Nos. 69 and 70 VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE Legislative Assembly of British Columbia Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Ten o’clock a.m.

Prayers and Reflections by the Hon. Christine Boyle.

The Speaker made a statement recognizing Ray Robitaille, Sergeant-at-Arms, for his years of dedicated service and offered congratulations on his upcoming retirement.

On the motion of Lorne Doerkson, Bill (No. M 247) intituled Crown Land and Financial Transparency Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Order called for “Members’ Statements.”

Order called for “Oral Questions by Members.”

By leave, the Hon. Niki Sharma (Attorney General and Deputy Premier) tabled the following documents:

Final Report, Dr. Kim Stanton, Independent Systemic Review: The British Columbia Legal System’s Treatment of Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence; and,

Ministry of Attorney General, Stanton Report Fall Update 2025, British Columbia Legal System’s Treatment of Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence.

The Hon. Mike Farnworth rose on a point of order regarding the use of electronic devices in the Chamber.

The Speaker stated that he would take the matter under advisement.

The House proceeded to “Orders of the Day.”

Order called for Committee of Supply.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A and Section C of Committee of the Whole.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section B of Committee of Supply.

(In Committee — Section B)

Section B of Committee of Supply reported progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Report to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

(In Committee — Section A)

Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, was again committed.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 19, 2026, with respect to Standing Order 16 (4), division on a proposed amendment by the Hon. Diana Gibson (Minister of Citizens’ Services) to clause 13 of Bill (No. 9) was deferred to the afternoon sitting.

Clause 13 of Bill (No. 9) stood down.

Clause 14 of Bill (No. 9) passed.

On clause 15 of Bill (No. 9).

Section A of Committee of the Whole reported progress on Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

(In Committee — Section C)

Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act was again committed.

On clause 3 of Bill (No. 20).

Section C of Committee of the Whole reported progress on Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

And then the House adjourned at 11.56 a.m.

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

One-thirty o’clock p.m.

The House proceeded to “Orders of the Day.”

Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 19, 2026, with respect to Standing Order 16 (4), the House proceeded to deferred divisions.

Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, was again committed.

The proposed amendment moved by the Hon. Diana Gibson (Minister of Citizens’ Services) to clause 13 of Bill (No. 9) passed on the following deferred division:

The Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered later today.

Order called for Committee of Supply.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A and Section C of Committee of the Whole.

Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section B of Committee of Supply.

(In Committee — Section B)

26. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $381,863,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Finance, Ministry Operations, to 31st March, 2027.

27. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $29,430,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Finance, Government Communications and Public Engagement, to 31st March, 2027.

28. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $115,350,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Finance, BC Public Service Agency, to 31st March, 2027.

29. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $1,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Finance, Benefits and Other Employment Costs, to 31st March, 2027.

47. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $3,797,749,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Management of Public Funds and Debt, Management of Public Funds and Debt, to 31st March, 2027.

48. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $5,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Other Appropriations, Contingencies, to 31st March, 2027.

49. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $6,153,166,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Other Appropriations, Capital Funding, to 31st March, 2027.

50. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $1,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Other Appropriations, Commissions on Collection of Public Funds, to 31st March, 2027.

51. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $1,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Other Appropriations, Allowances for Doubtful Revenue Accounts, to 31st March, 2027.

52. Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $2,466,000,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the expenses of Other Appropriations, Tax Transfers, to 31st March, 2027.

Section B of Committee of Supply reported the Resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Report to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

(In Committee — Section A)

Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, was again committed.

Jody Toor moved a proposed amendment to clause 13, as amended, of Bill (No. 9) which was defeated on the following division:

The Chair announced that the votes being equal, and to maintain the bill in its amended form as adopted earlier today, she cast her vote in opposition to the amendment.

Clause 13, as amended, of Bill (No. 9) passed on the following division:

The Chair announced that the votes being equal, and to maintain the bill in its amended form as adopted earlier today, she cast her vote in favour of the motion.

Clauses 15 through 20 of Bill (No. 9) passed.

Elenore Sturko moved a proposed amendment to clause 21 of Bill (No. 9).

On the motion of the Hon. Diana Gibson (Minister of Citizens’ Services) that clause 21 of Bill (No. 9) be stood down, the Committee divided.

Clause 21 of Bill (No. 9) stood down on the following division:

The Chair announced that the votes being equal, and to allow for further discussion, he cast his vote in favour of the motion.

The proposed amendment moved by Elenore Sturko to clause 21 of Bill (No. 9) was defeated.

