Contents

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: Members, pursuant to the order of the House adopted yesterday, the House will proceed to the deferred division on the motion for the second reading of Bill M219, intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

[1:35 p.m. - 1:40 p.m.]

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

[1:45 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 43
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	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Maahs	Kealy	Sturko
Boultbee	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Luck
	Block
NAYS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Valeriote	Botterell

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I seek leave to make a quick introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have family in the House today: my mother, Rhonda Bailey, visiting from Nanaimo; my cousin, Christopher Bailey, who is a firefighter here with the Oak Bay fire department; and his three adorable children, Penelope, Oliver and Charlotte, who were very well behaved at lunch.

Please join me in making them most welcome.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 29.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:46 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

Pursuant to the order of the House adopted yesterday, the committee will proceed to deferred divisions on Bill 29, intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

On clause 3 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

The Chair: The first question is on the amendment to clause 3 of Bill 29, moved by the member for Prince George–Valemount.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members, there has been a suggestion that we waive the remaining four minutes and 39 seconds.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Members, as you know, the question is the amendment to clause 3 of Bill 29, moved by the member for Prince George–Valemount.

[1:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 42
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Valeriote	Botterell	Brodie
Armstrong	Bhangu	Paton
Gasper	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
McCall	Stamer	Day
Tepper	Mok	Maahs
Kealy	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Luck	Block
NAYS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Sturko	Boultbee

The Chair: The amendment is defeated. Clause 3 will remain stood down.

On clause 6 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

The Chair: The second question is on the amendment to clause 6 of Bill 29, moved by the member for Prince George–Valemount.

[2:00 p.m.]

Members, we’ve had it suggested that we waive time again for this vote.

Members, let me ask that question one more time. Is it the feeling of this House that we can waive the remaining four minutes and 33 seconds?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Members.

Members, the question is on the amendment to clause 6 of Bill 29 moved by the member for Prince George–Valemount.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 39
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Brodie	Armstrong	Bhangu
Gasper	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
McCall	Stamer	Day
Tepper	Mok	Maahs
Kealy	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Luck	Block
NAYS — 50
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
Sturko		Boultbee

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The amendment is defeated. Clause 6 remains stood down.

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 2:05 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:05 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I call orders of the day, I’d like to inform the House that the government considers third reading on Bill 32 to be a confidence motion.

With that, in this House, I call committee stage on Bill 24.

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

In the Birch Room, Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 29.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:06 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Members, I’m going to call a brief recess while we get our teams for our committee stage.

The committee recessed from 2:07 p.m. to 2:09 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Members.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are continuing committee stage of Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, where we are contemplating clause 4.

On clause 4 (continued).

Brennan Day: Good afternoon to the minister and staff.

I’ll just go back to the last question we asked, which was…. We don’t have any quantity data for illegal products on this, and 92 percent of the marketplace is illicit or grey market products in British Columbia.

How does the government intend to compel cooperation from sellers based in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I guess I’ll start by saying that I don’t think cooperation is a prerequisite for anything that is contemplated in this act. This is a bill that sets up for litigation.

I just would go back to the point made before, that retailers are not included in the definition.

Brennan Day: Sorry, I think I meant to say manufacturers there. My apologies.

I’m just going to jump ahead to clause 4(2), where it lays out the calculations in terms of determining market share. In there, there is nothing specific that says market share of what.

Does that market share include also the black and grey market product or only the legal market?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Nothing excludes the illicit or illegal market. Nothing about this provision would make it so one was chosen over the other.

Brennan Day: Given that the illicit market makes up 92 percent of the total…. If we’re assessing health care damages through this act on vaping products and 92 percent of the market is illicit, was there a reason that the minister chose to exclude any mention of that in this calculation?

It would seem that if we’re determining broad health impacts on British Columbians, this clause specifically would seem to infer that 8 percent of the market is going to pay for 100 percent of the damages.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: My answer is similar to the ones that I’ve said before. We wouldn’t distinguish between illegal or non-illegal, and there are different ways of going after them.

I just dispute the number of 90 percent. Health Canada in 2023 did an inspection and found that 38 percent of products in vaping establishments were illicit or illegal. So that 90 percent — I’m not sure where that comes from.

But beside the point, there would be a lot of work to go after the wrongdoers, and that could include wrongdoers that were from the legal and illegal market.

Brennan Day: I believe that sort of refers back to the question I asked earlier regarding how the minister intends to gather quantity data from the illicit market. The spread between what you’re saying and what I’m being told by vendors in this marketplace is a large spread, so that number will matter.

I’m just going to go back to 4(2) and 4(3) because I think it’s important we get clarity here. In the calculation, MMC is noted as: “In respect of the applicable category of vaping product, the quantity of vaping product manufactured by all manufacturers that is purchased within British Columbia from the date of the earliest vaping-related wrong committed by the manufacturer to the date of trial.”

Whether it’s 38 percent or 92 percent, how would we differentiate what their share of the market is when a large percentage of that market is illicit, and what would the impact of that be?

The same question for section 4(3). WWC is: “In respect of the applicable category of vaping product, the quantity of vaping product that is distributed, sold or offered for sale within British Columbia from the date of the earliest vaping-related wrong committed by the wholesaler to the date of trial.”

Again, those numbers are going to have a gigantic spread. We want to make it very clear that operators in this space are not paying for the lack of enforcement by government, given the huge amount of illicit products on the market and the harms that they will inevitably cause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is all determined by a court. If you look at the wording in this section, in subsection (2), it says: “The court must calculate the manufacturer’s market share.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Within that, in these very complicated litigations, you have different companies that may be named that have different perspectives in terms of what their apportionment and their liability may or may not be, related to their conduct. We would expect that that would be the case in any litigation that would come forward. Usually during the apportionment discussions, there are disagreements between the companies about their responsibility. But everything hinges on a wrongdoer.

When I talked about some of the things we saw Big Tobacco do that we see connections to vaping…. Those were established companies that were marketing deceptively to young people or to people about their products to make sure that the nicotine addiction lasted so they could maintain their profits. So the hinge point on anything to do with an action is the wrongdoing.

The discussion that we’re having right now about illicit or not illicit and who pays and who doesn’t pay is actually not the main focus of any of this work. It would be pegged on the wrongdoer. The wrongdoer could be any actors in the vaping field that are manufacturers, wholesalers and the elements in that category. Then it would be up to a court, and each party could make their arguments as to why they’re less responsible than the other party and then a court would determine the amount.

Brennan Day: Okay. I think we can probably litigate this forever. I do think that, for the purposes of this, we’ve talked that one into the ground. I’d just like to, you know, state that it’s going to be extremely difficult to prove harm when the market is so widespread in the grey market.

Can we at least get the minister to acknowledge that the accuracy of quantity data is only available for compliant businesses, not for the actors that are actually driving youth vaping in B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. I guess we don’t agree on this. I think we’ve talked about it a lot.

There is a discovery process that happens in every piece of litigation where it gives plaintiffs the right to discover and take a look at different documents. Then we had a discussion already about aggregate-level harm and the population-level harm that we would pursue when it comes to these matters, and that’s about health care cost impacts on our society.

Peter Milobar: Just to kind of put a bow on where my colleague was going with some of these calculations to the minister now, my understanding of the bill and the products is a lot of the addicting factor, which would then create the need for someone to want to vape quite regularly and repeatedly and magnifying the health impacts of the vaping process itself. But it’s that nicotine content that really becomes the addictive piece to drive the eventual overuse of any vaping products, which would magnify any health impacts, obviously.

My colleague was talking about how you’re going to apportion costs, whether it be 38 percent of the market, 8 percent of the market, 25 percent of the market. There’s always a lag on federal calculations anyway. So that’s not going to be an accurate science, and it could be potentially difficult, but the minister seems to indicate that even if it’s an illicit supplier or manufacturer into the market, the government is prepared to go after those manufacturers.

Has there been, with all of that laid out, any thought…? Is there within the calculations the ability…?

It seems to me that it’s the addictive side that will start to drive the health care costs up that the government is trying to recover with this bill. But given that it’s the nicotine, and we know — and it’s been borne out by multiple studies of pulling products off of vape shelves — that the illicit vape products have several times the legal limit that is set out for nicotine in a vape product….

[2:25 p.m.]

In other words, it is a much higher addicting vape when it’s illicit versus the one that is to a legal Health Canada standard of percentages of nicotine that are allowed in it.

Now, I want to be very clear. I’m not standing here trying to defend Big Tobacco, but if they are playing by the laws laid out by Canada and Health Canada, it’s a legal product, and they are entitled to sell it. But they are bound by those percentages of nicotine content.

Whereas the illicit…. It’s going to be hard enough to try to collect under this, but given that they would not just in theory but in science actually be driving much higher levels of addiction rates because of the high levels of nicotine that well exceed any Health Canada standards, they would, by virtue of that, be driving a much higher and more substantive addiction to try to break and health impact, because it would be driving that more repetitive vaping action. It stands to reason that the more you vape, the more damage you’re going to do.

Has nicotine content come into play in these calculations? If not, why not, if we’re truly trying to drive to make sure that the actors in the space are actually following the rules, following the manufacturing standards, making sure that people aren’t being unnecessarily addicted, making sure youth aren’t being unnecessarily targeted by all of these things. The nicotine content just by itself would be the number one driver of that physiological addiction that then gets created by vaping.

Has there been, within these calculations, that consideration? If not, why would the government want to turn a blind eye to massively higher levels of nicotine driving this addiction, if that’s the whole premise of this bill in the first place?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think my answer to this one is similar to the one that I gave before, which is that this would be for a court to decide about apportionment — who’s responsible and the quantums that they’re responsible for. That would be part of an analysis that happens in all litigation at this stage.

Peter Milobar: Well, the courts will look at the calculations, what is laid out in the legislation and how the government is planning on trying to bring forward cases to the court. Surely the Attorney General is not saying that the government is just going to say to the court: “Well, we think this manufacturer owes some money, so we’ll let the court figure it out, and we have no guidance on how to calculate things.”

The question was pretty specific. Have nicotine levels been factored into this, especially when we’re talking about the illicit market, which is anywhere from 62 to 92 percent of the market? Everyone acknowledges and agrees that the illicit vaping products well exceed any Canadian health standards for nicotine content within those vape products.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we could answer this in clause 10, where it talks about the court’s consideration. I could point to it now. But when we get to it….

Maybe I’ll give you a little sneak peek. It says that some of the factors to be considered are the history of conduct of the defendant, the riskiness or recklessness, the profits or revenues the defendant received, the degree of harmfulness of the vaping product manufactured and promoted by the defendant.

Anna Kindy: It’s a point again to bring forward. But I’ll bring another point in terms of nicotine content labelling — the labelling of regulated versus unregulated and the addiction potential.

I’m going to come back again to the harm reduction. It has to be taken into account that some people will not die because they’re vaping. They’ve switched from cigarettes to vaping. Hopefully they buy the regulated vapes, but unfortunately, the government isn’t looking at trying to clamp down on the unregulated market, especially for our youth.

My experience as a physician is that it is a harm reduction tool, and that’s not taken into account whatsoever. By targeting the regulated market only, you’re actually targeting a product that’s probably safer overall.

When you look at the number of deaths from cigarettes — lung issues, everything else — and the number of deaths from vaping, it’s not comparable. I don’t have the statistics in front of me. That’s again not taken into account.

So I’d like to bring forward an amendment. I move in the Committee of the Whole on Bill 24, intituled Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, to amend as follows:

[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: We will take a brief recess to circulate this to all of our members, about five minutes or so.

