The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Elenore Sturko: I don’t see them in the gallery yet but it does give me great pleasure to introduce a group of visiting students from Simon Fraser’s master of applied legal studies program, also known as notary school. Each year, British Columbia commissions a small number of new notaries who practice non-contentious law.

I wish to highlight also the work of one of their professors, who is someone that we see here in the chamber on a daily basis. He just finished instructing the most recent notary cohort on wills, estates, personal planning, and he is, of course, the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown.

The students in the House today: we have Amy Niddle, Jody Lamb, Ashley Chong, Mackenzie Anderson, Sarah Miller, Megan Cawthorn, and a familiar face, my CA, Sam Schaap.

Will the House help me please make them feel welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Brennan Day: I’ve got a couple introductions today. First is Mayor John Henderson from the amazing city of Sechelt, and he joined us this weekend for the

Brennan Day: I’ve got a couple introductions today. First is Mayor John Henderson from the amazing city of Sechelt. He joined us this weekend for the ABICC conference. Some fantastic discussions happened there.

As well, I would like to introduce Jennifer Humphreys from AbbVie. This is a drug company that’s dealing in cutting-edge treatments for things like ulcerative colitis and doing that research right here at home in British Columbia.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would like to have the House welcome someone who is very close to me, my constituency assistant, Adrian Watson-Babij, who is here this week, enjoying Victoria and watching our debates and conversations very closely in the House.

If we could all make him feel very welcome.

Peter Milobar: I’d like to recognize the Mechanical Contractors Association of B.C., their CEO, Kim Barbero, and her board and the 53,400 highly skilled jobs that they do represent in and around British Columbia. I had a great meeting with them earlier today.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like to invite the House to join me in welcoming Kelly Favro, who of course is an employee in this place, in the east annex, and a happy greeting face as we go into the east annex.

Importantly, Kelly has been really involved in the My Voice, My Choice movement and really focused on the question of how NDAs are used for sexual assault survivors and has done some extraordinary work in Ottawa, is such a powerful voice on this issue.

We’re very lucky to have her voice. Would the House please join me in making her most welcome.

Misty Van Popta: I’d like to give recognition to Christina Gertsen in the House today. She is the wife to Jason, who’s our spiritual care provider and support system to many of us here.

Christina is retiring this year from teaching. She’s been a teacher in Langley for 15 years and most recently, 22 years here in Victoria. Will the House congratulate her on a well-deserved career, and wish her luck in the years going forward.

Statements

Tod and Jocelyn Maffin and
Nanaimo Infusion 2026

George Anderson: I rise today to recognize and thank Tod and Jocelyn Maffin for their success of Nanaimo Infusion, 2026, this past Saturday, an event that brought hundreds of Americans and health care workers to our community and showed them the very best of Nanaimo.

I spoke with Rachel, a nurse from Texas, who spoke about doctors and working collaboratively here. Henrietta, a nurse from Michigan, shared the relief of knowing she does not have to worry about whether insurance will be covered. Brandy arrived with a job offer, her 13-year-old and their bird, because apparently even the bird heard Nanaimo and decided it was time to migrate.

Brandy said this is a place where diversity flourishes. Her son loves our schools and is already swimming in the Summer Games. That is the promise of British Columbia, a place where people can belong, contribute and build a hopeful future.

I hope the whole House will join me in congratulating Tod and Jocelyn Maffin on a successful 2026 Nanaimo Infusion.

Introductions by Members

Jody Toor: I often don’t get visitors from my riding of Langley-Willowbrook, but there is a young lady that’s super smart, talented and has been an amazing volunteer at my office, Rayna Walia, who is visiting here with the B.C. parliament council.

I just want the House to please make her feel welcome.

Rohini Arora: I want to take a moment to shout out three amazing advocates and supporters: Jessie Kaur Lehail, who’s the chapter director of Shelter Movers; Shana Slater, as well as Preetka Pattar. All three of them were supposed to be here today, but they actually had an emergency and are supporting someone escaping intimate partner violence, hence the organization Shelter Movers.

Please join me in welcoming them. I will be speaking about them later today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Á’a:líya Warbus: It’s my pleasure today to announce the ten members of the B.C. Youth Council, some of whom were mentioned by colleagues. I want to make sure that we include all of them in our welcome today. They’re here as an organization of clubs in secondary schools from around the province coming together to participate in B.C.’s democratic processes.

They bring these youth perspectives to policy and encourage other youth to be involved

mentioned by colleagues. I want to make sure that we include all of them in our welcome today. They’re here as an organization of clubs and secondary schools from around the province coming together to participate in B.C.’s democratic processes.

They bring these youth perspectives to policy and encourage other youth to be involved in politics. Their mission is to bring youth closer to provincial politics of British Columbia and their local communities through structured engagement, policy analysis and democratic participation.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Jacqueline Leung, Declan Williams, Leo Chen, Sara Black, Daryn Dolatre, Leah Wang, Kim Lue, Sumreen Khera, Dylan Shackle and Raina Walia.

May your wisdom and your participation make us all better members of this House.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’d like to join my colleague in welcoming the Mechanical Contractors Association of B.C. in the gallery today. MCABC represents 11 primary trades in the construction sector here in British Columbia. They are primarily concerned with clean air, clean water, with quality-built environments, with safe and high-quality working environments.

Their sector includes more than 25,000 skilled tradespeople in an industry that contributes $10 billion to British Columbia’s GDP. You can think of any project in the industrial, commercial, institutional or residential sector, from HVAC systems to medical gas in our hospitals, and it is mechanical contractors who are responsible for ensuring the safety and quality of those functions.

Please join me in welcoming CEO Kim Barbero, Conor Brendan Dunne, Kyle Wisniewski, Brittany Manulak, Keith Pearce, Maddie Davidson, Simon Miller, Steve Robinson and Rob Nagai to the House.

Thank you so much for being here.

Lynne Block: I am thrilled today to have a very dear friend and former teaching colleague, who is here today along with her two sons: Sandra Sokugawa, her son Cayden and her son Sebastian. She is an extraordinary teacher. She has done professional development and Tribes training, cooperative learning, research-based learning throughout B.C. with me. She has written numerous articles for very different education manuals. She has a master of science in psychology and neuroscience in mental health from King’s College London, England.

Cayden is studying in mathematical sciences at UBC, and Sebastian is in grade 10 and enjoying sciences at his secondary school.

I am honoured to have them here today, and I thank them for their inspiration, their guidance, their mentoring. Amazing.

Please make them feel very, very welcome.

Anna Kindy: I’d like to introduce the love of my life, my husband, Dr. Peter Olesen. We met in medical school 43 years ago. We both worked as GPs in rural areas, and he went back, after doing some cardiac surgery assists, to train in plastic surgery and started the plastic surgery program in the north Island.

I remember those days on call, one-on-one, for three years. That’s how hard we worked. He is programmed now, he’s got two partners and he covers the Nanaimo North. I don’t know of anybody who is a better surgeon and a better patient advocate and a better father to our three children — the love of my life, Dr. Peter Olesen.

Paul Choi: My colleague already briefly mentioned them, but I think they just walked in, so I also want to mention how excited I am to have students from SFU master’s in legal studies program here, led by Professor Margaret Hall. Megan Cawthorne, Amy Middle, Mackenzie Anderson, Sarah Miller, Sam Schwab, Ashley Chung and Jody Lamb.

They’re our future legal professionals who are here to learn about how law gets made in B.C. They had the privilege of meeting the Attorney General briefly as well.

If I could ask the House to please make them feel very welcome here.

[1:45 p.m.]

Heather Maahs: Of course, we all appreciate the wonderful job that the security team does in the Legislature. There should be a little perk to that, so today I would like to wish Meighan’s daughter Charlotte a happy 16th birthday.

Heather Maahs: Of course we all appreciate the wonderful job that the security team does in the Legislature, and so there should be a little perk to that. So today I would like to wish Meighan’s daughter Charlotte a happy 16th birthday.

Rohini Arora: I just want to give a shout-out to my friend Jennifer Cader. She’s the government and public affairs manager with FortisBC. She’s also on the advisory committee of the Natural Resources Forum. So if you could please join me in making her feel very welcome.

Lorne Doerkson: I’m pleased to introduce two constituents of mine today, Leigh Granberg and Laura Dewar. They are here representing Watch Lake/Green Lake fire departments. They’ve had a very, very busy morning. I’m grateful to the Ministers of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; Forestry; and also Public Safety, along with the Speaker of the House, for meeting with them this morning. Thank you very much.

Please make them very welcome here today.

Mable Elmore: I’d like to wish a happy birthday to my brother-in-law Erick Haines. He’s celebrating today. Unfortunately, I can’t be with him, but I ask everybody here in the House to please wish him a very happy birthday.

Kristina Loewen: I would like to make an introduction, as well, today. We have the good people from Take a Hike visiting today. I just want to applaud them for the work that they do in our school districts with youth and mental health and getting them out into the great outdoors. Will the House please join me in welcoming them today.

Members’ Statements

May Day and
Day of Mourning for Workers

Darlene Rotchford: I rise today to recognize two significant observances this week, May Day and the National Day of Mourning.

May Day is a time to celebrate workers, the people whose skill, dedication and resilience keep our communities running. In Esquimalt-Colwood, we see that every day, in our shipyard workers, in our health care teams, our tradespeople and our service workers. Their contributions shape not only our local economy but the strength and character of our province.

But as we recognize these workers, we must also be reminded that we have lost some. National Day of Mourning is a solemn reminder of lives that have lost, the injuries sustained and the families forever changed by workplace incidents. It calls on all of us to reflect on our responsibility to ensure that every worker returns home safely.

This year’s Day of Mourning theme is “Psychological health and safety is occupational health and safety.” To truly protect workers from all workplace hazards, we must treat psychological health with the same seriousness as physical health in our laws and in our compensation system. We must continue to take meaningful steps to prevent occupational psychological injuries through enforceable protections.

These are not abstract ideas. They are practical steps that will save lives, reduce harm and support a healthier workplace here across British Columbia.

As we mark these two observances, let us recommit not only to recognizing the contribution of these workers but to protecting their full well-being, physical and psychological alike. It is why I got involved in this work myself, as a health care worker in mental health and addiction. I saw firsthand what can happen if we don’t support these people. I saw good workers relapse because of their psychological injury, and I saw amazing employers support them. But we need to make sure we continue to do our part, because honouring workers means ensuring their safety in every sense of the word.

Tomorrow I hope everyone in this House will join me, and everyone on south Vancouver Island will join us, on the front lawn of the Legislature at 12 o’clock to ensure that we honour those who have passed and the families who have lost those loved ones, as well as to recommit to ensuring that all workers across this province are safe.

Volunteer Contributions
of Morgan Brewster

Bryan Tepper: It is my great honour today to introduce Morgan Brewster, a lifelong volunteer whose service to the people of Crescent Beach and South Surrey stands as a shining example of what community dedication truly means.

Morgan’s family’s roots run deep in this province. His great-great-grandfather arrived from Ontario in 1885 and homesteaded a farm at Mud Bay between the Serpentine and Nicomekl rivers, overlooked by all of Panorama.

For generations, the Brewster family has returned to those shores. Morgan himself has spent every summer of his life, 43 years, in Crescent Beach, a place his family has called home since 1950. The deep connection shaped a lifetime of service.

[1:50 p.m.]

At age ten, Morgan volunteered in a search for a missing boy and a tragic drowning. With a father who had been a lifeguard, those moments led a lifelong passion for guarding, search and rescue, and helping others. Morgan lifeguarded at Crescent Beach. He began volunteering as a boat instructor, and I have experienced firsthand his skill with an outboard motor. He has served on the

service.

At age ten, Morgan volunteered in a search for a missing boy in a tragic drowning. With a father who had been a lifeguard, those moments led a lifelong passion for guarding, search and rescue, and helping others. Morgan lifeguarded at Crescent Beach. He began volunteering as a boat instructor, and I have experienced firsthand his skill with an outboard motor.

He has served on the management committee of Crescent Beach Lifeguard Corporation and, for the past five years, has proudly served as president. With the Crescent Beach Swim Club, he started in progressive roles in 2005, and in September 2025, he became president, a process that is both mystical and exciting every time it happens at the club.

He’s the first third-generation president, proudly following both his grandfather and father. Morgan’s marine rescue record is remarkable. He first volunteered with the Coast Guard Auxiliary on the north arm of the Fraser River. He returned to what is now Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, unit 5. As coxswain, he handled initial responses and resource allocation on more than 100 rescue calls.

Everyone who knows Morgan knows he would have loved to wear the uniform of the RCMP. To this day, all summer long, he follows every emergency call in the Crescent Beach area, ready to support our first responders in whatever way he can.

I would be remiss for not mentioning that for the past ten seasons, he has also coached and managed the South Vancouver Little League, from T-Ball right up to majors.

Morgan Brewster is the very definition of quiet, consistent, community-first leadership. Please join me in giving him a warm welcome to the British Columbia Legislature.

Thank you, Morgan.

Loss of Heritage and
Work of Cultural Restoration

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: What does the loss of heritage look like? It doesn’t always arrive with noise. Sometimes it slips in quietly between generations, between languages, between stories that were once told and are now forgotten. It looks like a child who cannot understand the words that their grandparents’ speak.

It looks like the songs that were once sung on the land, not only remembered in fragments now. It looks like sacred places that stand unchanged in the earth but are no longer recognized, no longer visited, no longer protected in the same way.

Loss of heritage is not just about the past. It’s about reshaping the future. It looks like young people searching for identity in a world that never taught them where they came from. It looks like Elders carrying knowledge they fear will not be passed on. It looks like ceremonies that were once outlawed, languages that were once punished and traditions that were pushed into silence.

And yet this loss is not total, but even after generations of disruption, something remains — in the resilience of community, in the revival of language, in the return of the land and the culture. But we must be honest. What was interrupted cannot be simply restored without care, respect and action. To witness the loss of heritage is to understand what was taken but also to recognize what is still being protected, rebuilt and fought for every single day.

The questions we’re left with now…. Just what has been lost, but what we are willing to do to ensure it is never lost again.

North Shore Rotary Clubs

Lynne Block: Today I rise to recognize the remarkable contributions of Rotary International across the North Shore, encompassing both West Vancouver and North Vancouver.

On the North Shore, Rotary is more than a name. It’s a network of committed individuals turning service above self into real, visible impact.

In West Vancouver, the Rotary Club has made a lasting difference through initiatives like student scholarships that open doors for young people and support for community wellness projects that strengthen families and local connections. Their contributions to public amenities and youth-focused programs help ensure that opportunity and support are always within reach.

Across North Vancouver, the Rotary Club of North Van and the Rotary Club of Lions Gate have led impactful efforts such as organizing food drives to address local food insecurity, supporting youth leadership development through programs like Rotary youth leadership awards, and raising funds for global clean water initiatives that save lives far beyond our borders.