Clauses 21 through 29 and the title of Bill (No. 9) passed.

Section A of Committee of the Whole reported Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, complete with amendment.

Bill (No. 9) as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

(In Committee — Section C)

Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act was again committed.

On clause 3 of Bill (No. 20).

Section C of Committee of the Whole reported progress on Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act and asked leave to sit again.

Bill to be considered at the next sitting.

Committee to sit again at the next sitting.

3  Reply to Reann Gasper from the Hon. Minister of Children and Family Development in response to written questions on notice: —

1. How will the new funding model ensure that children who are currently working with trusted providers can maintain those relationships, rather than experiencing disruptions in care? Particularly regarding those who will not receive the Benefit or Supplement, or receive a minimal amount not sufficient to pay a provider.

Response:

a. The redesigned model is intended to preserve and expand access to trusted providers, not replace them.

b. Government has made a historic increase in direct funding to families — rising from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually when fully implemented.

c. Families currently receiving Autism Funding will continue to receive that support until March 31, 2027, or until they are successfully transitioned. This ensures there is no abrupt loss of funding or disruption to existing service relationships.

d. At the same time, community-based services are being actively expanded starting now, so that additional capacity is in place ahead of transition. This includes phased investments to strengthen service availability across the province.

e. The transition is intentionally staged. The focus is on continuity of support through a phased approach — not a sudden shift, so families and providers have time to plan, adjust, and maintain relationships.

f. Families receiving the Disability Benefit and/or Disability Supplement will be able to continue working with their existing providers, supporting continuity of care and established therapeutic relationships.

g. Families may also be eligible for the Disability Benefit (up to $17,000 annually based on functional need), which provides additional capacity to maintain more intensive or specialized supports.

h. Based on available program data, approximately 74 percent of current autism funding recipients are expected to receive between $4,000 and $6,000 annually through the Supplement. This level of funding is expected to allow most families to maintain some, if not all, of their existing individualized therapy teams.

i. All families, including those not receiving direct funding, will have access to expanded, free community-based services across the province, ensuring continued access to supports regardless of funding level.

j. Community programming will continue to be delivered through existing provider networks, including Child Development Centres, Indigenous-led organizations, and participating private providers.

k. The sequencing of investments is deliberate: service capacity is being built and expanded in advance, while existing supports remain in place through the transition period.

l. Overall, the model strengthens family choice and purchasing power while ensuring funding is distributed more equitably based on need.

2. What are the specific evidence-based curriculums/service models being provided in the community programming? What steps will be taken to ensure individualized services/support to clients and families?

Response:

a. Programming will draw on established, evidence-informed practices (e.g., behavioural, developmental, mental health, speech/language, OT/PT), and will be delivered through team-based, integrated, family-centred and culturally responsive approaches.

b. Community-based organizations are located across British Columbia, including urban, rural and remote regions, ensuring services are accessible and responsive to local needs.

c. Services are designed to be trauma-informed, safe, accountable, accredited, and equitable, with a focus on individualized service planning based on functional need.

d. Organizations offer a broad and flexible range of supports and will support families to navigate and bridge to services not directly delivered by a single provider. Core services may include:

i. Behaviour intervention and positive behaviour support

ii. Speech language pathology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy

iii. Mental health and counselling services

iv. Infant development, early years and supported child development

v. Family support, navigation, and community-based programming

vi. Specialized autism services and complex developmental supports

vii. School-based therapies and youth programming.

e. Many organizations also provide wrap-around and complementary supports, such as:

i. Primary care, psychology, nursing and pediatric services

ii. Housing, food security, employment and legal advocacy supports

iii. Respite, life skills, and social inclusion programming (e.g., Strong Start, Mother Goose)

iv. Connections to broader integrated services (e.g., Foundry).

f. Services are delivered by highly credentialed, multidisciplinary teams, including Board Certified Behaviour Analysts, registered allied health professionals (SLP, OT, PT), clinical counsellors, psychologists, educators, and child and youth care workers.

g. Many professionals are regulated and overseen by provincial colleges of health professionals, ensuring adherence to established standards of practice, ethics, and ongoing professional development.

h. Providers are deeply embedded in their communities, partnering with post-secondary institutions to support workforce development, and contributing to research and continuous improvement at local and national levels.

i. The model enables flexibility and adaptability, allowing providers to tailor supports to the unique needs of children, youth, and families across diverse communities.