The committee recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll bring this committee back to order.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:32 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee for Bill 24 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

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

Sunita Dhir: Section A reports Bill 32 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Division has been called.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Members, before we start, I would ask all the members participating remotely to make sure your cameras and mics are on.

Hon. Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Elmore	Morissette	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Kahlon
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Gibson	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Chow	Dhir
NAYS — 41
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Banman	Wat
Kooner	Halford	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Dew
Clare	K. Neufeld	Botterell
Brodie	Armstrong	Bhangu
Paton	Gasper	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Maahs	Kealy	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Luck		Block

The Speaker: Hon. Members, Bill 32 has been read a third time and has passed.

George Anderson: Section C reports progress on Bill 29 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 29.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Members, we’ll call a brief recess while we get our teams in place to get back to committee on Bill 24.

The committee recessed from 2:49 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will call this chamber back to order. We were contemplating an amendment to Bill 24.

The amendment is not in order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: We will return to committee stage of Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, where we are contemplating clause 4.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Brennan Day: Clause 6 introduces joint and several liability for vaping-related wrongs. I just have a couple of questions to get on the record here.

Does the minister intend to pursue manufacturers first through this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have no intentions at this time, and those are litigation decisions to be made in the future.

Brennan Day: We will just wrap up section 6 here with a question we’ve asked before, but we’ll ask it again. If foreign manufacturers can’t be held accountable, does the minister acknowledge that the liability will fall disproportionately to Canadian distributors and wholesalers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The same answer as before.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Brennan Day: I just have a few questions around the standards for validity that are outlined in clause 7.

Is there a pre-existing standard for determining the validity of statistical and epidemiological studies used under this act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That would be up to the court.

Brennan Day: With that, would the court then be required to use studies that are peer-reviewed, published, reproducible and independently verified, or will the government be relying on internal models for this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The court has a very rigorous standard when it comes to evidence, and there is an entire act called the Evidence Act that is related to it.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

The Chair: Courtenay-Comox on clause 8.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Chair. Nice to see that everybody is still awake this afternoon.

Clause 8 is one of the pretty far-reaching sections of this bill, so I’ll ask a few questions around this.

Why does the minister need the power to unilaterally certify damages under this act?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is taken from the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and it doesn’t certify damage, as the member’s question said. It allows the minister to issue a certificate laying out basic facts about health care benefits that have been or will likely be provided and their cost as proof in an action under this act.

Brennan Day: Will the defendants, then, be able to contest the minister’s calculations?

It does seem like they’re doing both ends of this. Through this act, they’ll be acting sort of as the expert witness and accountant all at once.

Just to clarify how that works, and if you could point to an example in the previous acts, whether it’s tobacco or opioids, as a reference.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to explain these certificates a little bit more, they’re borrowed from the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and it can be used to prove simple facts efficiently.

Section 1 allows proof of health care benefits that have been provided. It is rebuttable, to the member’s question. It’s rebuttable by the defendant introducing evidence to the contrary. So that’s one section of the act.

This just allows for an efficient moving of a health care cost.

Brennan Day: I guess, then, I’ll just put these questions on the record, and I don’t expect an answer.

We’ve litigated this with the Ministry of Health in terms of getting specific costs for procedures and such. Given the way our health care system is administered, it’s extremely hard to determine the actual cost. Brick and mortar, etc., is often left out of those calculations.

Is there any limit on the Crown, including administrative overhead, indirect costs, future staffing allocations, cost escalators or policy-driven anticipated costs that could be included in these certificates?

We know it’ll be hard for the health authority to estimate actual damages. They’re the ones that are being asked to provide those. If that’s the case, how can defendants protect themselves from inflated or speculative claims?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Protection against that is under the definitions. There’s a definition of “health care benefits,” and it lists out the types of benefits and expenditures that are included.

Anna Kindy: Again, why must a court treat that number as final and conclusive proof of the cost when you’re looking at the variables?

If we’re looking at health care recovery costs to opioids and, I’m assuming, Purdue and OxyContin, it was quite narrow what happened in terms of addiction and death, right? It’s a narrow parameter versus what we’re doing here. It’s a vaping health care recovery cost.

We already talked about the lack of labelling in terms of vaping and the number of chemicals, which can vary from 14 to 22 to more, and we don’t know. That’s from the illicit and the licit market.

[3:00 p.m.]

It goes to, as well, that we talked about…. Going back to kids, a good portion of kids that vape nicotine vape cannabis. We also discussed the issue of cannabis having, within three years, 240 times the rate of psychosis or schizophrenia in three years’ time, versus vaping, in terms of itself as an issue, which takes years.

There are so many unknowns, as well, as to what is related to the actual health issues of vaping because, again, there is no labelling. Cardiac issues can be related to vaping, but they can also be related to many other factors as well. The actual lung issues can be multi-factorial. You could be working in a factory that has smoke, and you end up with issues, and you’re vaping. Where will that attribute it?

It’s so vague, and again, this targets such a narrow aspect of vaping that I’m concerned. I’m trying to wrap my head around how this government is coming to a bill that is so vague. Well, it’s not vague in its intent to recoup costs, but it’s vague as to where it’s going to get the parameters to recoup the costs, as to what is causing the injury.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe a little guidance from the Chair about how this relates to this section that we’re talking about.

I will say that this is an enabling piece of legislation, so it gives the government tools to launch litigation, where very specific questions will be answered.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Brennan Day: This is probably one of the biggest departures from the previous two, tobacco and opioids. It runs out the limitation window to 15 years, which is unusually long. I believe this is the longest in any act currently by government. I just have a few questions on that.

Why did the government choose a limitation period of 15 years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The 15-year period is actually consistent with the maximum limitation period found in B.C. In this evolving area of harm and marketplace, we thought it was fitting to make sure that we were taking the long approach of the limitation period that gets up to that limit of what’s available in B.C.

Just to note that in the opioid litigation, other provinces also had a 15-year limitation period.

Brennan Day: Given the length of the retroactive liability concerns that this is obviously going to impart on people in this industry, does the minister acknowledge that reviving extinguished claims is a form of retroactive liability? How is that dealt with through this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear again, this is a liability concern for wrongdoers, and I think maybe everybody in the House would agree that there should be a liability concern if you’re committing the types of wrongdoing that these types of litigation go after.

Brennan Day: With the retroactivity in here, the context of business may no longer exist. Financial records — there is no requirement for financial records to be kept for that period of time. Ownership changes over 15 years are likely, and they may not even have any capacity to defend themselves. I’m just wondering why 15 years was taken. It seems like an extremely long time frame to be going after bad actors in the context of this legislation.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think I answered with the reason for the 15 years. It’s a changing marketplace. The types of harms that we may discover from vaping may change. It provides a good range of time for us to think about this as a remedy.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Anna Kindy: I think this is where…. This is the liability based on risk contribution, and I sort of believe that amendments are there to make a bill better, as well as in protecting our constituents and people in B.C.

I gave the example of the cookies. If you buy cookies in a grocery store, there’s a label, and you actually know what you’re consuming. Unfortunately, even in any legitimate market, there are no labelling requirements. How can we attribute what is causing harm? It’s a way of fact-finding as well. I think it becomes much more clear. If there are certain ingredients that we know are causing harm, and it’s on the label, then we’re able to assess that. That’s why I’m bringing forward, for this bill….

I move, in the Committee of the Whole on Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, to amend as follows:

[CLAUSE 10, in proposed section 10 (2), by adding the following underlined text as shown after paragraph (p):

(p.1) whether a defendant failed to label or mislabeled the ingredients contained in the vaping product manufactured or promoted by a defendant;]

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We will circulate the proposed amendment right now. We’ll take a brief recess, about five minutes or so, to do that.

The committee recessed from 3:07 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we will call this House back to order, where we are contemplating an amendment, introduced by the member for North Island, with respect to clause 10.

I will call on the minister for comments.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the reason for this amendment, and I just want to explain to the member and to the public why this is already included. Actually this list, being so thorough, includes a lot of things that are covered if they fail to label, or mislabel, the ingredients contained in vaping products.

The first, most important one is subsection (d), where it says: “whether a defendant breached a statutory duty.” There is a regulation, the vaping products labelling and packaging regulation, that sets out the labelling requirements for vaping products that would talk about that as a statutory duty. So (d) captures that, because it would be a breach of a statutory duty to do the conduct that’s in the amendment.

The other ways that it would be captured are subsection (b), “the riskiness or recklessness of the conduct,” and (c): “the degree to which the conduct deviated from the ordinary standard of conduct.” I mentioned (d) as a statutory obligation, which is a key trigger, and then (h) is “the degree of harmfulness of the vaping product manufactured or promoted by a defendant.”

On the other side of it, if they’re labelling appropriately, then you have (n) and (p) — “the efforts a defendant made to warn the public about disease, injury or illness resulting from use” or “affirmative steps that a defendant took to reduce the risk to the public of disease, injury or illness.” That’s if they have proper labelling about the contents of their product.

For those reasons, this is already captured in clause 10, and I won’t be supporting it.

Anna Kindy: We’ve already asserted that in vape shops there are unregulated products, and nothing is being done about that. I’ve actually seen product where you can take off what’s been taped on top of something and look at a different label. So consumers are not aware. Also, there has been testing done, in terms of nicotine content, etc.

Unfortunately, the issue is that if people vape, do you know what they vaped? When the government went after Purdue, the pharmaceutical company, it was in regards to opioids and, more specifically, OxyContin and the damage done. It was quite clear. This puts an unfair pressure on the regulated market, which tends to follow rules more, anyhow. I’m just going to end it at that.

I think labelling is important. I think in the future, consideration of putting forth that labelling should be issued on all products that are smoked or vaped, to be honest, because you’re ingesting it in your body. It’s in another form than eating, but you are inhaling it, and it’s probably distributed over an even larger surface area. I think that should be taken into consideration.

Anyhow, I just would let it rest at that.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question before this House is the amendment proposed for Bill 24, clause 10.

Amendment negatived.

[3:15 p.m.]

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Brennan Day: It’s late in the day. I know everybody’s looking forward to getting home.

This is about contribution and indemnity. I’ll be fairly quick through this section.

Will small operators facing contribution claims from large manufacturers seek to distribute liability downwards through this act?

It does seem like clause 9 was a bit of a spaghetti clause — let’s get everybody listed, and go for it — and that there could be people caught up. It seems like they’re going to be arguing backwards and defending against, potentially, no wrongs of their own, just for acting in this space.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s normal, very normal, in legal proceedings that you might have counter- or cross-claims. This section allows defendants who are liable for vaping-related wrongs to seek contribution towards the cost of health care benefits from other defendants found liable. And the court may apportion liability and order a contribution amongst each of the defendants based on the factors that are set out.

Brennan Day: So it does seem to open up a bit of a can of worms though. Does this not allow defendants to sue each other for contribution, even if they haven’t paid anything to the overarching claim and even if the government’s claim remains unresolved? Doesn’t this create a giant bottleneck at the lower court levels with all these counterclaims?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. I guess I’ll just say, similar to what I said before, it’s a pretty normal thing, when there are multiple parties, to have their different cross-claims or counterclaims related to that. This just helps to streamline and consolidate government’s response.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Brennan Day: This creates a considerable amount of director and officer liability. So why should directors or officers be held personally liable for vaping-related wrongs when no wrongdoing on their part is required as part of this claim?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is also pretty standard that in the case of wrongdoing, you can pierce the corporate veil, as the term goes, so that there is liability found, and it is in the context of particular wrongdoing on behalf of those parties.

