First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, November 24, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 103

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

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Rosalyn Bird

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Extortion Crime Networks and Right to Safety in Communities

Macklin McCall

Sikh-Hindu Unity and Community Initiatives

Rohini Arora

Infrastructure Investment and Support for Industrial Projects

Larry Neufeld

Kootenay Gallery of Art, History and Science

Steve Morissette

Health Care Access for Women and Families

Kristina Loewen

Harm Reduction

Darlene Rotchford

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act (continued)

Hon Chan

Paul Choi

Macklin McCall

Steve Morissette

Ward Stamer

Bill M219 — Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025

Anna Kindy

Susie Chant

Brennan Day

Rohini Arora

Monday, November 24, 2025

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Lawrence Mok.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Rosalyn Bird : I would like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege regarding a piece

of correspondence that I received from the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Point of Order

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I rise on a point of order to seek a ruling on a private member’s bill and Standing

Orders 66 and 67.

Hon. Speaker, you recently gave guidance to this House, and as the Government House

Leader, I seek further clarification.

[10:05 a.m.]

Particularly, I rise regarding the admissibility of Bill M219 in relation to Standing

Orders 66 and 67, which read:

“The House will not receive any resolution stating an express or abstract opinion

of the House on recommending the expenditure of public money unless recommended by

the Crown.

“It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address

or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or

impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message

of the Lieutenant Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address

or bill is proposed.”

Hon. Speaker, in your guidance given recently, you did not mention the implication

of expenditure that is outlined in our Parliamentary Practice ,

chapter 12.5.3, where we are guided by a ruling from Speaker Brockelbank of the

Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan on December 23, 1975.

In Speaker Brockelbank’s ruling, they reference Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice , 17th edition, pages 781 and 782. Erskine May states: “The most frequent case of

expenditure of this type is that of charges upon moneys to be provided by parliament

for salaries and other expenses caused by the imposition of novel duties upon the

executive government by the legislation….”

Erskine May continues with the following examples of charges imposed. They include:

(1) the expense connected with the establishment of a new department; (2) the expense

arising out of the imposition of new duties on an existing department or authority,

and (3) a charge is also involved by any proposal whereby the Crown would incur liability

or a contingent liability payable out of monies voted by parliament.

For ease, my comments focus on the incurred liability that Erskine May points out

in point 3. Bill M219 contains subclauses 1, 19.03(2)(

a) and (d), which seem to require

health authorities to recommend health services anywhere and/or outside of a health

authority’s region. The bill, if passed, will impose significant costs on health authorities

and on government.

Analysis by the Ministry of Health on M219 on surgical medical imaging, cancer care

and cardiac care would cost, at a minimum, $413 million per year, which would not

include physician, capital or administration costs for health authorities or the Ministry

of Health.

A conservative analysis and modelling of surgical operations in B.C., conducted by

the Ministry of Health, has shown that Bill M219 would cost the system approximately

$240 million in operating time. This is based on the estimate that each hour of capacity

leads to $3,000 of expenditure. It considers the time spent in each part of the hospital,

operating and recovery, nursing, as well as supplies — for example, implants and consumables

used on each case.

In the case of hip replacement surgery, the out-of-province cost is estimated at $30,000

per case, and the out-of-country cost is estimated at $40,000 U.S. per case. If all

hip replacement cases that are outside of benchmark waits were done out of the province

but in Canada, this would be $75 million. Out-of-country costs would be higher. Similarly,

the same would be for knee surgery and other surgeries. Finally, in the analysis,

adding required cardiac cases out of province would be $57 million.

Hon. Speaker, it’s our view that this bill includes significant appropriations which

are not admissible under the standing orders. I ask that you provide a ruling on the

admissibility of Bill M219, at your earliest convenience, prior to its scheduled second

reading.

Peter Milobar : I didn’t realize we were already jumping into Bill M219 second reading debate, but

I thank the Government House Leader for that synopsis of his impression of the bill.

Obviously, this comes as news to the official opposition. Some of the

preamble the

Government House Leader mentioned would significantly impair anybody in this place

that is a private member from bringing a bill forward, because almost everything that

at one point he referenced has a cost, in terms of staffing costs as well. Almost

anything you try to do in government would have some form of government action after

the fact, if the bill were passed.

With that in mind — and the fact that with Bill M219, the earliest it could come up

for debate, I believe, would be next Monday — there doesn’t seem to be an extreme

rush for the Speaker to rule.

I would ask, on behalf of the official opposition, that we have time to review the

transcript of what the Government House Leader just presented and to provide our counter-argument

to the Speaker in a timely fashion, because rulings like this, as referenced by the

Erskine May example, can have long-standing ramifications in this place, in terms

of the ability of the opposition to properly do their job and to advance things forward

on behalf of constituents and other issues out there.

[10:10 a.m.]

I would ask that ability for us to try to get together a proper response to the Speaker.

The Speaker : Thank you, Members.

Thank you to both members for their submissions. As I understand, the second reading

of that bill may happen this morning. So the Chair will let the debate start, and

in the meantime, the Chair will consider all the submissions made to the Chair and

will make its ruling.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Extortion Crime Networks and

Right to Safety in Communities

Macklin McCall : Over the past months, British Columbians have watched something unfold in our communities

that is deeply unsettling, deeply dangerous and fundamentally incompatible with the

values of this province. Extortion, once rare, once unimaginable on this scale, has

taken root in ways that should alarm every single person in this chamber.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We are now seeing shootings, arsons, threats, intimidation campaigns, executions in

Abbotsford and organized criminal networks targeting families and small business owners

with a boldness that tells us one thing. They believe we will not stop them. They

are betting on fear and silence. They are betting on the idea that communities will

simply learn to live with this.

But British Columbians will not and must not accept that. This is not just a policing

issue. It is not just a court issue. It is not even just a crime issue. Extortion

strikes at the core of what it means to live in a civil society. It attacks the idea

that people can go to work, open their storefront, serve their neighbours and raise

their families without fear of violent retaliation.

That brings me to the truth we must speak plainly. This is not normal. This is not

acceptable. It cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every person the right to life,

liberty and security of the person. Security of the person is not abstract or theoretical.

It is the fundamental right to be safe in your home, your business, on your street,

taking your kids to school or opening your shop in the morning. It is the right to

live without fear of being harmed or terrorized.

When individuals and communities are living under threat, when business owners feel

they cannot report crimes because they fear retaliation, when people tell us openly

they no longer trust the justice system, then that guaranteed right is not being upheld.

The Charter grants the right; government carries the responsibility.

We must confront something many have been afraid to acknowledge. Organized crime networks,

domestic and international, are trying to make fear a currency in British Columbia.

They are testing the limits of our law enforcement, our courts and our community resilience.

They are seeing how far they can push before we push back.

In Surrey, extortion files have skyrocketed — more than 100 cases, including gunfire,

arson and direct threats to families. The human toll is staggering.

We saw that fear at the recent CBC town hall. People were not angry for the sake of

anger. They were pleading — pleading for safety, clarity, leadership and reassurance

that someone is in control. When residents feel so desperate that some speak of taking

matters into their own hands, that is a flashing red warning sign. It means trust

is broken, and once trust is broken, community safety erodes.

As the Public Safety and Solicitor General critic, I say this not as politics but

as duty. We must restore trust. We must show that British Columbia is not a place

where fear rules the day. We must demonstrate that no criminal organization, foreign

or domestic, will ever be allowed to intimidate our people.

[10:15 a.m.]

Restoring trust requires action: visible, effective policing; coordinated intelligence-sharing;

strong, consistent prosecution; clear communication with the public; and unwavering

support for victims. But above all, it requires recognizing that safety is not a privilege

for the fortunate. Safety is a right guaranteed by our constitution, owed to every

person in this province.

We cannot allow extortionists to decide who feels safe. We cannot allow fear to become

part of daily life. And we cannot allow organized crime to operate as though rules

do not apply to them.

My message today is simple. Every person in British Columbia deserves to feel safe,

every family deserves security, and every community deserves protection from those

who use violence or intimidation to control them. The people of this province are

strong, but resilience does not replace responsibility. The responsibility lies with

us, all of us in this Legislature, to ensure the systems that protect British Columbians

are strong enough, coordinated enough and transparent enough to meet this moment.

This is a defining test for public safety in British Columbia, and it is one we cannot

afford to fail.

Sikh-Hindu Unity and

Community Initiatives

Rohini Arora : It was the year 1675. A quiet yet earth-shattering moment was unfolding. The ninth

guru of the Sikhs, Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, made a decision that would echo across centuries.

He chose to lay down his life, not for land, not for power, not even for his own people

alone, but to defend the religious freedom of Kashmiri Pandit Hindus, who were under

threat of forced conversion by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

The guru knew exactly what his stand meant, but he also knew that truth is universal,

that courage is universal and that justice can never be measured by the boundaries

of identity. His martyrdom that day did not just protect Hindus. It carved a path

of interfaith solidarity so strong that it still guides us today.

This was not the beginning of our story, nor was it the end. When Guru Gobind Singh

Ji created the Khalsa in 1699, it was not only to defend Sikhs. It was to defend anyone

who needed protection — Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or anyone seeking dignity.