[1:55 p.m.]

Together, these clubs define what it means to serve the North Shore. They bring people together not just to talk about change but to make it happen. Whether it’s helping a student pursue their dreams, ensuring a family has food on the table or improving access to clean water worldwide, their actions

Together these clubs define what it means to serve the north shore. They bring people together, not just to talk about change but to make it happen. Whether it’s helping a student pursue their dreams, ensuring a family has food on the table or improving access to clean water worldwide, their actions ripple outward in powerful ways. In a world that often feels divided, the Rotary clubs of the North Shore remind us of what’s possible when compassion meets action.

Let us recognize and thank them, not only for their projects but for their leadership, their generosity and their unwavering commitment to building stronger communities here at home and around the world.

Shelter Movers and Action
Against Gender-Based Violence

Rohini Arora: There is an organization quietly and directly changing how our province responds to gender-based violence — Shelter Movers Vancouver.

Last week, we marked both National Volunteer Week and Prevention of Violence Against Women Week — a reminder that what looks like data on a page is in reality someone packing a life into boxes and walking away from danger. Shelter Movers exist at the exact moment of decision. They provide free moving and storage services to individuals and families fleeing abuse, meeting a need that is often invisible in our public systems.

Leaving is not just emotional. It’s logistical. It is furniture, clothing, pets, documents, children’s belongings and the question of where to go when nowhere is yet certain. Leaving can happen in a moment of courage, but what comes after is where people are most at risk. It is the logistics that can delay, trap and endanger them. In those moments, every second counts.

Under the leadership of Chapter Director Jessie Kaur Lehail, Shelter Movers Vancouver has completed close to 1,700 moves across 19 municipalities, supporting hundreds of survivors, children and family pets. Each move is not just relocation but a shift from constant fear towards safety and the space to begin rebuilding slowly but surely.

This work spans low-, medium- and high-risk situations, including coordination with security partners and municipal police when needed. They support survivors in homes, shelters, encampments and those exiting human trafficking, meeting people in moments of profound vulnerability with care, dignity and a reminder that their dignity remains intact.

None of this happens alone. It is powered by a 150-strong volunteer network, supported by partners and staff like Shana Slater and Preetka Pattar and as part of a national organization with chapters across Ontario and the Maritimes, with Langley resident Alison Dantas serving on the national board.

At its heart are the volunteers, people who show up with trucks, boxes and their time, often in the early hours or late at night so that someone else does not have to face leaving alone. They are not just moving belongings. They are making safety possible. Their work reminds us that safety can look like a truck arriving at the right time, a box carefully packed and a simple message: “You do not have to do this alone.”

Greendale Acres
Farm and Corn Maze

Korky Neufeld: There was an old farmer in the Fraser Valley who once told his son-in-law that his idea was the stupidest thing he had ever heard. Cut patterns in a cornfield and then charge people to walk around in it? Ridiculous. Then John Bruinsma showed up every weekend until the day he died. That’s how, in 1999, the Bruinsma farmhouse, Green Acres, became Canada’s first corn maze.

That’s the thing about a good idea. Sometimes it takes someone else living it out before you can see it. Sometimes faith isn’t something you have at the beginning. It’s something you find in the middle of the rows. What started as one article, one phone call, one leap into the unknown became Canada’s first corn maze and eventually something much larger — a place where strangers become regulars, regulars become friends and friends become family. Strangers were just someone they hadn’t known long enough yet.

Three sisters, Danielle, Vanessa and Mariah, who learned hospitality before they learned long division, who never asked for this life but chose it anyway, not because it was easy but because some things are worth holding onto, such as the land, the table that always has room and the idea that work we do matters, not just to our own families but to everyone who walks through the gate.

We have watched this family work, I mean, really work, the kind that doesn’t stop when the lights go down. We have seen what it costs them and what it gives back. We have watched them choose again and again to keep the table long and the gate open.

[2:00 p.m.]

What they’ve built here isn’t just a farm. Green Acres is a place where people make memories they’ll carry with them for the rest of their lives.

This is for you, Bruinsmas, for the mud on the floors, the SOS techs, the 3 a.m. drainage projects and every single person you’ve ever pulled up a chair for. You made room for us all, and we’re better for it.

Wherever you are today

they’ve built here isn’t just a farm. Green Acres is a place where people make memories they’ll carry with them for the rest of their lives.

This is for you, Bruinsmas, for the mud on the floors, the SOS techs, the 3 a.m. drainage projects, and every single person you’ve ever pulled up a chair for. You made room for us all, and we’re better for it. So wherever you are today, whatever field you’re standing in, whatever idea sounds a little too strange to say out loud, remember this. The best things rarely make sense at first. They just need someone willing to start cutting.

Thank you Green Acres for the memories. Thank you Bruinsma family.

Ministerial Statements

Anniversary of Lapu-Lapu Festival
Attack and Support for Victims

Hon. David Eby: A year ago it was a spring evening after a beautiful day, a festival celebrating a community that I know every member of this place holds close to their heart of the Filipino community in British Columbia. Vendors were packing up, families were getting ready to go home, and volunteers were cleaning up the site when a man drove a vehicle through the crowd on the street, killing 11 people and injuring countless more.

This was a year ago, and I know a number of us were at commemorations of this horrific and tragic event over the last week. For those of us who were there, it is very obvious this could have happened yesterday for the families of those who didn’t make it. The healing is feeling a long way off for that.

But with a year in the passage of time, it does create the possibility to reflect on the heroism of those who remain. There are so many heroes I’ve met over the last week, and since that tragic event, the families who are living with people who are profoundly injured, like AJ, who are struggling to recover abilities that we all take for granted every day. His life forever changed. His family’s life forever changed. The families of those who didn’t make it, who have to go on with their lives, who have to go to work, who have to pay the bills, despite the enormous grief that they face.

The organizers of the event, who put together an amazing event only to see it turned into grief and tragedy and who turned around to support a community, a city, a province, a nation and a world that was shocked by what they had seen. The first responders, the police, the fire, the ambulance workers, paramedics seeing the coverage on the news coming in to cover shifts, the health care workers, HEU, doctors, nurses, health science professionals, all of them pitching in to ensure people got treatment as the 911 calls came in.

There is a lot of work ahead for this province still. Criminal process is ongoing. The community deserves answers they will need to get. But I know for myself, for the government, and for every member of this House, we stand in grief remembering the events of a year ago. We stand with the survivors, the Filipino community and with all who are affected, in both thanking those who stepped up, who continue to step up and in remembering those who didn’t make it home.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank the Premier for his words.

It was one year ago in Vancouver. Eleven members of our community went to a street festival to celebrate and did not come home. They were celebrating Lapu-Lapu Day, a day to celebrate the Filipino heritage, resilience and community. Within seconds, it became one of the darkest days of our history.

I was there that morning. I was there with a number of my colleagues. What I do remember is seeing the Premier there as well, because I think the Premier brought his little girl to that event that morning, if I’m correct. It was nice to see that, but what unfolded after was absolute tragedy.

[2:05 p.m.]

We pause to remember that, across this province, the families and communities gathered to mark this tragedy. But for the families and survivors of this senseless act, they live with that grief every single day. And that is why we speak their names again. We say Maria Victoria Bjarnason, Jenifer Darbellay, Rizza Pagkanlungan, Kira Salim, Jendhel May Sico, Glitza Daniela Samper and her parents Glitza Maria and Daniel Samper

Nerissa Pagkanlungan, Kira Salim, Jendhel May Sico, Glitza Daniela Samper and her parents, Glitza Maria and Daniel Samper; three generations of one family, Richard Le and Linh Hoang and their daughter Katie, five years old — 11 souls, aged five to 65; behind each name, an empty chair, a grandmother waiting for a call, or a little boy who lost his entire family.

To the survivors and to the first responders, I can’t imagine what they are going through , with more than 30 injured and some still recovering. We think about the pain that they endure every news cycle, where they have to relive the tragedy; the bystanders, who so bravely apprehended the driver; the paramedics, the nurses, the doctors, not only at Vancouver General Hospital but at hospitals throughout the Lower Mainland.

In the midst of that, we saw heroics. We saw the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington step up in a way that all members of this House are so grateful and so proud, and continue to be proud, of the leadership that this MLA has shown for that community and continues to show. Thank you for that.

To the Filipino community who have suffered so much in the wake of this tragedy, a lot of them came to Canada to build lives of dignity and have contributed immensely. They have done so much. They have filled our hospitals, our classrooms, every walk of life in British Columbia, with kindness. In the years since, they have grieved with grace and refused to let hatred define their community. They have been an example to us all.

I want to say to the survivors, we’re with you. To the people that lost their lives, we remember you. To an entire community that will continue to grieve for generations, we grieve with you.

Jeremy Valeriote: I stand to buttress the thoughtful words from the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition as we mark one year since this horrible attack. The violence of that tragedy stays with me and all British Columbians, and we hold all the victims in our thoughts and prayers — yesterday, today and tomorrow.

I think particularly of the Filipino community, who mourn those that were lost and support people who were injured and hold deep trauma from that day. One year is such a short amount of time, where the wounds of the attack feel so raw. It’s also such a long time, where people are so deeply missed and their absence so keenly felt.

It’s so important that we have places to gather, that we invest money and energy in celebrations that recognize B.C.’s multicultural foundations. We can’t let the tragic events of last year’s festival lead us toward further isolation. We must resist the temptation to shrink away from each other, stay indoors or layer on armour. The only lasting remedy for the pain and loss of this day is to come together, to lean on each other, to open our hearts, share our cultures and keep making time to celebrate.

As members of this House, we all remember together, and we must all take action together. We honour those whom we lost and the resilience and strength thrown by the local community. We must do more too. We must make sure that victims receive full support, that public sector agencies learn from this tragedy, that there is work undertaken to look at how this event occurred and how future ones can be prevented.

Remembrance in mourning is the first step toward healing, but it cannot be the last. I ask all members of this House to answer the call and recommit to the serious work of keeping British Columbians safe.

Oral Questions

Comments by Regional Chief and
Government Relationship with
First Nations

Trevor Halford: We have asked this government, on numerous occasions, if they are now co-governing the province with First Nations leadership. When asked last week if B.C. is being co-governed by the province and First Nations, the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations responded clearly by saying: “Yes, that’s exactly right.”

[2:10 p.m.]

It looks like we actually finally got an answer from somebody. My question to the Premier, to anybody in government: will they stand up today and confirm that B.C. has in fact entered into co-governance?

It looks like we finally got an answer from somebody.

My question to the Premier, to anybody in government, will they stand up today and confirm that B.C. has in fact entered into co-governance?

Hon. David Eby: The opposition is deliberately twisting this to spread fear. When we work on health care, we work with doctors. We work on education; we work with teachers and parents, kids. We work on Indigenous rights; we work with Indigenous People.

Section 35 of the constitution places obligation on our government, and every government, given that most of the province was settled without treaty. Parliament has a crucial and primary role to play here, and it will continue to have that role to play.

I don’t understand why the member is opposed to us talking with Indigenous people about Indigenous rights. It is the only path forward. It is not, as he is pretending, a ceding of governance. It’s a recognition of our obligations under the law.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Here’s the problem. Whenever the Premier hears a quote that he doesn’t like, “you are now spreading fear.” Okay? Some of the problems are that we are actually reading quote from the Premier directly, who is saying that we are fear-mongering, when we are actually giving him his words back to him. That is a problem.

It is clear that when the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations was asked about changes to DRIPA, he said — this is a quote for the Premier from the Regional Chief — “At this point, no, absolutely not. I think DRIPA is working.” That is a quote from the assembly Chief.

I’ll read again from the Premier. So he says again, when asked about co-governance, he says: “Yes, that is exactly right.” This isn’t about anybody fear-mongering. This is about asking the Premier, for once in the last number of months, to have a clear position.

I’ll ask the Premier again directly. Is Regional Chief Terry Teegee wrong in his remarks when he says that they are now co-governing with the province of B.C., yes or no?

Hon. David Eby: Maybe I’ll read a quote from the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to clarify things for the Leader of the Opposition. The critic said: “Some of the challenges that we’re seeing today, specifically with the land question, come down to the fact that we didn’t complete those treaties over 150, 175 years ago.” On a separate occasion, he said: “Aboriginal title is a real thing under the constitution. There are legal areas where government is obligated to work with First Nations. We have to do that work.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. David Eby: This parliament has a clear set of responsibilities under the Constitution Act, under the province of British Columbia. We are elected to do that work. Part of that work includes working with First Nations on areas where the constitution mandates us to do so.

This parliament remains supreme, but we are bounded by a constitution that obliges us to do important work with First Nations, and we will do that work.

The Speaker: Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. Right now, in this moment, we are asking the Premier of this province, elected — marginally, but elected — if they have entered into co-governance. He refuses to answer. A very basic question, asking the leader of the province to stand up and answer a direct question, whether or not he is now co-governing with First Nations leadership, and he refuses to do it. That is the answer. He’s already given it twice.

So let’s ask the Premier once again, third time, can he stand up and dismiss the comments made by the Regional Chief, Terry Teegee, when he says, when it comes to co-governance: “Yes, that is exactly right.” Those are his words, not mine.

Does the Premier dismiss those words or agree with the fact that they are now co-governing with First Nations leadership? It’s a yes or no, Premier.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I was asked this question on the radio — I would say in a more thoughtful way — by a radio host, Simi Sara. She said to me: “Right. It sounds to me like you’re rejecting the idea of a co-governance situation. You’re saying: ‘We’re talking. We’re consulting. We’re working together.’”

Hon. David Eby: I was asked this question on the radio — I would say, in a more thoughtful way — by a radio host, Simi Sara. She said to me: “Right, it sounds to me like you’re rejecting the idea of a co-governance situation. You’re saying: ‘We’re talking. We’re consulting. We’re working together.’” But you’re not co-governing.

And then I say: “That is correct. At the end of the day, we’ve got parliamentary representatives that are elected from every part of the province. We have to vote on laws. The sort of conservative conversation that, at the end of the day, the parliament no longer matters, that it’s some sort of different arrangement now, is simply not the case.”

We have treaties in front of this House right now, where we will be debating….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: Where are they? This is the level of serious debate we get from the Conservatives on crucial issues of the prosperity of our province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, shhh. Members, order, please.

Hon. David Eby: And yet when we talk about creating thousands of jobs, economic certainty for British Columbians — Eskay Creek, Red Chris mine, LNG Canada phase 2, crucial investments in the future of our province that require cooperation and engagement with First Nations — these members pretend those aren’t serious issues. They’re not important. They are important. They’re crucial to the prosperity of our province.

We’ll continue to do the work, and I hope the opposition does better.