Brennan Day: Given the liability, was there any consultation done with the insurance industry on the potential impact on directors’ and officers’ insurance?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, there wasn’t. There are similar provisions in, I think, other similar pieces of legislation. Anybody that steps on a board understands their responsibilities of when they’re protected and when they’re not.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Brennan Day: This goes back to the retroactivity conversation. Why does this clause not specify any limit on how far back retroactive liability can apply?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This provision is necessary to ensure there is no doubt that it applies fully to wrongdoings that have occurred in the past before the new act takes effect.

Brennan Day: What would the maximum look-back period that the ministry anticipates using be under this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Some of the wrongdoing that bills like this can target are related to hiding information or having knowledge about harmfulness of products for the public for a long amount of time without disclosing it or acting appropriately about what those harms are.

This section just will ensure that there is no doubt that the wrongdoers can’t escape any liability for the wrongs they may have committed, even decades ago.

Brennan Day: Conveniently, most of the poor operators are located outside of our borders, so they’re probably all right anyways.

Moving along, has the ministry consulted with insurers on whether retroactive unlimited liability is even insurable?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. We haven’t.

Brennan Day: Then I guess with that answer, does the minister acknowledge that many businesses may lose coverage or face prohibitive premiums?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is focused on wrongdoers. It’s not focused on the regular operation of businesses. If they are operating and they haven’t committed any of the breaches that we talk about in this bill, they have nothing to worry about.

Brennan Day: Given the broad net that this bill allows, I think everybody will probably be caught up. I’ll be curious to see how many operators continue to exist in British Columbia under this bill.

I guess we can move on to the next clause.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Brennan Day: As this piece of legislation is going to put us in front of the rest of the country on this, and it’s something I think that is intentional through this, why does clause 14 allow B.C. to litigate on behalf of other provinces and their agents?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is actually a very powerful, made-in-B.C. tool that I think we should all be proud of, which allows governments to take on very large, often multinational corporations that are causing harm and that are resulting in health care costs because of their wrongdoing.

Just to note that the way this is constructed, the multi-Crown class action is not only a very efficient and effective way to recover health care costs, but there’s also an opt-out procedure if there’s a government that doesn’t want to participate. I’ll just note that in the times that we’ve done similar things in tobacco and opioid, no governments across Canada have ever opted out.

With tobacco, this similar method resulted in billions of dollars — billions of dollars — going back into health care systems across this country.

Brennan Day: Why was this clause absent from the tobacco and opioid acts?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Every time we’ve done something like this, we’ve learned and evolved and adapted. Although it ended up being very much multi-Crown class action with tobacco, the first time it was in legislation — the member is right — is in the opioid legislation that we put forward.

Just to say that the equivalent section in the opioid recovery act was one of the provisions that was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, whether or not we were lawful in that provision, and B.C. was successful. So it was upheld as being a way to pursue a class action lawsuit in Canada.

Brennan Day: Given that the province of British Columbia is leading on this…. They do seem a bit at odds right now with the federal mandate of using this as harm reduction. We can argue about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

What consultation was done with Health Canada in this process, and could you please share with us their position on this clause 14, which allows action on behalf of the Canadian government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No consultation. Again, it’s not regulation. This isn’t a regulatory regime that we’re putting in place. It’s legislation that supports litigation, which is quite different. I did mention that jurisdictions have the option to opt out should there be a lawsuit launched under this act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Brennan Day: On section 15, this covers whistleblower-style provisions. Why was this clause added when similar provisions were not included in the tobacco or opioid acts?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned, every time we’ve learned when we’ve done this type of proceeding, and we’ve adjusted, so this is one of those moments.

The principle behind this is that if there are organizations or individuals that provide information to government for the purposes of the claim of health care costs, they should be given the comfort to provide this information fully and freely without fear of reprisal.

Brennan Day: To the Attorney General, does clause 15 apply to directors and officers who may themselves face personal liability under clause 12?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: A very important aspect of the drafting of this is the good-faith protection. They would have to be operating in good faith in order to do so. I think a really strong argument could be made that if it’s a director that is a wrongdoer and participated in that, providing information to get immunity would be bad faith and this wouldn’t apply.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Brennan Day: Given the involvement of government in this marketplace and the regulation of this marketplace, why should government be immune from liability under the framework it applies to private actors?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is one of the additions here that’s to remove any doubt that it can’t be used against government. It makes sense because the tool that we are putting forward here is about recovering costs on behalf of the public that they spent. So it makes sure that this tool isn’t to be used against government.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Brennan Day: This sort of covers the scope of cabinet power, so I’ll just ask a few questions down that line.

Why is cabinet given the power to expand or alter the definition of “specified device” and “specified substances” without consultation? I do think this is one of the guardrails this act doesn’t cover that would allow this to potentially get well out of the arms of government without reasonable limitations.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Any regulatory-making power that sits within a piece of legislation is confined by the purpose of that legislation, so it inherently is restricted to only be used to further the legislation that it sits under. That is a natural confine to the actions of government.

Brennan Day: Okay, the good news here: I think this will be the last amendment. Thank you for bearing with us.

[CLAUSE 17 is amended by adding the underlined text as shown:

Regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

17 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) prescribing devices for the purposes of the definition of “excluded device”;

(b) prescribing substances or combinations of substances for the purposes of the definition of “excluded substance”;

(c) prescribing delivery systems for the purposes of the definition of “specified device”, including nicotine pouches.

(3) Before making any regulations under subsection (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council must

(a) consult with health experts, consumer advocates, wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers, or their representatives, and

(b) publish a summary of the consultations on a publicly accessible website.]

The Chair: Okay, we’ll take a brief recess to distribute the amendment, and we’ll be back shortly.

The committee recessed from 3:35 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. Everyone should have a copy of the amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, I won’t be supporting this amendment, and it’s for, I think, a good reason. You would not consult in this manner, especially pre-litigation, nor post that online.

Essentially, it’s saying that we would consult with Big Tobacco on what their liability might be and how to make sure that things are designed in a way that would lessen it. I’m sure that would be the discussion that we would be having, and that’s not at all the purpose or the goal of this.

Also, since it goes to litigation, publishing a summary of it online would be problematic to the success and work of government on this file.

If it was a regulatory regime that was being put in place by Health Canada or by the Ministry of Health, I think there would be an appropriate role for consultation to understand the things that the regulations might do to the industry.

So for those reasons, I won’t be supporting the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the vote on the amendment from the member for Courtenay-Comox on clause 17.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 17 and 18 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:40 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:40 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

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

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 24 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: Members, the motion is third reading of Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Division has been called.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49
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	Kindy	Valeriote
	Botterell
NAYS — 42
Wilson	Milobar	Warbus
Rustad	Banman	Wat
Kooner	Halford	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Dew
Clare	K. Neufeld	Brodie
Armstrong	Bhangu	Paton
Gasper	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
McCall	Stamer	Day
Tepper	Mok	Maahs
Kealy	Sturko	Boultbee
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Doerkson	Luck	Block

The Speaker: Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

[3:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

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

Sunita Dhir: Section A reports Bill 29 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 28.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 3:56 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 28 — Business Practices and
Consumer Protection
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

The Chair: We’ll have a recess for ten minutes while we prepare for the next bill.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the House back to order. We are now on Committee of the Whole for Bill 28, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (No. 2), 2025.

On clause 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before we get started, I want to thank the staff that are joining me today and express my gratitude for the work they have done to bring us to this stage and that they will do to guide us through it.

[4:10 p.m.]

We have Anita Nadziejko, director of policy and legislation, and Jess Gunnarson, senior policy legislation analyst.

Steve Kooner: Before I start, I’d also like to thank the Attorney General’s staff for being here and being ready to help answer some questions. I know a lot of work goes behind a bill, and a lot of preparation is done before coming to answer questions.

Thank you for being here today.

With the first question, on clause 1…. I know there’s a certain latitude allowed to ask some general questions about the entire bill. The first question I have is in terms of consultation. What sort of consultation was done on this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We consulted with several organizations and associations in 2022-23 to gain feedback into these proposals. They included the B.C. Financial Services Authority, the B.C. Public Guardian and Trustee, Canadian Bankers, credit union lender associations, Credit Counselling Society of B.C., Equifax, goeasy, federal Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, TransUnion and Vancity.

In July 2025, we followed up with these organizations to indicate that we intended to advance legislative amendments on which they were consulted.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

Did any of these stakeholders have any concerns about this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Generally, the stakeholders were supportive of the amendments that provide people with greater access to their credit reporting information and tools such as security alerts and credit freezes to protect their financial well-being.

Steve Kooner: More specifically in regards to TransUnion and Equifax, did they have any concerns? Did they have any feedback in terms of how to improve this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There was a concern raised by TransUnion and Equifax related to clause 5, which was the notification…. We can talk about it when we get to that clause, but it’s regarding the notification related to when a security alert expires. I’m happy to go into detail when we get to that, because we think the concern is addressed and there’s a pathway to that.

They were in attendance for our announcement, so they’re generally supportive of giving better rights to consumers related to credit reporting.

Steve Kooner: In regards to consultation, the Attorney General just explained that these consultations occurred between 2022 and 2023, and there were also some follow-ups in 2025.

Perhaps the Attorney General can explain the extent of these consultations. Were they just one-off consultations with each of these stakeholders? Was it a group meeting? How many meetings occurred? So more specifics in terms of the extent and duration of these consultation meetings with these stakeholders — if we could get an elaboration of that, please.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The consultation that happened in 2022-23 was a targeted reach-out or written submission to all of these parties that I listed below. The reason it was targeted is because they obviously are entities that have very specific information and understanding of the issue. Our team met with people that wanted to follow up with meetings related from those groups in 2023.

Then in 2025, letters were sent out to the same groups related to the fact that we were going to be bringing forward the legislative amendments that you see before you. From that, our team again met with various number of these organizations related to that.

Steve Kooner: Back in 2022-2023, there was a targeted reach-out to these stakeholders. What was that? Was that a letter, like we had some letters in 2025? What did that entail? What was that targeted reaching out? Was it letters, meetings, phone calls? What was it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That was a discussion paper that we sent to them.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the nature of that discussion paper, did that go through clause by clause what each clause meant and what sort of implications each clause could have?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was a policy paper. We wouldn’t have been at the stage of a clause-by-clause review. The legislative drafting comes later.

Generally, the first discussion for consultation is more of a policy discussion about what we intend to do or what we’re looking at moving on. That was the content of that discussion paper.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the discussion paper, how long was this discussion paper? I guess that’s the next question.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The discussion paper had 23 pages in it.

Steve Kooner: And in order to get to the discussion paper, in order to get to those 23 pages…. What was that based upon? Was there research that was done? That’s the next question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Our team did a legal analysis, a jurisdictional analysis across the country.

Oftentimes what happens with this stuff is that Consumer Protection B.C., which is our oversight body out there and enforces the legislation, will hear from consumers about concerns that they’re having in the marketplace. If they find that there’s a gap in their ability to act on that, then the conversations that our team has directly help to find what those gaps are so we can address them.

There would have been…. At that point, there were definitely some public stories about impacts and protections that were needed in this area.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for explaining what research was done in terms of protecting consumers.

There are two sides of the legislation here. We’re dealing with consumers, and we’re also dealing with business practices, a business industry that’s there, that has been operating a certain model that consumers are involved with. So I heard one side of it.

