability so British Columbians can trust the information they receive.

I ask members to recognize the value of evidence-based accountability and allow this bill to proceed to second reading.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Bill M228 — Freedom Convoy
Recognition Day Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Freedom Convoy Recognition Day Act.

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

The Freedom Convoy Recognition Day Act establishes a new public holiday in British Columbia. The bill’s purpose is to recognize the achievements of the Freedom Convoy, one of the largest peaceful demonstrations in Canadian history. It inspired movements across the globe to stand against lockdowns and government overreach.

This bill designates March 11 as an annual statutory holiday in British Columbia because March 11 marks the day, just seven weeks after the convoy began, that British Columbia began rolling back COVID-19 mandates. Mask mandates were lifted. Faith communities could meet again. Families were able to visit residents in long-term care.

Again, the purpose of this bill is to recognize the moment a divided nation began to heal. I invite all members to join me in recognizing the achievements of Canada’s Freedom Convoy by supporting the creation of Freedom Convoy recognition day.

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

Division has been called.

[10:15 a.m. - 10:20 a.m.]

Members, I would like to remind all the members participating remotely to keep your cameras and mics on.

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

[10:25 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 87
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Wilson	Kindy
Milobar	Warbus	Rustad
Banman	Wat	Kooner
Halford	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Clare	K. Neufeld	Brodie
Armstrong	Bhangu	Paton
Gasper	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
McCall	Stamer	Tepper
Mok	Chapman	Maahs
Kealy	Sturko	Boultbee
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Doerkson	Luck	Block
NAYS — 2
Valeriote		Botterell

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I ask leave today to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Diana Gibson: Today is GivingTuesday, and in the House, we have two of the many amazing non-profits that are the heartbeat of all of our communities.

First, we have a few members from the United Way: Danella Parks, Signy Madden and Erik Lambertson. The United Way helps address many of the most pressing needs in our region. I’ve had the great pleasure of working with them in the non-profit sector, ranging from the Better at Home program to out-of-school time supports that many use.

In the House, we also have Melissa Masse, engagement specialist for Habitat for Humanity. I had the pleasure of opening their Habitat for Humanity gingerbread showcase earlier this week. They do an incredible job of building and providing affordable home ownership across the region.

In a time of such rising costs and growing needs and increasing division, these organizations remind us that the antidote to division is connection and that we build hope by showing up for one another.

Thank you for what you do.

Finally, I also have a school here, Glenlyon Norfolk, from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Would the House make all of these guests feel welcome.

Question of Privilege

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today to raise a point of privilege, and if it pleases the House, I could give a brief explanation.

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Okay. According to provisions outlined in Parliamentary Practice, in chapter 17, particularly 17.4, privileges of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia include individual privileges enjoyed by members only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House. One collective privilege includes the right to regulate its own proceedings and own affairs.

It also outlines that parliamentary privilege does not exist for the personal benefit of members. It exists to protect members in the full exercise of their parliamentary duties on behalf of those they represent, their constituents.

Further to that, in section 17.5, contempt of parliament is an offence against the dignity and authority of parliament. An example given: generally speaking, any act or mission which obstructs or impedes either the House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt, even though there is no precedent of the offence.

Just to give a little bit more infill context, it states: “The Legislative Assembly may treat as contempt any act or omission that, although not a breach of privilege, may obstruct the Legislative Assembly collectively in the performance of its functions.”

[10:30 a.m.]

I would just like to say that the performative politics by such few members of this House as to take up blocks of time calling divisions when a vote is clearly going to pass on a voice vote and we have business that we’d like to finish — many people have extended their time to be here so close to the holidays to complete really important work and legislation that’s actually going to affect people in the province of British Columbia — in order to get a clip on social media is not an effective use of this House’s time.

I’d like a ruling on that or the right to potentially debate that point of privilege, if the Speaker sees fit or the House sees that it’s due.

Dallas Brodie: May I respond to this point of privilege?

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Dallas Brodie: I would like to point out that a great deal of time is taken up each day in this House with introductions and statements that largely waste a lot of time in this Legislative Assembly. If there were going to be any cutback on what goes on here, that would be the more appropriate place to curtail the time of members. We spend approximately an hour every morning here with birthday wishes, love to our families, and so on. That is really not appropriate for a legislative assembly, in my view.

What I would like to say is that if the presentation of bills is really what we’re here to do — to present views that matter to the electorate and the people of British Columbia — I would argue against this point of privilege.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the points, the comments by the Opposition House Leader and also comments by the Leader of the Fourth Party.

I do think there is some opportunity to deal with some of the issues and, obviously, the privilege issue that the member raises. Importantly, you’ve indicated that there may be an opportunity — I know other members — when we’re actually all in the chamber, on the ten minutes for example, for an easier ability to determine: is it time to waive the time?

I’d ask the Chair to look at that and the points that the member has raised.

The Speaker: Thank you, everyone, for their submissions. The Chair takes it under advisement, and the Chair will get back to the House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M229 — Low Carbon Fuels
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Peter Milobar presented a bill intituled Low Carbon Fuels Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

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

The Low Carbon Fuels Amendment Act (No. 2) is very straightforward. In a time when we’re under immense pressure with impacts from the United States and the tariff war, we simply cannot afford to lose business to the United States or to have a drag on our economy.

B.C. is the only jurisdiction that has a low-carbon fuel standard that will come into effect for airline travel on January 1, 2026. This will have an impact immediately to the B.C. economy. It is projected to cost anywhere to around $70 extra per one-way plane ticket just to Calgary, and several hundred dollars just to get overseas.

In fact, a lot of other carriers are now seriously considering, with those extra cost implications, moving their volume of flights that come into YVR, which provide a huge economic impact and spinoffs to the whole province of British Columbia, down to Seattle, Bellingham and other American airports.

At a time when we should be doing everything to bolster the B.C. economy, it does not seem to be the right time to add that extra cost, which would actually detract from our ability to have economic prosperity in British Columbia and, in fact, enhance the viability of airports down into the United States.