3. If an individual/family is receiving individualized therapy services under the current Autism Funding model, how will the Minister ensure the continuity of individualized services under a reduced funding/community-based model?

Response:

a. The redesigned model is intended to maintain continuity of trusted providers and individualized supports, while expanding overall access to services.

b. Families eligible for the Disability Benefit will receive either $17,000 or $6,500 annually based on assessed functional need, ensuring that children with the highest and more complex needs continue to have access to intensive, individualized supports.

c. In addition, families with an adjusted net income under $200,000/year may receive the Disability Supplement (with a maximum of $6,000 annually), which provides further flexibility to continue working with existing providers and maintain key elements of their child’s therapy team.

d. Families receiving the Disability Benefit and/or Supplement can continue working with their existing providers, supporting continuity of care and established therapeutic relationships.

e. This funding structure is informed by actual program utilization data. For example:

i. The average spend for children in the Autism Funding (over age 6) program is approximately $4,100 annually, against a $6,000 entitlement

ii. The average spend for children under age 6 is approximately $16,000 annually, against a $22,000 entitlement

iii. Families accessing both Autism Funding and School-Age Extended Therapy average approximately $13,000 annually in combined services.

f. These patterns demonstrate that most families do not use the full entitlement, and that funding levels under the redesigned model are aligned with typical service use, while continuing to prioritize those with higher needs.

i. Approximately 74 percent of current CYSN service recipients receiving direct funding are expected to receive between $4,000 and $6,000 annually through the Supplement. This level of funding is expected to enable most families to maintain some, if not all, of their existing individualized therapy teams, particularly when combined with expanded community-based services

g. In parallel, government is investing in a significant expansion of community-based programming (approximately 40 percent growth over three years), delivered through existing provider networks, including Child Development Centres, Indigenous-led organizations, and participating private providers.

h. This blended model (direct funding + expanded community services) is designed to:

i. Preserve individualized supports where most needed

ii. Reduce service gaps and waitlists

iii. Ensure broader and more equitable access across the province.

i. A phased transition to March 31, 2027, ensures families and providers have time to adjust, with no intended disruption in access to services.

4. If a family is receiving individualized therapy services under the current Autism Funding model (e.g., parent coaching, family support services), how will the Minister ensure the continuity of individualized services under a reduced funding/community-based model?

Response: (see above)

5. The Minister has stated that the community-based services will be neuroaffirming. What steps are being taken to ensure this? What research has been reviewed and what professionals have been consulted in preparing for neuroaffirming support?

Response:

a. Neuroaffirming care is the standard in BC — it is not an exception. The redesigned system reflects current clinical understanding of Neuroaffirming care which expects that supports should focus on self-actualization, autonomy, participation, and overall well-being.

b. In practice, this means moving away from approaches that prioritize making a child appear “typical,” and instead supporting children and youth in ways that respect neurodiversity and reduce reliance on masking behaviours that can be exhausting or detrimental to mental health.

c. Neuroaffirming care recognizes neurodevelopmental differences as part of a child’s identity and emphasizes supports that are individualized, strengths-based, and aligned with the goals of the child and family.

d. Community-based service providers across the province bring a wide range of expertise and experience, including:

i. Knowledge and clinical experience supporting children and youth with complex profiles, including high-masking presentations, anxiety, and demand-avoidant behaviours

ii. Highly trained professionals, including PhD-level psychologists, clinical counsellors, behavioural clinicians, and regulated allied health professionals

iii. Specialized autism programs and services that support children across the full range of needs.

e. Providers are skilled in recognizing nuanced behaviours and responding with flexible, family-centred, and trauma-informed approaches that prioritize connection, safety, and trust.

f. The ministry does not prescribe a single therapeutic modality. Instead, it supports a range of evidence-informed approaches, allowing clinicians and families to determine the most appropriate supports based on the child’s needs and goals.

g. This approach is informed by:

i. Clinical expertise across disciplines (psychology, behavioural science, mental health, and allied health)

ii. Provincial engagement and expert speaker series (2023–2026)

iii. Research on mental health, well-being, and outcomes for children and youth with developmental disabilities

iv. Input from families, caregivers, and individuals with lived experience.

h. Providers delivering publicly funded services are required to meet established quality and accountability standards, including accreditation requirements and oversight by professional regulatory colleges, ensuring services are safe, ethical, and aligned with current best practice.