Mining Project in Okanagan and
U.S. Indigenous Tribe
Involvement in Court Case

Scott McInnis: Wow, it sounds like in 22 minutes and 43 seconds, there’s going to be an awkward phone conversation between the Premier’s office and Mr. Teegee.

A U.S.-based tribe, the [An Indigenous language was spoken.] confederacy, is actively trying to disrupt a vital critical mineral mine within the Interior. The mine is co-owned by WHY Resources and the Osoyoos Indian Band.

My question to the Attorney General: why is she letting this happen?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, we’ve been clear. The people we work for are British Columbians. We’ve been clear that the nations within B.C., they’re the ones that we also work with — as the member mentioned, the Okanagan Osoyoos Indian Band — on these issues. We’ve been very…. The member can google it. He can read the Hansard. He can watch television.

We’ve been clear in every court of law that our obligation is to British Columbia and British Columbians. And no, the First Nations across the border, they may have their arguments — just as they do in Alberta, just as they do in Alaska — and we’ll hear them just as we hear concerns from Washingtonians, Albertans and folks living in Alaska. So that’s our obligation. That’s our duty. British Columbia is who we listen to.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: Well, that was really interesting to hear the minister say that. There is currently separate litigation against this project, which has nothing to do with constitutional duties to consult. Moreover, the project has already been approved. This government, instead of standing up for B.C. resource projects co-developed with B.C. First Nations, made a choice to allow a U.S. tribe being a respondent in this litigation.

I have a letter penned to the Attorney General from Chief Louie and WHY Resources. It says: “Your ministry consented to allowing the [An Indigenous language was spoken.] confederacy being named a party respondent.” Chief Louie further goes on to say: “This is the furthest thing from placing the interests of B.C. First Nations as a priority and primary focus.”

My question, again, to the Attorney General is very simple. Is your ministry purposefully disrupting this project, or is this utter incompetence?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for that question. I am more than happy to talk about the environmental assessment office and the good work that that office does.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The environmental assessment office takes our obligations to consult with Indigenous groups who may be

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for that question. I am more than happy to talk about the environmental assessment office and the good work that that office does.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The environmental assessment office takes our obligations to consult with Indigenous groups who may be impacted by a proposed project very seriously, including with U.S. tribes. The EAO will continue to fulfil its constitutional obligations by consulting with U.S. tribes when there is a credible assertion of Aboriginal rights under the Canadian constitution, and a potential for those rights to be impacted by a proposed project.

As this matters before the courts, I am not able to comment further.

Industrial Water Rates and
Watershed Protection

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to relentless lobbying, B.C.’s largest industrial water users get a huge discount. You might even say that B.C. is co-governed with big industry. Mining, oil and gas, and bottled water companies pay a fraction of what residents pay for water. B.C.’s industrial water rates are among the lowest in Canada at $2.25 per million litres, and industry uses five times as much as residential users.

For the residents of Vancouver, leaving their taps running for over four months would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. The ten largest industrial water users in B.C. pay less than $1 million combined for access to over 500 billion litres of water annually. Quebec recently modernized their industrial water rates and there is no evidence of industrial flight.

My question to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. We need increased revenue to ensure the health and security of B.C.’s watersheds. In the midst of a historic drought and major fiscal challenges, why is this government giving industrial users a sweetheart deal?

Hon. Randene Neill: I thank the member opposite for the question. I know he cares as much for our watershed protection as we do as well on this side of the House.

We know water is literally our most precious resource. It powers our province in so many ways, from a sustainable, good economy to ensuring that every single British Columbian has access to safe, clean drinking water to restoring our wild salmon populations across the province.

The Water Sustainability Act was created back in 2016, where it set the rates for how much users would pay for different water systems. And that is something that we are actively reviewing now as a province, looking at those rates. Every five years we put into legislation that it would require a review. The first review was deferred because of COVID so we are actively doing that now, reviewing rates to ensure that we can get a safe, equitable pricing for everyone who uses our water.

Another thing that we’re really proud of is our watershed security fund, a $100 million fund that government committed to a few years ago and that helps ensure that our watersheds remain safe and secure for all across the province.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Government Policy on Industrial
Site Hazardous Waste Clean-Up
and Costs

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks to the Minister for that. I’m hoping that the results of that first review since 2016 will be available soon.

In a similar vein, the public interest bonding strategy was designed by this government to make sure industry cleans up the mess they so often leave behind. A 2021 briefing note from this government admitted the province has no powers to make companies clean up their industrial sites or to collect funds to have the public pay the costs if they refuse. In the case of the Port Alice pulp mill, taxpayers are on the hook for $170 million and the site is still hazardous.

When industry walks away, the land must be returned to its original state or better than it was originally. This government proudly introduced legislation in 2023 but has never implemented it through regulation. Now the Ministry of Environment and Parks admits the strategy has been shelved.

My question to the Minister of Environment and Parks: if you’re not going to implement the public interest bonding strategy, how will you make sure heavy industry cleans up the mess instead of leaving taxpayers holding the bag?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We do have many different tools in our toolbox when it comes to the polluter-pays. And when we’re looking at the Environmental Management Act, we do have tools under that act as well.

We are still going to keep looking at the public interest and bonding strategy. We’ve been working closely with a lot of the ministries, such as the Ministry of Mining, to look at different alternatives that we can be doing. And I would say that it’s not a matter of never doing it but it’s a matter of when.

[2:25 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: I stood up on April 1 and I told the Minister of Transportation about a fatal shooting at an encampment on Ministry of Transportation lands in my riding. I told the minister there were numerous dangerous encampments on MOT lands. On Friday

Government Action on Homelessness
and Safety Issues in
Abbotsford Encampments

Bruce Banman: I stood up on April 1, and I told the Minister of Transportation about a fatal shooting at an encampment on Ministry of Transportation lands in my riding. I told the minister there were numerous dangerous encampments on MOT lands.

On Friday night, a man was murdered at the Peardonville homeless encampment, and the unauthorized cabin he’d built two years ago was set on fire to cover up his murder. Danger is increasing every day for people living in these encampments and the surrounding community, while police are directed not to enforce no-camping bylaws. This House should know this murder was preventable. This was someone’s son, who will be missed.

To the Minister of Transportation, after I raised this issue in this House, this minister chose to do nothing. This death is on this minister’s watch. My question: why did this minister do nothing and allow this to happen?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, but I have to say the member is incorrect and wrong, which is not something that is unusual in this House.

At the time, I told the member, in response to his questions back on April 1, that I would be meeting with the city of Abbotsford. I met with the city of Abbotsford and outlined to them the efforts being undertaken by my ministry and other ministries involving the relocation of individuals who are engaged in camps, of the work that’s underway.

The Cole Road campsite, for example, is being shut down. We have been working with Housing and the city of Abbotsford to ensure that we’re able to relocate those who are camping in inappropriate places, such as this one, to more appropriate a shelter.

I can tell the member that the Peardonville camp is going to be decamped and closed down by the beginning of summer, but it will be done in an orderly fashion. To somehow suggest that government didn’t bother to do anything and ignored the problem is simply incorrect.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Bruce Banman: Nine long years to do something — nine long years. Abbotsford police have said this was a targeted homicide. All of these vulnerable people and encampments have fallen through the cracks, and this government has failed to protect yet another. Encampment violence has become so rampant on Ministry of Transportation lands. People are living in conditions where serious crimes are normalized.

My question to the minister: how many more murders need to happen in these encampments before this minister does his job and allows the police to get in there and do theirs?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member because it gives me an opportunity to respond to some of the statements that he has made. It gives me an opportunity to respond to some of the votes that that side of the House has made.

For nine years, we have invested in public safety. We have done the largest investment in policing in the history of this province — something, in the 16 years of the previous government, that they failed to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We have put in place additional funding for a gang task force. We brought in the first forensic firearms office here in the province of British Columbia. We have brought in place a witness protection program. All are things that police have been asking for, and all are things that the previous administration failed to do, every opportunity they had. Do you know what else? We’ve invested in affordable and social housing and mental health care.

What’s really annoying is that every time that member stands up to say that we’re not doing enough, you can point to another member on that side of the House who refuses and complains about social housing or supports for the homeless and the mental health and addiction supports required and going into communities.

[2:30 p.m.]

We have seen it, time and time again, from the hypocrisy on that side of the House. Richmond wanted and Richmond could have had supportive housing to deal with the very kinds of situations the member is doing.… What do they do? They stand up: “Not in our neighbourhood.”

We have seen it time and time again from the hypocrisy on that side of the House. Richmond could have had supportive housing to deal with the very kinds of situations the member is doing. And what do they do? They stand up. “Not in our neighbourhood.” That’s the approach that they’ve taken.

We will continue to invest in services. We will continue to support the police. We will continue to work for British Columbians.

Food Bank Use and Government
Action on Issues

Lorne Doerkson: The Premier mentioned economic certainty a little earlier in question period today, and I want to share some of the challenges that our residents are facing.

Food bank usage is the highest it’s ever been. Since 2019, food bank usage in this province is up nearly 79 percent. That’s economic certainty. The numbers are staggering. More than 1.3 million British Columbians are suffering from food insecurity.

What can the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction say to nearly 25 percent of British Columbians who are skipping meals because they can’t afford them?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The member and I share a concern about the cost of groceries, the terribly increased cost of everything as a result of global inflation and, now laid onto it, the impact of Trump tariffs.

That’s why it’s been so important for our government, across the continuum, to have increased income assistance, to have increased affordable child care, affordable housing, increased supports for seniors, free prescription birth control — everything that we can do on this side of the House to help people with the cost of living. That investment over the last nine years has been important, and it continues to be a priority of our work.

The member is certainly aware of the work that we’ve done as government to invest in food security infrastructure, which is what the sector has asked us to do.

Across the province, thanks to the very innovative work of not-for-profits and community organizations using the support that we gave to open up food warehouses, refrigerator trucks, all kinds of food security infrastructure that is helping people right now with the cost of living, with the cost of food and community resiliency — that’s work that we’re grateful to the not-for-profit sector to have partnered with us on.

The Speaker: Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, supplemental.

Lorne Doerkson: What this member is very aware of is that if this government would have fulfilled their $1,000 grocery rebate and their income tax cut promises, some of these families wouldn’t need the food banks today. We’re going to see longer food bank lines, with nearly 40,000 jobs lost in the past two months. Hundreds of those jobs have been lost in Cariboo-Chilcotin alone. And 31 percent of all of the food bank users last year were children. They’re children. Absolutely unacceptable.

It’s happening in our province under this government’s watch. Will the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction admit that more children are going hungry every day under this government’s watch?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Because, across government, we’ve been implementing British Columbia’s first poverty reduction strategy, something that the old government refused to do, across the continuum, we’ve got investments in young families. Our education system now, in every school district, is funding again, in partnership with the federal government and with school districts, in-school food programs — extremely important.

But the member knows that when the opposition was in power, they made life harder for people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Freezing income assistance at $610 a month for ten years, and where we have increased it 74 percent since then…. I could go on all afternoon on the contrast and the continued commitment that our government has to invest in people and make life better at an extremely difficult time of globalization.

[2:35 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Not one family going to the food banks is going to be helped with that word salad from the minister. That’s for sure.

B.C. nurses are the backbone of our health care system, and without them, our troubled system is on the verge of complete collapse. That’s why it’s astonishing that this NDP

Health Care Benefits for Nurses

Peter Milobar: Not one family going to the food bank is going to be helped with that word salad from the minister, that’s for sure.

B.C. nurses are the backbone of our health care system, and without them, our troubled system is on the verge of complete collapse. That’s why it’s astonishing that this NDP government is cutting back on nurses’ essential health care benefits. Nurses are stressed. They endure physical assaults, physical injuries from lifts, and instead of supporting them, this government is cutting their registered massage therapy benefits.

Is the Minister of Finance really telling nurses that this government can’t afford to pay for their essential health care benefits because of her fiscal incompetence?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The first thing, of course, that we all acknowledge is how important and highly valued the nurses working every day in our system are.

This member knows that I can’t speak specifically to a situation that’s happening at the bargaining table. But what I will say is that on this side of the House, we are deeply committed to making sure that we get a fair settlement to these nurses that are so, so important to our system, and we’ll continue to do that work.

Peter Milobar: The minister doesn’t want to confirm that. She doesn’t want to confirm her $6,600 limo ride. She doesn’t want to confirm her deputy ministers and their car allowances.

But you know, the problem is this government has so poorly managed their finances with their own decision-making that they’re now coming for the extended health benefits of B.C. nurses.

When we raise issues like this, they love to try to say: “Well, you guys would just cut.” So let’s quote one of their members, from Esquimalt-Colwood, who says: “Members opposite suggest otherwise. They criticize our government by spending. They don’t explain how their own plans will even pay for it. I can tell you as a health care worker exactly how they would pay for it on the backs of those workers.”

Well, it actually seems like it’s this minister, this government, that’s actually making the cuts on the backs, quite literally, of nurses.

Will the Minister of Finance admit she’s mismanaged the economy so badly they are now pinching pennies and taking away critical benefits for nurses’ health and well-being?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is ludicrous to hear this member suggest that it is on this side of the House that we are mistreating health care workers. I’ll tell you what.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: My very own grandmother was a cleaner in the Nanaimo hospital. She scrubbed the floors in the emergency room, and you know what? At that time, people were paid union wages. She raised, as a single mom, three kids on those wages.

What did the people on that side of the House do? They took those well-paying jobs, and they privatized them. People who were making a decent living were making nickels. You were there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: You were there. You know what? You know as well as I do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh. Members. Members.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I understand that this member is running to be the new leader, and he wants to distance himself from the B.C. Liberals or B.C. United or whoever you want to call yourself. But we know who you are, and the people in British Columbia know who you are. You know what you did, and we know what you did. You’d do it again on this side, and that’s why we’re over here.

The Speaker: Members and ministers, all comments through the Chair, please.

Brennan Day: It seems like we need to reset the speed limits on the highways in B.C. to 88, because we continually keep going back to the future with this government.

Their excuses…. You’re the government in power now, and you have to answer for your mistakes. It’s not just nurses being attacked in this recent budget by this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Property Tax Deferment and
Homeowner Grant Programs
and Support for Low-Income Seniors

Brennan Day: It’s seniors across this province living on fixed incomes that rely on the property tax deferral program to remain in their homes. In the city of Courtenay, changes to the deferral program and the homeowners grant program will impact nearly 77 percent of residents.

[2:40 p.m.]

If the minister wants to doubt that number, I encourage her to pick up the phone or check her inbox and call the city of Courtenay. In the last year’s budget, the government claimed to support aging in place. We heard it repeated in ministerial talking lines across the board. This year, the absolute

percent of residents. If the minister wants to doubt that number, I encourage her to pick up the phone or check her inbox and call the city of Courtenay.