This also would have a massive impact to our resort communities, ski resorts, things of that nature at a time when we’re already facing international travel pressures in terms of the added costs that would come.

We do hope that the government will take this bill seriously and call it for debate. We could have this passed before we leave here and make sure that our airline industry is staying competitive with the rest of the jurisdictions around us that will not have this extra surcharge, as of January 1, applied to them.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

[10:35 a.m.]

Members’ Statements

Contributions of Lori Walters
to Boston Bar Community

Tony Luck: It is always a privilege to be able to stand and talk about individuals in your own constituency, ones that stand out. I want to take a moment today to shine a light on someone who truly represents the heart and soul of small communities throughout B.C., Ms. Lori Walters from Boston Bar.

Anyone who has spent time in Boston Bar or North Bend knows there is always a volunteer behind the scenes making things happen. More often than not, that person is Lori. She is one of those folks every rural community relies on, the ones who don’t just step up; they keep stepping up year after year.

Lori has been the steady hand behind the Boston Bar North Bend Enhancement Society for as long as most people can remember. As treasurer, she somehow manages everything from hall rentals and maintenance to the shuttle bus program, making sure inspections, insurance and safety checks are always done so that residents can get where they need to go.

She helps keep the parks running smoothly, manages reimbursements and repairs and still finds time to coordinate the Update community newspaper, which is basically the heartbeat of local communications in the Fraser Canyon.

She doesn’t stop there. She serves as secretary-treasurer for the bowling association, contributes to the CN station restoration committee and, every Valentine’s Day, Halloween and Christmas, she and her family turn the Boston Bar Hall into something special, something this community really looks forward to. That kind of effort builds memories, especially in a place where volunteers truly make the difference between having events and having nothing at all.

In small towns like Boston Bar, volunteers are the glue that holds everything together. They fill the gaps, lift the load and make sure neighbours are cared for. Lori Walters is one of those people — dependable, creative, generous with her time and never looking for credit. She just gets things done.

On behalf of the people of Fraser-Nicola, I want to offer my sincere thanks to Lori for her years of dedication and the countless hours she pours into her community. People like her make rural British Columbia stronger.

Burnaby Community Action Team

Rohini Arora: On April 14, 2016, British Columbia’s provincial health officer declared a public health emergency in response to the devastating rise in drug overdoses and deaths. Since that declaration, more than 9,400 people in our province have tragically lost their lives to toxic illicit drugs. These are not just numbers. They are loved ones, family members, friends and neighbours. Communities across B.C., including in Burnaby, continue to feel the profound impact of this crisis every day.

A few weeks ago I met with the community action team based in Burnaby, BCAT, who have stepped forward in an extraordinary way. Formed to respond directly at the municipal level, BCAT brings together first responders, service providers, community organizations and, most importantly, people with lived and living experience and their families. Together they work tirelessly to reduce overdose deaths, confront stigma and provide essential communication, education, resources and harm reduction to support those who need it most.

A central part of this effort is the community peer resources network, a peer-led initiative that ensures that people with lived experience are not only included but are leading our community’s response. Each week BCAT’s peer outreach team supports more than 100 unhoused community members, providing essentials during extreme weather and offering connection, dignity and compassion.

BCAT has also led anti-stigma workshops across B.C. and, in Burnaby, partnered with schools and post-secondary institutions and delivered widespread naloxone training to empower families, students and front-line workers with life-saving skills.

As an MLA, I am deeply grateful that an organization like BCAT exists in our community. Their dedication, their leadership and their unwavering commitment to support the most vulnerable members of our city embody the very best of who we are.

To the BCAT team and all the peers: thank you. Your courage and compassion save lives every single day.

I know I’m out of time, but if you give me just a second, Mr. Speaker.

As we enter the holiday season, a time that can be especially difficult for those who are struggling, grieving or feeling isolated, I want to extend warmth and care to everyone in our community. Please look out for one another, reach out, show kindness. No one should feel alone.

To all: I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy, safe holiday season.

[10:40 a.m.]

Christmas Events and Rotary Peace
Garden Project in Richmond

Hon Chan: I rise today to highlight some wonderful Christmas community traditions that took place in my riding of Richmond Centre in the past weeks.

First, I want to recognize the Rotary Club of Richmond Sunset and their long-running Winter Wonderland at Richmond city hall. This annual event brings together sponsors and fundraising efforts to support important community causes, and it has become a cherished tradition for many families in Richmond.

This year we enjoyed Christmas carolling with the mayor and the city councillors, my colleagues the member for Richmond-Bridgeport and the member for Richmond-Queensborough, along with local choirs and residents as we lit the Christmas tree together. It was a beautiful reminder of the joy and unity that this season brings.

I’m also very excited to inform the House that the Rotary Peace Garden project at Garden City Community Park is going forward. Through their fundraising efforts, along with the support of their community partners, construction is going to begin in the spring and is estimated to be completed in the summer. This peace garden will offer a peaceful and welcoming space for reflection, community-building and unity, a gift to our neighbourhood that will last for generations. I am also very honoured to have the opportunity to personally sponsor one of their commemorative bricks for this project.

I also want to acknowledge the Richmond RCMP toy drive at Lansdowne Centre, an initiative that helps ensure that children in need receive gifts and support during the holiday season. This annual effort shows the compassion of our officers and the generosity of the people of Richmond.

As we celebrate Christmas, I extend warm greetings to all families in Richmond and across British Columbia. May we remember that Christmas is a reminder of hope, love and a call to care for one another. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.

Buy Local Week

George Anderson: This week we celebrate B.C. Buy Local Week, a chance to recognize the businesses, workers and communities that keep this province strong. Throughout British Columbia, there are more than 540,000 businesses, the vast majority of them small and local. These are places where young people get their first jobs, where families turn ideas into livelihood and where communities build prosperity one customer at a time.

By purchasing locally, we strengthen the foundation of our province. Local dollars stay local, circulating again and again, supporting jobs, sustaining neighbourhoods and building the resilience that this province is known for. The evidence is clear. Over the last five years, B.C. has seen a 2 percent increase in small businesses, the third-highest growth rate in Canada. B.C. is a province where innovation thrives, where entrepreneurs adapt and where neighbour supports neighbour.

