First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 112

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M227 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment

Act, 2025

Jeremy Valeriote

Bill M228 — Freedom Convoy Recognition Day Act

Tara Armstrong

Question of Privilege

Á’a:líya Warbus

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M229 — Low Carbon Fuels Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Peter Milobar

Members’ Statements

Contributions of Lori Walters to Boston Bar Community

Tony Luck

Burnaby Community Action Team

Rohini Arora

Christmas Events and Rotary Peace Garden Project in Richmond

Hon Chan

Buy Local Week

George Anderson

Semiahmoo Family Place

Trevor Halford

Good for Life Environmental Inc.

Susie Chant

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Oral Questions

Government Financial Management and Debt-Servicing Costs

John Rustad

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Government Action on U.S. Tariffs and Procurement Initiatives

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Tax Policies and Revenues and Government Economic Plan

Rob Botterell

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Content of Materials in Schools

Tara Armstrong

Hon. Lisa Beare

Government Position on Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

Support for Canadian Steel Industry and Steelworkers

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Horseracing Industry and Funding for Hastings Park Racetrack

Ian Paton

Hon. Nina Krieger

Speculation and Vacancy Tax

Linda Hepner

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Salvage Logging Permits for Timber Impacted by Wildfires

Tony Luck

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Support for Forest Workers in Cariboo-Chilcotin Area

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Electric Vehicle Policy and Targets

Hon Chan

Hon. Adrian Dix

Supportive Housing Facility Proposal in Abbotsford and Social Housing Priorities

Bruce Banman

Hon. Christine Boyle

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole

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

Brennan Day

Anna Kindy

Hon. Niki Sharma

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Rob Botterell

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Christine Boyle.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block : Mahatma Gandhi once said: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it

treats its most vulnerable members.” It is my sincere pleasure to make the introduction

today of two amazing people and the wonderful organization they represent in Victoria.

Kathleen Alexander is the operations manager for the Soup Kitchen, and she is accompanied

today by volunteer Rossana Bortignon.

The Soup Kitchen was started by Murray and Edna Black 43 years ago. They had seen

two men digging in dumpsters to get food, and they wanted to contribute to those less

fortunate. They started making soup, and here we are 43 years later.

The Soup Kitchen is located in the basement of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, yet they are

non-denominational. They offer food to anyone who is hungry in Victoria. They make

fresh, protein-rich soup each day. They make fresh sandwiches each day. And they are

happy to serve donated sweets and bread from Cobs bakery.

The Soup Kitchen consists of about 100 volunteers and one part-time operations manager.

They are almost entirely a volunteer-run soup kitchen. Diners consist of older folks

who live on a fixed income, the working poor, those living out of their cars and the

unhoused. We thank this wonderful organization for all they have done and continue

to do.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome, to Kathleen and Rossana, who are

here today.

The Speaker : Members, if you can keep your introductions short and concise.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We are joined today by another valued member of the public service. Billal Adam is

the capital information officer of corporate services and community capital development

within the Ministry of Infrastructure.

He is here today with his wife, Kendal Adam, and they are celebrating their wedding

anniversary. They have chosen to spend it here with us in question period, so let

us all please make them feel very welcome, and let’s show them a good time.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M227 — Business Practices

and Consumer Protection

(Greenwashing Prevention)

Amendment Act, 2025

Jeremy Valeriote presented a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection

(Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment Act, 2025.

Jeremy Valeriote : I move that a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Greenwashing

Prevention) Amendment Act, 2025, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Burning fossil fuels is linked to 34,000 premature deaths in Canada each year, a reminder

that the climate crisis is also a public health crisis. Here in B.C., we are already

living with the accelerating impacts of climate change: destructive wildfires that

choke our communities with smoke, flooding and droughts that impact our food systems

and watersheds and heat waves that put our lives at risk.

Yet despite this reality, greenwashing is everywhere. Companies increasingly describe

their products as clean, eco-friendly, low-emission or net zero without any credible

evidence. These misleading claims hide the true health and environmental risks of

fossil fuel use. They undermine B.C.’s climate commitments, distort public understanding

and delay the urgent action we need.

[10:10 a.m.]

Just as tobacco advertising was banned because of its impacts to human health, it’s

time to regulate fossil fuel advertising. When an industry’s marketing puts people

at risk, government has a responsibility to act.

Today I’m proud to rise and introduce a bill designed to curb false and misleading

advertising by the fossil fuel industry. This legislation is urgently needed as the

federal government prepares to weaken critical anti-greenwashing provisions in the

Competition Act. Without strong rules, misleading claims will continue to slow climate

action and confuse the public.

This bill establishes clear standards for environmental claims, requires peer-reviewed

science to support them and introduces meaningful penalties for false or deceptive

advertising. It ensures transparency and accountability so British Columbians can

trust the information they receive.

I ask members to recognize the value of evidence-based accountability and allow this

bill to proceed to second reading.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Jeremy Valeriote : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M228 — Freedom Convoy

Recognition Day Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Freedom Convoy Recognition Day Act.

Tara Armstrong : I move that a bill intituled the Freedom Convoy Recognition Day Act, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time

now.

The Freedom Convoy Recognition Day Act establishes a new public holiday in British

Columbia. The bill’s purpose is to recognize the achievements of the Freedom Convoy,

one of the largest peaceful demonstrations in Canadian history. It inspired movements

across the globe to stand against lockdowns and government overreach.

This bill designates March 11 as an annual statutory holiday in British Columbia because

March 11 marks the day, just seven weeks after the convoy began, that British Columbia

began rolling back COVID-19 mandates. Mask mandates were lifted. Faith communities

could meet again. Families were able to visit residents in long-term care.

Again, the purpose of this bill is to recognize the moment a divided nation began

to heal. I invite all members to join me in recognizing the achievements of Canada’s

Freedom Convoy by supporting the creation of Freedom Convoy recognition day.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Division has been called.

[10:15 a.m. - 10:20 a.m.]

Members, I would like to remind all the members participating remotely to keep your

cameras and mics on.

Members, the question is first reading of the bill introduced by the House Leader

of the Fourth Party.

[10:25 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 87

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

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Tepper

Mok

Chapman

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

NAYS — 2

Valeriote

Botterell

Tara Armstrong : I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I ask leave today to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Diana Gibson : Today is GivingTuesday, and in the House, we have two of the many amazing non-profits

that are the heartbeat of all of our communities.

First, we have a few members from the United Way: Danella Parks, Signy Madden and

Erik Lambertson. The United Way helps address many of the most pressing needs in our

region. I’ve had the great pleasure of working with them in the non-profit sector,

ranging from the Better at Home program to out-of-school time supports that many use.

In the House, we also have Melissa Masse, engagement specialist for Habitat for Humanity.

I had the pleasure of opening their Habitat for Humanity gingerbread showcase earlier

this week. They do an incredible job of building and providing affordable home ownership

across the region.

