First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, December 1, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 111

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Vancouver Whitecaps

Misty Van Popta

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

World AIDS Day and Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week

Jennifer Blatherwick

Hong Kong Apartment Complex Fire and Community and Media Response

Teresa Wat

Medal of Good Citizenship Recipient Montana Burgess

Steve Morissette

Watch Lake Lodge

Lorne Doerkson

Cowichan Watershed Board

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

Para Cup Hockey Tournament

Larry Neufeld

Oral Questions

Security Incident at Surrey Neonatal Unit and Safety at Hospitals

Reann Gasper

Hon. Josie Osborne

Granville Street Supportive Housing Sites and Community Safety

Bryan Tepper

Hon. Christine Boyle

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

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Josie Osborne

Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Kamloops Residential School Burial Site and Deaths of Indigenous Children

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Langley Memorial Hospital Surgical Facilities and Upgrades

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Emergency Health Care Services in Northern B.C.

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Josie Osborne

Sharon Hartwell

Access to Emergency Health Care Facilities and Temporary Closings

Ian Paton

Hon. Josie Osborne

Community Safety Issues in Kelowna and Action on Repeat Offenders

Kristina Loewen

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Action on Drug Toxicity Crisis

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Hon. David Eby

Tabling Documents

Á’a:líya Warbus, documents regarding point of order, November 26, 2025

Petitions

George Anderson

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Committee of the Whole

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

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Heather Maahs

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

Hon. Niki Sharma

Brennan Day

Anna Kindy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 32 — Mental Health Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025 (continued)

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Josie Osborne

Claire Rattée

Elenore Sturko

Brennan Day

Monday, December 1, 2025

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis : I’m really proud to have a special constituent on the precinct today. That’s my dad

here from Kimberley. It’s great to have him here. For the last half-century, my dad

has been a commercial airline pilot as well as a volunteer pilot locally in East Kootenay,

and he’s a union guy.

He was president of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association as well as the International

Federation of Airline Pilots Associations. That example I saw as a young person for

leadership and service really made an impact on me.

Would the House please make him feel welcome today.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Fourteen years ago, one summer when I was living in Creston, on my first day of work

at the town of Creston, I was with my mom, and I went to get breakfast at a coffee

shop. I looked across the way, and I saw this guy. And I thought: “Wow, I don’t know

who that is, but he’s going to be a very significant part of my life.”

Paul Dixon, happy birthday. I’ve known you for 14 years. You have been a very significant

part of my life, and I do love you and care about you a lot.

Happy birthday.

John Rustad : I just want to start, first of all, by saying hi to Mr. McInnis. He does some angel

flights, and he gave me a flight one time. He does a lot of great work there.

Joining us at the House today is Jeff Morris, who is the president and CEO of Angel

Flight B.C. With him is also one of the pilots, Bruce Burley. They do a lot of work,

obviously, in helping out.

In 1999, Jeff helped to set up Angel Flight B.C. in Sidney, which now currently has

28 volunteer pilots providing air transportation to children and adults with cancer

or other non-commutable medical issues to remote communities throughout Vancouver

Island and the Sunshine Coast. In 2006, Jeff was awarded the Governor General’s Caring

Canadian Award for his tireless volunteer work for Angel Flights.

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

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Lana Popham : Today in the gallery, I have a constituent visiting me by the name of Lisa Cordasco.

If that name sounds familiar, it’s because Lisa was a longtime media presence here

on the Island.

If you listened to CBC radio from 27 years ago, between 1998 to 2015, you would have

heard her distinctive voice. Lisa was the first host of CBC’s morning show On the Island . After so many early morning starts, she switched over to day shift, where she produced

and reported many Island stories, nationally as well as locally. She is happily retired

now in Saanich South.

Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon Chan : I would like to take a brief moment to be on record today. It’s my father’s birthday.

While I’m here in the chamber of British Columbia, I am very sorry that I cannot spend

the day with him. I want to thank him for everything he has done for my family and

for me.

Happy birthday.

I wish him good health.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : In the Legislature today, we have a very special guest, my dear friend and mentor

Melanie Mark, the previous MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and minister.

Melanie and I got elected in 2016 in the provincial by-elections together. Melanie

made history in this Legislature by being the very first First Nations woman ever

elected. She was the first First Nations woman in cabinet, and she changed the history

of our province.

[1:40 p.m.]

Melanie certainly made a mark on our province. She has made a significant mark on

my life. I am a better person, a better woman, a better MLA and a better leader because

I’ve gotten to know Melanie and learned from Melanie. I can’t say enough.

I think we were the 101st and 102nd women being elected to this Legislature. It is

something I will carry with me until I’m a grandmother and get to tell my story to

my grandchildren.

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

Melanie is joined here today with her business partner, David Carten from Aks Wind

Energy Corp., and also Dr. Vidya Vankayala from BCIT.

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

Lorne Doerkson : Mr. Speaker, she lights up a room when she enters it. She has given me more laughs

and more entertainment and enjoyment than I have words to explain. I can’t wait until

our annual camping trip, and I’m so excited to wish my granddaughter Rayna Couture

a happy sixth birthday today.

She’s watching right now, and I hope everybody would join us in wishing a happy birthday

to this beautiful little girl.

Statements

Vancouver Whitecaps

Misty Van Popta : Just a few weeks ago members of this House stood united in cheering on the Toronto

Blue Jays — something, as a quintessential soccer mom, I did more out of a unity measure

than for the understanding of the love of the game.

Now it is time for our hometown soccer heroes to shine, as the Vancouver Whitecaps

were winners of the Western Conference this past weekend and, for the first time in

franchise history, are going to the MLS finals this coming Saturday.

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

Although “Elbows up” is a penalty in soccer, I hope you all will join me in raising

up your scarves this Saturday and say: “Go Caps!”

Introductions by Members

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

Bruce, you really gave me a lot of guidance and help when I was a rookie politician

way back in 2013. I really appreciated that. I’m glad that now you are switching from

politics to a piloting career. Congratulations.

I also want to say happy birthday to my colleague the MLA for Richmond Centre’s father.

I got to know the Richmond Centre MLA 15 years ago, when he was still a kid. I understand

his father was born in the same year as I am, so I wish him happy birthday.

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

Stephanie Higginson : It’s clearly an auspicious day to be born. We have another birthday in the House

today. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake and our own Minister of Public Safety and

Solicitor General is celebrating her birthday with all of us today.

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

Gavin Dew : I’d like to join the member opposite in acknowledging the presence of Melanie Mark

in the chamber. I got my start in provincial politics by getting absolutely whooped

by her in that same by-election, in which I arrived with, I believe, 9 percent of

the vote.

I also remember distinctly that when I came to visit the Legislature after doing so,

I ran into her in the hallway, and she offered to introduce me in this chamber. We’ve

always enjoyed a very pleasant relationship that, to me, is a reminder of the collegiality

that is possible outside of the sometimes hard-fought nature of politics.

While I’m standing, I’d also like to take a moment to acknowledge another birthday.

It is my federal counterpart Dan Albas’s birthday. I just got off the phone with him

15 minutes ago, wishing him a happy birthday in the federal parliament. I innocently

inquired as to whether they were going to sing “Happy Birthday” to him in the chamber,

to which he replied that he didn’t have that kind of clout.

Nonetheless, a big happy birthday to Dan Albas.

[1:45 p.m.]

Teresa Wat : I also want to give my welcome to Melanie Mark. I remember when Melanie was the Tourism

Minister and I was the critic, yet we can remain friends. We talk about it all the

time when we see each other in the helijet.

Welcome back to the Legislature, Melanie.

Members’ Statements

World AIDS Day and Indigenous

AIDS Awareness Week

Jennifer Blatherwick : Today marks World AIDS Day and the beginning of Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week, a

time where we remember lives lost and honour those living with HIV. Indigenous AIDS

Awareness Week was developed by national Indigenous-led organizations, communities,

alliances and networks and is now recognized throughout the country, including here

in British Columbia.

One local organization that is integral to supporting people living with AIDS and

HIV in B.C. is Ribbon Community, formerly known as AIDS Vancouver. We all remember

the history of the AIDS epidemic, how fear, prejudice and institutional oppression

shaped the unkindness of the early public health response across North America.

Ribbon Community was founded in 1983 and has been an essential organization in British

Columbia that works to provide accurate, stigma-free information about HIV today,

including information that HIV is treatable, and ongoing efforts to end the stigma.

Today, in honour of World AIDS Day and Indigenous AIDS Awareness Week, a contingent

from Ribbon Community is in Victoria, connecting with community members in SȾÁUTW̱ First Nation as they host a recognition walk with Karen Harry to honour survivors

of the HIV epidemic and commemorate those who have been lost by laying flowers on

graves in the community and walking towards a brighter future.

Today we should honour and respect those lost, the activists, the survivors, and help

prevent a resurgence of HIV by supporting medical research and equitable access to

care and prevention and ongoing efforts in testing and medical care around this province.

Thank you to health authorities, the Health Initiative for Men and the BCCDC, and

the work of organizations like Ribbon Community.

We must continue to support fact-based education, testing, treatment, harm reduction,

community-led services and ongoing support for people living with HIV, wherever they

are, whoever they are.

Let us honour the resilience of our communities, the memory of those we lost and the

work of those who refuse to let fear silence facts or compassion.

Hong Kong Apartment Complex Fire

and Community and Media Response

Teresa Wat : I rise today with a heavy heart to speak about the tragic fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong,

which has taken hundreds of lives and left many more injured and displaced. This tragedy

has deeply affected people across the world, including Richmond, home to one of the

largest Chinese-Canadian communities in the Lower Mainland.

I want to begin by thanking the media — both in B.C., Hong Kong and overseas — for

their dedicated work in keeping us informed. Their professionalism has ensured that

families abroad, including many in my constituency, can follow developments during

this heartbreaking time.

For me, their work brings back very personal experiences and memories. I was once

a reporter with United Press International. After graduating from the Chinese University

of Hong Kong, one of my very first major assignments was covering the massive 1972

fire aboard the Seawise University ship in Hong Kong harbour. The fire burned for

two days, and I remember standing on the shore, anxiously waiting for updates so I

could file each report.

Seeing today’s reporter work tirelessly on the Tai Po fire reminds me of the importance

and the responsibility of keeping the public informed during moments of crisis.