In the last year’s budget, the government claimed to support aging in place. We heard it repeated in ministerial talking lines across the board. This year the absolute opposite. This minister continues to discuss this NDP government and increasing the costs of deferrals for seniors who are just trying to stay in their homes.

To the Minister of Finance, why not reverse these broad, damaging changes to low-income seniors and move to a simple, income-tested model that protects the very people you pretend to care for?

The Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The changes that we’ve made in this deferral program are changes that are long overdue. This program was designed to help keep seniors in their homes, but because the financing was below what rates people could get in the market, it was being used by investors instead of being used by seniors.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’ve adjusted this program so it’s still very reasonably priced, so it can stay true to the intention of the program.

[End of question period.]

The Speaker: Member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if you’d prefer that this be raised as a point of privilege or just give the minister a chance to retract. Ministers of the Crown should be factual and accurate when they are speaking in this House. Given that I was never in government, and she repeatedly and continually makes up alternative timelines in this chamber, how would you like me to proceed? A point of privilege or the minister to start being truthful in this place?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: B.C. Liberal MLAs, candidates, leadership candidates and staff: Surrey–White Rock, Trevor Halford, former B.C. Liberal MLA.

Interjections.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Pardon me. Excuse me.

Richmond Centre, B.C. Liberal cabinet minister; Nechako Lakes, former B.C. MLA, former B.C. cabinet minister; Abbotsford South, former B.C. MLA; Delta South, former B.C. MLA; Kamloops Centre, former B.C. MLA, former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Courtenay-Comox, former B.C. Liberal candidate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Kelowna-Mission, former B.C. Liberal candidate, former B.C. Liberal contestant.

I can go on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members, take a seat. Take a seat.

Members. Shhh. Take a seat.

Members, come to order. Order, Members.

Members, when that debate happens, all members have to be careful not naming anybody. It’s important that we focus our debate on the issue, not on the individuals.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Peter Milobar: I’ll reserve my right of privilege, then, if the minister doesn’t want to be factual.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, question period is over.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. I think we are going to put a tent outside and have a free-for-all. Not in the House. We are grown-up adults. Behave like adults, please.

Reports from Committees

Amna Shah: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills on Bill M217 intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act. The committee reports the bill complete with amendment.

The Speaker: Members, the committee report on Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, will be considered at report stage during private members’ time.

[2:45 p.m.]

Amna Shah: I also have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills on Bill M231, intituled Veterans and First Responders Month Act. The committee reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: The committee’s report on Bill M231, Veterans and First Responders Month Act will be considered

on Bill M231 intituled Veterans and First Responders Month Act. The committee reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: The committee’s report on Bill M231, Veterans First Responders Month Act, will be considered at the report stage for private members’ bills.

Question of Privilege

Dallas Brodie: I rise today on a matter of privilege under Standing Order 26.

I believe that my ability to function as a member of the Legislative Assembly has been directly obstructed by the actions of an administrative body, namely the Vancouver school board. Recently, my constituency office booked a public facility managed by the VSB, the auditorium of Prince of Wales Secondary School, which is in my constituency. I’m holding a town hall there to deal with private property rates, because I’ve been inundated with letters from my constituents about this matter.

The meeting was intended to fulfill my primary mandate to hear from the people I represent and to discuss matters of importance to my constituents. Despite a confirmed booking, the VSB unilaterally cancelled this event suddenly on late Friday night, and it’s supposed to happen this Saturday. This is not a mere contract dispute. It is an act of deplatforming an elected official and a deliberate barrier of place between a member and their constituents.

I note that the letter sent to me by the VSB was not signed by anyone, let alone a person in authority. So it is impossible to know whether the cancellation letter is even legitimate, and clearly, someone is trying to avoid being named in this letter.

Parliamentary privilege exists to ensure that members can perform their functions without fear of interference or intimidation. By denying access to taxpayer-funded public space for the express purpose of a political town hall, the VSB is effectively silencing the dialogue between the provincial government and the citizens of Vancouver-Quilchena.

When an administrative board, which derives its authority from provincial legislation, acts to suppress the work of an elected member of that same province, it constitutes a contempt of the constitutional role of this House.

The VSB decision sets a dangerous precedent. If a school board can decide which MLAs are allowed to speak in public halls based on outside pressure, then no member in this House is truly free to serve their community. It is without question that VSB must abide by the principle of neutrality in circumstances such as this. It is not acceptable for any MLA, regardless of party, to be denied the use of public buildings for MLA functions.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to investigate this interference in my constituency role and to reaffirm that the rights of an MLA to assemble with their constituents must remain inviolable and free from administrative censorship.

I have provided your office with the correspondence from the Vancouver school board detailing their cancellation, along with all the details of the contract we had signed and paid for in advance. We have had over 5,000 pieces of literature dropped by volunteers to avoid the expense of mailing it out. So we didn’t have to pay for it. We’ve had volunteers dropping letters specifically to people’s doors. It’s supposed to happen this Saturday.

I have two esteemed guests coming to speak, two high-profile lawyers from British Columbia. I can’t believe this is happening.

I ask that you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

The Speaker: Are there any other submissions on this question of privilege raised by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena? If not, the Chair will take this under advisement.

Okay. The Chair will take it under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

In Section A of the Douglas Fir Room, I call….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, estimates.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. Let’s not be cheeky.

Minister continues.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I would remind the House that the estimates of the Ministry of Health are one of those chosen by the opposition to take place in this chamber. That is exactly what is happening.

In Section A of the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

The Chair: Members, we’re going to call a brief five-minute recess while we await the team for Ministry of Health.

The House recessed at 2:50 p.m.

The committee resumed at 2:57 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order where we are going to contemplate estimates of Ministry of Health.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $35,968,875,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks before we begin our estimates process?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you very much, Chair.

I’ll just keep it very simple. I want to introduce the team that I have with me today. I have Cynthia Johanson, deputy minister of the Ministry of Health. Rob Byers, who is acting associate deputy minister in the ministry. Behind me I have Karina Sangha, who is the acting assistant deputy minister for corporate services and executive financial officer, and Ross Hayward, the assistant deputy minister for substance use, treatment and recovery.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Appreciate the opening.

Recognizing our member for Skeena.

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

Thank you to the minister and all of her staff. I’m appreciating your guys’ time today. I think we’ll just kind of jump right in. I don’t necessarily have any opening comments.

The first thing that I wanted to cover off, though, is going back to last year’s estimates. I had made some requests around the number of treatment ads relating to substance use and I was promised that I would get a copy of all of the beds broken down by health authority, type of bed, all of those details. I was provided with it, and I really appreciate it. I have it here from last year.

[3:00 p.m.]

I was hoping that I could start off by requesting…. It seemed like this was something that was pre-prepared. If I could get a copy of that as soon as possible so that I have time before my time is up today to be able to cross-reference the two. This one was March of 2025, and I’m happy to provide that to the minister and her team if she would like, just so that she has a copy of what I’m looking for. Basically, I’m hoping that we can get that over to me and my staff as soon as possible.

I believe I have roughly five hours for my

reference to the two. This one was March of 2025, and I’m happy to provide that to the minister and her team if she would like, just so that she has a copy of what I’m looking for. Basically, I’m hoping that we can get that over to me and my staff as soon as possible.

I believe I have roughly five hours for my estimates portion, so I’m just hoping that I could receive a copy of this in advance so that I have a bit of time to be able to cross-reference the two. So I’m just hoping. If the minister can let me know, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Welcome to our five hours together. As well, I just want to say thank you to the member for Skeena. As a critic for mental health and addictions, she’s been very good to work with. Despite the fact we sit on opposite sides of this House, she and I have had a number of really excellent conversations. I’ve had the opportunity to travel to her riding a few times and appreciate her real dedication, commitment and passion for the file.

Yes, we’ll get you that list. We’ll try to do that this afternoon. I know that your five hours will jump up to tomorrow, too, so if there’s any hold up, I’ll let you know as we go through the afternoon. But we’ll do that.

Claire Rattée: Great. Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that. I feel the same. I feel like we’ve been able to work really well together, and I’m hoping that this next five hours is productive.

I will hold off on some of my questions, those specific questions around the beds for now, then, but if we can’t get a copy of that before I kind of get to that section, then I may have to use the numbers from last year and base it off of those.

I want to start off with a bit of some questions around psychiatry, and I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with how many patients are currently receiving care through the forensic psychiatric system right now in British Columbia.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just because I don’t want to hold things up, we’re just consulting with the team to try to get that number. I can read it into the record in a few moments, but we might want to move ahead to the next question, and I’ll come back to this.

Claire Rattée: Thank you. I appreciate that.

A couple of other questions, then, that maybe could be answered simultaneously. I’m also wondering how many psychiatric inpatient beds currently exist in British Columbia within hospitals, and how many of the units, the psychiatric units, are at capacity on average, as well as how many psychiatrists are currently practising in the public mental health system in British Columbia and how many vacancies exist.

[3:05 p.m.-3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Sorry for the delay there, as we tried to pull together all the different answers to the questions. The question was for how many psych beds, hospitals, and information around capacity, as well as how many psychiatrists are practising and how many vacancies exist.

I’m going to describe three types of mental health beds. One being community mental health beds that provide mental health treatment and care for people in in community settings. This is outside hospitals. There are 19,579 of those beds. To be clear, those include B.C. Housing, health services program units, long-term care, assisted living facilities, family homes, rental subsidies, supported housing, emergency shelters, other services. Those are beds that can be found in those kinds of facilities and that are classified as community mental health beds.

There’s also an acute care system of mental health beds, where mental health treatment and care is provided directly in acute care settings like hospitals that serve both adults and youth. There are 930 of those. There are 952 non-forensic tertiary beds — tertiary beds, a longer stay — and those are distributed in facilities across B.C.

I don’t have a specific number for the member on forensic psych beds, but I’ll take that question on notice. I want to just note that these are very much kind of point-in-time numbers, and that the bed numbers do fluctuate because the service classifications will change.

There are some routine contract amendments that can impact the designation of a bed. There are community needs that fluctuate and change over time, but those acute and non-forensic tertiary beds can be found in 77 designated mental health facilities across B.C. Again, I know the member understands that these facilities can provide both voluntary and involuntary treatment as well.

With respect to psychiatrists, the most precise I can be right now is to say there are about 1,200 psychiatrists. This is a combination of full-time and part-time. These are psychiatrists who work in hospital settings, in community settings, academic, so they may not all be seeing patients, for example. I do not have an estimate of how many vacancies exist at this time, but we will endeavor to get that for the member.

Then there was also a question around capacity. This is more challenging to answer because hospitalizations are tracked, but the capacity or vacant beds at any one time is just not tracked on it on a daily basis in that way, so it’s not it’s not really possible to provide that number.

Claire Rattée: First of all, the community mental health beds. Based on the description provided, I’m assuming these are not considered clinical in any way. They’re not receiving any kind of clinical supports. These are just beds that are designated for people that are struggling with mental illness or mental health issues.

Then with the questions around the usage of psychiatry beds, I think, effectively, what I’m trying to ascertain is: are there beds that are designated as psychiatric beds in hospitals throughout British Columbia right now that are not being used because of staffing shortages?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I appreciate the member’s intention here, just trying to understand staffing levels, beds and ensuring that we are keeping pace with the need that British Columbians have for psychiatric treatment and access to those services as well as, as the number of beds grows, that we are doing the work to recruit all of the staff that is required. And I would point out, too, that it’s beyond just psychiatrists but also mental health nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, RPNs, that are part of that workforce.

Because we work within the regional health authority system, we don’t have the easy instant access to some of the information that the member is seeking. And because, again, it’s a point-in-time count as to how a bed is being used and then how it is staffed makes it a bit tricky. But I absolutely acknowledge that rolling need for continuous recruitment of specialists — psychiatrists being one of them.

[3:20 p.m.]

I can say that in 2019-2020, if you look at the headcount of the specialized workers that are required and then compare that to 2024-2025, some five years later, that we have kept pace with population growth — from 853 in 2019-2020 to 937 in 2024-2025. There’s always a lag in terms of the numbers that we have access to. To get information for the most recent fiscal, ’25-26, takes a little bit longer

so, from 853 in 2019-2020 to 937 in 2024-2025. There’s always a lag in terms of the numbers that we have access to. So to get information for the most recent fiscal, ’25-26, takes a little bit longer.

But if that’s where the member is going, to talk about the importance of keeping pace, I fully agree. And that’s why we continue to do the work we have around training, recruitment and retention of health care workers like the ones that are required for psychiatric services.

Claire Rattée: Part of the reason I was actually asking the question is because I have heard recently that there are psychiatric beds that are sitting unused in my region due to a lack of staff, and that certainly does include both psychiatrists but also a lack of even social workers, case management workers. So the reason I was asking that is because I’m trying to better understand. Are there beds that are sitting empty, and are there a significant number of beds that are sitting empty throughout this province because we cannot staff them? Again, I know that there are in my region. I’m just wondering how widespread the issue is.

I take the minister’s point that, certainly, the regionalized health authority system has made things very difficult to track so I’ll move on to another question.

I’m wondering if the minister could let me know, please, what the proportion of psychiatrists is from basically rural and urban — between the two. I am just trying to get a clear picture of how many there are in each region per population so that I can understand if that distribution is equitable.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Okay, so I’ve got a little bit more information here. I want to first of all just introduce another staff member who’s here supporting me, Darryl Sturtevant. He is the assistant deputy minister for mental health and concurrent disorders.

So this line of questioning around psychiatrists and around the disparities between urban and

more information here. I want to, first of all, just introduce another staff member who’s here supporting me, Darryl Sturdevant. He is the assistant deputy minister for mental health and concurrent disorders.

This line of questioning around psychiatrists and around the disparities between urban and rural areas…. First of all, I just want to acknowledge that it’s well known that it is more difficult to access specialists in rural areas of the province. It has been more of a challenge to recruit and retain specialists in areas of the province, and it’s something that I take very seriously, coming from rural community myself and knowing just how important it is for people to be able to have that kind of care.

I’m going to read into the record some of the numbers around psychiatry in the different health authorities. I can tell you that in the Fraser Health Authority, there are 217 psychiatrists; in Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 429; in the Interior Health Authority, 95; Vancouver Island Health Authority, 160; and Northern Health Authority, 28.

To the member’s point — up north, particularly, having the lowest number of provincial psychiatrists available for people there. So that means quite a bit of reliance on telepsychiatry, on virtual services and on visiting specialists who come up and who come in to communities.

Again, just to point out that this includes psychiatrists who work across private practice and hospitals and publicly funded programs. You cannot take the number of people directly as equivalent to dedicated, clinical full-time equivalents in psychiatry.

I also wanted to just touch on the fact that while in-patient psychiatric services are an important part of the health care system, earlier, we were talking about mental health beds in community and that this is also an important part of the mental health and psychiatric care system.