In a time of such rising costs and growing needs and increasing division, these organizations

remind us that the antidote to division is connection and that we build hope by showing

up for one another.

Thank you for what you do.

Finally, I also have a school here, Glenlyon Norfolk, from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon

Head.

Would the House make all of these guests feel welcome.

Question of Privilege

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise today to raise a point of privilege, and if it pleases the House, I could

give a brief explanation.

The Speaker : Go ahead.

Á’a :líya Warbus : Okay. According to provisions outlined in Parliamentary Practice, in

chapter 17, particularly 17.4, privileges of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia include individual privileges enjoyed by members only as a means to the effective

discharge of the collective functions of the House. One collective privilege includes

the right to regulate its own proceedings and own affairs.

It also outlines that parliamentary privilege does not exist for the personal benefit

of members. It exists to protect members in the full exercise of their parliamentary

duties on behalf of those they represent, their constituents.

Further to that, in

section 17.5, contempt of parliament is an offence against the

dignity and authority of parliament. An example given: generally speaking, any act

or mission which obstructs or impedes either the House of Parliament in the performance

of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House

in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce

such results may be treated as contempt, even though there is no precedent of the

offence.

Just to give a little bit more infill context, it states: “The Legislative Assembly

may treat as contempt any act or omission that, although not a breach of privilege,

may obstruct the Legislative Assembly collectively in the performance of its functions.”

[10:30 a.m.]

I would just like to say that the performative politics by such few members of this

House as to take up blocks of time calling divisions when a vote is clearly going

to pass on a voice vote and we have business that we’d like to finish — many people

have extended their time to be here so close to the holidays to complete really important

work and legislation that’s actually going to affect people in the province of British

House’s time.

I’d like a ruling on that or the right to potentially debate that point of privilege,

if the Speaker sees fit or the House sees that it’s due.

Dallas Brodie : May I respond to this point of privilege?

The Speaker : Go ahead.

Dallas Brodie : I would like to point out that a great deal of time is taken up each day in this

House with introductions and statements that largely waste a lot of time in this Legislative

Assembly. If there were going to be any cutback on what goes on here, that would be

the more appropriate place to curtail the time of members. We spend approximately

an hour every morning here with birthday wishes, love to our families, and so on.

That is really not appropriate for a legislative assembly, in my view.

What I would like to say is that if the presentation of bills is really what we’re

here to do — to present views that matter to the electorate and the people of British

Columbia — I would argue against this point of privilege.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the points, the comments by the Opposition House Leader and also comments

by the Leader of the Fourth Party.

I do think there is some opportunity to deal with some of the issues and, obviously,

the privilege issue that the member raises. Importantly, you’ve indicated that there

may be an opportunity — I know other members — when we’re actually all in the chamber,

on the ten minutes for example, for an easier ability to determine: is it time to

waive the time?

I’d ask the Chair to look at that and the points that the member has raised.

The Speaker : Thank you, everyone, for their submissions. The Chair takes it under advisement,

and the Chair will get back to the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M229 — Low Carbon Fuels

Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

Peter Milobar presented a bill intituled Low Carbon Fuels Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Peter Milobar : I move that a bill intituled Low Carbon Fuels Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first

time now.

The Low Carbon Fuels Amendment Act (No. 2) is very straightforward. In a time when

we’re under immense pressure with impacts from the United States and the tariff war,

we simply cannot afford to lose business to the United States or to have a drag on

our economy.

B.C. is the only jurisdiction that has a low-carbon fuel standard that will come into

effect for airline travel on January 1, 2026. This will have an impact immediately

to the B.C. economy. It is projected to cost anywhere to around $70 extra per one-way

plane ticket just to Calgary, and several hundred dollars just to get overseas.

In fact, a lot of other carriers are now seriously considering, with those extra cost

implications, moving their volume of flights that come into YVR, which provide a huge

economic impact and spinoffs to the whole province of British Columbia, down to Seattle,

Bellingham and other American airports.

At a time when we should be doing everything to bolster the B.C. economy, it does

not seem to be the right time to add that extra cost, which would actually detract

from our ability to have economic prosperity in British Columbia and, in fact, enhance

the viability of airports down into the United States.

This also would have a massive impact to our resort communities, ski resorts, things

of that nature at a time when we’re already facing international travel pressures

in terms of the added costs that would come.

We do hope that the government will take this bill seriously and call it for debate.

We could have this passed before we leave here and make sure that our airline industry

is staying competitive with the rest of the jurisdictions around us that will not

have this extra surcharge, as of January 1, applied to them.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Peter Milobar : I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[10:35 a.m.]

Members’ Statements

Contributions of Lori Walters

to Boston Bar Community

Tony Luck : It is always a privilege to be able to stand and talk about individuals in your own

constituency, ones that stand out. I want to take a moment today to shine a light

on someone who truly represents the heart and soul of small communities throughout

B.C., Ms. Lori Walters from Boston Bar.

Anyone who has spent time in Boston Bar or North Bend knows there is always a volunteer

behind the scenes making things happen. More often than not, that person is Lori.

She is one of those folks every rural community relies on, the ones who don’t just

step up; they keep stepping up year after year.

Lori has been the steady hand behind the Boston Bar North Bend Enhancement Society

for as long as most people can remember. As treasurer, she somehow manages everything

from hall rentals and maintenance to the shuttle bus program, making sure inspections,

insurance and safety checks are always done so that residents can get where they need

to go.

She helps keep the parks running smoothly, manages reimbursements and repairs and

still finds time to coordinate the Update community newspaper, which is basically the heartbeat of local communications in

the Fraser Canyon.

She doesn’t stop there. She serves as secretary-treasurer for the bowling association,

contributes to the CN station restoration committee and, every Valentine’s Day, Halloween

and Christmas, she and her family turn the Boston Bar Hall into something special,

something this community really looks forward to. That kind of effort builds memories,

especially in a place where volunteers truly make the difference between having events

and having nothing at all.

In small towns like Boston Bar, volunteers are the glue that holds everything together.

They fill the gaps, lift the load and make sure neighbours are cared for. Lori Walters

is one of those people — dependable, creative, generous with her time and never looking

for credit. She just gets things done.

On behalf of the people of Fraser-Nicola, I want to offer my sincere thanks to Lori

for her years of dedication and the countless hours she pours into her community.

People like her make rural British Columbia stronger.

Burnaby Community Action Team

Rohini Arora : On April 14, 2016, British Columbia’s provincial health officer declared a public

health emergency in response to the devastating rise in drug overdoses and deaths.

Since that declaration, more than 9,400 people in our province have tragically lost

their lives to toxic illicit drugs. These are not just numbers. They are loved ones,

family members, friends and neighbours. Communities across B.C., including in Burnaby,

continue to feel the profound impact of this crisis every day.