One of my constituents, Charles Hau, reached out to me. His 90-year-old mother lived

in the building that was completely destroyed. She, her daughter and their caretaker

were out for acupuncture at the time of the fire. They returned to discover they had

lost everything. Though they were fortunate to escape with their lives, they must

now live with another daughter, having lost their home and all their belongings.

I also want to thank our local community organizations here in Richmond and across

the province for organizing fundraising efforts to support those affected.

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

my heart.

I ask all members of this House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to

the victims, their families and everyone affected by this devastating fire.

[1:50 p.m.]

Medal of Good Citizenship

Recipient Montana Burgess

Steve Morissette : I am pleased to rise today to recognize a remarkable British Columbian and dear friend,

Montana Burgess from Rossland, on receiving the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship.

For more than 16 years, she has been a leader in environmental advocacy and social

and civic engagement in the Kootenays, across our province and in the U.S.A. As executive

director of Neighbours United, she helped transform how communities work together

on some of the most pressing issues of our time.

Her leadership on the West Kootenay 100 percent renewable energy plan stands out as

a true milestone. Under her guidance, 14 local governments committed to transitioning

to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, an achievement that demonstrates what collaboration

rooted in respect and community trust can accomplish.

Montana has also been a pioneer in deep canvassing, an empathy-driven approach to

building understanding across political divides. At a time when division can feel

all too common, she has shown that honest conversations, listening and compassion

can bring people back together.

Her commitment to inclusion has been just as powerful, from boosting voter turnout

to supporting LGBTQ2S+ students and educators. In 2022, Neighbours United received

the provincial diversity, equity and inclusion award, a reflection of the values she

brings to every project and every community she serves.

It is my pleasure to congratulate Montana Burgess, a 2025 recipient of the Medal of

Good Citizenship, and thank her for everything she has contributed to our province.

Watch Lake Lodge

Lorne Doerkson : I rise today to recognize a true gem in the crown of Cariboo-Chilcotin’s great resorts,

the Watch Lake Lodge, which this year celebrates an incredible 75 years in operation.

Since opening its doors on November 1, 1950, Watch Lake Lodge has been a welcoming

home away from home for generations of visitors.

Family-owned and -operated, it sits on an absolutely stunning shoreline, offering

guests a chance to experience the warmth, the community and the hospitality that define

Cariboo-Chilcotin. At the helm today is Dimps Horn who, along with her sisters Doreen

and Rita, quite literally grew up with the lodge’s guests. Over the decades, they

have built not just a business but a community where 90 percent of the visitors return,

year after year. Friendships have lasted a lifetime and, of course, generations.

Through challenges like wildfires and the pandemic, the Horn family’s dedication has

never wavered. When the doors did reopen, the families returned, often bringing the

next generation to experience the same magic that’s been shared for decades.

I had the honour of joining the 75th celebration on November 1, a wonderful evening

filled with stories — some very interesting stories of pranks and hijinks; fond memories;

laughter; great food that was produced by the Interlakes CattleBelles; and of course,

music and dancing, including some lively square dancing called by Dimps herself.

I invite all members to visit Cariboo-Chilcotin and to stop by the Watch Lake Lodge,

enjoy a trail ride, perhaps a day of fishing or maybe a hike. I guarantee you’ll be

welcomed as family and, yes, that will include a hug from these three.

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

Congratulations.

Cowichan Watershed Board

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : The former late Chief Seymour voluntold me to this board, which I was part of for

nine years. The Cowichan Watershed Board is a unique, locally rooted partnership that

brings Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley regional district together to care

for the Cowichan and Koksilah watersheds. It exists to provide leadership for sustainable

water management, protect eco-health and safeguard the quality of life for everyone

who calls the Cowichan Valley home.

[1:55 p.m.]

Today the Cowichan watershed stands as a leading example of what shared leadership

can look like in the era of reconciliation and climate change. It is a co-governance

model and co-chaired by the Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley regional district,

reflecting a simple but profound truth: water connects us all, and decisions about

water are strongest when Indigenous law, local government, science and community knowledge

stand side by side.

In recent years, the board has shown what proactive, climate-ready leadership can

be. One major focus has been the growing need for this increase of storage in the

Cowichan Lake. Working with partners like the Cowichan Lake and River Stewardship

society, it has also supported the Cowichan Tribes and the province in co-led, watershed-sustainable

paths for Koksilah.

The board offers a trusted place for collaboration, shared learning and consensus

recommendations, and it engages resident, school and stewardship groups and local

governments so that watershed thinking can become part of daily life in the Cowichan

Valley. The board creates a table where many jurisdictions and voices can come together

for the sake of the river, the lake and the salmon.

Para Cup Hockey Tournament

Larry Neufeld : I am humbled this afternoon to highlight and commend the 2025 Para Cup being held

this week from November 30 to December 6 at the Ovintiv Events Centre in Dawson Creek,

a proud moment indeed for northern British Columbia and for all of us who value sport,

inclusion and community.

This event brings together elite para-hockey teams from around the world, including

Canada, the United States, China and Europe. They’re together for a tournament that

serves as the final international competition prior to the 2026 Paralympic Winter

Games. Hosting the Para Cup in Dawson Creek marks the first time the tournament returns

to the west coast since 2007, a strong recognition that northern B.C. can and does

stage world-class sporting events.

For the community of Dawson Creek and the broader Peace region, this event is more

than sport. It is an opportunity for tourism, local economic stimulus and regional

pride. The city of Dawson Creek has proclaimed November 30 to December 6 as Para Cup

Week to celebrate this community achievement.

and respect for para-athletes. I encourage all British Columbians, whether in Dawson

Creek, Kamloops, Vancouver or anywhere in our beautiful province, to follow the tournament,

to show support and to celebrate the athletes who have worked so hard to represent

us.

I encourage this House to consider how we, as a group, can continue to support para-sport

events, accessible venues and inclusive recreation across British Columbia.

Darlene Rotchford : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford : I just want to recognize that in the gallery we have the Pacific School of Innovation

and Inquiry and their teacher Emma Wilde joining us here today.

Everyone in the House, make them feel welcome.

Oral Questions

Security Incident at

Surrey Neonatal Unit

and Safety at Hospitals

Reann Gasper : A woman was arrested for breaking into the neonatal intensive care unit at Surrey

Memorial and making skin-to-skin contact with three vulnerable infants who were not

hers.

While front-line workers are overwhelmed and burnt out, people are now able to walk

into our NICU and assault newborn babies. As a mother, I cannot imagine the terror

and trauma these families are facing right now.

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

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

What took place is extremely distressing, and I share the member’s concern about even

the possibility that someone might be able to enter a unit like that and have contact

with children — precious children, newborn children.

That is why Fraser Health has taken quick action. They are looking into this and reviewing

this. This is why the RCMP, the police, have investigated. They have laid charges

in this case.

[2:00 p.m.]

That is exactly the appropriate reaction, and I know that Fraser Health will continue

to look at this to take everything that they can to learn from this. They have already

updated their security protocols and procedures to ensure that something like this

never happens again.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

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

still stands.

Let’s recap what we have in B.C. hospitals today. Nurses aren’t safe, doctors aren’t

safe, patients aren’t safe, and now even newborn babies aren’t safe.

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

Hon. Josie Osborne : Safety of patients and of health care workers is our top priority in hospitals. Health

care workers need to know that they are supported and safe to be able to concentrate

on the work that they do, delivering exceptional care to the people of British Columbia.

That’s why we have brought in the relational security initiative program. That’s why

we have hundreds of relational security officers working on sites across British Columbia.

That’s why, when incidents like what the member is describing take place, investigations

are undertaken, lessons are learned, and improvements are made. That is the system

working the way that it ought to.

But we cannot stop. We have to continue that focus on worker safety. We will continue

to work with the nurses on minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, for example, because that

is one way to ensure that there are sufficient nurses on site, safe and able to deliver

the care that they can do in the working conditions that they deserve and expect.

Granville Street Supportive Housing

Sites and Community Safety

Bryan Tepper : A man was stabbed and killed across from the Luugat single-room-occupancy, Vancouver’s

25th murder this year.

The Hospitality Vancouver Association said: “It is increasingly clear that the B.C.

Housing decision to locate over 300 SRO beds into a concentrated two-block stretch

of Granville Street is a failed experiment.”

This question is an easy one for me, but if the minister stood where that man was

stabbed, would she feel safer on that sidewalk where drug use runs rampant or where

once again outlawed? Please, pick one.

Hon. Christine Boyle : As the member likely knows or would be able to read in the news, we’re working closely

with the city of Vancouver on the relocation of tenants at the Luugat to ensure that

we are working with tenants to find good housing alternatives that work for them and

meet their needs.

The Luugat was an emergency COVID measure, and we understand that it hasn’t worked

well in the community. We’ve been in conversation with the city and with the business

owners there, and that’s why we’re working to relocate those tenants by June of this

year.

We’ll continue to work in partnership with the city of Vancouver, the Downtown Vancouver

Business Association and others.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Bryan Tepper : Well, the Luugat is not the only problem. Granville Street has become a government-run

disaster zone. Three SROs have racked up 6,600 police and fire calls, overdoses, stabbings,

fires and businesses being flooded from those SROs over 100 times so far.

Vancouver’s mayor is pleading with the Premier to shut them down, saying people are

dying in the streets, don’t feel safe, and the financial fallout from this government’s

policies is astronomical.

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

government created?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Again, we’re working with the city on the relocation of tenants at the Luugat. The

other two SROs are part of an ongoing conversation.

We understand that we can’t just move these tenants onto the street. That would be

a worse situation for everyone. That’s why, unlike members on the opposite aisle,

we continue to support and expand supportive housing beds across the province. We’ll

continue to do that work to ensure people have a good place to live.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle : They put forward a number of sites. None of them are move-in ready for residents.

We will not move these tenants onto the street, so we continue to work on plans to

relocate them in a way that supports them and improves safety, not just in the Granville

district but for everyone.

[2:05 p.m.]

Health Care for Complex Chronic

Diseases and Virtual Group

Medical Visit Model

Jeremy Valeriote : For years in our province, patients with complex health conditions leading to debilitating

pain and fatigue have struggled to find appropriate care. Given the demands on family

physicians, it’s often difficult to get a diagnosis, never mind treatment.