For example, last year I had the opportunity to visit a facility in the Lower Mainland run by Coast Mental Health that is not an acute care facility. These are community mental health beds, but they help house and provide services to people.

For example, there are individuals living in this particular facility who are living with schizophrenia, but they’ve got this stable housing. They’ve got the supports, and this has enabled them to live in community in a way where they don’t need the same kind of access to those acute psychiatric services that we are, I think, mostly talking about here.

I know the member knows — we’ve talked about this many times — there is a real continuum of care when it comes to the services that people need, and it certainly has been a dedicated focus of this ministry and of this government to continue to build out those beds in all places — be it community, be it acute, be it tertiary, be it complex or concurrent disorders, both voluntary and involuntary care — to make sure that people have access to the care that they need.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate the minister’s comments on that and recognizing how much disparity there is between the different regions. I know that based on the numbers that we had already pulled, it is a rate of three times higher in urban areas for access to psychiatrists. When you pull out just my health authority, obviously that becomes significantly worse.

My question is: what is there in this year’s budget that the minister is trying to do to fix that issue?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The work that the ministry is doing, funded through this year’s budget, as it has been in previous years, around recruitment and retention activities, when it comes to all health care workers, I think is relevant to this conversation.

Let me speak, first of all, just to psychiatrists. Just to remind the member — I’m sure she already understands this — that UBC is the only faculty of medicine here in British Columbia that delivers our province’s psychiatry residency program.

[3:35 p.m.]

There are about 30-odd, a little bit more than that, entry positions that are offered across Vancouver, Fraser, Island Health, Interior and Northern training sites. So it’s an important part of the training system that psychiatry residents have the ability to go out into different parts of the province.

We know that when people train here in B.C. or in communities, they are much more likely to stay here in B.C. or in these regions, and that’s why

Island Health, Interior and northern training sites. So it’s an important part of the training system that psychiatry residents have the ability to go out into different parts of the province.

We know that when people train here in B.C. or in communities, they are much more likely to stay here in B.C. or in these regions. And that’s why a dispersed model of education like this is a really important part of the training that specialists and family doctors receive.

Again, coming back to the fact that there are multiple different types of positions that are important in psychiatry and mental health altogether, I want to point out the work, the minimum nurse-to-patient ratio commitments that our government has made. When it comes to staffing units and over the coming months and years to being able to meet these ratio commitments, this will be a really important part of the recruitment work into smaller communities, into more rural sites.

And as well as the expansion of initiatives like the Red Fish Healing Centre in Coquitlam and looking at facilities in Surrey but, more notably to the member’s location in the province, Prince George offering involuntary as well as voluntary care but offering some specialized psychiatric care there….

Simply having a facility like that, knowing that we can recruit psychiatrists to work in such a place with a full team of people is an appealing part of making a decision about where to live and work in this province. So the infrastructure side of recruitment is an important part of this as well.

I’d also point to investments in hospitals like the Ksyen Regional Hospital, in Terrace, like the Nats’oojeh Hospital in Fort St. James — new clinics, new hospitals, renovated facilities — that provide more opportunities for people to access care, be it virtually. So having a telehealth room or centre set up within these facilities for visiting psychiatrists or virtual psychiatrists or other mental health workers, psychiatric nurses and the like, to be able to provide those services is an important part of it, as well as our commitment to continue to expand access to mental health services right in primary care.

We have about 350 full-time equivalents of psychologists working in primary care systems, working in health authorities — again, full-time equivalents. That’s an important part of expanding that access and having a more holistic, if you will, primary care system that provides that kind of care for people as well as clinical counselling and other community-based forms of counselling and making that more easily accessible for people — the point being to intervene early and try to prevent problems from getting worse, growing bigger to a point where, for some, more acute psychiatric care is required.

The last thing I want to say around this is the exciting prospects that are being seen through the U.S. recruitment campaign and the work that’s being done by communities with unions, with health authorities and through the province, through our Health Match B.C. site and program. The reason why this took so long to get numbers is because I was trying to get an exact number on the number of psychiatrists that have signed job offers who are coming up from the States. It’s not zero, but I don’t have the precise number in front of me.

But everything…. Over the past months and weeks, and even just the past couple of weeks, I’ve been doing a lot of travelling and talking with local government leaders and talking to them, too, about sitting at that team B.C. table, particularly in rural and more remote areas to not only understand what the challenges are that they are hearing from specialists such as psychiatrists but all health care workers in making the move into smaller communities.

Really thrilled to see the way that local governments are stepping up to that table. Burns Lake is an example of a community that has gotten a lot more engaged in physician recruitment, and that’s a positive sign, whether it’s family doctors or nurses, mental health counsellors or psychiatrists. This is the approach we have to continue to take because we want to make sure that no matter where you live in British Columbia people have access to the health care that they need.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that. The main reason that I am focused on psychiatrists right now is because I’m focusing on our public health system and what can be accessed through MSP for people that are struggling. That’s why I wasn’t focusing on psychologists and counsellors. That is a separate conversation.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m going to move on to another question that I have. The minister had mentioned non-forensic tertiary. I’m not entirely…. I don’t have a health background. I’m not entirely clear on what that is, but my question was: how many beds exist right now for long-term psychiatric hospitalization, and I’m wondering if that is what that category would be and if so

another question that I have. The minister had mentioned non-forensic tertiary. I don’t have a health background. I’m not entirely clear on what that is. But my question was: how many beds exist right now for long-term psychiatric hospitalization?

I’m wondering if that is what that category would be. If so, I understand every case will be unique. But I’m trying to get a better feel for whether or not we have the capacity within our system currently to be able to serve people that maybe have either brain injury or mental illness that cannot live in community and what that capacity within our system actually looks like. How long can we house somebody like that?

I don’t think it’s appropriate for somebody to live in a hospital that is like a general hospital for the rest of their life if they are unable to live in community. I take the point about mental health beds in community. I think that that is important. I think that’s always the goal, that we get people to a place where they can live in community.

But the reality is that we have thousands of people right now that are living in community on the streets that shouldn’t be. They’re struggling with severe mental illness and acquired brain injuries or both. We don’t seem to have a system in place that can care for them long term. So I’m hoping that the minister could touch on that, please.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think the best way I want to tackle this question is around a bit of the continuum or types of care that are provided for people with psychiatric challenges. We already canvassed this around acute mental health beds, for example, and I listed that there were 930 of those in the province — acute care being that two weeks to 30 days of stay in an acute care facility for stabilization and the urgent treatment that somebody would need in that time.

Now, some people are discharged, and others need longer-term care. Those are where the tertiary beds come in that I was speaking about — typically a three- to nine-month stay, again, often in a hospital-like setting, if not in a hospital itself. Then I was speaking about the Red Fish Centre in Coquitlam, where even one step further.... We’ll call them quaternary beds, and these are beds where there’s a very high level or high intensity of services that a person requires. To be clear, people can step down or step back up. As the member knows, it’s not a straight-line journey for everybody.

When Dr. Vigo began working with the ministry and providing advice, this really was around what I think the member is getting at. There is a small group of people who are experiencing severe mental illness, together with substance use issues, opioid use disorders for example, as well as acquired brain injury and are not in a position to seek care and stay in care themselves. These are folks who need support, they need stabilization and treatment as best as can be provided for people. That is beginning to happen in a more concerted way here in the province.

Now, since the closure of Riverview and of course the public health emergency that we’re currently still in around illicit drugs and the ever-evolving contaminants and adulterants that are found in the toxic drug supply, we are seeing, sadly, a number of people who do survive overdose, for example, and then they have that acquired brain injury that, together with mental illness, together with their substance use challenges, makes life extremely challenging.

It’s important that we care for these people. It’s important, too, that we care for the

a number of people who do survive overdose, for example, and then they have that acquired brain injury, that together with mental illness, together with their substance use challenges, makes life extremely challenging. It’s important that we care for these people.

It’s important too that we care for the communities and neighbourhoods where they live too. The type of disorder that has been seen on streets and the discomfort that people experience is all part of this and why Dr. Vigo’s been providing this advice on how to identify and enumerate these individuals and then what kind of care can be provided.

A part of those recommendations are around building out approved homes. Spiritwood as the Alouette Homes are now called — they’re called Spiritwood out in Maple Ridge — are exactly an example of this. This is 18 beds. I have visited the facility myself just before it opened and before patients came on site, and it’s very much the home-like setting that the member is speaking about. Everybody has their own bedroom. They have access to kitchen and facilities that are needed, but they have the intense supports and services that are needed to help provide the ongoing psychosocial supports, particularly around helping to manage problem behaviours that would make it not possible for these individuals to be living in community.

That being said, there are plans to expand this model of care and approved homes throughout the province. As we’ve canvassed here in this chamber before, I’ve spoken about not only that, but the expansion of the facilities that are provided at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. Again, this is not a long-term stay. This is for people in remand or people who are incarcerated to be able to have access to the urgent psychiatric and mental health services that might be needed, especially when experiencing those concurrent disorders.

I do want to again differentiate too from other individuals in British Columbia that for different reasons, for example, developmental challenges, are not able to live independently and that through the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and through Community Living B.C. There are other avenues and access for people to live in who find themselves in that circumstance.

But to the member’s point, and I know she’s made this clearly. We’ve talked about it before, and we agree that there’s a need for more of these types of approved homes, more of this type of concurrent disorder treatment and recovery centres. That’s why this year’s budget has $131 million specifically towards building out that system of care. We will continue that work right now, investigating sites in print storage and in Surrey, but eventually coming also to Interior Health and to the Island to make sure that British Columbians have access to that kind of care that’s closer to home than is currently provided mostly in the Lower Mainland.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that answer because I think that all of those things that were highlighted are incredibly important, and they are part of what we need to be building out.

My concern and my frustration is that none of those, still, are long-term, permanent solutions. Again, it’s a small portion of the population, but it’s a population that’s growing every single day in this province. At this point it doesn’t seem like we’ve found a solution to actually help people that are suffering like that.

In that same vein, I would like to ask some questions around brain injury specifically. My first question is if the minister has access to at least a rough estimate of how many people are currently living with an acquired brain injury right now and how many of those are due to overdose. I’m asking if because if the minister has it readily available and can provide it, I would appreciate that. If not, I would like to understand why we haven’t made an attempt to understand that number.

[3:55 p.m.]

I don’t want to hang up too much time on this, so if it’s not something that’s readily available, I’m happy to get that at a later date. But I’m just hoping that this is something that we have begun the process of trying to actually understand how many people are currently living with an acquired brain injury and how many of them are due to repeated overdoses.

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

First of all, I just want to address a comment the member made about permanent solutions, and I think that’s exactly the journey that we’re on, particularly with Dr. Vigo.

Knowing that approved homes have been built in Maple Ridge and that there are intentions to expand that type of housing for people who are not able to live on their own and who do need those intense psychosocial supports to help manage problem behaviours that simply are not acceptable to have in community or out in the public…. That’s exactly an example of the type of permanent solutions and provision of treatment and care and support that we are undertaking.

I would disagree with the assertion that there are not solutions being sought. Again, I do want to say thank you to Dr. Vigo for the type of focus and intention that he has been able to provide government by taking, literally, a deep dive into these very numbers that the member is asking about and identifying not just the number of persons who are living with brain injury, which could be from a variety of sources, but I think the question here was specifically around people living with brain injury as a result of overdoses from the toxic drug supply.

What I might…. Because Dr. Vigo is actively working on this right now, I cannot provide a precise number, but what I can do is make a commitment to the member to follow up. I think it would be very beneficial to help her understand some of that work that Dr. Vigo is doing.

Already, we know that it is fewer than 1 percent, fewer than one-tenth of a percent in fact, of people in B.C. who are living with the concurrent severe mental illness and acquired brain injury and substance use challenges. So it is a very small proportion of British Columbians, and those individuals need this type of help that we have been focused on.

But again, we are also doing everything we can to avoid getting into this situation in the first place, and that’s been a very big part of the ministry’s focus, again, on the entire continuum of mental health and substance use care and treatment that is available for people, as well as all of the intervention and prevention work. As we understand and we see in society, it is….

Youth, for example. It’s a really challenging time to be a young person and experience the kind of pressures that people are feeling, particularly since COVID, when we know a lot of gaps were identified, and we see the struggles that people are facing.

That’s why increasing access to counselling, building out Foundry, establishing integrated child and youth teams in schools, undertaking education and prevention programs in schools…. That’s why we need to do more work to normalize these conversations and to reduce the stigma around mental health and substance use issues so that people feel safer, feel more welcome. They feel it is easier to ask for help and to access that help.

It is just as important, if not even more important, to be doing that work concurrently with the work that we have to do to serve people who do experience substance use disorders and severe mental illness and those who do have acquired brain injury.

I can’t answer a question just about this one group of people without speaking to all of the rest of the work that is a part of this ministry and a part of our government’s work.

Claire Rattée: On the topic of doing everything possible to prevent this issue from happening…. I have some questions later on about naloxone, but I can’t pass this opportunity up right now.

One of the things that, it seems to me, would be a really obvious place to start if we’re trying to prevent that would be properly educating the public on the dangers of using naloxone.

[4:00 p.m.]

I want to be very clear when I say that I’m not advocating against the use of naloxone. I’m advocating for increased public education around the fact that just because you can reverse the effects of an overdose does not mean you get away scot-free.

At this point, I have seen no evidence that that work has been done or undertaken. It could be as simple as some kind of a little

of naloxone. I’m advocating for increased public education around the fact that just because you can reverse the effects of an overdose, it does not mean you get away scot-free.

At this point, I have seen no evidence that that work has been done or undertaken. It could be as simple as some kind of a little information card that is distributed with a naloxone kit that warns people about the dangers of repeated overdoses that are reversed by naloxone.

This is a very serious issue. This is something that we’re seeing playing out across the province. It’s only getting worse. In my mind, it doesn’t seem, at this point, that enough people are properly educated on the fact that, yes, there is a way to reverse an overdose, but that does not mean that there is no harm created by that overdose that you have reversed.

I’m particularly concerned about that given the fact that we are pushing naloxone in schools. We are educating students about naloxone, but that work is not being done concurrently with explaining what happens when you end up with an acquired brain injury due to a repeated overdose. You know, there are people that are overdosing right now several times a week, and I have a lot of concern around the fact that we’re not properly educating people about this.

It seems like, in some ways, this may have unfortunately and inadvertently fuelled this crisis, because we have a way to reverse an overdose. Obviously, I’m grateful for it, and I want to make that completely clear. I think that is important, and its life-saving medication. But that still doesn’t change the fact that when somebody stops breathing and their brain doesn’t get oxygen, you do that enough times…. What quality of life is there left when we don’t, at this point, have a really concerted strategy around how we are handling that.