A few weeks ago I met with the community action team based in Burnaby, BCAT, who have

stepped forward in an extraordinary way. Formed to respond directly at the municipal

level, BCAT brings together first responders, service providers, community organizations

and, most importantly, people with lived and living experience and their families.

Together they work tirelessly to reduce overdose deaths, confront stigma and provide

essential communication, education, resources and harm reduction to support those

who need it most.

A central part of this effort is the community peer resources network, a peer-led

initiative that ensures that people with lived experience are not only included but

are leading our community’s response. Each week BCAT’s peer outreach team supports

more than 100 unhoused community members, providing essentials during extreme weather

and offering connection, dignity and compassion.

BCAT has also led anti-stigma workshops across B.C. and, in Burnaby, partnered with

schools and post-secondary institutions and delivered widespread naloxone training

to empower families, students and front-line workers with life-saving skills.

As an MLA, I am deeply grateful that an organization like BCAT exists in our community.

Their dedication, their leadership and their unwavering commitment to support the

most vulnerable members of our city embody the very best of who we are.

To the BCAT team and all the peers: thank you. Your courage and compassion save lives

every single day.

I know I’m out of time, but if you give me just a second, Mr. Speaker.

As we enter the holiday season, a time that can be especially difficult for those

who are struggling, grieving or feeling isolated, I want to extend warmth and care

to everyone in our community. Please look out for one another, reach out, show kindness.

No one should feel alone.

To all: I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy, safe holiday season.

[10:40 a.m.]

Christmas Events and Rotary Peace

Garden Project in Richmond

Hon Chan : I rise today to highlight some wonderful Christmas community traditions that took

place in my riding of Richmond Centre in the past weeks.

First, I want to recognize the Rotary Club of Richmond Sunset and their long-running

Winter Wonderland at Richmond city hall. This annual event brings together sponsors

and fundraising efforts to support important community causes, and it has become a

cherished tradition for many families in Richmond.

This year we enjoyed Christmas carolling with the mayor and the city councillors,

my colleagues the member for Richmond-Bridgeport and the member for Richmond-Queensborough,

along with local choirs and residents as we lit the Christmas tree together. It was

a beautiful reminder of the joy and unity that this season brings.

I’m also very excited to inform the House that the Rotary Peace Garden project at

Garden City Community Park is going forward. Through their fundraising efforts, along

with the support of their community partners, construction is going to begin in the

spring and is estimated to be completed in the summer. This peace garden will offer

a peaceful and welcoming space for reflection, community-building and unity, a gift

to our neighbourhood that will last for generations. I am also very honoured to have

the opportunity to personally sponsor one of their commemorative bricks for this project.

I also want to acknowledge the Richmond RCMP toy drive at Lansdowne Centre, an initiative

that helps ensure that children in need receive gifts and support during the holiday

season. This annual effort shows the compassion of our officers and the generosity

of the people of Richmond.

As we celebrate Christmas, I extend warm greetings to all families in Richmond and

across British Columbia. May we remember that Christmas is a reminder of hope, love

and a call to care for one another. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.

Buy Local Week

George Anderson : This week we celebrate B.C. Buy Local Week, a chance to recognize the businesses,

workers and communities that keep this province strong. Throughout British Columbia,

there are more than 540,000 businesses, the vast majority of them small and local.

These are places where young people get their first jobs, where families turn ideas

into livelihood and where communities build prosperity one customer at a time.

By purchasing locally, we strengthen the foundation of our province. Local dollars

stay local, circulating again and again, supporting jobs, sustaining neighbourhoods

and building the resilience that this province is known for. The evidence is clear.

Over the last five years, B.C. has seen a 2 percent increase in small businesses,

the third-highest growth rate in Canada. B.C. is a province where innovation thrives,

where entrepreneurs adapt and where neighbour supports neighbour.

At the same time, B.C.’s trade diversification strategy is opening new doors to new

markets and new exporters. We are expanding global opportunities while strengthening

our economic roots firmly anchored in local communities. That balance, strong at home

and competitive abroad, is how resilience is built.

But B.C. Buy Local Week is also a moment to reflect on who we are and how we show

up in the world. We are proudly, unmistakably British Columbian, a province that does

not aspire to be anyone’s 51st state but a global leader in our own right. Our economic

strength is homegrown. It comes from makers, growers, artisans, retailers and people

who are growing within our own communities.

The message is clear this week. Choose local. Look for the B.C. Buy Local logo at

your local store or market. Choose the local café. Choose the local bookstore. Or

as the Minister of Agriculture does every holiday season, give the gift of food and

wrap a bow around a winter squash.

Every local choice strengthens our community. Every local investment helps secure

a more prosperous and hopeful future for British Columbia. When we buy local, we build

local. We build opportunity. We build prosperity. We build a stronger, more resilient

British Columbia for generations to come.

Happy B.C. Buy Local Week.

Semiahmoo Family Place

Trevor Halford : As families in South Surrey and White Rock navigate the joys and challenges of raising

young children, one organization has stood as a steadfast beacon over three decades:

Semiahmoo Family Place. From playgroups that spark a toddler’s first friendships to

parenting workshops that build confidence in new moms and dads, Semiahmoo Family Place

has been the heartbeat of early childhood support in our community.

[10:45 a.m.]

It is also the longest-running and most accessed resource of its kind in South Surrey-White

Rock, serving hundreds of families with annually free, inclusive programming for infants,

toddlers and their caregivers. But today that lifeline is fraying, not due to any

failing on the part of Semiahmoo Family Place but because of cuts from MCFD that have

slashed vital funding and forced heartbreaking closures.

Forced to close during COVID, Semiahmoo Family Place adapted with online sessions

and park programs, yet the Ministry of Children and Families ended their annual contract

in 2022. The program was reduced and staff cut, and participation dropped more than

half. Executive director Alyssa Roberts now spends large amounts of time and energy

trying to replace the funds lost rather than developing programs and working directly

with families.

Semiahmoo Family Place did not choose to close. Provincial mandates left them no option,

yet they were penalized when this government walked away from them. Semiahmoo Family

Place isn’t just a program. It’s a proven model that prevents isolation, boosts child

development and strengthens families before challenges escalate. It’s a cornerstone

of our community, creating a vital network of resources by partnering with other organizations.

Semiahmoo Family Place is a highlight of our community, and I am encouraged by their

support. I stand with them today, as do all members of this side of the House.

The Speaker : Members, the Chair would like to encourage all members, when we are making two-minute

statements, not to talk about the policy issues but to celebrate your communities.

Thank you.

Susie Chant : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Susie Chant : Joining us in the gallery this morning is His Excellency Dinesh Patnaik, the High

Commissioner of India to Canada. He is joined by Mr. Masakui Rungsung, the consul

general of India in Vancouver. His Excellency is here on his first official visit

to British Columbia.

I hope that this House will make them truly welcome.

Members’ Statements

Good for Life Environmental Inc.

Susie Chant : I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm Nations, and I am grateful to live and work on these territories.

