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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order. We are on the amendment to clause 3 moved by the member for Skeena, which strikes out “on the date of royal assent” and replaces it with “by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” Any further debate on the amendment?

63 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

12/2/2025

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

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

13 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

12/2/2025

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

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. Division has been called. Members, before we start, I would ask all the members participating remotely to make sure your cameras and mics are on. Hon. Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

59 words

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

Section A reports Bill 32 complete without amendment.

8 words

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

Good afternoon, committee members. We’re back from recess on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. The amendment has been deemed in order. Minister, do you have any comments?

31 words

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

Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, to order.

21 words

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

13 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

12/1/2025

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

Yeah. Thank you to the member for putting forth the amendment. I think this gives me the opportunity to bring together a number of things that have been said over the past several hours and days of debate about this bill. Again, I do want to return, first and foremost, to the purpose of the amendments. They are around protecting health care workers with certainty and providing reassurance to patients and families who require care and treatment under the act that they are getting the care they need. As we’ve canvassed several times, these are amendments that will clarify and strengthen the provisions and protections under the act for those front-line workers. We have talked quite a bit throughout the course of this debate around the Charter challenge that is currently before the courts. Again, I want to be very clear that this bill does not negate the arguments in the case. Section 31(1) remains in the act. Let me put it this way. Should Bill 32 fail and section 31(1) remains in the act until the court rules — it will remain until the court rules — and if the court strikes down section 31(1), health care workers may be exposed to civil liability for claims when they are providing involuntary care. The government would then rely on seeking a suspension of the court’s decision to allow the time to amend the act, but there’s no guarantee that the court will provide a suspension. There’s also no guarantee or certainty as to exactly when a court decision will be rendered. Involuntary treatment — the authority remains under section 8, as it has since 1964, but the legal uncertainty in terms of liability could cause operational hesitation amongst the clinicians, amongst the people that provide this care. This is the risk that we want to mitigate through these amendments. Without that explicit liability protection, we would not want to see clinicians delaying or avoiding treatment for involuntary patients. This could create serious risks of deterioration or harm to people. While I appreciate the argument that the member has put forward in support of the amendment, I cannot support it, because it is imperative that it come into force upon royal assent so that when the court case is decided, regardless of the outcome, we can provide that assurance to health care providers that they can continue that continuity of care for people who are involuntarily detained under the act and — provided, again, of course, that they provide this care in good faith and with reasonable care — that they are protected explicitly from tort claims of assault and battery. We feel this is the prudent and responsible thing to do. This is why we have brought the amendments forward at this time. I’ll leave it at that.

468 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

12/1/2025

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

Okay. Calling this committee back to order. I have found the amendment to be out of order — again beyond the scope of Bill 32 as agreed to in the second reading.

32 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

12/1/2025

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

I call this committee back to order. My apologies for interfering with conversation. Having reviewed the amendment to Bill 32, it is deemed to be out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading.

43 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

12/1/2025

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

Okay, I call the committee back to order. This amendment has been carefully reviewed and appears to be outside of the scope of this particular Mental Health Amendment Act, Bill 32. So it’s outside of the scope.

37 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order. We’re on the amendment to clause 2, which has been deemed in order. Minister, do you have any comments?

41 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

12/1/2025

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

I take the member’s point. It’s not my intention to obfuscate, but in respect of the process that we have in committee stage, that we are at on Bill 32 with these amendments, I would respectfully say that’s outside the scope of those amendments. At the same time, I do want to acknowledge the concern that she expresses and generally agree that it is always important to bring British Columbians along in their understanding of what involuntary care is and, as importantly, what our system of mental health supports and voluntary care is in the province.

96 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025 back to order. The amendment has been deemed in order. I’m recognizing the Minister of Health has comments.

37 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, back to order. We’ve deemed that the amendment is in order, and we’ll look to the minister, if you have any comments.

41 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 32, Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, to order. We are on clause 1.

26 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

12/1/2025

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

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

13 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

11/27/2025

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

Before I answer a little more fulsomely, I just want to recognize the sensitivity of the conversation. I know it is difficult to speak of these things, and as the member and I have both referenced, these are really serious matters. I want to be clear that our debate today is centred on Bill 32 and that it necessarily brings up a lot of thoughts and feelings, emotions, opinions, perspectives, all of which are valid, about things that can happen when a patient is involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act and when psychiatric treatments are delivered to the person. Again, I want to point to the act and its definition of “treatment,” meaning “safe and effective psychiatric treatment includes any procedure necessarily related to the provision of psychiatric treatment.” The act itself does not reference the specific “strategies,” I think is what the member referred to them as. They are not listed in the act. Again, I want to point to the due care attention, the need to apply treatment in good faith, with reasonable care. And that is in the discretion and professional judgment of the care provider who is applying treatment. I also want to note that I think some of what…. You know, I really take seriously what the member is saying about this line of questioning and why it’s important and, again, point back to the need…. I think it’s underscored in this line of dialogue here. The Mental Health Act necessarily must be reviewed and will be. Some of these questions around what, how, when and why can be answered, and should be answered, through the review of the act. So I think some of what we may discuss today is just going to be more appropriately placed in that. I want to be clear, once again, that bringing forth Bill 32, which necessarily has this narrow focus on these amendments around liability protections and providing them explicitly for health care providers, in no way is to say that the review of the act will not take place, that it is happening now for a specific set of reasons that we have canvassed today and yesterday. But the Mental Health Act review is a very, very important component of government’s work moving forward, especially in light of the really important conversations that are taking place in the public.

394 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

11/27/2025

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

Thank you to the member for the question. My answer is similar to the answer that I just gave, on what is a professional service. I just want to point back to that part of my answer in saying what a reasonable person might assume is a professional service or what is care within the scope of practice of that professional and, again, point to the importance and the responsibility of said professional care provider to exercise their discretion and reasonable judgment and, as is outlined in the act, that it is applied as appropriate to the patient’s condition. I will also point out that this is language that has been in the act since the 1960s, that it has been carried forward and that, even in the absence of a specific legal meaning, it was not something that was contemplated in Bill 32. In any individual case that was brought forward before the court, of course, the judge would consider an individual’s actions, look at the individual’s situation there and make a determination as to whether something constitutes professional service, care or treatment, just as the judge will look at whether that was delivered in good faith and with reasonable care.

202 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

11/27/2025

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

I’m pleased to address the concerns that the member has brought forward. Thank you for doing so. I want to be clear to the member that in our dialogue throughout this debate, my comments on the toxic drug crisis and on substance use disorder generally in no way should be inferred that that is a supposition that the act should apply to people who are experiencing only a substance use disorder, for example. In fact, one of the reasons why we have Dr. Vigo advising us on psychiatry, the toxic drug crisis and concurrent disorders is to help interpret and help clinicians apply the provisions of the act to those people who are experiencing concurrent disorders. At the basis of the Mental Health Act, it is about providing care for those people who meet the conditions under the act. The four conditions generally, as understood and that are outlined in the act, are around severe mental illnesses in a place where a person may not be able to accept treatment or seek treatment, may not be able to understand or agree to it. That is why, as well, we have continued to deal with and add safeguards, like providing an independent rights advice service, for example, for those people who are detained under the Mental Health Act. I absolutely share the member’s perspective that these are really serious matters; that these conversations need to be taken comprehensively, carefully, articulately; that they must be made in a way where the patient is at the centre; and that this is about the rights and dignity of a person. It is also, in government’s view, about being able to have, as part of a continuum of care for people with serious mental health illnesses, the ability to provide such care. The substance of this bill here, Bill 32, is about protecting those workers who are providing the care, as we’ve been canvassing along the course of the debate. But just to come back to my original point, which is that I am fully aware of and understand how the Mental Health Act is applied and that this is not about forced treatment in any way for people experiencing substance use disorders alone. But the advice that Dr. Vigo has provided to help more consistently apply the Mental Health Act across the province for clinicians is intended to be a helpful thing. Again, coming back to a lot of concerns that have been raised by different groups, different stakeholders, different parts of society about the Mental Health Act altogether, that is why we have committed to undertaking a review of the Mental Health Act. There will be a lot of opportunity under that review for different perspectives to be brought forward, again, including the voices of people with lived and living experience, which need to be absolutely central to such a review.

478 words