6. Why was it decided to end the Autism Funding Unit (AFU) on March. 31, 2027, but not provide families with their Supplement until July 2027? How are families supposed to continue therapies without funds? How are service providers supposed to work without payment guarantee for three months?

Response:

a. There is no intended gap in funding or supports.

b. Families currently receiving Autism Funding will continue to receive that support until March 31, 2027, or until they are successfully transitioned. This ensures there is no abrupt loss of funding or disruption during the transition period.

c. By April 2027 the Disability Benefit will be fully implemented for all eligible families currently receiving Autism Funding.

d. At the same time, government is actively expanding community-based services beginning now, so that additional service capacity is in place ahead of the transition.

e. The timing of the Disability Supplement rollout reflects administrative sequencing, including alignment with federal delivery systems, not a withdrawal of support.

f. The transition is intentionally phased. The focus is on continuity of support through a staged approach — not a sudden shift — so families and providers have time to plan and adjust.

g. During the transition period:

i. Existing funding remains in place through to March 31, 2027

ii. Expanded community-based services are available prior to that date

iii. Families eligible for the Disability Benefit will transition directly into ongoing supports.

h. The redesigned system is structured with multiple access points — direct funding and community-based services, so families are not reliant on a single stream of support.

i. This sequencing of investments is deliberate: service capacity is being strengthened first, while existing supports are maintained through the transition period.

j. The overall intent is to ensure continuity and stability for families, while building a more responsive and sustainable system over time.

7. If 85 percent of the service providers surveyed (currently 308 have completed a service provider impact survey), showed that they were not confident they would be open past March 31, 2027, who will be supporting the children should the parents wish to use their supplements for continued therapy?

Response:

a. Government recognizes that service providers are critical partners in supporting children and youth, and that the sector is navigating a period of change.

b. The redesigned model includes a significant increase in funding flowing directly to families — from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually when fully implemented. This means more funding than ever is available for families to purchase services from providers of their choice.

c. Families receiving the Disability Benefit and/or Supplement can continue to work with private providers, including maintaining existing therapeutic relationships where they choose to do so.

d. The model does not remove or restrict access to private providers. Instead, it strengthens family choice and supports a mixed service system where both community-based and private providers continue to play an important role.

e. In addition to direct funding, government is investing in expanded community-based services, delivered through existing provider networks, including Child Development Centres, Indigenous-led organizations, and participating private providers.

f. A phased transition to March 31, 2027, provides time for providers to adapt to the redesigned system and for new service capacity to be established.

g. While some providers have expressed uncertainty, assertions that a large proportion of providers will not remain viable do not reflect the increase in total funding flowing directly to families, and risk creating unnecessary concern among parents.

h. Families will continue to have options to access services through:

i. Private providers funded through the Benefit and Supplement

ii. Expanded community-based services

iii. Interdisciplinary teams across the province.

i. Families are well positioned to make decisions about how best to use their funding, including continuing, adjusting, or expanding their child’s service team based on need.

j. Overall, the redesign is intended to support a stable and responsive service sector while ensuring that funding reaches children and youth more directly and equitably.

8. What ownership/responsibility does the NDP government take over the potential reality of an estimated 85 percent of independent providers/small businesses shutting down as a result of this model being introduced?

Response:

a. The assertion that a significant majority of providers will shut down is not supported by the full scope of investments and design of the model.

b. Government recognizes that service providers are essential partners in supporting children and youth, and that the sector is adapting to a redesigned approach.

c. The redesigned approach includes a substantial increase in direct funding to families-from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually.

d. This means more funding than ever is available to families to continue working with private providers, including maintaining existing relationships.

e. The model does not remove or restrict access to private providers. Instead, it strengthens family choice, allowing families to determine which supports and services best meet their child and family needs.

f. We understand some service providers who have focused their private businesses on meeting therapy needs of a subset of the autism community — like those who may need social skill development or communication support — are concerned that with more families having access to direct funding, they will have a broader group of children, with more diverse needs, to serve.

g. As the system evolves, providers have the opportunity to adapt their service models to align with more family-directed funding and a broader range of children and youth accessing support.

h. Government’s responsibility is to ensure that public funding is directed to children and youth in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and responsive to need. This redesign achieves that by increasing investment, strengthening family purchasing power, and improving overall access to services.

i. Overall, the model is intended to support a stable and responsive service sector, while ensuring that funding reaches children and youth more directly and fairly.

9. It has been projected that services for youth will not be established for up to three more years from now. How does the government plan to provide for youth and their families during this time if they do not qualify for individualized funding/do not receive sufficient funds to continue with providers?