At the same time, B.C.’s trade diversification strategy is opening new doors to new markets and new exporters. We are expanding global opportunities while strengthening our economic roots firmly anchored in local communities. That balance, strong at home and competitive abroad, is how resilience is built.

But B.C. Buy Local Week is also a moment to reflect on who we are and how we show up in the world. We are proudly, unmistakably British Columbian, a province that does not aspire to be anyone’s 51st state but a global leader in our own right. Our economic strength is homegrown. It comes from makers, growers, artisans, retailers and people who are growing within our own communities.

The message is clear this week. Choose local. Look for the B.C. Buy Local logo at your local store or market. Choose the local café. Choose the local bookstore. Or as the Minister of Agriculture does every holiday season, give the gift of food and wrap a bow around a winter squash.

Every local choice strengthens our community. Every local investment helps secure a more prosperous and hopeful future for British Columbia. When we buy local, we build local. We build opportunity. We build prosperity. We build a stronger, more resilient British Columbia for generations to come.

Happy B.C. Buy Local Week.

Semiahmoo Family Place

Trevor Halford: As families in South Surrey and White Rock navigate the joys and challenges of raising young children, one organization has stood as a steadfast beacon over three decades: Semiahmoo Family Place. From playgroups that spark a toddler’s first friendships to parenting workshops that build confidence in new moms and dads, Semiahmoo Family Place has been the heartbeat of early childhood support in our community.

[10:45 a.m.]

It is also the longest-running and most accessed resource of its kind in South Surrey-White Rock, serving hundreds of families with annually free, inclusive programming for infants, toddlers and their caregivers. But today that lifeline is fraying, not due to any failing on the part of Semiahmoo Family Place but because of cuts from MCFD that have slashed vital funding and forced heartbreaking closures.

Forced to close during COVID, Semiahmoo Family Place adapted with online sessions and park programs, yet the Ministry of Children and Families ended their annual contract in 2022. The program was reduced and staff cut, and participation dropped more than half. Executive director Alyssa Roberts now spends large amounts of time and energy trying to replace the funds lost rather than developing programs and working directly with families.

Semiahmoo Family Place did not choose to close. Provincial mandates left them no option, yet they were penalized when this government walked away from them. Semiahmoo Family Place isn’t just a program. It’s a proven model that prevents isolation, boosts child development and strengthens families before challenges escalate. It’s a cornerstone of our community, creating a vital network of resources by partnering with other organizations.

Semiahmoo Family Place is a highlight of our community, and I am encouraged by their support. I stand with them today, as do all members of this side of the House.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair would like to encourage all members, when we are making two-minute statements, not to talk about the policy issues but to celebrate your communities. Thank you.

Susie Chant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Susie Chant: Joining us in the gallery this morning is His Excellency Dinesh Patnaik, the High Commissioner of India to Canada. He is joined by Mr. Masakui Rungsung, the consul general of India in Vancouver. His Excellency is here on his first official visit to British Columbia.

I hope that this House will make them truly welcome.

Members’ Statements

Good for Life Environmental Inc.

Susie Chant: I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm Nations, and I am grateful to live and work on these territories.

I also live and work in North Vancouver–Seymour, home to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations, who are always in my thoughts.

Today I rise to speak about Good for Life Environmental Inc., or GFL. Last June I had the opportunity to join the state of California recycling tour during their visit to GFL’s North Vancouver facility, and I was impressed by the scale, professionalism and innovation on display. Headquartered in Vaughan, Ontario, GFL is the fourth-largest diversified environmental services company in North America, operating across Canada and through 18 U.S. states.

Known collectively as “Team Green,” GFL employs more than 15,000 people, including many in very good-paying jobs in my riding. GFL provides essential services to municipalities, homeowners associations and businesses, including waste and recycling collection, bulky item removal, vacuum truck services, roll-off bins, commercial dumpsters and soil remediation. But what truly sets GFL apart is its commitment to sustainability.

Equally impressive are GFL’s investments in workplace safety, diversity and inclusion, employee well-being, education and community support through programs like Safe for Life, Women in Waste and the Full Circle Project.

Finally, I will note that Senator Ben Allen of California was deeply impressed by GFL’s North Vancouver operations and wholeheartedly supports their slogan, “Green today. Green for life.”

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Members, before we commence the question period, I would like to give my ruling.

Hon. Members, on Wednesday, November 26, the official opposition House Leader raised a point of order regarding the use of time for answers during oral question period, specifically in relation to Standing Order 47A(b), which provides, in part: “Questions and answers shall be brief and precise.”

[10:50 a.m.]

The Chair thanks the official opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader for their submissions, including the additional written submission provided by the official opposition House Leader on Monday, December 1.

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order. Ideally, that 30-minute oral question period attains a balance of 15 minutes of questions and 15 minutes of answers, though the standing orders do not prescribe a time limit for questions or answers. The Chair has observed that questions and answers often vary in length and detail, and the Chair appreciates that there may be a natural inclination to provide context to a question or an answer.

The Chair has examined the use of time during oral question period during the fall sitting period, and the data, indeed, reveals an incommensurate amount of time taken up by answers provided by some ministers. The point of order by the official opposition House Leader is therefore well taken.

The Chair expects ministers to take note of the length of a question they are responding to and to strive to provide a proportional answer wherever possible. The Chair will continue to monitor the use of time during oral question period and will aim to ensure a better balance.

Oral Questions

Government Financial Management
and Debt-Servicing Costs

John Rustad: British Columbians are working harder than ever, and this Premier tends to be raiding their paycheques in a desperate bid, quite frankly, to clean up his fiscal mess. So 30 percent of all income tax dollars in this province are now going just to pay interest on his overspending — not on health care, not on housing, not on mental health, just the Premier’s reckless borrowing.