Sikh missiles later defended Hindu towns from Afghan invasions. Hindu families, in

turn, often raised their eldest sons as Sikhs — the tradition of the eldest becomes

a Singh — because families understood that the values of the gurus belonged to everyone.

In Punjab, it was common not to ask, “Are you a Hindu or a Sikh?” but rather: “What

values do you live by?” Even today in Sindh, Pakistan, many Hindu families proudly

call themselves Nanakpanthis, followers of the guru’s universal message, because truth,

love and oneness belong to no single religion.

The history is not distant. It is not abstract. It is alive. In this month of Hindu

heritage, right here in British Columbia, we saw it with our own eyes.

Fast-forward to November 9 of this year. Inside the Burnaby mandir, Swamiji led a

beautiful prayer in honour of Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s birthday, the founder of Sikhi and

the voice of universal compassion. I was blessed to be there witnessing Hindus and

Sikhs sitting together, praying together, remembering the message of naam, daan and

seva. It didn’t feel like two communities. It felt like one family remembering its

ancestor.

Then just a week later, November 16, the Vedic Hindu Cultural Society hosted a gathering

for Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji’s Day of Martyrdom. Hindu associations, United Sikhs and

senior members of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Abbotsford came together to honour the

guru, who gave everything to protect the freedom of others.

I was unable to go, but I asked a member of Burnaby East, Parikshit Tahlan, to attend

and convey my support. He shared how powerful it was to see leaders, elders, youth,

Sikh and Hindu alike, sitting side by side. There were no divisions in that room,

only gratitude, only admiration, only unity. That warmed my heart more deeply than

I can express.

Why does that matter? Because today in B.C. and across Canada, we cannot allow misunderstandings,

politics or distant conflicts to divide us. We have come too far together. Our ancestors

paid too high a price for unity, courage and freedom.

As someone born into a blended Sikh-Hindu family, I do not stand partially in either

community. I stand wholly in both. I am a product of the shared history, the shared

love, the shared path.

[10:20 a.m.]

And I know this truth. When we judge each other, when we distance ourselves from one

another, we are not walking toward enlightenment. We are walking away from the sacrifices

that built the very foundations of our spiritual traditions.

Our gurus taught us that no one is above or below. Our Vedas teach us that truth is

one. Our ancestors proved that unity is not a slogan; it’s a lived reality.

What do we do now? We honour that history, we build on it, and we protect it. We teach

our children that Sikh and Hindu stories are not parallel. They are intertwined. Remember

that we are more than neighbours. We are branches of the same ancient tree. And we

carry forward the spirit that Sikhs and Hindus alike embody, the courage to stand

for one another even when it’s difficult, the grace to accept one another, even when

we disagree, and the wisdom to see the divine light in every human being.

We will choose unity, not because it’s easy but because it’s who we are. We walk the

path of our gurus and our rishis. We celebrate each other, protect each other, support

each other and ensure that in B.C., Canada and beyond, the bond between Sikh and Hindu

communities remains a shining example of shared faith, shared values and shared humanity.

Infrastructure Investment and

Support for Industrial Projects

Larry Neufeld : I want to speak today about a crisis created by this government, one that threatens

the long-term prosperity of British Columbia and the future economic health of this

province. I am speaking of the collapse of investor confidence and the stagnation

of major industrial projects that have happened on this government’s watch.

For years, this Premier and his government buried this province in layer upon layer

of bureaucracy and red tape. They created permitting delays that stretch into years,

introduced regulations that shift so often, undermining investor certainty and politicizing

major project approvals to the point where proponents no longer know by which set

of rules they will be judged.

Now, after eight years of damage, they are attempting to backtrack and present themselves

as champions of getting things built. The facts are obvious. This government created

the problem, and in doing so, they have driven billions of dollars of private investment

out of British Columbia.

I reference forestry. Canfor’s permanent closure of the Polar mill and the cancellation

of a major reinvestment in Houston were attributed directly to policy changes and

regulatory complexity. That’s not partisan commentary. That’s the CEO of one of B.C.’s

largest forestry employers explaining why a major company can no longer justify long-term

capital investment in this province.

I reference mining, construction and infrastructure. The Vancouver Board of Trade

has warned repeatedly that regulatory burden and early-stage permitting delays are

stalling exploration, slowing construction and driving capital to other jurisdictions

where governments actually want investment to succeed.

Closer to my own heart, I would reference energy. The Independent Contractors and

Businesses Association has concluded quite publicly that this Premier’s accelerated

CleanBC plan is 2.5 times more damaging to B.C.’s economy than imposed U.S. tariffs

ever were. CleanBC has hobbled the economic engine of this province, increased costs,

undermined competitiveness and choked off private sector growth.

This government knows it. That is why they are quietly retreating from their own policies.

After years of insisting that a 100 percent electric vehicle sales mandate by 2035

was achievable, they now admit that it was not realistic. They have abandoned their

provincial EV rebate program and even walked back the mandate itself. Yet another

ideological experiment collapsed under the weight of reality.

While the government is retreating on EV mandates, they’re also scrambling to undo

the bureaucratic mess that they created: Bills 14 and 15, forced through this House

as last-minute attempts to streamline the very same permitting processes that years

were spent turning into an impenetrable maze.

[10:25 a.m.]

Nowhere is this hypocrisy of which I speak more clear than with respect to the current

northern pipeline proposal. While this government stands in front of cameras and claims

to support LNG and TMX, their policies tell a very different story. They delay permits;

add new regulatory conditions mid-process; create uncertainty around land access,

environmental timelines and consultation requirements; refusing to provide a clear,

predictable, decision-making pathway that major pipeline proponents require.

The result? Exactly what investors have been saying for years. British Columbia has

become too risky, too unpredictable and too unstable for long-term energy infrastructure

investment. And as the province dithers, other jurisdictions — Alberta, the U.S. Gulf

Coast, Australia — are capturing these projects, the jobs, the global market share

that should have been ours.

The Premier’s actions do not match his or his government’s words. They tell northern

communities they support jobs but have spent eight years erecting barriers to block

the very projects that would sustain those communities for decades. They tell British

Columbians that they support affordability while pursuing policies that drive industry

away and shrink the tax base that funds our very public services.

The official opposition Conservatives believe in a different path, a future where

job creation in the North is celebrated, not politically discouraged or only available

to a few.

Kootenay Gallery of Art,

History and Science

Steve Morissette : Today I rise to celebrate a cherished cultural institution in the West Kootenay,

the Kootenay Gallery of Art, History and Science, located in Castlegar, and to recognize

an exciting new

chapter in their journey.

For decades, the Kootenay Gallery has been so much more than a place to view art.

It is a gathering space, a learning space and a creative hub where local talent is

nurtured and where world-class exhibitions are brought to a rural setting. With a

dedicated board, passionate staff and strong community partners, the gallery has worked

tirelessly to ensure that artists, families and visitors all have access to meaningful

cultural experiences close to home.

Their exhibitions showcase regional, national and international work, giving emerging

creators a platform and bringing new perspectives into the community. They offer workshops

and public programming for people of all ages, from children discovering art for the

first time to adults exploring new creative skills later in life. Even their gift

shop plays an important role, supporting dozens of local artisans and helping keep

arts-based livelihoods sustainable in our region.

The Kootenay Gallery has always punched well above its weight in terms of cultural

impact, but today they are poised to do even more. Recently the gallery finalized

the purchase of a new building in downtown Castlegar. It’s a major milestone and a

transformative step for the entire community. Moving from their current site near

and engagement. It positions the gallery not just as a destination but as a cornerstone

of downtown revitalization and a catalyst for renewed economic and cultural activity.

This new location provides room to expand, more space for exhibits, workshops, studios,

community events, gatherings and collaboration. It opens the door to strengthen partnerships

with schools, local businesses and community organizations. And by renovating an existing

building rather than starting from scratch, the gallery is taking a thoughtful and

sustainable approach to growth.

This move is not happening in isolation. It is supported by a network of partners,

including the city of Castlegar; the regional district of Central Kootenay, area J;

provincial arts funding bodies; Columbia Basin Trust; and the broader community. But

perhaps more importantly, it’s happening because of years of planning, consultation

and visioning. The board, staff and volunteers took the time to bring people into

the process, to listen carefully and to design a plan that reflects local needs and

values.

[10:30 a.m.]

This relocation represents more than bricks and mortar. It reflects a belief in the

power of art to bring people together, to spark dialogue and to strengthen our sense

of place. It reflects confidence in the creative economy of the Kootenays and in the

resilience of our communities. It reflects a commitment to ensuring that culture is

not an afterthought in rural regions. It is the foundation.

As the project moves into renovation and fundraising, the excitement is palpable,

the potential is enormous, and the community is ready. I want to acknowledge and thank

everyone involved in this achievement — the board, the staff, the volunteers, the

artists, the funders and the supporters, past and present.

Your work is building not just a gallery but a legacy.

The Kootenay Gallery is creating a home for creativity, for learning, for gathering

and for belonging right in the heart of downtown Castlegar. I look forward to seeing

this vision come to life, and I’m confident it will serve the region for generations

to come.