Was there any research done on what has worked with the business practices industry, these credit reporting agencies? What has worked for them, and how have they been able to help consumers in the extent of time that they’ve been servicing these consumers? What research was done in regards to that in arriving at the results of this discussion paper?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think, as mentioned, the discussion paper that we delivered to those…. I think I listed all of the agencies. Those are the agencies that, as the member suggests, would have a role in overseeing or as a player in this marketplace, and we received the feedback from them directly.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that there was no research done on the business practice professionals or the credit reporting agencies? There was no research done on them up until the time the discussion paper was produced, and then there were stakeholder discussions done. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s exactly when you would do that kind of discussion. When you’re targeting your discussions or consultation with these kinds of experts in the industry…. To give them a discussion paper is a very transparent way of showing them our policy analysis, our jurisdictional analysis and where we think we want to step into updating our act related to credit reporting.

[4:25 p.m.]

Then, after they receive that discussion paper is when they can get a really transparent and in-depth look at what our scope of that discussion would be. So that exactly would be the time that we would sit down with all of the entities that I talked to, like Equifax and TransUnion and people like that, to talk about what we’re working on.

Steve Kooner: After the discussion paper, there were discussions with stakeholders. They probably had some input. They may have said something. The government had certain ideas of what the government wanted to put in this legislation. So after listening to the stakeholders, was there a moving back and forth?

Was there something in terms of incorporating what they were saying? Did the government make certain changes to certain clauses they were thinking they were going to put in this legislation? Were there certain changes that were made in regards to certain provisions that the government already had in mind, but after considering what these stakeholders were saying, those provisions were modified?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s always the case that…. I want to also say that this is pre-drafting. So we’re going back in time to a point where the discussion paper and the consultation happened with the organizations that I mentioned. There were no clauses, and there was no drafting done for the actual bill that we see before us. In that scenario, there would be countless things that would come from the feedback that was listed by the organizations that we talked to that would go into the actual drafting at a later date.

Steve Kooner: Just to go a little bit further, there was the original research that was done. Mostly it had to do with protecting consumers. Then, as a result of that, there was a discussion paper that was done, and then that discussion paper was forwarded to all these stakeholders. When there was a discussion paper, at that time, there were no clauses, but eventually there were some clauses that were generated just prior to this legislation being introduced.

So did the business professionals, the credit reporting agencies, have a say once the clauses were drafted? Was there some sort of give-and-take on some of the clauses that were put forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t think my answer is going to be much different than the one I gave previously, which is that every time you draft a piece of legislation, it’s a balancing act between the rights and interests of all parties in the marketplace.

The primary driver of this type of legislation is the consumer, because it’s our consumer protection regime in B.C. and what we do to make it a fair marketplace for British Columbians, particularly with respect to credit reporting, which is such a vital part of so many people’s lives.

So yes, we did take into account feedback from the consultations that we had with the list that I gave you, and the balancing of all those interests would have made its way to the bill.

Steve Kooner: My understanding so far is that once the clauses were drafted, or when they were being drafted, they were…. The government’s perspective is that all viewpoints, but more so to protect the consumers, were incorporated to develop those clauses. Once those clauses were developed and once we had a draft piece of legislation, at that time, there wasn’t any further consultation done.

[4:30 p.m.]

There may have been a letter that was sent in 2025 that suggested this legislation was coming forward. I won’t ask another question on that, because I think the Attorney General has been clear on that point, but I’m just stating it for the record.

In addition to consultation, what really drove bringing this legislation forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Credit reports and credit scores are so vital to our society right now, and they really can impact the financial well-being of individuals in British Columbia and are such a vital key tool to that. We were seeing in the marketplace how things like fraud and other impacts on people’s credit score and credit rating were making it so people that were less financially secure…. Their well-being was impacted, and they didn’t have the right tools in order to correct that.

The amendments here will give new tools for people to secure financial well-being — for example, providing access to security alerts and credit freezes, and that’s an important tool for people to limit the way in which their credit reporting information is shared; providing people with the ability to access their credit reporting information, including their credit score, for free; supporting people in monitoring their financial health; and ensuring that people who purchase credit repair services or credit monitoring services are fully informed of those services that they’re accessing so they’re not further taken advantage of when they’re in a more desperate financial situation.

Steve Kooner: I agree with the other side there, in terms that there needs to be consumer protection. I also agree that credit reporting services serve a significant aspect in terms of financial affairs, in terms of getting loans, in terms of doing everyday business. The subject matter of this legislation is actually very, very important. I’ve acknowledged that it’s an important piece of legislation.

We heard earlier that there was some targeted reaching out back in 2022-2023, and now we’ve addressed the fact of why this legislation was brought forward.

When was the first time that the government felt there was some sort of need to bring this legislation forward? Was it well before 2022? When exactly was that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we could say pretty clearly that in 2022, or around that time, when the discussion paper was made, there was an identification of the fact that we should look at amendments related to that. That probably is around the time that government became aware of the need to update and work towards what we have today.

Steve Kooner: We know a discussion paper was produced. Who was involved in formulating that discussion paper? In service staff, was it essentially just the Attorney General’s department, or did it incorporate other departments? Did it involve some outside outsourcing to actually produce that discussion paper?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was only in the most recent mandate that consumer protection was transferred over to the Attorney General’s ministry. Prior to that, it was in PSSG, and it would have been the staff that were at that time at that ministry that would have had that realization about the work that was needed.

[4:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: The original piece of this legislation, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, was brought forward, I believe, two decades ago, and then there were no changes made up until 2025. The first revision that we saw, No. 1, was in the spring session. Now we are dealing with a second revision here in the fall session.

Is there a reason why we’re hearing or we’re dealing with this legislation twice in one year? Could it have been brought all together at one time in the spring session?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is an issue that this act hasn’t been looked at since 2004. One of the things that I’m really interested in, in this role is making sure that our consumer protection laws are strengthened in terms of protecting people in various ways.

We were able to bring forward legislation that we debated on about the changes in contracts and how it’s showing up for automatic subscriptions, automatic renewals, the different ways that consumers in this online marketplace are being harmed. That was very important, and I’m really glad that we did that work to update the Consumer Protection Act after so many years of not.

But it was a very different subject matter than what we have right now before us with this credit rating. As a different subject matter, it required a different focus and different discussions with those very specific groups that we shared earlier about consultation. As such, they were treated separately, not too far apart, because this is the next session that we could bring these changes forward. It’ll be another welcome thing to updating our laws in B.C.

Steve Kooner: Since the original act came into force…. It was 2004, which was 21 years ago, and then we had a follow-up amendment just in this year, and this is the second amendment. Does the Attorney General’s department foresee that there might be a third amendment soon?

Hon. Niki Sharma: A little bit out of the scope, I think, of this legislation, but I will say that I’m always looking for ways to improve consumer protection in B.C., and we’ll be doing more work on that.

Steve Kooner: We’re in clause 1 here, and there are a few definitions that we’re looking at, specifically in 1(a).

The first one, which deals with credit repair services, states that “credit repair services” has the same meaning as in section 112.34, definitions. Why did the Attorney General’s department decide to put this specific definition in here?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This amendment related to that reference to the section is in clause 7. Clause 7 provides a full definition, but the reason that it is also amended here for section 4 is to make sure that it’s clear that the definitions refer to each other and, for clarity, that this is a defined term that shows up in clause 7.

Steve Kooner: According to the Attorney General, what’s the literal meaning of “credit repair services” in regard to this piece of legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would ask if we can do that…. I can do it now, but it’s also found in clause 7. The “credit repair services” definition is contained in there. I refer the member to that clause, where you’ll find the full definition.

Steve Kooner: Okay, so there are like five different definitions. The answers that were just applied for that one, credit repair services, are they the same for all five or six of these definitions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, so there are three new ones: the “credit repair services,” “credit repair service provider” and “credit score.” They’re found there. The other amendment that is in here that is not for new definitions is “report” and “reporting agency.”

Steve Kooner: Can you elaborate on that? You said “the others that are not in here.”

Maybe the Attorney General can just elaborate more on that. That wasn’t quite clear to me.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The terms “report” and “reporting agency” existed already — those definitions. They existed in the act, and it says the sections 106 and 106(1). So this was added here just for clarity, but the definition existed already. It’s not a new definition.

Steve Kooner: We’ve debated many bills, and sometimes we talk about adding provisions for clarity. I’ve been told on many occasions that for drafting purposes, it’s not a good idea to repeat certain provisions.

Is there a reason, if report and reporting agency exist somewhere else, why we are repeating it here?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Sometimes when drafting decisions are made, it’s so the reader and the user can interpret something in a more clear way. Especially when it comes to acts that are very large or when there are sections in different parts, the choice is made to make, for clarity, the reference to, for example, these two definitions.

If you see in one of the amendments later on, (c.1), it refers to “reporting agency” and “report.” The reader, when they’re interpreting that section, can understand that the definitions that were referred to are the ones that are cross-referenced here.

Steve Kooner: Going into 1(b), we see here in (c.1), the words “representation by a credit repair services provider.”

In terms of “representation,” perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on that word. I believe it has quite a bit of significance to this particular piece of legislation. Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on that for the record.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s an important defined term that means as it reads. It’s a term or form of a contract, notice or other document used or relied on by a supplier in connection with this consumer transaction.

Steve Kooner: In regards to protecting consumers and looking at these credit reporting agencies or credit service providers that may provide representation, what’s the relationship between the two, with the consumers and the credit reporting service providers or the credit service providers? What’s the relationship when it comes to representation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The representation of the credit repair service provider in relation to the consumer — that representation is defined in that section.

What we wanted to fix was to make sure that when a credit repair service provider is promising something, they’re not promising things that they actually can’t deliver to that consumer. In this scenario, the consumer is usually in a very desperate situation because their credit rating is getting in the way of their financial well-being. This is to fix the marketplace related to where there may be agencies that are taking advantage of that person.

Steve Kooner: We’re dealing with a representation. We’re dealing with a position that’s put out there for consumers, and there might be some reliance by consumers on that position. When we look at positions, there may be different elements of positions. There could be a statement, there could be an omission, or there could be an act. The list goes on and on.

[4:50 p.m.]

When the Attorney General was just explaining representation, as far as the Attorney General’s understanding of this legislation, does the word “representation” catch all those elements of different positions that may be made by consumer or credit service providers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: My answer to that is yes, and if you refer to (c.1), it lists the representations that we’re trying to protect the public from.

Steve Kooner: I do see the further elaboration underneath “representation.” It says: “compel.” It says: “improve.” But the indicia here may not include omission. There are a lot of elements of making positions. But when somebody reads it, when they read the word “representation,” they may say it includes all of that, although the following indicia don’t include it. So it’s important to be very clear in terms of legislative intent.

Was this designed to catch all of the elements that I mentioned? The Attorney General just told me that it catches the actions that are listed below, and the actions listed below refer to compelling, improving — those types of actions. They don’t specifically address omissions or any sort of a positive action. But there are certain elements that go along with representations.

Is the definition of “representation” limited to the indicia that follow right below that word within the subclause only?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would refer the member to the existing legislation, the Consumer Protection Act.

If you look at the definition of “representation,” it’s actually very extensive. It’s extensive in the types of behaviours and practices that it covers and the manner in which they are. What we are doing here is adding a (c.1) to that that includes the credit repair services and the types of behaviours under this definition of “representation” that are relevant to the things that we’re trying to fix.

Steve Kooner: Representation, when you read this act, has a very significant meaning, because you’re trying to get at deceptive practices in order to protect consumers.