Response:

a. The assertion that services for youth will not be available for several years is not accurate.

b. Government is implementing a phased expansion of community-based services, with new capacity being added beginning in 2026 and continuing through 2028.

c. Initial investments include strengthening early intervention services, capacity will have been added to public system for an additional 3000–4000 children, while subsequent phases expand services for older children and youth, including behavioural, mental health, and family supports.

d. This staged approach reflects workforce capacity and service readiness, ensuring that services are built in a coordinated and sustainable way across the province.

e. Families currently receiving Autism Funding will continue to receive that support until March 31, 2027, ensuring continuity through the transition period.

f. Families eligible for the Disability Benefit will transition to ongoing direct funding based on assessed need, which can be used to access services from private providers, including for school-aged children and youth.

g. As services continue to expand, youth and families will have increasing access to community-based supports alongside a significant increase in direct funding to families — from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually when fully implemented.

h. Together, this approach ensures that supports are available throughout the transition, while building a stronger and more responsive system for children and youth across all age groups.

10. What research was consulted regarding:

a. Level 1/2 autism and suicide/suicidal ideation/self-harm

b. Level 1/2 autism and mental health co-morbidities (e.g., anxiety, depression, PTSD, burnout)

c. Level 1/2 autism and risk for abuse (e.g., sexual, physical, emotional, substance)

d. Level 1/2 autism and need for gender-affirming care

e. Parent experience (e.g., burnout, trauma, risk factors)

f. Please state specific research reviewed.

Response:

a. Farrow, A. F., et al. (2024). Functional difficulties in children and youth with autism spectrum disorder: Analysis of the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada, 44(1). Government of Canada.

b. Lai, M.-C., Kassee, C., Besney, R., Bonato, S., Hull, L., Mandy, W., Szatmari, P., Ameis, S. H., et al. (2023). Self-harm events and suicide deaths among autistic individuals in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Network Open, 6(8).

c. Longmore, A., et al. (2025). Predictors of depressive symptoms in autistic youth: A longitudinal study.

d. Marquis, S., et al. (2024). Population-level mental health diagnoses for youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

e. Public Health Agency of Canada. (2022). Autism spectrum disorder: Highlights from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth. Government of Canada.

f. Public Health Agency of Canada. (2023). Report on the health of Canadians: Mental health, illness and substance use. Government of Canada.

g. Statistics Canada. (2022). Mental health of children and youth in Canada. Government of Canada.

h. Statistics Canada. (2023). Experiences of children with long-term conditions and disabilities. Government of Canada.

i. Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2023). Access to mental health services for children and youth in Canada. CIHI.

j. Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2022). Child and youth mental health in Canada: Evidence and system considerations.

k. Representative for Children and Youth. (2025). Too Many Left Behind: Ensuring children and youth with disabilities thrive. British Columbia.

l. Representative for Children and Youth. (2023). Still Left Out: Children and youth with disabilities in B.C. British Columbia.

m. Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2024–2026). CYSN / CFD Speaker Series: Clinical, research, and lived-experience presentations on autism, mental health, and service delivery. Government of British Columbia.

n. Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2023–2025). CYSN engagement: Summary of input from families, caregivers, service providers, clinicians, and sector organizations (including BCACDI, Autism Support Network, and community agencies). Government of British Columbia.

o. Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2023–2026). Ongoing engagement with clinical experts, researchers, Indigenous partners, and community organizations to inform CYSN service model redesign. Government of British Columbia.

p. In addition, the design draws on:

i. Data from program utilization (from CYSN programming, CYMH programming, etc.), invoicing, and service patterns in BC

ii. Input from clinical professionals and sector organizations.

11. With the three-year delay in youth services, how will they be supported into their adult transition (e.g., job skills training)?

Response:

a. Once again, the assertation that services will be unavailable for youth for several years is not accurate.

b. Youth will be supported through a combination of direct funding, community-based services, and strengthened transition planning.

c. This includes:

i. Access to direct funding through the Disability Benefit, which can be used to support individualized services, including those that build independence and life skills

ii. Expanded community-based programming, including behavioural, mental health, life skills, and social participation supports

iii. Increasing availability of services for youth as part of the ongoing phased expansion of community-based services over three years, not just in the third year.

iv. Strengthening transition planning earlier in adolescence.

d. Youth are supported through a broader system that extends beyond CYSN, including education, health, income and disability supports through Social Development and Poverty Reduction (e.g., Persons with Disabilities), and adult services such as Community Living BC.

e. Together, these supports are designed to ensure that youth are not waiting for services, but are supported through a combination of existing and expanding pathways as they transition into adulthood.