Congratulations to the Kootenay art gallery.

Health Care Access

for Women and Families

Kristina Loewen : Across British Columbia, women and families are carrying a burden they should never

have to bear: fighting, sometimes publicly, sometimes desperately, for medical care

that should be there when they need it. We all know our health care system is strained,

but when women, mothers and even children must turn to the media, to MLAs and to public

pressure just to access the most basic care, the system is no longer strained; it

is failing them.

You remember Lyndsay Richholt, a young mother from Kelowna who has been on the liver

transplant wait-list for more than ten months. In April, doctors told her that without

a transplant, she had six months to live. Six months — an already devastating timeline

for any family.

October came and went, her time had expired, and still nothing had happened. Despite

her prognosis, despite the urgency and despite her deteriorating health, Lyndsay waited

and waited. It took media attention and direct MLA involvement before a date was finally

set on November 10. Her surgery is now scheduled for December 10. This family has

lived month after agonizing month knowing that hope depended not just on medical need

but on whether someone in the system could be compelled to act. No one — no one —

should need a media campaign to stay alive.

Then there is nine-year-old Charleigh Pollock, now ten years old, a child with Batten

disease, a rare and fatal disease, whose family was thrust into a battle no parent

should have to fight. Instead of spending their energy caring for their daughter,

they found themselves navigating bureaucracy, appealing, advocating and ultimately

going public so she could receive the medication that her medical team knew — they

knew — would prolong and improve the rest of her time.

A life-enhancing medication for a child should not require headlines before it’s approved.

Her parents did what any loving parents would do. They fought, but they shouldn’t

have had to.

Then we have the everyday stories that never make the news. A woman in Kelowna, likely

facing cancer, recently learned that the wait time for her diagnostic ultrasound is

six months — six months just to find out what she’s fighting; six months of fear,

uncertainty and potentially lost time, time that could mean the difference between

early intervention and late-stage disease.

A woman from here on this Island fled not once but twice to the U.S. to access life-saving

care, Torva Logan. Her story is public. She is speaking up because she doesn’t want

this to happen to anyone else.

These stories are not outliers. They are symptoms of a system that is asking British

Columbians to carry too much of a burden. Women, in particular, are being told implicitly

and explicitly to wait longer, to push harder, to accept wait times and delays or

to come back if it gets worse. Far too often, it does get worse.

[10:35 a.m.]

Women should not need to take binders of documents to be taken seriously. Parents

should not have to stand in front of cameras to secure care for their child. A mother

should not have to watch the calendar tick past her own medical deadline before the

system moves. Women should not have to run to the U.S. or Mexico to access care.

This is not what trust in the health care system looks like. This is survival through

advocacy, advocacy born not out of empowerment but desperation. British Columbians

should never have to rely on advocacy to access essential medical care.

A health care system is supposed to catch people when they fall, not make them prove

their worthiness or persistence before offering help. Lyndsay did everything right.

Charleigh’s parents did everything right. The woman waiting six months for an ultrasound

is told that help is not likely to come in time. Torva knows she is one of the many

that the system has failed, but she is one of the few that can still speak.

When British Columbians must rely on public pressure, political pressure or media

pressure to get the care they need, that is not a functioning health care system.

That is a system that is stretched past its moral limits.

Women and families in this province deserve more than words. They deserve timely diagnostics,

equitable treatment and a system that listens the first time, not after a crisis,

not after an exposé and not after an MLA steps in.

At its heart, the truth is painfully simple. It should not be this hard, not for any

person in British Columbia.

Harm Reduction

Darlene Rotchford : First, I would like to acknowledge that I am on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known as Songhees and xʷsepsəm, and thank them for allowing me to do the work I do.

I rise today to speak about harm reduction, what it is, what it is not and why it

matters. I do this because in recent debates, some members of this House have used

the term “harm reduction” in ways that misrepresent its purpose and, unfortunately,

shame the very people it is meant to help. I do not talk about harm reduction lightly,

just like I don’t talk about abstinence lightly.

As someone who has worked in the field for over 18 years, I have worked under four

different governments, so I can tell you that harm reduction works. I started my career

out working at the Sobering Assessment Centre. I spent a long time there. I then moved

on and was one of the original founders opening our Victoria Detox, a 20-bed program.

Fun fact. Before that, under the Clark government, we did not have a detox within

our hospital setting. We had a community detox that wouldn’t, ironically, even deal

with the people who had opiate addiction. It wasn’t until the Horgan government and

the investment that we actually had a detox in Victoria.

I then worked at the Sobering and Assessment Centre a little bit longer, then on to

our stabilization program. After that, I worked in our recovery programs. I bring

those things up, not just to talk about what I’ve done, but to loop in the importance

of, again, harm reduction, all the way to harm reduction, because you can’t have one

without the other.

Harm reduction is a public approach focused on reducing the harms associated with

substance use through evidence-based interventions. It is not controversial. It is

not new. And it is certainly not limited to people using illicit substances.

Let’s consider a few everyday examples. If you use a nicotine patch, chew nicotine

gum or medicate to quit smoking, guess what? You’ve done harm reduction. If you use

any type of anti-craving medication or cut back on your drinking to reduce your alcohol

use, guess what? Shocker. Harm reduction. If you’ve lived with chronic pain and rely

on any type of medication or other support to support your pain management, you, as

well, are practising harm reduction.

You cannot stand in this House and say you support workers and not support harm reduction.

These are normal, accepted and widely used tools that help people’s lives be healthier

and safer.

During my ten years, I saw firsthand how many people struggled with dependence on

medications. I can bet I’ve actually held the hands of the most people in this building

for people who, unfortunately, have died from the opiate crisis, but I’ve also held

the hands of people who have died from alcohol abuse. I have seen what alcohol abuse

can do to people. People who depend on pain management often do so because pain was

never properly treated or supported.

For much of my time with the Leader of the Opposition, who I served under in the Clark

government, many people actually fell through the cracks. They rolled back services.

They contracted them out. They made it harder for people in the public to access,

to actually get help.

[10:40 a.m.]

When you talk about those tradespeople you support, again, you can’t do it without

harm reduction.

I also witnessed what change can do when our government has access to evidence-based

care. I saw trade workers get back to work, health care workers get back to work,

first responders — who, again, the opposition say they support — get back to work,

and so many others.

Injured on the job, living with chronic pain or managing your addiction, you need

to receive the support. These people did receive that support. They received their

support through opioid replacement therapies like methadone and Suboxone.

I have seen seniors very successful on methadone medication for their pain management,

if properly administered and properly supported with evidence-based education. I’ve

watched people regain stability, return to work, reconnect with their families and

rebuild their lives because of harm reduction.

I stand here today with people who use drugs, people living with chronic pain, people

affected by addiction, because every single one of them deserves dignity, compassion

and access to care so they, too, can live a better life.

I will say this very clearly. On this side of the House, we will always stand up for

a public health approach that saves life, reduces harms and supports people in recovery

and well-being, because on this side of the House, we do support British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will continue second reading of Bill

M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras

in Commercial Vehicles Act

(continued)

Hon Chan : I will continue speaking on this M217 and the privacy concerns that I actually ended

with. Privacy concerns can be addressed through clear regulations on data use, storage

and access.

I have heard members on the other side express concerns about privacy or even hacking.

But let’s remember that there are already thousands of dashcams on the road today

and countless intersection cameras streaming live across many cities and highways.

Many vehicles, including Tesla sentry mode, have built-in recording systems saving

footage in USB storage locally. ICBC also collects thousands of minutes or even hours

of footage every year to investigate accidents. So if there’s a problem with that,

I would very much like to hear the minister responsible for ICBC explain whether,

based on their own colleagues’ concern about hacking, they are now prepared to ask

ICBC to stop collecting dashcam footage as well.

I also do not see why dashcam footage cannot be stored locally for just a short period

of time, a few days to a week, before it is automatically deleted as permitted by

law. This is not something new or unusual or difficult to do.

Furthermore, the bill includes a provision empowering the LG in Council to establish

clear standards through regulations, including the camera quality, recording duration

and, of course, privacy safeguards.

Members on the other side also raised concerns about out-of-province or out-of-country

trucks being unable to comply with our requirements. That argument is even more straightforward

to address. For example, Canada and the U.S. use two completely different speed-measuring

systems. Yet no one would suggest that drivers cannot comply with our speed limits

because of that metric difference.

If you want to operate in B.C., investing less than $100 to meet our safety requirement

is hardly unreasonable or unachievable. It is just a basic expectation. I hope this

addresses the concerns raised by the members on the other side.

However, I also want to acknowledge the government’s efforts to improve commercial

vehicle safety in recent years. We have seen many commercial vehicle–related accidents,

including overpass strikes and other serious incidents. The government has implemented

some measures, such as the maximum work hours to reduce driver fatigue, height warning

systems, maximum speed controls, etc. I believe these steps show how members of all

sides of this chamber share the same goal: making our roads safer.

[10:45 a.m.]