As a matter of fact, the Premier is so addicted to tax money, the average household is now paying $1,000 a year just to service his debt. In other words, instead of giving a $1,000 tax rebate that he promised in the last election, he’s actually hit them with a $1,000-a-year bill just to pay interest.

Why is this Premier forcing families who are struggling day after day just to put food on the table and to put heat in their house…? Why is he handing billions, quite frankly, to banks instead of actually having fiscal responsibility in this province?

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

When we began our work in 2017, we inherited a deficit of hospitals, of schools, and we began building. This work is important to British Columbians. We have built infrastructure in this province that was very much lacking.

We continue to have reasonable debt metrics — five cents on every dollar. When you compare our debt metrics to other provinces, you can see we compare favourably to Ontario, to Quebec and to Canada. It is true that we have work to do to bring our deficit down, and we are determined to do that work.

The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, $5.1 billion is going to be spent on interest now — and growing. But here’s the interesting stat that maybe the Finance Minister has ignored. Almost half of the amount of debt that is being taken on by this government, by the Premier and his government, has actually been deficits, not the capital that this Finance Minister just talked about.

So $32 billion in deficits versus $65 billion in debt. That is irresponsible spending. That is not investing in the hospitals and in the roads and in the schools that we need in British Columbia. Debt servicing now eats up, like I say, 30 percent of what personal income taxes come in.

Quite frankly, it’s the Premier who should be fighting the affordability crisis we have. Instead, he is the affordability crisis that British Columbians are facing.

Why is this Premier more interested in spending dollars on banking instead of actually putting dollars back in people’s pockets so that they can afford to have food on the table?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Here’s a news flash to the Leader of the Opposition. When you build hospitals, you’ve got to put people in them to run them. When you build schools…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Members will come to order now.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …we put teachers in them to teach.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is very important that we continue to do the work to make things affordable for British Columbians. And we have been — reducing costs like rent and ICBC, the biggest reduction any province has experienced in the past two years. We’ve kept ICBC rates low, saving drivers $500 per year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Free prescription birth control. Child care fees cut in half.

I could go on and on, and the member knows it. He also knows that he would make different decisions, and British Columbians would feel it.

Government Action on U.S. Tariffs
and Procurement Initiatives

Peter Milobar: It’s like the Finance Minister is unaware of all the closed ERs, ICUs and maternity wards in B.C. currently that we seem to be under.

The Premier promised to cancel U.S. contracts and buy B.C. and buy Canadian. After almost a year, his own ministry admits they have no list, no tracking, no data and actually no idea what was actually, if anything, cancelled.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Peter Milobar: Now, Ontario actually passed a real law to protect local jobs, while this Premier can’t even tell British Columbians if a single contract has actually changed, let alone been cancelled.

Why did this Premier make such a big show of Buy B.C. and Bill 7 and all the requirements this government needed when he didn’t follow through on any of it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Wrong. We are following through on all of it. Since April, we’ve been reviewing all contracts with United States companies to decrease B.C.’s dependence on goods and services from U.S. suppliers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We have to do this work carefully. If we took an approach that banned all U.S. suppliers, we would also lose B.C. jobs. We have to make sure we do this work and protect British Columbians.

But this is very rich coming from the other side, who, in fact, stood up and wouldn’t even take a stance against Trump’s tariffs.

Very rich coming from your side.

The Speaker: Kamloops Centre, supplemental.

Peter Milobar: There’s a snapshot in time we’re never going to get back, but I digress.

This is the problem with this government. They made a big deal about Bill 7 in this House. They made a big deal about all the action they were taking. Yet when they’re pressed to actually deliver and show the results, they can’t.

Maybe they don’t want to have an example of a Conservative government in Ontario taking action, so let’s look at what the other NDP government in Canada has done in Manitoba in that same time frame — not review; the actions they have actually taken.

They formally banned U.S. companies from government contracts. They did not renew two electrical contracts to export 500 megawatts to the U.S. You know what they did instead to support other Canadians as part of Confederation? They redirected 50 megawatts of that to Nunavut, and they have plans for the remainder to go to Saskatchewan. That’s an NDP government that’s actually taking action, not just providing performative words.

Again, when will this government actually provide a detailed list of all of the U.S. contracts that have been cancelled or not renewed or changed or anything other than the typical “we’re reviewing it” but actually taking action?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Wrong again. We are taking action. New procurement starting in May excludes U.S. suppliers from bidding on these contracts, unless an exemption has been granted because it’s a critical good or service or would lose B.C. jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’ve got many examples already. An RFP for the province’s fleet management specifically excludes U.S. workers. A maintenance contract for government facilities is now with CBRE instead. Data hosting and data service centres with ESIT Advanced Solutions employing B.C. and Canadian workers.

This member would have us pull our workers off of doing this important transition and have them making lists. No, we’re doing the work.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next member, I want to remind all members that using electronic devices during question period is not permitted.

Tax Policies and Revenues
and Government Economic Plan

Rob Botterell: Everybody knows smoking kills, so many years ago, the government imposed a sin tax on tobacco sales to discourage smoking, increase government revenues and relieve pressure on our health system.

The second quarterly report on the government’s finances revealed that revenue from tobacco taxes is lower than projected, in part because fewer people are smoking. This is good news. The tax is working. It’s discouraging an unwanted behaviour.

Meanwhile, since this government cancelled the carbon tax, people are burning more gas. Revenue from the fuel tax is up due to increased consumption.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. B.C.’s projected deficit is $11.2 billion. It would have been 25 percent smaller if we’d kept the consumer carbon tax. What is her government doing to get us back in the black now, not in ten years?

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

We stepped back from the carbon tax to provide affordability for British Columbians.

This is a particularly difficult time for many British Columbians, and we’re seeing it become more challenging. I know the other side loses their mind whenever we point out that Trump’s tariffs are having an impact, but they are, and they’re having an impact on people’s lives.

We will continue to do the important work on bringing our deficit down. We’re doing it in a number of different ways. We have a full efficiency review underway. We’ve put in a hiring freeze. We already know 96 percent…. Through attrition, we have 1,085 less workers working for us now.