Based on Bowen Island in the riding I represent, the B.C. Centre for Long COVID, Myalgic

Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia became a lifeline during

the pandemic and currently serves 6,000 patients across the province. This innovative,

multidisciplinary model of virtual group medical visits is under threat of being curtailed

as of January 1, reducing group sizes to the point where the model is no longer viable.

Virtual group medical visits are efficient, cost-effective and save the health system

money — over $2 million a year, according to an analysis by the accounting firm MNP.

We know the health care system is in crisis and health spending represents roughly

one-third of the government’s budget.

Why is the minister not supporting models like this that are proven to both increase

care and save costs?

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

First, I want to say that group medical visits are a really important way of supporting

people who are living with some very complex conditions, often debilitating conditions

like long COVID or chronic fatigue syndrome. These are models that are helping patients

get more time with care providers. It’s enabling them to stay at home and access care.

It’s a way of improving support and continuity of care.

During the pandemic, these were temporary measures that were introduced to expand

access to virtual care. In this post-pandemic era, the Ministry of Health has been

working with Doctors of B.C. to strengthen virtual care visits and also to be able

to design fee codes that are a way of supporting care by setting some limits on group

size and clarifying the billing rules.

I have heard from members of all sides of this House, I have heard from physicians,

and I have heard from patients about the benefit of these group medical visits. That’s

why we put a pause on a decision that had initially been taken, and we are working

and hearing from providers and from patients.

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

an update.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : I appreciate the pause. I’m asking this question now because people are trying to

plan their lives beyond January 1. Unless the minister acts soon, the clinic will

need to reconfigure on January 1 to do more non-group patient visits, which will add

to wait times.

Smaller group sizes mean physician-only care, which restricts the volume of patients

who can be seen. Some patients will be forced to seek out care in emergency rooms,

from family doctors and from specialists as a consequence of reduced clinic care.

This will severely disadvantage rural and remote patients and those bed- and housebound

by disability. Patient volumes will be restricted at a time when complex chronic disease

patient numbers are on the increase.

Will the minister intervene with the Medical Services Commission to do the right thing

and modify the group size cap to allow these expert practitioners to continue to help

these patients in need?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The member has done a great job of describing why these are of benefit, again, expressing

some of the interventions I have heard directly from physicians, from patients and

from other care providers. That’s why we paused on the decision. That’s why we are

consulting directly with Doctors of B.C. and hearing from other care providers. That

engagement is important so that we can make a good decision, moving forward. I’ll

have a lot more to say on that in the future.

Again, I just want to acknowledge that I understand that people are waiting to understand

what the decision is. At the heart of this, again, is that we understand that group

medical visits are really helping people, particularly those who cannot leave home

and those people who are living in remote and rural areas. It’s important to be able

to continue these.

Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Dallas Brodie : The Premier’s government is pushing changes to the Heritage Conservation Act that

create the preconditions for rampant extortion and further destabilization of private

property rights in British Columbia.

This is how it will work. A local tribe can decide that your property is their sacred

ground. Then you won’t be able to put a single fence post until you pay that tribe’s

company thousands of dollars to come to your home to dig for artifacts.

[2:10 p.m.]

But even if they don’t find any, they can use dreams or stories or traditions to label

your property a heritage site, thus triggering yet more costly studies, delays or

outright work stoppage, all because the new rules remove requirements for physical

evidence.

Will the Premier categorically denounce these proposed changes to the Heritage Conservation

Act that allow tribes to block work on private property with absolutely no physical

evidence?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : To the member’s question, first the member refers to changes that are being made

and then mentions proposed changes. There are no changes. We are having a conversation

with British Columbians. We are having a conversation with First Nations, with industry,

with local governments — bringing them all to the table to talk about a piece of legislation

that is archaic, that has last been amended over 30 years ago, that is not working

for British Columbians today.

We have major projects on this side of the House that we want to move forward. The

Heritage Conservation Act is getting in the way. We have communities like Lytton that

have been devastated with wildfires and that are challenging rebuilds. The Heritage

Conservation Act is getting in the way.

Then you have First Nations who want to be involved in discussions about their ancestors.

I think all of us can agree that if those were our ancestors, we would want to be

part of that conversation.

I can assure the member opposite that we’re going to bring everyone to the table to

ensure that we get this legislation right and do it in a way that is going to move

British Columbia forward.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kamloops Residential School

Burial Site and Deaths of

Indigenous Children

Dallas Brodie : Speaking of claims without any physical evidence, it has been over four years now

since Chief Rosanne Casimir of the Kamloops Indian Band accused Canadians of murdering

215 children from the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

An accusation of mass murder requires evidence, but there isn’t any — no reports of

missing children, no names and no bodies. Despite receiving $12.1 million to investigate,

Casimir has refused to conduct excavations and has asked the RCMP not to do any excavations

either.

My question is to the Premier. Will he show leadership, defend innocent Canadians

and join me in calling on the RCMP to finally investigate this grotesque accusation

that has gone on and on and has gone on for far too long?

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

to divide this province.

Interjection.

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

We know that some children did not come home. Whether that was from tuberculosis,

starving, drowning or getting attacked, we know that there are thousands of children

who never came home. That’s the fact; that’s the truth. We know they were taken from

their families without permission. We know that they were harmed, that they were hit

if they dared to speak their own language, if they dared to practise their own cultural

traditions.

I spoke with a man the other day whose brother was going to die by drowning because

he took a rowboat so he could escape from the residential school where he’d been locked

up so that he could get home to his family. He had not been allowed to see his family.

For the member to suggest that these things didn’t happen, it’s not only gross. It’s

offensive, and it’s wrong. I’m not going to ask her to dig up her grandparents to

prove they died, because that would be offensive.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : That would be wrong. That would be horrendous and inhumane. Yet for the fact that

she goes on to call on any First Nations person in this province, that they have to

go and dig up the bodies of the children that were killed, children who died in residential

schools…. It’s gross. It’s wrong.

The member should be ashamed of herself, and I know her grandchildren would be ashamed

of her, because you do not treat other people like that. It’s shameful.

Langley Memorial Hospital

Surgical Facilities and Upgrades

Misty Van Popta : Fraser Health just announced that Langley Memorial Hospital earned international

recognition for top surgical outcomes, a rare good-news story in B.C.’s health care

system.

[2:15 p.m.]

Ironically, these are the same surgeons who just last September wrote the Minister

of Health, warning: “The unparalleled chronic neglect of surgical infrastructure at

Langley Memorial Hospital cannot continue. We are long past being able to deliver

the standard of care and experience our patients and the community deserve.”

They’re right. The OR hasn’t seen a major upgrade in 35 years — that’s older than

some members of this chamber — and the repeatedly announced hospital expansion may

not include the OR.

When will the Infrastructure Minister commit to upgrades to the surgical ward at Langley

Memorial Hospital, or do our doctors need to keep performing world-class results in

third-world conditions?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Health care infrastructure here in British Columbia is so incredibly vital to our

collective ability to serve communities and to serve the people who need the kind

of services that our hospitals provide.

We have been undergoing the single largest investment in health care infrastructure

upgrades in B.C. history. These are absolutely record-breaking investments that have

so far meant at least 30 major capital projects involving hospitals, long-term-care

homes and urgent primary care centres right across the province.

However, we also know that there is more to do, which is why we are committed to continuing

this work, including in communities like Langley. This work is underway as Fraser

Health works with their communities to understand the needs, and we’re going to be

looking forward to next steps.

Emergency Health Care Services

in Northern B.C.

Larry Neufeld : In Tumbler Ridge, Coun. Nicole Noksana was so worried that there were not enough

ambulances for her community that she did not call 911 when she became seriously ill.

She ended up needing emergency surgery that same evening.

Now the same danger is spreading across the North. Stewart lost so many paramedics

it had zero ambulances for the entire region. Gitwangak’s only ambulance station is

literally derelict.

How does this Premier justify leaving whole communities with no ambulance, no ER and

no way to get help when someone’s life is on the line?

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

Ensuring that when you call 911, an ambulance is there to deliver the care that you

need is absolutely essential, no matter how large or small your community is. That’s

why our government has taken unprecedented steps in investing into rural communities,

ambulance services, new stations, new ambulances, more paramedics.

Nothing could be more important than ensuring that those smaller communities like

Tumbler Ridge, like Stewart, have access to the resources they need. I spoke directly

to Mayor Krakowka just last week about the ambulance services in Tumbler Ridge.

I know that B.C. emergency health services is constantly monitoring coverage and monitoring

the outcomes of calls, always in an effort to allocate resources to the best place

possible, but I do not want a single British Columbian to hesitate to call 911 in

your time of need.

They are there. They are highly trained, highly capable people doing amazing work

in our communities. They are there to serve us and to care for us.

Sharon Hartwell : Well, that’s really interesting. On Highway 37, a woman sent me a letter, and her

husband died in her driveway because there was no ambulance for over two hours. His

partner did everything right: called 911, tried to get him help, but the help simply

was not there.

Will the Premier admit that under his watch rural British Columbians are being left

to die without proper emergency care?

Hon. Josie Osborne : We continue to work with health authorities, with the B.C. emergency health services

and are investing more than ever in the B.C. Ambulance Service.

[2:20 p.m.]

There are more paramedics working here in B.C. than ever before. Staffing has increased

40 percent since 2019. We have invested, from $475 million back when we took government

in 2017, and increased that to over $1 billion in the last fiscal.

We are going to continue to do the work that is required to ensure services are there

in remote communities, to ensure that when people call 911, the help is there for

them.

Access to Emergency Health Care

Facilities and Temporary Closings

Ian Paton : In Delta, the mayor is so fed up he’s talking about running his own hospital because

of this broken health care system.

This isn’t just a Delta problem. In the last week alone, Fort McLeod ER closed and

100 Mile House ER closed. Port Hardy’s ER has been closed overnight for nearly three

years, and the minister’s own ER and ICU in Port Alberni is shut down indefinitely

because they don’t have the staff to run it.

How can doctors expect to do their jobs in this province and save lives when this

minister cannot keep emergency rooms open?

Hon. Josie Osborne : It is really hard on communities when their emergency room closes. We know that we’re

facing workforce challenges across the province.

I do want to correct the member. He is correct that the intensive care unit has been

diverted at West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni, but the ER does remain open.