Today adding a dashcam requirement strengthens these results and efforts, and we are

more than willing to collaborate with the government to support this direction. This

bill is about safety, truth and accountability. It is about ensuring that when something

happens on our roads, we have facts, not speculation.

In closing, I urge this House to support Bill M217 and let us move beyond words to

action. Let us equip our road safety system with modern tools that protect lives,

clarify responsibility and make our roads safer for everyone. That’s motorists, cyclists,

pedestrians and professional drivers alike.

Darlene Rotchford : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford : I’d like to acknowledge that we have a lovely class joining me from my riding of

Esquimalt-Colwood. We have École Victor Brodeur joining us today with a group of grade

5 and grade 3 students.

I would just love the House to make them feel more than welcome.

Debate Continued

Paul Choi : Everyone who uses our roads and highways deserves to get home safely at the end of

the day.

Before I became a lawyer and an MLA, I served as a police officer, working on our

roads, pulling over unsafe drivers and responding to collisions in the middle of the

night. I have stood on the shoulder of the highway at 3 a.m. with flashing lights

behind me and twisted metal in front of me, trying to piece together what went wrong

so that a family could have answers.

I want to start by recognizing the member opposite for bringing forward Bill M217

and for his advocacy on road safety in the wake of serious crashes on Highway 5 north.

As someone who has written traffic tickets, knocked on doors after collisions and

later practised law, I understand why dashboard cameras look like an appealing solution.

As a police officer, I saw how video footage can help us understand what really happened

in those few critical seconds before a crash. Sometimes a short clip can clear an

innocent driver or show that a pedestrian never stepped into a crosswalk. It can cut

through conflicting stories and give investigators, insurers and courts something

objective to work with.

Bill M217 proposes to require all commercial vehicles operating in B.C. to have front-facing

dashboard cameras installed and recording at any time the vehicle is in operation.

On the surface, that sounds simple. More cameras, more evidence and more safety. But

as legislators, our job is to look beyond first impressions and ask three questions.

Will this actually make people safer? Is it fair and practical to enforce? And is

this the right level of government and the right tool to achieve the goal?

Our Ministry of Transportation and Transit has already been doing a great deal of

work to improve commercial vehicle safety. In recent years, government has brought

in some of the toughest penalties in Canada for overpass strikes, including large

fines, suspension of entire fleets and the ability for courts to impose very significant

penalties where warranted.

We have brought in mandatory entry-level training for new class 1 commercial drivers,

required electronic logging devices to reduce fatigue-based incidents, speed limiters

on heavy commercial vehicles to curb speed-related crashes and in-cab warning devices

to prevent overheight collisions. Despite the cost of these changes, industry has,

by and large, implemented them with professionalism and a shared commitment to safety.

Following the tragic incidents on Highway 5 north beginning in late 2022, the ministry

stepped up enforcement and safety improvements along the corridor. Commercial vehicle

safety enforcement officers have been on that stretch of road regularly, and they

have issued $1 million in fines to non-compliant drivers and carriers since early

Road safety upgrades like brushing along 70 kilometres of highway to improve visibility,

reduced winter speed limits through Fish Trap Canyon, rumble strips, LED curve warning

signs, overhead changeable message signs and the new road sensors tied to flashing

signage have already contributed to having fewer serious collisions in that area.

[10:50 a.m.]

At the same time, the ministry has been studying dashboard cameras on commercial vehicles.

Surveys show that about half the respondents from the B.C. Trucking Association already

use dash cameras today because they see the safety and liability benefits. Industry

has told us that these devices can promote better driving habits, support post-incident

reviews and even exonerate drivers who are falsely blamed for a collision.

As a former police officer, I absolutely recognize these benefits. I also know that,

both from police work and law practice prosecuting traffic violations, the presence

of a camera is not the whole story. Where is the footage stored? Who has access to

it? How long is it kept? And what else is it capturing?

Our independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised serious

concerns about dashboard cameras, under our privacy laws, including risk of overcollecting

personal information, faces of pedestrians, licence plates, GPS trails where people

travel, even audio of conversations inside and outside the cab. That includes school

buses and kids’ faces, potentially.

There are also risks when footage is stored on cloud servers outside cameras beyond

the full reach of our privacy protections, potentially vulnerable to breaches or hacking.

In 2024, an arbitration decision found the use of certain rear-facing cameras in the

workplace context to be unreasonable, underscoring that organizations remain responsible

for safeguarding personal data even when using third-party vendors.

There is another crucial point. B.C. would be the only jurisdiction in North America

with the legal requirement for commercial vehicles to carry dashcams. No province,

no state and no national government has gone this far except in limited training contexts.

That might sound bold, but it might also raise serious issues.

How do we enforce a B.C.-only mandate on out-of-province carriers rolling through

our borders? And what does this mean for harmonization with federal safety rules and

with our provincial neighbours?

As a former police officer, I know that any law we put on the books must be enforceable

on the side of the road at 2 a.m. in the morning. A requirement that applies only

in one province to vehicles that regularly cross provincial and national borders is

hard to police consistently and fairly.

We risk creating a patchwork where B.C. drivers and companies are operating under

different rules than the ones in neighbouring provinces and states. That has consequences

for competitiveness and for compliance and could result in B.C. trucking companies

simply leaving, setting up in different provinces and losing those businesses and

good jobs to other provinces.

We also have to think about cost. Depending on the system, installing and operating

dashcams can run from a few hundred to over $1,000 per camera, not just consumer cheap

ones that you can use. And that’s not including ongoing data storage and subscription

fees. For a small family-owned trucking company with a handful of trucks or a regional

carrier running on tight margins, that is not a trivial expense, especially if we

are not offering government funding to support it.

This is why the ministry’s advice is that any move towards mandatory dashboard cameras

should be led at the national level through Transport Canada or Canadian Council of

Motor Transport Administrators so that we have consistent standards across Canada,

a level playing field for carriers and enforcement tools that make sense cross-border.

My policing background makes me very open to technology that helps us catch dangerous

drivers and learn from tragic incidents. I have seen collisions where a few seconds

of video could make all the difference in understanding what happens. But that same

background also makes me curious and cautious about quick fixes.

A camera that helps an investigator after the fact does not replace good training,

strong enforcement or smart engineering on our roads. And the law that looks simple

on paper can be more complicated when we are the officers trying to apply it on the

roadside or the driver who has to live with its implications every single day.

I want to be clear. I share the sponsoring member’s commitment to safer highways,

and I’m grateful for the advocacy that has brought attention to Highway 5 north and

similar corridors. I support the ministry’s ongoing work to study dashcams, to improve

enforcement tools and to pursue a harmonized approach to our federal and provincial

partners.

[10:55 a.m.]

But after looking at the evidence, listening to privacy experts, industry and our

own officials, I don’t believe that Bill M217, as drafted, is the right path forward

for B.C.

For this reason, I will be voting against Bill M217 at second reading, and I encourage

all members to do the same, while staying fully committed to the hard work of making

our roads safer through strong training, smart enforcement, better infrastructure

and a coordinated national approach to new technologies like dashboard cameras.

Macklin McCall : I rise today in strong support of this legislation, because it represents a practical,

commonsense step forward in public safety — one that protects drivers, supports law

enforcement, strengthens trucking companies and, ultimately, benefits every British

Columbian who shares our roadways.

Commercial trucks move the goods that keep our province running. Those trucks travel

through dense urban corridors, through small towns and across long stretches of remote

highway, where there are often no witnesses, no cameras and, sometimes, no cell service

for hours.

When something goes wrong on those roads, when a collision occurs, when a reckless

driver puts others at risk, when a crime unfolds, evidence is everything. That is

why dash-mounted video cameras are so important. If a picture is worth a thousand

words, then a video is invaluable.

Video helps police reconstruct collisions, with an accuracy that simply did not exist

15 to 20 years ago. It helps determine what happened, when it happened and how it

happened. It shows vehicle behaviour leading up to a crash, the number of occupants,

the time and direction of travel, and key details that often make the difference between

a solved case and an unsolved tragedy.

It also protects commercial drivers, who are often the ones blamed, simply because

they’re in the largest vehicle involved, even when they’ve done nothing wrong. Video

evidence ensures fairness. It ensures accuracy, and it protects livelihoods. It helps

trucking companies reduce liability and insurance costs, costs that ultimately shape

the price of every single product that British Columbians buy. When collisions can

be resolved faster and with clearer evidence, everyone benefits, including consumers.

Now, I want to illustrate exactly why this matters, with an example from my own experience.

In my past career, I personally investigated a fatal collision on a provincial highway

in a remote part of British Columbia. It was approximately two in the morning, the

road was pitch-black, there were no houses, no street lights, no witnesses and miles

of trees and rock in every direction.

The only evidence available came from a commercial truck that had been passed moments

earlier by the vehicle involved in the crash. The vehicle had approached at a dangerously

high rate of speed. It passed the truck in a reckless manner and then disappeared

down the highway. Moments later the same vehicle lost control, fishtailed, struck

the side of the mountain and rolled over several times before coming to rest in the

middle of the road.