I also live and work in North Vancouver–Seymour, home to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations, who are always in my thoughts.

Today I rise to speak about Good for Life Environmental Inc., or GFL. Last June I

had the opportunity to join the state of California recycling tour during their visit

to GFL’s North Vancouver facility, and I was impressed by the scale, professionalism

and innovation on display. Headquartered in Vaughan, Ontario, GFL is the fourth-largest

diversified environmental services company in North America, operating across Canada

and through 18 U.S. states.

Known collectively as “Team Green,” GFL employs more than 15,000 people, including

many in very good-paying jobs in my riding. GFL provides essential services to municipalities,

homeowners associations and businesses, including waste and recycling collection,

bulky item removal, vacuum truck services, roll-off bins, commercial dumpsters and

soil remediation. But what truly sets GFL apart is its commitment to sustainability.

Equally impressive are GFL’s investments in workplace safety, diversity and inclusion,

employee well-being, education and community support through programs like Safe for

Life, Women in Waste and the Full Circle Project.

Finally, I will note that Senator Ben Allen of California was deeply impressed by

GFL’s North Vancouver operations and wholeheartedly supports their slogan, “Green

today. Green for life.”

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Members, before we commence the question period, I would like to give my ruling.

Hon. Members, on Wednesday, November 26, the official opposition House Leader raised

a point of order regarding the use of time for answers during oral question period,

specifically in relation to Standing Order 47A(b), which provides, in part: “Questions

and answers shall be brief and precise.”

[10:50 a.m.]

The Chair thanks the official opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader

for their submissions, including the additional written submission provided by the

official opposition House Leader on Monday, December 1.

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order. Ideally, that 30-minute oral

question period attains a balance of 15 minutes of questions and 15 minutes of answers,

though the standing orders do not prescribe a time limit for questions or answers.

The Chair has observed that questions and answers often vary in length and detail,

and the Chair appreciates that there may be a natural inclination to provide context

to a question or an answer.

The Chair has examined the use of time during oral question period during the fall

sitting period, and the data, indeed, reveals an incommensurate amount of time taken

up by answers provided by some ministers. The point of order by the official opposition

House Leader is therefore well taken.

The Chair expects ministers to take note of the length of a question they are responding

to and to strive to provide a proportional answer wherever possible. The Chair will

continue to monitor the use of time during oral question period and will aim to ensure

a better balance.

Oral Questions

Government Financial Management

and Debt-Servicing Costs

John Rustad : British Columbians are working harder than ever, and this Premier tends to be raiding

their paycheques in a desperate bid, quite frankly, to clean up his fiscal mess. So

30 percent of all income tax dollars in this province are now going just to pay interest

on his overspending — not on health care, not on housing, not on mental health, just

the Premier’s reckless borrowing.

As a matter of fact, the Premier is so addicted to tax money, the average household

is now paying $1,000 a year just to service his debt. In other words, instead of giving

a $1,000 tax rebate that he promised in the last election, he’s actually hit them

with a $1,000-a-year bill just to pay interest.

Why is this Premier forcing families who are struggling day after day just to put

food on the table and to put heat in their house…? Why is he handing billions, quite

frankly, to banks instead of actually having fiscal responsibility in this province?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

When we began our work in 2017, we inherited a deficit of hospitals, of schools, and

we began building. This work is important to British Columbians. We have built infrastructure

in this province that was very much lacking.

We continue to have reasonable debt metrics — five cents on every dollar. When you

compare our debt metrics to other provinces, you can see we compare favourably to

Ontario, to Quebec and to Canada. It is true that we have work to do to bring our

deficit down, and we are determined to do that work.

The Speaker : Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, $5.1 billion is going to be spent on interest now — and growing. But here’s

the interesting stat that maybe the Finance Minister has ignored. Almost half of the

amount of debt that is being taken on by this government, by the Premier and his government,

has actually been deficits, not the capital that this Finance Minister just talked

about.

So $32 billion in deficits versus $65 billion in debt. That is irresponsible spending.

That is not investing in the hospitals and in the roads and in the schools that we

need in British Columbia. Debt servicing now eats up, like I say, 30 percent of what

personal income taxes come in.

Quite frankly, it’s the Premier who should be fighting the affordability crisis we

have. Instead, he is the affordability crisis that British Columbians are facing.

Why is this Premier more interested in spending dollars on banking instead of actually

putting dollars back in people’s pockets so that they can afford to have food on the

table?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Here’s a news flash to the Leader of the Opposition. When you build hospitals, you’ve

got to put people in them to run them. When you build schools…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Members will come to order now.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : …we put teachers in them to teach.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It is very important that we continue to do the work to make things affordable for

British Columbians. And we have been — reducing costs like rent and ICBC, the biggest

reduction any province has experienced in the past two years. We’ve kept ICBC rates

low, saving drivers $500 per year.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Free prescription birth control. Child care fees cut in half.

I could go on and on, and the member knows it. He also knows that he would make different

decisions, and British Columbians would feel it.

Government Action on U.S. Tariffs

and Procurement Initiatives

Peter Milobar : It’s like the Finance Minister is unaware of all the closed ERs, ICUs and maternity

wards in B.C. currently that we seem to be under.

The Premier promised to cancel U.S. contracts and buy B.C. and buy Canadian. After

almost a year, his own ministry admits they have no list, no tracking, no data and

actually no idea what was actually, if anything, cancelled.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Peter Milobar : Now, Ontario actually passed a real law to protect local jobs, while this Premier

can’t even tell British Columbians if a single contract has actually changed, let

alone been cancelled.

Why did this Premier make such a big show of Buy B.C. and Bill 7 and all the requirements

this government needed when he didn’t follow through on any of it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Wrong. We are following through on all of it. Since April, we’ve been reviewing all

contracts with United States companies to decrease B.C.’s dependence on goods and

services from U.S. suppliers.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We have to do this work carefully. If we took an approach that banned all U.S. suppliers,

we would also lose B.C. jobs. We have to make sure we do this work and protect British

Columbians.

But this is very rich coming from the other side, who, in fact, stood up and wouldn’t

even take a stance against Trump’s tariffs.

Very rich coming from your side.

The Speaker : Kamloops Centre, supplemental.

Peter Milobar : There’s a snapshot in time we’re never going to get back, but I digress.

This is the problem with this government. They made a big deal about Bill 7 in this

House. They made a big deal about all the action they were taking. Yet when they’re

pressed to actually deliver and show the results, they can’t.

Maybe they don’t want to have an example of a Conservative government in Ontario taking

action, so let’s look at what the other NDP government in Canada has done in Manitoba

in that same time frame — not review; the actions they have actually taken.

They formally banned U.S. companies from government contracts. They did not renew

two electrical contracts to export 500 megawatts to the U.S. You know what they did

instead to support other Canadians as part of Confederation? They redirected 50 megawatts

of that to Nunavut, and they have plans for the remainder to go to Saskatchewan. That’s

an NDP government that’s actually taking action, not just providing performative words.