Nonetheless, when you’re counting on emergency services, you know that they need to

be there for you. That’s why we are doing everything we can in the short term, working

with health authorities who find locums, who are working the phones, who are calling

out to find people to come and take these shifts in emergency rooms. But to build

up that workforce, we need more doctors.

That’s why we’re opening a new medical school in Surrey through SFU. That’s why we’ve

expanded the seats at UBC. That’ll take a few years, I know, to realize that. That’s

why reaching out to other jurisdictions and inviting people to come work here in British

Columbia’s universal public health care system is absolutely integral.

It is working. We are seeing physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners choosing to

move to British Columbia. We are fast-tracking their credentialing. What used to be

years is now months for doctors. What used to be months for nurses is now a matter

of weeks or even days.

We’re not going to let up. We know how much work there is to do to rebuild and strengthen

this health care system, and we are not going to stop.

Community Safety Issues in Kelowna

and Action on Repeat Offenders

Kristina Loewen : A downtown Kelowna shop had its windows smashed three times this year. After the

latest axe attack, the offender laughs and says: “It doesn’t matter. I’ll be out tomorrow.”

Kelowna businesses are fed up with the crime and chaos while this government hands

out drugs and releases violent offenders the same day.

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

watch?

Hon. Niki Sharma : British Columbia has been leading the country on pushing for bail reform across this

country. Right now, in front of Ottawa, sits a bill that contains many of B.C.’s ideas

that are focused around circling around those offenders that are causing the most

repeated harm to communities — to tightening up those bail laws to keep them off the

street.

I heard from mayors about these individuals and what’s needed in the Criminal Code

to make those changes, and that’s what’s before Ottawa right now. I’m really proud

of our leadership in making those changes, and I hope that they pass quickly.

Government Action on

Drug Toxicity Crisis

Claire Rattée : Respectfully, the only thing this government is doing right now is leading the country

in chaos. In one day, Vancouver firefighters had to respond to 54 overdoses, the highest

ever recorded. Firefighters are now responding to an average of 45 overdoses a day,

pulled away from other emergencies to chase this government’s chaos around.

According to the First Nations Health Authority…. They say that the week of November

17 broke every provincial record for drug-related 911 calls. We know that firefighters

at Hall No. 2 are now being pulled off duty early because of the trauma and the human

suffering that they’re forced to deal with every day. Similar to what we are seeing

going on with nurses right now, the burnout is happening for first responders.

A very simple question to the Premier. Are these the kinds of records that this Premier

wants to be remembered for?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : The toxic drug crisis continues to devastate communities across B.C., families who

are losing loved ones, people who are brothers and sisters and sons and daughters.

Every single life lost is one too many.

That’s why we are going to continue to take every action that we can to connect people

to care, to help intervene early and often and to separate them from a toxic, dangerous,

poisonous drug supply. That drug supply is changing quickly. It is evolving, and we

are adapting as well. We’re going to continue with harm reduction efforts that keep

people alive so that we can help connect them to the care that they need.

I want to say thank you to every single first responder in the fire department, across

the ambulance service, in communities. These people are doing heroes’ work in responding

to tragedy.

We are going to continue to build out a system of care to support people, not to stigmatize

people. It’s so vitally important that they get connected to the care they need.

That’s why we’re going to continue with Road to Recovery. That’s why we’re going to

continue to add treatment beds. That’s why we’re going to continue to help people

in their recovery and aftercare that they need.

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

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : The problem is that the first responders and the firefighters don’t want the thanks

or the praise right now. They just want what they’ve been asking for. They want this

government to take it seriously and to fix these problems.

The issue that I’m having…. This morning I was at a symposium on recovery. A lot of

colleagues were there, nobody from the government side, to hear what needed to be

heard about the issues that we’re facing right now. A very prominent Metro Vancouver

mayor was asked a simple question: if he could have one thing from this Premier, what

would it be? His response was that he hoped he would keep his promises.

We’ve been promised involuntary care. We’ve been promised — what? — over 100 beds

about a year ago. Nothing is moving forward there. We got, I think, ten beds.

We’ve been promised that decriminalization was a failed experiment, yet decriminalization

remains in place, and there’s no commitment from this Premier on when they’re going

to roll that back.

We were promised, back in the spring, that changes were going to be made to SROs and

supportive housing because of the tragedies that we’re seeing playing out in them

right now — no changes there. We can pay for every consultant, every czar, every whatever,

but we’re not seeing changes on the ground. That’s the problem. Nobody is seeing anything

change.

If the ideology behind harm reduction was working, we would see some changes, but

we don’t see those changes. We see a province that is struggling the most with overdoses,

with crime, with all of these things. I’m sick and tired of compassion being weaponized.

I think that most people are.

Will this government do the right thing — the actual, compassionate thing for people

that are struggling — and make sure that we have access to involuntary care, make

sure that we build out a system of recovery for people, make sure that we’re actually

supporting getting people lifted up from the place that they’re at right now, rather

than keeping them under the government’s boot and keeping them in supportive housing

that isn’t actually helping them?

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

by?

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

Every British Columbian deserves a safe community and to be safe at home. People who

are struggling with addiction need the treatment and supports they need. It’s the

same with people struggling with mental health issues and brain injury.

Now, what the member was incorrect about was a number of her allegations related to

the record of this province. In British Columbia, 2024 versus 2023, crime severity

is down 11 percent, and the overall crime rate is down 7 percent. We led Canada in

crime reduction. That’s because of innovative programs.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

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

right direction. We’ve opened….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Members, come to order, please.

Hon. David Eby : We’ve opened involuntary mental health care in our prisons, where many people are

struggling who have addiction issues, brain injuries, mental health issues. We’ve

identified a site in Surrey and a site in Prince George where we’re working to open

additional involuntary care beds.

[2:30 p.m.]

At 17 different hospitals across the province, we’ve either expanded or renovated

involuntary care beds. So what the member says simply is not correct. We’ve opened

760 additional addiction beds, voluntary addiction beds, in this province to provide

people with the care they need.

We’ve amended the decriminalization initiative to make sure that if someone is at

home when they’ve overdosed, they feel secure calling for an ambulance — they’re not

worried they’re going to lose their job; but to keep people safe in our parks and

our streets by criminalizing public drug use.

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

we’re going to solve overnight.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Members.

Please continue.

Hon. David Eby : The drugs are more toxic than they have ever been. This recent batch was mixed with,

I’m told, horse tranquilizer. These drug dealers have no conscience, they have no

shame, and they are killing their customers.

We’ll do everything we can to support people, those who haven’t died but have suffered

serious brain injury or are struggling in our communities. We’re going to do the hard

work with compassion and care to make sure people are safe.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Á’a :líya Warbus: I would like to follow up with a report and a letter regarding infill information

on the point of order that I raised last week of question period and the time disparity

between the two sides.

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

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

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please do.

Petitions

George Anderson : I rise to present a petition on behalf of the University of British Columbia Alma

Mater Society, dated 1 October, 2025.

The petition represents 15,000 students of the University of B.C. and transit advocates

across Metro Vancouver, requesting that the provincial government expedite work on

the business case for the future extension of the SkyTrain to UBC and prioritize pursuing

a joint funding agreement with the federal government.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move:

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

a. the deferred division for the motion for second reading of Bill (No. M 219) intituled

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025 , be further deferred until the start of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting

on Tuesday, December 2, 2025; and,

b. any division called in

Section B during the afternoon sitting on Monday, December

1, 2025, and the morning sitting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, be deferred until the

start of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025.]

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

Division is called.

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

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

mics are on.

[2:45 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

NAYS — 40

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Giddens

Rattée

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Chapman

Maahs

Kealy

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

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

In

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

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Members, we’ll call a brief recess while we get our teams together for continued

committee stage of Bill 29. We’ll be in recess for about five minutes or so.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : All right, Members. We will call the chamber back to order where we are on committee

stage of Bill 29, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act of 2025, where

we have been having a conversation about clause 3.

On clause 3 (continued) .

Rosalyn Bird : I’d like to start by revisiting a question from Thursday afternoon. I had asked the

minister about 19.5, paragraph (2), which states that the director can withdraw verbally,

but it doesn’t state in the following subparagraphs that a verbal withdrawal must

be put in writing.

The minister indicated in an earlier response that all reasons and the background

information for the withdrawal are written into MCFD documentation.

The minister stated: “All of the decision-making of a director is documented in our

integrated case management system. If a director withdraws an agreement with a family,

that withdrawal happens verbally. The family can request that that withdrawal be documented

and the reasons for the withdrawal, and that can be provided to the family.”

This raises concerns regarding both transparency and accountability. A family should

not have to request a verbal withdrawal decision to be documented and provided. It

should be automatic.

[2:55 p.m.]

Except for the withdrawal for safety reasons, does the minister not agree that providing

a copy of the safety plan to the primary party with documented reasons for withdrawal

better aligns with transparency and accountability for the ministry, particularly

as this is intended to be a voluntary and collaborative process?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I think it’s really important to note that putting a “must” in legislation or requiring

something to be in writing removes the flexibility and the ability to be responsive

in a range of situations.

There may be situations where a child is at risk. There may be situations where there

are court proceedings happening. It doesn’t preclude it. It says that a director may

withdraw from a safety plan agreement at any time, verbally or in writing. So it allows

that flexibility because the nature of this work requires that type of flexibility.

Rosalyn Bird : I don’t dispute anything that the minister has just said. If an agreement is made

verbally in an emergent situation, that makes sense, particularly if it’s in regards

to the safety of a child. I would certainly hope that somebody wouldn’t wait to write

it down in order for a child to be safe.

However, I do believe, and I believe parents would want to know, that that verbal

decision, why it was made and in regards to what — that it should in fact be documented

and provided to the parent.

So I’ll ask the minister again. Except for a withdrawal for safety reasons, does the

minister not agree that providing a copy of the safety plan to the primary party,

with documented reason for withdrawal, better aligns with transparency and accountability

for the ministry?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Providing reasons for a withdrawal from a safety plan in writing is good practice

in many circumstances but not all circumstances for the many reasons that I’ve already

provided.

Rosalyn Bird : I just want to clarify. The minister did state on Thursday that if a director withdraws

from an agreement with a family and that withdrawal happens verbally, the family can

request that that withdrawal be documented and the reasons for the withdrawal.