[4:55 p.m.]

That seems to be one significant element of this legislation that we’re dealing with — protecting consumers from deceptive practices, protecting consumers from credit service providers that may promise things that they may not be able to deliver in order to benefit off of that.

The term “representation” has a very significant meaning. I understand that the original statute may have the definitions, but we just went through some definitions in clause 1, where the Attorney General explained that for certain reasons, certain definitions are repeated in this legislation for clarity purposes.

Now my question is this. When representation serves a very crucial and important element — we’re trying to protect consumers from deceptive practices — for clarity purposes, wouldn’t it make sense to also mention the extent of representation in addition to what’s listed here right now so consumers can go to one particular section and they will have a full understanding?

Maybe somebody, maybe a credit service provider, may have provided some services, and they may have wronged the consumer. The consumer may be looking for protection, and they may come to this legislation. They may look at this legislation and see that there’s representation and that this is what representation means, with these indicia underneath.

They could be further assisted, and further clarity can be actually provided to them to protect them from unscrupulous credit service providers that may be engaged in deceptive practices, if this particular section also specified that in addition to these indicia, there are also all these other items that may include representation. That may actually serve the purpose of this legislation, which is to protect consumers and also — what we’ve heard from the Attorney General — to serve consumers in a clear way.

Is there a reason why we did not repeat the full, exhaustive list of indicia, although we have it in the original statute? When we look at representation, it serves a very significant aspect to this particular amendment legislation.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are amending section 4. If the member takes a look at section 4, what he will see is the full definition of “representation.” We are adding a subsection to that full definition.

Steve Kooner: Going a little further, we just dealt with representation, but we also were looking at indicia that are listed right underneath representation. The first, (i), states: “It holds a licence to provide credit services.”

A licence from where? Elaboration on the word “licence,” please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As the clause reads, it holds a licence that doesn’t exist. It’s that they’re making a representation that they have a licence when they do not.

Steve Kooner: Perhaps a licence may not exist in British Columbia. Does this also catch any licence? When we’re dealing with credit reporting services, some of these companies are national. They’re not just based in British Columbia. A lot of these credit reporting agencies are national as well.

[5:00 p.m.]

Does this catch all licences? Is this referring to when there is no licence at all, regardless of jurisdiction?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The jurisdiction of this legislation is in B.C., and it would cover instances where a credit repair service provider claims to hold a licence when no licence exists.

Steve Kooner: Going further, in (ii), it states: “It has the authority to compel.” From where? Authority from where?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify, the point of these subsections is to call out credit reporting service providers that are saying or claiming to do something that’s not true. In that section, it’s in the situation where they are claiming to have an authority to compel a reporting agency to remove or amend information in a report when no such authority exists.

So in order to get at that person that’s very desperate for a better credit report because it’s affecting their financial well-being….

We’re trying to prevent these predatory actors from claiming that they can do things when they can’t. So that’s why it says the idea of authority. If they’re claiming that they have authority when no such authority exists, that’s the behaviour that we’re trying to capture.

Steve Kooner: With that definition that was just mentioned, aren’t authority and licence the same thing then? When you have a licence, you have authority from a certain body, and you can make a certain difference. You can carry out a certain action.

Is there some overlapping meaning between licence and authority? If you’ve got authority, you’re obviously getting that authority from somewhere.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is in a situation where a credit repair service provider is making it up. There is no licence, and there is no authority to do the things they are doing. There is no overlap in those terms. There is no legal or statutory authority that is bound in these terms, because it’s actually trying to get at the absence of that and an agency claiming that they have that.

Steve Kooner: Some of these credit reporting services…. I just mentioned that some of them are national. A lot of them are national. So there’s certain legislation that applies to them. They get certain authority from perhaps outside the province. We also know that we have companies here that operate extra-jurisdictionally, and they may follow. So they may pay their taxes somewhere else, but they’re allowed to kind of operate here.

When I see the word “licence,” I see the word “authority” in my mind. I understand we have a jurisdiction here in B.C. So you may comply, but then there are some companies, or there may be some agencies, that operate across borders within Canada.

I guess what I’m trying to wrap my mind to is when we are saying there is no authority, no licence, what we’re actually referring to is there is no licence or authority here in British Columbia for that actor, correct?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by clarifying the difference between the credit repair service provider, which this provision is capturing, and a credit reporting agency. They’re two separate things and show up in different ways for consumers.

The way this is drafted, it’s protecting against the credit repair services holding out to say something that they actually can’t do. So (i) is they say they have a licence when no such licence exists. We’re not aware of, to the extra-jurisdictional question, any licence that exists to provide credit repair services.

Then the second one is related to the authority to compel another reporting agency to remove or…. That authority just doesn’t exist.

So if we find them to be doing that in B.C., we have the ability, through this legislation, to essentially stop that behaviour. Then it goes on to the next one.

That’s the kind of…. Hopefully that helps explain how it shows up.

[5:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just going further in (iii), we see the words “it can improve a credit score.” Perhaps the Attorney General can explain how credit score works.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question from the member was related to credit score. A person’s credit score….

First of all, the credit reporting system that exists collects people’s credit information from creditors, including banks and retailers. Members then access this information for various reasons. Lenders look at a person’s credit report, which summarizes their history of repaying debt, and credit score to assess the risk of extending credit to that individual. Credit information is often reviewed by employers, insurers, landlords. I’m sure everybody knows about it.

A person’s credit score is affected by several factors, and improving a credit score is a slow process of building a history of responsible use of credit, reliable payment of debt, etc. So it is important for consumers to be aware of and monitor their credit information, particularly since the digital economy has introduced new threats to consumer credit, including theft and credit fraud.

[5:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just a further follow-up question. I understand there’s some sort of credit rating, and I understand the factors that may impact that credit rating, whether it goes up or down. But what are the metrics? Is it zero to 100? How does it work mathematically?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a score between 300 and 900, usually, and all the factors that I talked about in my previous answer go into that score.

Steve Kooner: For the people that are listening, it’s my understanding that somebody may start from the bottom, perhaps start at 300, and then the max score is 900. Is my understanding correct in what I just stated?

The Chair: Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you, Chair. I just ask for your guidance. I think we’re straying a little bit away from the content of the bill. I think the credit scores and the number and the factors that go into that is beyond the scope of this, which is to protect consumers in very particular ways about access to information.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect to the Attorney General, the whole purpose of this legislation is to look at ways to protect this credit score, protect information that goes out.

At the outset of our debate today, the Attorney General explained what the purpose of this legislation was, explained that credit scores can be impacted significantly and that it could affect many aspects of life if that score gets affected. So I think it’s important to understand how this credit score works and then put that into perspective — everything we’re looking at in terms of this legislation.

Why I ask this question right now is that we’re just starting to deal with this legislation. We’ve got a lot of clauses to get through. When we go through all the clauses, if we have that understanding — “here’s the activity that we are looking at; this may affect the credit score; that’s why we have to protect the consumer” — it brings you into the realm of what is relevant.

It is very important. It goes to the basics of this legislation that we’re looking at, what we are trying to protect consumers for. We’re trying to protect the information that makes up the credit rating for them. We’re trying to protect their credit rating. We’re trying to protect them from bad actors.

In order to protect them, we have to understand how this credit score works and how far and how badly it can be affected if somebody takes the wrong, bad-actor action under the situation that we are specifically designing to protect against. It is absolutely relevant to the root of this particular legislation, so it is very important to understand.

Part of our duties today as legislators is to tell consumers what we’re doing here and how this legislation is going to protect them. But if we’re just talking about abstract words and there are no mechanics behind what we’re talking about, it becomes a little difficult to understand.

I have a legal mind because I’m also a legal professional, but I still have some understanding difficulties with the mechanics of how a credit score works. So if I’m having, perhaps, a little bit of difficulty understanding the mechanics of how a credit score works, I would not be able to truly imagine what the effect would be on the people that are listening that do not have that legal training that I have.

[5:20 p.m.]

So with all due respect, it is highly relevant because everything we’re discussing in this aspect of legislation is dealing with credit service providers that may be involved in deceptive practices. We’re trying to protect against that so that a credit score would not be affected. But in order to protect against that activity, we have to know what extent of it could be affected. And then we have to know: are we doing enough to protect against these bad actors?

So it’s highly relevant. I disagree with what the Attorney General just stated, because I think the question of understanding goes to the pith and substance of this legislation. So it’s important. I really request that the Attorney General can answer the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Credit score, which is a numerical or other score that a reporting agency attributes to an individual for the purpose of representing the agency’s assessment of their credit-worthiness of an individual, shows how risky it would be for a lender to lend money. It’s represented as a three-digit number generally between 300 and 900, and yes, 300 would be the lowest, and 900 would be the highest. Equifax and TransUnion are the agencies that do credit scores.

If you have a history of being unable to pay or make your payments on your credit, your credit score will go down. If you are showing consistent repayment and good use of credit, your credit score will go up. One of the difficulties is that if you have a low credit score, it can be hard, especially during the times of protecting consumers against some of the practices we’re doing here, for your credit to increase again.

Steve Kooner: We’re making progress.

The next question I have…. We know the lower boundary, the floor, is 300. We know the maximum is 900. Now, we’ve also talked about some scrupulous actors that we’re trying to protect consumers from.

A consumer may have a particular score. Let’s just say, hypothetically, it could be like 500 or like 700. Say they get hit up by a scrupulous actor. What could be the effect on their score? Would that drop them 5 percent, or would that drop them 10 percent? Would that drop them 20 percent? What’s the significant…? What would be the blow to their credit?

We’re trying to protect from scrupulous activity, but I’m trying to get a gist of whether it would be a big impact if they get impacted by a scrupulous actor. Would it be a big impact after there’s a series of activities that happen? How fast would that credit fall down? So that’s the next question.

The Chair: Member, just in terms of the relevance to clause 1, can you explain to the Chair the relevance of your question?

Steve Kooner: Yes, I may.

If we go down to clause 1, then clause 1 has a subsection (b). Under subsection (b), we have subsection (c.1). Under (c.1), we have (iii), and under (iii), we have the words: “It can improve a credit score.” That talks about activity taking the credit score up. So where the credit score may go up, it may also come down. That goes to the question: how much can it go down? That is what I’m trying to get at.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to provide clarity related to this clause, it applies to a credit repair service provider. Again, it is talking about a representation that is a deceptive practice that we’re protecting the consumer from.

So it is not in line of the question about an actual increase in credit score or not. It’s about a representation that can improve a credit score information report, and that is something we’re trying to protect the public from.

Steve Kooner: We are also on clause 1. There’s a certain latitude when you’re talking about clause 1 to talk about, essentially, the legislation. The legislation also talks in a broad sense of what we’re trying to protect against.

This was a specific example, but this will be an ongoing theme through all the clauses, moving forward. I know there’s a certain element. We can maybe tackle it once we get to that specific clause, but understanding the mechanics behind credit score would be helpful to understand throughout.

Now, I don’t have too many questions. It’s just one simple question of how much a credit score can go up and down. I don’t think it’s too much to ask, just to get that one simple answer so we can move on and get into other clauses, moving forward.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer to that question is: it depends. I would maintain that it’s beyond the scope of this bill, but it does just depend, and there are proprietary formulas by Equifax and TransUnion related to that. So I would suggest, to answer those questions fully, that he would direct those questions to experts in the field.

The Chair: Just asking the member to ensure that his questions are relevant to the appropriate clause in question and not necessarily to operational, mechanical questions in terms of credit agencies. So just relevant to the clause. Thank you.