Again, when will this government actually provide a detailed list of all of the U.S.

contracts that have been cancelled or not renewed or changed or anything other than

the typical “we’re reviewing it” but actually taking action?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Wrong again. We are taking action. New procurement starting in May excludes U.S.

suppliers from bidding on these contracts, unless an exemption has been granted because

it’s a critical good or service or would lose B.C. jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We’ve got many examples already. An RFP for the province’s fleet management specifically

excludes U.S. workers. A maintenance contract for government facilities is now with

CBRE instead. Data hosting and data service centres with ESIT Advanced Solutions employing

B.C. and Canadian workers.

This member would have us pull our workers off of doing this important transition

and have them making lists. No, we’re doing the work.

The Speaker : Before I recognize the next member, I want to remind all members that using electronic

devices during question period is not permitted.

Tax Policies and Revenues

and Government Economic Plan

Rob Botterell : Everybody knows smoking kills, so many years ago, the government imposed a sin tax

on tobacco sales to discourage smoking, increase government revenues and relieve pressure

on our health system.

The second quarterly report on the government’s finances revealed that revenue from

tobacco taxes is lower than projected, in part because fewer people are smoking. This

is good news. The tax is working. It’s discouraging an unwanted behaviour.

Meanwhile, since this government cancelled the carbon tax, people are burning more

gas. Revenue from the fuel tax is up due to increased consumption.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. B.C.’s projected deficit is $11.2 billion.

It would have been 25 percent smaller if we’d kept the consumer carbon tax. What is

her government doing to get us back in the black now, not in ten years?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

We stepped back from the carbon tax to provide affordability for British Columbians.

This is a particularly difficult time for many British Columbians, and we’re seeing

it become more challenging. I know the other side loses their mind whenever we point

out that Trump’s tariffs are having an impact, but they are, and they’re having an

impact on people’s lives.

We will continue to do the important work on bringing our deficit down. We’re doing

it in a number of different ways. We have a full efficiency review underway. We’ve

put in a hiring freeze. We already know 96 percent…. Through attrition, we have 1,085

less workers working for us now.

We have to, at the same time, be deeply driven on growing our economy. That is the

work that we are so focused on, on this side of the House. The other side of the House

hasn’t been with us on this, but we must continue to do this absolutely integral work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : The quarterly report also shows B.C. is getting less money from natural resources.

For the past 175 years, British Columbia has been a resource colony. We’ve been told

that the only way we can make money is by digging up coal, cutting down trees and

shipping fracked gas to Asia.

But the quarterly report shows mining revenue is down thanks to higher extraction

costs and lower coal prices. Stumpage revenue is down because the trees and the valley

bottoms have been clearcut. Pine beetle and forest fires are devastating the rest.

My question to the Minister of Finance. In the spring budget, this government promised

that B.C. would become the innovation hub for the world. Why, then, has the government

doubled down on an economic plan based on old-world thinking?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is important to continue to invest in

our resource sector, but as the member rightly knows, there are incredible things

happening in our innovation sector.

We are seeing growth in that sector. We are seeing growth in our technology space.

We’re winning awards for clean technology. We’ve attracted Web Summit, which is the

Olympics of tech, in its second year in British Columbia, highlighting the incredible

work that is happening in our technology sector, which continues to grow with the

support of this side of the House.

Content of Materials in Schools

Tara Armstrong : Well, if you want your child to join a terrorist group, bring them to Vancouver.

Vancouver school board is reportedly promoting Antifa Comic Book . Antifa is the left-wing terrorist organization responsible for the assassination

of Charlie Kirk, the murder of U.S. immigration officials and unprovoked assaults

on journalist Andy Ngo and child protection advocate “Billboard Chris.”

[11:05 a.m.]

It shouldn’t be hard to condemn terrorists, whoever they are. I’ll do it again. I

condemn Antifa, and I condemn neo-Nazis. Now it’s the minister’s turn.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Will she condemn the promotion of Antifa

comic books in B.C. schools?

Hon. Lisa Beare : Absolutely, there’s no question that we want to ensure that kids in schools have

access to age-appropriate, safe resources. I want every single person in this House

to know that there are already policies in place — they exist in the schools all across

the province — to ensure that resources are age-appropriate.

We will be updating this policy guidance for boards, as there was some confusion around

existing policy. But I want the member to know that the policies exist. The safety

and security is there in place.

As always, if there is an issue with a particular resource, talk to the teacher, talk

to the principal, talk to the school district who holds these policies.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong : What terrorist organizations do is demonize people with opposing views to incite

hatred and lay the groundwork for violence. Antifa Comic Book teaches children that the Freedom Convoy was a “flashpoint for fascism.”

According to Ipsos polling, 46 percent of Canadians sympathize with the Freedom Convoy.

That’s close to 20 million Canadians.

My question for the minister is: does she agree with Antifa terrorists that 20 million

Canadians who support the freedom movement are fascists?

Hon. Lisa Beare : Again, these kinds of questions that are designed to divide the House and cause fear

and anxiety amongst kids and parents are just not helpful.

There are policies in place to ensure that there are age-appropriate materials in

schools. If the member has an issue with a particular resource, or any parent, they

are able to contact the teacher, the principal, the school district to have that resource

reviewed. There are policies in place to ensure review of these resources.

I just really wish the member would spend the time and energy in supporting kids in

schools, supporting the work that teachers and districts are doing to keep our kids

safe from this kind of dangerous rhetoric.

Government Position

on Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld : The Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta have established and signed a memorandum

of understanding regarding a new northern pipeline. The Premier of British Columbia

has not provided support for that pipeline, and he’s flip-flopping on his support.

Will the Premier tell us which route, if it’s not the northern route, he would actually

support for a new pipeline in British Columbia.

Hon. Adrian Dix : There is no pipeline. There is no proponent. There is no route. There is no plan.

Because shippers pay through tolls for pipelines, there’s no possibility of anyone

paying for the pipeline except for the public, something we have made very clear.

Our government’s job, British Columbia’s job, is to defend British Columbia. We are

doing that by promoting projects here in British Columbia that will bring real wealth

to people, not fantasy projects, not memorandums of understanding. They don’t create

anything.

What we bring here are real projects, like the North Coast transmission line, which

the member opposes. So 18 proposals we brought forward in February, 12 of which the

hon. member opposes.

We support economic development. That’s why B.C. is leading Canada in projects and

leading Canada in economic growth.

Support for Canadian Steel

Industry and Steelworkers

Kiel Giddens : Well, once again, more political spin for the minister responsible for no more pipelines

in this province.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s tariffs just wiped out 1,000 jobs at Algoma Steel in Ontario.

Their CEO was here in the building last week warning the Premier that this would happen.

While Ontario is fighting to protect its industries, the B.C. NDP is doing the opposite

— building ferries offshore, imposing policies gutting sawmill jobs and opposing pipelines,

essentially killing every opportunity for steelworkers in this province. Pipelines

are manufactured by Canadian steelworkers and manufactured and built by Canadian workers.

[11:10 a.m.]

While Trump is attacking jobs for working families from the outside, why is this Premier

helping him from the inside?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We want to do what we can to support steelworkers across the country. I can share

with the member that B.C. is leading that conversation.

We’ve created a table with major companies in British Columbia, met with the steel

producers that came here from Ontario and Quebec. My message to them was clear. We

do want to support their work. But in order to do that, we need to have a conversation

at a national level about how that will work.

We support the need for supporting steel in Ontario and Quebec, but we need to figure

out how it’s going to be transported here. We need to figure out how the costs are

disproportionately impacting British Columbia from that steel coming across the country.

We want to figure out how we can scale-up manufacturing opportunities here in British

Columbia.

We will continue to work with the federal government. We want to support steel, whether

it’s in Ontario, whether it’s in Quebec, whether it’s Alberta. We want to see more

capacity be built here in British Columbia as well.

Horseracing Industry and

Funding for Hastings Park Racetrack

Ian Paton : There are approximately 95,000 horses in British Columbia. Over 20,000 households

are involved in the equine industry. The equine industry generates an estimated $740

million in economic activity annually and creates over 7,200 full-time jobs.

This government sat back and watched Fraser Downs and Cloverdale close four months

ago. Now historic Hastings Park in Vancouver is about to meet its demise as this government

has pulled $10 million in casino revenue from this iconic racetrack. Thousands of

people will be affected both economically and emotionally around the province — breeders,

hay suppliers, feed suppliers, truckers, veterinarians, trainers and all of their

staff.

Why is this government willing to sit back and watch agriculture in B.C. continue

to die by a thousand cuts? Will this minister reinstate the gaming funding to Hastings

Park racetrack?

Hon. Nina Krieger : My thanks to the member opposite for the question.

Horse racing has a long history in our province. In recent years, it has faced very

significant challenges. There have been declines in the number of races, the number

of wagers, breeding activity and industry revenue. These have been declining for a

number of years.

The horse-racing industry presented a plan to the province that included a request

for significant additional funding to maintain its viability. So the ministry conducted

a review of the industry that included an economic impact assessment and engagement

with the industry, track operators, the B.C. Lottery Corp., as well as the cities

of Vancouver and Surrey.

While there are economic benefits that you noted, we found really significant concerns

with the financial sustainability and ongoing viability of the industry. This was

a very difficult decision, and I do acknowledge that it has impacts on the industry

and on workers in our province.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Speculation and Vacancy Tax

Linda Hepner : The federal government scrapped the carbon tax; then B.C. did. The feds scrapped

EV mandates; then B.C. rolled back.

Now they’re scrapping the federal speculation and vacancy tax. As usual, B.C. is late

to the party, doubling down on hiking theirs in 2026.

Why is this government still trapping seniors, single parents and families who are

never supposed to be targets of this tax?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Massive differences between the

tax that the federal government had and the very successful tax that we have in British

Columbia, which has been successful in bringing in tens of thousands of homes for

people into circulation.

It’s shocking to me that a representative from Surrey, in fact, could stand against

a tax that is providing homes for British Columbians.

Salvage Logging Permits for

Timber Impacted by Wildfires

Tony Luck : This summer thousands of hectares of timber burned in Fraser-Nicola and the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Mills are ready to salvage, but they’re stuck waiting for permits while millions in

usable timber rots because this government appears inept to manage the issue. Alberta

processes burned wood salvage permits within six months. Here it takes so long, the

wood becomes worthless.

Will the minister commit today to issue the required permits, and if not, why not?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The member should get his facts straight. We have been moving quickly after the 2025

wildfire season to look at working with industry, to look at working with the sector,

to….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The member opposite had a fire not too long from where he represents, the Mine Creek

fire. We’re actually salvaging from that fire, and that fire occurred in 2025.

There are tons of examples across the province where we are having difficulty moving

economically viable fibre. We are looking to address those challenges, but I can assure

the member that we are working quickly and efficiently with industry to move on wildfire

salvage opportunities that create jobs for contractors and create jobs in our pulp

mills.

Support for Forest Workers

in Cariboo-Chilcotin Area

Lorne Doerkson : Maybe the Forests Minister should get his facts straight. The Elephant Hill fire

burned in 2017. His ministry started to clean that up effectively last year, last

summer, so that is not entirely correct with respect to permitting in this province.

It still remains a massive challenge, and it’s one of the things that we could be

repairing in this province immediately to help this industry.

Recently announced closures of Drax and West Fraser have wiped out hundreds of jobs,

the latest devastating news in this decimated forest industry. The downstream fallout

has been immediate, with 27 families turning to local food banks at Christmas, and

applications continue to climb. Loaves and Fishes and 100 Mile Food Bank are overwhelmed

and pleading for emergency support at the absolute worst time of the year.

We just had emergency meetings with the Premier and many of the ministers last week

with respect to the challenges in my community.

What immediate actions have the Premier and this government taken to support Cariboo-Chilcotin?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : My heart goes out to the member and his constituents. I’ve had a number of conversations

with the member opposite about the challenging circumstances of 100 Mile and Williams

Lake. I’ve spoken to both of the mayors. I’ve spoken to the union president of the

100 Mile facility. I want them to know, as I want the member opposite to know, that

we’re going to stand with his constituents. We’re going to work very hard to support

them during these very difficult times.

We have been working hard on this side of the House to get the federal government

to the table. Because of the leadership that our Premier has shown not only in fighting

for forestry workers in British Columbia but fighting for forestry workers from coast

to coast to coast, we saw $2 billion invested in our forest sector.

We are going to continue our efforts to ensure that we are supplementing that with

supports from the province, focused on making sure that workers are supported. We’re

protecting their paycheques, and we’re building a stronger forest sector so no worker

is put in this position ever again.

Electric Vehicle Policy and Targets

Hon Chan : The minister said two weeks ago that the government would repeal the 2026 EV mandate.

The 2026 models are already on the sales floor, for a few months.

We have three days left in this session and have committed to working with this government

to scrap the EV mandate in one day, like we did with the carbon tax, yet we don’t

have legislation on the floor of the House to do this. Car dealers have warned of

massive job losses if this mandate stays in place.

Why is this government prepared to leave workers and the public in limbo for a few

more months instead of dealing with this before this session ends?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : B.C., of course, is leading Canada in EV sales because of much of the work that has

been done by New Car Dealers in our province.

With respect to 2026, all manufacturers are in compliance now, and if they are not

in compliance, they would have a waiver for 2026. We’ll be bringing forward legislation

in the spring 2026 session towards the future of EVs in B.C.