We have to, at the same time, be deeply driven on growing our economy. That is the work that we are so focused on, on this side of the House. The other side of the House hasn’t been with us on this, but we must continue to do this absolutely integral work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: The quarterly report also shows B.C. is getting less money from natural resources. For the past 175 years, British Columbia has been a resource colony. We’ve been told that the only way we can make money is by digging up coal, cutting down trees and shipping fracked gas to Asia.

But the quarterly report shows mining revenue is down thanks to higher extraction costs and lower coal prices. Stumpage revenue is down because the trees and the valley bottoms have been clearcut. Pine beetle and forest fires are devastating the rest.

My question to the Minister of Finance. In the spring budget, this government promised that B.C. would become the innovation hub for the world. Why, then, has the government doubled down on an economic plan based on old-world thinking?

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

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is important to continue to invest in our resource sector, but as the member rightly knows, there are incredible things happening in our innovation sector.

We are seeing growth in that sector. We are seeing growth in our technology space. We’re winning awards for clean technology. We’ve attracted Web Summit, which is the Olympics of tech, in its second year in British Columbia, highlighting the incredible work that is happening in our technology sector, which continues to grow with the support of this side of the House.

Content of Materials in Schools

Tara Armstrong: Well, if you want your child to join a terrorist group, bring them to Vancouver.

Vancouver school board is reportedly promoting Antifa Comic Book. Antifa is the left-wing terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the murder of U.S. immigration officials and unprovoked assaults on journalist Andy Ngo and child protection advocate “Billboard Chris.”

[11:05 a.m.]

It shouldn’t be hard to condemn terrorists, whoever they are. I’ll do it again. I condemn Antifa, and I condemn neo-Nazis. Now it’s the minister’s turn.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Will she condemn the promotion of Antifa comic books in B.C. schools?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Absolutely, there’s no question that we want to ensure that kids in schools have access to age-appropriate, safe resources. I want every single person in this House to know that there are already policies in place — they exist in the schools all across the province — to ensure that resources are age-appropriate.

We will be updating this policy guidance for boards, as there was some confusion around existing policy. But I want the member to know that the policies exist. The safety and security is there in place.

As always, if there is an issue with a particular resource, talk to the teacher, talk to the principal, talk to the school district who holds these policies.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong: What terrorist organizations do is demonize people with opposing views to incite hatred and lay the groundwork for violence. Antifa Comic Book teaches children that the Freedom Convoy was a “flashpoint for fascism.”

According to Ipsos polling, 46 percent of Canadians sympathize with the Freedom Convoy. That’s close to 20 million Canadians.

My question for the minister is: does she agree with Antifa terrorists that 20 million Canadians who support the freedom movement are fascists?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Again, these kinds of questions that are designed to divide the House and cause fear and anxiety amongst kids and parents are just not helpful.

There are policies in place to ensure that there are age-appropriate materials in schools. If the member has an issue with a particular resource, or any parent, they are able to contact the teacher, the principal, the school district to have that resource reviewed. There are policies in place to ensure review of these resources.

I just really wish the member would spend the time and energy in supporting kids in schools, supporting the work that teachers and districts are doing to keep our kids safe from this kind of dangerous rhetoric.

Government Position
on Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld: The Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta have established and signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a new northern pipeline. The Premier of British Columbia has not provided support for that pipeline, and he’s flip-flopping on his support.

Will the Premier tell us which route, if it’s not the northern route, he would actually support for a new pipeline in British Columbia.

Hon. Adrian Dix: There is no pipeline. There is no proponent. There is no route. There is no plan. Because shippers pay through tolls for pipelines, there’s no possibility of anyone paying for the pipeline except for the public, something we have made very clear.

Our government’s job, British Columbia’s job, is to defend British Columbia. We are doing that by promoting projects here in British Columbia that will bring real wealth to people, not fantasy projects, not memorandums of understanding. They don’t create anything.

What we bring here are real projects, like the North Coast transmission line, which the member opposes. So 18 proposals we brought forward in February, 12 of which the hon. member opposes.

We support economic development. That’s why B.C. is leading Canada in projects and leading Canada in economic growth.

Support for Canadian Steel
Industry and Steelworkers

Kiel Giddens: Well, once again, more political spin for the minister responsible for no more pipelines in this province.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s tariffs just wiped out 1,000 jobs at Algoma Steel in Ontario. Their CEO was here in the building last week warning the Premier that this would happen.

While Ontario is fighting to protect its industries, the B.C. NDP is doing the opposite — building ferries offshore, imposing policies gutting sawmill jobs and opposing pipelines, essentially killing every opportunity for steelworkers in this province. Pipelines are manufactured by Canadian steelworkers and manufactured and built by Canadian workers.

[11:10 a.m.]

While Trump is attacking jobs for working families from the outside, why is this Premier helping him from the inside?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We want to do what we can to support steelworkers across the country. I can share with the member that B.C. is leading that conversation.

We’ve created a table with major companies in British Columbia, met with the steel producers that came here from Ontario and Quebec. My message to them was clear. We do want to support their work. But in order to do that, we need to have a conversation at a national level about how that will work.

We support the need for supporting steel in Ontario and Quebec, but we need to figure out how it’s going to be transported here. We need to figure out how the costs are disproportionately impacting British Columbia from that steel coming across the country. We want to figure out how we can scale-up manufacturing opportunities here in British Columbia.

We will continue to work with the federal government. We want to support steel, whether it’s in Ontario, whether it’s in Quebec, whether it’s Alberta. We want to see more capacity be built here in British Columbia as well.

Horseracing Industry and
Funding for Hastings Park Racetrack

Ian Paton: There are approximately 95,000 horses in British Columbia. Over 20,000 households are involved in the equine industry. The equine industry generates an estimated $740 million in economic activity annually and creates over 7,200 full-time jobs.

This government sat back and watched Fraser Downs and Cloverdale close four months ago. Now historic Hastings Park in Vancouver is about to meet its demise as this government has pulled $10 million in casino revenue from this iconic racetrack. Thousands of people will be affected both economically and emotionally around the province — breeders, hay suppliers, feed suppliers, truckers, veterinarians, trainers and all of their staff.