The next person to arrive was another truck driver, alone in the dark, going the opposite

direction in the middle of nowhere. When police and emergency crews reached the scene,

both truck drivers described what they had seen, but what truly allowed investigators

to understand what had happened was the video — cameras mounted on the front and the

rear of both trucks.

Those videos showed the dangerous pass, they showed the speed, they showed how many

occupants were in the vehicle, and they established the timeline when the car went

by the first truck and when the second truck came upon the wreckage. They documented

the moments leading up to the crash with a clarity that human memory simply cannot

provide.

Video, in that case, turned a tragic mystery into an understandable event. It ensured

accuracy, it ensured fairness, and it allowed investigators to give answers to grieving

families, answers they deserved. This is why video matters. These cameras protect

the public, protect the drivers and protect the integrity of police investigations.

There is another important public safety benefit I want to highlight: the role of

dash cameras in AMBER alerts and missing-person investigations. Commercial vehicles

travel every corner of British Columbia. They are often the only vehicles present

on long road corridors during the night or early morning hours. A dash camera on one

passing truck can capture what no human might ever see — a licence plate, vehicle

make and model, how many occupants, direction of travel and the exact time the vehicle

is passed.

During an AMBER alert, when a child is missing and every second counts, that information

is invaluable. It can be the critical lead that allows police to narrow a search area,

confirm a suspect vehicle, or issue real-time updates. This is not surveillance. This

is not government monitoring. This is simply the same as any private citizen holding

up a cell phone camera on a public street — perfectly lawful, fully constitutional

and already accepted across Canada.

[11:00 a.m.]

When applied to commercial vehicles already travelling our roadways, the safety benefit

becomes extraordinary, and it costs the province nothing.

Now, the government has raised concerns related to privacy and the applicability of

privacy laws, such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and

the Personal Information Protection Act. I want to address that clearly. The Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to government bodies, not private

companies. The Personal Information Protection Act applies to private businesses collecting,

using and disclosing personal information.

Dash camera video on trucks, video that records only what is visible on the public

roadway, does not violate anyone’s privacy rights. Why? Because people don’t have

an expectation of privacy when they are travelling on a public roadway. The courts

have been clear on this. This type of video is comparable to a citizen standing on

a sidewalk with a cell phone. People film in public places every day. A private person

can take a video on a street, and no law prevents that. A truck driver or trucking

company should have the same right.

Unlike government-held data, this video remains the property of the driver or the

company, not the state. The government will have no authority to access this footage

without lawful process. If police need it, they must remain Charter-compliant, meaning

the driver can voluntarily provide it or police can seek judicial authorization if

they believe the evidence is necessary and justified. This is how it should be. That

protects rights, that protects privacy, and that protects public safety.

However, I want to be absolutely clear on one point. If this bill passes, I do not

and will not support any future attempt by government to amend it in a way that gives

the state automatic access to this footage. The video must remain the property of

the company or the driver, because this legislation must never be used to compel private

citizens to hand over video without proper legal process. That balance between public

safety and rights is essential, and this bill achieves it.

Now, the government has said: “Well, no one else in North America is doing this.”

They argue that Ottawa should lead. They suggest British Columbia shouldn’t act because

other jurisdictions haven’t acted yet. This is not leadership; this is following.

We know this is a good idea. We know it improves public safety. The government itself

has admitted as much. So the question is simple. Do we wait for someone else to go

first, or do we show courage, show vision and lead?

British Columbians expect us to be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to protecting

lives on our highways. If we have the ability to improve safety, reduce collisions,

support police investigations, protect drivers and strengthen the trucking industry,

then we have the responsibility to do it. British Columbia has an opportunity to be

a leader in North America. We have an opportunity to set the standard. We have an

opportunity to do what is right, not because someone else did it first but because

it makes sense, it protects people, and it saves lives.

Let’s not wait. Let’s lead. Let’s be the province that steps up, not the one that

stands back. I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

Deputy Speaker : Recognizing the member for Kootenay-Monashee.

You’ve got about six minutes.

Steve Morissette : Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to private member’s Bill M217. I appreciate the intent behind

this proposal. It’s a great idea. The desire to prevent tragedies on our highways

and improve safety for commercial drivers and the travelling public — fantastic. I

do have concerns with the bill as drafted, and I cannot support it at this time.

I want to acknowledge the context that brought us here. In 2022, a series of heartbreaking

fatal crashes on Highway 5 north sparked important conversations about commercial

vehicle safety. Those incidents left families grieving and communities shaken. They

prompted meaningful work by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to strengthen

safety practices across the province.

Since that time, the ministry has been carefully assessing the potential benefits

and challenges of dashboard camera technology, looking at the evidence, speaking with

industry and studying what other jurisdictions are doing. And we’ve learned that dashboard

cameras do offer real benefits.

[11:05 a.m.]

Many carriers already use them voluntarily. They can promote safer driving. In some

cases, they can help exonerate drivers who did nothing wrong. About half of B.C. Trucking

Association members who responded to a recent survey already have dashcams in their

fleets.

But the conversation cannot end there, because the challenges are significant. Privacy,

it’s been mentioned, is a challenge. Most systems store footage on servers outside

of Canada, and the AI-generated safety alerts produced by these systems are retained

indefinitely by their U.S.-based vendors.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has warned clearly about the

risks of over-collection, the security vulnerabilities of cross-border data storage

and the need for strong legislative safeguards. Yet Bill M217 does not consider these

issues. It doesn’t offer a privacy framework: no data protection standards, no limits

on recording and no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.

The other challenge is harmonization. If this bill is passed, British Columbia would

become the only jurisdiction in North America, the only one, to mandate dashboard

cameras for commercial vehicles. That would create serious inconsistencies across

provincial and international borders.

Industry stakeholders themselves have been very clear. If dashboard cameras are ever

to become a requirement, the approach must be national, led through Transport Canada

or the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, to ensure consistency and

avoid creating a B.C.-only mandate.

A third challenge is practicality. For government to mandate these devices, we would

need new legislation, new regulations and clear operational standards. We would need

to address privacy, procurement, compliance, enforcement in the integration of new

technologies across thousands of vehicles. This is a major undertaking requiring collaboration

across provinces and territories in consultation with federal regulators and industry.

Finally, there are also cost implications. Depending on the system — yes, the province

wouldn’t face expenses — carriers would face expenses ranging from $200 to $1500 per

vehicle, not including installation, maintenance and subscription fees. For many small

operators, particularly in rural and northern communities, these costs are not insignificant.

All of us in this chamber share a commitment to improving road safety and preventing

tragedies, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that legislation is workable,

compliant with privacy law, aligned with national standards and grounded in evidence.

Bill M217, though well-intentioned, does not meet that threshold.

The responsible path forward is to continue our work with federal partners, with the

Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and with industry across the country.

A national, harmonized approach, not a B.C.-only mandate, is how we ensure fairness,

safety and consistency for commercial drivers and for the travelling public.

While I appreciate the member bringing forward this bill, for the reasons I’ve stated,

I will not be supporting Bill M217 at second reading.

Deputy Speaker : The member for Kamloops–North Thompson closes debate.

Ward Stamer : I rise today to speak in strong support of the mandatory dashcam bill legislation

that I believe represents a commonsense, modern and urgently needed step towards public

safety in British Columbia. Our highways, our communities and our justice system all

stand to benefit from this measure, which aligns technology with accountability and

puts British Columbians’ safety first.

[11:10 a.m.]

Every day thousands of drivers — commercial truck drivers, commuters, tourists, travellers

— travel our B.C. highways. And every day our enforcement agencies face the challenge

of piecing together what happened after a collision, near miss or an incident of reckless

or impaired driving. Too often these investigations rely on partial statements, unclear

witness accounts or evidence that is contradictory or simply unavailable.

Dashcams change that. They provide impartial, real-time footage of driving conditions

and driver behaviour. Around the world, they have proven to be one of the most effective

tools in modern road safety enforcement. In fact, trucking firms that have implemented

dashcams for commercial fleets have seen reductions, in some cases 50 percent, in

collision rates, fraudulent insurance claims and costly legal disputes. This bill

seeks to bring those benefits home to British Columbia.

This legislation is not about surveillance for its own sake. It is fundamentally about

truth. When an accident occurs, the truth should never be left to speculation. Dashcam

footage gives investigators clarity, gives insurance companies accuracy, and more

importantly, it gives victims justice. Too many families in this province have found

themselves fighting uphill battles after a collision simply because the evidence was

incomplete. This bill helps ensure that no British Columbians find themselves in that

position again.

Another critical aspect of this bill is deterrent. When drivers, particularly commercial

operators of large trucks, know their behaviour is being recorded, this tendency towards

risky driving decreases significantly. Studies in transportation sectors show amplified

improvements in lane discipline, braking distances and adherence to speed limits once

cameras are installed. For B.C., where commercial vehicles travel some of the most

challenging terrain in this country, from mountain passes to remote northern corridors,

the safety gains cannot be overstated.

This is also a bill about cost savings and efficiency. In recent years, ICBC has confronted

rising costs, complex liability disputes and a host of fraudulent, exaggerated claims.