12. If the child’s supplement is divided between two parents when a child is in shared custody, how does the government expect the parents to make decisions in the child’s best interest when it comes to how to use the supplement? Will parent mediation services be included in navigation? If one parent was the signatory for AFU why is one parent not receiving the supplement to make medical decisions with the funds?

Response:

a. The design of the Disability Benefit and Disability Supplement will align with standard federal and provincial practices for shared custody arrangements, including Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) frameworks.

b. Details of payment administration, including the designation of a primary recipient or payee, will be confirmed as part of implementation and may operate similarly to existing approaches used under the Autism Funding program.

c. Decisions regarding how funding is used remain the responsibility of parents or legal guardians, consistent with existing family law frameworks and custody arrangements.

d. Navigation supports will be available to help families understand available services and coordinate access; however, they do not play a role in legal decision-making between parents.

e. The redesigned model reflects a shift to a standardized benefit approach, while continuing to support families in accessing services that meet the needs of their child.

13. Will there be grants or similar funding options available to private service providers/therapy agencies to allow them to continue to work with their ‘Level 1/2’ client base in collaboration with the community-based programming?

Response:

a. Government’s priority remains supporting children and youth with disabilities in a way that is equitable and based on need.

b. The redesigned model does not include direct operating grants to support specific private for-profit service providers.

c. Instead, government is increasing overall investment in the system, including a significant increase in direct funding to families, from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually, when fully implemented.

d. This funding continues to flow directly to families, who can choose to access services from private providers, including maintaining existing relationships where it meets their child’s needs.

e. In addition, government is investing in expanded community-based services, which will be delivered through a range of providers, including existing agencies, Indigenous-led organizations, and private providers who choose to participate.

f. The redesigned model reflects a shift from diagnosis-based funding to a needs-based approach, expanding access to children with a broader range of disabilities.

g. This approach maintains a mixed service system, where private providers continue to play an important role alongside publicly funded services.

h. We understand some service providers have focused their private businesses on meeting therapy needs of a subset of the autism community, like those who may need social skill development or communication support. As the system evolves, providers have the opportunity to adapt their service models to align with more family-directed funding and a more diverse population of children and youth accessing supports.

i. Overall, the model is designed to support a sustainable and responsive service sector, while ensuring that public funding is directed to children and youth in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and responsive to need.

14. Why were various professional groups/frontline workers not consulted in this development? Who were the professionals/groups consulted in the development of this model (names/role requested)?

Response:

a. The redesign reflects years of extensive public engagement in which parents, service providers, and all British Columbians were free to participate.

b. The redesign reflects multiple lines of evidence:

i. Community and family input

ii. Indigenous engagement

iii. Sector expertise and proposals

iv. Research and program data.

c. Final decisions considered all inputs collectively, rather than any single engagement stream. Findings are captured in:

i. CYSN Engagement Report (2023–2025)

ii. CYSN What We Learned (2025).

Who was Engaged

d. Thousands of British Columbians, including:

i. Parents and caregivers

ii. First Nations Rights and Titleholders, Métis and urban Indigenous peoples

iii. Clinicians, practitioners, researchers, and advocates

iv. Community organizations and service providers

v. Historically underrepresented groups (e.g., immigrant, refugee, BIPOC, 2SLGBTQIA+ families).

e. A distinctions-based approach was used for Indigenous engagement, including funding to support participation by First Nations and Indigenous-led organizations.

Approach and Methods

f. Engagement took place March 2023 – December 2024 and included:

i. Broad public and sector engagement to inform system design

ii. Partner-led engagement and submitted reports from community organizations

iii. Online submissions and dialogue, including open “blueprint” proposals from families, providers, researchers, and advocates.

g. Engagement was intended to inform understanding of needs and priorities, alongside research and program data (not to directly design the funding model).

First Nations Engagement

h. Direct engagement with First Nations Rights and Titleholders to support co-development of services.

i. Included session summaries and visual materials capturing key themes and priorities.