I would like the minister to just touch on that, please, around whether or not this is something that is actually being considered and whether or not we are going to incorporate that into naloxone training to make sure that people understand the true dangers of repeated overdoses that are reversed.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, I want to talk about the purpose of naloxone being literally a life-saving measure, a harm reduction measure that keeps people alive in the event of an overdose and can reverse some of the impacts of that overdose. It has never been the intention of having the presence of a tool like that to be something that somehow enables people, particularly people experiencing a severe substance use disorder, to use substances.

It’s not a terrific comparison, maybe, but just like having a seatbelt doesn’t mean you should go really fast in your car, having a seatbelt can still save your life. Having naloxone on hand has saved thousands and thousands of lives. We know that overdose, repeated overdose, significantly increases the risk of brain injury.

The intention, of course, always is to work with people to try to get them connected to care in a way that they can transition from illicit street drugs to something that is safer to use while they deal with the addiction and move into other forms of medication and treatment and, hopefully, as I think is the goal of most, if not all, to a place where they are no longer using substances.

I point to the work that’s been done over the last ten years with the expansion of the availability of naloxone, noting that at the time when the public health emergency was declared ten years ago you could only access naloxone through a prescription. We are now distributing millions of kits every year. They are available in thousands of different places out in community and are easily accessed, particularly by those who are providing care, those who are involved with people who use drugs. And its presence, as I said, has literally saved lives.

[4:10 p.m.]

Part of the work is understanding, to the member’s point, education around the use of naloxone — how to identify the symptoms of overdose, how to use it correctly — and that is a part of the work that we are doing. So, in the overall budget, for example

presence, as I said, has literally saved lives. Part of the work is understanding, to the member’s point, education around the use of naloxone — how to identify the symptoms of overdose, how to use it correctly. That is a part of the work that we are doing.

So in the overall budget, for example, $85 million is being spent on the take-home naloxone program over three years. Just under 20 percent of that is dedicated towards evaluation, education, reporting, as well as the overhead and supplies that are required.

I also want to point out the really amazing work of Chloe Goodison from the NaloxHome program as a youth herself working with schools, working with youth groups, to again help decrease some of the stigma around having conversations about substance use, about being able to identify the symptoms of overdose and how to correctly use naloxone.

Again, it’s there as literally a life-saving measure to help keep people alive, whether they are regular drug users, whether they are one-time or occasional drug users, and in the case of an opioid addiction or other substance use disorder, to have access not only to naloxone but other harm reduction measures, be it overdose prevention services; be it the Lifeguard connect app, so that people are not using alone; drug-checking sites to look at what might be in illicit drugs that have been sourced off the street, for example.

We know that these are life-saving services. This is why we continue to support them and, at the same time as we’ve been talking about in estimates so far here, the work to do to help treat people with just with substance use disorders, the work to help people avoid becoming in that situation in the first place. It is all an important part of this work, and I appreciate the question from the member.

Claire Rattée: I just want to underscore again that as I said, I do fully recognize that this is important life-saving medication. I’m not advocating that we get rid of it. I don’t know what the solution is, but if you look at it, correlation, causation, whatever you want to call it….

As the minister pointed out, naloxone was not widely available at the beginning of this crisis, and the numbers were not what we’re seeing today, not even close. I do have concerns that when you remove some risks from risky behaviour, you increase the likelihood that people are going to engage in that risky behaviour. It’s just a fact.

It’s something that I could personally attest to as somebody that has experienced addiction. Had it existed and been widely available when I was struggling with addiction, it might have removed some of the risk for me. I can say that very confidently. Would I have recognized at 16, 17 years old that that would also increase the risk of me developing an acquired brain injury that would permanently disable me? Probably not.

I do have some concerns around that, and that’s where I’m just really hoping to try and underscore here the need for education around that. It’s as simple as…. You know, we put warnings on cigarettes now so that every time somebody smokes one, they can remember that there is an inherent associated risk.

So obviously, it’s not that naloxone itself is risky. It’s the act of overdosing that is risky This will save your life, but hopefully next time you might think twice before engaging in that behaviour again and just reach out for some help instead. I do think that needs to be the end goal, that we’re trying to get people to a place where they are not engaging in those risky behaviours anymore.

I have a question around hospital beds and how it relates to this. I’m wondering if the minister could let me know how many beds, on average, in hospital are tied up with psychiatric or acquired brain injury patients at alternative level of care that are waiting for discharge. They need an alternative level of care. They’re waiting for discharge, maybe an alternative level of care that we just don’t have access to or we don’t have enough of.

I’m curious how often that is happening and how many beds are getting tied up with that.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Sorry for the delay. We are trying to get the number, and we will get it. But I just thought we would advance the questions because I didn’t want to take up more time waiting.

Claire Rattée: My next question is actually around complex care housing, so it’s switching gears a little bit, but I’ll just read it in now.

[4:20 p.m.]

According to one of the minister’s own briefing notes, it says: “Complex care housing prioritizes harm reduction, respecting resident autonomy and the right to live at risk and use substances.” There’s also in that briefing note that as of December 31, 2024, 527 people had access to complex care housing

“Complex care housing prioritizes harm reduction, respecting resident autonomy and the right to live at risk and use substances.” There’s also in that briefing note that as of December 31, 2024, 527 people had access to complex care housing services, with 49 percent of those being in supportive housing units.

My question is: why are complex care housing units in buildings with supportive housing in the first place? Essentially, why are people with complex mental health and substance abuse issues housed with people who don’t fit that criteria? Does this not make outcomes for those that are in supportive housing units potentially worse? And why is substance use being allowed in those units?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you for the question about complex care housing. I want to just talk first a little bit about what it is because I see we’re joined by some guests in the gallery — hello — and then address the question that the member brings forward.

Complex care housing is part of a response. As the toxic drug crisis increased in complexity, and we were seeing the impacts on people, we knew that there was a need for housing that provided a higher level of health supports to people living there. Complex care housing has been a mandate priority both for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and previous iterations of that ministry since 2020.

[4:25 p.m.]

It’s part of the response as well to the homelessness action plan, belonging in B.C., and the housing plan of the government, Homes for People. Again, that’s led by the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. What complex care housing does is provide on-site and enhanced health services to people who

the homelessness action plan, belonging in B.C. and the housing plan of the government, Homes for People. Again, that’s led by the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

What complex care housing does is provide on-site and enhanced health services to people who have very significant health needs, be it mental health and substance use issues, and people who are particularly at risk of homelessness.

The sites, which, in phase 1, began as additions to existing supportive housing sites — currently 623 people are housed in these units — were very rapidly implemented. Phase 2, which is underway now, sees 120 new units that are proceeding right now in Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Prince George, Vancouver and Victoria — with the first site in Prince George in 2026, and the rest are coming along — that provide dedicated services.

To the member’s point, there are units of complex care housing that are provided inside or adjacent to or within supportive housing, and then there are those that will be specialized, dedicated and standalone complex care housing sites.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lisa Beare: In the gallery, just joining us today is Experience Canada, which is a national registered charity that helps young Canadians 12 to 17 years old explore their country in ways that they have never imagined. We’ve got a great delegation here with us witnessing the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

I’d like the whole House to join me in welcoming them.

Debate Continued

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that overview, and I am heartened to hear that we are focusing on trying to build that out as a standalone service. But what I didn’t hear in there was why we are allowing and encouraging ongoing use of substances within these facilities.

It’s just an odd one to me because I would think, with it falling under the purview of health, that the focus would be on the client’s health that’s living in those facilities. I would think that part of that would be somewhat of a targeted way to try and prevent further harm coming to them and to their health.

I’m just trying to better understand that. I mean, obviously, I understand supportive housing does not fall under Health. I’ve had those conversations with the minister responsible there, and I disagree with the use of substances in those facilities.

But in these ones, specifically, where these are people that are at severe risk, people that are obviously struggling with concurrent challenges that are very severe in nature, I would just hope to better understand why, specifically, in that briefing note, it stated that we have to effectively do everything we can to allow somebody to continue down that path.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m going to address this question by focusing my comment on one of the central tenets of the work that we do, and that is that addiction is a health issue. And first and foremost, one of the things that people need is stable housing, a place that is safe to call their home, to enable them to literally be in a place where they can form relationships with care providers, where they can know they have a safe place to sleep, a place to have a shower, a place to get good food, a place to receive care.

Addiction being a chronic relapsing disease is something where if we get to the point of tying housing to abstinence and not allowing.... And I will take exception to the member’s characterization of enabling or encouraging substance use. This is not at all about encouraging substance use. This is about acknowledging that people have substance use issues and that they deserve safe, adequate housing as well.

When people are able to build trust and form those relationships with people, they can begin to have those conversations, those connections to points of care that enable them to begin to address some of the underlying reasons why they might be suffering from an addiction and to address underlying traumas and other reasons why they are in the position that they are.

I think we would all agree in this House that everybody deserves a safe place to call home and that we need to do everything we can to prevent or lower the risk of returning to homelessness, of living on the streets, of being unhoused, and instead help stabilize people in their life so that they can get access to the care that they need.

Claire Rattée: I guess this is just one of the areas that the minister and I disagree on. I take exception to calling it a chronic relapsing condition. As somebody that’s experienced addiction myself, I have no interest in using drugs ever again, nor will I call myself a recovered addict for a reason. So I don’t believe that we can just simplify it like that. But that’s maybe an ideological difference, and I recognize that, and the minister is the one that’s in charge of this, so that is her determination on it, and I respect that.

I just personally take offence to this briefing note that says that they prioritize harm reduction, respecting resident autonomy and the right to live at risk and use substances. Maybe I am misunderstanding the target demographic for the complex care housing. My understanding was that these were people that were experiencing not only substance use disorders but also severe psychiatric illness, also acquired brain injury, people that I would think would be precisely the type of people that would fall under the category of who we are aiming the whole concept of involuntary or mandatory care around, people that are experiencing repeated overdoses in a week and that sort of population.

In my mind and in my experience, these are people that directly would benefit from some intervention because they have, in most cases — and again, this is a very small population, but it still exists, and there are still people that deserve to live with some dignity in their lives — lost the ability and the autonomy to make decisions that are in their best interest for their health.

[4:35 p.m.]

My hope was that the purpose of this housing was to try and find a way to intervene and to provide them with options to be able to live a stable and normal life with dignity. So prioritizing the ongoing use of substances, to their detriment, in my mind, is precisely the issue that I’ve been speaking about around warehousing addiction.

and to provide them with options to be able to live a stable and normal life with dignity. And so prioritizing the ongoing use of substances to their detriment, in my mind, is precisely the issue that I’ve been speaking about around warehousing addiction.

And I agree. Housing is an important part of recovery. It’s an important part of anyone’s life, and everyone deserves to have access to housing. But when we’ve got complex care housing where this is prioritized and it’s also being mingled in with supportive housing, with people that don’t struggle with substance use…. Again, to my previous comment, that puts other people at risk and I think that we need to be very careful about that. You can’t just prioritize one group over another for safety purposes and their right to have a safe place to live.

But regardless, I do recognize that this is something that ideologically I think we feel differently about, and I can respect that because, again, I am not the minister, so this is not up to me. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and on the record.

I want to move on to a recent coroner’s inquest. I apologize, this question may be a little bit lengthy and there may be a couple of questions in here . But I think for time’s sake, it makes sense for me to go through this all as one question and allow the minister to provide a response. There was a recent coroner’s inquest in Prince Rupert into Christopher Duong and psychiatric hospitals. He was placed on a 24-hour involuntary psychiatric hold and released under the Mental Health Act, days before he and his family were found deceased in Prince Rupert.

In February, 2026, the coroner’s inquest into the case provided nine recommendations, six of which are directed at the Minister of Health and her portfolio. Recommendation 1 specifically directs the Minister of Health to change the involuntary admission form, allowing an apprehending police officer to indicate their contact information on the form and, if requested, requiring hospitals to inform the officer on the discharge of a patient admitted under section 28 of the Mental Health Act.

So my question on that piece is is the minister planning on implementing this recommendation and, if so, when can we expect to see this change on the form?

My next one, recommendation 2 states: direct resources towards expanding the number of hospitals that offer psychiatric and mental health resources and services. Experts and psychiatrists across the province have been urging for more psychiatric staff in general hospitals, in addition to building actual psychiatric hospitals. We have no psychiatric hospital currently. Will the minister commit to implementing this second recommendation and investing in psychiatric hospitals in B.C.?

Recommendation 3 states: to investigate ways to improve follow-up and wraparound services to patients following discharge from involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act. My question on that one is does the minister intend on implementing this recommendation and, if so, can the minister provide context on the methods and timeline for this investigation?

[4:40 p.m.]

And what oversight and guidance will the minister be providing on recommendations 6 to 8 that are directed at Northern Health Authority and Prince Rupert Regional Hospital? Is the minister implementing a deadline for when the Prince Rupert hospital must meet recommendations 7 and 8?

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:41 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Health and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Also later.

The Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: In the chamber, I call Committee of Supply, continued estimates on the Ministry of Health.

In Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health
(continued)

The Chair: Okay, we’ll call the committee to order. And we are undertaking Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Health.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $35,968,875,000 (continued).

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

Just before we move to the work of the coroner, I wanted to just come back again to the discussion around complex care and appreciate the differences in perspectives that the member and I may have.

I want to be very clear. The member was speaking about those individuals who are experiencing concurrent disorders of severe mental illness and acquired brain injury and substance use disorders. That is, indeed, a very unique part of the population, one that requires appropriate housing and treatment and has been a focus of this government.

[4:45 p.m.]

Complex care housing. Perhaps we could just think of that a little bit as a step down, and we are talking about, again, people who are unhoused or who are at severe risk of homelessness needing access to stable housing in order to be able to stabilize and have that connection to care.

Any person is…. The scheme that we have under the Mental Health Act here in the province of British Columbia means that individuals who do meet

unhoused or who are at severe risk of homelessness, needing access to stable housing in order to be able to stabilize and have that connection to care.

Any person is…. The scheme that we have under the Mental Health Act here in the province of British Columbia means that individuals who do meet the criteria outlined in the act can be held involuntarily for a short time or for a longer time, depending on the outcome of assessments that are made by clinicians and by professionals. In no way does that mean that persons who need a higher level of treatment or who may be deemed appropriate for involuntary care would not be able to access that kind of treatment.

Again, just coming back to addiction being a disease that is as individual as there are people out there, there are different pathways into addiction and as such there are also different pathways out of addiction. For some, to have that access to stable, secure, safe, warm, adequate housing; food; psychosocial supports; the people around them that will help to connect them to care can be the difference between healing and recovery and not.

The member spoke about housing being an important part of recovery, and I completely agree. I think in this case what we are talking about is even before accessing treatment or services and moving into recovery, simply being able to access safe, stable, secure and adequate housing.

On to the work of the coroner. I appreciate the member bringing this forward. First, just to say that we really value the work that the coroner and his team do. Inquests into incredibly serious and tragic matters like this one are an incredibly important way of understanding what improvements can and need to be made in the system. It does take ministry staff some time to be able to review reports and to work with partners in order to assess the plan for moving forward.