Steve Kooner: Thank you, Chair, for that. My effort is always to ask relevant questions. I think if one asks relevant questions, it is of service to everybody that’s watching, but I think we may disagree to what is relevant. So any question I ask — I feel that it is relevant, and that’s why I ask it.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I will move on to further…. We talked about credit score and the meaning of credit score, but it goes further: “It can improve credit score or information in a report.” Now we have the word “information” right beside “credit score.” What would that entail? Wouldn’t that just be that credit information that was just discussed by the Attorney General?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Information report may include things like paying habits, income, things related to repayment history or lending history that are not the credit score.

Steve Kooner: Going further down, in (iii)(B), we see “reaching the conclusion, acting reasonably.” Now, acting has been qualified to mention acting reasonably. What’s the standard to measure whether an actor was acting reasonably?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The determination of what “reasonable” would be in this situation would be one that would be complaint-driven to Consumer Protection B.C., as the oversight body for this legislation, so that would be up to them to determine.

The reasonable person standard is a legal standard that’s found in a lot of places in law, and it essentially means: what would a reasonable person do in that fact scenario, given those circumstances? It gives an ability to qualify behaviour with some kind of a standard.

We didn’t want the legislation to be overly prescriptive in terms of listing or defining, but we thought the reasonableness standard was a way to import that idea that would capture behaviour that we wanted to capture.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to suggest that the phrase “acting reasonably” is subject to interpretation based upon case law?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned before, it would be Consumer Protection B.C. that would be the one that would oversee a complaint of reasonableness — or the courts.

Steve Kooner: Going further in this same clause, there’s a reference to “inaccurate.” When we look at “inaccurate,” are we saying that we’re referring to “false”? Or is there a more wholesome definition of “inaccurate”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: “Inaccurate” would just have the ordinary meaning there of what inaccurate would be.

Steve Kooner: In that same phrase, it says: “inaccurate or incomplete.” So incomplete…. If I made the suggestion that we’re referring to half-truth, would that catch or would that fit in the definition of “incomplete”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think incomplete would be along the lines of missing information.

[5:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Another scenario that I thought of…. We’re dealing with this framework here in (iii). We’re talking about representations that may be made, and there may be false representations.

In regards to that, I can probably think about situations where people are putting some representations out there on paper, but then they are putting next to those representations fine print, saying that…. While they’re qualifying what they’re doing, if they’re doing any sort of deceptive practices, they may say that this is not advice, or they may qualify it.

Would this legislation, the way it is, also catch that? There could be some grey area that some of these credit service providers can come out and put out a statement, put out a representation, but then have some fine print, and then if somebody challenges them and holds them responsible, they can say: “Well, look, no, that’s not the full picture of what we put out. We actually did tell whoever we are providing services to not to rely on that information per se.”

Does this also catch deceptive practices even after they’ve been qualified by some of these credit service providers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The definition is broad enough to include what the member refers to as fine print.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: The first question I’d like to ask about clause 2: what was the intent behind clause 2 and putting this clause 2 in here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The amendment here seeks to ensure that the contract information is disclosed for both credit monitoring service contracts and credit repair service contracts regardless of whether the dollar value of these contracts exceeds the prescribed amount.

Steve Kooner: Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on the words “prescribed amount.”

The Chair: Member, could you just repeat that for the Chair’s benefit, please.

Steve Kooner: I think the last phrase that was mentioned by the Attorney General was “prescribed amount.” Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on the words “prescribed amount.”

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That refers to regulatory-making power allowing the government to prescribe an amount, and it hasn’t been used yet.

[5:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: The prescribed amount would be determined by regulations. But what’s going to be the process in terms of coming up with that prescribed amount? I understand that maybe it comes through cabinet, but what’s the process to determine that? It seems to be it’s going to have a significant role to play within this particular section.

It’s going to come from the cabinet. But what’s going to go into creating that prescribed amount?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Like anything that guides decision-making, particularly with respect to this, decision-making would be guided related to consumers and their role in the marketplace.

The idea of what kind of contract and what prescribed amount to hit would depend on proportionality of the amount of that contract. That would probably factor into the decision-making. This is connected to the amendments in Bill 4 that had consultation related to the implementation phase as well.

Steve Kooner: Once the prescribed amount is created, how will the public know about it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Regulations are public.

Steve Kooner: Will there be any additional process other than publishing it in a Gazette or publishing the regulations online?

I know that publishing online is a subject matter of another one of our bills that we’re going to be looking at, but is there any further publication method, in addition to it coming out in the regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Additionally, Consumer Protection B.C. has an educational role, and any time there are new changes or updates to their role, they make a point of educating consumers.

Steve Kooner: Okay.

In clause 2(0.1), we have two references. We have a credit monitoring services contract, and then we have credit repair services contract.

Can the Attorney General explain how these two interact with each other?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These two definitions don’t relate to each other. They’re defined separately and are meant to capture separate entities.

Steve Kooner: Going further into clause 2, we are dealing with subclause (b). It says: “In subsection (1) by striking out….”

What was the intent behind this particular subclause in terms of striking out and substituting?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: These changes were meant to bring clarity to the types of contracts that we’re referring to. We want to make sure that no matter the amount, any contract related to a credit monitoring services contract or a credit repair services contract is captured. The striking out of “into a contract” and the adding “into an applicable contract” captures that desire, along with the other change, the striking out, in this provision.

Steve Kooner: Was that answer for all of these subclauses — (b), (c) and (d)?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it’s for all of the striking out and additions in this.

Steve Kooner: Okay.

In clause 2, we started off looking at “applicable contract.” When we’re looking at clauses, we also would want to see the efficiency of those clauses, more so for activities such as this, where we’re trying to protect consumers, to ensure that the little guys are protected. We don’t want the little guys to have extra hurdles to be able to rely on this legislation before us.

As a result of how this applicable contract has been defined in these regulations, does the government anticipate any sort of increased litigation or administrative complaints arising from disputes over whether a contract qualifies as an applicable contract?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, we don’t.

Steve Kooner: Earlier, in clause 1, we were talking about clarity provisions. Now I just want to make sure, in clause 2…. Is any content being repeated here in clause 2 that also exists somewhere else?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The times that it happens, it’s clearly stated within it. It names the section, like section 106(1), section 112.34. This is a similar discussion to what we had previously.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner: In clause 3: “the heading to Part 6 is repealed and the following substituted.” What we have is a heading. It reads as: “Part 6, Credit Reporting and Credit Monitoring.”

Can the Attorney General tell us why we are now inserting a heading?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This ensures that credit monitoring, for which the provisions are being added through clauses 4 and 6 of this bill, is reflected in the heading of part 6.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say this is more so for ease of reference throughout the statute, that it doesn’t really have any procedural or substantive bearing behind it?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It serves a purpose of adding clarity.

Steve Kooner: So it serves as a purpose of clarity. What went behind there? What was the confusion before? Was there a lot of confusion before having this in here?

Normally, we just have an ease of purpose, and you add a title. But here we’re actually clarifying, adding clarity with the title. What was the problem behind it? Was there confusion? What sort of data does the department have?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered.

Steve Kooner: Would the Attorney General be of the opinion that now that this clarity has been provided, that this is a fulsome clarity, that there won’t be any further issues in terms of clarity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a change of the title, nothing more, nothing less.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Steve Kooner: In clause 4, we’re dealing with…. Section 106 is amended and continues for some time. Perhaps the Attorney General can enlighten us in terms of what the purpose was that led to creating clause 4 here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The expansion of sections 106(1) and (2) — they provide new definitions. What that does is ensure that part 6 of the act has the context it requires for the addition of credit monitoring, security alerts and credit freezes, as are added through clause 6 of the bill.

Steve Kooner: More specifically, when we’re looking at the definition of “credit monitoring services,” why does this definition specifically include a reference to identity theft and fraudulent use of the consumer’s identity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These are examples of the things that we are exactly designing these amendments to protect people from, and the credit monitoring service plays a role in that. So that’s the risk of identity theft and fraudulent use of consumer’s identity.

Steve Kooner: Were these the most common types of harms that this legislation was trying to protect against, when we’re looking at identity theft and fraudulent use of consumer’s identity?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This definition is meant to…. It’s tied into a later-on clause that puts this obligation on credit monitoring services to disclose to individuals what services related to protecting them against certain harms, like the ones listed, are available to them at no cost if they want to avail themselves of those services.

Steve Kooner: I see that we have “credit monitoring services” here. Then it’s followed up by “credit monitoring services contract.” Does the Attorney General’s department foresee there are situations where there would not be a credit monitoring services contract and there would still be credit monitoring services provided?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, there would be a contract in place.

Steve Kooner: So we’re dealing with a credit monitoring services contract. What would that entail? What would that contract look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The contents of a contract would be something that Equifax and TransUnion and those kinds of agencies would be able to provide fully to the member, I’m sure, if you ask what their contracts look like.

What I can tell you is that through our Business and Consumer Protection Act and Bill 4, along with the changes here, we set with clarity what’s required to be put in that contract. I think we had extended discussions about that, about the requirements that we have in terms of contracts and what needs to be included on behalf of the consumer.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that those contracts are going to be in writing? It’s been a while since we debated that first part of this amendment, but I recall there may have been something about in writing. I just want to confirm that.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked a bit in my previous answer about Bill 4 and the requirements that we said must be in a contract. In terms of the totality of what the requirements are, it’s hard for us to imagine how it could only be an oral contract, because there would be so many clauses in there that you’d either be talking to the person for a long time or, obviously, that would require some something in writing.

But everything with a contract can be oral or written. You can imagine scenarios where, although I’m sure that it’s a written contract that is the base of the relationship, there could be oral discussions or terms that are agreed to that might come up in that transaction. So it could be complicated by the situation or the transaction.

Steve Kooner: I notice that we’ve been going for two hours. Is it possible to get a break?

The Chair: It certainly is, Member. How’s seven minutes for you?

Steve Kooner: Sounds good.

The Chair: We’ll be in recess for seven minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:03 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order where we are contemplating Bill 28, and we are on clause 4.

Point of Order

Sheldon Clare: Point of order, Mr. Chair. I don’t believe we have quorum.

The Chair: Thank you for pointing that out, Member. We’re just searching for one more member.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Thank you very much, Members. Sorry for that brief halt on action there.

Steve Kooner: We were on clause 4. I have a couple more questions on clause 4.

I note that we have a few definitions here. We have “credit agreement,” “credit monitoring services,” “credit monitoring services contract,” “credit monitoring services provider” and “security alert information.”

Is there a reason why we only have five definitions in this particular clause? What’s the reason for only having five definitions in this particular clause 4?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The only definitions that we would add are ones that are necessary for the changes that we are making related to credit reporting. These ones were determined to be in that category.

Steve Kooner: I thought I’d clarify that, because when we started off with this legislation, we had some duplication. Now when I’m going through each clause, I’m mindful of the fact that there could still be duplication, and it just may not have been done in this particular clause for clarity. The explanation that was provided was that duplication was for clarity purposes back then. So I just had to ask that question.

The other question I have is: now, was there some sort of analysis that was done when these definitions were put in on whether any of these definitions conflict with other legislation? I guess, more specifically, there may be some overlapping federal jurisdiction that deals with consumers as well. Was there some analysis done to make sure there is no conflicting language or no conflicting definitions in here that may conflict with other legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. That would be something that the drafters and legal team would do when they are drafting any legislation. Because this is consumer protection in B.C., there are no overlapping federal definitions.