Speaker Series: Provincial symposium series connecting participants with experts and evidence on:

j. Effective service system design

k. Individualized funding (including international research)

l. Mental health needs

m. Inclusion and quality of life

n. Increasing complexity of neurodevelopmental needs

o. Supports for medically complex children and youth

Community Partner Contributions

p. Reports and proposals submitted by organizations (e.g., BC Disability Collaborative, Family Support Institute, Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, ADHD Advocacy Society of BC, among others).

q. Input included:

i. Recommendations on funding levels and administration

ii. Identification of service gaps and pressures

iii. Opportunities to strengthen service delivery.

r. These perspectives informed the evidence base, alongside research, data, and broader engagement.

15. What research was reviewed with respect to therapeutic horseback riding that stated that it did not have therapeutic value? Please provide research.

Response:

a. The ministry has not concluded that therapeutic horseback riding has no therapeutic value, and did not undertake a review concluding that equine therapy is ineffective.

b. Under the previous Autism Funding program, families could use funding for a broad range of eligible supports and activities, including specialized therapeutic activities such as horseback riding therapy where recommended by a qualified professional as part of a child’s intervention plan.

c. For years, government operated a one-size-fits-all funding model that left thousands of children and youth with support needs without access to services or supports.

d. We are changing that with a redesigned Children and Youth with Support Needs system that will support significantly more children and youth across British Columbia, including children and youth with high and complex support needs who were previously unable to access any funding or service.

e. Under the previous model, some families use government funding for activities such as horseback riding therapy. The redesigned model focuses public resources on children and youth with the greatest ongoing functional, developmental, and medical support needs, while also expanding access to free community-based services.

f. Government is prioritizing investments in core supports such as pediatric therapies, behavioural and mental health supports, family support and navigation, and services for school-aged children and youth.

16. With respect to an estimated 10–15 percent of children/youth with autism and existing services to lose all funds, what is the statement/demonstration of ownership from the NDP government for going back on their word to families?

Response:

a. In 2022, government committed to maintaining individualized autism funding while engaging with families, Indigenous partners, and the sector to design a stronger and more inclusive system of supports. The redesigned model reflects that commitment.

b. Families currently receiving Autism Funding will continue to receive that support until March 31, 2027, ensuring continuity through the transition period.

c. The redesigned model builds on that foundation by shifting to a needs-based approach, ensuring that children and youth with the highest and most complex needs receive the greatest level of support.

d. This change responds to long-standing concerns that the previous model did not equitably align funding with functional need, and that many children and families were unable to access services.

e. Overall investment in supports for children and youth with disabilities is increasing significantly. This government has doubled its investment in direct individualized funding.

f. While funding levels may change for some families, all families will have access to a broader and more integrated system of supports, including therapies, behavioural and mental health services, and family supports delivered through expanded community-based programs.

g. The redesign reflects government’s commitment to building a more equitable, sustainable, and accessible system that supports more children and youth, while protecting those with the greatest needs.

17. How will the community-based programming provide hours/access to families that cannot attend Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and require full service care on early mornings, evenings, weekends and statutory holidays?

Response:

a. Community-based programming is designed to provide flexible and responsive service delivery, including availability outside of standard business hours, such as evenings and weekends, based on community need and provider capacity.

b. Services are delivered in a variety of settings, including:

i. Virtual

ii. In-centre

iii. In-home

iv. Childcare settings

v. Indigenous communities

vi. Recreation and leisure programs

vii. Other community-based environments.

c. The location and timing of services are determined based on child, youth, and family needs and preferences, as well as clinical considerations, equipment requirements, and travel, with the goal of maximizing family choice and accessibility wherever possible.

d. Providers take a family-centred approach, working with families in ways that reflect their day-to-day realities, including aligning services with family routines, priorities, and capacity.

e. Community-based providers are often the first point of contact for families, supporting early identification of developmental or behavioural concerns, helping families understand their child’s needs, and connecting them to appropriate supports and services.

f. Providers also offer ongoing support and coaching, equipping families with practical strategies to support their child across settings (home, school, and community).

g. Staff maintain high-quality service delivery through ongoing professional development, ensuring services reflect current best practices and evolving needs within communities.

h. Expanded investment in community programming is intended to increase overall service availability and flexibility over time, including improved access outside traditional hours.

18. How will community-based programming provide flexibility in service location to meet the needs of families?

Response: (see question 17 above)

19. What duration of time (e.g., months, years) was data collected on the efficacy or inefficacy of the current AFU model as well as the ‘goodness of fit’ of a community-based model such as the piloted hubs? Specific dates requested. Additionally, what data sources were reviewed to come to these conclusions? Specific sources requested.