I want to let the member know that I’d be happy to speak with her or have the team speak with her once the report has been completely reviewed by the Ministry of Health and I’ve had the opportunity to be briefed and have a full understanding of the implications of the recommendations and what they mean for the ministry in particular. While I cannot respond to the precise questions that the member has just raised, I can certainly commit to her that when we’re ready to do that, I’ll do just that.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for that. I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down and discuss this because I think it is really important.

It also obviously has some interplay with why I personally have been calling for a public inquiry into what happened in Tumbler Ridge. I do think that while the coroner’s inquest is very valuable, this is a process that has been going on for years now. If we’re at the point where this inquest completed work a couple months ago and we still haven’t figured out or had an opportunity to brief the minister on how that is going to be implemented, I have concerns that these processes take too long to actually see any results.

We’ve seen a number of incredibly tragic cases similar to this in recent years throughout the province, whether it’s mass casualties like Lapu-Lapu or Tumbler Ridge or more concentrated cases like the one that happened in Prince Rupert. We’ve seen now in the last year and a half, I believe…. I’m aware of at least two British Columbians that voluntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act and were very clear that they had intentions of harming themselves. They were released, no one was informed, and they went and they tragically took their own lives. There is clearly an issue with this system.

I think that this feeds nicely into my next question, which is around the review of the Mental Health Act. Now, it’s been a year since the Premier had made that promise around reviewing the Mental Health Act. So far I have seen no progress. It’s my understanding that someone in the ministry told someone very recently that the reason it hasn’t progressed and is not going to is because of the Charter challenge.

I personally think that that is an unacceptable reason for why we wouldn’t be moving forward with this. My personal feelings are that this is more of a systems issue than an issue with the Mental Health Act itself, but I would like to see some forward progress on this. It’s been a year.

I would like it if the minister could explain where we are in that process of reviewing the Mental Health Act and whether or not this is a process that’s going to be taken independently of government.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is a really important piece of work. This is an act that has not been significantly reviewed or overhauled for decades. It’s a very critical, a very complex piece of legislation that has very profound impacts on people, on their families and on communities. We remain deeply committed to undertaking this work, and that is a thoughtful review of the Mental Health Act.

Work is already underway around scoping the review and determining the exact timeline, to the member’s point. Awaiting the outcome of the Charter challenge…. The decision has been taken to do that because to go back and have to revisit the scope of the review, well, first of all, could potentially nullify some of the work that is being done. And also, we want to be able to, again, do this in a thoughtful and complete way, in a comprehensive way. This will include incorporating, of course, the voices of many different groups, and that includes people with lived and living experience, people who work with youth, Indigenous peoples and other groups.

And as we await the inaugurating or beginning this review, as the member knows, there has been work that has been done to amend the Mental Health Act late last year. Of course, we sat through committee on Bill 31. But prior to that, the work that was done to amend the Mental Health Act to bring in the independent rights service. That is an important part of the advice service, ensuring that those individuals who are detained under the Mental Health Act have access to independent rights advice and that they are proactively informed of that and able to access it.

I cannot give a precise timeline for the member right now, but I can assure her that it remains an incredible priority and an incredible opportunity, I think, too, for all British Columbians to do this work and to do this again together with the people that I just previously listed.

Claire Rattée: I just have a lot of concern over what this signals about our determination or predetermination of this government of what is going to come out of that Charter challenge. I think not undertaking this work, and, if anything, actually choosing to undertake part of the work in bringing forward Bill 31 back in December of last year to almost kind of predetermine that we were going to lose this Charter challenge…. Then assuming that we’re going to be moving forward, so then we can’t do this review of the Mental Health Act.

I don’t think that that provides a lot of comfort for the victims that have been affected by these tragedies. Like I said, I mentioned a number of them. It’s not just one, but there is one obviously that precipitated the decision to undertake this review. I appreciate the minister’s comments, but I do have concerns about what this signals about what the government’s decision is predetermined around the realities of what’s going to happen with this Charter challenge.

I would much rather that we were taking the opinion that we were going to win this Charter challenge and that we were going to undertake this review regardless because there are issues that need to be addressed, and if that means that we have to go back and we have to revisit, then that’s what we have to do. But I think that it’s not comforting for the victims that have been affected by this already, unfortunately.

I will move on. I have some questions around the work with Dr. Vigo. This is something that we have canvassed already, different opportunities over the last year and a half. About 11 months, ten months ago, I submitted a freedom of information request for the reports that Dr. Vigo was providing to the ministry. These were quarterly reports. I’ve been waiting for ten months to receive anything.

[4:55 p.m.]

I have received something, finally, but I was pretty distressed by what I received. I didn’t receive

I submitted a freedom-of-information request for the reports that Dr. Vigo was providing to the ministry. These were quarterly reports. I’ve been waiting for ten months to receive anything.

I have received something, finally, but I was pretty distressed by what I received. I didn’t receive any kind of report in any form or fashion other than what, effectively, I could only describe as being a $1 million bill. I have some concerns around that, around why that information isn’t being provided.

I’ve mentioned it previously, but this is work that British Columbians are paying for with their tax money, and this is, in my mind, not sensitive work in the sense that whatever the findings are I don’t think need to be sensitive or redacted. This is just very simply supposed to be what are going to be the best practices moving forward when we’re handling this crisis.

Since I haven’t been able to get access to those reports and see what Dr. Vigo is recommending to government, I’m not going to be able to ask questions on them, but I do have some questions about what I did receive. If the minister needs a copy of it, I’m happy to provide it. Effectively, it’s just a bunch of line items that are totalling to $1 million.

I was hoping that the minister or someone within her staff might be able to point to where in these line items, specifically which line item, is Dr. Vigo’s salary, as well as what the line item indirect costs for $121,875 is, since I can see that travel, meetings and events, data access and management, communications, knowledge translation and office supplies are all covered under different categories.

The only thing I’ve been able to assume is that the indirect costs are the ministry, and therefore the taxpayer, paying for Dr. Vigo’s salary for UBC while he is doing this work, but I would appreciate some clarity on that, please.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m going to talk a bit broadly about the work that Dr. Vigo is doing and then narrow in on some of the financial questions that the member has raised.

As the member knows, Dr. Daniel Vigo has been advising government over the past, almost, couple of years around various issues. One is around guidance that is related to the treatment of adults with substance use disorders. This guidance was released to clinicians to help account for some of the variability in the application of parts of the Mental Health Act. That guidance was released in March 2025.

Dr. Vigo then provided advice and guidance on the treatment of youth with substance use disorders, and that guidance was released in December 2025. That’s just part of the work that Dr. Vigo has been doing with government. Part of this is around working directly with the Ministry of Health and health authorities to complete what we’re calling a needs-based planning exercise for mental health and substance use services across the province.

In this work he is doing, he is under secondment from the University of British Columbia, as the member has noted, where he serves in an academic position there. His salary, as the member has probably noted in the documents that she has, is, for the first year, $304,000, and for the second year, $318,625. This is a direct secondment from the University of British Columbia.

In addition to that, the ministry has contracted the Centre for Advancing Health Outcomes, which is part of Providence Health Care, to help support the work; the staff that he works with; travel costs; administration; the communication activities that support his office, the office of the chief scientific adviser, around the needs-based planning project.

Some of the funding that the member refers to is — and I haven’t seen the exact document that she has — around the research and data support staff that Dr. Vigo is working with. So he does have a small team of people that are working with him on this needs-based planning. Now he provides regular updates to myself and to government. He has been travelling to conferences, in some circumstances, to present some of the results of the work that he has been doing. He will work in his position as an academic to undertake what he can on the publishable side of proceedings that could come out, that will provide advice and valuable information for clinicians not just in British Columbia but indeed across North America and the world.

But that also will put us in a position as he completes the needs-based planning exercise that he’s undertaking to be able to release more information about that, probably not until summer. So that work is ongoing, and I will conclude there because I can see the member is going to pass over the information.

Claire Rattée: Yes, I am just sending over the document that I received.

The reason I’m asking is because I don’t see a line item on there anywhere that says — I didn’t write down the exact number — $345,000-something that I believe was mentioned as the salary amount for Dr. Vigo.

[5:05 p.m.]

So there’s no line item that actually has that amount on it, but obviously the line items all do total to $1 million, so I’m curious. Is his salary on top of that $1 million contract? That’s part of what I’m trying to determine. The other part is that there was…. Now I’ve given it to you, and I don’t have it in front of me.

amount for Dr. Vigo. There’s no line item that actually has that amount on it, but obviously, the line items all do total to $1 million. So I’m curious. Is his salary on top of that $1 million contract? That’s part of what I’m trying to determine. The other part is that there was…. And now I’ve given it to you, and I don’t have it in front of me. The very last line item, I think it was “indirect expenses.” I can’t remember for sure how it was worded — indirect something, $121,000-something, if memory serves.

Those were the two components that I was trying to understand. What is the taxpayer actually paying in total, and how is that broken down?

I’m happy if it’s easier for the minister to get that to me later. That is fine, but I just would appreciate some clarity on the breakdown of that please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, this might be best served by a follow-up conversation. I cannot speak to exactly what the indirect costs are that the member noted in the line. But to say that Dr. Vigo…. Part of his contract with the Ministry of Health is effectively a reimbursement to the University of British Columbia for that portion of his salary for which he has been seconded, and that’s captured in the documents, I assume, but we will double-check.

So there is the portion of his salary from which he is seconded when he is working. There’s no additional payment above and beyond his salary with his obligations to government, and his obligations to the University of British Columbia remain whole and within that envelope. And then, as the member has pointed out, the documents refer to other parts of the cost of his office.

Claire Rattée: As a follow-up on that, since I haven’t yet received the reports that Dr. Vigo has provided to the ministry, and as I’ve mentioned, I’m not able at this point to ask specific questions about them, because I haven’t seen them…. One question that I do have is that…. It was mentioned by the minister several times — different pieces of advice and guidance that Dr. Vigo has provided throughout the course of his term.

So I am curious, based on some recent comments that Dr. Vigo has made, which in my opinion could really only be determined as being rather damning of the two chief projects undertaken by this government in relation to this — that being safe supply and decriminalization…. They were fairly damning comments, at least when it refers to a specific group of individuals accessing these programs, which we know made up a large portion of that group accessing them.

So I’m curious if the minister would be willing to put on the record whether or not any of those comments appear in any of the documents — the reports that she has received from Dr. Vigo?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: As I said, Dr. Vigo provides regular progress updates to myself, to government. These are not reports per se, but these are regular updates and conversations I’ve already alluded to or actually spoken directly to — two of the pieces of advice that he has completed and has released publicly. The work that he is doing on the needs-based planning — this phase of the work we expect to see culminated and completed this summer, which is when more information will be made available.

Dr. Vigo’s work has been very focused, again, taking this very deep dive into data sets across the province that previously had not had a comprehensive examination to determine the number of individuals that are experiencing this triad of concurrent disorders that we have been speaking of, and to provide advice and recommendations to government about gaps in care and treatment and better ways to serve these individuals.

We have not asked him specifically for advice on harm reduction programs or on the decriminalization pilot, for example. Again, he remains focused on this particular triad of concurrent disorders. I would say, though, just to the member’s comment, that obviously, Dr. Vigo remains an independent academic person and has all the rights to his opinions and to use the expertise that he has and that comments he has made have been taken out of context, I think, in certain situations and applied much more broadly across programs or initiatives that are used by people way outside of this particular small group of people with concurrent disorders.

That is not a good place to go, in my opinion, because again, we want to keep the conversation very focused, particularly in our work with Dr. Vigo, on those individuals but as well be able to use the expertise and advice of many different professionals, experts, specialists in the way that harm reduction programs are designed and delivered using the evidence that we have.

Claire Rattée: I would just note that.... I mean, I take the minister’s point about Dr. Vigo’s comments, and that’s why I said in the specific case of a person with a severe mental illness. I think what can’t be understated here is that his comments surrounding those programs when it relates to somebody that is experiencing a severe mental illness.

Maybe this is a difference of opinion here, but I would say that applies very broadly to a large portion of people that are suffering right now, a large portion of the people that we see unhoused on the street, the people that are really the face of this crisis, the ones we’re seeing day to day. It may not be a massive part of the population when you look at it proportionally, but these are people whose lives still have value, and they still matter.

My concern here is that if we’re not asking Dr. Vigo for his thoughts or advice on two of the chief, really, landmark projects that this government has undertaken in this regard, but we’re trusting his advice on a number of other things, just not this, it doesn’t really make sense to me. I did not take his comments out of context, personally. I do recognize that there are people for whom these projects could have worked, but that is the reality we find ourselves in.

It’s not just things like schizophrenia, for example. Many of the people that are struggling with substance use disorders right now that are on the street right now suffering with this every single day have drug-induced psychosis. That falls under that category of somebody with a severe mental illness.

Just because they may not all be somebody that had a diagnosis before they began down this destructive path of using substances, doesn’t preclude them from being somebody to whom it applies now. I would go so far as to say somebody with an acquired brain injury that is quite severe and traumatic due to.... Again, as we mentioned previously, somebody that has had repeated overdoses that’s maybe overdosed several times in a week, would also fall under that category.

This is really, I think, in large part, that core demographic who we are trying to help with these programs.

[5:15 p.m.]

That was why I made the question and the comments that I did, because I do think that it really behooves us to not recognize that. This is somebody who has been tasked with figuring out a way out of this crisis, and if we’re not going to listen to his advice and his comments on one major component of it because it doesn’t

So that was why I made the question that I did and the comments that I did, because I do think that it really behooves us to not recognize that this is somebody who has been tasked with figuring out a way out of this crisis. And if we’re not going to listen to his advice and his comments on one major component of it, because it doesn’t necessarily agree with the direction that government wants to go, I find that concerning, personally.

All that being said, I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with the total amount of public funds that were spent on the three-year drug decriminalization project, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Sorry, that took a few moments to dig up the numbers.

[5:20 p.m.]

Back up in Budget 2023, $15.6 million was allocated, of which $1.9 million over three years was for staffing, stakeholder engagement, public communications, education, third party implementation evaluation, and $13.7 million was allocated to the regional health authorities and the First Nations Health Authority to support resource card distribution

staffing, stakeholder engagement, public communications education, third-party implementation evaluation, and $13.7 million was allocated to the regional health authorities and the First Nations Health Authority to support resource card distribution, particular FTEs that supported the program. This included funding, too, to be clear, for harm reduction supplies for police, like naloxone, included a drug-checking pilot, and included additional evaluation activities that the regional health authorities, First Nations Health Authority, assisted with as well.