Steve Kooner: Going further into the last part of clause 4, we get into subsection (c) here. In subsection (c), it gets into kind of another definition. It basically says: “A credit agreement includes a lease.”

[6:15 p.m.]

Why is “lease” specifically a mention here? It doesn’t come out as the rest of the definitions. There’s a new subsection, and it says: “A credit agreement includes a lease.”

Why did the drafters consider that this was important to mention here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Leases are defined under section 57, and that’s an agreement for the hire of goods, except an agreement for the hire of goods in connection with the tenancy agreement. So it excludes tenancy agreements.

The reason that we thought it was necessary to include this is because of things like vehicle leases that may play a role in…. It’s an area of risk for fraudulent accounts and fraudulent activity but also important for credit rating.

Steve Kooner: There was a word mentioned in there, “to include,” something, “leases.” The Attorney General mentioned it really fast.

Could the Attorney General just clarify that? Which lease?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think if you’re asking about…. Sorry I spoke too fast. It’s vehicle leases.

Steve Kooner: Land leases or tenancy land leases are excluded, so this does not deal with any sort of real property. It deals with personal property.

When we’re looking at personal property, is it limited to vehicles only?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I meant to use that as an example. What it excludes is tenancy.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Steve Kooner: Clause 5 has a lot of substantive information in it.

I guess the first question I’ll ask is: what prompted the Attorney General’s department to insert clause 5? What did the Attorney General’s department feel, or what was its position? Why did it feel it was necessary to add clause 5 in this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s an important part of the amendments here. A security alert is a fraud protection tool. Individuals can ask a credit reporting agency to apply this protection — you’ll see it’s coming up in clause 6 — to create a requirement for anyone entering into a credit agreement or prescribed transaction to confirm the individual’s identity in person or by phone.

Steve Kooner: We talked about TransUnion earlier. In regards to TransUnion and this particular clause, does TransUnion have an issue with this particular clause?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. They have identified a concern related to the requirement here that’s “reasonable efforts to contact an individual using contact information specified.” That’s something they’ve talked about with us.

Steve Kooner: Perhaps the Attorney General can take us through why making reasonable efforts to contact is an issue for them.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Any time we do legislation, I mentioned at the top, it’s about a balancing of interests. I can tell you why we made the policy choice on behalf of consumers, which is the driving goal, to protect consumers through this legislation, to do what we did.

We’re choosing to proceed with prescribing the means of contact for several reasons. It provides individuals with certainty that they will be contacted by phone by a lender before entering into a credit agreement and ensures that any and all lenders will use the same contact method, and it provides the individual with control by enabling them to provide their preferred phone number.

Steve Kooner: Would the Attorney General agree with me that by creating this legislation the way it is, it creates a very rigid structure in how a credit service or credit reporting agency has to comply?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this provides the ability for a consumer to decide how they want to be contacted and to have that respect of that contact at the appropriate time in this process and that lenders will do that.

Steve Kooner: A lot of times consumers may have changed their address or their phone number or their information of how to be contacted. I would put the suggestion forward that there could be an issue at times, say, if contact information has been changed. There may be an issue of how you comply with a rigid structure here when information for contacting has actually changed.

Did the Attorney General’s department turn their mind to that aspect? What if the contact information has changed, and now the credit reporting agency has to comply with this but the information of contacting has changed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In some instances, where people have changed their contact and may not have updated their contact information, that will happen, and that can happen. In these instances, the process is ultimately self-correcting, as it will necessitate the individual to update their contact information with the credit reporting agency to ensure access of credit going forward.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:25 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee for Bill 28 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:13 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir 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, back to order.

We are on the amendment to clause 3 moved by the member for Skeena, which strikes out “on the date of royal assent” and replaces it with “by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Any further debate on the amendment?

On clause 3 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

Claire Rattée: I’ll keep my comments here brief, because I know I’ve spoken to the amendment already. But just kind of in response to some of what’s been said around it….

I just wanted to take this opportunity quickly to thank the minister for working with my colleagues and I on this and trying to find some common ground here.

I want to make it clear that I do understand the purpose and the intention behind this legislation, and I understand that we have to take it very seriously to make sure that we’re protecting health care workers and other clinicians when they’re administering involuntary treatment, to make sure that they are protected. It is my belief at this point, still, that there are ways to achieve that without this legislation.

This amendment, I think, is one of the ways in which we could achieve that because it would provide a bit more certainty on the timeline, only when it’s necessary to make these changes, pending what happens with the Charter challenge.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m hopeful that this amendment will pass. I think that it really, effectively, changes nothing for the government to make this amendment, other than it gives a bit more certainty for my colleagues and I to understand what the timeline is going to look like and to make sure that it’s actually necessary changes that are going to be made when they’re needed, rather than acting pre-emptively in the face of a court challenge.

With that, I hope that the amendment passes, and I appreciate the minister’s time on this.

The Chair: Members, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[2:20 p.m.]

Members, is there an agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Okay. 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 the amendment to clause 3 moved by the member for Skeena, which strikes out “on the date of royal assent” and replaces it with “by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Kooner	Botterell	Mok
	Williams
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Osborne	Sunner
Lajeunesse		Gibson

The Chair: Members, let’s carry on. We shall move on to clause 3 now.

We will wait for the minister’s staff to come back.

Clause 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just in closing, I would like to say, first and foremost, thank you to members opposite for a good dialogue over the past three days.

I appreciate the respect and cordiality in which we were able to have these conversations. I know we share the perspective that these are extremely serious and important matters, and I just want to pass my respect on to my colleagues.

I also want to say thank you very much to the staff from the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Health who have been here to support me.

Without further ado then, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:24 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

We are on an amendment to clause 3, moved by the member for Prince George–Valemount.

Member, would you like to continue speaking to the amendment?

On clause 3 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

Rosalyn Bird: I won’t start right from the beginning.

The amendment I’m bringing forward today would require the minister to prepare an annual report, table it in the assembly and refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

The report would include the number of safety plans created; the number of children affected; outcomes, including how many children remained safely at home and how many were later removed; the reasons agreements were terminated; and various data, including Indigenous identity, income levels and region.

This information is not burdensome to collect. MCFD tracks much of it internally now. The difference is that today this data is not made public. Without public reporting, we cannot evaluate whether safety plans are keeping children safely with their families, whether they are being used consistently across regions or whether certain populations, particularly Indigenous children and communities or low-income families, are disproportionately affected.

We have heard concerns throughout debate that safety plans in practice can sometimes be used under pressure, without clear documentation and without access to legal advice.

Transparency is one of the strongest safeguards that we can provide to ensure these concerns are not only realized within the new legislative framework. Adding section 19.10 will strengthen public trust, reduce the risk of safety plans being used as a coercive tool, allow us to monitor outcomes for children and families, support UNDRIP, align oversight through data collection and ensure that increased director authority granted under this bill is matched by appropriate accountability to this House.

This is a responsible, measured amendment that benefits the children, families, Indigenous communities and the ministry itself. It ensures that this Legislature can monitor the real-world impact of safety plans, identify emerging issues and act quickly should unintended consequences arise.

For these reasons, I respectfully move the amendment, adding section 19.10, “Reporting,” and I urge members on both sides of the House to support this amendment.

The Chair: Having reviewed the amendment, it is deemed to be in order, so we will allow for debate on the amendment.

The member has already spoken, so, Minister, if you would like to respond, please go ahead.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would just like some clarification. I’d like to ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. It is a new section about reporting. I request that it be made inadmissible and out of scope with respect to this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. The Chair has reviewed the amendment. It seems to be in order. Would you like to speak on it?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are quite a few things here with respect to this proposed amendment, and a number of strong reasons why I’m opposed to the amendment.

I also just want to say that a number of the statements that the member opposite made in her proposal of the amendment are incorrect. We’ve spoken about those things numerous times through the debate of this bill, things like increasing the powers of the director. This bill actually does the direct opposite of that.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’ve talked quite a lot, at length, about how this bill is putting procedural guardrails in place for policy that is already in place, how this bill protects parents’ rights and does quite the opposite of how the member opposite has characterized the bill. We’ve gone back and forth at length with respect to those pieces.

A couple of other things about adding this level of reporting to a piece of legislation.

First of all, accountability and reporting are realized across…. Adding this just to safety plans and not adding it to all of the tools and interventions across the CFCSA, like supervision orders and other things…. We would just not include reporting on only one tool used in the CFCSA. So that is one important thing.

I think it’s really important to note that we understand and very much believe in the importance of accountability and documentation and reporting in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We do a great deal of reporting on our public portal right now.

On our public portal, there are a number of places that report a number of things. Our provincial centralized screening reports all of the protection reports that come in, the assessments that happen, the safety concerns that are followed up on. Our public portal reports out on admissions into care, out-of-care placements. Our public portal reports out on post-majority services and supports.

The Representative for Children and Youth has the ability under the act to investigate any tool under the CFCSA. There is a difference between documentation and public reporting, and we’ve talked at length about the documentation that occurs in our integrated case management system.

For all of those reasons, I do not support the amendment.

Heather Maahs: This amendment is actually the epitome of accountability. When it comes to data around children and their families, we can’t have too much. It’s so important to all the work that all the folks in the ministry — the social workers, the administrators, all of them — do in terms of safety plans, because they are safety plans. That’s the whole object of this exercise.

Having this kind of accountability helps everybody do their jobs in a more fulsome manner. This kind of accountability would also provide, to be honest, much-needed confidence in the ministry.

This ministry is one that is difficult. It is difficult for everyone involved — the people who work in it, the parents, the children, the caregivers, the social workers.

I would encourage the government to please consider this amendment very seriously in terms of more transparency and more accountability.

The Chair: Seeing no further debate on this, Members, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Is any member opposed to waiving the time?

Leave granted.

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 on the amendment moved by the member for Prince George–Valemount to add a proposed section to clause 3.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3
Kooner	Mok	Williams
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Sunner	Wickens
Lajeunesse		Gibson

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

We’ll give a minute for the minister’s staff to come back.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 6 (continued).

Rosalyn Bird: As we conclude committee stage debate on 29, I wanted to state that our caucus will be supporting this legislation. We fundamentally agree that safety plans, when voluntary, transparent and properly monitored, can keep children safe, supported and connected to their families and their communities.

That principle is not in dispute. However, the RCY and other parent advocates and parents have raised concerns and have requested legislative changes.

Our support comes with significant concerns. This bill expands the discretionary authority to directors to create, amend and terminate safety plan agreements, often verbally, without court oversight, without mandatory written documentation and without guaranteed access to legal advice. That combination raises real risks of section 7 Charter violations for both parents and children. Whenever state power is increased, corresponding safeguards must also be strengthened. In that respect, this bill still falls short.

[3:20 p.m.]

One of the most concerning elements is the transition plan this government has laid out in clause 6, which retroactively deems existing safety plans, many of them informal, undocumented or created under pressure, to suddenly acquire statutory force. Families may not even know they remain bound to these arrangements.

There is no requirement for review, no reassessment of fairness, no opportunity to correct errors or miscommunication and no obligation to ensure Indigenous involvement in older plans. This creates significant procedural fairness issues and exposes both families and the ministry to avoidable harm and possible legal risk.

We must also address the long-standing and well-documented concerns around inadequate and inconsistent disclosure with the ministry. Two provincewide surveys of parents’ counsel, in 2022-23 and again in 2025, concluded that disclosure practices remain inconsistent, delayed, incomplete and unpredictable.