Why is this government willing to sit back and watch agriculture in B.C. continue to die by a thousand cuts? Will this minister reinstate the gaming funding to Hastings Park racetrack?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for the question.

Horse racing has a long history in our province. In recent years, it has faced very significant challenges. There have been declines in the number of races, the number of wagers, breeding activity and industry revenue. These have been declining for a number of years.

The horse-racing industry presented a plan to the province that included a request for significant additional funding to maintain its viability. So the ministry conducted a review of the industry that included an economic impact assessment and engagement with the industry, track operators, the B.C. Lottery Corp., as well as the cities of Vancouver and Surrey.

While there are economic benefits that you noted, we found really significant concerns with the financial sustainability and ongoing viability of the industry. This was a very difficult decision, and I do acknowledge that it has impacts on the industry and on workers in our province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Speculation and Vacancy Tax

Linda Hepner: The federal government scrapped the carbon tax; then B.C. did. The feds scrapped EV mandates; then B.C. rolled back.

Now they’re scrapping the federal speculation and vacancy tax. As usual, B.C. is late to the party, doubling down on hiking theirs in 2026.

Why is this government still trapping seniors, single parents and families who are never supposed to be targets of this tax?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Massive differences between the tax that the federal government had and the very successful tax that we have in British Columbia, which has been successful in bringing in tens of thousands of homes for people into circulation.

It’s shocking to me that a representative from Surrey, in fact, could stand against a tax that is providing homes for British Columbians.

Salvage Logging Permits for
Timber Impacted by Wildfires

Tony Luck: This summer thousands of hectares of timber burned in Fraser-Nicola and the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Mills are ready to salvage, but they’re stuck waiting for permits while millions in usable timber rots because this government appears inept to manage the issue. Alberta processes burned wood salvage permits within six months. Here it takes so long, the wood becomes worthless.

Will the minister commit today to issue the required permits, and if not, why not?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member should get his facts straight. We have been moving quickly after the 2025 wildfire season to look at working with industry, to look at working with the sector, to….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member opposite had a fire not too long from where he represents, the Mine Creek fire. We’re actually salvaging from that fire, and that fire occurred in 2025.

There are tons of examples across the province where we are having difficulty moving economically viable fibre. We are looking to address those challenges, but I can assure the member that we are working quickly and efficiently with industry to move on wildfire salvage opportunities that create jobs for contractors and create jobs in our pulp mills.

Support for Forest Workers
in Cariboo-Chilcotin Area

Lorne Doerkson: Maybe the Forests Minister should get his facts straight. The Elephant Hill fire burned in 2017. His ministry started to clean that up effectively last year, last summer, so that is not entirely correct with respect to permitting in this province. It still remains a massive challenge, and it’s one of the things that we could be repairing in this province immediately to help this industry.

Recently announced closures of Drax and West Fraser have wiped out hundreds of jobs, the latest devastating news in this decimated forest industry. The downstream fallout has been immediate, with 27 families turning to local food banks at Christmas, and applications continue to climb. Loaves and Fishes and 100 Mile Food Bank are overwhelmed and pleading for emergency support at the absolute worst time of the year.

We just had emergency meetings with the Premier and many of the ministers last week with respect to the challenges in my community.

What immediate actions have the Premier and this government taken to support Cariboo-Chilcotin?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My heart goes out to the member and his constituents. I’ve had a number of conversations with the member opposite about the challenging circumstances of 100 Mile and Williams Lake. I’ve spoken to both of the mayors. I’ve spoken to the union president of the 100 Mile facility. I want them to know, as I want the member opposite to know, that we’re going to stand with his constituents. We’re going to work very hard to support them during these very difficult times.

We have been working hard on this side of the House to get the federal government to the table. Because of the leadership that our Premier has shown not only in fighting for forestry workers in British Columbia but fighting for forestry workers from coast to coast to coast, we saw $2 billion invested in our forest sector.

We are going to continue our efforts to ensure that we are supplementing that with supports from the province, focused on making sure that workers are supported. We’re protecting their paycheques, and we’re building a stronger forest sector so no worker is put in this position ever again.

Electric Vehicle Policy and Targets

Hon Chan: The minister said two weeks ago that the government would repeal the 2026 EV mandate. The 2026 models are already on the sales floor, for a few months.

We have three days left in this session and have committed to working with this government to scrap the EV mandate in one day, like we did with the carbon tax, yet we don’t have legislation on the floor of the House to do this. Car dealers have warned of massive job losses if this mandate stays in place.

Why is this government prepared to leave workers and the public in limbo for a few more months instead of dealing with this before this session ends?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C., of course, is leading Canada in EV sales because of much of the work that has been done by New Car Dealers in our province.

With respect to 2026, all manufacturers are in compliance now, and if they are not in compliance, they would have a waiver for 2026. We’ll be bringing forward legislation in the spring 2026 session towards the future of EVs in B.C.

But I have to say that EVs in B.C. — which benefit our economy, which use electricity we make in B.C. — benefit everybody in B.C. who can have access to them. We have to address and continue to address issues of affordability, and we’re doing that and continue to ensure that there’s a charging network in B.C. to ensure that more people can have access to this extraordinary opportunity.

Supportive Housing Facility
Proposal in Abbotsford
and Social Housing Priorities

Bruce Banman: This NDP government is pushing on families a drug use supportive housing site beside Abbotsford Traditional School in Martens Park.

Meanwhile, 75 percent of women fleeing violence can’t find safe housing and are being forced back to shelters or, worse, back to the very same abusers, often with their children.

If this government insists on taking away a park, why not make this project exclusively for women and children escaping violent partners, or does this minister think women and children just don’t matter?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I, of course, object to the way the question is framed, but let me take the issues seriously, as they are.

We have been working closely with the city of Abbotsford. I want to give credit to the mayor and council in Abbotsford, who have been doing an incredible job on delivering housing for people in their community, including supportive housing for those who most need it. We’ve been in conversation with the mayor and council about this particular site and how it can meet the needs of folks who are vulnerable in the community. More to do on that front as well.