Dashcams help address each of these issues head-on. By providing clear, indisputable

evidence, they reduce the length of insurance disputes, lower administration burdens

and ultimately contribute to reducing costs borne by every taxpayer.

This bill is simply not about compliance. It’s about partnership. The vast majority

of B.C. drivers are responsible, conscientious and committed to safety. This legislation

ensures that those who follow the rules are better protected from the actions of few

who do not. It leaves a level playing field for commercial carriers who already invest

in safety technology, ensuring they are not undercut by contractors who ignore best

practices. It strengthens public confidence in enforcement agencies by replacing ambiguity

with documented emphasis.

I also want to emphasize that this bill includes strong privacy safeguards. Footage

will be securely stored. Most of it is already on the cameras. It is not up on the

cloud. It is not in other jurisdictions where it can be data-hacked, and it is retained

only for defined periods and for legitimate or investigative purposes.

Furthermore, this bill complements and reinforces our autonomy in setting our own

highway safety standards. Across the country, provinces have adopted new technologies

to respond to increased traffic volumes, climate-related hazards and evolving patterns

in commercial transportation. We do not have to fall behind. Speed limiters are only

in Quebec, Ontario and B.C. It is not a federal responsibility. It is something that

B.C. embraced, and we’ve been able to do it very seamlessly.

British Columbians expect leadership when it comes to road safety, and they deserve

it. That’s why we should have bipartisan support in this House. Let’s take it to committee.

Let’s make sure that we can work out the nuts and bolts and make it legislation that’s

made in B.C.

In closing, the mandatory dashcam bill offers B.C. an opportunity to lead with innovation,

to enhance public safety in a meaningful way and to support our law enforcement partners,

to reduce insurance costs and deliver justice more efficiently. When used wisely,

it can make our roads safer, investigations clearer and our communities stronger.

Let’s take this step forward. Let’s give our enforcement agencies the tool that they

need, and let’s reduce harm, costs and raise the standard of safety in British Columbia.

For these reasons, I am proud to support this legislation, and I would encourage the

House to do the same.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is second reading of Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras

in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred

until 6 p.m. today.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the North Island member

to move second reading of Bill M219, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

[11:15 a.m.]

Members, the Chair will permit debate on Bill M219 to begin but will not put the question

on the motion for second reading until the Speaker has returned to the House with

a ruling on the point of order raised earlier this morning.

All right. Recognizing the member for North Island to move second reading of Bill

M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025.

Bill M219 — Health Authorities

Amendment Act, 2025

Anna Kindy : I rise today to speak to Bill M219, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025, a

bill born out of both my experience as a physician and my conviction as a legislator

that truth and transparency in health care saves lives.

Every single day British Columbians place their trust in our health care system. They

believe, as they should, that if they or their loved ones fall critically ill, the

system will be there for them. Too often that faith is betrayed, not by the skill

of our doctors and nurses but by a wall of silence.

Today patients are dying on wait-lists while waiting for life-saving tests and treatment.

A report commissioned by Second Street showed that over 4,500 British Columbians died

waiting for treatment in B.C. between April 2023 and March 2024, a staggering 34 percent

increase.

According to the Fraser Institute, wait times for diagnostic tests in B.C. have worsened

dramatically. As a physician, I have seen what those numbers look like in real life

— patients whose conditions worsen while waiting for care, families left holding onto

hope as precious time slips. They’re waiting in fear and anxiety. Time often is the

difference between life and death.

It is part of a growing crisis in B.C. Patients with serious medical conditions —

cancer, cardiac disease, organ failure — are waiting far beyond the recommended timelines.

In some cases, a delay is not just measured in weeks but in lost lives.

Part of the problem is that the system is stretched to its limit. Access to primary

care is still an issue in B.C. There are more than 1.2 million British Columbians

currently waiting to see specialists as well. Waits to see specialists can be measured

in months to years, and people waiting are not only suffering, but they also are dying.

These specialists do their best to triage and see urgent cases, but people often fall

through the cracks.

What we must remember here is it’s not only doctors and nurses, but there are more

than 70 specialized health professions that support diagnosis, treatment and recovery.

These professionals are exhausted, overworked, burnt out. Now one in three says they’re

going to quit. This strains our health care workforce and is one of the leading drivers

on the growing wait times that are costing lives.

What this bill does…. It’s simple. It’s powerful. It’s long overdue. It brings compassion

for patients, information to our health care workers and accountability to government.

It says that when a patient’s life is at risk, when a delay could mean death, they

have the right to know so they can seek life-saving assistance before it’s too late.

Under this bill, health authorities will be required (1) to determine the medically

recommended time frame for care; (2) to inform the patients if they cannot meet it;

(3) to provide options, including where the patients might seek equivalent care elsewhere;

(4) to report to the Minister of Health when patients die prior to receiving these

services; and (5) the Minister of Health is obliged to table a report every calendar

year that is publicly accessible on how many people in B.C. died waiting for life

services.

This bill is about respecting our health care workers. They entered this profession

to save lives, not to watch people deteriorate while trapped on a wait-list. It makes

it clear that it’s the system’s responsibility, not the clinician’s alone, to inform

and report.

[11:20 a.m.]

Here I’d like to talk to you about Brian Dally. Brian was an energetic father and

grandfather who looked much younger than his age. He had recently retired from a job

as a logistics controller for Suncor in Fort McMurray and moved to Nanaimo, where

all his family were, including his two daughters that are nurses and his six grandchildren.

Brian was very active — golfing, walking his dog and helping the family store.

On May 2025, he went to the ER with chest pain. Ten years previously he had two cardiac

stents put in. He was referred to a cardiologist, who he saw in July. That cardiologist

put a referral in to do an angiogram, which is a diagnostic procedure to see if blood

vessels in the heart are narrowed or blocked. During the coronary angiogram, a treatment

called angioplasty or stenting can be done to open up the block.

Brian was again assessed in a hospital in August for increased shortness of breath.

On September 28, three months after seeing the cardiologist, he received a letter

stating that he was on the

schedule for an angiogram and should expect a call within

three to six months.

On October 7, while in his vehicle, Brian had a cardiac arrest and was resuscitated

by a fireman. There was no neurological damage after his arrest. He was transferred

to Victoria where he finally got his angiogram on October 11, which showed a severe

blockage in many vessels of his heart and that he would need four bypass surgeries.

Unfortunately, he passed away on October 12. He was 68 years old.

It took over six months for Brian to get an angiogram after presenting to ER with

chest pain. Brian and his family would have looked for an alternative location to

get an angiogram if they had known he would die waiting.

The backdrop of this tragedy reflects a health care system that failed to support

the very people it was designed to protect. This bill is about bringing transparency

and accountability to the public who deserve to know whether the health system is

saving lives or losing them.

The importance of reporting cannot be overstated. This Bill M219 will require annual

reporting of the number of patients who have died while waiting for care. Right now

that number is not properly tracked. It is not published. It is only in whispers,

media reports, hallway conversations and sometimes if you look online.

How can we fix what we refuse to measure and report? The bill is rooted in a simple

principle: when patients are informed, outcomes improve. When patients know the reality

of their wait times, they can make choices to seek care in another health authority,

another province and another country if necessary.

By ensuring a provincewide database of wait times for diagnostics and life-saving

procedures that is updated in real time, it will enable targeted policy and resourcing

decisions by the health authorities.

Now I want to talk about…. First of all, I want to say that, as a physician, I took

an oath to do no harm. As a legislator, I believe that withholding information that

could save life is harm.

I’d like to talk about a success story of a patient who did find out. Her name is

Melanie Leeson. She was a very active 72-year-old when she was diagnosed with peritoneal

carcinomatosis in January of 2023. This is a stage 4 cancer from somewhere in your

abdomen that has spread to the lining of your stomach. This is a very poor prognosis.

New treatments have significantly improved outcomes, but time is of an essence here.

Melanie went through many tests and procedures, including a biopsy, in the next couple

of months, but all findings were inconclusive as to where the cancer came from. There

was a delay in the second biopsy. Her abdomen became more tense with fluid, called

ascites. She was in pain.

She saw on Facebook a woman with a similar issue who had been treated by a surgeon

in Baltimore. So being the go-getter that she is, Melanie contacted the surgeon in

Baltimore, and within days, had another laparoscopic biopsy, which showed late-stage

ovarian cancer. He told her to go back immediately to B.C. to get chemotherapy and

surgery.

Back in B.C., Melanie was referred to the cancer agency and told that it would be

a nine- to 11-week wait to see an oncologist. They told her that they would have to

cancel someone in their 20s for her to get in sooner. Melanie then contacted an MLA

she knew, and the appointment was moved to three weeks.

[11:25 a.m.]

She decided to go back to Baltimore anyways for her surgery, where they were doing

a procedure that had a better outcome and significantly improved five-year survival

rate, up to 45 percent survival rate for five years. This surgery was called CRS,

cytoreductive surgery, combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, or

HIPEC. She was told by her local B.C. surgeon that although the surgery had a better

outcome, it was “a lot of fuss and money for someone your own age.”

Melanie’s treatment in the States ended up costing $240,000. She had to fundraise,

go through GoFundMe. Some family friends donated money, and she used part of her life

savings. Melanie now is feeling healthy. She’s now being very active and climbing

mountains.