Response:

a. The redesign is informed by multiple years of data and evidence, including longitudinal program data, population trends, and formal evaluation work.

b. This includes:

i. Multi-year program data from Autism Funding and School-Age Extended Therapy (SAET), including invoicing and service utilization patterns

ii. Population and diagnostic trends, including over a decade of education system data related to inclusive education and diverse learning needs

iii. Public data on autism assessment waitlists and service access pressures

iv. System-wide data on service gaps and demand across children and youth with support needs.

c. The ministry also considered findings from the independent evaluation of piloted service approaches, including community-based models, alongside ongoing monitoring of pilot implementation.

d. These data sources were complemented by:

i. Engagement with families, caregivers, and individuals with lived experience (2023–2025)

ii. Input from clinicians, researchers, and service providers

iii. Analysis of program performance and service access across regions.

e. This combined evidence base, spanning multiple years of data, evaluation, and engagement, was used to assess system performance and inform the development of a redesigned model that better aligns services with need.

20. As the reduction/removal of access to trusted, continued care from existing providers poses a serious risk of crisis for individuals with autism and their families, what has been prepared in anticipation of mental health/behavioural crisis, specifically:

a. Access to 24/7 crisis ‘help-line’ to contact qualified professionals who can assist in de-escalation and crisis management

b. Access to mental health services (e.g., Child Youth Mental Health) without extensive waitlists

c. Accessibility to be re-assessed for ‘need’ under the Benefit to gain funding and access more private support

d. Guarantee of qualified professionals to support individuals and families through crisis (not students, brand new professionals, assistants, etc.)

e. Increased resources for schools/hospitals to buffer increased demand on their systems in response to urgent crises.

Response:

a. The premise that families will lose access to trusted providers is not accurate. The redesigned model includes a significant increase in direct funding to families, rising from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually when fully implemented.

b. This means more funding than ever is being placed directly in the hands of families, enabling them to continue, adjust, or expand services with providers of their choice, including maintaining existing therapeutic relationships.

c. Assertions that all or most relationships with current providers will be lost do not reflect how the model operates and creates unnecessary concern and stress for families. Most families will continue to have both the financial means and flexibility to sustain key elements of their child’s support team, particularly when combined with other available services.

d. In addition, the system continues to provide:

i. Access to Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) services and crisis supports

ii. Navigation supports to help families identify and access appropriate services quickly

iii. Ongoing collaboration with Health and Education partners to strengthen response capacity and reduce service gaps.

e. The redesign is intended to reduce, not increase, crisis risk, by improving access to supports, increasing flexibility for families, and ensuring resources are more equitably distributed based on need.

21. Why is it not an option to have some form of individualized funding like the AFU for all children/youth with Autism? Why is it acceptable to have up to 15 percent losing all funding and an even larger percentage not receiving enough to support a beneficial therapy team?

Response:

a. This government has made a historic investment in supports for children and youth with disabilities, including a significant increase in direct funding to families — from approximately $190 million annually to approximately $326 million annually, representing a near doubling of investment.

b. This represents a historic lift in funding for children with disabilities in British Columbia, and directly responds to research, program data, and extensive engagement with families, clinicians, and sector partners, which consistently identified the need for more equitable, needs-based access to supports.

c. While individualized funding remains a core component of the model, a fully demand-driven approach for all children, regardless of level of need, does not equitably distribute resources, and creates significant fiscal risk, limiting the system’s ability to support those with the most complex needs.

d. The redesigned model balances:

i. Increased direct funding for families, particularly those with greater needs, and

ii. A broader system of supports to ensure more children and youth can access services overall.

e. Under the previous model, funding was not always aligned with functional need, and many children and families were unable to access services. The redesigned approach ensures that available resources are distributed more fairly and sustainably, while preserving family choice and flexibility

f. Overall, the redesign reflects both a significant increase in investment and a more equitable approach to allocating that investment, ensuring that children and youth with the greatest needs receive the level of support required.

And then the House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.

HON. RAJ CHOUHAN, Speaker

NOTICE OF BILLS

Wednesday, May 27

Tara Armstrong to introduce a Bill intituled Pharmaceutical Risk Management and Accountability Act.

Thursday, May 28

Bryan Tepper to introduce a Bill intituled Non-Disclosure Agreements Act.

Linda Hepner to introduce a Bill intituled BC Energy and Zero Carbon Step Codes Pause Act.

Copyright © King’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada