First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 113

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

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole

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

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

Brennan Day

Hon. Niki Sharma

Peter Milobar

Anna Kindy

Reporting of Bills

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

Third Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole

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

Brennan Day

Hon. Niki Sharma

Anna Kindy

Reporting of Bills

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

Third Reading of Bills

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

Reporting of Bills

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

Third Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole

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

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

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

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Heather Maahs

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M219 — Health Authorities

Amendment Act, 2025

( continued )

The Speaker : Members, pursuant to the order of the House adopted yesterday, the House will proceed

to the deferred division on the motion for the second reading of Bill M219, intituled

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

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

Members, the question is second reading of Bill M219, intituled Health Authorities

Amendment Act, 2025.

[1:45 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

NAYS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I have family in the House today: my mother, Rhonda Bailey, visiting from Nanaimo;

my cousin, Christopher Bailey, who is a firefighter here with the Oak Bay fire department;

and his three adorable children, Penelope, Oliver and Charlotte, who were very well

behaved at lunch.

Please join me in making them most welcome.

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

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:46 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members.

Pursuant to the order of the House adopted yesterday, the committee will proceed to

deferred divisions on Bill 29, intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment

Act, 2025.

On clause 3 (continued) .

On the amendment (continued) .

The Chair : The first question is on the amendment to clause 3 of Bill 29, moved by the member

for Prince George–Valemount.

[1:50 p.m.]

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

39 seconds.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Members, as you know, the question is the amendment to clause 3 of Bill 29, moved

by the member for Prince George–Valemount.

[1:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Valeriote

Botterell

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Luck

Block

NAYS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Sturko

Boultbee

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

On clause 6 (continued) .

On the amendment (continued) .

The Chair : The second question is on the amendment to clause 6 of Bill 29, moved by the member

for Prince George–Valemount.

[2:00 p.m.]

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

Members, let me ask that question one more time. Is it the feeling of this House that

we can waive the remaining four minutes and 33 seconds?

Leave granted.

The Chair : Thank you very much, Members.

Members, the question is on the amendment to clause 6 of Bill 29 moved by the member

for Prince George–Valemount.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Luck

Block

NAYS — 50

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

Sturko

Boultbee

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

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:05 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:05 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Before I call orders of the day, I’d like to inform the House that the government

considers third reading on Bill 32 to be a confidence motion.

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

In

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

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 29.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:06 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(continued)

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

stage.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Thank you very much, Members.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are continuing committee stage of

Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, where we are contemplating

clause 4.

On clause 4 (continued) .

Brennan Day : Good afternoon to the minister and staff.

I’ll just go back to the last question we asked, which was…. We don’t have any quantity

data for illegal products on this, and 92 percent of the marketplace is illicit or

grey market products in British Columbia.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : I guess I’ll start by saying that I don’t think cooperation is a prerequisite for

anything that is contemplated in this act. This is a bill that sets up for litigation.

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

the definition.

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

I’m just going to jump ahead to clause 4(2), where it lays out the calculations in

terms of determining market share. In there, there is nothing specific that says market

share of what.

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

legal market?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Nothing excludes the illicit or illegal market. Nothing about this provision would

make it so one was chosen over the other.

Brennan Day : Given that the illicit market makes up 92 percent of the total…. If we’re assessing

health care damages through this act on vaping products and 92 percent of the market

is illicit, was there a reason that the minister chose to exclude any mention of that

in this calculation?

It would seem that if we’re determining broad health impacts on British Columbians,

this clause specifically would seem to infer that 8 percent of the market is going

to pay for 100 percent of the damages.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : My answer is similar to the ones that I’ve said before. We wouldn’t distinguish between

illegal or non-illegal, and there are different ways of going after them.

I just dispute the number of 90 percent. Health Canada in 2023 did an inspection and

found that 38 percent of products in vaping establishments were illicit or illegal.

So that 90 percent — I’m not sure where that comes from.

But beside the point, there would be a lot of work to go after the wrongdoers, and

that could include wrongdoers that were from the legal and illegal market.

Brennan Day : I believe that sort of refers back to the question I asked earlier regarding how

the minister intends to gather quantity data from the illicit market. The spread between

what you’re saying and what I’m being told by vendors in this marketplace is a large

spread, so that number will matter.

I’m just going to go back to 4(2) and 4(3) because I think it’s important we get clarity

here. In the calculation, MMC is noted as: “In respect of the applicable category

of vaping product, the quantity of vaping product manufactured by all manufacturers

that is purchased within British Columbia from the date of the earliest vaping-related

wrong committed by the manufacturer to the date of trial.”

Whether it’s 38 percent or 92 percent, how would we differentiate what their share

of the market is when a large percentage of that market is illicit, and what would

the impact of that be?

The same question for

section 4(3). WWC is: “In respect of the applicable category

of vaping product, the quantity of vaping product that is distributed, sold or offered

for sale within British Columbia from the date of the earliest vaping-related wrong

committed by the wholesaler to the date of trial.”

Again, those numbers are going to have a gigantic spread. We want to make it very

clear that operators in this space are not paying for the lack of enforcement by government,

given the huge amount of illicit products on the market and the harms that they will

inevitably cause.

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is all determined by a court. If you look at the wording in this section, in

subsection (2), it says: “The court must calculate the manufacturer’s market share.”

[2:20 p.m.]

Within that, in these very complicated litigations, you have different companies that

may be named that have different perspectives in terms of what their apportionment

and their liability may or may not be, related to their conduct. We would expect that

that would be the case in any litigation that would come forward. Usually during the

apportionment discussions, there are disagreements between the companies about their

responsibility. But everything hinges on a wrongdoer.

When I talked about some of the things we saw Big Tobacco do that we see connections

to vaping…. Those were established companies that were marketing deceptively to young

people or to people about their products to make sure that the nicotine addiction

lasted so they could maintain their profits. So the hinge point on anything to do

with an action is the wrongdoing.

The discussion that we’re having right now about illicit or not illicit and who pays

and who doesn’t pay is actually not the main focus of any of this work. It would be

pegged on the wrongdoer. The wrongdoer could be any actors in the vaping field that

are manufacturers, wholesalers and the elements in that category. Then it would be

up to a court, and each party could make their arguments as to why they’re less responsible

than the other party and then a court would determine the amount.

Brennan Day : Okay. I think we can probably litigate this forever. I do think that, for the purposes

of this, we’ve talked that one into the ground. I’d just like to, you know, state

that it’s going to be extremely difficult to prove harm when the market is so widespread

in the grey market.

Can we at least get the minister to acknowledge that the accuracy of quantity data

is only available for compliant businesses, not for the actors that are actually driving

youth vaping in B.C.?

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

There is a discovery process that happens in every piece of litigation where it gives

plaintiffs the right to discover and take a look at different documents. Then we had

a discussion already about aggregate-level harm and the population-level harm that

we would pursue when it comes to these matters, and that’s about health care cost

impacts on our society.

Peter Milobar : Just to kind of put a bow on where my colleague was going with some of these calculations

to the minister now, my understanding of the bill and the products is a lot of the

addicting factor, which would then create the need for someone to want to vape quite

regularly and repeatedly and magnifying the health impacts of the vaping process itself.

But it’s that nicotine content that really becomes the addictive piece to drive the

eventual overuse of any vaping products, which would magnify any health impacts, obviously.

My colleague was talking about how you’re going to apportion costs, whether it be

38 percent of the market, 8 percent of the market, 25 percent of the market. There’s

always a lag on federal calculations anyway. So that’s not going to be an accurate

science, and it could be potentially difficult, but the minister seems to indicate

that even if it’s an illicit supplier or manufacturer into the market, the government

is prepared to go after those manufacturers.

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

the ability…?

It seems to me that it’s the addictive side that will start to drive the health care

costs up that the government is trying to recover with this bill. But given that it’s

the nicotine, and we know — and it’s been borne out by multiple studies of pulling

products off of vape shelves — that the illicit vape products have several times the

legal limit that is set out for nicotine in a vape product….

[2:25 p.m.]

In other words, it is a much higher addicting vape when it’s illicit versus the one

that is to a legal Health Canada standard of percentages of nicotine that are allowed

in it.

Now, I want to be very clear. I’m not standing here trying to defend Big Tobacco,

but if they are playing by the laws laid out by Canada and Health Canada, it’s a legal

product, and they are entitled to sell it. But they are bound by those percentages

of nicotine content.

Whereas the illicit…. It’s going to be hard enough to try to collect under this, but

given that they would not just in theory but in science actually be driving much higher

levels of addiction rates because of the high levels of nicotine that well exceed

any Health Canada standards, they would, by virtue of that, be driving a much higher

and more substantive addiction to try to break and health impact, because it would

be driving that more repetitive vaping action. It stands to reason that the more you

vape, the more damage you’re going to do.

Has nicotine content come into play in these calculations? If not, why not, if we’re

truly trying to drive to make sure that the actors in the space are actually following

the rules, following the manufacturing standards, making sure that people aren’t being

unnecessarily addicted, making sure youth aren’t being unnecessarily targeted by all

of these things. The nicotine content just by itself would be the number one driver

of that physiological addiction that then gets created by vaping.

Has there been, within these calculations, that consideration? If not, why would the

government want to turn a blind eye to massively higher levels of nicotine driving

this addiction, if that’s the whole premise of this bill in the first place?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think my answer to this one is similar to the one that I gave before, which is

that this would be for a court to decide about apportionment — who’s responsible and

the quantums that they’re responsible for. That would be part of an analysis that

happens in all litigation at this stage.

Peter Milobar : Well, the courts will look at the calculations, what is laid out in the legislation

and how the government is planning on trying to bring forward cases to the court.

Surely the Attorney General is not saying that the government is just going to say

to the court: “Well, we think this manufacturer owes some money, so we’ll let the

court figure it out, and we have no guidance on how to calculate things.”

The question was pretty specific. Have nicotine levels been factored into this, especially

when we’re talking about the illicit market, which is anywhere from 62 to 92 percent

of the market? Everyone acknowledges and agrees that the illicit vaping products well

exceed any Canadian health standards for nicotine content within those vape products.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think we could answer this in clause 10, where it talks about the court’s consideration.

I could point to it now. But when we get to it….

Maybe I’ll give you a little sneak peek. It says that some of the factors to be considered

are the history of conduct of the defendant, the riskiness or recklessness, the profits

or revenues the defendant received, the degree of harmfulness of the vaping product

manufactured and promoted by the defendant.

Anna Kindy : It’s a point again to bring forward. But I’ll bring another point in terms of nicotine

content labelling — the labelling of regulated versus unregulated and the addiction

potential.

I’m going to come back again to the harm reduction. It has to be taken into account

that some people will not die because they’re vaping. They’ve switched from cigarettes

to vaping. Hopefully they buy the regulated vapes, but unfortunately, the government

isn’t looking at trying to clamp down on the unregulated market, especially for our

youth.

My experience as a physician is that it is a harm reduction tool, and that’s not taken

into account whatsoever. By targeting the regulated market only, you’re actually targeting

a product that’s probably safer overall.

When you look at the number of deaths from cigarettes — lung issues, everything else

— and the number of deaths from vaping, it’s not comparable. I don’t have the statistics

in front of me. That’s again not taken into account.

So I’d like to bring forward an amendment. I move in the Committee of the Whole on

Bill 24, intituled Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, to amend

as follows:

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

(6) The amount of a defendant’s liability assessed under subsection (3) (

b) may be

reduced in the prescribed manner to account for the harm reduction role of vaping

products in smoking cessation efforts as recognized by Health Canada. ]

The Chair : We will take a brief recess to circulate this to all of our members, about five minutes

or so.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:32 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 32 — Mental Health

Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

Sunita Dhir :

Section A reports Bill 32 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Kelly Greene : Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Mental Health

Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

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

2), 2025.

Division has been called.

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

Members, before we start, I would ask all the members participating remotely to make

sure your cameras and mics are on.

Hon. Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2025.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

NAYS — 41

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Botterell

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

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

George Anderson :

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

Leave granted.

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

In

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

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(continued)

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

committee on Bill 24.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

an amendment to Bill 24.

The amendment is not in order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair : We will return to committee stage of Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care

Costs Recovery Act, where we are contemplating clause 4.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Brennan Day : Clause 6 introduces joint and several liability for vaping-related wrongs. I just

have a couple of questions to get on the record here.

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

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

in the future.

Brennan Day : We will just wrap up

section 6 here with a question we’ve asked before, but we’ll

ask it again. If foreign manufacturers can’t be held accountable, does the minister

acknowledge that the liability will fall disproportionately to Canadian distributors

and wholesalers?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The same answer as before.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

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

clause 7.

Is there a pre-existing standard for determining the validity of statistical and epidemiological

studies used under this act?

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

Brennan Day : With that, would the court then be required to use studies that are peer-reviewed,

published, reproducible and independently verified, or will the government be relying

on internal models for this?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The court has a very rigorous standard when it comes to evidence, and there is an

entire act called the Evidence Act that is related to it.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

The Chair : Courtenay-Comox on clause 8.

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

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

questions around this.

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

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is taken from the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and it doesn’t certify damage,

as the member’s question said. It allows the minister to issue a certificate laying

out basic facts about health care benefits that have been or will likely be provided

and their cost as proof in an action under this act.

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

It does seem like they’re doing both ends of this. Through this act, they’ll be acting

sort of as the expert witness and accountant all at once.

Just to clarify how that works, and if you could point to an example in the previous

acts, whether it’s tobacco or opioids, as a reference.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to explain these certificates a little bit more, they’re borrowed from the Health

Care Costs Recovery Act, and it can be used to prove simple facts efficiently.

Section 1 allows proof of health care benefits that have been provided. It is rebuttable,

to the member’s question. It’s rebuttable by the defendant introducing evidence to

the contrary. So that’s one

section of the act.

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

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

answer.

We’ve litigated this with the Ministry of Health in terms of getting specific costs

for procedures and such. Given the way our health care system is administered, it’s

extremely hard to determine the actual cost. Brick and mortar, etc., is often left

out of those calculations.

Is there any limit on the Crown, including administrative overhead, indirect costs,

future staffing allocations, cost escalators or policy-driven anticipated costs that

could be included in these certificates?

We know it’ll be hard for the health authority to estimate actual damages. They’re

the ones that are being asked to provide those. If that’s the case, how can defendants

protect themselves from inflated or speculative claims?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Protection against that is under the

definitions. There’s a definition of “health

care benefits,” and it lists out the types of benefits and expenditures that are included.

Anna Kindy : Again, why must a court treat that number as final and conclusive proof of the cost

when you’re looking at the variables?

If we’re looking at health care recovery costs to opioids and, I’m assuming, Purdue

and OxyContin, it was quite narrow what happened in terms of addiction and death,

right? It’s a narrow parameter versus what we’re doing here. It’s a vaping health

care recovery cost.

We already talked about the lack of labelling in terms of vaping and the number of

chemicals, which can vary from 14 to 22 to more, and we don’t know. That’s from the

illicit and the licit market.

[3:00 p.m.]

It goes to, as well, that we talked about…. Going back to kids, a good portion of

kids that vape nicotine vape cannabis. We also discussed the issue of cannabis having,

within three years, 240 times the rate of psychosis or schizophrenia in three years’

time, versus vaping, in terms of itself as an issue, which takes years.

There are so many unknowns, as well, as to what is related to the actual health issues

of vaping because, again, there is no labelling. Cardiac issues can be related to

vaping, but they can also be related to many other factors as well. The actual lung

issues can be multi-factorial. You could be working in a factory that has smoke, and

you end up with issues, and you’re vaping. Where will that attribute it?

It’s so vague, and again, this targets such a narrow aspect of vaping that I’m concerned.

I’m trying to wrap my head around how this government is coming to a bill that is

so vague. Well, it’s not vague in its intent to recoup costs, but it’s vague as to

where it’s going to get the parameters to recoup the costs, as to what is causing

the injury.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Maybe a little guidance from the Chair about how this relates to this

section that

we’re talking about.

I will say that this is an enabling piece of legislation, so it gives the government

tools to launch litigation, where very specific questions will be answered.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Brennan Day : This is probably one of the biggest departures from the previous two, tobacco and

opioids. It runs out the limitation window to 15 years, which is unusually long. I

believe this is the longest in any act currently by government. I just have a few

questions on that.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : The 15-year period is actually consistent with the maximum limitation period found

in B.C. In this evolving area of harm and marketplace, we thought it was fitting to

make sure that we were taking the long approach of the limitation period that gets

up to that limit of what’s available in B.C.

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

period.

Brennan Day : Given the length of the retroactive liability concerns that this is obviously going

to impart on people in this industry, does the minister acknowledge that reviving

extinguished claims is a form of retroactive liability? How is that dealt with through

this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to make it clear again, this is a liability concern for wrongdoers, and I think

maybe everybody in the House would agree that there should be a liability concern

if you’re committing the types of wrongdoing that these types of litigation go after.

Brennan Day : With the retroactivity in here, the context of business may no longer exist. Financial

records — there is no requirement for financial records to be kept for that period

of time. Ownership changes over 15 years are likely, and they may not even have any

capacity to defend themselves. I’m just wondering why 15 years was taken. It seems

like an extremely long time frame to be going after bad actors in the context of this

legislation.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, I think I answered with the reason for the 15 years. It’s a changing marketplace.

The types of harms that we may discover from vaping may change. It provides a good

range of time for us to think about this as a remedy.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Anna Kindy : I think this is where…. This is the liability based on risk contribution, and I sort

of believe that amendments are there to make a bill better, as well as in protecting

our constituents and people in B.C.

I gave the example of the cookies. If you buy cookies in a grocery store, there’s

a label, and you actually know what you’re consuming. Unfortunately, even in any legitimate

market, there are no labelling requirements. How can we attribute what is causing

harm? It’s a way of fact-finding as well. I think it becomes much more clear. If there

are certain ingredients that we know are causing harm, and it’s on the label, then

we’re able to assess that. That’s why I’m bringing forward, for this bill….

I move, in the Committee of the Whole on Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health

Care Costs Recovery Act, to amend as follows:

[ CLAUSE 10, in proposed

section 10 (2), by adding the following underlined text as

shown after paragraph (p):

(p.1) whether a defendant failed to label or mislabeled the ingredients contained

in the vaping product manufactured or promoted by a defendant; ]

The Chair : Thank you, Member.

We will circulate the proposed amendment right now. We’ll take a brief recess, about

five minutes or so, to do that.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Members, we will call this House back to order, where we are contemplating an amendment,

introduced by the member for North Island, with respect to clause 10.

I will call on the minister for comments.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I appreciate the reason for this amendment, and I just want to explain to the member

and to the public why this is already included. Actually this list, being so thorough,

includes a lot of things that are covered if they fail to label, or mislabel, the

ingredients contained in vaping products.

The first, most important one is subsection (d), where it says: “whether a defendant

breached a statutory duty.” There is a regulation, the vaping products labelling and

packaging regulation, that sets out the labelling requirements for vaping products

that would talk about that as a statutory duty. So (

d) captures that, because it would

be a breach of a statutory duty to do the conduct that’s in the amendment.

The other ways that it would be captured are subsection (b), “the riskiness or recklessness

of the conduct,” and (c): “the degree to which the conduct deviated from the ordinary

standard of conduct.” I mentioned (

d) as a statutory obligation, which is a key trigger,

and then (

h) is “the degree of harmfulness of the vaping product manufactured or promoted

by a defendant.”

On the other side of it, if they’re labelling appropriately, then you have (

n) and

(p) — “the efforts a defendant made to warn the public about disease, injury or illness

resulting from use” or “affirmative steps that a defendant took to reduce the risk

to the public of disease, injury or illness.” That’s if they have proper labelling

about the contents of their product.

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

it.

Anna Kindy : We’ve already asserted that in vape shops there are unregulated products, and nothing

is being done about that. I’ve actually seen product where you can take off what’s

been taped on top of something and look at a different label. So consumers are not

aware. Also, there has been testing done, in terms of nicotine content, etc.

Unfortunately, the issue is that if people vape, do you know what they vaped? When

the government went after Purdue, the pharmaceutical company, it was in regards to

opioids and, more specifically, OxyContin and the damage done. It was quite clear.

This puts an unfair pressure on the regulated market, which tends to follow rules

more, anyhow. I’m just going to end it at that.

I think labelling is important. I think in the future, consideration of putting forth

that labelling should be issued on all products that are smoked or vaped, to be honest,

because you’re ingesting it in your body. It’s in another form than eating, but you

are inhaling it, and it’s probably distributed over an even larger surface area. I

think that should be taken into consideration.

Anyhow, I just would let it rest at that.

The Chair : Seeing no further speakers, the question before this House is the amendment proposed

for Bill 24, clause 10.

Amendment negatived.

[3:15 p.m.]

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

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

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

Will small operators facing contribution claims from large manufacturers seek to distribute

liability downwards through this act?

It does seem like clause 9 was a bit of a spaghetti clause — let’s get everybody listed,

and go for it — and that there could be people caught up. It seems like they’re going

to be arguing backwards and defending against, potentially, no wrongs of their own,

just for acting in this space.

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s normal, very normal, in legal proceedings that you might have counter- or cross-claims.

This

section allows defendants who are liable for vaping-related wrongs to seek contribution

towards the cost of health care benefits from other defendants found liable. And the

court may apportion liability and order a contribution amongst each of the defendants

based on the factors that are set out.

Brennan Day : So it does seem to open up a bit of a can of worms though. Does this not allow defendants

to sue each other for contribution, even if they haven’t paid anything to the overarching

claim and even if the government’s claim remains unresolved? Doesn’t this create a

giant bottleneck at the lower court levels with all these counterclaims?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yeah. I guess I’ll just say, similar to what I said before, it’s a pretty normal

thing, when there are multiple parties, to have their different cross-claims or counterclaims

related to that. This just helps to streamline and consolidate government’s response.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Brennan Day : This creates a considerable amount of director and officer liability. So why should

directors or officers be held personally liable for vaping-related wrongs when no

wrongdoing on their

part is required as part of this claim?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is also pretty standard that in the case of wrongdoing, you can pierce the corporate

veil, as the term goes, so that there is liability found, and it is in the context

of particular wrongdoing on behalf of those parties.

Brennan Day : Given the liability, was there any consultation done with the insurance industry

on the potential impact on directors’ and officers’ insurance?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, there wasn’t. There are similar provisions in, I think, other similar pieces

of legislation. Anybody that steps on a board understands their responsibilities of

when they’re protected and when they’re not.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Brennan Day : This goes back to the retroactivity conversation. Why does this clause not specify

any limit on how far back retroactive liability can apply?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This provision is necessary to ensure there is no doubt that it applies fully to

wrongdoings that have occurred in the past before the new act takes effect.

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

this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Some of the wrongdoing that bills like this can target are related to hiding information

or having knowledge about harmfulness of products for the public for a long amount

of time without disclosing it or acting appropriately about what those harms are.

This

section just will ensure that there is no doubt that the wrongdoers can’t escape

any liability for the wrongs they may have committed, even decades ago.

Brennan Day : Conveniently, most of the poor operators are located outside of our borders, so they’re

probably all right anyways.

Moving along, has the ministry consulted with insurers on whether retroactive unlimited

liability is even insurable?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No. We haven’t.

Brennan Day : Then I guess with that answer, does the minister acknowledge that many businesses

may lose coverage or face prohibitive premiums?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, this is focused on wrongdoers. It’s not focused on the regular operation of

businesses. If they are operating and they haven’t committed any of the breaches that

we talk about in this bill, they have nothing to worry about.

Brennan Day : Given the broad net that this bill allows, I think everybody will probably be caught

up. I’ll be curious to see how many operators continue to exist in British Columbia

under this bill.

I guess we can move on to the next clause.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Brennan Day : As this piece of legislation is going to put us in front of the rest of the country

on this, and it’s something I think that is intentional through this, why does clause

14 allow B.C. to litigate on behalf of other provinces and their agents?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is actually a very powerful, made-in-B.C. tool that I think we should all be

proud of, which allows governments to take on very large, often multinational corporations

that are causing harm and that are resulting in health care costs because of their

wrongdoing.

Just to note that the way this is constructed, the multi-Crown class action is not

only a very efficient and effective way to recover health care costs, but there’s

also an opt-out procedure if there’s a government that doesn’t want to participate.

I’ll just note that in the times that we’ve done similar things in tobacco and opioid,

no governments across Canada have ever opted out.

With tobacco, this similar method resulted in billions of dollars — billions of dollars

— going back into health care systems across this country.

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

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Every time we’ve done something like this, we’ve learned and evolved and adapted.

Although it ended up being very much multi-Crown class action with tobacco, the first

time it was in legislation — the member is right — is in the opioid legislation that

we put forward.

Just to say that the equivalent

section in the opioid recovery act was one of the

provisions that was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, whether

or not we were lawful in that provision, and B.C. was successful. So it was upheld

as being a way to pursue a class action lawsuit in Canada.

Brennan Day : Given that the province of British Columbia is leading on this…. They do seem a bit

at odds right now with the federal mandate of using this as harm reduction. We can

argue about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

What consultation was done with Health Canada in this process, and could you please

share with us their position on this clause 14, which allows action on behalf of the

Canadian government?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No consultation. Again, it’s not regulation. This isn’t a regulatory regime that

we’re putting in place. It’s legislation that supports litigation, which is quite

different. I did mention that jurisdictions have the option to opt out should there

be a lawsuit launched under this act.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Brennan Day : On

section 15, this covers whistleblower-style provisions. Why was this clause added

when similar provisions were not included in the tobacco or opioid acts?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I mentioned, every time we’ve learned when we’ve done this type of proceeding,

and we’ve adjusted, so this is one of those moments.

The principle behind this is that if there are organizations or individuals that provide

information to government for the purposes of the claim of health care costs, they

should be given the comfort to provide this information fully and freely without fear

of reprisal.

Brennan Day : To the Attorney General, does clause 15 apply to directors and officers who may themselves

face personal liability under clause 12?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : A very important aspect of the drafting of this is the good-faith protection. They

would have to be operating in good faith in order to do so. I think a really strong

argument could be made that if it’s a director that is a wrongdoer and participated

in that, providing information to get immunity would be bad faith and this wouldn’t

apply.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Brennan Day : Given the involvement of government in this marketplace and the regulation of this

marketplace, why should government be immune from liability under the framework it

applies to private actors?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is one of the additions here that’s to remove any doubt that it can’t be used

against government. It makes sense because the tool that we are putting forward here

is about recovering costs on behalf of the public that they spent. So it makes sure

that this tool isn’t to be used against government.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

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

down that line.

Why is cabinet given the power to expand or alter the definition of “specified device”

and “specified substances” without consultation? I do think this is one of the guardrails

this act doesn’t cover that would allow this to potentially get well out of the arms

of government without reasonable limitations.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Any regulatory-making power that sits within a piece of legislation is confined by

the purpose of that legislation, so it inherently is restricted to only be used to

further the legislation that it sits under. That is a natural confine to the actions

of government.

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

bearing with us.

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

Regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in

section

41 of the

Interpretation Act.

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

as follows:

(

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

(

b) prescribing substances or combinations of substances for the purposes of the definition

of “excluded substance”;

(

c) prescribing delivery systems for the purposes of the definition of “specified

device”, including nicotine pouches.

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

must

(

a) consult with health experts, consumer advocates, wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors

and retailers, or their representatives, and

(

b) publish a

summary of the consultations on a publicly accessible website. ]

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

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, I won’t be supporting this amendment, and it’s for, I think, a good reason. You

would not consult in this manner, especially pre-litigation, nor post that online.

Essentially, it’s saying that we would consult with Big Tobacco on what their liability

might be and how to make sure that things are designed in a way that would lessen

it. I’m sure that would be the discussion that we would be having, and that’s not

at all the purpose or the goal of this.

Also, since it goes to litigation, publishing a

summary of it online would be problematic

to the success and work of government on this file.

If it was a regulatory regime that was being put in place by Health Canada or by the

Ministry of Health, I think there would be an appropriate role for consultation to

understand the things that the regulations might do to the industry.

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

The Chair : Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the vote on the amendment from the member for

Courtenay-Comox on clause 17.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 17 and 18 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:40 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:40 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

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

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

Hon. Kelly Greene : Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

The Speaker : Members, the motion is third reading of Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health

Care Costs Recovery Act.

Division has been called.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Kindy

Valeriote

Botterell

NAYS — 42

Wilson

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

The Speaker : Bill 24, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, has been read

a third time and has passed.

[3:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

Sunita Dhir :

Section A reports Bill 29 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

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

Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

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

third time and has passed.

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

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 3:56 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 28 — Business Practices and

Consumer Protection

Amendment Act ( N o . 2), 2025

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

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair : I’ll call the House back to order. We are now on Committee of the Whole for Bill

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

On clause 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Before we get started, I want to thank the staff that are joining me today and express

my gratitude for the work they have done to bring us to this stage and that they will

do to guide us through it.

[4:10 p.m.]

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

policy legislation analyst.

Steve Kooner : Before I start, I’d also like to thank the Attorney General’s staff for being here

and being ready to help answer some questions. I know a lot of work goes behind a

bill, and a lot of preparation is done before coming to answer questions.

Thank you for being here today.

With the first question, on clause 1…. I know there’s a certain latitude allowed to

ask some general questions about the entire bill. The first question I have is in

terms of consultation. What sort of consultation was done on this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We consulted with several organizations and associations in 2022-23 to gain feedback

into these proposals. They included the B.C. Financial Services Authority, the B.C.

Public Guardian and Trustee, Canadian Bankers, credit union lender associations, Credit

Counselling Society of B.C., Equifax, goeasy, federal Office of the Superintendent

of Bankruptcy, TransUnion and Vancity.

In July 2025, we followed up with these organizations to indicate that we intended

to advance legislative amendments on which they were consulted.

Steve Kooner : Thank you for that answer.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : Generally, the stakeholders were supportive of the amendments that provide people

with greater access to their credit reporting information and tools such as security

alerts and credit freezes to protect their financial well-being.

Steve Kooner : More specifically in regards to TransUnion and Equifax, did they have any concerns?

Did they have any feedback in terms of how to improve this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : There was a concern raised by TransUnion and Equifax related to clause 5, which was

the notification…. We can talk about it when we get to that clause, but it’s regarding

the notification related to when a security alert expires. I’m happy to go into detail

when we get to that, because we think the concern is addressed and there’s a pathway

to that.

They were in attendance for our announcement, so they’re generally supportive of giving

better rights to consumers related to credit reporting.

Steve Kooner : In regards to consultation, the Attorney General just explained that these consultations

occurred between 2022 and 2023, and there were also some follow-ups in 2025.

Perhaps the Attorney General can explain the extent of these consultations. Were they

just one-off consultations with each of these stakeholders? Was it a group meeting?

How many meetings occurred? So more specifics in terms of the extent and duration

of these consultation meetings with these stakeholders — if we could get an elaboration

of that, please.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The consultation that happened in 2022-23 was a targeted reach-out or written submission

to all of these parties that I listed below. The reason it was targeted is because

they obviously are entities that have very specific information and understanding

of the issue. Our team met with people that wanted to follow up with meetings related

from those groups in 2023.

Then in 2025, letters were sent out to the same groups related to the fact that we

were going to be bringing forward the legislative amendments that you see before you.

From that, our team again met with various number of these organizations related to

that.

Steve Kooner : Back in 2022-2023, there was a targeted reach-out to these stakeholders. What was

that? Was that a letter, like we had some letters in 2025? What did that entail? What

was that targeted reaching out? Was it letters, meetings, phone calls? What was it?

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

Steve Kooner : In regards to the nature of that discussion paper, did that go through clause by

clause what each clause meant and what sort of implications each clause could have?

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

The legislative drafting comes later.

Generally, the first discussion for consultation is more of a policy discussion about

what we intend to do or what we’re looking at moving on. That was the content of that

discussion paper.

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

the next question.

[4:20 p.m.]

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

Steve Kooner : And in order to get to the discussion paper, in order to get to those 23 pages….

What was that based upon? Was there research that was done? That’s the next question.

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

Oftentimes what happens with this stuff is that Consumer Protection B.C., which is

our oversight body out there and enforces the legislation, will hear from consumers

about concerns that they’re having in the marketplace. If they find that there’s a

gap in their ability to act on that, then the conversations that our team has directly

help to find what those gaps are so we can address them.

There would have been…. At that point, there were definitely some public stories about

impacts and protections that were needed in this area.

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

consumers.

There are two sides of the legislation here. We’re dealing with consumers, and we’re

also dealing with business practices, a business industry that’s there, that has been

operating a certain model that consumers are involved with. So I heard one side of

it.

Was there any research done on what has worked with the business practices industry,

these credit reporting agencies? What has worked for them, and how have they been

able to help consumers in the extent of time that they’ve been servicing these consumers?

What research was done in regards to that in arriving at the results of this discussion

paper?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think, as mentioned, the discussion paper that we delivered to those…. I think

I listed all of the agencies. Those are the agencies that, as the member suggests,

would have a role in overseeing or as a player in this marketplace, and we received

the feedback from them directly.

Steve Kooner : Is it fair to say that there was no research done on the business practice professionals

or the credit reporting agencies? There was no research done on them up until the

time the discussion paper was produced, and then there were stakeholder discussions

done. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma : That’s exactly when you would do that kind of discussion. When you’re targeting your

discussions or consultation with these kinds of experts in the industry…. To give

them a discussion paper is a very transparent way of showing them our policy analysis,

our jurisdictional analysis and where we think we want to step into updating our act

related to credit reporting.

[4:25 p.m.]

Then, after they receive that discussion paper is when they can get a really transparent

and in-depth look at what our scope of that discussion would be. So that exactly would

be the time that we would sit down with all of the entities that I talked to, like

Equifax and TransUnion and people like that, to talk about what we’re working on.

Steve Kooner : After the discussion paper, there were discussions with stakeholders. They probably

had some input. They may have said something. The government had certain ideas of

what the government wanted to put in this legislation. So after listening to the stakeholders,

was there a moving back and forth?

Was there something in terms of incorporating what they were saying? Did the government

make certain changes to certain clauses they were thinking they were going to put

in this legislation? Were there certain changes that were made in regards to certain

provisions that the government already had in mind, but after considering what these

stakeholders were saying, those provisions were modified?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s always the case that…. I want to also say that this is pre-drafting. So we’re

going back in time to a point where the discussion paper and the consultation happened

with the organizations that I mentioned. There were no clauses, and there was no drafting

done for the actual bill that we see before us. In that scenario, there would be countless

things that would come from the feedback that was listed by the organizations that

we talked to that would go into the actual drafting at a later date.

Steve Kooner : Just to go a little bit further, there was the original research that was done. Mostly

it had to do with protecting consumers. Then, as a result of that, there was a discussion

paper that was done, and then that discussion paper was forwarded to all these stakeholders.

When there was a discussion paper, at that time, there were no clauses, but eventually

there were some clauses that were generated just prior to this legislation being introduced.

So did the business professionals, the credit reporting agencies, have a say once

the clauses were drafted? Was there some sort of give-and-take on some of the clauses

that were put forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I don’t think my answer is going to be much different than the one I gave previously,

which is that every time you draft a piece of legislation, it’s a balancing act between

the rights and interests of all parties in the marketplace.

The primary driver of this type of legislation is the consumer, because it’s our consumer

protection regime in B.C. and what we do to make it a fair marketplace for British

Columbians, particularly with respect to credit reporting, which is such a vital part

of so many people’s lives.

So yes, we did take into account feedback from the consultations that we had with

the list that I gave you, and the balancing of all those interests would have made

its way to the bill.

Steve Kooner : My understanding so far is that once the clauses were drafted, or when they were

being drafted, they were…. The government’s perspective is that all viewpoints, but

more so to protect the consumers, were incorporated to develop those clauses. Once

those clauses were developed and once we had a draft piece of legislation, at that

time, there wasn’t any further consultation done.

[4:30 p.m.]

There may have been a letter that was sent in 2025 that suggested this legislation

was coming forward. I won’t ask another question on that, because I think the Attorney

General has been clear on that point, but I’m just stating it for the record.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : Credit reports and credit scores are so vital to our society right now, and they

really can impact the financial well-being of individuals in British Columbia and

are such a vital key tool to that. We were seeing in the marketplace how things like

fraud and other impacts on people’s credit score and credit rating were making it

so people that were less financially secure…. Their well-being was impacted, and they

didn’t have the right tools in order to correct that.

The amendments here will give new tools for people to secure financial well-being

— for example, providing access to security alerts and credit freezes, and that’s

an important tool for people to limit the way in which their credit reporting information

is shared; providing people with the ability to access their credit reporting information,

including their credit score, for free; supporting people in monitoring their financial

health; and ensuring that people who purchase credit repair services or credit monitoring

services are fully informed of those services that they’re accessing so they’re not

further taken advantage of when they’re in a more desperate financial situation.

Steve Kooner : I agree with the other side there, in terms that there needs to be consumer protection.

I also agree that credit reporting services serve a significant aspect in terms of

financial affairs, in terms of getting loans, in terms of doing everyday business.

The subject matter of this legislation is actually very, very important. I’ve acknowledged

that it’s an important piece of legislation.

We heard earlier that there was some targeted reaching out back in 2022-2023, and

now we’ve addressed the fact of why this legislation was brought forward.

When was the first time that the government felt there was some sort of need to bring

this legislation forward? Was it well before 2022? When exactly was that?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think we could say pretty clearly that in 2022, or around that time, when the discussion

paper was made, there was an identification of the fact that we should look at amendments

related to that. That probably is around the time that government became aware of

the need to update and work towards what we have today.

Steve Kooner : We know a discussion paper was produced. Who was involved in formulating that discussion

paper? In service staff, was it essentially just the Attorney General’s department,

or did it incorporate other departments? Did it involve some outside outsourcing to

actually produce that discussion paper?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It was only in the most recent mandate that consumer protection was transferred over

to the Attorney General’s ministry. Prior to that, it was in PSSG, and it would have

been the staff that were at that time at that ministry that would have had that realization

about the work that was needed.

[4:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : The original piece of this legislation, Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Act, was brought forward, I believe, two decades ago, and then there were no changes

made up until 2025. The first revision that we saw, No. 1, was in the spring session.

Now we are dealing with a second revision here in the fall session.

Is there a reason why we’re hearing or we’re dealing with this legislation twice in

one year? Could it have been brought all together at one time in the spring session?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It is an issue that this act hasn’t been looked at since 2004. One of the things

that I’m really interested in, in this role is making sure that our consumer protection

laws are strengthened in terms of protecting people in various ways.

We were able to bring forward legislation that we debated on about the changes in

contracts and how it’s showing up for automatic subscriptions, automatic renewals,

the different ways that consumers in this online marketplace are being harmed. That

was very important, and I’m really glad that we did that work to update the Consumer

Protection Act after so many years of not.

But it was a very different subject matter than what we have right now before us with

this credit rating. As a different subject matter, it required a different focus and

different discussions with those very specific groups that we shared earlier about

consultation. As such, they were treated separately, not too far apart, because this

is the next session that we could bring these changes forward. It’ll be another welcome

thing to updating our laws in B.C.

Steve Kooner : Since the original act came into force…. It was 2004, which was 21 years ago, and

then we had a follow-up amendment just in this year, and this is the second amendment.

Does the Attorney General’s department foresee that there might be a third amendment

soon?

Hon. Niki Sharma : A little bit out of the scope, I think, of this legislation, but I will say that

I’m always looking for ways to improve consumer protection in B.C., and we’ll be doing

more work on that.

Steve Kooner : We’re in clause 1 here, and there are a few

definitions that we’re looking at, specifically

in 1(a).

The first one, which deals with credit repair services, states that “credit repair

services” has the same meaning as in

section 112.34,

definitions. Why did the Attorney

General’s department decide to put this specific definition in here?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : This amendment related to that reference to the

section is in clause 7. Clause 7

provides a full definition, but the reason that it is also amended here for

section

4 is to make sure that it’s clear that the

definitions refer to each other and, for

clarity, that this is a defined term that shows up in clause 7.

Steve Kooner : According to the Attorney General, what’s the literal meaning of “credit repair services”

in regard to this piece of legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I would ask if we can do that…. I can do it now, but it’s also found in clause 7.

The “credit repair services” definition is contained in there. I refer the member

to that clause, where you’ll find the full definition.

Steve Kooner : Okay, so there are like five different

definitions. The answers that were just applied

for that one, credit repair services, are they the same for all five or six of these

definitions?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Okay, so there are three new ones: the “credit repair services,” “credit repair service

provider” and “credit score.” They’re found there. The other amendment that is in

here that is not for new

definitions is “report” and “reporting agency.”

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

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

to me.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The terms “report” and “reporting agency” existed already — those

definitions. They

existed in the act, and it says the sections 106 and 106(1). So this was added here

just for clarity, but the definition existed already. It’s not a new definition.

Steve Kooner : We’ve debated many bills, and sometimes we talk about adding provisions for clarity.

I’ve been told on many occasions that for drafting purposes, it’s not a good idea

to repeat certain provisions.

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

repeating it here?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Sometimes when drafting decisions are made, it’s so the reader and the user can interpret

something in a more clear way. Especially when it comes to acts that are very large

or when there are sections in different parts, the choice is made to make, for clarity,

the reference to, for example, these two

definitions.

If you see in one of the amendments later on, (c.1), it refers to “reporting agency”

and “report.” The reader, when they’re interpreting that section, can understand that

the

definitions that were referred to are the ones that are cross-referenced here.

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

services provider.”

In terms of “representation,” perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on that word.

I believe it has quite a bit of significance to this particular piece of legislation.

Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on that for the record.

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s an important defined term that means as it reads. It’s a term or form of a contract,

notice or other document used or relied on by a supplier in connection with this consumer

transaction.

Steve Kooner : In regards to protecting consumers and looking at these credit reporting agencies

or credit service providers that may provide representation, what’s the relationship

between the two, with the consumers and the credit reporting service providers or

the credit service providers? What’s the relationship when it comes to representation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The representation of the credit repair service provider in relation to the consumer

— that representation is defined in that section.

What we wanted to fix was to make sure that when a credit repair service provider

is promising something, they’re not promising things that they actually can’t deliver

to that consumer. In this scenario, the consumer is usually in a very desperate situation

because their credit rating is getting in the way of their financial well-being. This

is to fix the marketplace related to where there may be agencies that are taking advantage

of that person.

Steve Kooner : We’re dealing with a representation. We’re dealing with a position that’s put out

there for consumers, and there might be some reliance by consumers on that position.

When we look at positions, there may be different elements of positions. There could

be a statement, there could be an omission, or there could be

an act. The list goes

on and on.

[4:50 p.m.]

When the Attorney General was just explaining representation, as far as the Attorney

General’s understanding of this legislation, does the word “representation” catch

all those elements of different positions that may be made by consumer or credit service

providers?

Hon. Niki Sharma : My answer to that is yes, and if you refer to (c.1), it lists the representations

that we’re trying to protect the public from.

Steve Kooner : I do see the further elaboration underneath “representation.” It says: “compel.”

It says: “improve.” But the indicia here may not include omission. There are a lot

of elements of making positions. But when somebody reads it, when they read the word

“representation,” they may say it includes all of that, although the following indicia

don’t include it. So it’s important to be very clear in terms of legislative intent.

Was this designed to catch all of the elements that I mentioned? The Attorney General

just told me that it catches the actions that are listed below, and the actions listed

below refer to compelling, improving — those types of actions. They don’t specifically

address omissions or any sort of a positive action. But there are certain elements

that go along with representations.

Is the definition of “representation” limited to the indicia that follow right below

that word within the subclause only?

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

If you look at the definition of “representation,” it’s actually very extensive. It’s

extensive in the types of behaviours and practices that it covers and the manner in

which they are. What we are doing here is adding a (c.1) to that that includes the

credit repair services and the types of behaviours under this definition of “representation”

that are relevant to the things that we’re trying to fix.

Steve Kooner : Representation, when you read this act, has a very significant meaning, because you’re

trying to get at deceptive practices in order to protect consumers.

[4:55 p.m.]

That seems to be one significant element of this legislation that we’re dealing with

— protecting consumers from deceptive practices, protecting consumers from credit

service providers that may promise things that they may not be able to deliver in

order to benefit off of that.

The term “representation” has a very significant meaning. I understand that the original

statute may have the

definitions, but we just went through some

definitions in clause

1, where the Attorney General explained that for certain reasons, certain

definitions

are repeated in this legislation for clarity purposes.

Now my question is this. When representation serves a very crucial and important element

— we’re trying to protect consumers from deceptive practices — for clarity purposes,

wouldn’t it make sense to also mention the extent of representation in addition to

what’s listed here right now so consumers can go to one particular

section and they

will have a full understanding?

Maybe somebody, maybe a credit service provider, may have provided some services,

and they may have wronged the consumer. The consumer may be looking for protection,

and they may come to this legislation. They may look at this legislation and see that

there’s representation and that this is what representation means, with these indicia

underneath.

They could be further assisted, and further clarity can be actually provided to them

to protect them from unscrupulous credit service providers that may be engaged in

deceptive practices, if this particular

section also specified that in addition to

these indicia, there are also all these other items that may include representation.

That may actually serve the purpose of this legislation, which is to protect consumers

and also — what we’ve heard from the Attorney General — to serve consumers in a clear

way.

Is there a reason why we did not repeat the full, exhaustive list of indicia, although

we have it in the original statute? When we look at representation, it serves a very

significant aspect to this particular amendment legislation.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We are amending

section 4. If the member takes a look at

section 4, what he will

see is the full definition of “representation.” We are adding a subsection to that

full definition.

Steve Kooner : Going a little further, we just dealt with representation, but we also were looking

at indicia that are listed right underneath representation. The first, (i), states:

“It holds a licence to provide credit services.”

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

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

a representation that they have a licence when they do not.

Steve Kooner : Perhaps a licence may not exist in British Columbia. Does this also catch any licence?

When we’re dealing with credit reporting services, some of these companies are national.

They’re not just based in British Columbia. A lot of these credit reporting agencies

are national as well.

[5:00 p.m.]

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

regardless of jurisdiction?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The jurisdiction of this legislation is in B.C., and it would cover instances where

a credit repair service provider claims to hold a licence when no licence exists.

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

Authority from where?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to clarify, the point of these subsections is to call out credit reporting service

providers that are saying or claiming to do something that’s not true. In that section,

it’s in the situation where they are claiming to have an authority to compel a reporting

agency to remove or amend information in a report when no such authority exists.

So in order to get at that person that’s very desperate for a better credit report

because it’s affecting their financial well-being….

We’re trying to prevent these predatory actors from claiming that they can do things

when they can’t. So that’s why it says the idea of authority. If they’re claiming

that they have authority when no such authority exists, that’s the behaviour that

we’re trying to capture.

Steve Kooner : With that definition that was just mentioned, aren’t authority and licence the same

thing then? When you have a licence, you have authority from a certain body, and you

can make a certain difference. You can carry out a certain action.

Is there some overlapping meaning between licence and authority? If you’ve got authority,

you’re obviously getting that authority from somewhere.

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is in a situation where a credit repair service provider is making it up. There

is no licence, and there is no authority to do the things they are doing. There is

no overlap in those terms. There is no legal or statutory authority that is bound

in these terms, because it’s actually trying to get at the absence of that and an

agency claiming that they have that.

Steve Kooner : Some of these credit reporting services…. I just mentioned that some of them are

national. A lot of them are national. So there’s certain legislation that applies

to them. They get certain authority from perhaps outside the province. We also know

that we have companies here that operate extra-jurisdictionally, and they may follow.

So they may pay their taxes somewhere else, but they’re allowed to kind of operate

here.

When I see the word “licence,” I see the word “authority” in my mind. I understand

we have a jurisdiction here in B.C. So you may comply, but then there are some companies,

or there may be some agencies, that operate across borders within Canada.

I guess what I’m trying to wrap my mind to is when we are saying there is no authority,

no licence, what we’re actually referring to is there is no licence or authority here

in British Columbia for that actor, correct?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I just want to start by clarifying the difference between the credit repair service

provider, which this provision is capturing, and a credit reporting agency. They’re

two separate things and show up in different ways for consumers.

The way this is drafted, it’s protecting against the credit repair services holding

out to say something that they actually can’t do. So (

i) is they say they have a licence

when no such licence exists. We’re not aware of, to the extra-jurisdictional question,

any licence that exists to provide credit repair services.

Then the second one is related to the authority to compel another reporting agency

to remove or…. That authority just doesn’t exist.

So if we find them to be doing that in B.C., we have the ability, through this legislation,

to essentially stop that behaviour. Then it goes on to the next one.

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

[5:10 p.m.]

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

the Attorney General can explain how credit score works.

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

First of all, the credit reporting system that exists collects people’s credit information

from creditors, including banks and retailers. Members then access this information

for various reasons. Lenders look at a person’s credit report, which summarizes their

history of repaying debt, and credit score to assess the risk of extending credit

to that individual. Credit information is often reviewed by employers, insurers, landlords.

I’m sure everybody knows about it.

A person’s credit score is affected by several factors, and improving a credit score

is a slow process of building a history of responsible use of credit, reliable payment

of debt, etc. So it is important for consumers to be aware of and monitor their credit

information, particularly since the digital economy has introduced new threats to

consumer credit, including theft and credit fraud.

[5:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Just a further follow-up question. I understand there’s some sort of credit rating,

and I understand the factors that may impact that credit rating, whether it goes up

or down. But what are the metrics? Is it zero to 100? How does it work mathematically?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s a score between 300 and 900, usually, and all the factors that I talked about

in my previous answer go into that score.

Steve Kooner : For the people that are listening, it’s my understanding that somebody may start

from the bottom, perhaps start at 300, and then the max score is 900. Is my understanding

correct in what I just stated?

The Chair : Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you, Chair. I just ask for your guidance. I think we’re straying a little bit

away from the content of the bill. I think the credit scores and the number and the

factors that go into that is beyond the scope of this, which is to protect consumers

in very particular ways about access to information.

Steve Kooner : With all due respect to the Attorney General, the whole purpose of this legislation

is to look at ways to protect this credit score, protect information that goes out.

At the outset of our debate today, the Attorney General explained what the purpose

of this legislation was, explained that credit scores can be impacted significantly

and that it could affect many aspects of life if that score gets affected. So I think

it’s important to understand how this credit score works and then put that into perspective

— everything we’re looking at in terms of this legislation.

Why I ask this question right now is that we’re just starting to deal with this legislation.

We’ve got a lot of clauses to get through. When we go through all the clauses, if

we have that understanding — “here’s the activity that we are looking at; this may

affect the credit score; that’s why we have to protect the consumer” — it brings you

into the realm of what is relevant.

It is very important. It goes to the basics of this legislation that we’re looking

at, what we are trying to protect consumers for. We’re trying to protect the information

that makes up the credit rating for them. We’re trying to protect their credit rating.

We’re trying to protect them from bad actors.

In order to protect them, we have to understand how this credit score works and how

far and how badly it can be affected if somebody takes the wrong, bad-actor action

under the situation that we are specifically designing to protect against. It is absolutely

relevant to the root of this particular legislation, so it is very important to understand.

Part of our duties today as legislators is to tell consumers what we’re doing here

and how this legislation is going to protect them. But if we’re just talking about

abstract words and there are no mechanics behind what we’re talking about, it becomes

a little difficult to understand.

I have a legal mind because I’m also a legal professional, but I still have some understanding

difficulties with the mechanics of how a credit score works. So if I’m having, perhaps,

a little bit of difficulty understanding the mechanics of how a credit score works,

I would not be able to truly imagine what the effect would be on the people that are

listening that do not have that legal training that I have.

[5:20 p.m.]

So with all due respect, it is highly relevant because everything we’re discussing

in this aspect of legislation is dealing with credit service providers that may be

involved in deceptive practices. We’re trying to protect against that so that a credit

score would not be affected. But in order to protect against that activity, we have

to know what extent of it could be affected. And then we have to know: are we doing

enough to protect against these bad actors?

So it’s highly relevant. I disagree with what the Attorney General just stated, because

I think the question of understanding goes to the pith and substance of this legislation.

So it’s important. I really request that the Attorney General can answer the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Credit score, which is a numerical or other score that a reporting agency attributes

to an individual for the purpose of representing the agency’s assessment of their

credit-worthiness of an individual, shows how risky it would be for a lender to lend

money. It’s represented as a three-digit number generally between 300 and 900, and

yes, 300 would be the lowest, and 900 would be the highest. Equifax and TransUnion

are the agencies that do credit scores.

If you have a history of being unable to pay or make your payments on your credit,

your credit score will go down. If you are showing consistent repayment and good use

of credit, your credit score will go up. One of the difficulties is that if you have

a low credit score, it can be hard, especially during the times of protecting consumers

against some of the practices we’re doing here, for your credit to increase again.

Steve Kooner : We’re making progress.

The next question I have…. We know the lower boundary, the floor, is 300. We know

the maximum is 900. Now, we’ve also talked about some scrupulous actors that we’re

trying to protect consumers from.

A consumer may have a particular score. Let’s just say, hypothetically, it could be

like 500 or like 700. Say they get hit up by a scrupulous actor. What could be the

effect on their score? Would that drop them 5 percent, or would that drop them 10

percent? Would that drop them 20 percent? What’s the significant…? What would be the

blow to their credit?

We’re trying to protect from scrupulous activity, but I’m trying to get a gist of

whether it would be a big impact if they get impacted by a scrupulous actor. Would

it be a big impact after there’s a series of activities that happen? How fast would

that credit fall down? So that’s the next question.

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

the relevance of your question?

Steve Kooner : Yes, I may.

If we go down to clause 1, then clause 1 has a subsection (b). Under subsection (b),

we have subsection (c.1). Under (c.1), we have (iii), and under (iii), we have the

words: “It can improve a credit score.” That talks about activity taking the credit

score up. So where the credit score may go up, it may also come down. That goes to

the question: how much can it go down? That is what I’m trying to get at.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just to provide clarity related to this clause, it applies to a credit repair service

provider. Again, it is talking about a representation that is a deceptive practice

that we’re protecting the consumer from.

So it is not in line of the question about an actual increase in credit score or not.

It’s about a representation that can improve a credit score information report, and

that is something we’re trying to protect the public from.

Steve Kooner : We are also on clause 1. There’s a certain latitude when you’re talking about clause

1 to talk about, essentially, the legislation. The legislation also talks in a broad

sense of what we’re trying to protect against.

This was a specific example, but this will be an ongoing theme through all the clauses,

moving forward. I know there’s a certain element. We can maybe tackle it once we get

to that specific clause, but understanding the mechanics behind credit score would

be helpful to understand throughout.

Now, I don’t have too many questions. It’s just one simple question of how much a

credit score can go up and down. I don’t think it’s too much to ask, just to get that

one simple answer so we can move on and get into other clauses, moving forward.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The answer to that question is: it depends. I would maintain that it’s beyond the

scope of this bill, but it does just depend, and there are proprietary formulas by

Equifax and TransUnion related to that. So I would suggest, to answer those questions

fully, that he would direct those questions to experts in the field.

The Chair : Just asking the member to ensure that his questions are relevant to the appropriate

clause in question and not necessarily to operational, mechanical questions in terms

of credit agencies. So just relevant to the clause. Thank you.

Steve Kooner : Thank you, Chair, for that. My effort is always to ask relevant questions. I think

if one asks relevant questions, it is of service to everybody that’s watching, but

I think we may disagree to what is relevant. So any question I ask — I feel that it

is relevant, and that’s why I ask it.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I will move on to further…. We talked about credit score and the meaning of credit

score, but it goes further: “It can improve credit score or information in a report.”

Now we have the word “information” right beside “credit score.” What would that entail?

Wouldn’t that just be that credit information that was just discussed by the Attorney

General?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Information report may include things like paying habits, income, things related

to repayment history or lending history that are not the credit score.

Steve Kooner : Going further down, in (iii)(B), we see “reaching the conclusion, acting reasonably.”

Now, acting has been qualified to mention acting reasonably. What’s the standard to

measure whether an actor was acting reasonably?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The determination of what “reasonable” would be in this situation would be one that

would be complaint-driven to Consumer Protection B.C., as the oversight body for this

legislation, so that would be up to them to determine.

The reasonable person standard is a legal standard that’s found in a lot of places

in law, and it essentially means: what would a reasonable person do in that fact scenario,

given those circumstances? It gives an ability to qualify behaviour with some kind

of a standard.

We didn’t want the legislation to be overly prescriptive in terms of listing or defining,

but we thought the reasonableness standard was a way to import that idea that would

capture behaviour that we wanted to capture.

Steve Kooner : Is it fair to suggest that the phrase “acting reasonably” is subject to

interpretation

based upon case law?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I mentioned before, it would be Consumer Protection B.C. that would be the one

that would oversee a complaint of reasonableness — or the courts.

Steve Kooner : Going further in this same clause, there’s a reference to “inaccurate.” When we look

at “inaccurate,” are we saying that we’re referring to “false”? Or is there a more

wholesome definition of “inaccurate”?

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

be.

Steve Kooner : In that same phrase, it says: “inaccurate or incomplete.” So incomplete…. If I made

the suggestion that we’re referring to half-truth, would that catch or would that

fit in the definition of “incomplete”?

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

[5:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Another scenario that I thought of…. We’re dealing with this framework here in (iii).

We’re talking about representations that may be made, and there may be false representations.

In regards to that, I can probably think about situations where people are putting

some representations out there on paper, but then they are putting next to those representations

fine print, saying that…. While they’re qualifying what they’re doing, if they’re

doing any sort of deceptive practices, they may say that this is not advice, or they

may qualify it.

Would this legislation, the way it is, also catch that? There could be some grey area

that some of these credit service providers can come out and put out a statement,

put out a representation, but then have some fine print, and then if somebody challenges

them and holds them responsible, they can say: “Well, look, no, that’s not the full

picture of what we put out. We actually did tell whoever we are providing services

to not to rely on that information per se.”

Does this also catch deceptive practices even after they’ve been qualified by some

of these credit service providers?

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

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner : The first question I’d like to ask about clause 2: what was the intent behind clause

2 and putting this clause 2 in here?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The amendment here seeks to ensure that the contract information is disclosed for

both credit monitoring service contracts and credit repair service contracts regardless

of whether the dollar value of these contracts exceeds the prescribed amount.

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

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

Steve Kooner : I think the last phrase that was mentioned by the Attorney General was “prescribed

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

The Chair : Thank you, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma : That refers to regulatory-making power allowing the government to prescribe an amount,

and it hasn’t been used yet.

[5:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : The prescribed amount would be determined by regulations. But what’s going to be

the process in terms of coming up with that prescribed amount? I understand that maybe

it comes through cabinet, but what’s the process to determine that? It seems to be

it’s going to have a significant role to play within this particular section.

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

amount?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Like anything that guides decision-making, particularly with respect to this, decision-making

would be guided related to consumers and their role in the marketplace.

The idea of what kind of contract and what prescribed amount to hit would depend on

proportionality of the amount of that contract. That would probably factor into the

decision-making. This is connected to the amendments in Bill 4 that had consultation

related to the implementation phase as well.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : Regulations are public.

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

I know that publishing online is a subject matter of another one of our bills that

we’re going to be looking at, but is there any further publication method, in addition

to it coming out in the regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Additionally, Consumer Protection B.C. has an educational role, and any time there

are new changes or updates to their role, they make a point of educating consumers.

Steve Kooner : Okay.

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

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : These two

definitions don’t relate to each other. They’re defined separately and

are meant to capture separate entities.

Steve Kooner : Going further into clause 2, we are dealing with subclause (b). It says: “In subsection

(1) by striking out….”

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

substituting?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : These changes were meant to bring clarity to the types of contracts that we’re referring

to. We want to make sure that no matter the amount, any contract related to a credit

monitoring services contract or a credit repair services contract is captured. The

striking out of “into a contract” and the adding “into an applicable contract” captures

that desire, along with the other change, the striking out, in this provision.

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

c) and (d)?

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

Steve Kooner : Okay.

In clause 2, we started off looking at “applicable contract.” When we’re looking at

clauses, we also would want to see the efficiency of those clauses, more so for activities

such as this, where we’re trying to protect consumers, to ensure that the little guys

are protected. We don’t want the little guys to have extra hurdles to be able to rely

on this legislation before us.

As a result of how this applicable contract has been defined in these regulations,

does the government anticipate any sort of increased litigation or administrative

complaints arising from disputes over whether a contract qualifies as an applicable

contract?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, we don’t.

Steve Kooner : Earlier, in clause 1, we were talking about clarity provisions. Now I just want to

make sure, in clause 2…. Is any content being repeated here in clause 2 that also

exists somewhere else?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The times that it happens, it’s clearly stated within it. It names the section, like

section 106(1),

section 112.34. This is a similar discussion to what we had previously.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner : In clause 3: “the heading to

Part 6 is repealed and the following substituted.” What

we have is a heading. It reads as: “Part 6, Credit Reporting and Credit Monitoring.”

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : This ensures that credit monitoring, for which the provisions are being added through

clauses 4 and 6 of this bill, is reflected in the heading of

part 6.

Steve Kooner : Is it fair to say this is more so for ease of reference throughout the statute, that

it doesn’t really have any procedural or substantive bearing behind it?

[5:50 p.m.]

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

Steve Kooner : So it serves as a purpose of clarity. What went behind there? What was the confusion

before? Was there a lot of confusion before having this in here?

Normally, we just have an ease of purpose, and you add a title. But here we’re actually

clarifying, adding clarity with the title. What was the problem behind it? Was there

confusion? What sort of data does the department have?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Asked and answered.

Steve Kooner : Would the Attorney General be of the opinion that now that this clarity has been

provided, that this is a fulsome clarity, that there won’t be any further issues in

terms of clarity?

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

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Steve Kooner : In clause 4, we’re dealing with….

Section 106 is amended and continues for some time.

Perhaps the Attorney General can enlighten us in terms of what the purpose was that

led to creating clause 4 here.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The expansion of sections 106(1) and (2) — they provide new

definitions. What that

does is ensure that

part 6 of the act has the context it requires for the addition

of credit monitoring, security alerts and credit freezes, as are added through clause

6 of the bill.

Steve Kooner : More specifically, when we’re looking at the definition of “credit monitoring services,”

why does this definition specifically include a reference to identity theft and fraudulent

use of the consumer’s identity?

Hon. Niki Sharma : These are examples of the things that we are exactly designing these amendments to

protect people from, and the credit monitoring service plays a role in that. So that’s

the risk of identity theft and fraudulent use of consumer’s identity.

Steve Kooner : Were these the most common types of harms that this legislation was trying to protect

against, when we’re looking at identity theft and fraudulent use of consumer’s identity?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : This definition is meant to…. It’s tied into a later-on clause that puts this obligation

on credit monitoring services to disclose to individuals what services related to

protecting them against certain harms, like the ones listed, are available to them

at no cost if they want to avail themselves of those services.

Steve Kooner : I see that we have “credit monitoring services” here. Then it’s followed up by “credit

monitoring services contract.” Does the Attorney General’s department foresee there

are situations where there would not be a credit monitoring services contract and

there would still be credit monitoring services provided?

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

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

What would that contract look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The contents of a contract would be something that Equifax and TransUnion and those

kinds of agencies would be able to provide fully to the member, I’m sure, if you ask

what their contracts look like.

What I can tell you is that through our Business and Consumer Protection Act and Bill

4, along with the changes here, we set with clarity what’s required to be put in that

contract. I think we had extended discussions about that, about the requirements that

we have in terms of contracts and what needs to be included on behalf of the consumer.