But I have to say that EVs in B.C. — which benefit our economy, which use electricity

we make in B.C. — benefit everybody in B.C. who can have access to them. We have to

address and continue to address issues of affordability, and we’re doing that and

continue to ensure that there’s a charging network in B.C. to ensure that more people

can have access to this extraordinary opportunity.

Supportive Housing Facility

Proposal in Abbotsford

and Social Housing Priorities

Bruce Banman : This NDP government is pushing on families a drug use supportive housing site beside

Abbotsford Traditional School in Martens Park.

Meanwhile, 75 percent of women fleeing violence can’t find safe housing and are being

forced back to shelters or, worse, back to the very same abusers, often with their

children.

If this government insists on taking away a park, why not make this project exclusively

for women and children escaping violent partners, or does this minister think women

and children just don’t matter?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I, of course, object to the way the question is framed, but let me take the issues

seriously, as they are.

We have been working closely with the city of Abbotsford. I want to give credit to

the mayor and council in Abbotsford, who have been doing an incredible job on delivering

housing for people in their community, including supportive housing for those who

most need it. We’ve been in conversation with the mayor and council about this particular

site and how it can meet the needs of folks who are vulnerable in the community. More

to do on that front as well.

I want to speak to the work….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle : My dude, this is your time. I’m happy for you to waste it.

I want to speak seriously to the work that this government has done on the women’s

transition fund and taking seriously, as I do, as all of us do on this side of the

House, the challenges that women face.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Christine Boyle : In 2018, we created the women’s transition fund with $734 million as an investment

over ten years to build and operate 1,500 transitional housing, second-stage housing

and long-term housing spaces for women and children fleeing violence. As part of this

province’s Homes for People plan, we’ve invested a further $1.2 million over the next

two years to double that work to 3,000 homes for women who need them.

We take this issue seriously. We will continue to do that work.

[End of question period.]

Tony Luck : I seek leave to present a motion to the House.

The Speaker : Member, maybe you can explain the motion, and then we will decide if you need leave

or not.

a process with all possible expediency to amend the Constitution Act of 1982 to include

express protection of private property rights.”

The Speaker : Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Joining us in the House from Langford is Happy Valley Elementary School. We’ve got

Sarah Stirling’s class of 30 students from Happy Valley, an incredible school in my

constituency.

They’re visiting the precinct. I’m not sure if they’ve had their tour yet or are going

to have their tour after.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Sheldon Clare : I seek leave to make a motion.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

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

In

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

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(continued)

The Chair : All right. Session is back in order. We are on committee stage for Bill 24, Vaping

Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[11:30 a.m.]

Brennan Day : Clause 4 deals with the Crown’s ability to prove liability using quantities of vaping

products sold, distributed or supplied. I just have a few questions here. We will

be going through these a little quicker today. We do have two amendments, but we’ll

try and not tie up too much more time on this.

The first question on clause 3 is: what data does the government possess that tracks

quantities sold by unlicensed or illegal retailers in the province of British Columbia?

The Chair : Just a second. Member for North Island?

Anna Kindy : Yeah. I had to go to the bathroom. I was going to talk about clause 2. But I….

Interjection.

Anna Kindy : Is that it? That’s how it works? I asked permission, and they said go. I’m new to

this. I actually literally….

The Chair : Noted, Member. We would require unanimous consent to return to clause 2.

So we’ll request to return to clause 2. It requires unanimous consent of the House.

Do we have unanimous consent?

Motion negatived.

The Chair : Member, we don’t have unanimous consent.

We’ll continue with clause 3.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We have had a few conversations about how this bill doesn’t distinguish between illicit

or non-illicit vaping. As such, the data related to the illicit market, I would suggest,

would be beyond the scope of this bill. But I would encourage the member to reach

out, maybe, to the Ministry of Health for data that they may have on that.

Brennan Day : We have discussed it before, and it’s been clearly stated by this ministry that this

bill will be used to go after the illicit market as well. I do feel it would be pertinent

to know that information.

Going back to clause 3, what expert evidence will be provided for product design,

chemical composition and comparative harm?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I can only answer that in a general way because there is no litigation at this stage.

Generally, when expert evidence is sought out…. It is experts that can provide this

particular type of evidence that might be related to the list that the member provided.

That would be, of course, a decision for the litigation team to make.

Anna Kindy : To the minister: when you require proof on the balance of probabilities as a causal

capacity, what evidentiary standard and types of proof will the Crown rely on for

each element?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : As mentioned in the question, it’s a balance of probabilities that would be the standard

that would have to be met in order to prove the case. Again, it would be a litigation

decision, but generally when litigation decisions are based on choosing experts, they’re

experts that are able to provide, based on their expertise, the types of evidence

related to products and their impact or health impacts in the process.

Anna Kindy : If you look at sort of the historical context of when people vape, people sometimes

start using nicotine products orally, and sometimes they start with having smoked

cigarettes, and other times they go directly to vaping.

With vaping — I’ve come across that in uncountable numbers — people were using it

to go from smoking cigarettes, which we know causes harm. Vaping products, which at

this point Health Canada considers harm reduction…. Looking at the amounts related

to harm caused from vaping, some people have smoked for five years, some people have

smoked for ten years, and some people have smoked for 20 years, and they subsequently

vape.

In that respect, how is the government going to account for that in their sort of

cost analysis of the health care?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Everything in this type of litigation is predicated on wrongdoing and — we’ve talked

about it before — deceptive marketing practices, like we found in the tobacco industry,

which underplayed the harm that the products were to people or specifically marketed

to people. We talked a lot about the uptake of youth in vaping as their first experience

in nicotine and that that’s a harm.

Just to say the way that the structure of this would work…. You can look at it in

this section. We would have to prove through litigation, if we were to bring it, that

the defendant breached a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation that

led to — you can read it — the use of or being exposed to vaping products that can

contribute to disease, injury or illness. It’s during all or part of the breach referred

to, so it’s all tied together in terms of the breach and the exposure aspect of it.

The defendant, under subsection (5), can bring their defence. So defence is about….

If it’s an argument that they may make about harm reduction and what role that plays

or, to the member’s question, whatever they may bring as evidence in that proceeding

related to that, that’s, of course, their right to do so.

Then it would be up to the trier of fact, so the judge in this scenario, to understand,

based on the evidence before them, what proportion of damage and results were led

to recoverability of the plaintiff, if we get to that stage.

Anna Kindy : I’d like to bring forward an amendment.

[ 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 : Okay. Thank you, Member. We’ll take a short recess to make copies of the amendment

and circulate to all members.

The committee recessed from 11:40 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair : Okay. We’ll call the session back to order.

The amendment is in order, and all members should have a copy of the amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, I don’t support this amendment. It’s for very specific reasons.

It actually creates a statutory defence if we add that here. Through the normal course

of a hearing, you would have the defendant’s ability to bring their own defences forward

about what they would argue, and I don’t think it’s our role, through the statute,

to presuppose and/or add what some of those defences might be.