So whether the minister does or doesn’t agree, depending on the circumstance, that

the family should or should not be aware of some of the situation regarding the withdrawal,

does she or does she not agree that if that was originally a verbal agreement, that

agreement should, in fact, be documented without the family requesting such documentation?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I think it’s important to note that our child protection workers and our ministry

staff take documentation very seriously. The decisions that are made with families,

or made about children or about families, are documented in our integrated case management

system, as I have expressed prior.

As I have said before, providing reason for withdrawal is good practice in many circumstances,

but not all circumstances. Because a director may be withdrawing to protect a child

in accordance with statutory obligations under the CFCSA, the provision permits but

does not require them to provide advance notice. However, it requires directors to

tell parties afterwards, recognizing the importance of other parties’ awareness of

the agreement is still in effect or not.

Rosalyn Bird : I am going to request clarification because the minister has said two separate things.

One is that if a director withdraws from an agreement verbally, it doesn’t get documented

unless the family requests it. Those are her words on Thursday.

She just stated that if there is a withdrawal from a director, it actually automatically

gets documented inside MCFD’s integrated documentation process.

I want to confirm one last time. If the withdrawal is verbal by a director, can the

minister confirm whether it is or is not provided to the family that the reason for

that verbal withdrawal is, in fact, documented within MCFD integrated documentation

software?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : As I have said, yes, everything is documented in our integrated case management system.

Written documentation to parents may occur, or parents may request that the verbal

agreement to end a safety plan be provided in writing.

Rosalyn Bird : Will the minister give me a little leeway and explain to myself and anybody watching

today what happens after a safety plan is, in fact, withdrawn from? Does the family

remain in the family development process, or does that complete the family’s interactions

with MCFD?

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

There could be a court order that occurs, which would dictate what steps need to happen

next. There could be a family development plan that is continuing with the family

to support ongoing programs and services in the community. There are various types

of family preservation and reunification programs delivered by non-profits. That could

be a part of it. There could be no longer any need for support, and that would end

the relationship.

So it would be very situational and specific to the individual family that the ministry

is working with.

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you to the minister for that question. It actually is very helpful regarding

some of the questions I have later.

The last question I asked the minister on Thursday…. What is the process if any of

the individuals that are party to a safety plan want a director, social or caseworker

removed that are party to that safety plan? The minister’s response was that mandatory

parties of a safety plan can revisit the terms.

My question was not regarding the terms. It was regarding ministry staff that the

parties are working with or may actually have an issue with. What is the process if

a party to a safety plan has an issue with ministry staff that they are working with?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : A couple of things.

Our ministry staff, child protection workers, team leads — the entire team that works

in these situations are trained to exhaust every effort possible to ensure that there

are constructive, collaborative, good relationships with families.

We know that people are human, and that can sometimes go in a different direction.

When I spoke about terms, the terms of our agreement are about who is a party to the

agreement. Like I said, every effort is made to exhaust what can be done to ensure

that there’s a collaborative relationship.

Then, if the parties to the agreement don’t agree with people who are in the agreement,

there are other options. A team lead could step in, or the staff could appoint different

ministry staff. There are options to families if they have different views or a disagreement

with the ministry staff that they are working with.

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you for the answer.

If someone from the ministry staff is, in fact, removed from a safety agreement for

whatever reason — as we’ve stated many times, these are complex, emotion-driven situations

— what is the impact, actually, on the safety plan?

I have heard from parties that when a ministry front-line worker, for whatever reason,

is changed, the plan or agreement reinitiates from the beginning once the new worker

has familiarized themselves with the case.

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

Hon. Jodie Wickens : That is not our policy. If there were a staffing change during the duration of a

safety plan, that would not change the timeline of the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird : It may not be policy, but, in fact, Minister, this is actually happening in practice.

I have spoken with several families and several family advocate groups that state

that this has been a problem and continues to be a problem.

How is this going to work, now that safety plans are going to be legislated to not

exceed 45 days, if this situation does actually happen?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : A couple of things.

I think the first thing that’s really important is that with this legislation, we

are enshrining these parameters in law. What that does is it strengthens our policy.

Any time we make amendments to law or create a new law, our protection workers and

our staff are trained on the parameters of the law, so our child protection workers

will be trained to know and understand that if there is a change in staff, that does

not lengthen the term of a safety plan.

I have to just emphasize that in our 169 ministry offices across the province, every

effort is made to exhaust every possible option to ensure that families, parents and

caregivers have an opportunity to work with local ministry staff where there are disagreements

that occur. Team leads, directors of operations and executive directors of service

make every effort to work with families when they have a concern or disagreement.

If there are instances where families want to pursue providing my ministry with information

on policy not being followed, there are also avenues for that.

Rosalyn Bird : I ask the question not because it just happens with personality conflicts. Unfortunately,

the ministry is well aware that there are some staffing challenges across the ministry.

Case files or cases do actually get moved from one social worker or one front-line

worker to another.

That was one of the reasons that I asked the question. Like I said, I am aware of

several families and family advocates that have raised this point, so I wanted to

make sure that the minister understood that it wasn’t just a question regarding personality

conflicts.

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

[ CLAUSE 3, in proposed

section 19.5, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding

the underlined text as shown:

Director’s withdrawal from safety plan agreement

19. 5

(1) A director must may withdraw from a safety plan agreement if an assessment or investigation referred

to in

section 19.1 (2) has concluded and any of the following circumstances apply:

(

a) the director is not applying for an order described in

section 19.1 (2) (b);

(

b) the director withdraws an application for an order described in

section 19.1 (2)

(b);

(

c) the court has made a decision with respect to an application for an order described

section 19.1 (2) (b).

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

(

a) is no longer necessary to protect the health or safety of the child to whom the

agreement relates,

(

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

relates,

(

c) fails to adequately reflect a change with respect to

(

i) the director’s information about who should or could have been a party to the agreement

under

section 19.2 (1) (b), (2), (3) or (4) (a), or

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

(

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

(

i) willingness or ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a parent with

custody of the child to whom the agreement relates, or

(ii) right to contact or access the child to whom the agreement relates, as described

section 19.2 (4) (a).

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

(

a) must not inform a party in advance of the director’s intention to withdraw if

the director considers that it could put the health or safety of the child to whom

the agreement relates at risk, and

(

b) may must inform a party in advance of the director’s intention to withdraw if paragraph (

a) does not apply , and .

(

c) must, if a party was not provided information in advance under paragraph (b),

inform the party of the director’s withdrawal as soon as practicable.

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

(

a) must inform a party referred to in

section 19.2 (1) (

b) or (2), as applicable,

of the reasons for the director’s withdrawal, and

(

b) may must provide that information before withdrawing from the safety plan agreement or as soon as practicable within 24 hours after withdrawing from the agreement.]

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

after that to circulate it.

On the amendment.

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

Paragraph (1). We’ve gone back and forth and back and forth. It actually now says:

“may withdraw.” It actually reflects the same language that is used in 19.1.

I have struck “in the opinion of the director.” The pieces that are required under

(2) for a director to withdraw from a safety plan are obvious. There is no reason

for there to be opinions in there. They’re evidence-based.

And there is some language in paragraph (2)(

d) that is, quite frankly, just confusing

to most people that would read it.

Yeah, I would like to table the amendment now.

The Chair : We will take a brief recess while we get this distributed to all of the members of

the House — probably about five minutes.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Thanks, Members. Sorry about that. We were just waiting for a couple of extra copies.

We are contemplating an amendment to clause 3.

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

The first amendment we’ve canvassed thoroughly in our conversations over discussions

of the bill. There are times when a director must withdraw. There are times when a

director may withdraw. Those distinctions are laid out for a reason, and they’re very

important because it outlines parental rights and enshrines those in the legislation.

The second amendment. We’ve discussed at length why “in the opinion of the director”

is important language. Firstly, striking that out could threaten the safety of a child.

It could also impede the director’s ability to make a decision with all available

information at the time.

[3:30 p.m.]

The third amendment. “A person in relation to” is important about the individual’s

circumstances. That’s a really important language piece of the bill.

The rest of the amendments, at the end, have been canvassed thoroughly through our

questions and answers through debate of the bill.

Heather Maahs : In terms of language, which we all agree is important, we need to have clarity, especially

if you’ve got laymen or parents or caregivers looking for information in this bill,

so they go and they read it. It needs to be clear.

I think these amendments give more clarity, especially in terms of the second amendment,

striking out “verbally.” Of course it’s always preferred in writing, because documentation

of anything that’s going on is important to the families and to the structure itself.

Striking out “in the opinion of the director” — “in the opinion” is always subjective.

We know that these people move around for various reasons, but an opinion should be

based on tangible evidence. If that’s not happening, then just strike out “in the

opinion,” and that lessens that need.

Then the last one is confusing. It’s confusing to anybody reading it. If you want

to give clarity to this bill, I think that’s what this achieves.

The Chair : The question before the House is an amendment that has been brought forward by the

member for Prince George–Valemount to Bill 29, clause 3, multiple different subsections.

Amendment negatived on division.

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

Interjection.

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

Okay, so we’ll move on to 19.6(1).

I’ll just save everybody some time, and I’m just going to raise the same concern.

I will ask the minister. Can she please confirm, even if a third party or another

party is withdrawing from an agreement, that that is in fact documented in the MCFD’s

integrated documentation system?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Absolutely.

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you for that.

One last question about paragraph (1). It is talking about informing the director

in advance. We’ve kind of gone back and forth on this. It’s part of 19.3 that it’s

going to be written into plans in the future.

Is there a specific time or are there special considerations that you would actually

make in regard to another party withdrawing from an agreement and on why there would

be a necessity for them to give advance notice on that?

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

reasonable timelines for things.

[3:35 p.m.]

One of the examples I gave last week was, as a part of a safety plan, that maybe grandma

is driving children to and from school or to and from appointments. If grandma is

withdrawing from the safety plan for whatever reason, I think it’s reasonable to suggest

that within that safety plan, it would be outlined that there is a certain amount

of time where the parties can come back together to talk about alternate options for

transportation or anything that might be going on for that family.

That’s a concrete example. Also, it would be important to outline that in case there

are significant safety or well-being concerns with respect to the children.

Rosalyn Bird : I think we’re probably going to come back to this again in clause 6. However, I’ll

move on to 19.6(2). My understanding is that this is referring to Indigenous children

or Indigenous community support agencies as per 19.2(3).