When people have information, they can act. They can advocate for themselves. They

can live.

In conclusion, the bill is about patients, families, our health care system, trust

and accountability. We may sit on different sides of this chamber, but illness does

not choose sides. It does not discriminate by party, by income or by region, and neither

should a bill that seeks to save lives. When a loved one dies waiting for care, it

is up to all of us to fix the failure.

I ask all members to see that Bill M219 is meant to protect all British Columbians.

Transparency is a lifeline.

Susie Chant : I’ll begin by respectfully acknowledging that I’m speaking to you from the Indigenous

territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Esquimalt and the xʷsepsəm.

When I’m in my own riding….

Deputy Speaker : Member, excuse me. I just want to recognize the member for Esquimalt-Colwood.

Susie Chant : Oh, my apologies.

Darlene Rotchford : No worries.

I seek leave.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford : I have another lovely school from my riding. Again, École Victor Brodeur is here,

the second group of class from grades 5 and 3.

Would the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : Thank you.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour continues.

Susie Chant : Good morning, students. Glad you’re here.

Moving right along. When I’m in North Vancouver–Seymour, I’m very fortunate to be

in the territories of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Peoples, and I am very grateful to be able to live and learn there.

I am also very eager to rise today as a registered nurse. I have decades of experience

in the health care system, and I’m hoping to critically discuss the purposes of Bill

M219, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2025, and the implications that it might have

on our public health system.

To begin with, I really want to thank the member for North Island for introducing

a bill that is about wait times and that is about a patient’s right to know when a

required health system service is not available to them locally within the public

health system and if other options are available to them outside B.C. or elsewhere.

However, I have not encountered a proposed law that would require a public administrator

to keep track of people who die because they are on a wait list. Not only does this

seem morbid, but it’s also pointless without understanding the cause of death. I’d

speak about the implications of this requirement and the concerns of privacy towards

the end.

In the first reading of Bill M219, the member said that the bill did not intend to

criticize the diagnosing of physicians for their recommendations. She went on to say

that doctors should be encouraged to be honest. In response to that, I’d say I’ve

worked with many, many doctors, and I know they treat patients with integrity in spite

of the stress of the system that they work within and are under and of the things

that they face every day with critically ill patients.

The stated objective of this proposed private member’s bill is to require the health

authorities to determine the medically recommended time period for providing health

services to patients with serious medical conditions. In this, it seems to me they

want to hold the health authorities responsible for any patients dying from the moment

they start waiting for a life-saving treatment to before the moment they receive it.

Start date for wait-time measurements was defined as follows: “Waiting for a health

service begins with the booking of a service, which is when the patient and the appropriate

physician agree to a service and the patient is ready to receive it.” Finish date

for wait-time measurement was defined as follows: “Waiting for a service ends when

the patient receives the service or the initial service in a series of treatments

or services.”

[11:30 a.m.]

Can you imagine how complex that is to track?

It also holds the health authorities accountable in a rather punitive way, let alone

the clients themselves, the patients themselves, the doctors themselves and the staff

themselves. Is the member proposing to transfer the responsibility for making clinical

decisions about a life-saving treatment from a physician to the board of a local health

authority?

I’d be interested to know if the member has consulted with her professional peers

when drafting this bill. If you are not a health care professional or if you’ve never

received major medical care — which is defined in the Health Care (Consent) and Care

Facility (Admission) Act as major surgery, any treatment involving general anesthetic,

major diagnostic or investigative procedures — you may not know that doctors and the

local health authorities work closely together to get patients the services that they

need.

Doctors make clinical recommendations for surgery. Medical imaging or preliminary

examinations by specialists might be required to determine treatment. A patient could

experience multiple wait times, and they must be willing and ready to receive care.

There are many people that don’t want to know. I have met them. I’ve worked with them.

They are challenging, and they may not be ready to receive care in the way that is

recommended.

If patients end up in the emergency department, they will be triaged. The health authority,

as a public administrator of health services, makes facilities and supplies and works

with the offices of the physicians and surgeons to coordinate the time of treatment.

Health care is a complex ecosystem. It requires everyone to work together. Just scheduling

surgery itself is a shared responsibility between health authorities and physicians,

with existing standardized wait-list management.

I’ve actually had the fortune in the last couple of months to tour not only the new

St. Paul’s in Vancouver but also the new Lions Gate tower in my own community of North

Vancouver. Both of those have made huge steps forward from when the original hospitals

were built before in how their surgical systems are set up and how their surgical

suites are set up, which is remarkable when I think about being a nurse 20, 30 years

ago and what we did around surgeries and what we’re doing now.

What’s baffling about this bill is that it requires health authority boards to make

determinations of the clinically recommended time period for patients to receive health

services. What is the logic for requiring people who may not be qualified to make

clinical decisions to take on that responsibility? One can’t help but wonder about

public safety.

With regards to establishing benchmarks and baselines, the federal government began

this work in collaboration with provinces and clinicians since 2005. According to

the Canadian Institute for Health Information, CIHI, the comparable indicators of

access sub committee developed a pan-Canadian definition for wait-time measurement

in 2005 that was adopted by the federal, provincial and territorial ministries. Therefore,

it’s important to note that working on establishing benchmarks and baselines began

two decades ago by the federal government and in collaboration with provinces, territories

and clinicians.

The member’s desire to request reporting by health authorities means more administrative

staff, and coordination with patients and physicians must be added. It will require

new work flows for triage, documentation and reporting. Additional reporting requirements

by health authorities may impact access to care for non-urgent patients, such as those

needing surveillance, diagnostics or less-urgent treatments.

Reducing administrative burden in B.C.’s health care system is a shared goal of many

organizations. The government established an Administrative Burdens Working Group,

which includes representatives from the health authorities, the Ministry of Health,

Health Quality B.C. and Doctors of B.C., to discuss ways to reduce demands on busy

physicians and their teams, including reducing administrative burdens such as the

processes and reporting expected in this bill. Preliminary analysis and modelling

show that Bill M219 will impose hundreds of millions of dollars per year across the

health system.

The other purpose of this bill is to compel the public administrator of our health

services, the health authorities, to notify patients when services cannot be delivered

within a recommended time frame.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’ve talked to many patients and constituents dealing with serious medical conditions.

Those who are attached to a primary care or medical team are usually in good hands

compared to those who are not. People understand that they can consult with their

care team for clinical and treatment discussions and decisions.

As a nurse, I can tell you that having access to primary care is critically important

for early detection of illness and getting treatment. That is why our government has

made significant investment to improve access to primary care, from training and recruiting

more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, to establishing UPCCs, nurse

practitioner clinics and community health centres.

I also know that most people can feel stressed when they are sick and waiting for

treatment, which is why I’m opposed to the proposed idea of sending patients a note

when timely care is unmet. It can create negative feelings and worries for patients

and cause them to be disappointed in the health system.

Let me be clear. Reducing diagnostic, treatment, surgical and hospital wait times

is a complex challenge because it affects every aspect of how health services are

delivered.

In British Columbia, the Provincial Health Services Authority, PHSA, provides provincial

coordination of many specialized clinical services, including cancer, cardiac and

transplant services. It is governed by the B.C. Society Act and PHSA constitution

and bylaws. Amendments to the Health Authorities Act would apply legislative mandates

to the regional health authorities for services that fall under the scope and the

responsibility of the province.

In conclusion, I am opposed to the spirit and the goals of M219 because it mandates

additional reporting and notification requirements which will strain resources and

complicate defining medically recommended timetables. It will violate….

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Brennan Day : I’d just like to take a moment to respond to the member.

We are disappointed on this side of the House, and in saying that, I speak for all

British Columbians and the 1.4 million British Columbians that are currently without

a primary care physician.

Firstly, we have to understand that you cannot resource what you do not track. This

is the primary importance of this bill. The government earlier today suggested liability

because of the scope of this problem — nearly $1 billion, I heard cited this morning.

That is the scope of the problem we are dealing with here in British Columbia, of

British Columbians not being seen in a timely manner and dying on wait-lists.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague the member for North Island for bringing

Bill M219 forward. She’s taken her experience, her compassion and her frustration

with a system that hides more than it reveals and turned it into real legislation

that will save lives. That’s what leadership looks like in this chamber. She’s worked

in it, and she’s experienced it. That alone should add significant weight to this

bill’s ultimate importance.

The government’s concerns add weight to this urgency, and the scope of the problem

they outlined today underscores the need for this bill. This bill is built on one

clear principle. When people are fighting for their lives, they deserve the truth,

not spin, not silence, not a polite brush-off from bureaucracy — the truth. I can

tell you that truth is urgently needed in the Comox Valley and across this province.

We are living through a health care crisis where families are being left to guess

— guess how long they’ll wait for a scan, guess whether the ICU will be open in their

riding, guess if they will be seen in time. Transparency is not a luxury. It’s the

bare minimum British Columbians deserve in delivering publicly funded health care.