When disclosure is inadequate, parents cannot meaningfully participate, lawyers cannot give informed advice, and proceedings lose their integrity. It is difficult to reconcile these persistent disclosure failures with legislation that introduces new statutory mechanisms affecting family unity but that includes no standardized or enforceable disclosure obligations to protect procedural fairness.

Another core concern is the absence of requirement for written records. For safety plans to be fair, transparent and enforceable, every decision regarding initiation, extension, renewal, modification, withdrawal, termination and any alleged violation must be documented in writing.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, could you please keep the conversation to a minimum.

Rosalyn Bird: Given the ministry’s staffing shortages, inconsistent practices and reliance on verbal agreements, we know that this is not consistently happening. We are disappointed that the amendments requiring mandatory written documentation were not adopted. They would have significantly increased transparency, reduced misunderstandings and improved accountability for both the ministry and the families involved.

Parents have also been very clear in expressing their lack of confidence in the ministry’s current mechanism for raising concerns or complaints related to the application of policy, disclosure practices or staff conduct.

Families often report that there is no transparent or accessible pathway to challenge how safety plans are applied, to address non-disclosure or incomplete disclosure or to escalate concerns when case files stall or communication breaks down. Many feel that when they raise the issue with the complaints department, their concerns are minimized, unanswered or absorbed into the internal bureaucracy, leaving them without meaningful recourse.

Often parents are not made aware that they are able to raise concerns with the Representative for Children and Youth, the Ombudsman or the Privacy Commissioner. When a system has such significant power over the lives of families, it must also provide clear, independent and responsive avenues for parents to voice concerns and to seek resolution. Without that, confidence in fairness and integrity of the child welfare process erodes, and families question whether or not they are being heard or treated equitably.

I want to emphasize another critical issue that has emerged through this debate: the need for annual public reporting on safety plans and the tracking of outcomes. Safety plans, by design, are meant to be the least intrusive tool in child protection systems, but without transparent data, without knowing how often they are used, in what circumstances and with what results, we cannot assess whether they are functioning as intended.

Annual reporting is not simply an administrative exercise. It is essential to ensure children are genuinely being taken care of and are safe; to monitor whether safety plans are preventing unnecessary removals; to identify whether certain regions or demographics, particularly Indigenous children or low-income families, may be disproportionately affected; to evaluate whether safety plans are being used appropriately or as coercive tools, tracking rolling of repeated safety plans that may extend ministry involvement indefinitely; and to measure whether legislative changes that we adopt today are having the effects that we want for tomorrow.

[3:25 p.m.]

If the ministry is confident that safety plans are working, public reporting will demonstrate that. If the system is falling short, reporting will allow this Legislature and Indigenous communities and families to help identify issues early and correct them before harm occurs. Without tracking and transparency, safety plans operate in a black box, one that families, lawyers, First Nations, Indigenous Peoples and even legislators struggle to fully understand or scrutinize.

This lack of visibility is precisely what has led to concerns around misuse, coercion and inconsistent practice. Annual reporting would restore the necessary balance between operational flexibility and public accountability.

While we support this bill, we do so with the expectation that the ministry understands that this legislation is not complete. Much more work must follow. Clear regulations, standardized disclosure practices, mandatory written documentation and transparent annual reporting are essential to ensuring that safety plans remain what they are intended to be: a voluntary, supportive, least-intrusive tool, not an opaque mechanism that risks undermining the rights of children, parents, Indigenous and First Nations communities. Protecting children must never come at the cost of procedural fairness or fundamental Charter rights.

The opposition’s support reflects our commitment to safety, but also our firm expectation that the systemic gaps identified in committee will be addressed in full in the future.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’d like to make some closing remarks.

I thank the member opposite for her questions and thorough debate of this bill.

I want to share that I have spent 25 years of my career working with families and vulnerable children. I have worked alongside families in their homes. I have spent many years as a parent advocate meeting with families, oftentimes with ministry staff, in educational settings. I have been responsible for being an executive contracting with my ministry.

Very importantly, I have been a parent and a service user of my ministry. I have children who have relied on ministry services. This job, being the Minister of Children and Family Development, outside of being a parent, is the most important job that I have ever had in my entire life.

I take it very seriously, and I take any legislation that we are putting forward, any policy decisions that we are putting forward, incredibly seriously. I look at it as the most important thing, arguably, that I have ever done in my entire life. I think it’s important to emphasize that.

I wholeheartedly disagree with many of the characterizations of this legislation. I think it is important to make sure that people have accurate information about legislation pertaining to MCFD. I think it’s important to not create confusion where confusion does not need to be created.

Because of all of those reasons, I stand behind this legislation. I stand behind the dedicated public servants who have spent hours, weeks and months working on this legislation. I stand behind the legal team of people who have been watching throughout this process.

I think it’s really important to express that I have the utmost respect for everybody in this ministry, who have dedicated their lives to ensuring that we keep children safe, that we keep them together with their families wherever possible, that we honour the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples to care for and raise their own children.

I am very proud of the members of the public service that are here with me today, the work that they’ve done to support me and the work that they have done on this bill. I am very proud that this bill is moving forward.

Clause 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:30 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:16 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

Clauses 3 and 6 were stood down in order to conduct deferred divisions. Now that those have taken place, we will return to consideration of clause 3.

On clause 3 (continued).

Rosalyn Bird: I’m sure everybody in this room is going to be hearing the bells all through Christmastime after this last week.

Anyway, moving on to section 9.8, the director’s duty. I actually have an easy question here. In this clause, the word “body” is used halfway through the paragraph. Is the minister referring to an Indigenous or other governing body?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes.

Rosalyn Bird: Yes, an Indigenous body or, yes, a government or yes to both?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It could be an Indigenous community. It could be an Indigenous governing body.

Rosalyn Bird: Good. That’s how I understood it. Also, I just wanted to clarify. The minister cannot actually give an example of another governing body? I just want to make sure it’s strictly Indigenous governing bodies that are covered in this clause.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are no other bodies that would be a part of an agreement. All other parties are reflected as a person.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that.

In this section, it indicates that a director must communicate with each person or body. Why did the minister think this was necessary to state in the legislation? Is the ministry aware of situations where this has not happened?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: So 19.8 ensures that the director has an obligation to take actions to support a party or a prospective party’s understanding of the impact of the safety plan agreement.

For example, the director may bring a translator in to support a person whose primary language is not English. That is why the term “must” is used. If we needed to use an ASL interpreter or the director was aware of different modes of communication that a party to a safety plan would need, the director must ensure that that is available.

That is currently best practice in policy, and I’m not aware of any situations where that doesn’t happen.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that answer.

I wanted to also clarify, as it says “with each person or body.” Does this particular clause basically insist that a director or somebody senior in the initiation or any change in a safety plan must reach out to an Indigenous or First Nations or Inuit or Métis community in regard to that safety plan, whether they are or are not a party?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: This part of the clause is really about parties who are already a part of an agreement and how we must communicate with them and the ways in which we must communicate with them. Those are only about persons who are in the agreement or bodies that are in the agreement. A person — an example of that is a mom, a dad, a grandma. A body is an Indigenous governing body or an Indigenous community.

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

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

Director’s duty

19.8 In exercising the director’s powers and performing the director’s duties under this Division, the director must communicate with each person or body and indigenous governing body who is, or who is proposed to be, a party to a safety plan agreement in a manner appropriate to the person’s or body’s abilities.]

The Chair: Yes. Would you like to speak to it?

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: It’s actually very simple. I changed “or body” to “and Indigenous governing body,” just so there is clarity across families and across the ministry when they are looking at this.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess and return at 2:26.

The committee recessed from 2:23 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, back to order.

The amendment has been deemed in order.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I cannot support the amendment for a few reasons. Well, for one main reason.

“Indigenous governing body” is defined and it has a legal meaning in the CFCSA already, also in our Declaration Act. So by putting that in this clause, it would exclude other bodies, such as treaty First Nations and other Indigenous bodies, as I mentioned in the answer previous.

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

Amendment negatived.

[2:30 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Moving on to section 19.9, just one clarifying question actually.

We’re almost finished there, Minister. We’re almost there.

I’d like clarification on paragraph 1, actually. We asked a number of questions around persons under the age of 19 during the bill. I’m just curious why this had to be added to “Other matters,” if there’s something specific towards paragraph 1 that I don’t understand or I should know. I’m just confused by that particular paragraph. The other two make sense, but this one was a little perplexing.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I appreciate the question and will attempt to provide a response. It’s a very legal response. Some parents — we’ve talked about this — are under the age of 19 themselves. That carries different ramifications under different laws. This provision clarifies that safety plan agreements apply to them in the same way as parents over the age of 19. It removes any legal ambiguity about how a safety plan applies to a parent under the age of 19, and it’s just legally procedural.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that answer.

At this time, Chair, I’d like to table an amendment to add an additional clause, 19.10, titled “Reporting.”

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

Reporting

19.10 (1) The minister must, by January 31 of each calendar year, prepare an annual report in respect of the previous calendar year that includes the following:

(a) the number of safety plan agreements made

(i) under section 19.1, or

(ii) in a circumstance described in section 19.7 (2) (a) or (b);

(b) the number of children to whom the safety plan agreements relate;

(c) the number of children who have been removed from their family due to a failure to comply with a safety plan agreement;

(d) the number of children who have remained with their family due to a safety plan agreement;

(e) the number of safety plan agreements that have been terminated as a result of

(i) a court decision,

(ii) withdrawal by a parent,

(iii) withdrawal by a director for the purposes of family reunification,

(iv) withdrawal by a director when the child has been removed from the child’s family, or

(v) expiry of the safety plan agreement;

(f) the use and outcomes of a safety plan agreement categorized under the following

(i) indigenous identity of the child,

(ii) income level of the child’s family,

(iii) region in which the child is located; and

(g) other prescribed information.

(2) A report prepared under subsection (1)

(a) must be tabled by the minister in the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable, and

(b) upon being tabled stands referred by the Legislative Assembly to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.]

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

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: I would, thank you.

I rise to introduce an amendment that would add a new section, section 19.10, titled “Reporting” to strengthen transparency, accountability and oversight in the use of safety plan agreements under this act.

As drafted, Bill 29 significantly expands the authority of directors to create, amend and terminate safety plans. It allows for the use of verbal agreements, rolling renewal of 45-day plans and broad discretion throughout the process, all without independent review and without any mandatory reporting to this Legislature or to the public.

[2:35 p.m.]

Given that these agreements can directly affect a family’s liberty, their security of person and their ability to remain together as a family, it is essential that we have a clear and transparent picture of how safety plans are being used across the province.

The amendment I bring forward today would require the minister to prepare an annual report, table it in the assembly and refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. The report would include the number of safety plans created; the number of children affected; outcomes, including how many children remained safely at home and how many were later removed; the reasons agreements were terminated; and disaggregated data in regard to Indigenous identity, income levels and regions of safety plans.

This information is not burdensome to collect. MCFD already tracks much of it internally. The difference is that today this data is not made public. Without public reporting, we cannot evaluate whether safety plans are keeping children safely within their families, whether they are being used consistently across regions or whether certain populations, particularly Indigenous children or low-income families, are disproportionately affected.

We have heard concerns throughout the debate that safety plans, in practice, can sometimes be used under pressure, without clear documentation and without access to legal advice. Transparent….

The Chair: Member, there’s a vote that needs to take place.

I’m going to recognize, before you leave, Members, the Minister of Children and Families.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: 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 2:36 p.m.