Does the minister, in support of DRIPA, intend to capture reasons for withdrawal around

safety plans relating to First Nations, Indigenous, Métis and Inuit children and support

agencies to better understand and support these communities in their efforts to take

over children and family development management?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Safety plans, as we were discussing in this legislation, are about services provided

and actions taken under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. When a nation

strikes their own law and resumes jurisdiction of child and family services for their

community, their laws come into force.

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

something that the ministry has considered.

As she is very well aware, it is an extremely complicated process coming up with Indigenous

laws and then, once you have the laws, what the policies, the procedures and the actual

practices are to put all of that in place.

I asked the question. I won’t re-ask the question, but I would suggest that it is

something that the ministry may want to document and take note of, just in support

of those communities that are making the move to looking after their own children

and families. I think there could be some valuable data in there that could help them

make those choices.

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

[ CLAUSE 3, in proposed

section 19.6, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding

the underlined text as shown:

Withdrawal from safety plan agreement by other parties

19. 6

(1) Subject to informing the director in advance as required under a safety plan

agreement, a party other than the director may withdraw from the agreement verbally or in writing and such withdrawal must include the reason for withdrawal .

(2) The withdrawal from a safety plan agreement by a party referred to in

section

19.2 (3) or (4) does not terminate the agreement as it applies to the remaining parties.]

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

copies?

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird : The amendment is basically stating — so that it’s on record — that in fact any withdrawal

by a third party will be documented in writing.

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

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

to make comments.

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

Earlier I gave an example of grandma agreeing to aspects of a safety plan, driving

their grandchildren to and from school. If grandma verbally told us that she could

no longer do that, we would immediately act on that. This would require grandma to

sit down and provide a child protection worker in writing with a reason for withdrawal.

[3:45 p.m.]

I just want to also reiterate that a child protection worker would document any party’s

withdrawal to a safety plan in the integrated case management system. For that reason,

I do not support the amendment.

Heather Maahs : Paper trails and documentation are so important in some of these cases. I know over

the last year, I’ve seen cases where families have had situations where they couldn’t

go back and follow a paper trail because there wasn’t the necessary documentation

available to them. So I think if everything is in writing, then everybody’s bases

are covered.

The Chair : The amendment proposed by Prince George–Valemount has been circulated to everyone

in the House, and it is an amendment to clause 3, subsection 19.6.

Amendment negatived.

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

Rosalyn Bird : Moving on to

section 19.7. In para (1) (

a) currently, in

chapter 3, it states that

when parents live in separate households, if the safety plan signed by one parent

in a household infringes on the parental responsibilities of the parent in the other

household, that consent needs to be obtained of that parent.

This would indicate, currently in the policy, that there actually may be different

safety plans for different parents, different households, and this has been discussed

and agreed upon throughout committee.

Can the minister confirm if, in this clause, a safety plan is terminated in one household

— whether it does or it doesn’t terminate the safety plan in the other household and

what that termination may look like in regards to the impact for the remaining safety

plan?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : When a safety plan is terminated, it is terminated for all parties of that plan.

If there is a separate safety plan with a separate issue, that’s separate. But as

soon as a safety plan is terminated, it’s terminated for all parties of that plan.

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

How and when is a development like this communicated to all of the parties, especially

if you have two separate plans and two separate households that are sharing responsibility

for a child or children?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : That’s very circumstantial and would depend on the individual circumstances and the

reasons for termination, which we have talked about extensively. There are multiple

different reasons for termination. There are ways that protection workers can terminate

a safety plan.

It’s all really based on the unique individual circumstances of that family and what

is going on in that moment.

Rosalyn Bird : If one safety plan is in fact terminated by one household and the other safety plan

remains in place, the circumstances are looked at, the reasons for that termination

are examined, and the safety plan that is from the one household remains….

[3:50 p.m.]

Are the reasons for the other household safety plan documented within the first safety

plan’s MCFD integrated system?

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

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you for the answer.

I just want clarification. If you have a family that has multiple households and the

children are moving back and forth between those households and safety plan A remains

in place and safety plan B is terminated, is it documented within MCFD integrated

documentation in safety plan A’s documentation that safety plan B was terminated?

The reason I’m asking that question is that families unfortunately — I wish it wasn’t

the case — often come in and out of the system over multiple years. I understand that

the disclosure and very specific information needs to remain within the purview of

certain individuals.

I just would like the minister to confirm that those things are actually documented

between both case files so that if a family, unfortunately, does come back to MCFD,

whether it’s six months later or two years later, there is a history contained within

both of those files.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : As far as records go, the record and the case is around the child. Anything that

occurs around the child is included in that case file. So every party to interaction

with that child that was concerning is a part of the child’s file and would be included

in that file.

Can I please ask for a quick bathroom break?

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

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order. We are continuing committee stage

on Bill 29, and we are on clause 3.

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

it was violated?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I do believe that we did canvass this. It would really depend on the circumstance.

Sometimes breaches happen accidentally. Sometimes a protection worker may have concerns

about escalation. We do have standardized next steps for escalation. Decisions are

driven by the best interest of the child, so again, it would really depend on the

circumstance or the violation of the safety plan.

Rosalyn Bird : I’m aware of several cases where safety plans have actually been violated more than

once. In a circumstance when a safety plan has repeat violations, is that safety plan,

at that point, automatically terminated?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : A couple of things.

Would a safety plan be automatically terminated? No. In practice, if a safety plan

was not working, being violated over and over again, that would mean that the safety

plan is not working, so child protection workers have other tools, as canvassed extensively

in our debate on the bill.

I do want to also reiterate that many members of this House do not always have all

information obtained under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, so I just

have to continually caution making sweeping statements or assumptions based on information

provided to an MLA office or a member that may not contain all information that would

be obtained under

an act, under any specific circumstance.

Rosalyn Bird : Thank you to the minister.

I wasn’t referring to any specific case. As a matter of fact, it was a generalized

question that if a safety plan is violated on more than one occasion or numerous occasions,

in fact, that does warrant it being terminated. So whether an MLA office has information

or doesn’t have information, this isn’t specific to any case. It’s a general question.

Again, if the minister could clarify. If a violation has happened multiple times,

or how many times…? I’ll ask a new question. How many times does a safety plan have

to be violated before it will be terminated once and for all?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I was speaking specifically to the member’s comments that she is aware of multiple

times where safety plans are violated. I will caution the members again. When we make

sweeping statements to say that we are aware of something, there is also quite a bit

of information that they may not be aware of, obtained under the Child, Family and

Community Service Act, that they are legally unable to obtain and that I am legally

unable to provide. That was my caution around using that type of language.

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

[4:05 p.m.]

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

Again, they weren’t sweeping. I have, in fact, been provided information or I have

information that safety plans have been documented as being violated. That was where

the question came from.

Section 4.2 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act states: “If there is a

conflict or inconsistency between this act and an Indigenous law in a circumstance

where an Indigenous authority is providing, or intending to provide, Indigenous child

and family services under Indigenous law, the Indigenous law prevails to the extent

of the conflict or inconsistency.”

Will the minister help me and those watching? How may this impact withdrawal, termination

or extensions of safety plans?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I believe I’ve answered this before. Safety plans are pursuant to the Child, Family

and Community Service Act. If there was a child protection response pertaining to

an Indigenous child and that Indigenous child belonged to a nation exercising jurisdiction,

then that jurisdiction would come into force.

Rosalyn Bird : That’s why I’m asking the question. If there is Indigenous law in place, does this

prevent or does it change the ability for any party of a safety plan to either terminate,

withdraw or change that plan, or is it left with the Indigenous authority?

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

pursuant to their laws.

I think I want to clarify for a moment, though, for the member opposite. We can provide

some more information in general about jurisdiction and what that means.

There are a variety of pathways that nations take to exercise jurisdiction. If there

is a coordination agreement, an Indigenous governing body…. All of the procedures,

all of how that Indigenous governing body is going to provide services to children

would be outlined in that coordination agreement and would be worked through that

process.

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

completely understand it.

One last question in regards to this, and then I will move on. When you actually do

involve an Indigenous governing body or a social service agency, and there are Indigenous

laws in place, is there an added layer to help families and parties to safety agreements

understand that entire process?

[4:10 p.m.]

I mean, I’m challenged learning it all. For the families that are involved, when you

start to overlap between MCFD and Indigenous law and governing bodies, it can be extremely

confusing. Is there a process or is there something in place to ensure, similar to

legal advice, that everybody involved in those actual plans is aware of how they work?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Firstly, policy explains how directors work with a parent to understand the steps

involved with respect to jurisdiction. Our directors and staff are trained on Indigenous

jurisdiction and Indigenous governing bodies and when that process takes place.

If a child is involved in a protection concern and if the nation is exercising jurisdiction,

the ministry no longer has a role to manage that child protection concern.

Heather Maahs : If I’m to understand this correctly, once a child goes into the jurisdiction of the

nation’s portion…. They have different laws than MCFD has, in legislation.

If that is the case, what and where can we access this information so that we can

see what that looks like?

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

of the bill.

Heather Maahs : We were just discussing the jurisdiction, in your own words, so the difference in

the question that my colleague raised was discussed, the different laws around that.

That’s why I’m asking.

[4:15 p.m.]

If nations have jurisdiction that’s different from MCFD, what does that look like

and where can we access that?

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

it.

The safety plans are part of the CFCSA. Jurisdiction of child and family services,

when an Indigenous governing body strikes their law, is outside of that. We have canvassed

that. And I would just say that nations are responsible for ensuring that their members

are aware of the laws that they strike.

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

I’m going to go out on a limb. I’m going to make the assumption that the reason my

colleague is asking the question…. You talked about actual jurisdiction and community

agreements or agreements that were made with Indigenous communities. Are those agreements

public knowledge? Is that something that parents and/or individuals who are curious

about what those agreements look like…? Is that actually available to the public?

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

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

Rosalyn Bird : I’m going to move on to paragraph (2). From my perspective, this paragraph is actually

not talking about terminations. It’s talking about extensions or continuations of

safety plans. In the section, content of a safety plan, 19.3(

e) states that a safety

plan is not to exceed 45 days.

I raise concerns regarding this language “not to exceed.” Yes, safety plans are in

principle supposed to be short-term measures used to address safety concerns. However,

for many reasons — a change of circumstance, staffing shortages, court backlogs, complex

investigations or assessments — the reality is that very often that is not what happens,

and they aren’t actually short-term agreements.