People stop me on 5th Street or at the grocery store because they’re desperate for

answers. They’re not asking for perfect. They’re asking for honesty. “Should we go

to Nanaimo?” “Should we go to Victoria?” “What do I need to do?” “How long until my

father can get that MRI?” “Did the specialist even receive my referral?” “Are we even

on the right wait-list?” These are life-and-death questions. Right now this system

leaves families in the dark.

I’ll give you a personal example, and it’s not serious. My son, who was four at the

time, needed a simple tubal ligation for a plugged ear, a 30-second procedure. We’re

lucky enough to have a family doctor, but despite that, we waited 18 months for a

referral to go through to an ENT.

[11:40 a.m.]

Over that time, his eardrum ruptured, putting him at serious risk of losing hearing

in that ear. At the time, I was livid, as any parent would be. I still am. That wasn’t

life-threatening, but it may have been life-altering for him and us. Had we known

in advance how long it was going to take to be seen, we would have looked at other

options, as any parent would have.

There are thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of stories like this across British

Columbia, and I would encourage those British Columbians to send them to us so that

we can bring them forward in this chamber.

We wait to see a GP, then we wait to see a specialist for a referral, then we wait

to get a diagnostic test, and then we wait again. In cases where waiting has a serious

risk of poor outcomes or death, waiting is not an option. These are people’s lives,

and they should have full knowledge and control of their health care options.

The member for North Island laid out the numbers — nearly 100,000 people waiting for

surgery, tens of thousands waiting for CTs and MRIs, and we know what’s happening

in rural and coastal communities like mine.

In Campbell River, patients wait over a year and a half for a simple pacemaker procedure.

On the north Island, life expectancy is now nine years lower than on the south Island,

where we stand today, not because people are less deserving but because access to

timely care simply is not there. We jokingly call Vancouver Island “God’s waiting

room,” but it is, unfortunately, closer to reality these days than we’d like to admit

to ourselves.

One of my own good friends, Mel, had a parent preventively pass away recently due

to the delays in receiving a simple colonoscopy following the loss of a family doctor.

Despite requiring the procedure annually due to a pre-existing condition, a preventable

diagnosis was missed, too late.

For Mel, the death was tragic, preventable and avoidable. Had the system worked as

it was intended, her father would be alive today. Had the system let her know there

would be a delay, they would have sought other options.

We have to stop protecting a broken system at the expense of patients like Mel’s father.

When care is delayed, tragic outcomes like this are preventable, and when we aren’t

told the truth, they can’t act. They can’t travel for care. They can’t make alternative

plans. They can’t get their wills in order. They can’t advocate for themselves. They’re

stuck waiting, hoping, praying that the phone will ring before it’s too late.

This bill attempts to fix that. It requires health authorities to tell patients the

medically recommended time frame for a procedure. It requires them to notify people

when they can’t meet it. It requires them to present options, real options, when delays

will put somebody’s life at risk. It requires them to report, publicly and openly,

when British Columbians die on public wait-lists. That’s respect, that’s dignity,

and that’s accountability.

Our front-line workers want this. They’re exhausted. They carry the moral injury of

calling families too late. They want a system that supports honesty, not one that

forces silence. This bill shifts the burden off individual clinicians and puts responsibility

directly where it belongs, on the health authorities and squarely on the Ministry

of Health for its failings.

In the Comox Valley, we’ve seen what the member for North Island is trying to address

— the sudden hospice cuts, the quiet ICU closure risks, years-long delays for specialists

and families left scrambling, not because care isn’t available somewhere but because

no one told them the truth soon enough to seek it.

This bill, let me be clear, will not solve every problem in our broken health care

system, but it gives people something they have not had in years — clarity, transparency

and the ability to rebuild trust in our broken system. It gives rural, coastal and

northern families a fighting chance. It gives seniors and caregivers the information

they need to make life-altering decisions. It forces everyone in this system, all

the way up to the minister, to confront the reality that people are dying while waiting.

We owe British Columbians a health care system that respects them enough to be honest.

That’s what Bill M219 delivers. It’s practical, it’s simple, it’s compassionate, and

it’s necessary. This bill may make the health authorities uncomfortable. I am sure

the government benches will be instructed to either castrate this bill in committee

to appease the health authorities or simply vote it down on second reading to avoid

this difficult conversation altogether.

[11:45 a.m.]

This isn’t a bill to force people to look into options outside of our system. It’s

a bill that forces our health care system to face reality — honestly, transparently

and in the best interests of patients, not of a broken system.

I’d ask you to think about this for a moment. If it were your spouse, your child,

would you want to be told the truth in time? If the answer is yes, and I know it is

for me, then it must be yes on behalf of every family in this province.

I, for one, am proud to stand with the member for North Island, supporting this bill

and caring for all of those who may not have the chance otherwise.

Rohini Arora : Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill M219, the Health Authorities

Amendment Act, 2025.

At first glance, this bill seems to address something deeply important to all of us,

continued expansion of transparency for patients who are on the waiting list for too

long for care. But while the stated intention appears straightforward, the consequences

of this legislation could be far-reaching and potentially harmful to the fabric of

British Columbia’s public health care system.

Bill M219 requires health authorities to create medically recommended timelines, to

notify patients when they cannot meet those timelines and to provide options that

may include out-of-province or out-of-country care. On paper, while this may look

like responsiveness, in practice it invites creeping privatization by normalizing

redirection of patients outside of the public system when delays occur. It risks creating

a two-tier system, where those who can afford travel or private alternatives move

to the front of the line while others fall further behind.

It imposes an immense administrative burden, new triage pathways, expanded documentation,

staffing for notifications, appeals and cross-jurisdiction coordination. It shifts

clinical responsibilities to non-clinical boards, asking health authority boards to

set medical timelines normally determined by physicians. Each case is unique and should

not be off-loaded to a board who is not directly caring for that patient.

It destabilizes provincial coordination in areas like cancer care, cardiac services

and transplantation programs that currently rely on centralized expertise through

the Provincial Health Authority.

These risks are not hypothetical. They are based on evidence and experience. We need

only to look at other countries to understand what happens when publicly funded care

begins to lean on private alternatives. Independent analyses comparing England and

Scotland….

Interjection.

Rohini Arora : You know, this is my time, Member, and I do get to speak. I know that’s hard for

you, but if you just hear me out, we can have that discussion in a civilized manner.

Deputy Speaker : Member, excuse me. Can I have remarks through the Chair? Thank you. Through the Chair.

Rohini Arora : Thank you for the reminder, Madam Chair.

Independent analyses comparing England and Scotland found that England’s outsourcing

of surgical care increased inequality, drawing staff and resources away from public

hospitals. One researcher observed: “Private clinics poach staff from the NHS to treat

cheaper cases, leaving the public system with more complex cases and fewer resources.”

This means the burnout of doctors, nurses, care aides, techs and many other health

care workers.

Another study linked to higher rates of avoidable mortality to increased reliance

on for-profit clinics for publicly funded services. These outcomes did not reduce

wait times overall. They simply shifted them, deepening inequality and weakening the

universal system.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The member for North Island has said public commentary, when she brought this bill

forward, helps to illustrate the underlying intent. In discussing wait-time reform,

the member argued that we need options within our universal system and pointed to

international examples, saying Japan has an older population than Canada but still

manages to have no wait-lists.

[11:50 a.m.]

This member also said our health care system is stuck in the 1970s. But the clearest

articulation came when the member described what options would mean in practice. Some

people will want to pay, so you get them off the list, so they pay from their own

pockets. That is not strengthening universal health care. That is defining explicitly

a two-tier system.

Bill 219 is the mechanism that makes that system possible, first by normalizing notifications,

then by normalizing alternatives and finally by normalizing payment as a path to faster

care. Research shows that inequality deepens. It does not make health care more accessible.

When we talk about health care for all, we mean every single British Columbian, not

just those who can afford it.

Every MLA in this chamber agrees that wait times must come down. Every MLA agrees

that patients deserve information. The real solutions come from addressing root causes,

not exporting patients or weakening public institutions.

Our approach focuses on strengthening primary care so that fewer people end up needing

urgent or specialist care; expanding the health care workforce through sustained investment

in training, recruitment and retention; increasing operating room time and capacity,

not outsourcing surgery outside the public system; using private facilities only within

public contracts under the Canada Health Act without extra billing and without profit

from insured services; and improving data sharing and referral pathways so patients

move through the system more efficiently and equitably.

These actions build capacity. They support clinicians. They respect patients. They

strengthen our public system. They do not hollow it out.

Bill 219 presents itself as a transparency bill, but beneath the surface, it risks

fragmenting provincial care, overwhelming health authorities with administrative burden,

shifting medical decision-making to boards and laying groundwork for a two-tiered

model of health delivery. Health care is and must remain a human right, not a commodity.

No British Columbian should ever have to pay for faster access to medically necessary

care, and no legislation should push us in that direction.

Our responsibility is to strengthen the public system for everyone, not to create

pathways that benefit only those who can afford them. For these reasons, I cannot

support Bill 219 as it’s currently written.

The Speaker : Member, noting the hour.

Rohini Arora : I put forward a motion to adjourn debate.

Rohini Arora moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Terry Yung moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.