Steve Kooner : Is it fair to say that those contracts are going to be in writing? It’s been a while

since we debated that first part of this amendment, but I recall there may have been

something about in writing. I just want to confirm that.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : We talked a bit in my previous answer about Bill 4 and the requirements that we said

must be in a contract. In terms of the totality of what the requirements are, it’s

hard for us to imagine how it could only be an oral contract, because there would

be so many clauses in there that you’d either be talking to the person for a long

time or, obviously, that would require some something in writing.

But everything with a contract can be oral or written. You can imagine scenarios where,

although I’m sure that it’s a written contract that is the base of the relationship,

there could be oral discussions or terms that are agreed to that might come up in

that transaction. So it could be complicated by the situation or the transaction.

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

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

Steve Kooner : Sounds good.

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

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order where we are contemplating Bill 28,

and we are on clause 4.

Point of Order

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

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

Debate Continued

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

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

I note that we have a few

definitions here. We have “credit agreement,” “credit monitoring

services,” “credit monitoring services contract,” “credit monitoring services provider”

and “security alert information.”

Is there a reason why we only have five

definitions in this particular clause? What’s

the reason for only having five

definitions in this particular clause 4?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The only

definitions that we would add are ones that are necessary for the changes

that we are making related to credit reporting. These ones were determined to be in

that category.

Steve Kooner : I thought I’d clarify that, because when we started off with this legislation, we

had some duplication. Now when I’m going through each clause, I’m mindful of the fact

that there could still be duplication, and it just may not have been done in this

particular clause for clarity. The explanation that was provided was that duplication

was for clarity purposes back then. So I just had to ask that question.

The other question I have is: now, was there some sort of analysis that was done when

these

definitions were put in on whether any of these

definitions conflict with other

legislation? I guess, more specifically, there may be some overlapping federal jurisdiction

that deals with consumers as well. Was there some analysis done to make sure there

is no conflicting language or no conflicting

definitions in here that may conflict

with other legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes. That would be something that the drafters and legal team would do when they

are drafting any legislation. Because this is consumer protection in B.C., there are

no overlapping federal

definitions.

Steve Kooner : Going further into the last part of clause 4, we get into subsection (

c) here. In

subsection (c), it gets into kind of another definition. It basically says: “A credit

agreement includes a lease.”

[6:15 p.m.]

Why is “lease” specifically a mention here? It doesn’t come out as the rest of the

definitions. There’s a new subsection, and it says: “A credit agreement includes a

lease.”

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

Hon. Niki Sharma : Leases are defined under

section 57, and that’s an agreement for the hire of goods,

except an agreement for the hire of goods in connection with the tenancy agreement.

So it excludes tenancy agreements.

The reason that we thought it was necessary to include this is because of things like

vehicle leases that may play a role in…. It’s an area of risk for fraudulent accounts

and fraudulent activity but also important for credit rating.

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

General mentioned it really fast.

Could the Attorney General just clarify that? Which lease?

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

Steve Kooner : Land leases or tenancy land leases are excluded, so this does not deal with any sort

of real property. It deals with personal property.

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

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

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

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

I guess the first question I’ll ask is: what prompted the Attorney General’s department

to insert clause 5? What did the Attorney General’s department feel, or what was its

position? Why did it feel it was necessary to add clause 5 in this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s an important part of the amendments here. A security alert is a fraud protection

tool. Individuals can ask a credit reporting agency to apply this protection — you’ll

see it’s coming up in clause 6 — to create a requirement for anyone entering into

a credit agreement or prescribed transaction to confirm the individual’s identity

in person or by phone.

Steve Kooner : We talked about TransUnion earlier. In regards to TransUnion and this particular

clause, does TransUnion have an issue with this particular clause?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes. They have identified a concern related to the requirement here that’s “reasonable

efforts to contact an individual using contact information specified.” That’s something

they’ve talked about with us.

Steve Kooner : Perhaps the Attorney General can take us through why making reasonable efforts to

contact is an issue for them.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Any time we do legislation, I mentioned at the top, it’s about a balancing of interests.

I can tell you why we made the policy choice on behalf of consumers, which is the

driving goal, to protect consumers through this legislation, to do what we did.

We’re choosing to proceed with prescribing the means of contact for several reasons.

It provides individuals with certainty that they will be contacted by phone by a lender

before entering into a credit agreement and ensures that any and all lenders will

use the same contact method, and it provides the individual with control by enabling

them to provide their preferred phone number.

Steve Kooner : Would the Attorney General agree with me that by creating this legislation the way

it is, it creates a very rigid structure in how a credit service or credit reporting

agency has to comply?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, this provides the ability for a consumer to decide how they want to be contacted

and to have that respect of that contact at the appropriate time in this process and

that lenders will do that.

Steve Kooner : A lot of times consumers may have changed their address or their phone number or

their information of how to be contacted. I would put the suggestion forward that

there could be an issue at times, say, if contact information has been changed. There

may be an issue of how you comply with a rigid structure here when information for

contacting has actually changed.

Did the Attorney General’s department turn their mind to that aspect? What if the

contact information has changed, and now the credit reporting agency has to comply

with this but the information of contacting has changed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : In some instances, where people have changed their contact and may not have updated

their contact information, that will happen, and that can happen. In these instances,

the process is ultimately self-correcting, as it will necessitate the individual to

update their contact information with the credit reporting agency to ensure access

of credit going forward.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:25 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 2:13 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 32 — Mental Health

Amendment Act ( N o . 2), 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order.

We are on the amendment to clause 3 moved by the member for Skeena, which strikes

out “on the date of royal assent” and replaces it with “by regulation of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council.”

Any further debate on the amendment?

On clause 3 (continued) .

On the amendment (continued) .

Claire Rattée : I’ll keep my comments here brief, because I know I’ve spoken to the amendment already.

But just kind of in response to some of what’s been said around it….

I just wanted to take this opportunity quickly to thank the minister for working with

my colleagues and I on this and trying to find some common ground here.

I want to make it clear that I do understand the purpose and the intention behind

this legislation, and I understand that we have to take it very seriously to make

sure that we’re protecting health care workers and other clinicians when they’re administering

involuntary treatment, to make sure that they are protected. It is my belief at this

point, still, that there are ways to achieve that without this legislation.

This amendment, I think, is one of the ways in which we could achieve that because

it would provide a bit more certainty on the timeline, only when it’s necessary to

make these changes, pending what happens with the Charter challenge.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m hopeful that this amendment will pass. I think that it really, effectively, changes

nothing for the government to make this amendment, other than it gives a bit more

certainty for my colleagues and I to understand what the timeline is going to look

like and to make sure that it’s actually necessary changes that are going to be made

when they’re needed, rather than acting pre-emptively in the face of a court challenge.

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

on this.

The Chair : Members, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[2:20 p.m.]

Members, is there an agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Chair : Okay. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of

Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment to clause 3 moved by the member for Skeena, which strikes

out “on the date of royal assent” and replaces it with “by regulation of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4

Kooner

Botterell

Mok

Williams

NAYS — 5

Routledge

Osborne

Sunner

Lajeunesse

Gibson

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

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

Clause 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Just in closing, I would like to say, first and foremost, thank you to members opposite

for a good dialogue over the past three days.

I appreciate the respect and cordiality in which we were able to have these conversations.

I know we share the perspective that these are extremely serious and important matters,

and I just want to pass my respect on to my colleagues.

I also want to say thank you very much to the staff from the Ministry of Attorney

General and the Ministry of Health who have been here to support me.

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

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair : The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:24 p.m.

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, Child, Family

and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

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

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

On clause 3 (continued) .

On the amendment (continued) .

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

The amendment I’m bringing forward today would require the minister to prepare an

annual report, table it in the assembly and refer it to the Select Standing Committee

on Children and Youth.

The report would include the number of safety plans created; the number of children

affected; outcomes, including how many children remained safely at home and how many

were later removed; the reasons agreements were terminated; and various data, including

Indigenous identity, income levels and region.

This information is not burdensome to collect. MCFD tracks much of it internally now.

The difference is that today this data is not made public. Without public reporting,

we cannot evaluate whether safety plans are keeping children safely with their families,

whether they are being used consistently across regions or whether certain populations,

particularly Indigenous children and communities or low-income families, are disproportionately

affected.

We have heard concerns throughout debate that safety plans in practice can sometimes

be used under pressure, without clear documentation and without access to legal advice.

Transparency is one of the strongest safeguards that we can provide to ensure these

concerns are not only realized within the new legislative framework. Adding

section

19.10 will strengthen public trust, reduce the risk of safety plans being used as

a coercive tool, allow us to monitor outcomes for children and families, support UNDRIP,

align oversight through data collection and ensure that increased director authority

granted under this bill is matched by appropriate accountability to this House.

This is a responsible, measured amendment that benefits the children, families, Indigenous

communities and the ministry itself. It ensures that this Legislature can monitor

the real-world impact of safety plans, identify emerging issues and act quickly should

unintended consequences arise.

For these reasons, I respectfully move the amendment, adding

section 19.10, “Reporting,”

and I urge members on both sides of the House to support this amendment.

The Chair : Having reviewed the amendment, it