I’m aware of several cases where safety plans have been in place for over a year,

in one case over two years. Currently

chapter 3 allows for multiple extensions. This

bill has the language “not to exceed 45 days” indicated.

Will the minister explain how replacement or continuations or new safety plans will

be determined based on the explicit language used in 19.3(e)?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I have explained multiple times the circumstances when a new safety plan can be entered

into. We discussed it at length in 19.1 and 19.3 — for example, if a child protection

investigation has not concluded.

Rosalyn Bird : I am very aware that we have gone over this and over this. However, the example that

she just gave actually does put a safety plan beyond the 45 days that is being documented

in the bill. The language is quite explicit that a safety plan shall “not exceed 45

days.” It shall not exceed 45 days.

Again, this is problematic language on how this is going to be interpreted, how it

is going to be used and how it is going to be understood, not just by the ministry

and the ministry staff but also by families.

Will the minister tell us: what is the maximum time outside of that 45 days, then,

that a safety plan will be allowed to continue to be in effect?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : We’ve gone over this over and over again. We’ve canvassed the aspect of successive

safety plans. We’ve canvassed why we would need to enter into a new safety plan. I

believe that we’ve canvassed this topic quite extensively.

Rosalyn Bird : With all due respect to the minister and probably for families, I still don’t have

an understanding of this, based on the explanations she has provided and based on

how current policy reads.

chapter 3,

section 3.2(12), it states that the FDR protection phase should conclude

within four months of starting. A supervisor can provide a one-time, three-month extension

to FDR services.

The 3.3 investigation section, re-evaluating a safety plan, states that if a safety

plan cannot be discontinued at the end of an investigation — we covered that last

week on Thursday, that there are exceptions where a safety plan will continue after

an investigation ends, which this is referring to — advise the family that it should

remain in effect until it is integrated into a family plan developed in the ongoing

protection services phase, and confirm parents continue to provide their consent to

the plan.

[4:25 p.m.]

The ongoing protection services phase, again, reverts back to 3.2. That allows a safety

plan to be extended up to 120 days, and then there is the option for a director or

supervisor to do a one-time extension for four months.

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

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The member is speaking to current policy. When our bill reaches royal assent, policy

will reflect the legislation that we are enacting.

I have spoken at length to the limited circumstances in which a safety plan can exist.

I’ve also explained that successive safety plan agreements may be entered into if

a safety concern persists and the assessment or the investigation phase is still underway

or the director is waiting for a decision respecting their application for a court

order.

We’ve provided numerous examples of this. We’ve talked previously about how policy

changes once the bill reaches royal assent.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Rosalyn Bird : I don’t disagree with the minister. My question is: can the minister tell us, again,

what is going to be the maximum time outside of 45 days that safety plans can be extended

or continued?

You’re telling me that the policy is going to be updated. I am telling you what is

currently in the policy. I’m asking what the new policy under this legislation is

going to look like and what protection families continue to have.

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

those safety plans going to be extended?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The limits of time are driven by the length of an assessment or, in intervention,

as outlined and discussed at length in 19.1.

Rosalyn Bird : Based on current policies, based on comments that the minister has made, based on

the fact that I have not received actual clarification as to what those timelines

may or may not look like and whether they do or don’t have maximums, I would like

to table an amendment.

[ CLAUSE 3, in proposed

section 19.3, by deleting the text shown as struck and adding

the underlined text as shown:

Content of safety plan agreement

19. 3

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

(

a) the reasons for which the agreement is made;

(

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

(

c) if, under

section 19.2 (3), a party is included in the agreement, the conditions

on the use, disclosure and security of information provided under the agreement to

the party;

(

d) an acknowledgement that each party may seek independent legal advice at any time

with respect to the agreement;

(d.1) a listing of any renewal or extension of the agreement in respect of the same

child to whom the agreement relates;

(

e) the term of the agreement, which must not , together with the term of any renewal or extension of the agreement in respect of

the same child to whom the agreement relates, exceed 45 210 days;

(

f) a requirement for a party other than the director to inform the director, within

the number of days in advance stated in the agreement, before withdrawing from the

agreement;

(

g) prescribed content, if any.]

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

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird : Again,

chapter 3 states that in both scenarios where parties may withdraw from a

safety plan at any time…. This amendment would change the explicit language used in

clause 3,

section 19.3(e), and it will allow more flexibility for both families and

ministry staff — which, the minister has continuously stated, is important in these

situations because they are fluid, they are complex, and we can’t apply the same logic

and/or steps to every single family because they are all unique. I don’t disagree

with the minister on that.

The amendment, like I said, gives some options to families. It says that safety plans

may not extend beyond 210 days. As a safety plan, there is an ability for any party

to withdraw at any time.

The amendment gives, like I said, both families and the ministry the flexibility for

the complex assessments and investigations and various circumstances that actually

may impact families that are in these situations.

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

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

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

So (d.1), a couple of things. Renewals of safety plan agreements are discussed in

another part of the bill, so it would make it redundant. It also is included under

a “must” provision, and under that provision it is not workable.

Then the second amendment under (e). I mean, a previous amendment was asked to extend

to 180 days. I spoke at length about how that would not align with the spirit of the

bill and that the safety plans are supposed to be short-term and voluntary. So that

changes…. This amendment makes it even longer. For those reasons, I just don’t support

the amendments.

The Chair : Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on the amendment from the member

for Prince George–Valemount to clause 3.

Division has been called.

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

to tomorrow afternoon.

[4:40 p.m.]

As the committee cannot continue debate on clause 3 without yet knowing whether the

amendment is carried or defeated, we will need to stand down the clause until the

House decides on the amendment tomorrow.

Is there agreement to stand down the clause?

Clause 3 stood down.

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

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Rosalyn Bird : Under paragraph (4) of “Transition,” which is clause 6…. Under the current policy

chapter 3, parents can withdraw at any time.

Should I and others assume that this is what para (

a) means — “in accordance with

the agreement”?

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

Rosalyn Bird : Paragraph (4) in clause 6 says: “A party other than a director may withdraw from

a prior safety plan agreement in accordance with the agreement.” I need the minister

to confirm that I and others would assume that includes that they can withdraw at

any time, which is how it is written in the current policy.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Just to clarify, this part of the bill pertains to current safety plans and is a

transitional provision of the bill. In a current safety plan, if it outlines how parties

may withdraw, then (

a) applies, and if it doesn’t, then (

b) applies.

Rosalyn Bird : I do realize that we’re talking about safety plans that are currently in place, and

this is how we’re going to transition from safety plans in play now to what safety

plans are going to look like and how they’re going to be actioned or the policies

around them once royal assent comes into play.

[4:45 p.m.]

What I want clarification on from the minister is that after royal assent, a current

safety plan, which anybody can withdraw from at any time…. It’s what the current policy

says.

Is that still in effect after royal assent?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : In safety plans that are currently in place, the voluntary nature of the safety plan

exists, except that if there are provisions in the safety plan for withdrawal — like

in the example I gave earlier, where a grandma may be part of a safety plan, and it

is outlined in that safety plan; and if they’re going to change their involvement

in that safety plan, they need to provide a timeline around that. That is what this

part of the clause does.

Rosalyn Bird : I asked a number of questions regarding the three days during

section 19.3 discussion.

We were told that there would be a solid explanation provided during this clause,

actually.

Does the ministry think it is fair to use a specific time frame for safety plans initiated

under current policy but not to use that time frame moving forward? Is the minister

able to explain where the differences between new plans and old plans come into effect

and where there would be a requirement for para (b)?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : This really is about operationalizing the ability for us to move from existing plans

to new plans. If we did not have a specific set of days, then a protection worker

would have to go and renegotiate every single plan. As I mentioned earlier, this provision

exists only for 45 days after royal assent.

[4:50 p.m.]

For every new plan entered into, all of the other provisions of the bill are applicable

to every new plan, where a protection worker would discuss with a family reasonable

timelines, time frames and what works for that family. This is really just about being

able to operationalize the change from what we have currently and what we’re moving

to once royal assent occurs.

Rosalyn Bird : I’m a little confused with what you actually just said because you talked about a

45-day time frame. It does actually speak to that in paragraph (5) when we’re talking

about termination of safety plans, but it does not actually speak to that in paragraph

(4) when we’re talking about current safety plans.

I am trying to understand why there is a necessity to now retroactively insert a time

frame requirement in safety plans that are currently in place. If there isn’t going

to be a time frame requirement on brand new safety plans moving forward, why is there

a necessity to have a time frame requirement on safety plans that are currently in

existence?

Under current regulations, safety plans end at the 30-day mark, unless, of course,

there is a requirement, as we have spoken about many times — a continuing assessment

or a continuing investigation. Again, I’m very confused as to the necessity for this,

especially when somebody has made an agreement, signed an agreement, understood an

agreement, and they may be able to withdraw from that agreement at any time.

Now, as soon as this receives royal assent, you have basically retroactively inserted

a clause into agreements. I’m trying to understand why the minister thinks that is

a requirement.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Because we are trying to align all of our existing safety plans to ensure that our

existing safety plans reflect the principles of the bill, the easiest way for us to

do that and to operationalize that is to have a default notice period of three days.

I think that it is really important that that notice period and that default really

align what we currently have with what we’re going to have, and it only exists for

the provisionary period of the 45 days.

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

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

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

Rosalyn Bird : I’m very conflicted with this particular paragraph. Your current policy is quite

specific in regards to how safety plans currently work. They’re on 30-day time frames.

They get renewed. You can withdraw them from any time. Like you said, they’re voluntary.

So it seems…. It makes no sense to me that you are now going to, like I said, retroactively

insert this.

If the minister is intending on doing that, how is she going to communicate to both

her ministry staff and to families that there is now a retroactive clause and a time

requirement to withdraw, that it’s not any time? How is that going to be communicated

to everybody?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Just to emphasize that the withdrawal provisions in this legislation and in safety

plans are really important to provide the space and opportunity for the director to

really collaboratively plan with the family. I think we’ve kind of talked about a

couple of different examples of that.

I’ve talked about this being very provisional in the transitional provision of the

bill. All child protection workers and ministry staff will have caseloads and are

able to look at their caseload, do caseload planning. Because safety plans are not

new pieces of work — they are existing — protection workers would be aware of the

safety plans that they have within their caseload.