I want to speak to the work….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle: My dude, this is your time. I’m happy for you to waste it.

I want to speak seriously to the work that this government has done on the women’s transition fund and taking seriously, as I do, as all of us do on this side of the House, the challenges that women face.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Christine Boyle: In 2018, we created the women’s transition fund with $734 million as an investment over ten years to build and operate 1,500 transitional housing, second-stage housing and long-term housing spaces for women and children fleeing violence. As part of this province’s Homes for People plan, we’ve invested a further $1.2 million over the next two years to double that work to 3,000 homes for women who need them.

We take this issue seriously. We will continue to do that work.

[End of question period.]

Tony Luck: I seek leave to present a motion to the House.

The Speaker: Member, maybe you can explain the motion, and then we will decide if you need leave or not.

Tony Luck: I’ll read the motion: “That this House urge the government of Canada to initiate a process with all possible expediency to amend the Constitution Act of 1982 to include express protection of private property rights.”

The Speaker: Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Joining us in the House from Langford is Happy Valley Elementary School. We’ve got Sarah Stirling’s class of 30 students from Happy Valley, an incredible school in my constituency.

They’re visiting the precinct. I’m not sure if they’ve had their tour yet or are going to have their tour after.

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

Sheldon Clare: I seek leave to make a motion.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 24.

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 11:29 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: All right. Session is back in order. We are on committee stage for Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[11:30 a.m.]

Brennan Day: Clause 4 deals with the Crown’s ability to prove liability using quantities of vaping products sold, distributed or supplied. I just have a few questions here. We will be going through these a little quicker today. We do have two amendments, but we’ll try and not tie up too much more time on this.

The first question on clause 3 is: what data does the government possess that tracks quantities sold by unlicensed or illegal retailers in the province of British Columbia?

The Chair: Just a second. Member for North Island?

Anna Kindy: Yeah. I had to go to the bathroom. I was going to talk about clause 2. But I….

Interjection.

Anna Kindy: Is that it? That’s how it works? I asked permission, and they said go. I’m new to this. I actually literally….

The Chair: Noted, Member. We would require unanimous consent to return to clause 2.

So we’ll request to return to clause 2. It requires unanimous consent of the House. Do we have unanimous consent?

Motion negatived.

The Chair: Member, we don’t have unanimous consent.

We’ll continue with clause 3.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have had a few conversations about how this bill doesn’t distinguish between illicit or non-illicit vaping. As such, the data related to the illicit market, I would suggest, would be beyond the scope of this bill. But I would encourage the member to reach out, maybe, to the Ministry of Health for data that they may have on that.

Brennan Day: We have discussed it before, and it’s been clearly stated by this ministry that this bill will be used to go after the illicit market as well. I do feel it would be pertinent to know that information.

Going back to clause 3, what expert evidence will be provided for product design, chemical composition and comparative harm?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can only answer that in a general way because there is no litigation at this stage. Generally, when expert evidence is sought out…. It is experts that can provide this particular type of evidence that might be related to the list that the member provided. That would be, of course, a decision for the litigation team to make.

Anna Kindy: To the minister: when you require proof on the balance of probabilities as a causal capacity, what evidentiary standard and types of proof will the Crown rely on for each element?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As mentioned in the question, it’s a balance of probabilities that would be the standard that would have to be met in order to prove the case. Again, it would be a litigation decision, but generally when litigation decisions are based on choosing experts, they’re experts that are able to provide, based on their expertise, the types of evidence related to products and their impact or health impacts in the process.

Anna Kindy: If you look at sort of the historical context of when people vape, people sometimes start using nicotine products orally, and sometimes they start with having smoked cigarettes, and other times they go directly to vaping.

With vaping — I’ve come across that in uncountable numbers — people were using it to go from smoking cigarettes, which we know causes harm. Vaping products, which at this point Health Canada considers harm reduction…. Looking at the amounts related to harm caused from vaping, some people have smoked for five years, some people have smoked for ten years, and some people have smoked for 20 years, and they subsequently vape.

In that respect, how is the government going to account for that in their sort of cost analysis of the health care?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Everything in this type of litigation is predicated on wrongdoing and — we’ve talked about it before — deceptive marketing practices, like we found in the tobacco industry, which underplayed the harm that the products were to people or specifically marketed to people. We talked a lot about the uptake of youth in vaping as their first experience in nicotine and that that’s a harm.

Just to say the way that the structure of this would work…. You can look at it in this section. We would have to prove through litigation, if we were to bring it, that the defendant breached a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation that led to — you can read it — the use of or being exposed to vaping products that can contribute to disease, injury or illness. It’s during all or part of the breach referred to, so it’s all tied together in terms of the breach and the exposure aspect of it.

The defendant, under subsection (5), can bring their defence. So defence is about…. If it’s an argument that they may make about harm reduction and what role that plays or, to the member’s question, whatever they may bring as evidence in that proceeding related to that, that’s, of course, their right to do so.

Then it would be up to the trier of fact, so the judge in this scenario, to understand, based on the evidence before them, what proportion of damage and results were led to recoverability of the plaintiff, if we get to that stage.

Anna Kindy: I’d like to bring forward an amendment.

[CLAUSE 3, by adding the following underlined text as shown:

(6) The amount of a defendant’s liability assessed under subsection (3) (b) may be reduced in the prescribed manner to account for the harm reduction role of vaping products in smoking cessation efforts as recognized by Health Canada.]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Member. We’ll take a short recess to make copies of the amendment and circulate to all members.

The committee recessed from 11:40 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. We’ll call the session back to order.

The amendment is in order, and all members should have a copy of the amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, I don’t support this amendment. It’s for very specific reasons.

It actually creates a statutory defence if we add that here. Through the normal course of a hearing, you would have the defendant’s ability to bring their own defences forward about what they would argue, and I don’t think it’s our role, through the statute, to presuppose and/or add what some of those defences might be.