Claire Rattée: With that evaluation piece, have there been any deliverables that came out of that? Could the minister let me know where I could find those reports around the evaluations?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As part of our understanding and agreement with the federal government, there were certain parameters that needed to be measured and reported. Those reports were done quarterly. They are all posted online. The final report has been submitted to the federal government and will come online shortly. In addition to that, a final report or evaluation of the pilot will be completed probably this summer.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for that.

Moving on a little bit here to the safe supply program, I think that it’s been well-established that there were issues with diversion. I know that the minister has also agreed that that was definitely an issue that led to some changes to the program recently.

Now that we’ve had some time and some distance between that revelation and now, I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with a number of how many of the bad actor pharmacies the ministry was able to find were diverting safe supply.

[5:25 p.m.]

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

Just to start out, I want to be clear that the prescribed alternative program offered by the province is part of that comprehensive response to the toxic drug crisis. Again, this is about divorcing people or separating people from the contaminated supply of street drugs, illicit drugs, to help keep people alive, to help connect them to the services they need, to help move them on to medications that are more appropriate and literally do keep people alive as they’re connected to that kind of care.

Now as the member referred to, some of the findings of government, investigative findings, tips, reports, others, indicated that some prescription medications — which is what prescribed alternatives are; they are prescription medications — were being diverted into the illicit market. That, of course, is the last thing that we want to see — any prescribed drug getting into the hands of someone for whom it was not intended. It’s an issue that we take very seriously. It required and requires ongoing important conversations around balancing the benefits to individuals and the benefits and impacts to communities and to neighbourhoods.

Balancing public health and public safety questions…. That work has resulted in the decisions that we took, as the member and everyone in the House is well aware, of moving into a witnessed dosing program that ensures that medications are used by the people for whom they are intended. Now the goal of the witnessing program is to ensure that those prescribed alternatives…. The program is operating as it’s intended to do so.

[5:30 p.m.]

We support pharmacists and pharmacies and prescribers in moving to this witness consumption model, and we’ve been monitoring that program very carefully. A diversion of prescribed medications, certainly, isn’t an issue that’s unique to B.C. It doesn’t occur only within this program and can occur at different points along the supply and distribution chain and that includes health care facilities, prescribers, employees, pharmacies and

but diversion of prescribed medications certainly isn’t an issue that’s unique to B.C. It doesn’t occur only within this program and can occur at different points along the supply and distribution chain, and that includes health care facilities, prescribers, employees, pharmacies and individual patients.

The member mentioned specifically and asks a question specifically around action against pharmacies — bad actor pharmacies, as we’ve called them. Now, as the evidence has come forward, and again, it has been in the form of tips as well as investigations around inappropriate or potentially illegal practices, we’ve been taking action through the Ministry of Health’s special investigation unit, and we’ve been collaborating with the College of Pharmacists on this work.

I can’t speak to the specifics of the investigations. What I want to say is that there are dozens of files open, that there are active investigations underway. I would point the member to the College of Pharmacists website, where one can see specific action that has been taken against individuals, for example, and we’ll continue this work. And then as charges are laid, when things become public, more will become clear.

But I want to assure the member that we take this very seriously and that the expectation, of course, is that all people involved in the prescribed alternatives program are operating under the program as it is intended to be.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for that. Another question on the safe supply program. The switch to supervised consumption is likely going to require an increased rate of staffing and resources. How many nurses and pharmacists will be taken away from providing other care to oversee the administration of safe supply? And how much extra does the minister anticipate that this will cost in 2026?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: So first of all, just a little information around the PharmaCare expenditures for witnessed dosing. Back in 2024-2025, for prescribed alternatives for opioid drugs, there were dispensing fees, the drug cost itself and an expense per client.

Moving to a witnessed consumption model, there are fees that are paid to the pharmacist or pharmacies and professionals who are providing the witnessing service. This is not paid by FTE, so there’s not an estimate I can provide the member in terms of staff time. Again, this is all encompassed under the PharmaCare envelope. The fee amounts range from $4 to $10 and depend on the clinical complexity that is present in that particular patient and in witnessing their consumption.

Again, to be eligible for the witness fee, the prescribed alternatives…. They’re witnessed by a pharmacist in a community pharmacy or in an outreach model through a delivery to a patient or client witnessed by the regulated health professional. I think it’s really important to be very clear that this is also providing care.

Prescribed alternatives are separating people from a contaminated drug supply, helping keep them alive while they are able to consider and move to other forms of medication and, if appropriate and ready, into treatment itself. So I think the sense or perception of taking away resources to apply to this would be incorrect. Going too far would actually really stigmatize people, because a person is a person, and the care they need is the care they need.

[5:40 p.m.]

In this case, in the case of the prescribed alternatives program, that is what care looks like at that part of a journey for a person who is experiencing a severe and serious substance use disorder that has them constantly going back to the street or to the illicit drug supply.

Because of the changes we’ve seen and how rapidly it is evolving, for those clients, the several thousand that are part of the prescribed alternative program, people are seeing real successes in being able to

use disorder that has them constantly going back to the street or to the illicit drug supply. Because of the changes we’ve seen and how rapidly it is evolving, for those clients, the several thousands that are part of the prescribed alternative program, people are seeing real successes in being able to help patients stabilize and then help them move into other forms of treatment.

Claire Rattée: For clarity, the reason I was asking that was not actually so much around the pharmacists themselves but actually around if it was going to be something where people may show up at a hospital for their witness dosing. We know that we already have very severely understaffed hospitals, and so I wasn’t clear on whether or not that may require a nurse to witness dosing. That was kind of the crux of what I was trying to get to with the question.

But I apologize. I hope that this doesn’t cause a problem for staffing on this question, but I would like to just go back quickly to Dr. Vigo’s contract, because I was just waiting for a copy of it to get sent up to me.

In Dr. Vigo’s contract, schedule A, services, under reporting requirements, it says “the contractor will provide detailed reporting on a quarterly basis starting October 1, 2024, for the previous quarter, outlining the expenditures related to the services performed under this agreement. In addition, the contractor must provide the province with any reporting and access to data upon request with reasonable notice.”

The reason I wanted to read that in is because while it doesn’t specifically state that it needs to be a written report, it does say “detailed reporting on a quarterly basis,” and I personally find it hard to believe that that would just be something that’s done verbally through a briefing, although it very well may be. Again, I’m not in the position that the minister is in. I don’t know how these kinds of things work. That just seems odd to me. I would think that you would want some form of a written document.

The reason I’m asking that though, regardless of that, is that then Dr. Vigo was announced as the chief scientific adviser on June 5 of 2024. Effectively, if I’m to understand this correctly based on the minister’s previous comments, since his appointment on June 5 of 2024, it’s been a million-dollar contract each year, and so far, his work has consisted of effectively providing a verbal report to the ministry quarterly and two pieces of clinical guidance that have been issued — December 5, 2025, guidance on applying the Mental Health Act for children and youth, and March 12, 2025, a Mental Health Act memo for adults, so not really clinical guidance.

This is directly off of the website for Dr. Vigo’s work that outlines a timeline of everything, and everything else that’s on here is actually just basically that he attended announcements either with the minister or with the Premier on involuntary care beds that had already been previously announced prior to his appointment.

I’m trying to really grasp the scale of the work. I’m just having a hard time believing that this is really all there is to see here. I feel like there’s got to be other stuff going on.

If it’s just very simply that it is not completed and I can’t see it yet, I will live with that. I just would like to understand what exactly the work is that Dr. Vigo is doing right now, because I’m just having a hard time believing that one piece of clinical guidance and one memo are all that we really have to show for it over the course of nearly two years.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I think at the heart of the matter, the question that the member is asking is: is there value for money in the work that Dr. Vigo is doing for government? And it’s a good question to ask because we always want to see value for money when taxpayers are contributing to the services that British Columbians rely on.

We don’t have the kind of in-house expertise that Dr. Vigo brings us, which is why we move sometimes to external advisors or people who are under contract to provide very focused and specific recommendations using their skills, their background, their experience in their profession, and that’s exactly what Dr. Vigo has been able to do for us.

The work that Dr. Vigo has done, again, is taking a very deep dive into some very disparate and far-ranging and difficult to access and coalesce and convene together data sets and really beginning to examine, as we’ve been speaking about a lot, this triad of individuals that unfortunately has grown in the province due to the toxic drug crisis — those experiencing severe mental illness coupled with a substance use addiction and, all too often, an acquired brain injury.

To be able to help us identify those individuals and then identify the services that are needed and the gaps in our existing system…. We know those gaps exist, and that’s why with Dr. Vigo’s work we’ve been able to take action on that.

I think more than reports in terms of words on a page and published on a website, the evidence of Dr. Vigo’s value is really in what is already on the ground already that we see. We see his recommendation around establishing approved homes through the work at Spiritwood, which has taken some time to stand up and to deliver and is now active and underway with clients, with patients, with residents living there and receiving those services.

The recommendations that Dr. Vigo has provided around people in the criminal justice system, and I’m speaking specifically to the Surrey Pretrial Centre….. Ten beds are offered for those people in custody who need access to the services that are provided, often under an involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act. The success of that program there…. We are now looking at how that can be expanded in other correctional centres in British Columbia.

Dr. Vigo, also, as a person at that intersection of psychiatry and addictions medicine, which is an evolving area of work, has been able to provide advice on the integration of psychiatry into addictions medicine and really helped clinicians and people within the ministry to understand, again, some of those specific needs. The memos that the member refers to…. He has, yes, provided two of those, and he does ongoing work consulting with clinicians and answering questions, working with health authorities as those memos are implemented.

[5:50 p.m.]

I would also point to a valuable piece of work that Dr. Vigo has done with the province around the compensation and retention issues within the field of psychiatry. We spoke about this earlier. It’s been invaluable to have somebody like Dr. Vigo, who obviously as a psychiatrist himself, is well connected into that community and has an understanding that’s

done with the province around the compensation and retention issues within the field of psychiatry. We spoke about this earlier.

It’s been invaluable to have somebody like Dr. Vigo who obviously, a psychiatrist himself, is well connected into that community and has an understanding that’s helped us to be able to work with health authorities, to work within the ministry, to get to a place that I think will really stand the province well when it comes to being able to recruit and retain the psychiatrists that we need, not only in community and in acute care facilities but in ACT teams, for example.

Then lastly, the work that is ongoing right now that we have been talking about around the needs-based planning, that won’t be published, obviously, until it is complete. But we haven’t waited for its completion to act on those things. That’s how Surrey Pretrial came to light. That’s how Spiritwood Homes have come into existence as well.

Again, I just want to say thank you. I have a lot of gratitude for the work that Dr. Vigo has been doing, and I think that this is an investment that’s well worth it and it’s money well spent.

Claire Rattée: Yes, the minister is correct. That is essentially what I’m trying to get at. I want to be clear that I think that from what I have seen, Dr. Vigo is doing great work. I just maybe was hoping that this was going to provide us with some sort of a roadmap. I mean, it really seemed like we were pinning all our hopes and dreams on getting out of this crisis on the work that he was undertaking. So I anticipated some kind of clearly written out plan on how we would approach this.

Regardless, I will move on. I think that’s a good segue into talking a bit more about mandatory care, involuntary care. I know it’s got a lot of different names.

I’m curious if the minister could dive into how many net new involuntary care beds have been announced by the government this year. The reason I’m asking that is because there were a number that were announced last year. I would also appreciate an update on where those ones that were announced are at.

When I looked at this year’s budget, it seemed like it was basically the same announcement as last year’s as far as involuntary care is concerned. I’m just wondering how many net new have been announced this year, how many have been completed and what the current utilization rate is. Involuntary.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: To begin answering the question, I want to make a distinction between a bed and a person, or a bed and a patient, in that we have beds in the province in acute care facilities, in designated mental health facilities, in approved homes, in Surrey Pretrial, in hospitals, which are available to a person to receive care, whether they have voluntarily sought that treatment or are being involuntarily held under the Mental Health Act. It’s probably not correct to call it an involuntary bed. Because the bed provides the treatment, the person may be held involuntarily under the Mental Health Act or not.

Back in September 2024, government announced that we would build over 400 new mental health acute care beds at new and existing hospitals and expanded hospitals in B.C. Again, these are beds that would be a combination of existing beds that were being modernized or renovated and some that were net new. Of that, there are 278 existing beds being modernized and 141 net new beds being added to the acute mental health bed system.

The projects that are already completed include Royal Columbian Hospital, which saw 30 modernized beds and 45 new; the Royal Inland Hospital Patient Care Tower, which saw 28 modernized beds, 5 new; Mills Memorial now, the replacement project, including the Ksyen Regional Hospital and including Seven Sisters, 30 modernized beds, 15 new. That’s a total of 153 beds.

There are a further 266 beds — and I won’t read out all the projects — in Burnaby, St. Paul’s, Dawson Creek and Cowichan, which are a combination, again, of modernized and new beds that will meet this goal. Additionally, the work that Daniel Vigo, Dr. Vigo, has been doing as chief scientific adviser.... So 28 net new beds have been brought online through Surrey Pre-trial and through Spiritwood Homes in Maple Ridge. But those are above and beyond the 400-odd that I just spoke of.

I hope that helps answer the member’s question. As we build out the system of care, we recognize there’s a need for more mental health beds altogether, substance use treatment beds altogether. And some of them are used involuntarily; some of them are used voluntarily. Again, it is about the clinical status of the patient or the person, not so much the bed — that the bed is there to be used in either form.

Claire Rattée: So we’ve got the 153, the 266 and then the 28 net new. Am I to understand that those 28 net new are Surrey Pretrial, Alouette...? These are ones that are very specifically solely for the purpose of involuntary care, and these are the only ones that are solely for that purpose?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Not quite. Of the 400 new mental health acute care beds, 141 of those are net new. They can be used for involuntary care. The further 28 net new beds that have come online at Surrey Pretrial and Alouette Homes are being used for involuntary care

141 of those are net new. They can be used for involuntary care. The further 28 net new beds that have come online from Surrey Pretrial and Alouette Homes are being used for involuntary care. I won’t speak so much to Spiritwood Homes in Maple Ridge because I don’t want to misspeak.

But the beds can be used for patients or clients or people who are brought in involuntarily under the Mental Health Act but not necessarily excluded just for that. They have all the conditions that are required for involuntary care, so they have the right secure settings and resources in place to undertake that.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:01 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Health and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation
Course for MLAs
(continued)

The Speaker: Members, earlier today during private members’ time, a division was requested on a subamendment on motion M205, moved by the Member for Prince George–Mackenzie. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the deferred division will take place now.

[6:05 p.m.]

Members, we are taking vote on the subamendment on Motion M205 moved by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

[6:15 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, there being an equal number of votes, the Chair must make a casting vote. In keeping with the established practice, the Chair votes against the subamendment. The subamendment therefore is defeated, not passed.

Motion negatived on the following division: YEAS — 45, NAYS — 46. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 16 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:17 p.m.