Where there is not a timeline around withdrawal, the three days provides opportunity

for that protection worker to enter into the space to plan with that family around

that default notice of three days.

Rosalyn Bird : In the example that you gave with the grandmother driving kids to and from school,

daycare, whatever it happens to be, that I understand.

What I don’t understand, what I’m confused about and what I’m actually concerned about

is that it doesn’t state the 40-day provision for this particular

part in the transition

section. It does in paragraph (5), but it does not in paragraph (4).

If a party of a safety plan that is currently in place makes a decision that they

are going to withdraw, for any reason whatsoever, and they have not been told about

the three days, would that be considered, in the director’s opinion, a violation of

the safety plan?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Absolutely not. This is a transitionary provision in the bill, and the director or

the child protection worker would work with the family on the next steps or other

least intrusive measures or other tools that needed to be used or come to an agreement

with the family if there was a disagreement about timelines.

Rosalyn Bird : If I understood you correctly, you just said there is no requirement for a three-day

notification. If somebody wants to withdraw from a safety plan, then they are able

to do that. Again, I’m confused about this clause.

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

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

as shown:

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

(

a) in accordance with the agreement, or

(

b) if the agreement does not provide for withdrawal, by informing a director, verbally

or in writing, at least 3 days before the party withdraws. ]

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

On the amendment.

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

Basically, the amendment says that a party that is involved in a safety plan at this

current time within the transitionary period, and it does not state 45 days…. If somebody

is currently part of a safety plan, they are allowed to withdraw at any time and that

there is no requirement to give three days’ notice.

For me, this is a retroactive clause. If this was a business contract, if it was any

other contract, you don’t retroactively insert things. I think this is extremely unfair

to families, and quite frankly, I think it’s somewhat unfair to your staff also.

This was going to be a difficult thing to manage, and it’s something that not everybody

is going to understand, and that’s why I’ve tabled the amendment.

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

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

Hon. Jodie Wickens : It’s really important to emphasize again that safety plans remain voluntary at any

time. That is one of the main principles of the safety plan. They are voluntary. They

are time-limited.

The concept of giving notice exists so that necessary planning can occur with parents

around the required safety and well-being of children. The inclusion of three days

here reinforces the concept of planning. It exists for the best interests of children

that we have put in place in other parts of the bill. It exists currently to ensure

that there are no gaps in what happens in the transition period of this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

just going to sit down.

Rosalyn Bird : I believe what my colleague is trying to ask is: based on the minister’s explanation

of why the three-day clause is there, why has it not actually been implemented in

the legislation moving forward?

Based on her explanation, they required it for planning purposes, and it continued

to make the process voluntary and collaborative, yet it has not been built into the

legislation for new safety plans.

That was what my colleague was trying to ascertain. If the minister could help her

understand that, that would be appreciated.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just wonder if we are on the amendment, or if we’re going back to asking questions.

If I could ask for clarity from the Chair.

[5:20 p.m.]

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

Rosalyn Bird : I understand what the minister asked. However, it actually does pertain to the amendment,

based on her explanation as to why she has it in there. She said that she needs to

have the three days in order to have families prepared and actually plan for withdrawing

from plans. What we don’t understand is why it’s only necessary for previous safety

plans and not safety plans moving forward, based on her explanation.

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

itself.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I believe I have spoken to the amendment and spoken to the reasons why I do not support

the amendment. I believe now we are to vote on the amendment.

The Chair : Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on the amendment from the member

for Prince George–Valemount to clause 6.

Amendment negatived on division.

Rosalyn Bird : Moving to subparagraph (5)(d). If I understand this subparagraph correctly, I actually

have huge concerns around this. I’d like to provide the minister with a scenario.

If a safety plan is currently in place for 60 days, because the family and the workers

regarding that particular case are awaiting a court decision regarding an application

and the court date has been set…. If the court date is beyond the 45 days post-royal

assent, then what happens in that scenario when the safety plan terminates automatically

and we are still awaiting a court decision?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : If safety concerns persist and an assessment or investigation of a child protection

report is underway or the director is waiting for a court decision on an application

for an order, the director may enter a new safety plan in accordance with this legislation.

Rosalyn Bird : Based on the scenario I just gave, the time between…. So at the 45 days after royal

assent, the current safety plan is actually completely terminated and ministry staff

are actually going to re-establish a new safety plan that is 45 days. So it will be

re-documented. It will be re-signed. It will be an entire new safety plan. Is that

correct?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Yes, that is correct.

Rosalyn Bird : Scenario No. 2 is if you are currently participating in a safety plan or a party

to a safety plan which is 30 days, in accordance with the regulation or the policy

now, and a family is on day 21 of 30 days, this subpara now, essentially, extends

that safety plan by an additional 45 days.

Again, these safety plans are voluntary. They are written out with the understanding

of the family at the time. Basically….

[5:25 p.m.]

If the minister can confirm that in a scenario like that, ministry staff would have

to go back to the family, that they would need to express or explain that this safety

plan has now been extended by an additional 45 days and that they are now required

to…. Actually, I’m not sure if they’re required to give three days’ withdrawal because

that’s…. That’s a good question.

I’ll ask the first question first. Based on that scenario, is the ministry required

to go back to that family and have them re-sign a safety plan again with the agreement

that they are comfortable with the 45-day extension?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : So (

a) through (

d) can be read on what would apply first. So a prior safety plan

agreement is terminated on the earliest of the following dates, and (

b) would apply

to what the member just gave an example of, the date agreed to by all parties.

Rosalyn Bird : If you are in a safety plan currently and it is 30 days and you are in the middle

of that safety plan, you haven’t agreed to withdraw from it. Your intention is not

to withdraw from it and to review it at the end of the 30-day period. You are on day

21 of that plan. If I read this paragraph correctly, at the date of royal assent,

it automatically increases the plan by 45 days, as this paragraph is currently written.

Can the minister confirm?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : No, that is incorrect. It is not being read correctly. A prior safety plan agreement

is terminated on the earliest of the following dates. If a family has a safety plan

agreement, and they are on 21 days of a 30-day agreement, (

b) would apply, the date

agreed to by all parties.

Rosalyn Bird : Again, the last piece of that paragraph states that the date is 45 days after the

day of this section. Many, many people that read that, through her staff, are going

to understand that a current safety plan is to be extended by 45 days under this legislation.

That raises huge concerns for me.

Can the minister tell me currently, or has she conducted a review of the ministry

to determine, how many safety plans this may actually affect?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I want to put on record to clarify what the member just stated. Again, I’m going

to read it: “A prior safety plan agreement is terminated on the earliest of the following

dates.” Then it lists out the dates when it may be terminated.

The last point says, “if the agreement does not provide for a term” — so only if an

agreement does not have a set term in it — “or provides for a term of more than 45

days,” (

d) would come into place. So it’s really about what’s at the earliest of the

following dates, and then it really outlines how that would apply.

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

important.

Under current regulations, safety plans are 30 days. Unless there is a specific situation

in regards to a court date or something else, they currently are not required to have

an expiry date. It’s assumed it’s at the end of 30 days. If the agreement does not

provide for a term….

Again, I will respectfully disagree with the minister’s perception, or I may have

the completely wrong perception. I’m not sure.

[5:30 p.m.]

What resources are being provided to front-line ministry workers to communicate these

changes and physically revise, if necessary, all the current safety plans that parents

may need to re-sign or document the agreements that these changes will actually force?

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

legislation.

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

policy is updated.

Then there is practice guidance provided to ministry staff and ministry teams. There

are training materials that are deployed across teams with respect to the legislation

and any policy changes.

Then we have practice teams that remain in place for ministry staff, who can call

at any time to get practice guidance around the implementation of policy and legislation.

I would also say that the importance of this clause of the bill, having these transitional

provisions, is exactly to ensure that there is the least amount of impact to the number

of safety plans that child protection workers have to go back into and make changes

to. That’s the very reason we have these transitional provisions.

In addition to that, all of the resources that I have outlined in the way of training,

practice guidance, team leads and ministry staff are available for child protection

workers.

Rosalyn Bird : Chair, in the scenario I gave when I asked the first question for paragraph 5(d),

that if you have a safety plan currently that actually does have a term…. In that

particular case, the safety plan in place was for 60 days. This takes effect as of

royal assent, which reduces it to 45 days. She said that in that particular instance,

a new safety plan would in fact need to be drafted and signed under the new terms.

Has the minister or her staff conducted a review? Does she have any idea how many

safety plans may actually fall into the situation where there is an agreement in place,

and this may actually impact that agreement time frame?

[5:35 p.m.]

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

should be the exception.

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

Is the minister aware, or has her staff conducted a review, of current safety plans

that actually may be impacted by the 45-day time frame if the agreement provides a

term for more than 45 days?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Safety plan counts change daily. Every child protection worker would be acutely aware

of their caseload and how many safety plans that they have in place as a part of their

caseload. For the previous reasons that I outlined, this would capture a small number

of safety plans.

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

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

as shown:

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

(

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

(

i) a director;

(ii) a parent who is a party and who is apparently entitled to custody, or has care, of

the child to whom the agreement relates;

(

b) the date agreed to by all parties;

(

c) the date on which the term of the agreement ends ; .

(

d) if the agreement does not provide for a term, or provides for a term of more than

45 days, the date that is 45 days after the date that this

section comes into force.

(6) Termination of a prior safety plan agreement terminated pursuant to subsection

(5) must be documented in writing and include the reasons for termination. ]

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

On the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird : Basically, the amendment states that…. It strikes paragraph (

d) because I believe

it raises large concerns for not only the ministry but also for families.

The amendment addresses the concerns regarding extension or shortening of existing

safety plan agreements and termination dates, thereby ensuring not only flexibility

for both families and ministry staff. It also allows for the continuance of safety

around assessments and investigations that are currently underway and complex in nature.

This change, the minister states, actually impacts very few safety plans. But without

being given an actual number of what that is or isn’t, and considering the current

shortfalls in staffing, court backlogs and other challenges that the ministry is currently

facing, I do not believe that this paragraph is in the best interest of British Columbian

families.

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

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

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

Again, we need a transitional provision in this bill for when royal assent occurs

and for current safety plans that are in place, outlining that if an agreement does