I’m not sure, at this stage, that the evidence supports the addition of such an inclusion

in there in terms of its role of harm reduction. I think it’s up to people to prove

whether or not it has that role and whether that is a viable defence. So I won’t be

supporting this amendment.

Anna Kindy : We all understand the concept of harm reduction. I think the government sitting in

front of me understands, or thinks they understand, that concept and would support

that concept.

That concept means that we are hopefully reducing harm to the public, as well, and

reducing the actual moneys we need to recover, hopefully, because people are overall

healthier.

I think the duty of a government is to actually encourage harm reduction, as opposed

to behaviour such as smoking, which we actually know causes harm. We’ve got the data.

In terms of vaping, the data is not there in terms of the harm caused. I just will

sit on that, but I think it’s a mistake that that’s not taken into consideration.

It disincentivizes, as well, regulated products, people that are regulated that we

know will potentially cause less harm than the unregulated market. So we’re pushing

people to go towards the unregulated market by not incentivizing those companies to

continue providing a product that ultimately will probably decrease the health burden

to our health care system.

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

for North Island on clause 3.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Brennan Day : Again, we’re going to get back into the questions on clause 4 here.

The minister has said that there’s no way to track the quantities sold by unlicensed

or illegal retailers, despite the fact that 90 to 92 percent of the British Columbia

market for vaping products is grey or black market.

How does the minister intend to gather quantity data from the illicit market?

As the government has indicated, they are willing, under this legislation, to go after

grey and black market vendors, which include overseas online sellers, cross-border

smuggling, cash-based, under-the-counter retail and unregulated, high-nicotine pot

imports.

Given the government’s previous response, will the government concede that the quantity

data for illegal products is essentially unknowable in British Columbia and that 92

percent of the potential defendants will be immune from this litigation?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think there was a bit of a mischaracterization of what I said or have been saying,

so I’ll say it again.

The point is that we’re not differentiating between an illicit or a regulated market,

as the member suggests. Nothing in this piece of legislation differentiates between

the two. That has been my point. Decisions about litigation and how it shows up would

come after the bill was passed.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:50 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your patience.

The people I introduced earlier are now in the House. I just wanted to say I would

like to introduce the people from the Soup Kitchen. It’s the operations manager, Kathleen

Alexander, and volunteer Rossana Bortignon. Could they just stand?

Thank you so much for all your work.

Mable Elmore : The committee on Bill 24 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson :

Section A reports progress on Bill 32 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brittny Anderson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:34 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 32 — Mental Health

Amendment Act ( No. 2), 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2025, to order.

On clause 3 (continued) .

[11:35 a.m.]

Claire Rattée : I would like to move an amendment to clause 3.

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

as shown:

Commencement

3 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council .]

On the amendment.

Claire Rattée : If I can just speak to the amendment.

The reason I’m bringing this forward is because I do still believe this piece of legislation

is premature. This would provide not only the ability for cabinet to work with the

Lieutenant Governor on making a determination about when it is necessary to actually

bring this legislation into force but also, hopefully, to provide the flexibility

and ability for the minister to take a look at some of the supporting regulation that

could be brought in with this piece of legislation to help strengthen the understanding

amongst clinicians, patients and the legal community around what constitutes involuntary

care and how that is determined.

There are a number of different amendments that I had brought forward previously.

I understand that they were ruled out of scope here, but I do think that they are

important pieces that should be looked at. This would provide some flexibility.

Obviously, this does not in any way prescribe what the minister has to do with that.

That would just be my hope. But I do think that it would provide a bit more certainty

for the public and for clinicians and for patients alike to be able to understand

that these changes would not be brought into force until cabinet decided that it was

the right time to do that based on the results of the Charter challenge that is before

the courts right now.

The Chair : We’ll take a brief five-minute recess and return at 11:40.

The committee recessed from 11:36 a.m. to 11:39 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair : Good afternoon, committee members. We’re back from recess on Bill 32, Mental Health

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. The amendment has been deemed in order.

Minister, do you have any comments?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for Skeena for bringing this forward.

This really is about the timing of when the act could come into force, either royal

assent or, as the member has suggested through the amendment, by regulation of the

Lieutenant Governor in Council.

In practicality, what that means is an additional step whereby cabinet would make

a decision, an order in council, and bring the act into force. So it would possibly

extend that act of bringing it into force by perhaps as few as a couple of weeks.

[11:40 a.m.]

Government is ready to vote on this bill now, and we deem that it is most expeditious

that it be brought into force upon royal assent, again, with its focus on that conversion

of an implicit protection for health care workers to the explicit and more robust

protection in the amendment to clause 16. I will not be supporting the amendment.

Rob Botterell : I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Yesterday my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea

to Sky introduced an amendment to delay commencement of these amendments until 12

months after royal assent.

As part of the detailed response, the minister stated: “While I appreciate the argument

that the member has put forward in support of the amendment, I cannot support it,

because it is imperative that it come into force upon royal assent so that when the

court case is decided, regardless of the outcome, we can provide that assurance to

health care providers that they can continue that continuity of care for people who

are involuntarily detained under the act and provided, again, of course, that they

provide this care in good faith and with reasonable care that they are protected explicitly

from torts claims of assault and battery.”

I’d like to reiterate some of my previous comments. For decades, the way treatment

has been delivered in B.C.’s involuntary mental health care system has been through

section 31’s provision of deemed consent. References to

section 31 arise in the minister’s

own guidance documents over the course of decades and as recently as seven months

ago by the chief scientific officer.

The government has only recently changed its communication about the intent behind

section 31(1), stating that the intent is and has always been liability protection

for health care workers. With these changes, as the minister has pointed out repeatedly,

they are seeking to make the implicit explicit in the face of a court ruling still

to come that could determine

section 31(1) unconstitutional.

I note for the record that the court is scheduled to reconvene in January to finish

the court case. So there is no imminence to a decision of the court. And as I’ve noted

throughout the committee hearing here, it would be extraordinary if the court were

to issue a decision immediately upon the close of the hearing. As we’ve noted, both

of the parties to the litigation have raised a request that if 31(1) was declared

unconstitutional to have the effective date for that decision delayed by six months

at a minimum.

If these changes are truly in the interest of being responsive to the court case,

we are of the belief that this government can and should delay the implementation

timeline. By coming into force upon royal assent, the health system could face delays

in adapting to these changes.

The minister has stated repeatedly that, operationally, nothing will change, but we

know that forms will have to be updated. The minister has said as much, and this will

take time.

This amendment, which I certainly support, seeks to amend the commencement date to

“by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” If the minister wishes to be

responsive to the court case, then they can introduce an order in council to bring

this act into force at any time.

We don’t believe bringing this into force upon royal assent will be wise, as the potential

impacts on the health care system could be far-reaching, and, further, we don’t even

know how the court is going to decide, and we know with some confidence that there

will be more than enough time after the court decision to address court ruling.

For those reasons, we will be supporting the amendment.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.