I’m not sure, at this stage, that the evidence supports the addition of such an inclusion in there in terms of its role of harm reduction. I think it’s up to people to prove whether or not it has that role and whether that is a viable defence. So I won’t be supporting this amendment.

Anna Kindy: We all understand the concept of harm reduction. I think the government sitting in front of me understands, or thinks they understand, that concept and would support that concept.

That concept means that we are hopefully reducing harm to the public, as well, and reducing the actual moneys we need to recover, hopefully, because people are overall healthier.

I think the duty of a government is to actually encourage harm reduction, as opposed to behaviour such as smoking, which we actually know causes harm. We’ve got the data. In terms of vaping, the data is not there in terms of the harm caused. I just will sit on that, but I think it’s a mistake that that’s not taken into consideration.

It disincentivizes, as well, regulated products, people that are regulated that we know will potentially cause less harm than the unregulated market. So we’re pushing people to go towards the unregulated market by not incentivizing those companies to continue providing a product that ultimately will probably decrease the health burden to our health care system.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the vote on the amendment moved by the member for North Island on clause 3.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Brennan Day: Again, we’re going to get back into the questions on clause 4 here.

The minister has said that there’s no way to track the quantities sold by unlicensed or illegal retailers, despite the fact that 90 to 92 percent of the British Columbia market for vaping products is grey or black market.

How does the minister intend to gather quantity data from the illicit market?

As the government has indicated, they are willing, under this legislation, to go after grey and black market vendors, which include overseas online sellers, cross-border smuggling, cash-based, under-the-counter retail and unregulated, high-nicotine pot imports.

Given the government’s previous response, will the government concede that the quantity data for illegal products is essentially unknowable in British Columbia and that 92 percent of the potential defendants will be immune from this litigation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think there was a bit of a mischaracterization of what I said or have been saying, so I’ll say it again.

The point is that we’re not differentiating between an illicit or a regulated market, as the member suggests. Nothing in this piece of legislation differentiates between the two. That has been my point. Decisions about litigation and how it shows up would come after the bill was passed.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:50 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your patience.

The people I introduced earlier are now in the House. I just wanted to say I would like to introduce the people from the Soup Kitchen. It’s the operations manager, Kathleen Alexander, and volunteer Rossana Bortignon. Could they just stand?

Thank you so much for all your work.

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

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 32 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brittny Anderson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:34 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

On clause 3 (continued).

[11:35 a.m.]

Claire Rattée: I would like to move an amendment to clause 3.

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

Commencement

3 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assentby regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée: If I can just speak to the amendment.

The reason I’m bringing this forward is because I do still believe this piece of legislation is premature. This would provide not only the ability for cabinet to work with the Lieutenant Governor on making a determination about when it is necessary to actually bring this legislation into force but also, hopefully, to provide the flexibility and ability for the minister to take a look at some of the supporting regulation that could be brought in with this piece of legislation to help strengthen the understanding amongst clinicians, patients and the legal community around what constitutes involuntary care and how that is determined.

There are a number of different amendments that I had brought forward previously. I understand that they were ruled out of scope here, but I do think that they are important pieces that should be looked at. This would provide some flexibility.

Obviously, this does not in any way prescribe what the minister has to do with that. That would just be my hope. But I do think that it would provide a bit more certainty for the public and for clinicians and for patients alike to be able to understand that these changes would not be brought into force until cabinet decided that it was the right time to do that based on the results of the Charter challenge that is before the courts right now.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief five-minute recess and return at 11:40.

The committee recessed from 11:36 a.m. to 11:39 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, committee members. We’re back from recess on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. The amendment has been deemed in order.

Minister, do you have any comments?

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

This really is about the timing of when the act could come into force, either royal assent or, as the member has suggested through the amendment, by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

In practicality, what that means is an additional step whereby cabinet would make a decision, an order in council, and bring the act into force. So it would possibly extend that act of bringing it into force by perhaps as few as a couple of weeks.

[11:40 a.m.]

Government is ready to vote on this bill now, and we deem that it is most expeditious that it be brought into force upon royal assent, again, with its focus on that conversion of an implicit protection for health care workers to the explicit and more robust protection in the amendment to clause 16. I will not be supporting the amendment.

Rob Botterell: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Yesterday my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky introduced an amendment to delay commencement of these amendments until 12 months after royal assent.

As part of the detailed response, the minister stated: “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 torts claims of assault and battery.”

I’d like to reiterate some of my previous comments. For decades, the way treatment has been delivered in B.C.’s involuntary mental health care system has been through section 31’s provision of deemed consent. References to section 31 arise in the minister’s own guidance documents over the course of decades and as recently as seven months ago by the chief scientific officer.

The government has only recently changed its communication about the intent behind section 31(1), stating that the intent is and has always been liability protection for health care workers. With these changes, as the minister has pointed out repeatedly, they are seeking to make the implicit explicit in the face of a court ruling still to come that could determine section 31(1) unconstitutional.

I note for the record that the court is scheduled to reconvene in January to finish the court case. So there is no imminence to a decision of the court. And as I’ve noted throughout the committee hearing here, it would be extraordinary if the court were to issue a decision immediately upon the close of the hearing. As we’ve noted, both of the parties to the litigation have raised a request that if 31(1) was declared unconstitutional to have the effective date for that decision delayed by six months at a minimum.

If these changes are truly in the interest of being responsive to the court case, we are of the belief that this government can and should delay the implementation timeline. By coming into force upon royal assent, the health system could face delays in adapting to these changes.

The minister has stated repeatedly that, operationally, nothing will change, but we know that forms will have to be updated. The minister has said as much, and this will take time.

This amendment, which I certainly support, seeks to amend the commencement date to “by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” If the minister wishes to be responsive to the court case, then they can introduce an order in council to bring this act into force at any time.

We don’t believe bringing this into force upon royal assent will be wise, as the potential impacts on the health care system could be far-reaching, and, further, we don’t even know how the court is going to decide, and we know with some confidence that there will be more than enough time after the court decision to address court ruling.

For those reasons, we will be supporting the amendment.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.